Recently in Microsoft Category

As the Presidential election continues, I've been thinking a lot about the two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. I've thought about the philosophies and points of view that are so different between them. Being that I've been an IT professional for over six years and a web developer for almost as long, it's only fitting that I draw a comparison with the current Presidential election to the two operating systems I've used intimately for the past ten years or so: Apple's Mac OS and Microsoft's Windows.

If you've never used a Mac then you might not have a clue what I'm talking about in this post. And when I say used I mean more than just a few hours. Anyone who has spent more than a month using a Mac will know exactly where I'm coming from and why I draw the kind of comparison I'm talking about to the current Presidential election. Comparing Windows users to Mac users is very much like comparing devoted Republicans to Democrats.

I recently read a three-part series of articles entitled From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X (part 1, part 2, part 3). This series of articles does a great job of reinforcing my views and illustrates my own experiences that made me switch from Windows to Mac.

I've used Windows since Windows 95 and was a staunch supporter of Microsoft, defending them even when criticism was at an all time high during the late 90's and into the turn of the century. But after spending three years as an IT Supervisor for a small architectural firm, dealing with day to day issues with the administration of Microsoft software, and beta testing Microsoft's latest OS, Windows Vista, my philosophy started to change.

The first change came when I got sick of dealing with Microsoft's .NET platform for doing web development. I felt that there had to be something easier and just as powerful to use. So I ended up switching to the use of Apache web servers, PHP, MySQL, and Linux/Unix-based servers as my platforms of choice for web development.

The final change came when I went out and bought a Mac Mini out of frustration. The tools I was using for web development just weren't working right on my Windows-based PC and I really wanted a change. I was already highly familiar with Linux and Unix-based operating systems so a Mac wasn't that much of a jump for me. Once I got up and running I haven't looked back ever since. I even formatted my old PC and turned it into a Linux server.

So how does this translate to the current election?

When I was beta testing Vista, it became clear to me that Microsoft was giving me more of the same. They were more or less trying to candy coat everything in a slick package and attempting to solve all of the users problems with band-aids. What they ended up with was a bloated mess of an operating system that required twice the horse power that Windows XP required. As such, anyone who wanted to use Windows Vista would have to buy all new hardware....including businesses, who are Microsoft's biggest customers. What's worse is that there are so many similarities to Mac OS X. They practically ripped off ideas from Apple. Yep, there's lots of pork in Vista.

From a developers point of view, writing applications for Windows is a trying experience. I certainly remember my time trying to get a .NET web application working. I felt like I spent more time dicking around with the configuration than I did actually writing code. As Peter Bright points out:

Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it--that's the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it's clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They're ugly, they're inconsistent, they're disorganized; there's no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft--surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality--is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.

Microsoft has always been a company that would have you believe that Windows and other products like Microsoft Office are the only solutions to consider for your business and personal life. They pretty much invented the use of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Anytime a competitor has threatened their core business, they do what they can to either stomp it out or entice their users to keep using Windows with a little FUD ("Are you sure that's wise?").

The thing is that Microsoft doesn't care about the conscientious developer or the home user. They only care about making their primary core customers happy: corporate enterprise customers. As such, Microsoft doesn't really have to re-invent themselves if their corporate customers are happy. Corporate users are happy with "good enough", which is exactly what Microsoft gives them.

Candy coating, band-aids, bloat, pork, inconsistent, disorganized, poorly managed, corporate loving, FUD, disillusioned user base, copycat design, more of the same, good enough. Gee...is this starting to sound like the Republican Presidential campaign?

Apple, on the other hand, is a company that is about forward, outside-of-the-box thinking. Their products speak for themselves. All you have to do is pick up an iPhone and realize just how much time and attention went into it. Apple is a company that attempts to solve problems by creating computers and gadgets that are well designed and highly usable. Much of their success has a lot to do with their leadership:

Apple is Apple. Apple, as a company, prides itself on being a leader, not a follower. As Steve Jobs famously quoted Wayne Gretzky, "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been". So the charismatic (some might say dictatorial) Apple leadership wants the company to be seen as one that looks forward, not backward.

