Microsoft’s Real Punishment is Having to Fight with the Gloves On

By the time the Microsoft anti-trust cases wound down, it could be argued that the alleged damage was long since done to the industry.

In a curious reversal, it appears that Microsoft’s direct penalties from the case were only a tiny beginning.

The real penalties Microsoft pays are not in money, nor in shipping “K” and “N” SKUs. They are in product strategies unpursued because they would be too provocative. In other hands, such strategies  might be reasonable if aggressive, but for Microsoft they might look like “relevant conduct.”

Today’s announcements about Office 2010 (“14”) were … well … let’s just say if you didn’t read about it, the most interesting thing you missed was seeing critics point out that Microsoft, inventor of AJAX (literally, for the Outlook web client), is only bringing other apps online 10+ years later.

The reasoning here is not about selling client OS licenses. Microsoft could have moved to the cloud richer and faster and more profitable if it could take the gloves off.

Need to get Silverlight penetration up from its abysmally low numbers to where it can really compete with Flash and become a meaningful platform? Just ship it with Windows and make it a priority update to every Windows box in the world. Problem solved. Now we can get down to the real work writing apps. Or at least Adobe could actually face some competition. But Microsoft doesn’t dare do this.

Why not stitch cloud storage directly into the OS? I hate leaving files “on the other machine.” Right out of the box, anytime I see an “Open…” or a “Save As…” dialog box on Windows 7, I would like the default destination to be a secure folder on Windows Live SkyDrive. Using the provider pattern, other vendors could offer a similar service, and the end user could choose. But Microsoft doesn’t dare with this either.

It is quite possible that the long-term benefit to the industry of having Microsoft thus restrained far outweighs the “lost” value we could have had from Redmond. But let no one fool himself into believing that what we see from Microsoft these days is everything they have to offer.

Windows 7 RC, One Month In

A month ago, not long after the RC was released, I wiped my ol’ Server 2003R2 notebook (yes), and installed Win7 x64. Time to try a consumer OS on the machine again, finally go 64-bit, and jump without a net (I had a big client demo coming up and decided it would be sink-or-swim with 7).

First, a word about this laptop. Bought in the holiday sale period of ‘07 just for client demos and occasional web surfing, it would take a whole new, um, “lower end” category of Microsoft “Shopper” commercials to capture the spirit of this baby: for $299 I got a mobile Celeron (1.6 GHz, one core, no HT) and 512MB of RAM. Billed as “Vista Basic Ready,” it was being discontinued due to … not really being Vista Basic Ready. Well, duh. I had given up on Vista after my 3.6GHz desktop choked on it, so I put another GB in the laptop and loaded Server 2003R2 (using unofficial XP drivers I grabbed off the net).

So … Windows 7.

Upon install, all of the hardware was supported perfectly, which isn’t a huge surprise since 7 uses Vista-era drivers and this hardware ensemble was originally targeted for Vista.

Except for a compatibility issue with AVG Anti-Virus (which I’ve written about before), it has worked almost perfectly with everything I’ve thrown at it – ranging from Office and Visual Studio 2008 to Alfresco Enterprise (yes, a Java server app), Google Earth, and Ruby. Overall performance has been excellent and better than I would have expected. No, I wouldn’t play games on this machine, and the 5400-rpm hard drive can be a drag just as it is on most laptops.

The two big negatives I’ve seen are as follows and will hopefully be fixed by RTM time.

First, there is a well-documented issue with WiFi. On a cold boot, Windows does just what you want it to do with the WiFi. But, after waking from sleep or hibernate, or trying to switch networks a few times, it just cannot seem to sort itself out. Most of the time you are forced to reboot to get a working connection. This bug is all over Microsoft’s Win 7 feedback forums, I’m just too lazy to look up a link right now. So hopefully it will get a fix.

Second, the integration with other default browsers (I use Chrome) is broken in a bunch of places. Many of the cases where the shell is called to supply a browser to a specific URL do not work (e.g., menu options in twhirl, connections to the web from Office Live). In addition, Windows doesn’t want to associate local .html (or .htm) files with Chrome. Sometimes I can get these things fixed, but then they revert (perhaps partly a result of Chrome’s auto-updates).

These cases all work fine on XP and don’t require in-process loading (suggesting it’s not a x86/x64 issue). It’s inconvenient, and the anti-trust folks will be back after Microsoft if they don’t make other browsers first-class citizens soon. So this bug should get squashed.

Aside from those two admittedly very annoying issues, this is a really solid, fast, and elegant operating system. How serious is the “Microsoft tax” issue on OEM PCs? I don’t know, but if I do pay such an implicit tax on a new machine, I’ll be a heck of a lot happier if I can get a Win 7 license out of the deal and not a Vista license for my trouble.

Silverlight Sound And Fury (You Know the Rest)

So as not to bore regular readers, I’ll skip the jeremiad.

Bottom line: despite the hoopla at MIX over Silverlight 3 – which is an incredible platform – there were still no meaningful penetration numbers presented.

And while it’s great to see the platform revving and maturing, the various version make a development decision that much harder. If you have a new idea for a Silverlight app, and you imagine your target audience will have the plugin or is able to install it, do you aim for v3? v2? v1?

I also haven’t heard a word about any explicit program to drive Silverlight client installs.

According RIAStats.com – perhaps not the best source of detected install info, but … wait, I guess if it’s the only source of information, that automatically makes it the best – Silverlight is on 22.3% of their observed clients.

Microsoft SDS Change Eerily Reminiscent of WinFS Fate

Last week Microsoft announced that they would be abandoning the ACE and dynamic entity (“property bag”) model for the SQL Server Data Services cloud data storage system. They would also switch from their REST data API (used in ADO.Net Data Services) to the old-school “Tabular Data Stream” wire protocol.

While Microsoft’s promise of more relational support was always a distinguishing feature of their cloud DB service, and while they tried to spin the news in that direction, it feels a lot more like when they abandoned WinFS and announced that, really, everything you could do with WinFS would work fine using NTFS and a whole heck of a lot of indexing. Maybe sorta true … but feels like a big step back.

