Michael Flanakin

Interesting First Impressions with the IE9 Preview

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:27:00 GMT

It's been almost a year since my plea to the IE team. Windows 7 has rocked, Office 2010 is looking very nice, and, most recently, Windows Phone 7 Series has amazed the world. All these great things coming together are really putting pressure on the IE team to deliver something revolutionary. Back in Nov 2009, the team talked about the tremendous performance improvements, sub-pixel text rendering, and HTML5/CSS3 support. All-in-all, there was a quick burst of information and buzz around what IE9 could become, but then it died off very quickly. I admit, I was quite skeptical -- and still am -- but at least it showed the team is heading in the right direction. In what seems to be the IE team's typical process, silence happened and annoyance returned.

Today, Microsoft announced the release of an early IE9 developer preview. I was pretty excited about this, since I've been waiting for it since they first started talking about IE9 in November -- well, maybe since IE8 was released without some of the big features I was hoping for. Nonetheless, I was grounded pretty quickly. For better or worse, there are some interesting things that came out of the preview.

1. Uhh, What's This Window?

I'm pretty willy-nilly with new software. Not too smart, but whatever :-P I installed the preview and expected magic. As it installed, I started closing other IE8 windows. All of a sudden, a new Window popped up. "Woo-hoo, it's done! IE9, here I come!" Then I noticed I left one IE8 window open. I switched over to close it and hesitated -- "Why is there an IE8 window still open?" I switched back to the new IE9 window and thought, uhh, this isn't a browser. There's no back button; no address bar; nothing. "Ah, maybe it's just a 'Welcome to IE9' dialog before the IE9 greatness kicks in!" I close the IE8 window, open another with the pinned icon on my taskbar. "Uhh, nothing changed." *Help > About...* Still IE8. WTF!? I guess this is more of a literal "preview" than I thought. No browser; just a chance to see how their pre-built tests work. Meh.

2. The Tests Work... Mostly

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just being part of the game isn't going to fly. And, if this is all the IE team has to show, I'm not impressed. Don't get me wrong, I love everything they show, from performance to sub-pixel text rendering -- seriously, this isn't something to scoff at, it's a very noteworthy improvement for any browser -- to all the HTML and CSS improvements. But it's not enough. Heck, the "Falling Balls" example didn't even work. I really want to bash the performance improvements. I even wrote this paragraph a few different ways to express my disapproval in different ways, but it all comes down to this: you won't realize how drastic the improvements are until you see IE8 and IE9 running side-by-side. The Flying Images example seems obvious, when you see it in IE9, but when you go back and watch it in IE8, you think, "Is this seriously what I'm putting up with today!? I feel lied to; cheated. How dare you, IE team; how dare you!" With all that said -- and seriously, the perf improvement is tremendous -- I'm still not happy (here's where my desire to bash performance comes in). While you definitely notice that aspects of performance have improved, the perceived performance really sucks. It's not the page loading that I'm talking about, tho; it's the standard page interaction that's defunct. Even clicking some of the links used by the examples were ridiculously buggy. I guess there's a reason they called it a "developer preview"... wait, that doesn't say "developer," it says "platform"...

3. "Platform Preview"

In an effort to find the hidden navigation controls, I scoured the lifeless window edges. The best I could find was the Page > Open... menu option. Well, at least that's a way to test out other pages. I figured, what better way to test out the new browser than to write a blog post. Let me just tell you that I'm dying here. I mentioned the perceived performance sucks already. Try typing in this thing. I feel like I'm clawing my eyes out -- and I'm talking about with freshly trimmed fingernails. You know what I'm talking about, when you trim your fingernails down to the nub and putting even the slightest pressure on them hurts. Now, try to claw your eyes out with that. That's why I feel like I'm doing right now. Every character is painful. *Ouch, oooh, ouch...*

Okay, I'm exaggerating; but it is painful. But, now that I'm able to get past the examples, I'm realizing I have two versions of IE installed. Hmm... very interesting. Remember the days when IE was a crucial part of Windows and couldn't be unbundled? Well, they seem to have figured out how to install a new rendering engine without touching the old one, hidden deep in the innards of Windows. Of course, they did introduce the ability to completely uninstall IE in Windows 7, so maybe that's a moot point nowadays. Either way, this is a first for IE, as far as I know. Then it hit me... "platform preview." Are they saying something with that? Are we talking about a rendering engine completely detached from the Windows desktop OS?

4. IE9 on Windows Phone?

In the original Windows Phone 7 Series announcement at Mobile World Congress 2010, Joe Belfiore commented that the phone is more than just the Mobile IE we see in Windows Mobile 6.5 and its predecessors. He said it came from the desktop browser code-base. This alone doesn't mean much, but when he called out the sub-pixel text rendering, my mind started adding things up. Is this IE9 on Windows Phone!? Nobody has said that, but you have to wonder. I've read that Windows Phone 7 Series is based on IE7 with some back-ported features from IE8, but that doesn't really make sense, when you consider that sub-pixel rendering is only coming in the next version of the browser. I still have to wonder about this. It doesn't make sense to back-port that feature two versions. Maybe it's IE8 with that one feature back-ported, but maybe it's IE9. If that's the case, IE9 will need to be on a hyperactive beta period and, as I mentioned before, they definitely aren't close to being done, yet, and I'm admittedly not confident they even know how to do that.

