Print - Opinion: Windows Reorg Proves Microsoft Still Doesn't Get It

As expected, Microsoft announced a leadership change in its Windows division late last week. The company moved long-time Microsoft Office executive Steven Sinofsky over to the Windows group and put him in charge of planning post-Vista versions of Windows. Although I've never met Mr. Sinofsky and his reputation suggests he's extremely capable, he's the wrong person to put in charge of Windows. In fact, this reshuffling simply proves that Microsoft hasn't learned a thing from the problems its Windows division has faced over the past several years.

Microsoft is currently in transition and still relies on its so-called cash cows, Windows and Office. Both are monolithic software entities that first arrived in the days when software was delivered on floppy disks and have been evolving ever since. Microsoft has never rewritten Office from scratch, and it rewrote Windows from scratch just once, back in the early 1990s when it started the Windows NT project. Since then, both Office and Windows have added piles of features--and the source code necessary to implement them--on top of applications that are both now decades old.

The corporate culture that permitted this state of affairs to develop and continue persists at Microsoft today because the company's top-level leaders, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, have been there so long. Gates and Ballmer are the leadership team that cemented Windows and Office as the leaders of their respective markets, but they're also the ones who committed the antitrust blunders that continue to trip up the company today.

But what about Steven Sinofsky? Mr. Sinofsky joined Microsoft in the mid-1990s when the Office Product Unit was first formed, and he's been described as a faithful and trusted lieutenant of Bill Gates. For this reason, he is absolutely the wrong person to lead any attempt to turn Windows around. Instead, Microsoft should look for new ideas and new blood. Microsoft needs new leadership in its Windows Division, and one opportunity to find that leadership comes from other groups within the company. Two of its businesses still practice the rapid-fire innovation that used to drive all of Microsoft: the MSN and Xbox teams.

MSN as it stands today has basically morphed into Windows Live and been subsumed by Windows itself, which is a bit odd when you consider that the people who made MSN so successful weren't called on to help take Windows to the next level. Surely, Blake Irving, David Cole, Yusuf Mehdi, or any of the others who played crucial roles in MSN's successes over the past few years could have been tapped to help transform Windows. Instead, Microsoft has essentially made MSN a sub-unit of Windows and placed a former Office executive in charge of the future of both groups.

Meanwhile, the Xbox team has done a tremendous job of taking Microsoft's traditional strength of developing great platforms that excite users, developers, and partners and applying that strength to a completely new market. Even the company's mobile hardware teams, which have been trying to do something similar for far longer, have been less successful at generating buzz than has the Xbox team. Compare the buzz generated by the Xbox team's work to that of Windows Vista, where several years of delays have almost completely sapped the product of any excitement that might have otherwise accompanied its release.

In short, I have little doubt that Mr. Sinofsky will re-energize Windows development, at least temporarily, as Brian Valentine did six years ago when Windows 2000 threatened to derail. But the shuffling of executives can go only so far, as evidenced by Valentine's descent into comedic internal videos and PR stunts. The real problems with Windows still exist: The team making the product is too big, too slow, and completely unable to understand that the world has changed. The team seems not to realize that its past successes are no longer enough to ensure the future of its product.

The folks at MSN and, to a lesser extent, at Xbox, understand the new world order. It's not clear that Sinofsky understands any better the problems the Windows division faces than he did the problems the Office division had. After all, this is the man who killed Net Docs, an attempt to bring office productivity to the Web several years ago. That's right, he snuffed out exactly the kind of software services that Microsoft is now promoting with Windows Live, and he did so not because it had no merit but because it threatened his Office cash cow. I wish Sinofsky all the best. But I'm afraid that Microsoft is simply putting on appearances and not getting to the root of its problems.

The reason why people don't buy every new version of Office or Windows any more is that they are sick and tired of being milked. Pardon the mixed metaphor, but when I look at the last 3 versions of MS Access (2000, 2002, 2003) I can't see anything that justifies the expense of the upgrade. Where's the BEEF? Similarly, I upgraded from Win98SE to WinXP SP2, and don't plan to upgrade to Vista unless my hardware dies. I'm tired of being yet another paying beta tester for MS.

Score=4; Insightful. Nicely written, Paul, and you hit the nail on the head. But Microsoft will recover. They always do. Most of it is due to market inertia--where else are people going to go? All they know is Windows and Office (most people don't even know they're separate products). Let's be honest--Vista is like the leggy blonde at the bar. It doesn't have to perform, it just has to look good to get attention. A new version of Windows won't fix anything, because EVERY version of Windows was supposed to be more secure than the one that came before it, and look where we are today. But it doesn't matter. And everyone at Microsoft knows it. Flash forward to 2007: New computers will ship with Vista, loads of customers will buy the upgrade (which their systems may or may not be able to handle) because a $500 million marketing campaign said they should, and within a couple months of its introduction, it wil become The World's Most Popular Operating System™. The delays will be a distant memory. Vista will be hailed as a rousing success, the Windows Supersite will call it EXCITING!, and everyone will forget all about this brouhaha until the next version of Windows (more secure than Vista!) is being developed, and we start all over again. MS seems to go through this every five years or so. It's like the time Bill Gates stood by while the Internet was passing him like a whooshing freight train. He eventually got things back on track. Microsoft will be fine; I'm not concerned at all.