Apple practices good, solid user-centric design in every product they create. I've read many books about application and product design for my web development practices and Apple is always used as an example of good design. Good design is about communication. A well thought-out, well designed product communicates to you by showing you how it will solve your problem. In times like this, the product speaks for itself. What makes Apple's products so good is that they accomplish something that many other companies fail to do: to make a product that is easy and fun to use and addresses the needs of what most people need.

Apple's products are honest and direct. For Apple, less is more. You don't need every bell and whistle. You don't need a bunch of useless features that you'll never use. So they get rid of the fluff and bloat and leave behind only what is necessary to get the job done. What you're left with is a clean, usable product that is a joy to use.

Granted, Apple isn't perfect. They do make mistakes and they are flawed in areas, and Steve Jobs would be the first to admit it. Most users don't really know what they want till they see it so Apple tries to anticipate what users will want to use in the future by asking questions and creating new products based on new ideas and innovation. Many times they succeed, but sometimes they fail. But they learn from their failures and move on. Part of their failures includes listening to their users and asking them why a product wasn't good. That's just good management and good business.

Leadership, forward, outside-of-the-box thinking, communication, well managed, honest, direct, clean, usable, fallible, innovative. I don't expect perfection but I don't want something that's just "good enough". I just want it to work and work well and solve my problems. Apple give me that. I think Barack Obama will give me that as well.

Video: Multi-Touch in Windows 7

Recently, at the D6 Conference, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer unveiled some of the new features that will be going into Windows 7. A brief demo of Windows 7 showed off some features that are obviously taken from Microsoft Surface. You remember Microsoft Surface, don't you?

It obvious that Microsoft is clearly going after Apple. This demo is clearly Microsoft's take on the Multi-touch interface that is evident in the iPhone. Granted, part of how this is implemented is quite new and fresh...but there's still quite a bit that feels like a rip-off of the iPhone interface.

The problem here is that it's unclear as to how useful a Multi-touch interface like this will be in a real-world scenario. Bells, whistles, and eye-candy are all fine and dandy...but how much of this will prove to be truly useful in allowing folks to do the things they want? If something like this can boost productivity and cut the time it takes to accomplish certain tasks then, great, Microsoft might have themselves a success. If not then it's just another good idea that was poorly implemented, which is pretty much what I've come to expect from Microsoft.

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he made it clear that Multi-touch was something new and exclaimed, "And, boy, have we patented it!". What made the first iPhone demo so successful was that Jobs demonstrated how the touch interface was actually useful. In fact, Jobs was going out of his way to dissuade others into thinking they need a stylus for a touch interface saying, "We're going to use the best pointing device in the world -- our fingers." He demonstrated an interface that was way ahead of the curve and proved that it was functional and useful in its implementation. All you have to do is pick up an iPhone and play with it and you'll get a clear idea at just how good Multi-touch really works.

Obviously, Microsoft can't use the same technology in Windows 7. Multi-touch is patented by Apple and it doesn't look like Apple is too keen to license it out. Microsoft does need to be careful though. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how much of their interface Apple patented...but there sure does seem to be quite a bit in the Windows 7 demo that might cause alarms to go off with Apple's legal department.

So how good is Microsoft's touch interface? No one really knows. All we've seen is a flashy demo...nothing else. One thing is clear though: Until Microsoft can demonstrate real-world improvements with their touch-screen interface, much like Surface, it is still just a bogus concept. And given the Microsoft's history with Vista, it looks like it will be a bogus concept.