5. Where's the Navigation?

I really want to get back to the preview. I'm still annoyed at the fact that I have to get to sites in a hacky way. Why would the IE team do that!? Do they not want us to use the browser? That can't be it. Maybe they didn't have time to finish out the preview and just crammed some stuff together to make the Mix10 keynote. Maybe, but I doubt it. I didn't notice this at first, but the menu options aren't standard. Specifically, there's a "Page" menu instead of a "File" menu. Perhaps I'm reading into this too much, but "Page" sounds like more of a ribbon tab than a menu option. Maybe the reason we're getting such a scaled-back browser is because the old chrome isn't there anymore -- we could be getting the first ribbon-based browser. I'm very excited about this possibility. At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that this will be a very touchie UI, given the ever-popular tab-based browser. IE7 brought me back from Firefox because the UI was slim and just looked and felt more professional. IE9 with a ribbon done right -- extra focus on "done right" -- could seriously bring people back to IE. At the same time, it's an opening for haters to complain about the ribbon. I whole-heartedly believe the ribbon interface is demonstrably better than menu-based interfaces. So much so that, if I had my way, I'd never use another menu-based interface again. I'm not saying the ribbon is the way to go in every case, but I don't know why a traditional menu would ever be the "right" experience. It just isn't optimal.

With all that said, maybe the ribbon isn't the IE team's target. Maybe they've put a lot of thought into how users should be interacting with the browser. In either case, I welcome the change. Chrome took an interesting move with minimization, but I don't think it was drastic enough. Google played it safe with Chrome. Microsoft's not afraid of taking big risks when it comes to user experience -- just look at Office 2007, Windows Phone 7 Series, and even Visual Studio 2010 to a lesser degree.

No matter what happens, I'll be eagerly awaiting either the next preview/beta. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath. The IE team has a lot to prove with respect to being agile and, if they really are creating a new UI, that'll just complicate things more. I'd like to say we'll see something by the end of June, but who knows with that team. All I can say is, IE team, prove me wrong; please, prove me wrong!

Gartner Predicts the Future of the Mobile Market

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:28:00 GMT

Gartner recently released a smart phone market forecast, which looks at prior and predicted market share fluctuations from 2007 to 2013. I found some very interesting, but quite explainable predictions. I recommend taking a look at it yourself, but here are a few teasers.

The overall market has grown ~1.5x in 2 years and is expected to grow ~3.6x over the next 4 years. The ratio of consumer-to-business phones wavers, but remains about 3:1 throughout the assessed time frame.

Android
Gartner predicts Android quadrupling its market over the next 4 years, ending up #2 in the market. This is likely due to the open nature of the platform. While I agree with a large growth, 4x isn't quite what I'd expect. Seeing this, you're likely to suspect other big changes, too. I think you'll be surprised with Gartner's numbers, tho.

Blackberry
Blackberry is estimated to steadily decline over the coming years, ultimately dropping 6% from their current standing. From #3 in 2007 to #2 in 2008 thru 2010 to #4 in 2013. A thought-provoking rise and decline, but it shows how Blackberry isn't quite the innovator they'd like to be.

iPhone
For what most believe is the golden child of the mobile market, Gartner doesn't have much faith in the iPhone platform. iPhone tripled its market share from 2007 to 2008, then grew 50% in 2009. Most would think this would continue to shoot up over the coming years, but Gartner begs to differ. Gartner predicts only minor growth year over year thru 2013. They foresee a 10% growth by next year, virtually no growth the next, and a very trivial 1% growth in 2013. From here on out, the iPhone is expected to remain a #3 player thru 2013. Apple brought an interesting player to the market a few years back, but Gartner seems to believe that's where their innovation stops. I was very surprised to see the dwindling growth.

Symbian
Given the fact that we know Symbian is #1 today and we've already covered the #2, #3, and #4 players, you might expect to see Symbian in the #1 spot. Well... you'd be right. Gartner sees Symbian maintaining their place, but I speculate this isn't -- nor has it been -- due to superior innovation in the market. It's only a matter of time before other players take over. I suspect (not Gartner) they'll drop to #2 by 2016 as other players drive advancements.

WebOS
The road has been long and rocky for Palm, as we all know. WebOS seems like a last ditch effort to maintain a place in the mobile market. Gartner predicts they'll double their market share in 2010, but that's about the only success they'll see, as they slowly lose market share.

Windows Mobile
Gartner shows Windows Mobile steadily dropping from 2007 to 2010. That's no surprise, given all we've heard. With a mid-2010 release of Windows Mobile 7 -- Microsoft's response to the iPhone -- it's no surprise we won't see a spike until 2011, when Windows Mobile jumps up 15%. Gartner doesn't have faith that this will be good enough, tho, as they foresee market share dropping a little more than half a percent below their current share. While Microsoft isn't talking about Windows Mobile 8, they'll have to deliver it in relatively short order, if they want to show the market they mean business. I have faith this will happen by 2013. In fact, I'm hopeful that we'll see some major enhancements and mergers between Zune and Windows Mobile in the same time frame. My gut tells me we'll see this by 2012. It won't be until then that people truly see what Microsoft is capable of.