Indeed but while a lot of people like to compare windows development against linux and apple, they ignore (intentionally and, for the sake of making ms look slow) that windows carries a world of legacy applications which they can't just leave behind. A lot of the BLOAT in windows comes from suporting the bloat other companies run. In an ideal world, microsoft could do what apple does and tell their insignificant user base and developer base to take one for the team and suck it up. Same goes for open source OSs. But in the real world where such action could doom a company, it does not make sense to kill your cash cow if you can keep milking it for as long as possible. I honestly feel people who critic windows on engineering merits, could not themselves see their so called "alternatives" ever meeting the requirements microsoft has to live by. Should apple or even linux raise to 90% of the market, they'd suffer the same fate if not a more disastrous one. The business computing world is more complex than just making a pretty interface, or giving away 100 different versions of a free OS. At least for those who want a sizable share.

Microsoft could have easily started a brand new, clean Windows and ran pre-Vista applications in an emulation layer. Come on, people, they own Virtual PC! Apple proved this was doable with their Classic emulation environment. Vista is now 50+million lines of code, and since Windows releases will be reined in to only 2-3 years, there's not enough time for them to do a big Windows rewrite like what's needed. We're stuck with the Vista codebase from here on out. Windows is now a failure. If people want to run Windows 3.0 apps, they can stick with Windows XP!

guruguru is right... A 90% marketshare carries a lot of baggage... Windoze developers are still grappling onto VB6 in 2006! It it going to take a much longer time to turn things around than just the Vista development cycle - as much as we want it too...

"The real problems with Windows are still there: the team making this product is too big, too slow moving, completely unable to understand that the world has changed, and unclear on the fact that their past successes are no longer enough to ensure the future of their product." WRONG paul. The reason windows is failing is explained in the NY Times today. I'm sure you've read it - you're just ignoring it. "The problem, it seems, is largely that Microsoft's past success and its bundling strategy have become a weakness. Windows runs on 330 million personal computers worldwide. Three hundred PC manufacturers around the world install Windows on their machines; thousands of devices like printers, scanners and music players plug into Windows computers; and tens of thousands of third-party software applications run on Windows. And a crucial reason Microsoft holds more than 90 percent of the PC operating system market is that the company strains to make sure software and hardware that ran on previous versions of Windows will also work on the new one — compatibility, in computing terms. As a result, each new version of Windows carries the baggage of its past. As Windows has grown, the technical challenge has become increasingly daunting. Several thousand engineers have labored to build and test Windows Vista, a sprawling, complex software construction project with 50 million lines of code, or more than 40 percent larger than Windows XP. 'Windows is now so big and onerous because of the size of its code base, the size of its ecosystem and its insistence on compatibility with the legacy hardware and software, that it just slows everything down . . .That's why a company like Apple has such an easier time of innovation.'" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There are a lot of critical business applications built back in the olden days that many big companies rely on. These applications were written back in the olden days on a Microsoft OS. So therefore it's in Microsoft's best interests to keep these companies happy by making sure they don't have to spend millions updating their software and migrating their data. Simple as that.

and that's why it's not going to change. MS will keep sacrificing quailty and innovation in favor of backward compatibiity because it's in their best interests to do so

I'm always baffled when Paul and others point to Xbox as an example of successful effort to penetrate new markets. Sure, the Xbox team was able to deliver the product and create some buzz. But they did it by spending themselves over $4 Billion in the hole so far. Is that the kind of "success" that they want to carry over to their Windows division?

This is what happens when you run your employees into the ground and they're not allowed to see daylight.

I think MS should think out of the box and incorporate the feature of Virtual PC into Vista, in a way that allows people to use the virtual environment to protect the host from anything the Internet has to offer. I personally use the Internet free from all hacker frustration installing Windows XP Pro off a .vhd file enabling the undo disk feature to erase hacker, virus, malware, spyware, etc from existence. I do this by burning the .vhd file to CD and then using the undo disk feature to recover instantly from any issues regarding any attacks against my Internet experience. I only install Internet speaking apps in the virtual world, leaving the host with nothing but local apps and games that never need to see the light of the Internet, this along with the standard security protection, anti-virus, firewalls, anti-spyware, loopback configured host files that would prevent most of these types of attacks from harming my system. I still see things that attack the system, but these viruses, and trojans think they are attacking a real system and in fact it is more like a honey pot. Furthermore I prevent the local host from being able to see the internet using the firewall and disabling services that are required to make it work on the local host all while being able to surf even known dangerous sites without worry or concern because I have taken my focus away from the unsuccessful task of preventing these kinds of attacks, and put it on instant recovery instead. I still protect the system in all of the traditional ways but now I can do what ever I want on the Internet and stick it to the attackers another way. MS needs to build a Virtual PC app into Vista to allow this kind of technique to be used widespread. To me it is the closest thing to being unhackable since the CD-ROM is read only the best they can do to me is wreak my temp .vhd which I can turn off and patch then surf again. Thanks, Justin Kalis kalisjr@yahoo.com

