Print - WinHEC 2007: Microsoft Looks Backward, Not Toward Future

At the Los Angeles Convention Center for Microsoft's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC), it's hard not to think of Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference (PDC), the high profile developer-oriented show that Microsoft previously held here in 2005 and 2007. WinHEC is a smaller conference than PDC and seems even smaller than usual this year because Microsoft has backtracked from its typical emphasis on the future and is focused instead on the past.

The rationale is simple: Microsoft's latest OS, Windows Vista, was five years in the making and just released to the general public in January. And despite measurable real-world success, Microsoft is fighting the growing perception that Vista is in trouble. Turns out nothing could be further from the truth: As of last week, Microsoft has sold almost 40 million copies of Vista. That means that within Vista's first five weeks of availability there were already more Vista users worldwide than there are for any non-Microsoft OS, said Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates during his keynote address on Tuesday. The message is clear if not explicitly stated: The Macintosh might get all the good press, but Vista surpassed the entire Mac user base in just over a month.

But Vista's success isn't just about sales, Gates said. Thanks to Vista's built-in instrumentation, customers can now report problems to the company so that they can be fixed more quickly than ever before. Gates said that during the first 90 days, customers reported easier setup of Vista systems than with previous Windows versions. "This opens up the platform opportunities and . . . provides a new level of ambition [on the PC]," Gates said.

Gates talked up Vista as the foundation of the PC platform for the next decade and harkened back to 1992 and Windows 3.1 to demonstrate how much things have changed. Gates said that back then, even using a GUI was controversial. But by 1995, with Windows 95, Microsoft's GUI investments had paid off and there was a critical mass of PCs worldwide, letting the industry focus on Internet connectivity. Gates said that today, with Vista, the PC still plays a central role and now connects with a wider range of devices and services than was possible 15 years ago.

To be fair, there was some talk of the future at WinHEC, although it was near term, not the pie-in-the-sky talk that was typical of previous WinHECs. Gates talked up a technology called Rally that makes it easier to set up and manage home networks. Built into Vista, Rally also works with a growing number of other compatible devices, including wireless hardware and HD media bridges. Gates also said, cryptically, that Microsoft will be bringing the Xbox 360's remote media experiences to various consumer electronics devices, such as TVs and PCs, which means that the Vista-compatible Media Center Extender technology for the Xbox 360 will soon be available to a wider range of users.

Gates also talked up Windows Home Server, the Windows Server version shipping later this year for multi-PC households. Windows Home Server will be available with special home server hardware from PC makers, such as Gateway and HP, and in a standalone software version for enthusiasts. Windows Home Server provides PC backup, media sharing, and Web browser-based remote access functionality and appears to be an amazing product that should be of interest to the more than 40 million people worldwide with multiple PCs and broadband Internet connections in their homes.

And finally, Gates announced that Longhorn Server would ship as Windows Server 2008 by the end of 2007. Microsoft recently shipped Windows Server 2008 Beta 3, and Gates said that Windows Server Virtualization will ship in beta form by the end of the year as well.

Microsoft didn't mention anything about its technology releases beyond this year, however, and maybe that's a more pragmatic tack to take. But for those of us interested in high-level information about Microsoft's product strategy, WinHEC 2007 seems a bit too much like a step backward instead of the expected and traditional step forward.

@bdk - kinda like the last MacWorld Expo, huh..vaporware(iPhone) and no mention of the next Mac OS - Leopard. --tayme

Neither of you know what vaporware is, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware Since the iPhone was actually demonstrated at MacWorld, AND has a firm introduction date, AND since Windows Home Server is in beta testing, also with a reasonable introduction date, neither qualifies as "vaporware". Sorry, that's just the truth. Gates is a dork, though. Consider this quote: "Today, with Vista, he said, the PC plays a central role, but it now connects with a much wider range of devices and services than was possible 15 years ago." Really? Jeez, I hope so...one would think that even a company like Microsoft could make SOME progress in 15 years. What a stupid statement. And then there's this gem: "Gates...harkened back to the Windows 3.1 days...Back then, he said, even using a graphical interface was controversial." BWAHAHAHAH "Controversial" only to someone who had never used a Mac or an Amiga. Oh, wait...that would be the entire Windows world, where the GUI and the mouse were considered "toys" (and loudly dismissed as such). Once they became widely available from Microsoft, the C-prompt-loving DOS crowd had to eat some serious crow--and it didn't taste very good.

"Controversial" only to someone who had never used a Mac you mean like colour? ya, Mac's didn't have colour until 1987. how sad is that? i bet Mackie's were shuddering on that day. XP

I have to admit that even though I am now a "d!psh!t admin" who is a tool of MS ;) <-- (the all forgiving wink), back in the day, I was a total Amiga lover and outspoken proponent. It was quite easy to be one at that time, though. PC's were still stuck in the DOS world with VGA graphics, and Mac's were 5 gagillion dollars for a tiny B&W screen, the Amiga was kicking major a@@ with it's 4,096 color HAM graphics, and dedicated chips for different functions. If you ever played Shadow of the Beast you knew that it was WAY ahead of its time.

