Recently in Microsoft Category

If Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer were to make a Windows commercial, it would be very much unlike those "crafted" by Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld.

In fact, Ballmer has already done this. Watch the above video, if you dare.

And don't think that Seinfeld hasn't done TV ad duty for Apple as well (look for him at the end of this "genius" ad; I think it's a legit ad and not something put together by Apple fanboys to make a point, but I can't be 100 percent sure ... and I really don't know how Seinfeld fits in with Gandhi and Picasso):

It never occurred to me, but Microsoft buying eBay is something that could really happen.

Via ZDNet's Between the Lines blog:

Microsoft has $44 billion or so burning a hole in its pocket, but there's one little hitch: There are few companies that the software giant could buy to get scale quickly. Enter eBay. Enter speculation. Enter eBay as the acquisition target.

What makes it work? The ability to spin off PayPal and/or Skype to pay for the damn thing.

Question: What's the reserve on this auction?

Bill Gates is talking about using Microsoft technology to end the tyranny — TYRANNY, I TELL YOU — of ... telephone numbers.

I ripped this Gates quote from the ZDNet blog items linked above:

"Right now the mobile phone, the desktop phone, the e-mail that you have on the PC, or instant messaging, these are all very different things, and the issues about how much of your information or your schedule, your current activity you share with people who communicate with you is not well designed.... By bringing together all of these kinds of communication, we can greatly simplify them. We can get rid of phone numbers, have it so when you say you want to contact someone, based on who you are and where that person is, they can decide whether to take the call or take a message about that, and so a great efficiency improvement that can be made there."

It's all part of a product called Echoes that uses Windows Live Messenger to somehow synchronize contacts across mobile platforms.

I can't say I understand a damn thing about it, so I won't.

To clear up that understanding, here's another ZDNet item from Microsoft-focused Mary Jo Foley:

Phase 1 of Echoes will provide carriers with a variety of services, ranging from a common network address book, to SMS in/out messaging, simultaneous ringing, click-to-call, single-sign on and more.

I need a visual ...

Even though the driver situation and the need for 2 GB+ of RAM in order to run Windows Vista and not want to kill yourself is getting to be old news, most of the bloggers out there are writing about what the next Windows OS — now called the very-catchy "Windows 7" — has in store for us.

Expert Microsoft-watcher Mary Jo Foley opens up her rumor bag and spills it, with the following catching my eye:

• Windows 7 is being designed around five pillars (The five, as reported by AeroXP: specialized for laptops; designed for services; personalized for everyone; optimized for entertainment; engineered for "ease of ownership")
• Windows 7 will be more modularized and componentized than Vista or other previous Windows releases. Microsoft hasn't said whether it will allow users/PC makers to opt into (and out of) installing subsystems, the same way that Windows Server 2008 users can choose specific "roles," but hints that Microsoft is considering this approach for Windows 7 abound. Microsoft officials have discussed their work on "MinWin," a streamlined version of the Windows core. But MinWin may or may not be won't be part of Windows 7. (Update: Months after bloggers and reporters first discussed MinWin, Microsoft finally said MinWin won't be part of Windows 7, via the Sinofsky Q&A on News.com on May 27.)
• Windows 7 will be a minor update to Vista -- with "minor," here, meaning as less disruptive as possible to users and their applications. Microsoft has said Windows 7 will use the same driver model that Vista did.
• Windows 7 will allow users to run legacy applications in virtualized mode to minimize backward compatibility problems. Whether Microsoft will deliver this virtualization via an application-virtualization solution like SoftGrid, the new Kidaro enterprise virtualization product or in some other way is not yet known.
• Windows 7 will add native support for Virtual Hard Disks (VHDs) -- a feature Microsoft already provides in Vista, in the form of Complete PC Backup (in the Business version of Vista).

In other words, not too exciting. Oh, and it's scheduled for release in 2010. So expect another couple of years of ... not much out of Microsoft.