Of course, big customers – large enterprises with SQL Server databases and lots of SQL code – would not want to see a change in their data layer and would prefer this move. But accommodating them is assuming that they are ready to become first-version customers of the data cloud at all. And I doubt this for two reasons.

First, any move to the cloud involves a trade-off of control which some companies are loath to make even if they are confident the system will work. Which is problematic because:

Second, anyone who has dealt with big databases knows that there is no magic. Despite the quest for automagic autoscaling self-tuning databases, no one, so far as I know, has made one that does all of this for really large enterprise applications. There are just too many application specific variables, not to mention poorly written app code that can cause trouble in proportion to the amount of resources you give it access to.

I do believe Microsoft has the engineering brainpower to try the problem, and are as likely as anyone to succeed. It’s just that I haven’t seen any evidence of a specific strategy or technology. Maybe if I were a bigger customer … but seriously, if Redmond had this problem solved (and it’s one of the biggest out there), they would either patent it or publish lots of white papers. Either way, it would be publicized and reviewed. A trade secret? maybe, but which Fortune 500 CIO is going to jump on that bandwagon and the cloud and the outsourced data stuff all at the same time?

To the extent that these large database apps could be made to behave without human intervention, there is likely to be a tradeoff in resources, and when you’re paying per GB or per compute-cycle, that equals a side order of more cost to go along with the entree of new greater risk.

The point is that the ACE/dynamic entity/REST model is well understood, performs, utilizes resources in a known manner. Not appropriate for every app. Not relational in the formal sense if at all. Not easy to migrate to. But it goes like the devil. So you’re getting something concrete in exchange for your risk and your dollars. Unlike a magical SQL Server instance in the sky.

Maybe there is magic in there, and I’ll be proven wrong. Or maybe 99% of the customers’ database needs are so small that it’s a non-issue, and Microsoft is really just competing with the thousands of hosting providers that will host actual individual SQL Server instances for you on a large server. But this change still seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Way to Compete, Guys…

Microsoft’s app store … sure, why not? But that’s not the bit they need to take on Apple.

Microsoft and the smartphone is really a funny/ironic/sad story depending on who you are.

They had a true next-generation mobile OS starting back in ‘01 … It was really easy to code for – like GUI-builder, point-and-click web services, run-your-regular-.Net-code easy. And they were outselling pretty much everyone in total device count a couple of years later. By ‘06 they even had consumer friendly devices, in the Moto Q series and then the Samsung Blackjack. They were poised to challenge RIM for the big shiny belt.

And then Apple came along and wiped the smirk off everyone’s faces. What’s surprising is that no ‘softie seems to have circulated an “Internet Tidal Wave” memo about mobile. Or, if they did, no one paid any attention.

In the last two years, we’ve seen a continuing proliferation of Windows Mobile devices, but no fundamental change – or even speed-up – on platform evolution. If anything, we’ve seen a slowdown, as Mobile 7 devices seem to be at least a year away, and the “app store” is going to launch on Mobile 6.5

In case anyone didn’t already notice, v 6.5 is a great OS if it’s 2005, but a non-entity in the iPhone era. An app store? well, maybe … but a store by itself has never been the magic sauce in mobile (remember Verizon’s “vending machine”).

And with a “logo validation” scheme for each app? Developers violating the logo cert guidelines is not the problem. The problem is that there are too many different form factors for Win Mo devices. Used to be, practically anything could run the OS. Around the 5.0 era, they reduced the number of supported screen configurations, and a few other things.

But there appears to be little escape from the compromise Microsoft made to be successful on the enterprise side: it’s really easy to code a simple utility/productivity/line-of-business app that will run great on almost any Windows Mobile device. And it’s equally hard to write anything really cutting edge, because there is simply too much variation in device capability and performance, and that genie's not going back in the bottle.

Perhaps Microsoft’s best chance lies in forking a “consumer” mobile OS, with stricter controls over the handsets. On the other hand, Apple is clawing into the enterprise, so an artificial separation of consumer vs. enterprise offerings may be hopeless at this point.

Adobe Time-Warps Half a Decade Back, Will Still Probably Defeat MSFT

Earlier this week, I went to see a couple of folks from Adobe present their latest progress on Flash Catalyst, Flex "Gumbo," and the "Spark" UI component framework.

As someone who does a bunch of Flex work, I liked everything I saw.

Especially since it was the second time around.

No, I didn't see this stuff at MAX, I saw it at Microsoft PDC in 2003 and 2005.

It was shocking how pleased Adobe seems with itself now that it's almost ready to release a design tool that generates XML and RIA code... since everything they showed -- and more -- was part of the earliest Microsoft Expression Blend alphas that I saw years ago.

The Microsoft product was code-named "Sparkle." But we won't get this confused with Adobe's "Spark" because (1) "Spark" refers to a different bit, Adobe's re-invention of lookless, templated controls, which Microsoft implemented in WPF and shared with the world at the time (around '04 or '05), and (2) because Expression Blend is already out in a 2.0 version, so unlike the Adobe products, it doesn't need a codename anymore.

Adobe even has yet another XML dialect to facilitate moving design assets through the workflow -- it's called "FXG." And it appears to supplement MXML quite well in specific areas, so that if you take MXML and add FXG, you get XAML. Not that XAML was de novo or anything -- the XUL and Java folks (desperate to stop writing Swing code) had been creating similar XML formats for a while. The Java community was especially fond of XML with tons of imperative programming constructs mixed in alongside data objects and calling it "simple and declarative." What XAML did was provide all the necessary power, while keeping it declarative.

Anyway ... Adobe should get credit for recognizing the right way to do this when they saw it. Namely, they realized which workflow tools were needed, embraced the idea of export from Photoshop and Illustrator to a vector markup with a visual editor with timelimes, and thence to an RIA build tool with a code-oriented IDE.

