Microsoft Spreads .NET over Future Releases

Dec. 20, 2000 Paul Thurrott | Windows IT Pro

Microsoft President and CEO Steve Ballmer recently admitted that although Microsoft was working as quickly as it could to deliver a Windows version that fully supports the new Microsoft .NET technologies, the full .NET User Experience is still 1 to 2 years away. Ballmer said that the next version of Windows 2000, code-named Whistler, will feature only a subset of the .NET technologies. The follow-up to Whistler, code-named Blackcomb and due in 2002 or 2003 (according to Ballmer), will be the first complete .NET OS release and will include a new UI that the company refers to as the .NET User Experience.

"Windows doesn't go away; the PC doesn't go away. But we needed a platform to reflect the reality of the Internet," Ballmer said. "\[.NET\] is a big change for us, and it is a lot of work \[and\] a lot of effort." Microsoft's new strategy will see the company move from a maker of store-bought software to a supplier of Web-based services. To complete the transition, Microsoft will need to redesign Windows to support a .NET runtime engine as well as add pervasive OS hooks into various .NET technologies. Microsoft is using XML as the basis for .NET, which the company will slowly incorporate into all its application and server products.

In the meantime, the company's free-for-download MSN Explorer hints at the .NET User Experience, which will be similar to a Web browser but will be much easier to use. Microsoft is upgrading the Visual Studio (VS) development environment into a .NET-compatible version so that developers can start creating the application services that will eventually replace today's desktop-oriented software. And .NET functionality is beginning to show up in core products such as Windows and Microsoft Office. Ballmer has said that he's unsure how the company will make money with .NET. However, customer resistance—especially from the corporate sector—will probably ensure the presence of shrink-wrapped software in retail stores for years to come, even as the company attempts to move away from that sales model.

Since first announcing its .NET strategy in the summer of 2000, Microsoft has been busy educating users and developers about the upcoming changes. In September 2000, the company hosted a .NET Enterprise Server event at which it rolled out its Win2K-compatible server products, including SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000 Server. Whistler will be a minor Win2K upgrade that will feature a "skinnable" (i.e., highly customizable) UI that users can change at will, as well as the first-generation .NET runtime. Blackcomb will be a major release featuring significant changes. However, sources close to Microsoft told me that the company's programmers are having "panic attacks" about Mac OS X's new Aqua UI. Particularly troubling to Microsoft is Macintosh's new intuitive Finder (i.e., the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell), which features several panes that simplify drilling down through subdirectories. Microsoft's UI team is suddenly playing catch-up-with-the-Mac again, and we probably won't see the fruits of their labors until Blackcomb arrives.

Discuss this Article 50

Kam Lion (not verified)

on Feb 20, 2001

Microsoft steals from Apple GUI by saying that their users had asked for it. In another way Mac OS X is the next killer product from Apple. Even PC users who have worked on it have fallen in love with it. Underneath Apple's Aqua there's a third generation windows diplay technology (Vector-based technology) never seen before on any other computer platform but the Mac. Remember Apple color-Sync technology that Microsoft is unable to copy as of today. Aqua is what you see on Mac screen but the underground technology is what will make Microsoft trail behind the leader in innovation for years to come. If you PC users are proud of yourself, please feel free to tell Microsoft to stop copying Apple. Otherwise you will look like the greater famous imitators of all time.

KT (not verified)

on Jan 29, 2001

The author, unfortunately, is perpetuating the Microsoft Approved© version of history when he wrote, "Particularly troubling to Microsoft is Macintosh's new intuitive Finder (i.e., the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell)" Truth be told, Microsoft's explorer shell is the Windows version of the Macintosh Finder, not the other wa around. Remember, Microsoft is the Great Imitator, Apple is the Great Innovator.

James Rhodes (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

I think Microsoft has much more to worry about than Apple's Aqua user interface. Their .NET strategy is fundamentally flawed. The reason why it is flawed is because many consumers and business users will REFUSE to "rent" software on a per-use basis. I want my own copy of a program I use all the time, not some stupid company telling when and how I can use it. Also, their .NET OS will not be out for over a year. By that time, people buying new computers are going to see the following: "Hmmm... Apple's beautiful Aqua interface or Windows ME?" Real difficult choice there Microsoft... People don't want to wait for another crappy experience from the Windows OS.