Others
Linux, Maemo, and others are also included in the study. I'm not familiar with any serious Linux competitors other than Android, but they've lost 50% of their market share in the last 2 years and are presumed to continue to drop, eventually giving Palm some competition for the least amount of share by "major" competitors... if you consider Linux a major competitor. I have to say I was surprised by Maemo, which I don't think I've heard much about. It's a Linux-based tablet OS Nokia developed and subsequently brought -- or, at least, is bringing -- to the smart phone market. I liken this to the opposite of Google's Android-to-Chrome OS move. With a 2009 initial showing, Gartner surprisingly predicts Maemo shooting up to 6.5% by 2013. Very interesting; unlike other players, who drop from 1.1% in 2007 to less than .1% by 2013.

If you ask me, Microsoft should seriously consider buying RIM. Right now, they're #2 and #4, but Microsoft stands to gain a tremendous amount from the corporate presence Blackbery currently holds. With what's expected to come in Windows Mobile 7, this would also give Blackberry users a very nice glimmer of hope around what I speculate will be a very nice mobile OS. Now isn't the time, of course. Given Gartner's insights, I'd say 2011 would be the best time to drive such an acquisition, hopefully showing value for Blackberry users in the Windows Mobile 8 time frame.

Short of a Microsoft/RIM acquisition, somebody needs to buy Palm for Palm's sake. Given my newly-acquired knowledge of Maemo, I have to say Nokia should seriously consider it. I was initially thinking RIM should give it a thought, but I don't see them having much to gain. Maemo and WebOS both have a lot in common. A merger could go a long way... not that Nokia needs Palm. The Palm-ers could definitely use some Nokia love, tho.

The last thing I should mention is that most of this is speculation on my part. Gartner provided the numbers -- aside from my Symbian 2016 and Windows Mobile 2012/13 comments. I wholly recommend you look at Gartner's numbers and other mobile studies they have to fully understand what they're thinking and why they made these forecasts.

A Plea for IE

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:28:00 GMT

Microsoft is out to prove a point with Windows 7. I can see the message clearly: "See, we can deliver on time; and earlier than most expected. And to top it all off, we did so without drastically changing the OS. That 'polished' OS you're looking at... yeah, it's Vista; 'Vista-point-1' to be exact. Sure, we tweaked it; but that's just to prove another point: Microsoft software isn't about bloat." I could probably go on for a while, but the signs are all there. Sinofsky has done a great job taking the Windows team under his wing. I've been very happy with some of the decisions they've made. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping to see some of the same changes on other fronts. Enter Internet Explorer.

IE8 is a big flop in my book. Don't get me wrong, it's my default browser and I love the enhancements; but it's just hiding the real, underlying problem: the foundation. I apologize for the analogy, but you can only mold a pile of crap so many ways before it just starts falling apart. Arguably, the same can be said about Windows, but Windows 7 has really given it a refresh. It's hard to explain how much better Windows 7 feels. I have to say I'd liken it to the first day I got Windows Vista, to be honest; but the key differentiator there is that I had quality hardware that was up to the challenge and no legacy software or devices to be concerned with. I'm not the "normal" user, of course, and I feel bad for those who had bad experiences. It's not because the software is bad, it's because your circumstances around which you experienced it were wrong. Not that Microsoft isn't to blame, tho; but I'm getting way off topic. It's time for a major change with IE.

I remember seeing some early concepts around IE8. At first glance, I was confused at a few of the ideas -- I'm thinking of one in particular -- but after I paused to really mull it over, it hit me. The power users would have at their fingertips would be astounding. There's a common root to the booming growth of Google and Firefox. This is exactly what Microsoft would've seen with this feature. Guess what: that feature never saw the light of day. As a matter of fact, I don't even know that it made it past that slide deck. Admittedly, the idea was rough, but it had some real potential. What's funny is that I just read something about the same concept being applied to another browser. *sigh*

Before IE8 beta 1 hit the streets, I saw another slide deck about what would be included in IE8 and 9. At first, I was excited, but it didn't take long for that to wear off. I actually began to question some of the decisions. There was (once again) one feature loved, but then I started to wonder if it even made sense. Depending on whether the team takes a left or a right out the gate will be the deciding factor for that feature... if it's still even a possibility. IE8 was pushed back so much that the IE9 time frame and feature set is completely out of the picture for what I saw. It's too bad; I was looking forward to a few quick revs. At the same time, this could be perfect timing.

Windows 7 is on the way, with rumors of April and May release candidates culminating in a June, July, August, September, October, November, or January final release date. It's pretty clear nobody has a good clue of the actual release date, but there is one constant in all the confusion: simplicity and performance are the two driving tenets in Windows 7. These two factors are huge for usability and, furthermore, perceptions. So, when I think about what to expect in IE9, I'm looking for both of these: simplicity and speed. IE8 is a dog on some machines. We've seen JavaScript benchmarks and "everyday use" benchmarks that all tell us different things, but it all comes down to our individual experiences... and perceptions. For IE to be a contendor, it needs to clean up its act. I want a sleek, sexy browser. It's not Firefox; it's not Chrome; and it sure as hell isn't Safari or Opera. I'm not saying each isn't functional, I'm just saying there's a lot to be desired.