Now that they're finally getting this on track, Adobe is even more likely to trounce Microsoft in the RIA world. They have penetration numbers that MSFT can only dream of, and for a company that doesn't build real developer tools they're giving it the college try.

Which is kind of sad, since I believe Silverlight is a better technology with better language and tool support ... and not any less rather more open than Flash.

Adobe and Microsoft Get Into It Like Children on the Playground

A week or so back, Adobe exec Mark Garrett got a bunch of attention for insisting that Microsoft's Silverlight effort has "fizzled."

Microsoft promptly screamed back that it wasn't so, pointing to the inauguration video stream, and a few other factoids.

What makes this truly schoolyard funny though is what happened today when Adobe "announced" it was bringing Flash 10 to phones. This seems just as dubious as Microsoft's oft-repeated plan (since as far back as '05, when it was WPF/e) to get Silverlight onto mobile phones ... by last year ... which obviously didn't happen.

Meanwhile, for years, Adobe has been pushing a weak technology called FlashLite for mobile ... and for a variety of reasons it has never been a usable option for content providers to deploy Flash content or apps.

For both Microsoft and Adobe, for both PC and phone applications, the critical metric is current "content-ready" penetration. How many devices are ready to run new Flash/Silverlight content off of the web today.

In this 2x2, the only square that's solidly covered is Adobe's Flash on the PC. "Ready" penetration of Flash 9+ is near 100%.

On PCs, existing install base is critical because of locked-down corporate networks that won't allow end-user installs. Microsoft needs to stop talking about download numbers, or numbers of people who "can access a PC with Silverlight," and start doing anything it can to get these ready penetration numbers up.

On mobile, the barrier is user confusion over configuration. Vendors could push the updates to phones, but in nearly 10 years of smartphones, only Apple has done much of this. Windows Mobile 6 has an updater ... and in over a year I don't recall it ever updating a darned thing.

Flash Lite trumpets a large "installed base," but these are strange installs, where the runtime (but not browser integration) is baked into the phone, and there's no reasonable way to get new Flash content onto the phone, either via web pages or download.

Both of these players are big on bluster and have been for a long time. Meanwhile, developers are left with few options for all of the smartphones in the world that don't an apple on the back.

Is It Too Early or Too Late for an Open RIA Design/Dev Toolchain?

I was playing with the Raphael JavaScript graphics library (a sort of script-based, cross-browser, implementation of SVG) and started thinking how helpful this library would be in creating a browser-based (as opposed to plug-in based) RIA.

That lasted for about 15 seconds before I remembered that creating large, non-trivial RIAs generally involves designers, and most designers don't like creating vector art by coding a set of "path" statements, or animations as a collection of key-value pairs and millisecond-based transition times.

That's why tools like Microsoft Expression, and Adobe Illustrator, Catalyst, and Flash exist.

And why Adobe and Microsoft are investing so heavily in the designer-developer workflow: the ability of designers to turn graphics and animations into app skins and interaction which are immediately available to coders.

In order for an open RIA solution to be competitive and realistic -- whether it's open in the pure-browser sense, using JS via dojo.gfx, or Rapael, etc., or whether it's via an open plug-in (Java/JavaFX seems like the closest, though it's not 100% open yet and may never be) -- this full toolchain needs to exist.

We need to be able to export vector art from mainstream design programs such that they can be incorporated as assets into the RIA. It doesn't matter if this is via SVG, XAML, AI/EPS, or something else entirely. What does matter is that the import/export is robust enough that designers -- whose jobs, after all, include making stuff look just right -- are confident that what they design is what end-users will see. The Microsoft and Adobe tools can do this. To date most OSS attempts cannot.

Next up, we need a truly usable, designer-friendly authoring tool for animations and interactions. It is often argued that some standard tools (*cough* Illustrator *cough*) are not paragons of usability themselves. No matter -- it's hard enough to get converts.

Happily, there seems to be emerging some consensus among the big vendors about how these tools should work (both on-screen and in terms of in intermediate data formats). That blueprint lowers the risk and challenge for an open source contender.

The biggest obstacle remaining is a classic open-source triangle-of-trouble:

1. The toolchain/workflow will not be viable until it is quite solid, since the commercial alternatives (Flash, mainly) are so entrenched.
2. It's hard to get enough contributor man-hours against such a huge project without an active user base.
3. Since the user base is not developers, the bootstrapping for #2 that makes many OSS projects work (devs are tolerant -- even excited -- about getting up on an 0.1 release) is unlikely.

Approaches to the Silverlight Dilemma: Cashback? Vista SP? Win 7?

The jury's still out on Windows Live Search Cashback -- apparently there were some issues on Black Friday and, overall, things aren't up to goal ... but that could change.

In light of this cashback program, though, my proposal from last year that Microsoft simply pay people to install Silverlight seems astonishingly realistic.

The problem with Silverlight is that it doesn't have wide enough deployment -- so there is a chicken-and-egg problem deploying apps on the platform. Microsoft has released stats about how many people 'have access to a PC running Silverlight' -- but that's an odd definition of penetration (if a state university has 15,000 students, and 10 computers in a library lab have Silverlight, then presumably all 15,000 'have access to a PC with Silverlight'.)

So ... why not just pay folks a small amount to install? Maybe a $2 coupon(Starbucks/Amazon/PayPal/etc.) to install the plug-in in the user's default browser.

The WGA or XP key-checking components could be used to keep track of machines that have participated, making it impractical to game the system by performing extra installs. I'm sure a suitable equivalent could be used to verify installs on Macs and Linux boxes.

Another approach is to wait for a future Vista SP or Windows 7 upgrade cycle. Since Silverlight will presumably be included for IE, the trick is to hook the default browser selection and attempt to install a suitable version of Silverlight into the target browser (Firefox, Chrome) when the user selects it.

This move would surely be controversial -- even if there were a way to opt out -- and would bring back memories of the Microsoft of the 90s for some. But, since the web page itself decides what plug-ins to use, and no content is "forced" to render via Silverlight, it's only moderately different from making WMP or any other dynamically loadable object available.