Ari Espinoza (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

I just wonder if the PC is going to become obsolete, will the OS religious war as well?

B. Jefferson Le Blanc (not verified)

on May 8, 2001

Most of Paul Thurrott's News Analysis: "Microsoft Spreads .NET over Future Releases" (January 2001) comments on the traditional Windows and Macintosh concerns that relate to current OS strategies. But I think the bigger story is how Microsoft's .NET strategy compares with Apple Computer's long-term road map.

The .NET strategy, which involves renting software on a per-use basis over the Internet, will be viable only for people with fast Internet connections, and it might be a long time before that audience comprises the majority of connected users. But for anyone who has compared running software on a network with running a program installed on an individual machine, the prospect of Internet-based software can hardly be appealing. With PCs pushing 1GHz processors, even a fast Internet connection could not possibly compete in performance with installed software. And for a program you use every day, how could a per-use rental arrangement be economically viable?

I think Microsoft is driving over a cliff with this idea, and my skepticism has nothing to do with copying Apple, whose core strategy seems to be moving in the opposite direction. As Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently explained, although Apple has an aggressive Web strategy of its own, the focus is now on making the desktop computer the central digital device in a multidevice environment. For Apple, this move is a drastic--even revolutionary--departure from its original philosophy of exclusivity. For a Mac to be a digital hub, Apple will have to emphasize compatibility, which is where OS X enters the picture. With its UNIX core, OS X is heading back to the future.

So, while Windows is getting more and more unfocused and klugey, the Mac OS is stabilizing and standardizing. The Windows XP and Mac OS X interface competition is a sideshow to the real concerns--an amusing but ultimately trivial matter.

FN (not verified)

on Jan 31, 2001

An OS X over Intel is posible... it´s something to beard more when at last you have a convenient vectorial unit on P4, a (some say) copycat of Motorola´s Altivec. But why Apple should do that?

egarc (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

Just wondering where the Windows supporters are. This is Win2K Magazine right? Not one zealot who can make a point in favor of MS. Hmmm...

MyMacintosh (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

MS's "panic" of Apple's OS X is really evident when you spell out the operating system and UI names: Mac OS X Windows XP Aqua Luna The similarities reek of stealing. I find it hard to believe that it's just coincidence.

M. Tribble (not verified)

on Mar 21, 2001

I am a huge fan of Microsoft and have been developing software with VC++, VB, SQL Server for many years. That being said I'm totally opposed to their, "company move from a maker of store-bought software to a supplier of Web-based services." At the risk of repeating the comments above, people dont (I dont) like the idea of renting software. If Microsoft goes down that path I'll gladly make the jump to another platform. As a Software Architect & team lead, I'd be remise in my duties if I didn't recomend looking into other platforms their as well!

OzBox (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

All tongue tongue poking at who ripped off who. I wonder if a hundred years agao folks were sitting around in pubs going "Look at General Motors, They've put a petrol engine in a horseless carriage and ripped off Ford's ideas." Maybe somethings just have to be very similar to be useful for the task intended. Remember Apple got the whole UI thing from Xerox anyway!

Zero Kelvan (not verified)

on Aug 30, 2001

Ya know, I think I still have a copy of a 'Copeland' beta lyin' around that runs on x86. It's funny how Microsoft gives Apple an undisclosed sum of cash under the table and drops its threats to halt dev on Office for Mac... and suddenly 'Copeland' disappears. If the old heavily proprietary kernel would run on x86 I'd image a X recompile would be a breeze. Then again, why milk a bull and move to CISC from RISC?

Al Chiesa (not verified)

on Jan 29, 2001

This quote is inaccurate. The new finder is actually borrowed from the Open Step, which was developed by Steve Jobs and company. Macintosh's new intuitive Finder (i.e., the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell), which features several panes that simplify drilling down through subdirectories.