Opera's doing it's thing, although I'm not sure why it even bothers; Apple's giving Safari on Windows a go, but not doing well; Google's got juice, but I don't think they have the right talent-mix to succeed; and Firefox is leading the pack against IE, but hasn't really made any significant innovations and is growing more by perception than anything. Microsoft (read: IE team), the browser market is yours to lose [which you're doing]; but it's also yours to dominate. Take a step back. Review the history books. There is one constant in what drives the up-and-comers of today. See that and feed into it. The world is asking for simplicity, speed, and all-around usability. IE8 isn't the answer. IE9 could be. You can do better. I know it; you know it.

2008: Year of the Cloud

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:23:00 GMT

Every year, there's one underlying theme that seems to be pushed in the technology arena more than anything. This year, I feel like it's the year of the cloud. The last time I did this was five years ago, so I'll have to back-fill a few years, but here are the themes I've noticed over the past 11 years.

2008: Year of the Cloud
2007: Year of User Experience
2006: Year of AJAX/Web 2.0
2005: Year of SaaS
2004: Year of Offshore Outsourcing
2003: Year of the Architect
2002: Year of Web Services
2001: Year of XML/.NET
2000: Year of Enterprise Java
1999: Year of Linux
1998: Year of the Web

We've been approaching "the year of the cloud" for a while, now. You can actually look back to 1998, when the web started to really catch on. A few years later, as Java started to build momentum and then .NET hit the scenes, which is when XML as a standard communication language started to catch on. Also tied to the .NET release was a huge push for web services. As this was more and more successful, service-oriented architecture (SOA) started to boom. In my mind, that was a big boon to the outsourcing trends, which have seemingly quieted down a bit, but not completely. SOA also led to the software as a service (SaaS) trend, which triggered Microsoft's software plus services (S+S) push, but that was more of a side story. With everything moving to the web, backed by [typically open] services, asynchronous Javascript and XML (AJAX) was the next big push. This was tied to the "Web 2.0" moniker, which I'd argue wasn't quite what Tim Berners-Lee intended. Either way, this led to the big push for better user experiences, which many people confuse with user interface design. The Web 2.0 push also kept the industry on its web focus, which is where we are left today.

It's easy to look back and see how we got here. Trends show that architectural changes typically take two or three years to gain momentum in the community, so we'll probably have a couple of years before the next major architecture peaks. The trend towards distributed computing has grown more and more, but I have a feeling things are going to start coming back a little. We've been pushing out to the web for a lot of reasons; one of which is the rise of the Mac. What we've been losing out on, however, is the power of the desktop. I see the S+S push to continue, but more as an underlying theme than a strong focus. Services will continue to be the foundation, maintaining the importance of cloud computing, but the desktop will be where the processing occurs. I see Silverlight proving a huge success, which will eventually bring .NET to the Mac. This will probably bring Novell and Microsoft a little closer together, with respect to Microsoft's relationship with Mono, but this may simply be a change in focus for Mono. Oh, and when I say, "bring .NET to the Mac," I'm not talking about the scaled-down version in Silverlight. I'm talking about the real deal. I see WPF and Silverlight merging along with the smart client architecture built into .NET today. This will take more than a few years, but it seems to be inevitable. Most likely, by the time all this happens, multi-core will be a way of life, as opposed to the we-should-be-thinking-about-threading thoughts most developers have today. Armed with a strong multi-threaded foundation, which is easy to use, the combined WPF/Silverlight presentation tier will quickly overtake Flash and Air. By this time, we should also start to see more integration into our everyday lives...

Okay, I'm probably getting a little out of hand here. If I go much further, we're going to be on the USS Enterprise, so I'll stop while I'm ahead. I'll just leave it at, it'll be interesting to see what's next. My money's on the power of the desktop, which we've lost over the past 10 years.

Hindsight on Foresight

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:21:00 GMT

Nothing new here. After reading another tidbit on the latest 120 GB Zunes, I remembered an old post I had. Not that big of a deal, but I thought it was interesting to see my prediction come to light.

Retrospectiva en Previsión

En Español

No hay nada nuevo aquí. Después de leer otro comentario acerca de la 120 GB Zunes, me acordé un puesto que escribí. El puesto no es muy importante, pero pensé que era interesante que mi predicción se hizo realidad.

Lower Xbox Prices = New Xbox Platform?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:22:00 GMT

Here's some "Yellow Submarine" talk about the Xbox... by the way, if you didn't catch that reference, then you're missing out on Mac Break Weekly , which is entertaining to all. But, I digress... The Xbox 360 has been dropping its price over the past few months, it seems like. I look at this and think about how long it's been since there's been a serious upgrade and I have to wonder if we might be seeing the very typical price drop before a new release. I have absolutely 0 knowledge about anything related to the Xbox and don't even own one, but I do admit that I'd be very intrigued by a new platform... probably enough to actually go out and buy one, which means a lot to me since I'm not a gamer. We'll see. Supposedly there will be something coming out at E3.