And for those "open web" advocates who have nothing good to say about proprietary plug-ins ... consider that Silverlight does not really compete with the open web, but rather with Flash, which otherwise has a de facto monopoly on any RIA that cannot easily or cost-effectively be implemented in HTML/JavaScript. Breaking that monopoly could actually help the open web cause by creating a real platform debate in a space that doesn't really have any debate right now.

Microsoft Begins Posting "Proceedings" Docs for PDC Sessions

Microsoft has started posting an accompanying document for each 2008 PDC session, containing a detailed content summary, links, and indexes (into the video stream) for demos.

These docs, called "proceedings," had been part of the plan to publish the PDC content this year, and it's nice to see them showing up alongside the slide decks and full-length session video streams that had already been posted.

While not full transcripts, or even detailed outlines, the information value of these docs is far higher than the full-length videos (per minute of attention investment), so I highly recommend them if you have interest in any of the newest Microsoft technology.

Docs, transcripts, and outlines seem to be a more efficient way to present content for multicast consumption than live video. While full-length web video is cheap and easy to produce, it wastes an enormous amount of time on the viewer side. Instead of reading/scanning the content as fast as the reader likes, he or she must sit through the lower-information-density spoken content and -- what's worse -- is forced to do so in a linear fashion. The time loss is then multiplied by all of the viewers ...

If an employer is paying for your time watching videos -- whether they be technical sessions, product demo videos (all the rage now), or so-called webinars -- then perhaps it's nice to sit back, have a cup of tea, and go into watcher mode.

But if you're investing your own time/resource/productivity into acquiring some knowledge, it's nice to (1) be able to do it at your own reading pace and (2) be able to skim/scan sections of less value at high speed and pop out into 'careful reading mode' as necessary.

Microsoft Pex Moves the Needle Bigtime on Software Testing and Correctness

Over two years ago, I wrote about how neither the assurances of static compiler technology nor the ardent enthusiasm and discipline of TDD (and its offshoots) represent major headway against the difficulty and complexity of large software projects.

At the time, this issue came up in the context of static languages versus dynamic languages. There still exists a political issue, although today it is more transparently about different organizations and their view of the computing business. I will revisit the successor debate in my next post.

For now, however, I want to talk about a tool. In my post of two years ago, I suggested that significantly better analysis tools would be needed in order to make real progress, regardless of your opinion languages.

So I've been excited to see the latest tools from Microsoft Research fast-tracking their way into product releases -- tools which can really move the ball downfield as far as software quality, testing, productivity, and economy.

The most significant of these is called Pex, short for Program Explorer. Pex is a tool that analyses code and automatically creates test suites with high code coverage. By high coverage, it attempts to cover every branch in the code and -- since throwing exceptions or failing assertions or contracts count as branches -- it will automatically attempt to determine all of the conditions which can generate these occurrences.

Let me say that again: Pex will attempt to construct a set of (real, code, editable) unit tests that cover every intentional logic flow in your methods, as well as any exceptions, assertion failures, or contract failures, even ones you did not code in yourself (for example, any runtime-style error like Null Pointer or Division by Zero) or which seem like "impossible-to-break trivial sanity checks" (e.g. x = 1; AssertNotEqual(x, 0))

Moreover, Pex does not randomly generate input values, cover all input ranges, or search just for generic edge cases (e.g., MAX_INT). Instead, it takes a complex theoretical approach called "abstract interpretation" coupled with a SMT (satisfiability modulo theories) constraint solver to explore the space of code routes as it runs the code and derives new, significant inputs.

In addition, so far as I can understand from the materials I've seen, Pex's runtime-based (via IL) analysis means that it should work equally well on dynamic languages as on static ones.

To get an idea of how this might work, have a look at this article showing the use of Pex to analyze a method (in the .Net base class library) which takes an arbitrary stream as input.

For those of you who are inherently skeptical of anything Microsoft -- or anything that sounds like a "big tool" or "big process" from a "big company" -- I'll have more for you in my next article. But for now keep in mind that if Microsoft can show that the approach can work and is productive, user friendly, and fun (it is), then certainly we will see similar open source tools. After all, it appears the same exact approach could work for any environment with a bytecode-based runtime.

Last, I do recognize that even if this tool works beyond our wildest expectations, it still has significant limitations including

1. reaching its full potential requires clarity of business requirements in the code, which in turn require human decision making and input and
2. for reasons of implementation and sheer complexity this tool operates at the module level, so you can't point it at one end of your giant SOA infrastructure, go home for the weekend, and expect it to produce a report of all the failure branches all over your company.

That said, here are a couple more great links:

• "Contract Checking and Automated Test Generation with Pex" from PDC 2008
• "Pex: Automated White Box Testing for .NET" on MS DevLabs

BizSpark Shows Wider Microsoft View Around SaaS Innovation

Depsite a lot of reporting about Microsoft's new BizSpark program, one interesting bit wasn't featured in the coverage:

Microsoft's existing nearly-free-licenses-to-help-developers-get-going-on-the-platform program has been around for a while and has always required that a company plan to distribute a "packaged and resalable" application targeting a Microsoft platform. 

It could be an app on Vista or Server, an Office add-in, a Windows Mobile app, or one of a few other options. But it had to be packaged, at least in the sense that it was digitally bundled into an installable set of files even if it never got put in a physical cardboard box.

This requirement made some sense as far as promoting the client OS ecosystem but it disqualified any online offering. An online service had to work around the restriction: for example, by offering a small Windows Mobile app that has some interaction with the service.

But the language makes a statement -- Empower was largely about helping ISVs new or old develop apps on the platform, thus making the client platform stronger. Nevermind that an online service that targets browsers and the iPhone might lead to Server license sales later.

BizSpark, on the other hand, takes another approach. There is much talk of online solutions -- the program is meant to dovetail with hosting providers (or Microsoft's Azure platform) to offer the server-side muscle a solution will need after its incubation period. The program is aimed exclusively at new companies -- if a firm has been in business 3 years or more, it does not qualify.

