Windows 8: Microsoft's Big Mistake?

This past week saw the release of official information from Microsoft regarding the anticipated follow-up to Microsoft Windows 7, which is itself enjoying a growing adoption across the PC community. Windows 7, in fact, is arguably the best OS release from Redmond since Windows XP, an operating system that continues to enjoy a prominent place on desktop PCs across the world—and for good reason: it’s solid and stable.

Back in December 2010, I wrote two articles (Windows 8 – Is Microsoft ready for the future in computing? and a follow-up article, Windows 8 – The Virtualization Solution, Continued Discussion) addressing what Microsoft would need to do with Microsoft 8 if it was going to survive in an industry that shows more diversity in Operating Systems than in years previous. I have yet to see any hope that Microsoft gets it when it comes to the current developments in the way that people do their computing.

For one thing, computing has become mobile. Cell phones and tablets will inevitably become the method by which people perform tasks that formerly required a desktop or laptop PC.

There’s no question—at least in my mind—that “cloud” computing will continue to make in-roads as the go-to method for people, for better or worse.

Still, is Microsoft’s development of Windows 8 a suitable response to a changing industry based on “cloud” computing and storage? Not if what I’ve seen so far from news outlets and geeklogs is any indication. In fact, a recent article from renowned John C. Dvorak asked rather pointedly whether Will Windows 8 kill Microsoft? and the points he brings out are the very ones that I’ve been concerned with since early leaks of information about the operating system made their way across the internet back in late 2010.

I think Windows 8 is shaping up to be a BIG mistake, however.

For one thing, there should be no Windows 8. Period. At least not to address the above-mentioned issues.

Microsoft is not Apple, nor should it try to either shoehorn itself into the Apple OS release model where every year has to see a new operating system in order to appear “hip” and current to its market. Apple typically releases a new OS either in response to its parallel release of new gadgets and hardware “updates” (read: component upgrades), or in preparation for said releases. This business model is fine for Apple because it manufactures the hardware upon which its OS runs. A result of this marketing model is that Apple can force obsolescence in older hardware, in effect drawing a line and compelling people to purchase newer gadgets and hardware if they want to enjoy the newer operating systems that Apple releases every year.

Except Apple isn’t releasing new operating systems—they are simply updates with enhanced or new features, attached to catchy names like “Tiger,” “Leopard,” “Snow Leopard,” and the forthcoming “Lion.” Clever marketing, to be sure, but beneath the sheen remains the familiar way of performing tasks, the operating environment or system in which the user resides. So, Apple really hasn’t changed how computing is done, which is the role that an operating system plays: it just markets each subsequent OS as though it has changed computing.

Microsoft would do well to note this and stop being so insecure in its own software development process, which results in rushed products that end up costing Redmond more in PR repairs and criticisms than they spent in development itself. Windows ME® and Vista® are the biggest snafus to date from Microsoft, but if Microsoft continues on this development course, Windows 8 will be the next one—regardless of what it finally names the OS it releases in 2012.

Microsoft: Rethink Windows®

The first thing Microsoft needs to do is drop Windows 8, at least for the foreseeable future.

Period.

Windows®, as an operating system, was born and bred for the desktop/laptop computing environment. Period. It has no place in mobile computing because the way that the user interfaces with their device to perform tasks is completely different from the way they interface with their desktop/laptop PC. Mobile computing has become tactile in nature, with various functions performed through swipes, lingering presses of the finger (or multiple fingers), and even voice command. The Windows® paradigm is unsuitable.

Equally unsuitable is redesigning Windows® in any fashion in order to fit the mobile computing world. Resorting to colorful tiles and a sliding UI screen doesn’t alter that fact.

Microsoft needs to rethink Windows in this respect, realize that reality dictates a check, and forego any and all efforts to force-fit Windows to the mobile computing world when it belongs with the desktop/laptop computing world. Further, it needs to start fresh and have confidence in its ability to put together a UI that takes the best offered by Android, iOS, and the rest of the mobile-based operating systems, and then take it to the next logical level.

Microsoft Zune is an ideal example of potential where mobile computing is concerned. Microsoft has gone on to adapt the Zune OS to its Windows Mobile Phone line, of course. This has resulted in accolades from most critics and with good reason: it’s a reasonable interface for mobile computing.

What Microsoft needs is to develop an OS that builds on that used on the Zune/WMP7. Call it Microsoft Touch™ and develop it with cloud-based computing in mind, making it convenient for the end-user to access their personal data whether they are on their cell phone, tablet, or desktop/PC. Windows Live Essentials is a starting point, philosophically speaking. So is the cloud-based version of Microsoft Office.

Microsoft has the elements already at-hand to put together an amazing UI for the mobile computing community, but evidently lacks the vision and direction to implement it. It lies far outside of my knowledge why this is so, but it is unfortunate.

Windows 7: Second Edition

Taking Microsoft Touch™ and its cloud-based aspects a bit further, Redmond could also put together the means to interface in the same way as the Touch™-based devices will do, right from the desktop, seamlessly. Release this ability in Windows 7: Second Edition.

The reader may recall the significant advancements in internet integration that came with Windows 98: Second Edition. From a development point-of-view, we’ve arrived at a very similar evolutionary stage where the world wide web is concerned. Developing a Second Edition of Windows 7 makes sense, especially if it were to include the tightly-integrated features associated with mobile access to personal data. It would also afford Microsoft an opportunity to refine Windows 7 itself and clear up remaining issues in consistency and stability. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that we should be looking forward to a release of Windows 7: Second Edition rather than anticipating Windows 8, which is clearly the next debacle to come out of Redmond unless they drastically change course between now and 2012.

I have been using their program for a week or so now, and it appears to be working as advertised. The interface is both intuitive and helpful. It really did shave off boot time, and does so by delaying start-up programs by way of prioritizing known, legitimate Windows apps. The user does have the option of going through and learning about the multitude of programs that start up every time they turn their PC on, and then making the decision about what to do with the respective programs. I would definitely recommend this software at this point.

