Mac OS X on a PC?

Kent Pribbernow is trying to stir up trouble at Digital Media Thoughts:

In a recent interview with Forbes Magazine, Steve Jobs makes the surprising claim that three of the top PC makers are asking him to license OSX for use on their PCs.

Hmmm. That might have been a smart move to make five or 10 years ago, but not now. Anyway, it’s never going to happen. Who’s going to write all those device drivers?

On the other hand, I would love to be able to run OS X on my PC, in a virtual machine powered by VMWare or Virtual PC (which would them have to be renamed Virtual Mac, presumably). I suspect that it could be done with relative ease if you could get permission to clone the Mac firmware.

Another pointless Mac vs. PC debate

UC Berkeley professor Brad DeLong says, “Get a Mac!” Prof. DeLong, normally a smart and witty analyst, needs to go back to school on this one. His argument is based on a third-hand quotation from Robert Scoble (via Owen Thomas’s Ditherati, which in turn took the quote from the snarky and entertaining but not exactly reliable Register). Reportedly, Scoble said, “ “I shut down my Tablet PC most evenings and start it up from a fresh boot. Why do I do that? Because I’ve been using computers for 20 years and have learned that’s the best way to work.” Prof. DeLong’s response sounds like something you’d hear from a freshman about to start a food fight:

Snort. Guffaw. Chortle.

The idea that one dare not try to save the state of one’s system overnight…

It is indeed the best way to work if you have an operating system with nine fives of reliability. For those of us whose operating systems have five nines of reliability, however…

bradford% uptime
22:13 up 14 days, 10:2

delong% uptime
22:14 up 4 days, 8:54

Fourteen days? Four days? That’s the best you’ve got. Sheesh. I’m typing this note on a PC running Windows XP. I use it daily, it runs 24/7, and its current uptime is 25 days, 18 hours, 51 minutes. The last time I rebooted it was because I installed a third-party service that asked me to do so. I cannot remember the last time this system crashed.

I have a Tablet PC. I use it for an hour or two a day and hibernate it when I’m done so I can return to the same spot the next night. It hasn’t been restarted in over a month.

My office is built around a server running Windows 2003. Current uptime: 21 days, 18 hours, 4 minutes. I rebooted it when I replaced a hard drive a few weeks ago.

And Professor, here’s a lesson you might want to teach your students: Always go to the original source material. Here’s Scoble’s original quote, in context, from his blog:

I shut down my Tablet PC most evenings and start it up from a fresh boot. Why do I do that? Because I’ve been using computers for 20 years and have learned that’s the best way to work.

This was a behavior I learned on System 7.0 back in 1992 when I was a page designer at San Jose State. It takes an extra minute in the morning to boot up, but that’s why I never hit this bug.

System 7.0? Wasn’t that a Macintosh operating system? Yep. Scoble learned not to trust operating systems to be reliable because he used to use a Mac.

Look, this OS triumphalism is truly pointless. Windows XP and Mac OS X are both extremely reliable operating systems. Both of them are also quite secure, especially if you understand the kinds of precautions to take. (Hint to Mac users: you might want to be careful where you browse with Safari and install the latest security updates.)

Longhorn beta will arrive by June

ZDNet has the first official confirmation that a Longhorn beta will be out in the first half of this year:

Microsoft is on track to release the first full test version of the next major Windows release by the end of June, a Microsoft executive told CNET News.com on Monday.

The company has said publicly that Beta 1 of Longhorn would arrive by the end of 2005, though internally, the company has been aiming for a release by midyear. The final version of Longhorn is slated for the second half of next year.

“There will be a beta 1 of Longhorn…happening in the first half of this year,” John Montgomery, a director in Microsoft’s developer division, said during an interview at VSLive, a conference devoted to the company’s Visual Studio .Net toolkit. The release will be primarily aimed at developers, Montgomery said. “I do, however, expect that you will find IT departments starting to look at it, kick the tires, figure out what’s in it and what’s not in it.”

If history is any guide, a public beta will appear before the end of this year. This should be very, very interesting.

The history of the Windows PowerToys

Raymond Chen wrote the original Tweak UI for Windows 95. In a post on his most excellent blog, The Old New Thing, he tells the history of the Windows PowerToys. It’s fun reading, especially given that this is the 10th anniversary of Windows 95. But I’m linking to it here because it also includes this most excellent list of all the other PowerToys that have since snuck out of other groups at Microsoft and are available for various Windows platforms:

(Plus, of course, the Windows XP PowerToys, which does come from the shell team. The Internet Explorer team originally called their stuff PowerToys, but they later changed the name to Web Accessories, perhaps to avoid the very confusion I’m discussing here.)

