Windows 7, Coming Soon?

For those looking for what’s next after Vista, Windows 7 may arrive sooner than you think.

Bill Gates recently spoke at Inter-American Development Bank, which is the main source of multilateral financing for economic, social and institutional development in Latin America and the Caribbean (source: IDB).

During his talk, Bill had lots of good things to say about health and education in Latin America. He discussed how important education is in combating disease and necessary for sustainable health care. Since leaving Microsoft’s CEO post in 2000, I think Bill is doing some very important work in the world and should be commended for it.

For an overview of Bill’s talk on Latin America healthcare and education please see this.

Bill also touched on something I never fully appreciated until Google really took off: The U.S. Model where universities retain licensing rights to new technologies developed on-campus, and even through government funds.

Side Note regarding Standford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.  Not too long ago, Sergey and Larry were grad students at Stanford where they developed the logic, algorithm and patents to Google. Compared to where I attended university, Stanford really thrives on encouraging students and facality to develop and market new technologies. The school also connects developers of new technology with financing sources, which encourages new partnerships, patents and licensing.  In short, Stanford transparently creates new technologies, where the students, facility, school and world come out ahead.

Back to Windows 7 speculation. Much to Microsoft’s chagrin, Windows Vista is not achieving large scale penetration in the business market.  Although consumer adoption appears pretty strong, most of this is on new consumer PCs, where the user typically chooses between Vista and Vista (hmm… not much choice there).  In any event, Microsoft releases a new version of Windows every 3 to 5 years.  Vista took 5 years to ship, and Microsoft is vowing to ship the next version in only three years.   Adding three to Vista debut of January 2007, slates a Windows 7 ETA of January 2010.  But after hearing Bill’s words at IDB, Windows may arrive sooner.  We’ll see.

For Bills’ comments on Windows 7, please click here.

Steve Ballmer Defects to Google

In a highly surprising turn of events, Steve Ballmer appears to have returned from his sabbatical and promptly tendered his resignation, effective immediately. Suffice to say, this behavior is quite startling given Ballmer’s long tenure with Microsoft (since 1980), and as chief executive officer of Microsoft (since January 2000).

What I find really puzzling is this announcement comes after Ballmer’s long-running, public, and quite negative behavior towards Google. Case in point: “In 2005, Mark Lucovsky alleged in a sworn statement to a Washington state court that Ballmer became highly enraged upon hearing that Lucovsky was about to leave Microsoft for Google, picked up his chair and threw it across his office.” (source: wiki).

Industry analysis and insiders seem just as surprised as myself. Mary Jo Foley, who’s covered the tech industry for the past 20 years, and has insight I value, earlier today offered this statement: “Speculation continues to swirl…”. My take: Understatement indeed, Mary Jo.

Also today, a posting on Raymond Chen’s blog discussed another awfully peculiar connection: “A few years ago, there was a vacancy in a small business park a very short walk from the main Microsoft campus…”. Raymond goes on to discuss “Building 7”, which he describes as “This nonexistent building…” Now, I do trust Raymond, and he’s been with Microsoft since, well I don’t know when. But… come on, really? Steve is going to work for Google, from a building that’s basically on the Microsoft campus? It may sound outlandish, but it won’t be the first time Microsoft has partnered with strange bedfellows. (Actually this does locate Ballmer perfectly to recruit the brightest minds away from Microsoft).

If you step back and look what insiders are blogging, two things become very clear: 1) Nobody knows what’s really going on. 2) Steve has picked the worst possible time to just ship. Or, just maybe… it’s actually the best time.

Think about this. You are Steve Ballmer, and you’ve ascended to numero uno honcho at Microsoft. You have a generous collection of stock options, prestige, clout and power. You’re been driving the world’s leading software company. But, you were never able to shake your faithful competitor, Apple. In fact, when Bill Gates turned over the reigns as CEO in 2000, Apple fortunes mysteriously started to… improve. Rapidly. Consider: iPods, iMacs, iBooks, iPhones, iMovie, the list goes on and on.

I’m not saying Ballmer has been cavorting with the competition, or that he’s been sabotaging Microsoft. I’m also not saying he’s been sowing buttons on ice cream, nor incessantly practicing sweaty dance moves (ok, maybe just a little). What I do think is this: He finally counted his cards and realized if he can’t defeat his old nemesis (Apple), then he needs to become one with new enemy (Google) to beat the old one. Odd indeed. Dark too.