INFORMATION BITS: This program does not prove anti-viral or malware protections. It specifically attempts to optimize the Windows boot process by removing or delaying programs that inevitably become a part of the startup process. It is my opinion that every PC owner knows what is running on their computer system while it’s in use; and most computer owners do not, unfortunately. This software is a friendly introduction to that end. And no, I did not get paid or compensated for this review. But I did download it and it is still installed here. So, for what it’s worth—no more, no less.

Link: http://www.soluto.com/

Windows 8 and The Virtualization Solution

I’ve already touched on a possible solution for the backwards-compatibility that Microsoft likely wants to retain in Windows 8. My argument is to handle backwards-compatibility through virtualization, in much the same was as a BASIC interpreter worked in the days of early personal computing, and then assign that pseudo-kernel to a particular core of a CPU via the affinity feature that Microsoft has already developed. Microsoft already has the opportunity to make good on its ownership of VirtualPC by reducing the whole virtualization process to a kernel that runs on top of the Windows 8 kernel. The pseudo kernel would be triggered by a gateway key in either the program itself, or, preferrably, by Windows 8 at program launch.

At this point, the kernel would intercept calls to the system that are obsolete, and act as a translator in behalf of the obsolete software program. Assigning all of this to a single CPU via the Affinity feature would, in effect, emulate a single-core CPU.

Should they? Yes! Will they…?

Really, what does Microsoft need to design in order to maintain backwards-compatibility with existing software?

The first bit of necessary code is already available. When you operate VirtualPC or VMWare, they boot to a BIOS emulator. After that, a driver makes the operating system think that it’s running from a real hard drive, and is connected to real hardware, typically generic hardware that every operating system in existence can understand. So, there’s your pseudo kernel, right from the gates. The emulated BIOS. From there, you simply design the next component: the driver-and-user interface, which is the core of any operating system.

Again, all Microsoft has to accomplish here is right a component that will handle translating obsolete system calls for Windows 8′s new approach to personal computing. The rest of the bells and whistles would then be dependent on the host OS.

“Obsolete software communicates with OS Gateway trigger –> OS Gateway trigger responds with an acknowledge and acts as a conduit, having confirmed that application is Windows 8-aware (certified Win8? Yes, then pass-thru to Windows 8).

If OS Gateway doesn’t receive the pass-bit , then the application is not Windows 8-aware and it switches the track for the application so that it can be handled through the emulation kernel. So, it flags the application as No, passing traffic through the pseudo-kernel for handling of obsolete system calls, and act as a pass-thru for compatible system calls and usage.) –> response back to Obsolete software. All of this would take place in a “off-ramp highway lane” so that other traffic on the computing highway can continue on at optimal speeds, of course. When the off-ramped traffic finishes its errands, it would be tossed back into the stream with the “on ramp highway lane.” Consigning the emulation kernel to a single CPU makes perfect sense. Further, you could run more and more applications in that setting—with the caveat of each one demanding its fair share of that core’s processing power, but that’s no different than a single-core computer system.”

The key here is in taking better advantage of today’s CPU capabilities by treating a CPU core as a potential solution to a serious problem: backwards-compatibility versus advancing the user PC experience. Again, there is absolutely no reason why Microsoft can’t include this in Windows 8, and really must include it if it has any chance at a presence in the future of computing apart from relegation to the gaming platform, in much the same fashion as Atari once experienced. And what’s even better is that they already own the technology via VirtualPC.

If Microsoft doesn’t, it’s a perfect opportunity for someone else, even Linux-based distributions. We’re talking about a kernel that is able to do the things I’ve laid forth. VMWare, too, could be a strong competitor here by developing on such an approach to personal computing, even as a 3rd-party product.

In it’s simplest form such an emulator/translator would ideally take the form of a system driver that the end-user installs, and would henceforth run as a nearly transparent emulator, yet virtualizing the older application on-the-fly in a way even more fluidic than VMWare’s Unity solution.

One More Feature…

Upon installation, the obsolete program would be checked through an updated database and then the database would issue the ideal parameters for the program, if available, and if not, then a warning or advisory is presented to the end-user for a decision on how to proceed. Potentially, this could also be used to grab necessary components required by the obsolete program, which would then be placed in the application’s folder since the obsolete program would be running in a protected mode anyhow, and thus confined to its own operating space to maintain system stability. This would also facilitate later uninstallation by leaving the host system folders optimal.

Windows 8 is currently in development by Microsoft. What will it offer?

Over the next several months, we’re going to be hearing bits and pieces about the upcoming Windows Operating System. Some of it will be rumors, and some of it solid fact—the reader will have to filter things however. Terms such as “user state virtualization,” “remote desktop services” and “virtual desktop infrastructure” are just now making their rounds on tech and IT blogs around the internet stratosphere, and I’m sure there will be plenty of other cool, geek-sounding acronyms and terms yet to come.

But for the average user, what will Windows 8 offer by way of improvements over Microsoft’s latest flagship operating system, Windows 7? And with the computing world in a fascinating state of technological flux amidst the promotion of “cloud-based” computing, the explosion of smartphones (and iPhones), as well as the emerging tablet PC market in 2011, what MUST Microsoft bring to the table if it’s to show itself capable of competing in a changing world when it comes to the way we compute?

Few experts will dispute the fact that the Windows 7 phone is late to the party, and offers little to no innovation. Rather, it appears that Microsoft has accepted its role of simply tapping into the ideas already in place in the marketplace. It further underestimated the netbook market and went so far as to cripple its Windows 7 operating system through corporate pre-requisites demanding that certain versions of Windows 7 could not run on computers that had a typical netbook screen size—in effect, shooting itself in the foot. Just as unfortunate is the belated appearance of the Windows 7 in a market that has quickly become saturated with Apple iPhones and Google Android smartphones.

