Desktop Pipeline | Ballmer Analyzes Microsoft's One Big Vista Mistake
So now Ballmer is admitting what has been clear for some time - they bit off more than they could chew. Vista was originally intended to be this supernova of an "update" - a fundamentally new OS, built upon a new file-system and with tons of innovative features. So much for that dream - now they're saddled with a scaled-back, still-complicated OS that has been delayed and delayed and, according to the blogosphere, is still not quite ready for prime time. Aside from the fact that they're MS and rule the corporate desktop, how is Vista going to drive new business to them?
The answer: It's not. New business is forced to go with them. But their new strategy of incrementally updating the OS from now on, as stated by Ballmer, is exactly what Apple has been doing for years now with OS X. The initial release was a buggy, unusable mess for anyone but beta testers with time and patience, but with each successive update they've improved it until it became Tiger, which is arguably one of the best consumer OS's ever. The difference is this: Apple based their major "supernova" announcement around a fundamentally new system - BSD-based, new interface, lots and lots of potential for greater innovation because of the underlying technology, not just faster hardware. Whereas Vista has been systematically ditching the supernova-worthy features - WinFS being the biggest - and while I've admittedly not used it, it seems like it will just be "Windows More", not "Windows Reinvented", and the more is possible mainly because of steeper hardware requirements, which conveniently boosts profits for the entire chain.
If I were MS, I would have pushed WinFS and Aero out the door at all costs with Vista, even if it meant scaling back other core features. At least this would have been the fundamentally new platform for launching a new generation of Windows. Now what we may be "given" in 1Q2007 is a barely-out-of-beta Windows, heavier but not really new.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I wouldn't write it off yet. There is no doubt that they are struggling with this one, and there is no doubt that MS is big and clumsy, etc. etc., and there is no doubt that Tiger is "one of the best consumer OS's ever" (it is, after all, one of two consumer OSes and it is the most recent version of either), but there's solid tech in Vista. Things Vista will have that Tiger doesn't:
1. Tablet capability (don't discount it until you have tried it)
2. Real "media center" capability (not this FrontRow stuff)
3. Decent speech capability (recent demos notwithstanding)
4. A well thought-out, modern programming environment (sorry, Cocoa is not this)
5. Vector-based graphics all over the place (again, don't discount until you realize that screens are getting really small (and really large) really fast)
6. All the usual stuff like more software, backward compatibility with 20 years of software, games, etc.
7. The ability to run on cheap (Dell) and expensive (Apple) hardware
And, for all the fanfare, WinFS was arguably not that great of an idea anyway. Google Desktop Search (and others) adds an implicit metadata layer to the filesystem that is probably about as effective as an explicit metadata layer, which is what WinFS was.
Post a Comment