By remaining on campus (possibly in Building 7??), he could snoop, spy and inject subterfuge for the benefit of Google. Wow! But, that’s where this house of cards falls apart. Because, I just cannot see Eric and Sergey-And-Larry being involved with anything so underhanded and nefarious. Which makes me really glad it’s April 1^st and there’s still hope for humanity.

Study: Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes

Here’s some interesting news I kind of saw coming. Where I live, some traffic lights are equipped with Red Light Cameras. These cameras automatically photograph the license plate of drivers who run the red light. This seems like a great idea, but perhaps not.

These Red Light Camera equipped intersections have signs warning drivers of the camera’s presence. The general idea is this: Drivers are more careful to avoid running the red light. And, if they do…. a camera snaps their license plate and the image is sent to a server. This license plate’s text (letters and numbers) is extracted from the image using some combination of human reading, and automated optical recognition (a computer extracts characters using optical algorithms). Then… the owner of the vehicle receives a Traffic Ticket in the mail for their red light offense. Cha-ching!

Seems like a good idea because red lights are less often run, right? And, red light accidents also occur less often, right?

A recent study by the University Of South Florida College Of Public Health shows that red light cameras actually increase the number of red light accidents, and their severity. Why? Because drivers are more likely to slam on their breaks to avoid running a yellow light. I also imagine in some cases drivers are more likely to speed way up, to avoid running the red light.

So, these cameras cause an interesting phenomenon: This system of automatic red light ticketing causes people to artificially increase the importance not being in the intersection when the light turns red. I say “artificially”, because the most significant real-life priority is to avoid accidents. But, the presence of these cameras causes people to shut off the real-life priority (avoid accidents) and ignore their real-life situations (other drivers in their vicinity)…. all to avoid running the red light.

I consider cell phone related accidents very similar in nature. Drivers talking on cell phones more likely ignore their surroundings because they’ve artificially increased the importance of something else: their cell phone. This is why areas have started banning cell phone usage while driving.

Some areas, such as Florida, are now banning these red light cameras. And as reality shows, I think these cameras should be banned. But these cameras are widely used, and some areas earn sizable profits via this automated ticketing scheme. San Diego, in particular, has made $30 million in 18 months. Hopefully governments will make the right choice, and forgo the easy money - It just doesn’t seem right to profit by harming people, especially your own citizens. Right?

Toms Hardware: Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes And Insurance Rates - Study

Here’s the full study: Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?

Vista Usability (Drivers) II

A class action lawsuit is currently ongoing against Microsoft regarding Vista. This lawsuit addresses user experiences with Vista, and how Microsoft misled consumers with cleaver/dishonest marketing.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Bundles of internal Microsoft email have been released to the public, and going by their content: Microsoft executives were aware of Vista problems, dismayed by marketing spin, and upset with: compatibility, drivers, performance, and the final product.

I’ve read through some of this email, and I saw surprisingly negative statements by Microsoft leaders on their Vista experiences. They were confused why Vista didn’t work better (as was/am I), and vocally critical of it. It makes me wonder how these highly paid, experienced and prominent leaders ended up with the product they did. It also makes me ask: Is anyone driving the bus?

Here’s a better summary then I’ve written: The New York Times: They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know

If you want to read the emails, check ‘em out: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaexhibitsone.pdf

Here’s Part 1 of my Vista Usability (Drivers) rant http://dataland.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/vista-usability-drivers/

Microsoft Fined $1.35 billion

Microsoft is no stranger to the receiving end of anti-competitive allegations. And, their accusers are often quietly dismissed via some form of: small payments/incentives, clever deal brokering, (pseudo)partnerships, or even more aggressive behavior. Well, not this time.

In 2004 the European Union recognized Microsoft’s practices as anti-competitive and went one step further with an Anti-trust ruling. This 2004 ruling was very serious: 497 million euro fine ($748 million) plus stringent requirements to play fairly with competitors.

As of last Wednesday, the EU recognized Microsoft’s non-compliance with playing fair.  So, the EU decided to take things to the next level: 899 million euro fine ($1.35 billion) plus really play fair. Needless to say this record fine is truly massive. I wonder if Microsoft will continue to do business as usual, or if they would perhaps… changes their ways.