@lotsa - "Since the iPhone was actually demonstrated at MacWorld" I know that someone brought this up at the time, but how could an actual iPhone have been demonstrated at MacWorld, if it hasn't even been authorized for use by the FCC? From - http://www.apple.com/iphone/ "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained." I do, however agree with you...Gates is a dork...but a rich dork...just like Jobs is a slick as our most recent ex-president, Slick Willy. He could sell ice cream to Eskimos, as my grandpa would have said!!! --tayme

@tayme: Are you really this stupid or just pretending to **** off macusers? What part of "This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained." don't you understand? Apple did none of such things at macworld, they 'demonstrated' it.

@***** - So, are you really stupid enough to believe that the phone call that Steve supposedly made at MacWorld was really made with a cellular service on the mocked up iPhone that he was holding? If so, I am guessing that you are also stupid enough to believe that he really only makes $1/yr...Welcome to the Reality Distortion Field!!! Like I said...Steve is one slick dude...greasy, almost...and by the way, I am a Mac user, along with several other OS's...so, no I am not trying to **** off anybody. Just stating the obvious. --tayme

Well if anyone believes the $1/year salary that Steve makes, they should come back down to the real world. Thanks to some backdated options, he actually ranked #1 among CEO's with 646 million. That's US dollars. That's a lot of money. I wonder how much he is going to donate to charity? This whole concept of what has been called vaporware here is totally nonsense. But we can blame the esteemed bdk for this path that we have taken. Nothing being discussed here is or has been vaporware. We can call Vista delayware if we want, but we all knew that it would eventually be released. The iPhone is also not vaporware, although it can also be delayed if the FCC doesn't approve it, which is highly unlikely. The FCC actually works pretty fast with these things.

Forgot to add link: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/12/lead_07ceos_CEO-Compensation_Rank.html

"So, are you really stupid enough to believe that the phone call that Steve supposedly made at MacWorld was really made with a cellular service on the mocked up iPhone that he was holding?" You missed the point that p**** made. There's nothing in the FCC regulations that prohibits them from USING the phone. They just can't offer it for sale or lease without authorization. According to Jobs' question-and-answer session at the shareholder's meeting, a handful of folks at Apple have been USING the iPhone for some time now. I don't see anything in your original quote that prohibits that. Do you?

"a handful of folks at Apple have been USING the iPhone for some time now" I would certainly hope so. How would you test these things before they are released? Unless we are to believe, as some have said (cough*bonch*cough) that Apple engineers are so superior to others that they make no mistakes and do not need to test their code. Either way, it is coming, in all it's high speed EDGE goodness ;) and superior Cingular, scratch that, AT&T service. Heck, Mossberg and Pogue already have the review written, they just need to fill in the dates.

"Heck, Mossberg and Pogue already have the review written, they just need to fill in the dates." Haha.

"There's nothing in the FCC regulations that prohibits them from USING the phone." that's not a clear sentence. obviously that's correct, but the point was made that they didn't have FCC approval at that time, so.... doesn't FCC-non-approval prevent them from legally using a non-authorized cellular device in a standardized radio frequency spectrum though? XP

No, "Waethorn", if you would actually read "the point" that was made, it read thusly: "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained." Apple did not "lease or sell" the device at MacWorld. As to YOUR question, "doesn't FCC-non-approval prevent them from legally using a non-authorized cellular device in a standardized radio frequency spectrum though?" I have no idea. Since no one was arrested in this hyper-vigilant climate, I'm assuming they did have permission to do what they did, which was to USE the phone, not sell it.

well, "losta" the point as described by tayme was such: "how could an actual iPhone have been demonstrated at MacWorld, if it hasn't even been authorized for use by the FCC?" the fact that the FCC didn't authorize it, would mean that it's not approved within the radio spectrum that the FCC has designated for [EDGE] mobile phones. so tayme's question is valid. obviously if it was not approved by the FCC at the time, it was also not REGULATED meaning that their REGULATIONS would not apply, which is what my deconstruction of your statement meant. you completely missed *the point*, as usual.... typical Mackie arrogance. you should really read before you speak. even before you type any comment, i know whatever it is will always make you look like an ignorant fool. XP

The FCC approval is mainly so that unnecessary interference isn't created by mass production and selling of the devices. Every cellphone is tested to ensure that it meets the interference requirements before it is actually approved. Apple just did it on a public stage, it's nothing special.