Eric (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

Geeze, where's all the Windows supporters here? MS has been borrowing ideas from Apple and NeXT since Windows 95 - and before. But they really got imitative then. Apple borrowed from Zerox and then made it their own. Aqua has way more to it that's superior to Windows than the interface, or even the graphics subsystem. It has BSD Unix underneath. It will be more stable and more powerful than anything from Microsoft. Match that to 1 GHz G4s by the end of the year nad 2 GHz G5s next year and you have a winnner in all but market share. As the wise man said, "You can't underestimate the gullibility of the public." Or something like that.

geir werner (not verified)

on Feb 19, 2001

I find it embarrassing to see Microsft "innovate". Has it actually happen ? NO, just stealing, rip off or buy, no innovation at all.I´m sorry but I tend to hate this company and the interface they have given me on the only pc in my house.Dell with Windoze Me.It still sucks...

Jeff Griffin (not verified)

on Jan 30, 2001

It's unfortunate that Microsoft cannot make this creative advance without worrying about what Apple is up to. What Microsoft should really concern itself with is the rumor of Apple porting it's newest O.S. to also run on Intel processors.

Jim McCullough (not verified)

on Feb 22, 2001

Despite how good OS X is, Apple must prove they can sell it. The mass market is still duped into think Windows and Intel are superior. Heck, they still refer to them as IBM type machines despite the fact IBM sells Intel-based machines more as a passing fancy. Second, if it does spark the sales of Apple machines, they will need to be prepared to make the jump so as to produced far greater number of machines than they have ever produced before.

B. Jefferson Le Blanc (not verified)

on Feb 25, 2001

Most of these comments focus on the traditional Windows/Mac issues as they relate to current OS strategies. But I think there are bigger issues here - Microsoft's .NET strategy which was, after all, the main subject of this article, as compared with Apple's own long-term road map. Regarding that .NET strategy - which involves renting software on a per-use basis over the internet - it would only be viable for those people with fast internet connections in any case and it will be a long time before that is a majority of connected users. But for anyone who has experienced using software on a network compared with running a program installed on an individual machine, the prospect of internet based software can hardly be appealing. With PCs pushing 1 GHz processors, even a fast internet connection could not possibly compete in performance with installed software. And, for a program you use every day, how could a per use rental arrangement be economically viable? Once in awhile, maybe, for a program you don't want to buy, but for regular use? No way. I think Microsoft is driving over a cliff on this one. And it has nothing to do with copying Apple, whose core strategy seems to be moving in the opposite direction. As recently explained by Steve Jobs, though Apple has an aggressive web strategy of its own, the focus is now on making the desktop computer the central digital device in a multi-device environment. For Apple this is a drastic, even revolutionary, departure from its original philosophy based on exclusivity. For a Mac to be a digital hub it will have to emphasize compatibility. And this is where OS X comes in. With its UNIX core, it's back to the future. So, while Windows is getting more and more unfocused and klugy, the Mac OS is stabilizing and standardizing. The Windows XP/ Mac OS X interface competition is a sideshow to the real issues, an amusing but ultimately trivial matter.

Mike Winkler (not verified)

on Feb 22, 2001

When it comes down to the final almighty dollar it's not how well the operating system are or how they are employed. Rather the point of who has the most appealing advertisment to the ordinary many. At this point, cool appealing technology, neat colors or shiny metals seem to be the biggest turning point. Hey if they portray it as easy and "cool" there's no stopping them. I myself simply hope that I can have both Mac and PC based OS's stable enough to get me by. Hey if they made it perfect which I am almost sure they don't try to do we wouldn't go out and spend money to upgrade and fix.

Timothy (not verified)

on Feb 24, 2001

The only time I see the OS is in between using my computer for other things, such as games, word processing, games, and gaming. I don't really care if it's a command line, a gui, or a lovely aqua color. What I care about is that it stays stable, and allows me to get to my applications without intruding. Who cares about screensavers, backgrounds, and 'drilling down through subdirectories?' not me. I care about seeing Quake 3 pop up in less than 2 seconds, and seeing my os take up less than 2 percent of my resources. All operating systems, including Linux, seem to be getting away from this.

Dave (not verified)

on Jan 29, 2001

The new Finder in Mac OS X was definitely not taken directly from OpenStep. The new Finder combines the best elements from OpenStep and the classic Mac OS. Besides, Apple has the copyrights to the UI in OpenStep (Apple purchased NeXT in '97), unlike Microsoft, which just plainly steals the interfaces (Microsoft stole the Dock from OpenStep and passed it off as the Windows Taskbar). And, the Finder is hardly the Mac version of the Windows Explorer shell, it's the other way around.