You see, Microsoft is a very large, powerful, and aggressive company. As such the upper executive hierarchy is staffed by a large number of powerful and aggressive executives. And, to remain “competitive”, MSFT has a pretty much constant re-organization within the company and leadership ranks. From my experience: constant re-orgs, role re-definitions, and business plan changes are all fantastic ways to lose track of what you just did, what you’re now doing, and what’s really needed next.

I guess on some level I saw this coming. I mean, all the constant turmoil within upper management (especially within the Live Division) has made it hard (questionably impossible) to properly follow legal stipulations (including Anti-Trust rulings), while riding the razor-sharp-edge of competing like the uncaged-beast that Microsoft is. I’m surely not condoning Microsoft’s behavior, nor am I making excuses for their actions.  I’m just not very surprised.  But, I am curious how they will react with the ball (yet again) fully in their court.

Microsoft Live

When you consider just how large, successful, and dare I say… dominate Microsoft has become in the computer world, I am dazzled by how much trouble they’ve had getting in on the Web 2.0 scene. I’m sure Microsoft doesn’t enjoy playing second fiddle to Google, Yahoo, and bunches of others Johnny-Come-Latelys. I also think Microsoft’s massive executive hierarchy is pretty worked up about addressing their online presence deficit. In truth, I imagine a never-ending barrage of internal emails flying around the MSFT corporate network. Emails saying: the future of our company is at stake!. But, what I think is really interesting is how Microsoft reacts to this fear, and their attempts at growing their online business.

Side note: In 1995 Microsoft really started focusing on the Internet, with Bill Gates’ famous May 26, 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo, where he directed his executive staff to attack cyberspace and for “…every product plan to try and go overboard on Internet features.”  In this memo he also said: “Now I assign the Internet the highest level of importance”.

Over the past decade, Microsoft has struggled to leverage it desktop market dominance into the online world, and they’ve had less than spectacular results. Microsoft’s massively developed marketing and distribution arms are pretty useless in the online world. They have built so much critical mass in all desktop-software aspects, which is all simply not transferable verbatim into Web 2.0 (Note to self: Since the computer world can’t agree on exactly what Web 2.0 means, I’ll use this term to appear trendy and “in the know”)

The crux of the issue is this: Microsoft was built on the software buy/sell/license mentality. But, it’s really more than a mentality, it’s a firmly ingrained culture completely encompassing a very fixed business model: sell software by unit (100 here, 1000 there), divide software into different segments (Office, Windows, etc) and have these business segments complete for desktop market share. The result: more money allocated to the more successful segments for cool.new.applications. Going on twenty years now, Microsoft has outwardly become an expert (and definitely the dominator) in developing desktop (non-online) software.

It really is a very deliberate decision: Is my company a services-company, or a software-company? Committing to the software-company track: you generate most (and nearly all) of your revenue by selling software by: unit… and after a while, you don’t generate revenue from your existing product until you ship a new version (Windows 2000, XP, Vista, etc). This drives how you do: planning, marketing, distribution (including Best Buy shelf space), development (native C++, VB, .NET, etc), leadership, etc. This really drives your whole company top-to-bottom, from your Steve Ballmer to your Joe Coder.

A software-company can profit by charging for services, but that’s very different from building a software-as-service company, such as Google. If a company wants to be service-based, then the core revenue model becomes: how much service can I sell, lease, or rent on a monthly basis (which is drastically different from: how many copies of this version of my program can I sell). The longer your software-company has been around… the more software-company infrastructure you have. And, all this becomes deadweight when you try to swim in the cool, new, sexy, and profitable online-services swimming pool.

I believe that before Microsoft can establish a significant market presence in the online business world of Web 2.0 (which I like to pretend Ballmer calls the Interweb), the MSFT culture and business-model needs to change. If I were Steve Ballmer, I’d create a Microsoft subsidiary that would operate completely independently from Microsoft (sort of a Skunk Works operation) and be a ground-up online service-company. If Ballmer won’t do that, then mitosis is the next best option: divide Microsoft into two separate companies: software-company Microsoft and services-company iMicrosoft. (I think this mitosis scenario is about as likely as everyone in the U.S. winning the lottery on the same exact day).

Instead of Skunk Works, or mitosis, Microsoft has chosen Plan C: Microsoft Live division. This division is dedicated to the online world, but ends up competing with all the other Microsoft software-centric divisions. And, from the Microsoft news I’ve read, there has been a large amount of executive turnover in this division. I quietly wonder, if one promising executive after another has been consumed (wrung-out) trying to run a service-company within a software-company (I sure wouldn’t want that position).