I think the problem for MS has been the growing length of time between major releases (with thanks to Wikipedia for the info):

Windows 95 Released Aug. 1995
Windows 98 Released June 1998
Windows 98se Released May 1999
Windows 2000 Released Feb. 2000
Windows Me Released Sept. 2000
Windows XP Released Oct. 2001
Windows Vista Released Nov. 2006

So the five years between Windows XP -- after the leap from 98 to 2000 took less than two years -- had the effect of a) making XP more established than any previous incarnation of Windows, engendering "just works" or "works as well as can be expected" loyalty and building up a volume of compatible applications unequaled previously and b) not making people happy about upgrading hardware for the diminishing returns of a new, unproven, buggy and driver-poor OS.

And we all know that Windows and its success is about one thing -- and one thing only: drivers and the hardware compatibility they bring to the system.

So after a five-year drought in new OS releases, Microsoft had to hit one out of the damn ballpark, not a feeble grounder up the first-base line.

Just look at what Apple adds to OS X every year and then some. Hell, look at the leap from the "Classic" Mac OS to the Unix-based OS X. And look at how far Linux has come on the desktop in the past three or so years. If all you do with your PC is browse the Web and churn out a few documents and spreadsheets, you don't need Microsoft, or Windows or Office.

It's easy to catch your competition if they're standing still.

People need passion, excitement, new (ahem) vistas -- in short, compelling reasons to upgrade. And I don't see anything like that. "Touch functionality" is intriguing, but that's not a game-winner, and greater interoperability with mobile devices is a given, no more.

The increasing importance of OS integration with computing in the cloud is something that MS is no doubt working on, but any move to the cloud makes traditional applications and operating systems less relevant, so I can't see MS going wholeheartedly in that direction.

So where's the passion? Where's the compulsion to stick with Microsoft? If anybody knows, please tell me.

Of all the theories behind Microsoft's assimilation of Yahoo (I think it's about eliminating a competitor under a mountain of cash), this is the most intriguing I've seen yet: According to Linux-Watch, Microsoft wants Yahoo because no huge Web-based companies use Windows products to run their back-end ... except Microsoft, of course, and this might give the rest of the world a reason to consider Windows for their servers ... or it could crush Yahoo under the weight of a soul-sucking software sea change. ("Sea change" ... that's as idiotic as "change agent" and "best practices" ... sorry for using it ...).

Here's some of the editorial:

There's no way on God's earth that Microsoft can switch all of Yahoo's services to being based on Windows. The IT costs and the time needed to migrate Yahoo's applications to Windows boggles my mind. It would probably cost more than whatever Microsoft ends up paying for Yahoo.

Of course, Microsoft could replace Yahoo's applications with Windows-powered applications, but if they were to do that I think they'd lose all of Yahoo's customers. Ballmer would be better off dumping Microsoft's billions into the Pacific than making that move.

So, what I see happening is Microsoft continuing to let Yahoo run its software its way, and slowly, ever so slowly, trying to use the Yahoo brand to tempt customers into using new Windows Live applications. I don't see it working. While Microsoft wastes time and money trying to catch up with the Google applications of 2008, Google will be continuing to set the technology bar even higher.

One thing I do believe -- it's a win-win for Microsoft and lose-lose for Yahoo.

Google didn't get where it is today by charging end users for software and charging them again and again for endless upgrades.

Back in the early Macintosh days (i.e. the mid- to late '80s), Apple used the OS to sell hardware. Upgrades were free.

Today, Apple sells music at 99 cents a track, but what they're really selling is iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and any other damn thing they can slap an "i" in front of. And while the music is available in 99-cent increments, the iTunes software -- which runs in Windows and OS X -- has always been free. iPods would've never gotten to be such a huge business in any other way.

It's no different for the OS.

With that in mind, Apple wins on the desktop -- and crushes Microsoft -- in one way:

Make OS X free -- or very cheap. And make it run on Windows-compatible PCs.

Everybody wants that new MacBook Air. They'll still want it, even if they can also run OS X on a crappy PC. While not getting $129 for each OS X upgrade, Apple would get market share, still move a whole lot of hardaware. And they would gain that all-important "mindshare."