Testing Custom Code Analysis Rules

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:55:00 GMT

Over the years, I've been asked to put together coding standards again and again. The nice thing about this is that it enables me to pull out the old docs and touch them up a little. A year or two ago, I heard something that made a lot of sense: developers never really read coding standards and, even if they do, they don't usually adopt them. Let's face it, if you don't adopt a standard as your own, you're not going to use it. The only way to ensure the standard is applied is to catch the problem before it gets checked in. I tried a VS add-in that attempted to do this as you type, but it wasn't quite as extensive as I want, but I grabbed onto the concept. For the past year, I've been wanting to start this and have finally decided to do it.

As I sat down and started to investigate writing custom code analysis rules, I asked myself how I was going to validate them. After hacking away at one approach after another, I started to realize I wasn't going to get very far. Apparently, with the latest releases of Visual Studio and FxCop, there's no way to create the objects used to represent code. After talking to the product team, the official position seems to be that, since custom rules aren't "officially supported," they're not going to support their testability. I'm not sure who made this decision, but I think it's a bad one. Of course, I say this without knowing their plans. Well, not completely, anyway.

It's not all bad news, however. It turns out there are hopes to start officially supporting custom code analysis rules in the next major release, Visual Studio 10. Nothing's being promised at this point, it's just something the team would like to deliver. I should also say that the upcoming Rosario release isn't the major release I'm referring to. I'm expecting Rosario to be a 9.1 release that will probably hit the streets in early 2009. That's a guess, tho. If that's true, the VS 10 release probably wouldn't be until 2011. All I can really say about it is that it'll be a very exciting release. I can't wait to get my hands on a beta. Speaking of which, some of the goals they have for the product will make beta testing much much easier... I'm talking about a hugely evolutionary change, if not revolutionary, considering where the product is today. That's all I can really say, tho.

Back to the point, since there's no realy testability of the code analysis framework, I decided to create my own object model. The part I'm missing, obviously, is the factory logic that converts code analysis types to my types. I'm hesitant about this approach, but it's working so far. Hopefully, I'll have something to deliver soon. I keep bouncing around, tho, so at this point, I want to deliver a release with only naming conventions. That release is mostly complete, I just need to get approval for a distribution mechanism. If I don't get that soon, I'll just release it on my site.

Latest on Windows 7

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:24:00 GMT

There's been a lot that's come out regarding the next version of Windows, code-named Windows 7. Let me try to summarize what I've seen...

When it Will Release

First, let me touch on the release date, since that's been heavily debated. The initial speculation was that Windows 7 would be released in 2010. Later, rumors of a 2009 release cropped up. It wasn't too long until Microsoft released comments stating that Windows 7 would take three years to develop. Speculation from the field translated this to 2011 release. Of course, that was coupled with some doubt. As if that wasn't enough, Bill Gates recently stated that the team is targeting first quarter 2010. I'm sure the Windows team is slapping their heads wondering why he shared this, but it's too late, now. I believe the team has been purposefully quiet about the release for two reasons: (1) to ensure the release was on time; and, (2) to lessen the impact on Vista sales. I don't blame them. If you ask me, I think we'll be looking at an early 2010 release with hopes that it'll be ready in 2009. Of course, I have nothing to back that up, so it's merely a blind prediction.

How it Will Release

Microsoft has had a vision of releasing components of Windows independently for the past 6+ years. This was mainly related to the server operating system, but it's still a great feature for the client. With the software+services push, some are speculating there will be a piece-meal release methodology. I don't expect us to see this with Windows 7, but it's coming. There have also been rumors of subscriptions, which is another area Microsoft has been interested in for years. In my mind, this is more of an issue with society, than Microsoft. If the community would grasp the concept, Microsoft would definitely go there. I don't know if we'll see that in the next release or not, but it's another thing I see coming eventually.

What it Will Include

A while back, there were some hints to what was going to be included in Windows 7, but it now lookse the release is picking up a new set of pillars focused on design and usability: specialized for laptops, designed for services, personalized computing, optimized for entertainment, and engineered for ease of ownership.Taking it all in, the core concepts seem to be around ease of use, connected computing, and security -- pretty much taking the next step after Vista. I see this being evolutionary, as opposed to the revolutionary version of Windows I hoped this was going to be. I guess I can hold onto those hopes for the next release.

With an increasingly mobile workforce and consumer population, tuning the OS for laptops is going to be a big win. With this, they'll be looking at data security, responsiveness, touch/tablet interfaces, wireless connectivity, "on demand" access to all your information, and power management. Most of these are pretty obvious. The only one I had to take a second look at was "on demand" access. This is basically about either storing your information in the cloud or ensuring access to it, no matter where it may live. Windows Live is how we're going to get there. This pretty much says that Windows 7 will definitely have some Windows Live integration. I can already see the EU beckoning for "justice."