Both programs exist today and will presumably continue. So I'm not suggesting there is a big move from one view of the world to another. But there does seem to be a conscious broadening of horizons in terms of seeing where innovation is taking place and how Microsoft can be part of it.

Windows 7 Puts on a Good Show

I took Windows 7 for a quick test drive yesterday. My main goal was to see whether the performance would be so brutally bad as to make me relive my Vista experience.

For those who haven't read my Vista posts, the short version is: early Microsoft developer releases had unbearably bad performance; Microsoft made excuses ("debug build" etc.); turns out the RTM was nearly as bad. I made an honest attempt to run Vista but, as a developer, I just couldn't bear the excruciating waiting, knowing that I could be screaming along in XP. I run XP (or Server) to this day for my development.

Just the Vista-like look of the early Windows 7 bits made me anxious -- I wasn't expecting a lot. I set it up in a VMWare VM with 768 MB of RAM and no VMWare tools (= minimal video perf) in order to torture the OS. Naturally, things would be better running on the metal in a new machine designed for Win 7.

Install was very fast and seamless. I could see a difference right away in perf: even the shell in Vista runs slow, and this one was snappy. I saw the new-and-removed UAC, and I liked.

To add some more load, I installed Visual Studio 2008, which is a fairly heavy app. In addition, it was Visual Studio that had made me give up on Vista in 2007, so I thought it was fitting to try it again.

Inside Visual Studio, I opened a WPF windows project. Mucked around with the GUI editors, built, debugged ... and it cruised along nicely in the VM. Next, I set up an ASP.Net web project, and got that going in debug mode with the integrated server. Finally I started to feel some minor slowdown -- but it appeared I was running out of RAM with my 768MB VM. This was not a huge shock, since my install of Win 7 was consuming about 450MB RAM at idle, with no user apps running.

The 450MB RAM usage is a little disturbing, but, hey, even fast RAM is cheap. And my Server 2008 setup was idling at about 350MB with few services enabled, so I suppose this usage is to expected.

Overall, I was very happy with my Win 7 preview. I could see myself actually using this as my OS and not cursing all the time, which was a pleasant surprise.

The big unanswered, and unanswerable, question is: how similar will this experience be to the final RTM of Windows 7?

On one hand, Microsoft might have released this preview "stripped down" -- either to make it run better on today's hardware, or just because the additional components with which it will ship are not yet ready for public consumption. In that case, future builds might be slower.

On the other hand, still smarting from Vista, Microsoft might adjust the previews in the opposite direction -- a sort of "under-promise, over-deliver" thing -- lest anyone see a later build and say anything except "wow this is fast."

Azure -- and the Other Clouds Players -- Should Lean Forward

Since I covered Azure pretty well two weeks ago, there's not much to add except the name and the open question of which parts of the platform can be run in-house, on AMIs, or anywhere outside of MSFT data centers (via a hosting partner). And Microsoft hasn't really addressed that either (I have questions in at PDC) so the answer appears to be "not yet, stay tuned."

Now that the semi-news is out of the way, I am a little disappointed that all the cloud players haven't leaned in more, in terms of providing added-value capabilities beyond scaling. Elastic scaling is valuable, but it's a tradeoff. You are paying significantly more to be in the cloud than you would be to host equivalent compute power on own machines, or on VMs or app server instances at a consolidated host.

If you have reasonable projections about your capacity, then you're wasting money on the elasticity premium. You do get some nice operations/management capabilities ... but for apps that really need them, you still need to bring a bunch of your own, and you're taking on someone else's ops risks too.

For some businesses, these costs make sense. Here are some value-added features that would make the price persuasive for more people outside that core group:

1. Relational and transaction capabilities. Microsoft does get the prize here, as they are the only ones offering this right now. Distributed transactions and even joins are expensive. So charge as appropriate. It's a meaningful step beyond the $/VM-CPU-cycle model that dominates now.
2. Reverse AJAX (comet and friends). Here is a feature that is easy to describe, tricky to get right and multiplies the value of server resource elasticity. It's a perfect scenario for an established player to sell on-demand resources, and could be a differentiator in a field sorely lacking qualitative differentiation.
3. XMPP and XMPP/BOSH (leveraging the reverse AJAX capability above). XMPP is clearly not just for IM anymore, and may evolve into the next generation transport for "web" services. Not to mention, having a big opinionated player involved may help at the next layer in the stack, namely how a payload+operation gets represented over XMPP for interop.

Those are just a couple of ideas that spring to mind -- I'm sure there are much better ones out there. To make the cloud more of a "pain killer" than a "vitamin" for more people, some new hard-to-DIY features are the way to go.

Listen to Early Windows 7 Feedback, Even From Developers

At the upcoming 2008 Professional Developers Conference, Microsoft will be showing Windows 7 to developers.

My bet is that the 160GB portable hard drives they are handing out to distribute preview bits will actually contain Virtual PC images of Windows 7 in various states or configurations. Such a setup will be more convenient to try, even if it does narrow what aspects of the OS can be seen.

In any case, Microsoft would do well to pay attention to the feedback it receives from these developers.

We know all of the reasons why geeks can make poor proxies for "real end users." Nonetheless, I recall the 2005 PDC, when Microsoft gave us the latest beta of Windows Vista. A chorus of complaints arose from many who tried the new OS. It's way too slow; it doesn't work with the hardware we have; we can't explain the 10-odd different SKUs to our customers.

Do these sound familiar? They should, because they're uncannily similar to the problems "real end users" found -- and continue to find -- with Vista.

At the time, the 'softies at the conference, who are generally open, approachable, and humble with regard to technical matters, didn't want to hear these complaints about Vista. I was rebuffed more than once: the SKUs haven't been ironed out yet; the beta build is a checked debug build, so of course it's slower. Well, maybe. But I found it to be little slower than the release build on the same hardware. Either way it was unusable.

I think everyone's learned from the Vista experience -- and that includes Microsoft, ISVs, consumers, PC builders ... and Apple.