On the other hand, Microsoft’s Windows 7 has quickly become the replacement operating system of choice for those who have outgrown Windows XP, or have upgraded to newer PCs. In light of the abyssmal issues surrounding Windows Vista, Microsoft finally got it right—and just in time.

At least for now.

But portability has become the new mantra for computer users around the world. Being able to access the information you want at the swipe of a finger on your iPhone or smartphone has certainly redefined computing in our modern day. But with the introduction of Apple’s iPad, the computing world saw its future for the first time once again. Netbooks came close in some ways, but really they turned out to be little more than lightweight laptops, with screens that severely hampered their usefulness in doing the work-related tasks that it claimed it would be able to perform.

And while the iPad and tablet PCs market themselves as being able to do the same thing, the real magic is in their appeal to the masses who have come to utilize the internet in a much different manner: through socialization. Nobody realistically expects to do work in PhotoShop or work in massive Excel spreadsheets on tablet PCs, but if someone wanted to do so, they now can.

But underneath all of that lies the operating system which makes it all possible—and then relies on apps that are capable of interfacing with that operating system to accomplish what the user wants. With virtual keyboards and simple finger pinches and taps, the end user is able to do a vast array of activities while no longer being chained to their desk. All they need is a connection, be it wireless or wifi.

If Microsoft stands any chance of making it in the new age of computing, it must be willing to redefine its interface philosophy as well as the way it builds its operating system. Although “cloud-basing” its OS may seem an attractive solution, as it has hinted at in the past couple years, it’s a losing bet in light of the fact that wireless companies are already making the shift in their bandwidth policy to charge end users by the amount of data that they access. Gone will be the days of unlimited data transfer—at least for the foreseeable future. If your device is operating from a cloud-based operating system, it will definitely affect your monthly bill in detrimental ways that should make everyone a little concerned, from the very moment that you turn your device on and that operating starts coming across the airwaves to your device.

Be that as it may, that returns me to the point I raised already: Microsoft must redefine itself in order to survive. It must go back to basics, and rethink the very kernel upon which Windows 8 will be based. If they really insist on continuing to make waves in the desktop PC market, then so be it. But they cannot simply port the desktop version of Windows 8 over to a mobile or portable device—it’s ludicrous!

At most, there should be three branches of the Microsoft operating system when Windows 8 is ready to be released into the public during its beta phase: Home, Professional, and Mobile. The formerly, pedestrian marketing gimmick of having 5-7 different flavors of an operating system should have led to someone being fired, plain and simple. There are only three types of users: the home PC owner, the business owner, and the on-the-go user. It’s really that simple. People do not and should not have to decide whether they need to purchase Home Basic or Home Premium. Ever!

Apart from that bit of inane thinking, let’s discuss what else Microsoft must be willing to do if they are to make it into the new age of computing.

The Windows 8 Kernel

At the heart of the operating system is a small (by comparison) section of code that geeks refer to as the kernel. The kernel assists with communications between the software and the hardware on a computer, simply put. It’s the middle man.

The operating system is pretty much everything else apart from the kernel, and is designed to make the end user’s interaction with their machine flow smoothly and, ideally, intuitively.

When Windows 3.1 was released, the entire operating system, including the kernel, required some 7 megabytes of storage space. Truth be told, there are MP3 files that are larger than the amount of space Windows 3.1 needed in order to work on a PC. When Windows 98 was released, it required up to 355 megabytes of storage space, roughly the amount of space that a VCR-quality television show now requires.

That increased exponentially when Windows XP hit the marketplace, suddenly requiring around 6 gigabytes of storage space in order to function (optimally), nearly the equivalent of a single full-length movie encoded onto a DVD. Now, of course, Windows 7 demands at least 20 gigabytes of storage space before it can even begin interfacing with your applications, which will then require still more space.

Of course the argument arises that storage space has increased in the marketplace, with most PCs housing a 320GB hard drive. But let’s be honest: the role of the operating system in the PC is still to interface with the hardware of the machine, and the user. That includes the kernel.

And this is why a mere port of Windows 8 desktop OS to a mobile device is doomed to failure: it’s preposterous to expect that the average 8GB mobile device can handle the storage requirements, and equally unconscionable to offer a stripped-down operating system in order to shoe-horn Windows 8 into a smartphone or tablet PC. It must be an operating system and kernel in its own right—further, if Microsoft can design an operating system that runs efficiently in an 8GB or even 16GB device while leaving a tremendous amount of storage space for the installation of apps, then they should be willing to do the same for any desktop OS.

In effect, Microsoft needs to design Windows 8 primarily for the mobile PC market, and then adapt that to the desktop PC versions using the same operating system and underlying kernel. It’s the only philosophical approach that makes sense. And obviously they can do that, because they were able to develop Windows XP by basing it on the underlying Windows 2000/NT kernel, which had proven a solid system.

The Windows Registry is dead…  Long live the Windows Registry!

The next thing Microsoft MUST accept is that the former method of operating from a centralized Registry must end. There is simply no acceptable way that they will be able to continue to rely on that method of operation in a mobile device. It becomes a behemoth malady over the course of time as apps are installed and removed, while leaving behind traces of themselves in the registry. It’s unwieldy, it’s a disaster, and it should have been retired early on in the developmental stages of Windows Vista.

If Microsoft is going to be expected to taken seriously in areas such as virtualization, then it must dispense with the Windows registry. When an application is installed, it should be self-contained to help facilitate any virtualization, and to facilitate isolation from other apps in the event of a malicious software install. No application in existence should ever be allowed to write DLL files, for example, to the operating system’s own folders. EVER! If they need a DLL that badly, then they can copy such from the operating system’s verified library of DLLs if absolutely necessary, or simply reference it through an API. Although Microsoft has come a long way in protecting vital DLL files from being overwritten by older versions, for example, the fact remains that an application should be entitled to its own folder. That is its world while it is installed on the PC or mobile device. If it can’t survive without becoming a parasite, it shouldn’t be allowed to run in Windows 8.

