Microsoft Spreads .NET over Future Releases

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.