Most people have heard of Linux, but few have seen it on the desktop, even though they "use" it every day when they browse the Web. Most have seen OS X, a significant portion have used it a bit, and a few are rabid fans.

And while I'd like to see OS X go free and open-source, I won't hold my breath on that one. As I said above, I'd prefer -- at a minimum -- that Apple port OS X to Windows PCs, i.e. make a native version that installs from CD and runs on non-Apple hardware.

But even making new versions of OS X free for Apple hardware would prompt more users to upgrade the software. When running the latest and greatest gets slow, they'd be more inclined to buy new hardware, most likely from Apple.

Right now I'm still running my 2003-era iBook on OS X 10.3. I saved $129 twice by not upgrading to 10.4 and 10.5. I can't even use Apple's newest Safari browser because it doesn't run on 10.3. Firefox does, so that's what I use. As a result, Apple misses out on any browser-generated ad revenue. Would 10.5 run well on my laptop? Who knows? I sure don't want to spend $129 to find out.

By flooding the market with a free or very cheap OS X, Apple could blunt the effects of Microsoft Windows, which customers pay for but don't really feel they're paying for because the cost is bundled into just about every PC sold.

Even if a free OS wouldn't fly at Apple HQ, if the company still ported OS X to Windows-compatible PCs, they could -- and should -- compete with Microsoft when it comes to pre-installed operating systems on non-Apple hardware.

Imagine if you could order a PC from Dell with Windows, Linux or OS X ... there would be real competition for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere from the home to the enterprise.

And since Apple's hardware is so ultra-cool (and ultra-pricey), they'd probably sell even more of it if OS X had a much larger of the overall worldwide OS pie.

I just found out about Scribefire blogging program here, and I can't wait to try it. Problem: The Web site doesn't do a good job of even explaining what Scribefire is and what it does. Microsoft does an equally poor job of describing Windows Live Spaces. If I can't easily get a grasp on what your application is even about, is it me, or is it you?

Sure it ran in RedmondMag, the "independent voice of the Microsoft IT community," but Google's Secret Weapon by Glyn Moody lays out very clear how and why Google is leveraging open-source software -- and the people who make it -- in its battle against Microsoft. While I've heard much of it before, it's still the best thing I've read all week.

I'm using Windows Media Player -- and make no mistake, my opinion of the application itself is much higher than most others have of it -- and I get a message that an upgrade is available. Now remember, I'm IN THE MIDDLE OF USING THE ACTUAL APPLICATION. Being a Linux user mostly, I forget that Windows makes you reboot about 90 percent of the time when updates are done.

The download takes seconds, but it's about 20 minutes before everything is unpacked and installed.

Then I'm informed that I have to reboot for changes to take effect, and would I like to reboot now?

And no, I CAN'T EVEN USE WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER UNTIL I REBOOT. I would just abandon the whole thing, but I only started Windows Media Player because I agreed to help someone burn a couple copies of an audio CD.

No, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO REBOOT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I have about 20 windows open right now and prefer to reboot WHEN I WANT, and I would appreciate you TELLING ME BEFORE I AGREE TO AN UPDATE THAT I WILL HAVE TO REBOOT TO MAKE IT TAKE EFFECT.

So I write about four blog entries because I have the links open in about 20 Firefox tabs, then I methodically close everything, log out of Pidgin, log out of our Unisys newspaper publishing system, reboot ... AND THEN I HAVE TO SIGN ANOTHER DRACONIAN MICROSOFT SOFTWARE AGREEMENT. I didn't do the default configuration (NEVER do the default configuration ... that's my tip of the day), and eventually got to a screen on which I could choose the media types that Windows Media Player would handle. As I said above, I actually like using Windows Media Player when I'm using Windows, so I'm happy to have it handle pretty much damn near everything. I found it interesting that Windows Media Player is now equipped to handle FLAC and OGG files -- the free, open-source alternatives to MP3, WMA, AAC and all the other proprietary crap that operating-system makers are supposed to pay royalties for including in their software. But the option to play FLAC and OGG is NOT checked by default. You have to manually check all the boxes -- yep, I did it -- so now I should have less trouble playing OGG and FLAC files.