Recently, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer described Vista as "a work in progress" at an annual Seattle event (InfoWorld, Ars Technica). I don't know about you, but I find that statement quite disturbing. Let's take a look at what Ballmer said and see if we can translate it a bit:

"Windows Vista: A work in progress." [Laughter, applause.] "A very important piece of work, and I think we did a lot of things right, and I think we have a lot of things we need to learn from. Certainly, you never want to let five years go between releases. Can we just sort of kiss that stone and move on? Because it turns out many things become problematic when you have those long release cycles. The design point, what you should be targeting. We can't ever let that happen again."

Translation: Windows Vista: A failure in progress. A very important piece of works because, let's face it, we never get things right the second time or fourth time. Why would the sixth time be any different? Actually it's six years between releases, but who's counting? Kiss my ass if you don't like it. I know it took a long time but, you know, it's hard to design this stuff. We can't ever let anyone know that we don't know how to design anything other than shit.

"Vista is bigger than XP, and it's gonna stay bigger than XP. We have to make sure it doesn't get bigger still."

Translation: You upgraded and went from fat to obese. We know that. But diet and exercise won't make it any smaller.

"So the desktop business, it's our heart, it's our soul, we continue to drive forward from this foundation."

Translation: We know we can't keep this up. So, we're gonna try and buy up companies that aren't a good fit for our core business, share a different philosophy, and does nothing but hurt the consumer. Three cheers for Microhoo! Woo-hoo!

Regarding the search market...

"There's an opportunity to knock the socks off in terms of innovation."

Translation: There's an opportunity to kiss our competitors good-bye and innovate by stealing from them. Cause, you know, that's just business.

"It's virtualization time for Microsoft...We're gonna make sure we democratize virtualization."

Translation: We may be late as hell in the game but we're gonna do for virtualization what Hillary Clinton has done for the Democratic party. We'll lie, cheat, and steal our way to the top!

Imagine if you bought a brand new car, took it home, and within the first few weeks you noticed problems and annoyances. You filled it up with gas twice already after only driving a couple of hundred miles. Two of the tires have slow leaks. A weird burning oil smell keeps coming out of the A/C when you turn it on. The engine light keeps flashing at you telling you that your engine requires attention. The radio doesn't play any CD's except those distributed by Sony.

Now, imagine you took this car back to the dealership and was told that your car was a "work in progress" and wasn't actually fully tested nor completed when it rolled off the assembly line. Would this be an acceptable answer for you? Would you put up with it? Didn't think so.

Microsoft Sends Letter to Yahoo! Board of Directors

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer recently sent a letter to the members of Yahoo!'s board of directors basically telling them they have three weeks to make up their mind or Microsoft is going to get nasty. Here's a play-by-play of the letter:

Dear Members of the Board:

It has now been more than two months since we made our proposal to acquire Yahoo! at a 62% premium to its closing price on January 31, 2008, the day prior to our announcement. Our goal in making such a generous offer was to create the basis for a speedy and ultimately friendly transaction. Despite this, the pace of the last two months has been anything but speedy.

That's probably because your offer sucked, Steve. Not to mention that even at a 62% premium the offer is still undervalued. Price alone isn't a valid measure of the value of this company.

While there has been some limited interaction between management of our two companies, there has been no meaningful negotiation to conclude an agreement. We understand that you have been meeting to consider and assess your alternatives, including alternative transactions with others in the industry, but we've seen no indication that you have authorized Yahoo! management to negotiate with Microsoft. This is despite the fact that our proposal is the only alternative put forward that offers your shareholders full and fair value for their shares, gives every shareholder a vote on the future of the company, and enhances choice for content creators, advertisers, and consumers.

So it's all about the shareholders again? Where does my voice come into this? Do consumers have a choice in this? Didn't think so.

During these two months of inactivity, the Internet has continued to march on, while the public equity markets and overall economic conditions have weakened considerably, both in general and for other Internet-focused companies in particular. At the same time, public indicators suggest that Yahoo!'s search and page view shares have declined. Finally, you have adopted new plans at the company that have made any change of control more costly.