Erik Stieringer (not verified)

on Feb 23, 2001

I think James Rhodes has got it right when he says, "many consumers and business users will REFUSE to "rent" software on a per-use basis." DVD and DivX were competing for awhile and DVD won. Part of that reason is because nobody wanted to pay for a movie each time they watched it, when they could go out and buy it one time and use it forever. Microsoft is going out on a limb here. While I don't wish harm to any company, especially one like Microsoft, which has had a profound effect on so many peoples lives, I think Microsoft is going to have a very difficult time convincing the world that we need .NET.

z'ha'dum (not verified)

on Feb 19, 2001

1) aquia blows away luna 2) but the REAL action in OSX aint the UI! 3A) the graphics engine (quartz) is almost like having a free compositing engine built right into the OS - and redmond is about 2 tyears away from any serious reply ... and remember that OGL didnt even make the ground floor in W2K - it is front and centre in OSX 3B) thus, say goodbye to wintel's portion of the hi-end graghics segment (and SGI be in mega panic mode). 4) quicktime: the official format for MPEG4. 'nuff said. 5) the gravy is the the whole heap of unix apps that OSX inherits for "free" cuz its got a yop-flight BSD perrsonality built-in. 6A) the icing is Java2: the only mass platform shipping w/ J2SE. this is *VERY SIGNIFIGANT* 6B) ms lost the recent (and final) java case w/ SUN. Under the terms of the agreement: * ms's current license entitles them *only* to Java1 (and only for 7 years) * no right to use the java trademarks etc * but nonetheless, this implementation of Java1 must be 100% compliant: ie no ActiveX interfaces! * SUN has intimated _very_ strongly that they will not grant a new license for Java2 Bottom line: ms is basically out of the enterprise Java marketplace. It gets carved up between SUN, IBM and Apple. 7A) unmodified Mac binaries apps run unmodified 7B) Mac binaries that are modified (carbon) can access some of the OSX enhanced features (therefore, an whole stream of Mac apps ready within 6 months of launch in Mar) 8) windoze binaries run in osx. 9A) opensource: darwin (the mk+bsd core of OSX) is a DIRECT challenger to linux (and yet inherits everything that community does against windows) 9B) darwin was bootable for x86 a few ago (think: Andromada Strain :) 10) .... it's the microkernel, stupid Upshot: redmond should be afraid. Very afraid.

Jeremy Baker (not verified)

on Feb 19, 2001

It is not a question of whether Microsoft will seek to copy / imitate Mac OS X - after all, Windows itself is a (poor) imitation of Mac OS - but rather to what extent. Microsoft's real problem is that it cannot provide assurances of the same level of stability as Mac OS X - because Microsoft does not control the Intel box, which creates all of the 'problems' which Windows users face.

Scott (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

Hmmm... Windows XP. The XP must be short for "OS-X, Pirated." Gee, does this actually surprize anyone? Aside from excellent products like Office 2001 for Mac and Internet Explorer 5.0 for Mac, which "freedom to innovate" is Mr. Bill defending?

sunny (not verified)

on Jan 29, 2001

When did Windows "catch-up" with the Mac UI the first time?

Peter (not verified)

on Feb 21, 2001

Am I getting lost or is the list of Windows versions becoming an unholy maze? They should take a lesson from Apple's experience with multiple hardware configurations. You can't fool people into thinking this represents improvements, the see through the facade. It is just a confused maanagement throwing lots of superficial product out there in the hope someone might like it. Getting back onto track. Windows trails for the obvious reason - they copy. Nothing to copy? They'd have to sit on their hands till something came along. Good reason to keep Apple around. Thank goodness for MSoft that the vast majority of people are extremely uncomfortable with good design. Still a brief look at OSX will have their tongues hanging out on the floor panying with lust!

Connect With Us

Discuss this Article 50

Please Log In or Register to post comments.

Upcoming Training

Current Issue

Windows Forums

Featured Products

WindowsITPro.com

Site Features

Penton

Follow Us

Search WindowsITPro.com

Related Sites

Connect With Us

Microsoft Spreads .NET over Future Releases

Discuss this Article 50

Please Log In or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

Upcoming Training

Current Issue

Windows Forums

Featured Products

WindowsITPro.com

Site Features

Penton

Follow Us

Search WindowsITPro.com

Related Sites