"This is what happens when you run your employees into the ground and they're not allowed to see daylight." Someone apparently hasn't seen the Microsoft campus. "MS will keep sacrificing quailty and innovation in favor of backward compatibiity because it's in their best interests to do so." "Sacrifice" wouldn't be the right word. They're trying hard to please everyone with Vista. Vista, if it works, will definitely be a step forward for the company. As soon as they release Vista, the team will have to decide where they need to be headed with the next windows release. Windows has been so successful mainly because of its backward compatibility. Unlike Aplle, they can't just get rid of it one day and start afresh. "Score=4; Insightful.Nicely written, Paul, and you hit the nail on the head." Of course you'll like it. Microsoft bashing is what you're here for. PREJUDICE!! The NY Times Article explains Microsoft's problems better.

"Someone apparently hasn't seen the Microsoft campus." Someone apparently hasn't spoken to an MS dev about how many hours they work and how much bullshit process they have to go through to get anything done. "Of course you'll like it. Microsoft bashing is what you're here for. PREJUDICE!! The NY Times Article explains Microsoft's problems better." And you're here for blinded defense of absolutely everything Microsoft. To you, they can do no wrong. "Windows has been so successful mainly because of its backward compatibility. Unlike Aplle, they can't just get rid of it one day and start afresh. " Apple kept Classic running in OS X. It's exactly what Microsoft should have done in Vista, since they own Virtual PC. "As soon as they release Vista, the team will have to decide where they need to be headed with the next windows release." Don't expect much. After Vista, they'll try to rein in new releases down to 2-3 years, which isn't enough time for the full rewrite that Windows needs. In fact, Microsoft has a big tendency to overreact and subsequently overdo things. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft rushed out a "new" version 12 months after Vista came out, calling it Vista Second Edition or whatever, just to make it appear as though they're agile and quick.

"Someone apparently hasn't spoken to an MS dev about how many hours they work and how much bullshit.." Really? I know a lot of people working as devs at MS and no one seems to have any complaints. The only ones who seem to be complaining are the ones who have nothing to do with MS, like yourself. "And you're here for blinded defense of absolutely everything Microsoft. To you, they can do no wrong." Are you joking? Even in my previous comments I never defended MS. All I said was that the NY Times article makes more sense - and that article never defends MS. "Don't expect much. After Vista, they'll try to rein in new releases down to 2-3 years, which isn't enough time for the full rewrite that Windows needs." Don't underestimate them. They came out with XP within a year after Me's failure.

Paul -- Can you provide a source for calling Sinofsky the "man who killed Net Docs"? I know that at one time the NetDocs project did fall under him, but do you have proof that he was the one who killed it, not someone else higher up for example?

"Microsoft could have easily started a brand new, clean Windows and ran pre-Vista applications in an emulation layer. Come on, people, they own Virtual PC!" I can just see it now. Microsoft integrates Virtual PC into Windows for use as a compatibility layer. Then VMWare cries foul, and Microsoft is slapped with another antitrust lawsuit for illegal product bundling. And regarding a "brand new, clean Windows" -- if Vista were to be "brand new", we'd be seeing it in 2010+. NT 3.1 (which was written from scratch) took 4 years to develop (89-93), and look how little functionality it had! It's taken 10 extra years of developing on top of NT to get to today's XP/2003-level of functionality. It would take quite a long time as well to duplicate (in a "clean", non-spaghetti-code, secure way) XP/2003's functionality in such a "new", freshly-written OS.

Unix took 25+ years to get right, I'm sure if MS took the same route as Apple i.e. skinning Unix it would take them the same sort of timeframe. Apple can respond quickly as the vast majority of their OS wasn't even written by them and has had 25+ years of pre-testing done on it.

Why rewrite an operating system that is extremely solid, reliable, fast and powerful - maybe to save a couple of megabytes of code when the cheapest hard disk on sale is 100 GB? Microsoft spent the last 7 or 8 years developing .NET platform, on which Vista's innovations are largely based. While Apple is cranking out fancy little tools on top of an OS that is based on 30-year old technology, Microsoft is building the foundation of the operating system for the 21st century. But you have be an experienced .NET developer to understand where they are going. Just by looking at Vista user interface, which is what Mr Thurrott bases his opinions on, you won't see where MS is going with WinFX and concept of managed code. This article just reveals how uninformed Mr. Thurrott is. While Microsoft is making sure the plumbing and internals of Windows Vista are based on solid future-proof ground, Paul is distracted by appearance and irrelevant little issues bound to occur with any beta software. Vista is going to revolutionize PC industry, but unlike flashy Steve Jobs who uses "revolutionary" even when he announces a new stupid little MP3 player, Bill knows that Microsoft supporters don't fall for shallow stuff. He doesn't take his supporters for morons, that's why they believe him and that's why Microsoft is Number One and will continue to be.