On several occasions, Microsoft has ventured to buy significant online market share. Just recently, MSFT submitted a $44.6 billion dollar bid to buy Yahoo. While the results are unknown, I could see Yahoo wanting a lot more money. And, if the sale did go through, I’d hope that MSFT keeps the two companies 99% separate (i.e. Skunk Works) - they could share some branding and technology transfer, but I think pushing Yahoo and Microsoft into one company could result in operation square-peg-in-round-hole.

Since buying an online presence hasn’t yet yielded Microsoft a major piece of the internet pie. Building is the next best thing. Case in point: Microsoft Office Live, which is the latest and greatest attempt by Microsoft to build a firm foothold in the online world. Simply put, this is an online version of Microsoft Office. (Did you notice the online version of Microsoft Office tacks “Live” onto the end? This appears to be how they are going to differentiate the desktop and online version of the same product)

I have not had the time, nor the incentive, to check out Microsoft Office Live. So, if you have, please drop me a comment and tell me what you think. Personally, I like using the desktop version of Office. I don’t need, nor want, to do that work online – In fact, I don’t see clear benefits to online-izing (or social-networking-izing) Microsoft Word. There are plenty of sites doing truly new and innovative things in the online world. Maybe one day Word Processing may go predominantly online. Until then, I’d rather use my traditional desktop version of Microsoft Word (I like the idea of Abiword and Open Office, but I never made the transition)

Since this post may be a bit dry (boring), I’ll leave you with this great Microsoft advertisement I just received for Microsoft Office Live. This ad really makes me wonder if Microsoft Office Live is desperately struggling to get people to use Office Live. Maybe I got this impression when the ad called me “chicken” for not trying it. Hey, are we in third grade? Well I double-dog-dare you to make Vista faster and more reliable. OK, I TRIPLE-DOG-DARE YOU!

Vista 4GB

I recently received a comment from a reader who thought Vista didn’t support 4GB of RAM. I was a bit dismayed at first because 32-bit flavors of Window support 4GB, and they always have (nitpickers: I’m taking about 32-bit NT derivatives, not 9X). I had taken it for granted that people just know this. I google’d around a bit to try and better understand this misconception. After a few minutes I realized there sure is some confusion over how much RAM 32bit Vista actually supports. I hope I can clear up some misconceptions, shed a bit of light, and not bore you too terribly along the way.

Techno-babble disclaimer! A 32-bit number can contain a value between 0 and 4,294,967,295 (this number is calculated as: 2^32 -1). Because that’s a very large and unwieldy number, we divide it by 1024 which gives us 4,194,304 thousand. Dividing again by 1024 gives us 4,096 million. Dividing once more by 1024 gives us 4 billion. What I am trying to get at is this: a 32-bit number can be used to count up to 4 billion, which is needed to read/write 4 billion distinct memory cells (aka bytes).

Because 32-bit Windows addresses memory through a 32-bit memory addressing scheme, in theory you can address 4GB of RAM in 32-bit Windows. I say in theory, because there are other factors that move this number up or down. Useless techno-trivia: A 64-bit memory addressing scheme can theoretically access 64-bit of memory address space: which is 2^64 - 1, this comes out to: 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 or roughly 4 billion GB.

In 32-bit Windows, addressable memory is divided into two different areas (or modes): Kernel and User. By default, Kernel-mode gets half of the maximum addressable memory: 2GB, and User-mode gets the other half: 2GB. Windows dedicates Kernal-mode memory to drivers and internal Windows data. And, Windows applications get access to 2GB of User-mode memory. (nitpickers: This is highly simplified).

When it comes to physical hardware, things get a bit more muddy. It’s fairly common for motherboard (aka mainboard) makers to set hardware limitations on how much RAM they actually support. Your computer’s mainboard may limit accessible RAM to: 3GB, 2.5GB 2GB, etc. On server-class machines you can find motherboards that limit accessible RAM to more: 8GB, 16GB, etc. Since a 32-bit number can only address 4GB of RAM, there are various schemes that enable 32-bit Windows to access more than 4GB of RAM. Microsoft, Intel and various server motherboard manufacturers have extended memory addressing schemes.

More techno-trivia: Intel has PAE, Microsoft has AWE These extended memory access schemes in general work by moving around a virtual window through your whole address space. For example: I can read the memory between addresses 10GB and 14GB by setting my memory window to start at 10GB. Note: Since we are moving a memory read/write window around, we pay a slight performance.