Until I read this post, I didn’t know that Raymond also wrote the original Kernel Toys for Windows 95. Nor did I know that Raymond wrote the whimsical blurb that introduced the original PowerToys. But I’m not surprised, given the cleaver, clear writing and insight that is the hallmark of Raymond’s blog.

Wired News conducts a clinic in bad journalism

Wired News published a horrible story this morning. In Hide Your IPod, Here Comes Bill, author Leander Kahney writes:

To the growing frustration and annoyance of Microsoft’s management, Apple Computer’s iPod is wildly popular among Microsoft’s workers.

Now read the story. Read it carefully. (I’ll wait.) Note that the entire thing is based on an interview with one “high-level [Microsoft] manager who asked to remain anonymous.” From this one source, we are able to calculate with confidence that 16,000 employees at Microsoft’s Redmond campus own iPods and that management is ready to send teams of security guards out to locate anyone wearing white earbuds and send them to a re-education camp.

Well, having spent a fair amount of time around Microsoft’s campus, I can tell you that this story is mostly … what’s the word I’m looking for here? Ah yes, bullshit. I have no doubt that lots of Microsoft employees own iPods. But taking an offhand remark from an unknown source (who may or may not have a hidden agenda and who may or may not know what he’s talking about) and extrapolating it to the entire campus is just silly.

I’m fairly certain that senior management at Microsoft would rather that all Microsoft employees used something other than an iPod, which is why the Windows Media team is working so hard to come up with devices that could compete with the iPod and be called something like, I don’t know, “insanely great.”

One thing they teach you in Journalism 101 is that when you have a single anonymous source, you don’t have a story. That’s still true. When you’re covering a subject outside your normal beat (which appears to be Cupertino for this reporter), you can’t just talk to one person. And if you’re going to quote a post from Scoble’s blog, why not actually, you know, talk to Scoble, who actually publishes his cell phone number right there on his highly trafficked site?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Update: Paul Thurrott read the Wired News story and had the same reaction I did: “Hide The Truth, Here Comes Leander Kahney.” Meanwhile, Scoble says he declined Leander Kahney’s request for an interview. And a pseudonymous Slashdotter takes note of my remarks about not publishing a story based on a single anonymous source and comments, “Well, you’ll never get a job at CBS with THAT attitude, young man!” Heh.

Update 2: The Seattle P-I Microsoft Blog has a nice round-up of commentary on this story.

Update 3: Don’t miss Leander Kahney’s comments. He thinks Mac fans are “paranoid” and “defensive.” Imagine that…

I want a Windows Home Server!

Rick Hallihan has a vision of how a new Windows Server, Home Edition would look:

This would be a scaled back and customized version of Windows Small Business Server, running on specialized hardware, and it would simplify home networking to the point where everyone could enjoy the benefits of modern network management.

In Rick’s vision, this small device would handle e-mail for the home, provide simple centralized management of security functions (including a proxy server to help parents control Internet access for kids), do simple backups, offer remote backups as a premium option, store digital media, provide access to awesome games, and be a hub for home automation tasks. It would also update itself and all your software effortlessly. Oh, and it needs to look like a consumer electronics device and cost less than $500.

The only serious omission on the list, in my opinion is the hook to my telephone system. I’d want this device to do IP-based long distance, provide caller ID, and store voice mail for me.

I’d buy one!

(Via Scoble.)

The impact of antitrust on Microsoft

An interesting tidbit in this eWeek story about Microsoft’s decision not to bundle desktop search with Windows:

Speaking on a panel on search technology at the Harvard Business School’s Cyberposium, Mark Kroese, general manager of information services and merchant platform product marketing for MSN, said the federal antitrust battle Microsoft waged with the government has made the company think twice about what technologies it can add to the operating system.

“Working at Microsoft today vs. five years ago is different,” Kroese said. “If anyone thinks the antitrust case hasn’t slowed us down, you’re wrong. If I want to meet with a products manager for Windows there needs to be three lawyers in the room. We have to be so careful, we err on the side of caution. We are on such a fine line of conduct.”

Is that a good thing? You tell me…

Bold proposal, bad idea

Jake Wilcox has posted what he calls A Bold Proposal: Microsoft should release Windows 98 as freeware. He’s getting lots of publicity after asking Robert Scoble to jump on the bandwagon.

My opinion? This is a terrible, terrible idea. Windows 98 was a worthwhile operating system in its day, but encouraging people to use it today is just wrong. It’s built on an unreliable kernel (remember system resources, anyone?). It is woefully lacking in modern security features. It is incompatible with a large number of new applications.