Let's try it differently this time around, starting with feedback from PDC.

One last thing: it would make sense to release the Windows 7 preview to the general public at the same time. Why? It'll be on the file-sharing networks instantly, where there is a greater chance of folks downloading a trojaned image, etc. So it will help everyone to have an official distro from Redmond instead.

What's In Microsoft's "Strata"[?] Cloud OS

(Probably)

Just for fun, let's do a little educated speculation on Microsoft's "cloud os" initiative. It's not too hard to make some good guesses -- Microsoft's existing and unreleased products telegraph a lot about what they are likely assembling. For example, the semi-well-known "COOL" and Visual J++/WFC gave you most of what needed to know to imagine the real .Net platform.

There are lots of pieces out there -- certainly enough to comprise a pretty interesting cloud stack and application model.

Since Microsoft -- and platform vendors in general -- like to go all out, let's imagine this stack reaching from real hardware up through virtualized hardware up to application servers and then to client components and the end-user's browser or alternative on the other end.

Let's start in the middle of this stack and work our way out.

What would the "middle" look like? Well, what makes a hosted ASP.net account different from a cloud platform? Some answers: storage and bandwidth may not be elastic; clustering the app is neither automatic nor declarative, but requires programmatic and operational work; the database is typically a SQL Server instance (perhaps a mirrored failover cluster) with all of the usual capabilities and scaling constraints.

So imagine a hosted ASP.net account with a few changes that address these limitations.

First, swap in an alternative implementation of sessions, that supports clustering, proper caching, etc., with zero config. Add a lint-like tool to warn about code that isn't properly stateless. And an asynchronous worker service for any long-running, background, or scheduled tasks that could be "fudged" with threads or events in a controlled Windows Server environment, but won't work that way in the cloud.

Next, replace the datastore with something like ... SSDS, and a LINQ provider so that in many cases code won't need to be changed at all. The interesting thing about SSDS, of course, is that unlike other non-relational cloud datastores, Microsoft has said the roadmap will offer more relational capability (subject to constraints, no pun intended). So ASP.net apps that need real relational behavior might have an easier time moving to this new datastore.

So, without much new, we have a flavor of ASP.net that is more cloud-centric and less server-centric.

Now on the hardware and VM end of the stack, bear in mind also that -- to add value and sell the Server product, as well as to service enterprises which would like cloud architecture but need parts of the "cloud" to stay inside the firewall -- the whole enchilada is likely to be available as a service (or its own SKU) on Windows Server.

In fact, a number of Microsoft products related to modeling data centers, virtualization, and automated migration of services and machine images suggests that a key thrust of the "cloud os" might be that a customer can easily move services from individual servers up to a private cloud implementation and on to one (or more -- perhaps an opportunity for the hosting partners) public cloud data centers... provided they are coded to conform to the API.

ADO.Net Data Services (aka Astoria) already supports AtomPub, the format Microsoft is using or moving to for all of its Live services, so minimal wrappers (not to say minimal effort in the API design) could turn this into a platform API. A simple using directive brings in a File object and API that works with Skydrive instead of My Documents.

Last, look at the client end of things. Right now, we have ASP.net serving web pages, and we have web services for Silverlight clients. There is also a project (named "Volta", and which has just recently gone offline while a "new version" is in the works) aimed at dynamic tier splitting and retargeting apps in terms of the client runtime. Hmmm... Sounds like a critical part of the front end of the cloud os stack.

In order to provide a RIA experience via Silverlight (or even desktop experience for a cloud-os edition of office), promote the client os product by offering a best-of-breed experience on Windows clients, and at the same time offer a legitimate cross-platform web-browser-consumable app, a piece like Volta is critical, and makes complete sense.

Microsoft tends to hunt big game, and I doubt they are interested in a me-too web app environment. They really intend to offer a cloud os, allowing developers to code libraries and GUIs that are outside of the web paradigm. These bits can run as .Net on Windows ... as .Net in Silverlight on Mac or (one day) Linux ... and as Javascript apps in non-.Net-capable browsers.

The big question in my mind is timing -- how far along are they on the supportable, RTM version of this stuff. Whether this is relevant -- or even becomes a reality -- will depend on how fast they can get this out of beta.

It seems that when Microsoft is quite close to production with a platform they can grab enormous mindshare (recall the release of the .Net platform). If this is an alpha look, with no promised timeline, things are a lot more tenuous. If there is a 1.0 planned before mid 2009, this could make things interesting.

[How] Will Microsoft Weather a Perfect Storm?

Last week's article What Is Microsoft So Afraid Of? is meant to be provocative ... but it is also real reporting.

Thinking about the situation Microsoft is in, I believe the firm has, at a high level, quite a lot to be worried about ... a sort of perfect storm of high-level business trends, many of which transcend any individual product or feature. Big trends are harder to debug and then patch on Tuesdays.

Here are the issues:

