To discuss Microsoft is to dance in a narrow minefield rimmed by opposing camps of zealots. But so what?
Raphael Needleman
Writing about Microsoft is like talking about politics. Unless you're sure of the precise nature of your audience, it's best to avoid the topic entirely. Say anything positive, and you're likely to get flamed for being seen as supportive of the Evil Beast. Say something negative, and you're almost sure to get swamped by hordes of aggressive Microsoft spin doctors. This is a shame, because Microsoft provides such wonderful fodder for debate about technology, standards, the needs of users, the essence of capitalism, and the free market--all manner of juicy cocktail-party conversation.
So we at BYTE, which is no stranger to controversy, this month analyze Microsoft's core bus
iness: its operating systems. Ace technology analyst Tom R. Halfhill delves into the current and future strategies that make up Microsoft's OS initiatives in "Inside the Mind of Microsoft", and Randall C. Kennedy examines the inner workings of Windows 95 in "The Elegant Kludge". These are important stories, because whether you love Microsoft or hate it, if you don't
understand
it, you're at an astounding disadvantage when it comes time to make your technology plans.
The Good, the Bad
I have to admit that in some respects I agree with the Microsoft-bashers. But in a lot of arenas Microsoft has simply done the right thing: It has developed good products and marketed them well. And for that the company deserves credit.
For example, Microsoft makes great desktop applications. Word for Windows does almost everything you could possibly imagine a word processor doing. The Excel spreadsheet defines its market. PowerPoint, once an also-ran in the presentation-graphics ma
rket, is now competitive. And it's these applications, more than the Windows OS itself, that have made Microsoft so powerful; without these market-leading applications, no one would ever have taken Windows seriously.
I don't really know if Bill Gates planned Microsoft's desktop OS and application-suite hegemony all along. When I interviewed Gates a few weeks ago (the interview will be published next month), he said he knew from the start the general attributes of the ultimate personal computer application platform but that he never really expected that Windows and Office would succeed to the extent they have today.
Of course, Microsoft has been immensely aided by another of its corporate attributes: its relentlessness in implementing a vision. Microsoft has never wavered from its plan to bring graphical applications to the desktop computer user. Other companies, meanwhile, have--just a slip here, a momentary rest on hard-earned laurels there. When these micro-opportunities pop up, Microsoft tend
s to gain just a little more market share or technology leadership. The company builds not just on its own vision but on the compounding errors of other vendors.
After 14 years in the IBM-compatible market, these little wins add up. We may not like it, but I for one respect the discipline that Microsoft has shown. It's won the company an entire market.
But enough praise. All of Microsoft's success has bred a corporate arrogance the likes of which you don't see in other computer companies (with the possible exception of IBM). Microsoft has had enormous success in the market defined by the desktop PC, but it's wrong for the company to assume that it can simply move this success into the consumer (i.e., TV) or corporate (data center) markets. These are fundamentally different channels, and they demand different products.
For example, they both demand something that desktop PCs don't deliver, the lack of which we've all grown to accept: absolute, unflinching reliability. The versions of Windo
ws that have evolved from DOS don't have it, and probably never will. But Home Box Office simply doesn't crash, and you don't Ctrl-Alt-Del AT&T's central phone-switch mainframes.
Understanding Microsoft is critical to your success as a computer-technology expert. To appreciate Microsoft, and to appropriately use (or eschew) the products it releases, you need to spend a little time working through your own technology plans and comparing how they mesh--or conflict--with the Microsoft vision. It will be time well spent.
Raphael Needleman, Editor in Chief, (
rafe@well.com
)
Why I Love/Hate Microsoft