Apple’s OSX is a perfect (?) example of how applications should behave while they reside on the operating system. Applications operate from their own self-contained box, if you will, with the Apple’s operating system handling matters beyond that point by essentially acting as a gateway to the rest of the computer system. Need to uninstall the app? No problem—you drag it to the trash and it wipes itself out of existence, completely. No remnants left behind in a centralized registry that can do nothing more than grow and bloat, slowing the user’s system down further and further to the point of frustration that can be fixed only by a system wipe and reinstall.

I have plenty of applications that operate perfectly fine from within their own folder, never having to be reinstalled in a fresh Windows setup; I simply copy the folder from its backed-up location, or even run it from that alternate location. There really is no viable excuse why every Windows-based app can’t do the same thing. For everything else, there is an API or similar method of utilizing the operating system.

Now, I fully understand that there must be a place to store variables, licenses, and their ilk. But today, a growing number of applications have started using the simple XML file, which has the added attraction of customization, if a computer geek feels so inclined.

At the least, rather than an embedded registry, Microsoft could design a system folder that would house the various applications’ XML files and then set permissions on those XML files to the respective applications—or elevated privileges for IT experts or system administrators (or geeks who aren’t concerned with mucking things up). This would greatly expedite and enhance application uninstalls by 1) keeping an application in its own folder exclusively, with the respective XML going to the assigned but protected System Application Folder; and 2) removal of said application simply being a matter of drag-and-dropping that application into the trash, with the final step simply being the removal of the XML file from the aforementioned applications folder.

Undoubtedly, I’m oversimplifying throughout this article, but that’s because the details and technicalities are far outside the scope of the article—however, this does not in any way diminish the approach to Windows 8 that I am suggesting. Design Windows 8 Mobile, and then adapt that to desktop PCs, Microsoft, instead of the other way around. Seriously!

Windows 8: Backwards Compatibility

It’s a given that there is absolutely no need for Windows 8 Mobile to worry about any sort of backwards compatibility with applications that were designed for older versions of Windows. Backwards compatibility would be something that is developed once the Windows core operating system of Windows 8 is brought together. Further, once development on the desktop adaptation of Windows 8 is underway, all backwards compatibility must be handled within virtualization. No, not by tacking on Virtual PC as Microsoft did with Windows 7 in providing a virtual Windows XP for those who purchased Windows 7 Ultimate—rather, but by completely rethinking the approach.

If Windows 8 is designed to keep applications in their own operating space to maintain system integrity and stability, then this same philosophy must equally be demanded (and maybe even more so) of older apps that the end-user will need in their day-to-day desktop activities.

Currently, Microsoft handles this in three fashions: If a program is 64-bit, it will be installed in the Program Files folder; if it’s a 32-bit program getting installed on a 64-bit operating system, it is installed in the Program Files (x86) folder; and if it really, really needs Windows XP, then the user can install it in Virtual PC.

Before I continue, I want to reiterate that backwards compatibility should only be handled at the desktop level. And since Microsoft would simply be adding the feature onto its core Mobile operating system, it can be done in a modular fashion.

Since, then, backwards compatibility of applications would be handled by the faster, more powerful CPUs of today’s and tomorrow’s desktop and laptop PCs, virtualization makes perfect sense. Run the application inside its own system “bubble” where it thinks it’s running on an older operating system, probably Windows XP for all intents and purposes, since applications that require Vista can typically run just fine on Windows 7.

This, of course, has certain problems that we can anticipate right from the start of development of the desktop tier of the Windows 8 operating system.

First, most XP apps will want to operate from the older Program Files folder. Windows 7 and Vista both accommodate this by providing handy gateways that essentially fool the program into being redirected to actual folders of the newer operating system, and installing such applications into the Program Files (x86) folder. Since Windows 8 requires applications to run out of their own self-contained folders, and since XP applications do not follow this procedure, the issue is how to make the XP app work in an environment that no longer exists.

Ideally, Microsoft would evaluate VirtualPC for adaptation as a kernel that rests on top of the actual OS kernel of Windows 8 and operate in such a way that it would act as a translator for the older program, and then shift data to where it needs to go, or translate it as necessary to meet the requirements of Windows 8. In effect, it would act as an on-the-fly compiler in much the same way as BASIC interpreters of old would take the program in BASIC language and convert it to Assembly Language so that it would run. On today’s machines, with the powerful multi-core CPUs that are available, this is a no-brainer. If an older program needs to run, then assign that program to one of the CPU cores and let the virtualizing kernel work its magic, handling such matters as file access and redirection, routine conversions from XP-specific code to Windows 8-specific code, etc, and then returning the expected data. The older application would, upon installation, be recognized as an older pre-Windows 8 program, and handed off to the virtualizing kernel for any further management, including seeing to it that it goes into its own folder just like every other Windows 8 application. The difference would be transparent to the end user.

But what about the DLL requirements of various older applications, which may be expecting certain system DLL files to pre-exist and be accessible. Again, this would be handled by the overlaying translator kernel. If a program that installing contains the DLL, then the solution is already provided, and all the interpreting kernel would have to do is redirect or proxy that DLL back to the program’s own folder. If it isn’t provided, and it’s a standard DLL file from the XP system library, Windows 8 would offer to download the DLL from Microsoft in much the same way that it offers to check for drivers online. This has the added advantage of only being placed on the Windows 8 desktop as needed rather than just-in-case and preinstalling them as part of the Windows 8 operating system. If the program does not come with the DLLs that it requires, neither does the Windows Update site have them, then, just as in the case of missing drivers, Microsoft would simply direct the user to contact the software manufacturer, who would be obligated to provide the necessary DLL. The DLL would then be installed into the application’s own folder and meet Windows 8′s self-containment requirements for operation.