With the "on demand" component of the last pillar, we have a good transition into the second, designed for services. This one's obvious as well. Windows will focus on remaining up-to-date (as in with patches), worry-free upgrades, Windows online , help and community, family-friendly web experience, gadgets, and in-box application improvements. We already have most of what's here. I think the pillar is mostly about providing a more integrated experience. I am curious how Microsoft plans to achieve "worry-free upgrades." That's going a long way. Apple has that today, so it's not entirely out of the question, but I think Apple gets it thru customer confidence, not by technical prowess. Lastly, I'm interested in the application improvements. I've been using custom apps like Notepad2 and Paint.NET for a while now and it'd be nice to have something better than what was delivered in Windows 95 built-in. I heard about upgrades to these apps last year, but haven't seen what's come of that. The AeroExperience website posted these images. I hope this isn't it, tho. This is a bit minimal.

Personalized computing is something that will really bring Windows back to the consumer. To achieve this, Microsoft will target customization, internationalization, access anywhere, secure roaming, and home network management. Again, these are pretty self-explanatory.

The next pillar is about high definition graphics, media streaming, better playback, TV on Windows, and audio improvements. This is another area that is pretty much just enhancing what we already have today. I'm mostly interested in the TV on Windows scenario. This is already available, but very limited today. I consider this to be part of the Media Center vision, but Microsoft seems to have a few different products in the area. I hope there will be some consolidation here, but that may not make complete sense.

The last pillar is about ownership. Microsoft will put a strong emphasis on diagnostics and data recovery, lessening the fear of new applications by decreasing the need for administrative access, improved upgrade experience, administrative productivity and security enhancements, devices that "just work," quick/clean out-of-the-box experience, reduced management time/cost, and improved data security. We've seen a lot of improvements in this area with Vista and there's still some room to grow. If you haven't jumped on-board with Vista, you're in for a vastly improved experience and it looks like Windows 7 will be even better.

Surface in the Home

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:20:00 GMT

I'm excited about Surface, that's for sure. Powered by WPF, it's a great platform for some very cool apps. Despite the fact that other vendors are looking to dig into the space, nothing has really happened since Surface was initially announced. Things may be changing, tho. There's been a huge demand from the field and apparently Microsoft is looking to release Surface to consumers sooner than the 5 year estimate initially estimated. I can't say I'm surprised, but what that will really mean isn't very clear. If I had to guess, I'd say the first consumer version of Surface would arrive in 2010. The biggest blocker to getting it out sooner is the cost of hardware necessary to produce the large-scale graphics and touch capabilities.

Surface en la Casa

En Español

Me excitan sobre Surface. Accionado por WPF, es una gran plataforma para algunos aplicaciones muy buenos. A pesar de que se busquen otros proveedores para cavar en el espacio, en realidad nada ha ocurrido desde que se anunció Surface inicialmente. Cosas pueden estar cambiando. Hay una gran demanda y aparentemente Microsoft puede publicar Surface a consumidores antes que la estimación de 5 años. Estoy no se sorprenda, pero el mensaje no es muy claro. Si tuvieran que adivinar, diría que la primera versión de consumidor de superficie llegarán en 2010. El Bloqueador de elementos más importante para conseguir fuera antes es el costo del hardware necesario para generar los gráficos a gran escala y tocar las capacidades.

Improving Standards Compliance in IE

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:15:00 GMT

I wrote this a month ago, so it may seem a little out of date. I figured I'd go ahead and post it anyway. If you haven't been following IE8 much, it'll still seem like new

Standards compliance has never really caught on with the vast majority of web developers. Since Firefox hit the streets, more developers have started to pay attention to the ideals behind web standards, but they still don't seem to be doing the work to achieve compliance. Admittedly, a lot of the problems were brought on by IE's acceptance of bad practices, but the root of the problem truly lies with developers. IE7 resolved a number of standards compliance issues, but unfortunately, it broke a number of sites built specifically for IE6 at the same time. IE8 tries to resolve this problem. Today, we can opt-in to standards by specifying a DOCTYPE, which indicates what version of what standard the developer intends for a page. The problem is that no browser to date implements any standard completely, so there's still a chance your page will render differently in browsers that "support" the desired standard. IE8 fixes this problem. How? By allowing developers to write pages for specific rendering engines (i.e. IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, or FF3). I love this idea, for obvious reasons.

With IE8 and Firefox 3 both passing the Acid2 test and Acid3 on its way, I think we're in very good standing. While I don't expect huge leaps and bounds between IE8 and 9, I think we're well on our way to some form of nirvana on the web. Hopefully, IE9 will come in the Win7 time frame, which I expect to be in 2009 or 10.

Toshiba Announcement == More Zune Storage

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:01:00 GMT

First off, I have to say this is completely off -the-cuff. I have no insight into the Zune team or its plans. This is one of those teams that keeps a lot to themselves. While I hate this because I'm just as curious as other consumers are, there's a time and place for any announcement, and it seems some teams are leaning towards less transparency than others to avoid over-promising and under-delivering. Anyway, Toshiba just announced the availability of 120 GB 1.8" hard drives. Seeing as tho Toshiba manufactures the Zune, I can only imagine this means we'll be seeing 120 GB Zunes this holiday season. Of course, there's always an option for those of us who are less patient. At first I was hoping this meant smaller Zunes, but it looks like they already use 1.8" drives.