Actually, my real point was that the "Demonstration" was probably not done by actually making a cellular call using the mocked up iPhone that Jobs was holding. I am guessing it was either recorded or made with a 2 way device of some kind. Of course, I have no supporting evidence, so fire away with the rebuttals. --tayme

tayme, I probably agree. If you are going to be making a presentation, you don't want it to fail. Cingular service is marginal at best, and inside a convention center with 500 million other cellular devices it can only get worse. Why risk the demonstration? Either way, the thing needs to be tested. As long as the device doesn't interfere with other devices, it can certainly be used and tested as necessary. Apple seems to do all of the testing themselves, but firms like PC-Test also do a lot of testing for the cell industry. All of these semantics on whether the FCC actually approved the thing or not are irrelevant. Thank you bdk for bringing up the vaporware concept and starting this bringing us to this point. Before it is made available for general use or sale, it will need to be approved by the FCC. The FCC allows short term and long term confidentiality on various aspects of communications devices. Apple also has registered the device under a different company. ALL communications devices, with NO exceptions, must be publicly available for review under the FCC filing system. Since the filing process does take some time, the information is out there on the FCC somewhere.

What ever happenned with the Cisco trademark issue? I haven't been following it too closely.... --tayme

"What ever happenned with the Cisco trademark issue?" they agreed for cross brand licensing, so long as Cisco would be allowed 3rd-party association/development with the Apple device in the future. of course, Cisco wasn't looking at suing Apple in the first place, but they threatened Apple, only because they didn't even check to see if the name was already taken. Cisco took that as an arrogant slap in the face. XP

....oops, forgot the post: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2097442,00.asp XP

Waethorn, not exactly true. Apple and Cisco were in negotiations for Apple to use the name, but those negotiations were not complete by WWDC. Steve & Co. decided to introduce it anyway with the name, forcing Cisco to sue Apple. This was typical iArrogance. Of course, we all know that Cisco will not end up sharing in anything or be allowed any development on the iPhone.

"those negotiations were not complete by WWDC" actually if you read the article, it claims that they reached an agreement already. the article was posted on February 22nd. WWDC is coming up in June. as to whether or not the exact details have been ironed out yet, that's really just up in the air. (i think you meant MacWorld, which was in January - then you'd be correct. tayme just wanted to know the current state of affairs tho) "we all know that Cisco will not end up sharing in anything or be allowed any development" Apple said before that 3rd-party software development for the iPhone will be a no-go, which is just sad really. who knows if Cisco's deal made them the exception. i think that "development" part likely had more to do with add-on hardware and accessories, which means that Cisco won't get any special treatment since there will likely be 1000 some-odd other companies designing craptacular doo-dads and gizmos to attach to the thing. XP

"Waethorn", as usual, your FUD spreader is working overtime. First: This is from Cisco's website: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_022107b.html "Cisco® and Apple today announced that they have resolved their dispute involving the "iPhone" trademark. Under the agreement, both companies are free to use the "iPhone" trademark on their products throughout the world. Both companies acknowledge the trademark ownership rights that have been granted, and each side will dismiss any pending actions regarding the trademark. In addition, Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications. Other terms of the agreement are confidential." Contrary to your claim that "tCisco would be allowed 3rd-party association/development with the Apple device in the future," the public part of the agreement says no such thing. Second: Apple has not shut the door to third-party apps on the iPhone; at the recent shareholder's meeting, Jobs indicated he is still considering it. At this time, there are no plans, but it's not completely ruled out yet. Third: You write, "Cisco wasn't looking at suing Apple in the first place, but they threatened Apple, only because they didn't even check to see if the name was already taken." That, again, is wrong...negotiations were started before MacWorld, but not complete. Apple was arrogant, Cisco got their panties in a bunch, but in the end, it all worked out, much to your consternation, I'm sure.

"Contrary to your claim that "Cisco would be allowed 3rd-party association/development with the Apple device in the future," the public part of the agreement says no such thing." read your own quote from their website. obviously quoting something without reading it is a problem that you have, re: "Cisco and Apple will explore opportunities for interoperability in the areas of security, and consumer and enterprise communications." as far as Cisco goes, the only communications device that Apple has on the market (that isn't even on the market) that would really make a difference to Cisco for interoperability is their iPhone. the agreement was reached because of the iPhone, and it completely concerns the iPhone. it was a trade-off for allowing Apple to settle. "Apple has not shut the door to third-party apps on the iPhone; at the recent shareholder's meeting, Jobs indicated he is still considering it. At this time, there are no plans, but it's not completely ruled out yet." now that's some spin there....and you were at this shareholder's meeting? i'm sure stock backdating was more to do with the topic at hand at the recent meetings. as far as MacWorld, Apple themselves, and every journalist reporting about it after the fact, there were no plans whatsoever for 3rd-party development, so my statement is valid. if that changes, so what?! for now, it's absolutely 100% true. anything else you say about the matter will be taken with a grain of salt. "Apple was arrogant" oooh, now there's a switch. what's even more stupid is that Apple applied for the name in several other countries before they could get the approval in the US - where it's being signed exclusively to a cingular cell provider (pun!) for it's launch. XP