Windows 8: Size DOES Matter

In order to keep Windows 8 at a manageable size, since it would first be developed around mobile devices which have a limited amount of storage space to begin with, Microsoft will need to rethink its API—that is, the way that any given program interacts directly with the operating system. Since tablet PCs and smartphones would have far less diversity in hardware than desktops, this again should pose no problem. However, once development of Windows 8 then reached desktop implementation, Microsoft’s Windows 8 will need to hand-off certain tasks to the underlying hardware of the desktop or laptop PC. Without question, today’s video cards have powerful enough GPUs to drive graphics, whether in the form of a UI (user interface), or gaming demands, and their respective drivers present the potential that Microsoft needs to keep its own operating small, tight, and concise while handing off jobs that can and should be handed off to the respective hardware devices, such as graphics and sound cards. Other devices, such as USB, Firewire, and Network Interface Controllers would operate in much the same way they currently do, through their own drivers and handlers, and accessed via the Windows 8 operating system and kernel—albeit in the same fashion as applications, that is within their own controlled operating space.

Likewise, older drivers could feasibly be handled via the virtualization kernel as needed in much the same way as older applications. When this is not a workable solution, the responsibility would fall back on the device manufacturer (who would, more than likely, simply insist on the user moving to a more current device, I’m sure).

The role of the operating is simple: to act as the gatekeeper and middle-man between the end-user and his PC or mobile device. It also interacts with the devices of that computer. But anything beyond that is best left to add-ons, modules, and even hacks. This encourages development in the community, and makes the operating system more attractive in the long run by first meeting the needs of the end-user, and then being friendly and open enough to address the wants that come later.

Windows 8: It’s THAT Simple, Really

As long as this article is, there is much more that has been left unsaid, and perhaps I will be able to return to this topic at a later date. However, the point I am making is that everything I have presented herein is simple AND it’s entirely within the capacity of Microsoft to accomplish, if it’s willing to do so. If it isn’t, then it may be writing its own epitaph in an age where people are moving away from their desks, but interfacing more than they ever have before, mostly because of the sheer ease and convenience of doing so. While there will continue to be a need for a point-and-click, mouse-centric style operating system to handle the drudgery of work-related activities that demand more than a smartphone, iPhone, iPad or aPad can currently handle in any practical manner, the fact remains that the day will come more swiftly than most realize when those handheld devices will be able to handle such tasks—if not through direct finger-oriented entry, than certainly through verbal directives, and it is in Microsoft’s own self-interests to act as though that day is already here, and Windows 8 may be its last chance to do so, at least in the consumer market—because PCs will be a part of the business landscape longer than they will be a part of the consumer world. And that’s a fact that Microsoft cannot afford to remain blind to, if we’re going to be honest about the shape of things to come.

The Browser and Search Engine Wars Continue

Today, the EU issued a response to Microsoft’s recent decision to not include Internet Explorer 8 in certain editions of Windows 7 that will be released across Europe. This decision by Microsoft is part of an ongoing legal case involving Microsoft’s monopoly across Europe, and the attempts of various 3rd party browser software developers trying to make inroads into the PC market. The EU’s response to this decision was an expression of unhappiness, holding the position that Microsoft’s decision offered less choices rather than more, and announcing that they will be making a determination of this latest move by the Redmond-based software giant, and whether it will affect the ongoing matter of monopolizing the market.

Still, nobody will be more surprised than myself that I side with Microsoft on this one. In spite of Microsoft’s problems and public image, on this, at least, they are in their right to exclude their own internet browser and leave it to the end user to decide which web browser they want to use, and install it. I say that with one caveat which I will come back to in a few moments.

Microsoft is, ultimately, a software development company. I can think of no legal precedent—nor do I believe there should be one—that compels a software developer to include competing developers’ software within their own. Is Coca Cola compelled to sell Pepsi products to keep things fair—because customers should have options? Should Mastercard offer Visa credit cards alongside their own—because customers should have options?

Some might argue that since Windows is an operating system that allows someone to run software, that the rules should apply differently. But if that’s the case, then when will we see Apple’s own operating system, Mac OS X, be compelled to offer competing web browsers to their own Safari browser? And just try to get Opera, Firefox, or Google’s Chrome browsers installed onto an iPhone or iPod Touch as an alternative to the built-in Safari. Nobody is hauling Apple in to court, though, to obtain a similar legal imposition as the EU is trying to impose on Microsoft.

Microsoft made significant inroads when it designed their upcoming Windows 7 to allow the disabling of Internet Explorer web browser so that the enduser can go with their own preferred browser. I think they deserve props for that, because previously, IE was always vying for top-dog position, and it did have a built-in advantage. Heck, Internet Explorer 7 and 8 even allow the end-user to select their own search engine instead of being stuck with Microsoft’s own search engine. That, too, is very satisfactory.

But software developers such as Opera say that Microsoft’s decision to not include IE is “not enough.” In Opera’s opinion, an operating system (should be forced to include) several web browsers (including their own, of course!). This goes back to what I was saying earlier in regards to Apple’s Mac OS X. Where is Opera’s developer hitting the airwaves, demanding that Apple be forced to include several web browsers in their OS? The same could be said of every Linux distribution out there.

Think about it! If EU rules against this latest decision by Microsoft, and software developers such as Opera have their way, it’s a boon for Microsoft’s competitors. What better way to get promotion and advertising and to get your product into the hands of the public than to accomplish it through the expense of Microsoft! Microsoft would, essentially, be forced to cover all of the distribution costs, advertising costs, and all other costs in providing software to the masses—in behalf of 3rd party vendors! It’s a brilliant idea (for the competitors, but it’s unfair and hopefully it’s found to be illegal and indefensible. Because once you start down that road, you’re also opening the door to every other competing software out there. Windows 7 would have to include alternative email programs, for example. Or alternatives to NotePad. Or, Windows Explorer.