Anuncio de Toshiba == Más Almacenaje de Zune

En Español

Antes de que proceda, tengo que decir que no tengo ninguna penetración en el equipo de Zune o sus planes. Éste es uno de esos equipos que guardan secretos. Mientras que odio esto porque soy apenas tan curioso como otros consumidores, hay una época y un lugar para cualquier anuncio, y parece que algunos equipos están anunciando menos a evitar prometiendo demasiado y la entrega de demasiado poco. Toshiba anunció los discos duros de 1,8 pulgadas con 120 GB de almacenaje. Desde entonces Toshiba crea el Zune, creo que Microsoft va a lanzar el Zune con 120 GB de almacenaje este año. Por supuesto, hay una opción para la gente impaciente. Inicialmente, esperaba para un Zune más pequeño, pero usan discos duros de 1,8 pulgadas ahora.

What to Expect with Open XML

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:29:00 GMT

If you're not familiar with the story behind Open XML to date, Rob Weir of IBM has a decent overview. I'd be remissed if I didn't say he was somewhat biased, tho. An example of this is a comment he made about how he believes Microsoft will drive change in Open XML with every release of Office. This, in itself, shows how little he understands about the Open XML format and why its proponents believe in it as a superior format to ODF. I have no doubt Microsoft will try to push modifications as more and more customers ask for new and innovative features, but that's exactly why Open XML is better -- it was built with extensibility in mind, unlike ODF.

Here we are, waiting for the last leg of the process to kick off at the end of this month and some skeptics say, "While you're waiting [for the ISO decision on standardization], don't save in OOXML format." Should you listen? Probably not. There are some seemingly logical arguments behind the comment, but the position is flawed. He states that you should use the legacy binary formats to ensure a truly "open" experience. To word that another way, you should use a proprietary binary format instead of one based on open standards, such as ZIP and XML. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with my Open XML file formats, which I have full control over and can get data out should I need it, unlike formats like the legacy DOC and PDF formats, which require binary interpreters. I can get my data out of Open XML files without any document reader. I simply need a tool to extract the content and read text files -- not that I expect everyone to feel this way. Also, with more and more format converters out there, I fail to see the importance of constantly saving to a format your tool of choice doesn't natively support without translation. You'll get a much better experience working in native formats and only converting to another when you need to publish or share your content externally.

We're not looking at all bad news, tho. With the 3522 comments made on the original specification, most overlapping on similar concerns, 662 responses have been made. I don't know if there was truly that much overlap that would support 662 answers to 3522 comments, but you can browse the comments and responses online. In another attempt to ease the community into the new formats, Microsoft has also published the legacy binary formats.

What's perhaps more interesting is the fact that, in a truly independent study, the Burton Group found Open XML to be a superior format. You can get that report online, but I doubt most people will see it. Perhaps developers at traditional Open XML opposing companies like IBM and Google read it, tho, seeing as their products seem to support the new formats. Of course, I think this is a must-have. You can't have a tool that neglects the native file format for the de-facto standard when it comes to productivity applications.

What do I expect? I expect the format to be approved. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a doubt in my mind, but the evidence is there that it's a superior format. The fact that these open source companies are so up-in-arms about Microsoft wanting to push its own formats thru the standardization process says something about their motives. Microsoft wants options and, with that, extensibility. If the format is judged on the merits, like all good arguments, the answer is clear. If you ask me, the worst thing about Open XML is Microsoft's name on it. If that weren't there, it'd already be a standard.

Mac vs. Windows: Vulnerabilities of 2007

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:01:00 GMT

Just wanted to share some vulnerability stats from 2007 for Mac and Windows. Mac had 12 times the number of vulnerabilities that Windows Vista had and 5.5 times the number of combined Vista and XP vulnerabilities. At first I was surprised, but then I thought back to rumblings of insecurity and talk about Windows Vista being more secure than Mac OS before that. It's been nice to see the Mac security myth begin to fade away and watch as Microsoft's credibility around security grows. I expect this trend to continue thru the year; especially as more and more users are exposed to Mac's. And, yes, I do see Mac use growing this year. While I'm making predictions, I think I feel pretty comfortable saying Vista won't see the widespread adoption people seem to expect. This is ironic, considering it's truly the best version of the OS to date. Nevertheless, the reason I say that is because I expect to hear more and more talk of Windows "7" this year. I'm guessing that people who've hesitated to upgrade might prefer to see what's next, since there's talk about it being released in 2009. Microsoft is good at learning from its mistakes, so I think we'll see a very big boom when Windows "7" hits the streets.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	7
Total flaws	34	20	44	243
Average flaws per month	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