The whole industry has declined. And the publicity surrounding your bully tactics and possible hostile takeover of Yahoo! hasn't helped either. Yahoo! is doing what it can to be creative and branch out into other areas in an effort to expand their business and offer their customers more choice. Hmm...seems like a contradiction of that last sentence. In other words, only Microsoft can make the right choices and adopt new plans that give consumers better choices.

By any fair measure, the large premium we offered in January is even more significant today. We believe that the majority of your shareholders share this assessment, even after reviewing your public disclosures relating to your future prospects.

Again with the whole "It's all about the shareholders" talk. This sort of corporate bullshit and old-school management style is what's stifling competition, bub. Google is running off of a different mindset and different style of management and Yahoo! is doing it's best to play catch-up. Best get with the program.

Given these developments, we believe now is the time for our respective companies to authorize teams to sit down and negotiate a definitive agreement on a combination of our companies that will deliver superior value to our respective shareholders, creating a more efficient and competitive company that will provide greater value and service to our customers. If we have not concluded an agreement within the next three weeks, we will be compelled to take our case directly to your shareholders, including the initiation of a proxy contest to elect an alternative slate of directors for the Yahoo! board. The substantial premium reflected in our initial proposal anticipated a friendly transaction with you. If we are forced to take an offer directly to your shareholders, that action will have an undesirable impact on the value of your company from our perspective which will be reflected in the terms of our proposal.

Your arrogance is overwhelming.

As I've said on my blog regarding this very thing, Yahoo! and Microsoft are two different companies with drastically different philosophies using completely different technologies. How these two companies can offer such superior value after the fact is likely to be an impossible task. If the Yahoo! board doesn't see that then the company is surely sunk and they might as well let you gut it like a fish, Steve.

It is unfortunate that by choosing not to enter into substantive negotiations with us, you have failed to give due consideration to a transaction that has tremendous benefits for Yahoo!'s shareholders and employees. We think it is critically important not to let this window of opportunity pass.

Sincerely,

Steven A. Ballmer

Man, talk about a contradiction. Steve, you used to scream that it's all about "Developers! Developers! Developers!". Now, with this whole Yahoo! mess, it's very clear that it's all about "Shareholders! Shareholders! Shareholders!". Makes me sick.

Article: Gates explains why Microsoft needs Yahoo

I think what Gates says in this interview pretty much tells it all:

"We have a strategy for competing in the search space that Google dominates today, that we'll pursue that we had before we made the Yahoo offer, and that we can pursue without that. It involves breakthrough engineering."

I've heard this before from MIcrosoft for a few years now. Question is: Where is this breakthrough engineering? Oh yeah...you haven't developed it yet.

"We think that the combination with Yahoo would accelerate things in a very exciting way, because they do have great engineers, they have done a lot of great work. So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid."

What if their work is dramatically different from your own? How do you combine two thing together that follow completely different philosophies? It's like trying to convince a vegan to eat a steak. Getting Yahoo! engineers to do things the Microsoft way isn't innovation...it's torture!

So, it's really about the people there that want to join in and create a better search, better portal for a very broad set of customers. That's the vision that's behind saying, hey, wouldn't this be a great combination.

Great...but what if the people at Yahoo! don't give a shit about your vision. Chances are that if the merger goes through, a lot of the engineers that make Yahoo! great might very well go bye-bye. So much for that great combination.

Regarding culture differences:

Yahoo wants to do breakthrough software. The engineers there want to compete very effectively against Google or any other thing that comes along. So, I don't think there's really a different culture.

But the engineers there also want to compete by offering a great degree of openness, something Microsoft has had a problem with in the past. Yahoo! also has embraced the open-source community which, again, is something Microsoft has had a problem with in the past. How is the culture between these companies not different?