There’s also the issue of security. Let’s say that the version of Opera included in Windows 7 distributions is later found to have a significant security hole that can affect the Windows operating system. What then? Does Microsoft stop the presses, download the latest Opera version and recompile their Windows 7 DVD, send the new version off to the press, and begin distribution all over again—at least until the next security hole?

Frankly, I find the whole scenario preposterous. Microsoft should not have to foot the bill for 3rd party vendors and developers. They should have to make their operating system compatible with optioning for alternatives such as Opera and Firefox and Safari—and they’ve done that. But monopoly or not, they shouldn’t have to market their competitors’ software, too. I’d even go so far as to say that if Opera and other developers are that unhappy with Microsoft’s decision—then they should develop an alternative operating system to compete with Windows 7. Then, they can happily include their selected web browser. Then, when their own competitors haul them into court and force them to redistribute other browser versions, they’ll know how it is for Microsoft.

But if they’re going to force Microsoft to bow to the demands of 3rd party developers, then I had better see the same thing done with Apple—which governs with a far tighter fist than even Microsoft—and then with all of the Linux distributions, such as Ubunto, Red Hat, and all the rest. Anything less, and they’ll have lost a great deal of respect in my view.

I mean, I’m the first to admit that in most areas I’m against Microsoft’s business practices and public debacles. Believe me, I’m not a huge fan of Microsoft sometimes—or a lot of the time, actually. But on this particular issue, it’s clear that their in their right, and I support their decision.

Which brings me back to the caveat I mentioned earlier.

If they exclude Internet Explorer, I’m really curious how the end-user will be able to download and install an alternative browser. You almost have to have a browser to download other browsers.

One option that I think would be acceptable and actually work is the built-in Windows Update application. All Microsoft would need to do is include some sort of linkage in the application that would take a person to listing of alternative browsers, and then allow the end-user to select one and install it via Windows Update. And that would be the extent of Microsoft’s obligation to 3rd party web browser developers.

So what do you think?

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

This may come as as surprise to many, but the next Operating System being released by Microsoft is still Beta.

Apparently, the majority of people who heard that a Beta version would be getting released to the public for free do not understand this. Just a sampling of the questions that arise from Live Search Q&A’s “Windows 7″ keyword verifies this, with questions like “I upgraded to Windows 7 and now this doesn’t work; what do I do?” or “Why isn’t Windows 7 recognizing my [fill-in-the-blank-hardware-device]?”

Judging by the posts I’ve seen on there over the past few weeks, the majority of those posting their questions had no business installing Windows 7′s beta release. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to take advantage of something free from Microsoft, they didn’t read the warnings before downloading the beta test version, nor did they understand that this is a beta test version or even that it will expire on August 1, 2009.

It also made sense for me to continue my series on the Windows 7 Beta Release by first explaining who should and should not be meddling with the beta version.

First, the obvious:Anyone that has to ask why such-and-such isn’t working now that they upgraded or did a fresh install of Windows 7 Beta should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out around 85-90% of you. A Beta release means that things are not going to work, or, they are not going to work right. It could be due to lack of support, unfinished code, incompatibility, or any number of other possibilities.

Second, anyone feeling frustrated, disappointed, or otherwise irritated because of the new Windows 7 features, user interface, or cosmetics should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out another 5% of you. A Beta release means that this is not the final product. Some things are either still being finalized, may yet be changed, or tossed out entirely by the time that the finalized retail version hits the store shelves.

That leaves us with around 5-10% of viable Windows 7 Beta testers who are more than qualified to install and run the beta version.

Obviously, there are going to be those people who complain that Microsoft should have been a lot more clear about who should’ve and who should not have downloaded and installed the beta testing version. Then again, if Microsoft would’ve never released it to the public like they had, there would likewise have been other people who would’ve complained that Microsoft should’ve been more open and free with their new OS during beta testing stages so that any inherent issues would’ve manifested themselves. It is definitely a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, and I, for one, am only too happy that they decided to release it to the public.

That’s because a major advantage of having access to a pre-released version of an operating system is that it affords us an opportunity to know with plenty of advance notice whether our computer system or—in the case of us IT guys—whether new systems being introduced into our intranet will have issues. Although the OS code is not yet finalized, there is more than enough there for us to know right out of the starting gate what’s going to happen. A lot of commendations need to be given to Microsoft for making sure that the vast majority of drivers that worked for Vista will likewise work with Windows 7. That is going to save us from a tremendous amount of grief.

We can also, by participating in the beta testing stage, participate in reporting bugs back to Microsoft, as well as offer feedback and suggestions. Whether or not Microsoft actually will listen is a whole other topic; nevertheless, the option is there.

So now that I’ve narrowed down who I am going to be talking to throughout this serious of articles, let me spend a few minutes explaining what I intend to do with this series.

I will be covering my own experience with Windows 7 Beta, from installation to feature coverage. I’ll also be touching on various options as to security and system protection. I’ll also be giving my thoughts and opinions throughout each stage of the series, as appropriate to the given situation, and I will strive to do so fairly.

I hope that you find this series of articles helpful and insightful.

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

By now, you’ve either heard that Microsoft has issued Windows 7 Beta or you’ve downloaded it, or both. No matter, because one way or another, PC desktops soon will be sporting the latest Operating System produced from Redmond, Washington. Early reports from testers and reviewers alike indicate that this version of the Windows operating system is a far better fare than Vista, although the majority of the Vista functionality and appearance are in Windows 7, as well.

Indicators are, then, that Windows 7 should rightly be considered as Vista Second Edition—a term many of us long-timers are familiar with and a reaffirmation that history really does repeat itself. In a previous life, the Windows operating system was essentially overhauled after the release of Windows 3.11. The result was Windows 95. It took the GUI-based operating system to a whole new level for us PC owners, introducing countless new features that could never have been implemented under the Windows 3.11 core or kernel.