Note: I could already play OGG files in WMP since I had previously downloaded a codec that made it possible, but it's nice to see Microsoft acknowledging that these open-source alternatives exist and supporting their use.

But making me close dozens of tabs and windows in the middle of a workday just to get a freakin' Windows Media Player update? In the end, Redmond, you wound me.

The magazine Popular Science and Popsci.com have released their annual list of The Worst Jobs in Science for 2007.

It is worth mentioning that working for Microsoft as a security team member is ranked sixth in the list, just slightly better than Whale-Feces Researcher or Forensic Entomologist.

The bottom-10:

Number 10: Whale-Feces Researcher
They scoop up whale dung, then dig through it for clues

Number 9: Forensic Entomologist
Solving murders by studying maggots

Number 8: Olympic Drug Tester
When your job is drug testing the world’s top athletes, there’s no way to win

Number 7: Gravity Research Subject
They’re strapped down so astronauts can blast off

Number 6: Microsoft Security Grunt
Like wearing a big sign that reads “Hack Me”

Number 5: Coursework Carcass Preparer
They kill, pickle, and bottle the critters that schoolkids cut up

Number 4: Garbologist
Think Indiana Jones— in a Dumpster

Number 3: Elephant Vasectomist
When your patient is Earth’s largest land animal, sterilization is a big job

Number 2: Oceanographer
Nothing but bad news, day in and day out

Number 1: Hazmat Diver
They swim in sewage. Enough said.

Microsoft Corp. launched Tuesday its "Windows Live Folders" service, which will give computer users up to 500 megabytes of online storage space. Microsoft made the service available to 5,000 users on Tuesday night but plans to make the service widely available later in the summer.

Microsoft's move is in direct response to the unlimited space service offered by Yahoo! Mail, the 5 gigabytes offered by AOL and the nearly 3 gigabytes offered by Google's Gmail.

Buried deep in his blog, Canonical head Mark Shuttleworth discusses his position on the whole Microsoft "intellectual property" claim regarding Linux and open-source software and what, as the man behind Ubuntu, he's comfortable and not comfortable doing with Microsoft. Here is his comment in its entirety:

Mark Shuttleworth says:

Neither Canonical nor the Ubuntu project have any interest in signing an agreement with Microsoft on the back of the threat of unspecified patents. We have consistently (but politely) declined to pursue those conversations with Microsoft, in the absence of any details of the alleged patent infringements.

Speaking for myself, I welcome Microsoft’s openness to the idea of improving interoperability between free software components such as OpenOffice and Microsoft Office, and believe that Microsoft’s customers, many of whom are now also Linux users, will appreciate Microsoft’s efforts in that regard. I have substantial reservations about the quality of the specification for Microsoft’s OpenXML document formats and do not believe that Microsoft will limit it’s own Office implementation to that specification, which makes the specification largely meaningless as a standard. A specification which Microsoft won’t certify as being accurate as a representation of Office 12’s behavior, and will not commit to keeping up to date in advance of future revisions to MS Office, is not a credible standard.

After many years of participating in the free software community I know that neither I nor any other free software programmer has any desire to infringe on any intellectual property (trademark, copyright or patent) of any other person or company. Many of us are motivated precisely to ensure that we work on platforms which DON’T cross that line. So it is somewhat offensive to be threatened with an allegation of an IP infringement. I’m sure Microsoft doesn’t realise that its actions are being received in that light, otherwise they wouldn’t continue. But it is getting rather tiresome. I would be very happy to see the details of any alleged patent infringement so that we can engage with Microsoft more constructively on the subject.

Mark

So there you have it -- Canonical welcomes any efforts by Microsoft to improve "interoperability," isn't a fan of OpenXML, doesn't want to infringe on anybody's patents or trademarks, thinks Microsoft's threats are ill-advised, a and would like to actually deal with the issue rather than respond out of fear.