1. Declining importance of the desktop OS. As people spend more and more time in their browsers, the OS underneath it matters less. The trend is definitely toward more browser-based apps, even if they employ Flash or Silverlight or other acceleration technologies. Offline support is moving slowly but together with cloud (Mesh?) storage, will make the local filesystem less important.
2. Rise of OS X as a real competitor -- between publicity, 'time to sink in,' and the decreasing premium that Apple charges for a Mac over a similarly equipped Dell/Acer/Toshiba laptop, OS X is a real and growing threat to Windows.
3. Bill's off to save the world. For a while now, Bill has been the good cop (hey, stop laughing, I'm serious) to Steve Ballmer's bad cop. Now that Gates has retired to work on philanthropy, and Ballmer's the CEO, we're seeing more dumb-ass bad-cop stuff like the Mojave experiment, and less brilliant product strategy. Microsoft needs a good cop to pair off with Steve.
4. Vista failure. The .Net platform was one of the smartest, most successful things Microsoft has ever done, an enormous accomplishment that brought enterprise IT shops and other developers along. Following that up with Vista isn't just bad at the retail (license selling) level, it shakes enterprise confidence in MSFT, and ticks off developers. From a developer POV, most of the cool stuff in Vista was gutted, or moved somewhere else ... or never really worked very well (WPF), after years of build-up. Now MSFT desperately needs devs to buy into "the next thing," and they're hesitant.
5. Silverlight stuck in transition: Silverlight 2 is an awesome technology... but it has two problems: First, small penetration, unknown/unpublished penetration numbers, and no specific numeric commitment by MSFT to create penetration on PCs. Second, folks are sceptical that Silverlight on Mac really has a future. If that's in doubt, it seriously impacts the choice to use Silverlight because of #2 above. I can say that I've already had more than one client interested in doing serious work on Silverlight 2, but they insist on installed base projections (not download numbers) to make the business decision, and I don't blame them.
6. Rise of console gaming: PC gaming was always a key part of the "latest and greatest" PC/OS/component ecosystem, plus it helped press down Mac adoption. As consoles (including Microsoft's own Xbox 360) gain, this relative benefit of the Wintel client platform goes down... and yet MSFT still has to spend a ton on R&D if they intend to keep the PC gaming client (DirectX and hardware integration) decent. So less bang for the buck there.
7. Rise of USB. Now that practically everything runs over USB, it's easier for device makers to offer Linux, MacOS, etc. drivers (the upper layers can often be just user-space apps). So on the peripheral front there is less Windows differentiation in terms of hardware choices, and less lock-in.
8. Reluctance to innovate with server licensing model. Most startups dream of going big, and they assume they'll do so on an open-source stack -- not because Windows Server isn't a killer product ... but because the current licensing for Server makes it a non-starter for cloud services or for architectures designed around cheap, flexible horizontal scaling. An easy fix is to add auditing to the core WMI counters and create a Windows Server SKU that costs $0 per CPU and $0 per client ... but to stay in compliance you average your ASP.net transaction count, or SQL size/complexity + operation count and then cut a license renewal check. Make it free (as in beer, with online-only support) for the first few thousand page views per month for a typical app, and it'll rapidly start taking over a big piece of the startup and cloud/on-demand computing world.

All this said, big companies tend to have nine lives (even if Yahoo! seems intent on burning through all nine of them). So I'm not about to count Microsoft out, or suggest an "over-the-hill" tipping point is at hand. Just some big decisions, both strategic and tactical, that ought to be made well and soon.

Packaging Outlook Scripts in Word Documents

Microsoft Office includes (unless you exclude it at install time) a flavor of ye olde Visual Basic (i.e. VB-COM not VB.Net) that is designed to facilitate Office automation.

If you're willing to put up with the VB syntax and conventions, you can put together mini-programs (including GUIs, menu options, toolbar buttons, etc. if you like) in even less time than it would take to boot up Visual Studio and run the Office add-in wizard or add some Office .Net assembly references.

Interestingly, distributing the resultant "macros" can be tricky... especially for Outlook. There are all sorts of suggestions depending on how widely you want to deploy your script, and how many "Are you really really sure you want to run this script?" dialogs you expect your end users to click through. Some of the approaches are quite hokey... for example copying over a client script file that will delete any other macros your user has. Eeesh.

It's possible that .vbs files and Windows Scripting Host are actually the "right" answer ... but here's another I used:

1. Write and debug your Outlook scripts in Outlook using the built-in VBS IDE.
2. Copy the bits you need into the dev environment in Word (this assumes your user has Word, and I'm guessing if they run Outlook they probably run Word as well).
3. Save the word document as a word-doc-with-executable-content (*.docm). Even if you haven't defined any GUI elements, any quick and dirty VB procedures you've written will show up as macros in the View->Macro dialog.
4. Bonus: write any instructions you'd like to pass along right in the word doc.
5. Give the file to your users.
6. COM-based scripting is COM-based scripting, so even though a user runs the macro in a Word doc, it can find and manipulate their Outlook items.

Not to worry, Word (and Outlook) prompt the heck out of the users when they open and try to run the code. And saying yes to your file will not require the user to grant access to any other script-bearing files.

It's not the slickest procedure in the world, but it's wicked fast and it serves the basic scripting purpose: Here's a doc with a script I wrote to convert Outlook notes into a single Task item for syncing with my Windows Mobile notes app.

Microsoft Should Trumpet, not Downplay, iPhone's Real Accomplishment (Hint: It's not about Sales Volume)

In this article, Philip Elmer-DeWitt deconstructs a Microsoft partner mass email to discuss how a heap of chest thumping is presumably hiding real insecurities about how the Windows Mobile ecosystem stacks up to that of the iPhone.

Coming before the new iPhone launch, I agree this is not a coincidence. And although I've penned defenses of Microsoft in this blog, this post isn't one them. Instead of chest thumping, Microsoft should be talking to its partners about what Apple has accomplished with the iPhone that Microsoft has not in the 6-odd years since the first Windows Mobile phone shipped... and how that accomplishment has created new opportunities and liberated new value for the entire wireless space including the WinMo world.

In a nutshell, one of the enduring problems with wireless is that no matter how good the phones got (first WAP, then Java apps -- with networking, then color and multimedia and .Net and push data and QWERTY keyboards etc.), U.S. customers just never seemed to get that this was a real computing device, that would powerfully complement their PC(s) and could be just as general in use.

No matter how much analysis showed that the phones people already had could save weeks out of their lives through increased convenience and productivity (with the right software), almost no one used productivity apps, or mobile websites, on their phone. Some conceptual chasm just stopped people in the U.S.

So Apple comes along with the iPhone. And feature-for-feature, the original iPhone OS (not the OSX core, but as it was exposed developers/users) couldn't hope to keep up with Windows Mobile 2003, let alone '07 (WinMo 6.0).

But Apple was hunting different game. By combining a beautiful interface, ridiculously fast processor (to the point that battery life suffered), and an all-in-one experience featuring massive "On Ramp" signage to apps and the web, Apple got people to understand the phone was a computer that normally, natively runs apps and accesses the network, something no one else had accomplished on a mass scale in America.