However, Windows 95—as fantastic as it was—had issues. It served its purpose, of course, by creating a new level of expectation from the enduser in one’s operating system, and it also opened up a whole new world of potential. But the issues were pretty serious, nonetheless. Who remembers the catchy phrase “Plug and Pray,” for example?

But then, along came Windows 98, which built on the technology behind Windows 95—and more! Finally, Microsoft had an operating system that demanded attention. Still, it, too, had some serious issues, and shortly after Windows 98 was on the streets and in PCs, along came Windows 98 Second Edition. Nearly all of the issues that had plagued the operating system based around the Windows 95 concept had now been resolved.

Windows 98 Second Edition became the operating system to own.

That is, until Windows XP was released.

Now, you’ll notice that I passed over two Windows operating systems between Windows 98 SE (Short for Second Edition): Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional.

Windows ME was a laughable, horrible operating system in itself. Everyone that knows anything, knows that. I could go on for days, weeks even, and still not even begin to scratch the surface of the debacle surrounding that operating system. Think of the ME—which supposedly stood for Millenium Edition, according to Microsoft’s ad department—as Massive Error. And Microsoft knew it.

Windows 2000 Professional Edition, on the other hand, is still considered one of the most stable Windows operating systems ever produced by Microsoft—but it wasn’t really for the home user, either. Personally, I still think Windows 2000 is amazing. Microsoft certainly got something right on it. And thousands if not millions who still continue to use it on their business systems would agree.

Microsoft, though, wanted to save face with their Windows ME joke, and set out to take the stability of Windows 2000 and dress it up with the curtains of Windows ME. The resulting version of Windows was Windows XP.

Clearly, they got their act together, because Windows XP continues to enjoy a commanding share in the world’s desktops and laptops as the operating system. While early adopters had a number of issues because of how the “rules” changed with the new operating system’s core and kernel, everyone seemed to agree that it was the bandwagon to jump on, and within a couple years, we saw the support for Windows 98 SE dry up and fade away in spite of cries and screams from loyal 98SE users.

But according to Microsoft pundits, Windows XP has been showing its age in light of advancing technologies, and a new operating system had to be developed to meet the incoming demands and capabilities of that technology.

Their response was Windows Vista.

Response to Vista was mixed at best. For me, personally, it’s fine as far as operating systems go. It’s certainly prettier than Windows XP! But you can dress up Windows XP with countless third-party packages.

Driver support has been slow in coming for Vista owners, unless you buy OEM desktops and laptops. For me, Creative Labs and NVidia were among the worst in supporting Vista, and to this day, end-users continue to have issues relating to both Creative Labs/Soundblaster and NVidia. Adaptec and Promise seem to have handled the Vista operating system in much the same way, by either producing driver updates compatible with Vista in an unbearably slow manner—or not at all, instead considering products incompatible with Vista as “EOL” (End of Life) and forcing their userbase to upgrade to new products.

In spite of all the drama, Windows Vista made inroads in the one area that mattered: it brought 64-bit into the mainstream in a way that Windows XP 64-bit didn’t seem to be able to do. It is, in fact, the 64-bit capability of Windows Vista that keeps me sticking with it in spite of the occasional hiccups. Everything works in my system, including my XFi card (a MAJOR issue in early drivers from Creative Labs). I, for one, absolutely enjoy being able to use the full 8GB of RAM in my system. I enjoy the stability afforded by a 64-bit operating system. But I’m also smart enough to admit that the next PC user may not be having a similar experience with their installation of Vista.

Does that mean I’m not looking forward to the street release of Windows 7? Absolutely the contrary! I am very much looking forward to it because every indication so far is that the issues with Vista seem to be getting addressed. But it’s a scenario that almost immediately reminded me of when Microsoft released Windows 98 Second Edition. This seems to be a repeat of that. There isn’t any real driving reason that I’ve seen that one should leave Windows XP for Windows Vista. Similarly, I don’t see any justification for one to abandon Windows XP to upgrade to Windows 7 once it’s released. Not if their Windows XP is doing everything that they need it to do.

Now, when I say that there’s not any reason or justification, I say that with a single caveat: 64-bit. Windows Vista brought 64-bit into the mainstream, as I already mentioned. But Windows 7 will continue that trend. And eventually, we will see the pattern repeat itself, just as in the gradual abandonment of Windows 98SE in lieu of Windows XP. Eventually, Windows XP will be committed to days past—even though it really is no less functional and is actually faster and more efficient at this point than Windows Vista OR Windows 7. But the only real reason that will happen is because for us to take full advantage of the processing power that we can tap into today, we need an operating system that can do it. The Windows XP operating system can do so, but not so well as the Vista/Windows 7 core and kernel can do. Further, 64-bit access just makes more sense today. It provides additional security and stability, and seems to handle 32-bit softwares just fine, which is another plus.

Does the average end-user need more than 4GB of RAM in their computer? Not yet. And again, that is why Windows XP will continue to dominate. But it’s equally nice to know that those of us who do need more RAM in our systems have the ability to use it in order to work more efficiently. It’s also nice to know that if our system works under Windows Vista, that it will most likely work under Windows 7. So, no worries there, either.

But I still hold to my opening opinion: Windows 7 is not a new operating system. It is Windows Vista Second Edition.

And I’ll be offering further insights and opinions into Windows 7 beta soon! So watch this space!

It's a question of the future of the world wide web

I hinted in the earlier installation of this topic that you have every reason to be concerned about this issue, even if you think you’re their typical (read: ideal) customer, but I’ll go into far more depth on that aspect of the problem in this installation.

Why Should I Care?