Gates still didn't talk about the one thing that separates Google from the rest of the crowd, which is just straight-up great online applications. The search and advertising part is important, but those two things are just piggy-backing on the success of Google's repertoire of online apps like Gmail, Calendar, Docs, and others. For Microsoft and Yahoo! to compete, they need to embrace this and come up with their own solutions that follow this train of thought. Yahoo! has a shot at doing this...but not if it means altering their philosophy to match Microsoft's. Till Microsoft, Gates & Co. get their head out of their ass, I just don't see it happening for Microsoft anytime soon.

Didn't take long for Microsoft to respond to Yahoo!'s rejection:

It is unfortunate that Yahoo! has not embraced our full and fair proposal to combine our companies. Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of all parties.

No, it's not. It's in Microsoft's best interests; not Yahoo!'s. If Yahoo! was a lot like Microsoft, I could see it being a fair proposal...but it's not.

We are offering shareholders superior value and the opportunity to participate in the upside of the combined company. The combination also offers an increasingly exciting set of solutions for consumers, publishers and advertisers while becoming better positioned to compete in the online services market.

So...it's all about the shareholders. Umm...what about the consumer? Ever thought about asking them how they feel about it? You assume that the consumer is going to be as increasingly excited as you are. You're damn straight they will...especially after you pull the rug out from under them!

A Microsoft-Yahoo! combination will create a more effective company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. Furthermore, the combination will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising.

Again, more effective and greater value to Microsoft; not Yahoo! Sure, a Microsoft-Yahoo!-Taco Bueno combo Chilada platter will most certainly put Microsoft instantly into the number two spot for search and advertising. However, the notion that this will create more competition is a highly flawed point of view because it will do nothing of the sort. Just because you own a jigsaw doesn't mean you're a good carpenter and are able to make a bitchin' chair.

The Yahoo! response does not change our belief in the strategic and financial merits of our proposal. As we have said previously, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

What merits? Does the strategic merits include giving Zimbra a drop-kick into the gutter? And does the financial merits include trying to buy your way out instead of simply being innovative and creating something truly different for a change? Microsoft certainly can reserve the right...but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Yahoo!'s CEO made it pretty clear that he believes that Microsoft's proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo! on a whole. Microsoft clearly doesn't get it. They just don't see the writing on the wall. Can they not see how different Microsoft and Yahoo! really are? Can they not understand that such a merger is not good for either company? What are they doing over there? Writing proposals with Crayons?

When I heard about the whole Microsoft/Yahoo! situation, I immediately reacted in a very negative manner. But, rather than immediately flying off the handle, I decided to hold back a bit, let it play out a bit, and see how everyone else responds. Now that both Google and Microsoft have made their statements, the picture is getting clearer and the impact of a Microsoft/Yahoo! merger couldn't be any clearer: It's bad news!

I've been using open-source software for the better part of two years. My job depends on them. I use the typical LAMP setup (LInux, Apache web servers, MySQL, and PHP) and use other open-source tools like Eclipse and Aptana to get the job done. All of these tools help in contributing to another open-source software project, a PHP-based content management framework called MODx. The level of innovation that is born out of all of these tools is absolutely amazing.

Now, let's look at a statement by Brad Smith, General Councel at Microsoft:

The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.

Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe.

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals.

The interesting thing is that Microsoft is only focusing on the search engine and advertising part of the deal in their statement. Problem is that search and advertising are just one part of the equation. Granted, Google is the big dog when it comes to search and advertising, but Google didn't get that way with just their search services alone. It took other services to do that. Google created some very well thought-out, well designed online apps and made search and advertising an integral part of some of these services. They made it where these services end up being a big part of your life because you can get to them from practically anywhere. I'm not sure if Microsoft understands this.

Just like Google, Yahoo! is more than just a search and advertising company. Granted, they're not as successful as Google, but given time they potentially could be. You see, just like Google, Yahoo! has done a lot to contribute to the open-source community. Contributions like the Yahoo! User Interface Library encourage innovation and show that open-source isn't as evil as Microsoft would have you believe. And, just like Google, the majority of Yahoo!'s services are built off of open-source software.