I've written before about stuff Apple does poorly. This iPhone-as-computer play isn't one of those things. It was a big gamble, but arguably Apple has pulled off another early-Macintosh-type accomplishment in terms of changing how the public understands what a device can/should do.

And, as with the Macintosh, there is no reason that this "enlightenment" should only put dollars on Apple's bottom line. It boosts Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry, Palm ... by focusing free mindshare on the phone as computer.

Now the other players need to follow through. Microsoft and RIM have the lead in the U.S. -- the first thing they ought to do is stop everything and get a browser on their phones that doesn't totally stink (that's the sanitized version of how both those guys' browsers deal with the modern web).

I won't detail requirements; I think Safari on the iPhone is a clear enough target. And while the wide variety of OEM hardware that runs Windows Mobile won't all have the CPU muscle for a Safari, Microsoft should make a credible effort to replace notepad, er, I mean Pocket IE. Meanwhile, why not send out a partner mass email confessing that PIE alone is costing everyone in the WinMo value chain bigtime.

If I were Ballmer, I'd dig up half a dozen hackers from inside or outside who have worked on the Mozilla codebase. I'd get them porting whatever they could to WinMo, and I'd have an internal team building a new Pocket IE product as well. At the end of Q3 '08, whichever browser works better on the most Windows Mobile devices, becomes part of WinMo, the other guys get a mediocre line for their resume (unshipped product), a vacation, and a reassignment to the next Microsoft Bob.

Vista Performance: It Really Is That Bad

I try to stay away from the rant post, it's too easy and doesn't contribute a lot. But I feel myself succumbing, so at least I'll try and mix in a little useful material with my rant.

I just spent some significant time trying get Vista to behave on my wife's laptop. By behave, I mean not make it impossible for her to surf the web with Firefox because the CPU was pegged most of the time and the HDD never spun down.

First, some facts:

1. I'm as close to a Microsoft fanboy as you'll find in the Bay Area. They do great stuff. I'm an ecumenical kind of guy, so I also so like Ruby and Flex and Java and Linux (wait 'til my next MySQL post). I.e., I'm not married to Microsoft, but I think they have done some amazing engineering in the last 10 years and it's a pleasure to work with almost all of their late-model products.
2. This machine, while not blazing by 2008 standards is only a few years old, does have a 3 GHz HT proc, multiple gigs of RAM, nVidia graphics, plenty of hard drive space, etc. In fact, it ranks in the 4.x range on Vista's own "performance estimate" in every category except graphics. Which shouldn't matter because Aero Glass is turned off, and my wife isn't a gamer.
3. Just to cover all the bases, it's plugged in and not configured to ever step down the processor or anything like that to save power. And there's almost no software on it. It's basically Firefox and MS Office, Grisoft/AVG, whatever Windows Update considers critical, and not much else. My wife runs under a non-admin account because she neither wants nor needs to install or configure anything on it.
4. An early-ish adopter, I was forced to abandon Vista after seeing it run cripplingly slowly on a 3.5 GHz, 5+ rated desktop. As a developer, watching this machine churn while it tries to decide which UAC prompt to throw next wasn't acceptable, since I had XP on the same box (dual-boot) and could measure that XP was easily 25% faster. But the wife liked Vista's look and feel, actually preferred it to XP, so cool, didn't think perf would be a big issue for her.

Ok, so the performance was all gone to heck. I checked all the obvious background tasks that could be going nuts, virus scans, disk indexing and all that. Found a few services and tasks that had caused problems before and disabled all of them. Can't imagine why they're running by default. What ever happened to configuring services to run based on their actually being needed by something the user wants to do?

The killer this particular time was the 'network location awareness service' and the DNS caching service. First, NLA. According to MSDN (full info here), this service is 'vital for computers or devices that might move between different networks.' First, I'm not sure I believe that; so far, the computer seems to work better without it. The little icon (and service) that would take 5 minutes to realize the machine was actually on the Internet (you know the icon) is now dead, and apps connect right away. Funny how that works.

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that it really is 'vital for computers moving between different networks.' Here's a clue: (1) it doesn't take much monitoring for the machine to realize it's always on the same network in my house, so (2) shut this stupid service down, (3) if another network is detected or the old one is unavailable, maybe then spin this beast up and (4) monitor your own resource usage -- if the service starts using 50%+ of the CPU all the time, for whatever reason, and the network isn't ever changing, why not shut it the #$% down at that point?

I could make the same argument for DNS cache. Although it boggles the mind how a service this simple could ever be using a real percentage of a modern CPU. I turned it off. I guess Comcast will hate me now for making an extra 25 lookups a day.

I'm not going to get into the argument that there shouldn't be lots of services on the machine -- after all, most of the myriad services have little performance impact and at least in Vista are supposedly less likely to compromise security. Although I would prefer a 'configure to run after deciding it's useful and not harmful' self-management approach.

I just wonder, if a pristine machine like this one, well configured etc., scoring generally 4 in the Vista perf scale, and whose only sin is being 2005 vintage, gets mucked up this badly from such mild use, there are truly some problems with Vista, both for home users and businesses, that are more serious than I would have believed.

Ok, so I promised I'd try and offer a little useful info. Once again, for the sake of SEO

Some possible fixes for Really Bad Perf in a basic Vista machine:

• go into the task scheduler and get rid of tasks you don't want to run;
• look at the Network Location Awareness and DNSCache services (I'm not gonna say kill them unless that's what your particular machine needs ... but look at them);
• if you haven't quashed Aero already, turn it all off and see if that helps;
• and if you're running Vista Ultimate, and you don't actually ever use Media Center, go and kill all the tasks and services related to MC because Vista isn't smart enough to notice that you don't need 'em, and I've caught them hogging a ton of resources.

Last, not to get into the 'uphill to school both ways thing,' but a 700+MB working set with no user apps running??? You just want to say, "Man, have some self respect and get on a treadmill once in a while..."