In the previous article, I talked about how the Internet Service Providers have been resorting to pointing their finger at “power users” who utilize 75% or more of their subscribed internet service’s bandwidth, hoping to deflect from their own overselling bandwidth scheme in order to prop their bottom line of profit up as high as they can manage. So, they want to start with those who put their policy of overselling bandwidth to the test, by capping their access.

Be that as it may, if you’re the sort of person who feels that they don’t do anything more than check an email or read the occasional web page, and that you will never do more than that, then you’re going to be pretty much fine with whatever happens with the issue.

But the internet is changing. Today, you have the ability to watch your favorite television show when you want to watch it. You can tune in to the news from anywhere in the world, with no need to subscribe to cable or satellite TV and hope that they carry the channels you want. You can tune in to internet-based radio, as well, affording you a listening pleasure completely different from sitting through commercial after commercial on your legacy radio. Things are also advancing rapidly in services that offer you the ability to stream movies directly to your PC or TV via the internet. That means no more trips to the video store, for example, when you have the sudden urge to watch Gladiator. You would just log in to NetFlix, and start streaming the movie.

For something like the streaming of movies, however, bandwidth is an absolute necessity. It requires a lot of bandwidth to carry the data transfer involved with a movie feature—especially once you start getting into HD (High Definition) quality.

Right now, it isn’t too much of an issue, but it inevitably will be, before long. People will be expecting better and better video quality when they watch movies and shows, and it is going to require bandwidth to accommodate those demands.

Too, websites are becoming more media-driven, more interactive. Where a website used to be wholly text-based, graphics soon entered the arena, adding to the visual appeal of the site. Today, sites are often flash-based, providing a whole new visual and audio experience unlike ever before. Again, there is that inexorable drive towards bandwidth consumption.

What the Internet Service Providers want to do is cap that bandwidth so that if you utilize this advancing, changing internet, they can charge you for it by claiming you are using too many resources on their system.

The irony here is that much of what you currently get right now from your cable or satellite television provider comes to you in MPeg format, which is very similar to what is used on the internet. However, they don’t seem as concerned about the amount of television that they have to stream to you. In fact, they love to sign you up for as many stations as they can coax you into subscribing to. The issue seems to revolve around what you can get without their television service. For example, if they offer PPV movies (Pay Per View), it makes sense that they don’t want to lose that income by you simply downloading the movie from NetFlix, Amazon, or any other movie streaming website.

The goal, then, is to make your use of such online services appear to be unfeasible and impractical, so that you’ll see their service as the better option.

One of the best deterrents they can utilize is bandwidth capping. By instituting that and lobbying for its legalization, they are successfully hindering the advancement of internet innovations, such as multimedia streaming. They don’t have to say that, of course. They can deny it, even. After all, they are providing faster speeds to their customers.

But really, how would you feel if, because of internet capping from your ISP (Internet Service Provider), you are suddenly limited to 10 high-definition movies per month if you still want to be able to also regularly visit your favorite websites, such as msnbc.com which also offer streaming newscasts? What if, before the cap, you could’ve seen 20 high-definition movies in any given month? Maybe you watched a couple every weekend (4 weeks x 2 movies = 8 movies), and you let your teenager and his friends watch movies as well. With a 10-movie cap, you’re going to need to give up some of your movies so that your teenager and his friends can watch movies. That’s when they’re not using up bandwidth through the XBox 360, PS2, or Wii gaming and online matches. And that’s not to mention you being able to watch your favorite TV shows in high-definition, when you want to watch them, and not according to a TV schedule.

There’s also the matter of system updates. Microsoft Windows updates require bandwidth to download. Their Service Packs can take up significant bandwidth. In fact, on some satellite providers who offer internet access, you can’t even download the latest Service Pack 3 without being penalized by their service cap, leaving your computer potentially at-risk with security holes galore when you go surfing the internet. Too, your child’s XBox, PS2, and Wii games have frequent updates to games as patches and fixes are released, and you are required to download them in order to play the game. Plus the regular updates for your antivirus and spyware softwares, web browsers, add-ons, et al.

Bandwidth is indeed a force to be reckoned with. Apparently, it’s also a force to be controlled by Internet Service Providers.

It’s My Wi-Fi and I’ll Live Like I Want To

In effect, the ISP wants to take artificially impose a limit on your use of the internet. You’ll have no choice except to change your internet usage to suit the expectations of the ISPs, and not the other way around. And, as I have reiterated time and again throughout these three entries, your internet speed already limits you sufficiently and effectively, through its built-in, inherent limitations.

Now, let me throw another log onto this fire. Right now, companies like Microsoft and Dell are rapidly pushing for development in what is called “cloud” technology. In the hope that I’m not oversimplifying things here, the way “cloud” computing works is that instead of you having Windows or any given application like email, word processing, or bookkeeping installed on your computer, it’s available across the internet. Your computer will eventually be a mere terminal, whose role is simply to access the internet. All of your data and information would be housed “in the cloud,” on a server somewhere.

This is the ideal scenario for companies because it provides residual income, instead of a one-time sale. You’ll have to pay monthly or annually for continued access to your email, documents, pictures, checking account program, etc. So, you have to figure that into your bandwidth cap as well. Not to mention the additional costs involved for each service or feature that you access! If you don’t make your payment, you lose access to your email or your documents or your pictures, etc.

And that is on top of what you will have to pay your ISP as your “middle man.”

Suffice it to say that if you’re of the opinion that the ISPs’ intention to try to artificially cap your internet usage isn’t something to worry about, I can assure you that you are one of the last, increasingly rare internet users. You should be very concerned. Even angry. There is far more to bandwidth than merely accessing email or browsing web pages.

It is precisely because of available bandwidth, limited only by the technology that drives it, that the internet has been making such astonishing advancements in communication and technology. For whatever reason—be it greed, control, or whatever—the Internet Service Providers evidently want to hinder it through the institution of “capping.”

That cannot be allowed to happen.