But most of all, he's not going to sign any IP agreements with Microsoft, meaning one of the biggest dominoes in free Linux will not fall.

(Thanks to commenter Zeke for tipping me to this item)

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of Linux-Watch and Desktop Linux predicted that Linspire would run into Microsoft's arms by interpreting Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony's remarks after Microsoft announced its Xandros deal, and now SJVN thinks that Mark Shuttleworth -- a guy who doesn't bad-mouth Redmond at all -- may be the next to do a Microsoft patent-protection deal:

Ubuntu has also recently partnered with Dell to deliver Linux on PCs and laptops from the first top-tier computer vendor to commit to Linux. I'm sure those desktop users would also like the goodies that Microsoft and Linspire will be delivering in Linspire 6 -- namely: access to Microsoft proprietary multimedia codecs; VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) over Microsoft IM (instant messaging) compatible clients; and Microsoft fonts.

Oh, and by the way, you do recall that Linspire 6 will be based on Ubuntu, don't you? And, that Ubuntu will be compatible with Linspire's revised CNR (click and run) software distribution system?

Sounds to me like it would as easy as falling off a log for Canonical to add some Microsoft features of its own to Ubuntu Linux distribution.

I didn't get a chance to ask Shuttleworth if he has something in the works for Ubuntu with Microsoft at the Summit, darn it. But, if you see some news about Ubuntu partnering up with Microsoft sometime soon, well, just remember that you read it here first.

I'd be stunned if this happened, but I can see it. Given Microsoft's deal with Novell, I wonder if Dell will switch it up and start offering Novell's openSUSE or SLED on the desktop either in addition to or instead of Ubuntu. If Mark Shuttleworth thinks that an MS patent deal is the horse to ride, he might just get on it.

But ... with Shuttleworth starting such intiatives as a totally-FOSS version of Ubuntu with no closed-source drivers or anything else, would he really go the other way and do a Microsoft deal?

In his Linspire Letter, CEO Kevin Carmony talks about why he decided to make a deal with Microsoft, trading some technological info for an assurance from Microsoft that the Redmond giant won't sue Linspire's Linux customers for "intellectual property" infringement.

Here's his reasoning, in part:

Today, Linspire announced our latest partnership, one with Microsoft, to bring even more choices to desktop Linux users, and together, offer a "better" Linux experience. Just as Steve Jobs announced in 1997 that "the era of setting this up as a competition between Apple and Microsoft is over," I too believe it's time for Linux to do the same. Rather than isolating Linux, I believe we need to understand, as Apple did in 1997, that Linux exists in an ecosystem and must work with and interoperate within that ecosystem. As unpopular as it may appear to some, Linspire is willing to take a lead in this effort. Some people booed Steve Jobs back in 1997, but if you trace the history of his announcement, I think it was an incredibly smart move for both Microsoft and Apple, issuing in a new era for both.

Nice ... get yourself neck-deep, then compare yourself to Steve Jobs. Even Steve Jobs knows he's a crazy f---. Or should know. Rich, cunning, possessing uncanny instinct, etc. ... but still kind of crazy.

Here's more from Carmony:

So about a year and a half ago, I contacted Microsoft and asked for a meeting to discuss how we could work together to make a "better" Linux. I was confident Microsoft would welcome my invitation, because I knew there could be an economic incentive for them to do so. As I had expected, they welcomed my call, and I immediately flew to Redmond for the first of many meetings over the following months, taking place in both Redmond and San Diego, culminating in this week's announced partnership.

...

(and here's the kicker, emphasis mine)

As good as Microsoft believes Microsoft Windows is, some people will in fact choose Linux. If Microsoft can contribute in a win-win way towards a "better" Linux experience, some people might be willing to pay a little extra for that. After years in the prominent position of desktop computer operating systems and applications, Microsoft certainly has many assets, which can be brought to bear to improve Linux (technology, interoperability, intellectual property, distribution channels, marketing, etc.).