If the merger happens, it's almost a given that Yahoo! will essentially be gobbled up and spit back out. The problem is that since most of Yahoo!'s services are not built off of the Windows platform I just don't see how Microsoft will be able to merge Yahoo!'s infrastructure with their own. Do they seriously thing they'll be able to reverse engineer any of this stuff? Doubtful.

The thing Microsoft isn't telling you is that there is perhaps a bit of a ulterior motive to this merger. Microsoft clearly wants to knock out the competition Yahoo! poses in search and advertising, that much is clear. But I think Microsoft also wants to give a direct hit to the open-source community by also knocking out a few services that pose as big of a threat...services like Del.icio.us, Flickr, Upcoming.org, and Zimbra. With the exception of Zimbra, the other services aren't much of a threat. But, because their built off of open-source, they'll probably be dumped or reverse engineered into a nightmare. Given Microsoft's history, the chances of Microsoft allowing any of these services to continue to exist on their own for long is slim to none.

The bigger threat is Zimbra, an open-source messaging and collaboration suite that is in direct competition with Microsoft Exchange. Killing this means killing the one thing that would allow companies to successfully migrate their existing Exchange servers on over the Linux. Steve Ballmer has made it clear that he's not a fan of open-source so killing Zimbra would be a clear blow to the bow of the open-source community and Linux.

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, Yahoo! is set to reject Microsoft's bid. Let's hope that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on with this. If Microsoft was smart they would back off and perhaps learn to do the one thing they should have been doing all along: Make better software!

InfoWorld has been running a "Save Windows XP" petition campaign for a little while now. Judging by the date of the oldest posts (January 14th?), looks like they've been running it since the beginning of the year. In that time they've gathered over 84,000 signatures for their petition. That's a staggering number.

A recent Computerworld AU article noted that "a survey of 961 IT professionals conducted by King Research found 90 per cent of respondents had concerns about migrating to Vista". What's interesting is that 44% said they would consider non-Windows operating systems to avoid potential problems, with ease of virtualization being a factor as well.

So what's Microsoft's response to the "Save Windows XP" petition?

"We're aware of it, but are listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs. That's what informed our decision to extend the availability of XP initially, and what will continue to guide us."

Soooo....does that mean you're gonna listen to the 84,000 customers who want to continue using Windows XP?

"Therefore OEMs will continue to sell XP through June 30th 2008 and system builders will be able to sell XP through January 2009 as they cater to the small business markets. In emerging markets where XP Starter Edition is sold, it will still be available through June 30th, 2010."

Ok, let me get this straight. System builders will be able to sell XP till the end of the year...but they're not the same as OEMs....so what version of XP will they be selling? Is there a special "system builder" version of XP I'm not aware of? My guess is that they're referring to the standard retail versions of XP and they're allowing system builders to sell through them in a time when retailers can't.

Problem is that it's not just the system builders who are complaining. Most companies, including many small businesses, buy their computers from OEMs. So what Microsoft is saying is that they're not changing the June 30th cutoff for these businesses, the very customers who need "a little more time" to migrate to Vista. Remember, Vista has only been out for a year now. Most businesses follow a 2-2 1/2 year cycle for software migrations in relation to their business continuity. For Microsoft to say that businesses only have a year and a half to migrate is insane!

Meanwhile, you got Steve Ballmer thinking that aquiring Yahoo! is a grand idea and Bill Gates saying, "Screw you guys! I'm goin' home!". Microsoft is lucid...they're just not the same company anymore!

I recently read an article that Wired did about how a Microsoft security expert claims that Vista has fewer security flaws that XP:

"Based on the number of known vulnerabilities announced and the number of patches released for the desktop OS in the past year, Vista gets higher ratings than Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.4, Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Ubuntu 6.06."