Windows XP was a watershed. It represented a break with the old 9X code base and a move to the reliable NT kernel. As Service Pack 2 has proved, you can make this operating system extremely secure (and yes, there’s still plenty more work to do). I understand why people continue to use Windows 98, but why should anyone encourage more people to use an obsolete, insecure operating system that falls short of modern standards of reliability and security even after being extensively customized?

Jake, if you want to make a bold proposal, how about encouraging Microsoft to lower the cost of upgrading those old computers to Windows XP? What if the upgrade cost $49 instead of $99 for Windows XP Home Edition? What if Microsoft took the “lite” Windows XP Starter Edition it now sells in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia and released a $29 version for domestic consumption? Even on a seven-year-old computer, I could probably make XP work. It might need a little extra memory and some judicious tweaking, but it would work. And it would be safer and more reliable than an old, unpatched copy of Windows 98.

Is that Internet Explorer add-on safe?

Internet Explorer supports all sorts of add-ons and extensions. The most popular are Browser Helper Objects (BHOs), browser extensions, and toolbars. If you run Windows XP Service Pack 2, you can view a list of all installed add-ons by choosing Tools, Manage Add-ons. From this dialog box you can enable, disable, or update anything on the list.

So how do you tell which add-ons are good and which ones are evil? Start at the CastleCops Master BHO and Toolbar List. The list is currently at 1609 entries and does an excellent job of sorting the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Microsoft to expand Genuine Advantage program

This story in today’s Washington Post is confusing:

Microsoft to Launch Anti-Piracy Initiative:

Microsoft Corp. will combat piracy of its flagship operating system by requiring Windows users to verify that their copy of the software is genuine in order to receive timely updates and security fixes, the world’s largest software maker said on Wednesday.

Under a new verification program, users will have to prove their copy was obtained legitimately to receive “greater reliability, faster access to updates, and richer user experiences” from Windows XP, the latest version of the operating system running on over 90 percent of the world’s personal computers.

Users of pirated copies of Windows will still be able get some updates, such as security patches, but will not be able to get other add-ons for Windows, the Redmond, Washington-based company said in a statement.

The new initiative, called Windows Genuine Advantage, will start in mid-2005.

Microsoft said it will expand in February a trial authentication program it began last fall for English-language users to include 20 more languages. In order to attract more users to the trial, Microsoft is also offering downloads of add-on software and discounts on games and online services.

Authentication will become mandatory in mid-2005 for all users seeking to access software updates, downloads and security fixes for Windows, Microsoft said.

I’ve bold-faced the two most obvious contradictory statements in this report. Will users of unauthenticated copies still be able to get security updates or not? I’m still looking for the original source of this story.

I have no problem with a program that rewards people who have legitimate copies of Windows with add-ons, fun stuff, and even access to the library of signed, certified, updated drivers. But Windows security should not be tied to any anti-piracy efforts. One insecure copy of Windows affects the entire Internet ecosystem. If a patch is available to prevent that computer from becoming a vector for viruses, worms, and spam, then that patch should be freely available, with no restrictions of any kind.

Update: CNET News explains how it will work:

By the middle of this year, Microsoft will make the verification mandatory in all countries for both add-on features to Windows as well as for all OS updates, including security patches. Microsoft will continue to allow all people to get Windows updates by turning on the Automatic Update feature within Windows. By doing so, Microsoft hopes it has struck a balance between promoting security and ensuring that people buy genuine versions of Windows.

“We think that the best foundation for the most secure system is genuine software,” said David Lazar, director of the Genuine Windows program at Microsoft. “We want to urge all of our customers to use genuine software. (At the same time), we want to make sure that we don’t do anything to reduce the likelihood that a user will keep their system up to date.”

OK, I can accept that. Automatic Updates provides a perfectly good mechanism to deliver all Critical Updates and security patches. And most updates are still available for manual download from Microsoft’s FTP servers. Someone using a pirated copy won’t have the option to use the Windows Update site, but they won’t be blocked from installing security patches. That’s fine.

Another update: The press release announcing this change is now up on Microsoft’s site. Here’s a key excerpt:

Microsoft to Implement Worldwide Anti-Piracy Initiative

In the second half of 2005, visitors to the Microsoft Download Center and Windows Update will be required to participate in Windows Genuine Advantage to access all content. To help customers who may require more time to move to genuine Windows software, Microsoft is offering security updates through Automatic Updates in Windows, with or without Windows Genuine Advantage validation.

I really don’t like the sound of that last sentence, which implies that access to Automatic Updates may be cut off in the future for people who are unwilling or unable to prove that their copy of Windows is “genuine.”