So, 32-bit Windows can theoretically take advantage of 4GB of RAM and 32-bit Vista is no different. What is different is how Vista uses the RAM and reports what’s available. In Vista, if you have 4GB of RAM and 512MB graphics card, then your available RAM can show 3.5 GB or less. You are still using all 4GB of RAM, but Vista is really trying to be honest by saying you only have 3.5 available. If you have other drivers that grab RAM, that will decrease the amount of available RAM even more. I’ve read some peoples complaints where they only see 3 GB available and 4GB is installed. If your motherboard (or BIOS) is not limiting it, then you are actually using all 4GB. So, it all depends. It depends on your motherboard, installed hardware, drivers, and etc.

If you want more info, check out Microsoft’s: Memory Limits for Windows Releases.

Windows 7

Depending on what you’ve read or experienced: Windows Vista is really great, really bad, or somewhere in between. For the most part, I’m not too excited about Vista. I think there are a bunch of technological improvements, and lots of potential, but overall I’m just not terribly impressed with the completed product. To say the least, I think some major polish and serious optimization are needed. I’ve heard some other people feel the same way.

This brings us to Windows 7, which is the the next version of Windows. There is a lot of Windows 7 speculation out in the wild. But, there’s not much in the way of official information, or even anything possibly concrete. Microsoft really doesn’t like to release official feature lists, or product information until they are sure they can deliver. That’s really no different than most software companies. What is different, is Windows is not just any software, and Microsoft is not just any software company. So, Microsoft has extra incentive to keep tight-lipped until they are actually ready to present something. Microsoft doesn’t like bad press about features they cut, and I don’t blame them.

In the meantime, we’ll have to settle for good old fashioned speculation… In fact, when I was a boy we didn’t even have the internet, all we had was speculation. How times have changed. Now in this modern day, when hard facts are unavailable, we can speculate en mass!

Hopefully, some Microsoft insider will be willing to drop an opinion here and there (sort of like MiniMicrosoft). Hey, perhaps one has. I’ve recently come across an interesting blog on Windows 7. By outward appearances, this appears to be written by an insider. I hope that over the coming months, this blog continues to increase in relevance. I do like information, and I’m quietly cheering for a much improved version of Windows: Shipping Seven (Random thoughts from somebody working on the next Windows OS)

Did Bill Gates Just Say Windows Sucks?

It appears that Bill Gates thinks Windows Vista could have used noticeable improvement before shipping. As I’ve voiced earlier, I agree with Bill. I think it’s good when the people in charge are actually aware of what they are shipping. I also think its good when executives are honest about significant issues with their products - otherwise they appear somewhat dishonest and aloof. I’m not saying executives should continually speak negatively of their products, but I do think they should be honest.

What follows is the short clip from Gizmodo’s recent billg interview. Please recognize this clip is a small excerpt of their whole interview, so Bill’s thoughts may be slightly incomplete (i.e. possibly a bit out of context).

Gizmodo’s Interview excerpt Holy Crap: Did Bill Gates Just Say Windows Sucks?

Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack Beta

Good new for developers and teams working on Microsoft Visual C++ projects! In this past year, Microsoft has publicly woken up and started re-investing in Visual C++. If you have upgraded to Visual Studio 2008, you can beta test some new and significant functionality coming down the pike for MFC.

This new functionality is part of the optional Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack Beta. Here is a brief overview:

The Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack extends the VC++ Libraries shipped with Visual Studio 2008. The VC++ 2008 MFC libraries have been extended to support creation of applications that have:

• Office Ribbon style interface
• Office 2007, Office 2003 and Office XP look and feel
• Modern Visual Studio-style docking toolbars and panes
• Fully customizable toolbars and menus
• A rich set of advanced GUI controls
• Advanced MDI tabs and groups
• And much more!

This feature pack also includes an implementation of TR1. Portions of TR1 are scheduled for adoption in the upcoming C++0x standard as the first major addition to the ISO 2003 standard C++ library. Our implementation includes a number of important features such as:

• Smart pointers
• Regular expression parsing
• New containers (tuple, array, unordered set, etc)
• Sophisticated random number generators
• Polymorphic function wrappers
• Type traits
• And more!

Here is a brief tour of new MFC GUI additions.

If you are using VS 2008, here is where you can grab the Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack Beta.

And, here is the Feature Pack documentation.