This claim is so subjective. You can throw up all the charts and graphs you want and it won't prove a thing. Michael Calore of Wired seems to agree:

"This doesn't mean that Vista is inherently more secure than these other OSes. All the study proves is that Vista had a better security track record than the other OSes over their first year of release."

Microsoft spent five years developing Vista. You'd think it would be more secure that XP. So why would that be a surprise? But to claim that it's more secure than the competition? How would you even measure something like that?

But I digress. Pundits of Vista (myself included) won't argue that Vista is more secure (it is!) because that's not the point. The real problem with Vista is that after five years of development, Microsoft delivered an operating system that offered no compelling new features over Windows XP. Not only that but there were a slew of compatibility issues with existing hardware and software, both new and old.

The point is that security is only one part of the equation. People do want a more secure environment on their computers. No one can deny that. But people also want a more productive environment on their computers. Performance gains with Vista are atrocious! As one blogger pointed out the combination of "Vista, Office, and Outlook 2007 is a nightmare". Why would any business gamble on a loss of perfomance on the very applications they rely on day in and day out? A loss of performance is a loss in productivity, it's as simple as that.

Doesn't help either that Microsoft plans to stop selling OEM licenses at the end of June, 2008. Windows Vista isn't even a year old (it was released on January 30th, 2007) and Microsoft is telling business customers that they have to purchase Vista with new computers only a year and a half after its debut? A lot of companies waited at least two years to start using XP and, even then, most companies didn't actually widely adopt XP till SP2 came out. Why does Microsoft thing Vista is any different? June is just too soon. Microsoft would do well to give business customers the choice and let it ride for at least another year or so.

By nature, people tend to accept the default regardless of what problems exist. But people don't have to accept it. Individuals and businesses alike need to learn that the default isn't always the best. You don't have to put up with the default choice. There are other choices. In this case the choice is simple: Either force Microsoft to give you the choice and make a better product...or switch to the competition. I have a stinking suspicion that a lot of people will be switching to the competition.

You've heard the phrase "The proof is in the pudding", right? Well...I'm not sure if the pudding in Windows Vista is all that good. It's the equivalent of ordering Tapioca pudding for dessert in a fine restaurant and getting served a Snack Pack. How would you react if that happened to you? That's what I thought.

Make mine a Mac! :)

Last week at my company's Christmas party, I was having a conversation with a few of my co-workers and their wives. The topic of conversation shifted to the iPod and one of my co-worker's wives brought up a good question: Is there a good alternative to the iPod? My response to her was that the latest generation of the Microsoft Zune has received good reviews. I read a lot of different news feeds and blog posts and the general consensus is that the second generation of Zunes are pretty darn good and actually top the iPod in some ways.

Paul Thorrott has an excellent review of the latest batch of Zunes from Microsoft. His review is very much on the level and he doesn't seem to show any bias in his review. He states right up front that he didn't give the first Zune a good review. Yeah, that first Zune Microsoft put out was indeed an abysmal combination of hardware and software. Not very many people liked it at all. He says that the new Zunes are not without their problems but are far and away a better product than the first Zunes.

"Is this a revolution in the making? Not quite, not yet: Apple will still sell untold iPods this holiday season. But the Zune is no longer a laughing stock and some of the changes Microsoft has made, both in the hardware and in the software, will have Apple racing to catch up. I like what I see here."

There's no doubt in my mind that the Zune deserves a place as the #2 media player on the market but I'm not so sure about it topping the iPod anytime soon. The primary problem with it is this: No Mac compatibility! Now, you could say that this only affects about 5% of Microsoft's potential customer base. Then again that 5% is just as important as the rest. It's the same argument I have with web designers and developers creating sites that only work with Internet Explorer. To dismiss a percentage of your clientèle like this is no different than designing a building that does not accommodate for the blind and/or disabled. Simply put, it's not a good business decision. As such, I still recommend the iPod over the Zune for this very reason.