About the "pay a little extra" part, Carmony addresses it again in the Q&A (again, emphasis mine):

How much more will I have to pay for this "better" Linux?

Nothing actually. Linspire has decided to cover the cost of these enhancements without raising the retail price of Linspire. Freespire will remain free, and the retail version of Linspire will remain at $59.95.

How bloody sporting of them ... and everybody who hasn't made just such a deal with Microsoft ... guess it's long-walk-short-pier time, eh, Mr. Carmony?

And what about GPLv3, which is supposed to nix (pun intended) this sort of thing? More from Carmony:

As I mentioned last week, hopefully the drafters of the new GPLv3 will take such options into consideration as they finish their work. It's important that Linux not be relegated to a 3rd-class player behind Microsoft's and Apple's operating systems, which do provide for this type of interoperability with the legacy desktop computer ecosystem.

I'm about to go all caps ... wait for it ... IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN ... NOT ... GONNA ... HAPPEN.

And here's Kevin Carmony's parting shot:

I'm sure some people who feel strongly about this will turn to other distributions, and I respect that. I do, however, think many more will end up coming to Linspire Linux for the enhanced experience they find from a distribution that works with as many partners as possible in an effort to make Linux work better. This announcement doesn't take any choices away from anyone; it just adds one more option. Choice is a good thing. I'm glad we have lots of them today as we choose a desktop OS.

It's NOT about an "enhanced experience," it's about worrying that Microsoft is going to chew you up and spit you out.

Now's not the time to get between the sheets with Microsoft. I couldn't disagree more with Kevin Carmony -- the Linux (or GNU/Linux, if you prefer) and general open-source community doesn't need Microsoft or Apple to help make "Linux work better." It seems as if Microsoft needs Linux ... or Linux companies, for that matter, to boost its own softening business.

And I resent Carmony bringing Apple into this whole mess. Apple isn't threatening to sue anyone, least of all the users and distributors of Linux. Would I like to see iTunes on Linux? For sure. Will Apple bring Safari to Linux. Maybe -- but, really, who cares?

As I've said in just about every editorial I write on this topic -- and since Microsoft is doing one of these deals just about every other week, I repeat it all too often -- let's just go to court and hash this thing out.

Microsoft and the Linux distributors it's aligning itself with need to remember that the Redmond-friendly Bush administration has a year and a half left in office. The next president and his Justice Department probably won't look very kindly on Microsoft's maneuvering -- and those of us using free, open-source software shouldn't do so either.

-----------------------------------

Linspire's press release on the deal.

Today it's Linspire agreeing to a Linux technology deal with Microsoft that includes "IP protection" for customers, with IP standing for "intellectual property," and Microsoft basically agreeing not to sue users of Linspire's Linux distro.

Curiously, Freespire -- Linspire's "free" version -- isn't included in the IP protection deal but will benefit from greater integration between Open Office and MS Office.

This follows Novell and Xandros' deals with Microsoft on the Linux-distro side, as well as royalty deals with key end users (whose names escape me momentarily), they truly are falling like dominoes.

But the Linspire deal has more far-reaching implications, since Ubuntu is set to begin using Linspire's CNR ("Click and Run" package management sometime in the future, and with Linspire beginning to base its code on Ubuntu. This seems to be putting Ubuntu's parent Canonical closer to being in bed with Microsoft -- something that would go down less than well with Ubuntu's growing, vocal fan base.

But the Linux distribution companies are going down like dominoes. If Red Hat doesn't bite -- and I can't imagine they will -- the apocalypse will not yet be upon us.

But one thing is clear -- crystal, mother-f'n clear. Microsoft is using a divide-and-conquer strategy with the FOSS (free, open-source software) community and hoping to make deals on their terms and avoid dragging this whole sorry, sorry mess into court.

But that's where it's headed -- and quickly.

(Addendum: For those who remember, Linspire used to be called Lindows until legal threats from Microsoft over trademark prompted the name change.)