Mac contra Windows: Vulnerabilidades de 2007

En Español

Quiero compartir algunos estadísticas de vulnerabilidades para Mac y Windows en 2007. Mac tuvo 12 veces el número de vulnerabilidades que Windows Vista tuvo y 5,5 veces Vista y XP combinados. Al principio, me sorprendió, pero pensé de discusiones de la inseguridad y sobre Window Vista que es más seguro que el Mac. Ha sido agradable ver el mito de seguridad de Mac comience a desaparezca y mira el credibilidad de Microsoft alrededor seguridad crece. Espero que esto continúe este año; especialmente como usuarios se exponen cada vez más a Mac. Sí, veo Mac utilizar el crecimiento de este año. Mientras que estoy haciendo predicciones, no pienso que Vista verá la adopción extensa este año. Esto es irónico, porque Vista es la mejor versión de la OS. Espero oír cada vez más la charla de Windows "7" este año. Pienso que gente que ha esperado para aumentar esperará ver lo que es nuevo, puesto que la gente ha hablado sobre la lanzaba en 2009. Microsoft es bueno en el aprendizaje de sus errores, así que pienso que veremos un auge muy grande cuando Windows “7” golpes las calles.

Estadísticas de Vulnerabilidades para Windows XP, Vista, y Mac OS X en 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	7
Defectos totales	34	20	44	243
Defectos medios por mes	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

Mac vs Windows UI Comparison

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:14:00 GMT

Here's an interesting comparison of the user interfaces for Mac and Windows over the past ~13 years. I found it somewhat interesting, so I put a little more effort to see which ones came out first, hence the timeline below the UI comparison...

In the timeline, I marked the significant releases in red. This is just my opinion, of course, and others may think otherwise. The first thing I have to say is they should've included Windows 3.x, which is fairly similar to MacOS 7. Also, I want to say MacOS 7 is relatively similar to previous releases, visually, but I'm not 100% sure. Aside from that, if you compare it to the above UI comparison, you notice that Apple did a good job of pumping out releases fairly quickly, but Microsoft beat them to the market with Windows 3.0. Windows 3.1 was the release that really caught on, tho. Of course, the big story was Windows 95. I want to say Windows 95 had the largest release in the history of personal computers. The 7 year stagnation between MacOS 7 and 8 is probably the worst thing Apple could've done. I don't know about the promises at the time, but this was worse than the Vista release! Beyond that, MacOS 8 wasn't even much of an improvement. In my mind, Windows 95 leap-frogged MacOS, who wouldn't come close to catching up until 5.5 years later, with MacOS X. To say that another way, Apple couldn't beat Microsoft until they dropped their main code-base and started with Unix. I think that says a lot about the quality of Apple's code. Ok, maybe that's a low blow, but whatever. 9 months later, Microsoft released Windows XP, which gave Windows a bubbly/cartoony UI... which I have always hated. Finally, Windows Vista hits the streets in 2006 with a lot of big improvements, arguably the biggest upgrade since Windows 95. Of course, with such a huge market behind Windows, Microsoft can't survive without its vendors, which is the biggest reason Vista isn't on every desktop... well, the Windows users' desktops, at least. Lastly, the next incremental release of MacOS X was released last month. "Leopard" has a few very nice features, but isn't really a huge upgrade. Honestly, since MacOS X, Mac users haven't seen any big changes. So, we're coming up on 7 years since the last major Mac upgrade. Don't you think it's about time we see something big? Don't expect it, tho. I'd put my money on the next version of Windows coming out before a major upgrade to MacOS. Of course, Windows "7" may not be as big as I was hoping. Those changes may be reserved for the Windows 8.0 release, which I'd guess would be around 2012. Man... that's forever!

Windows "7" Wish List

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:32:00 GMT

A supposed wish list of features for Windows "7" has been brought to light. I can neihter confirm nor deny the list, but I do think it's worth sharing. The key features in this list I'm interested in are the multi-monitor taskbar, virtual desktop, and CD/DVD image support, reopen closed tabs in IE, and integrated IE instances.

I'm not sure how much can be done to improve the taskbar for multiple monitors besides having the option to span both, which I don't like, but it'd be interesting to see. On the other hand, there are rumors that "7" (or maybe "7"+1, whether that be 7.1 or 8.0) will include a new UI, which doesn't include the start menu or taskbar. This is what I'd truly like to see; and, given the potential removal of the taskbar, the question of multi-monitor improvements comes up once again. Of course, this new UI might be built around that concept, so maybe it won't be an issue. With any major UI change, however, there are some supportability challenges Microsoft will face. Look at Office 2007 and how much ruckus came with that. Luckily, the change was well-accepted in the end. This is a gamble, tho.

A virtual desktop would be absolutely awesome. I just hope it's better than Microsoft's last foray into the virtual desktop space -- a power toy for XP, which was simply horrible. My current virtual desktop app has been commercialized, so it'd be nice to see something built into the OS.

Having the ability to mount a CD/DVD image will be nice. Microsoft had a Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel application (mentioned here), but it wasn't as integrated as I'd have liked. Oh, and it only works in Windows XP. If you're interested in this functionality in Windows Vista, check out MagicDisc.

There are a number of IE features in the list, too, like reopening closed tabs, which I currently have with IE7Pro; and, allowing you to drag tabs from one browser instance to another. I'm somewhat concerned with/interested in how session state will be managed in this scenario, since new tabs in the same IE instance are currently working with the same server session. I don't think I'd group these into the Windows "7" wishlist, tho, because I expect IE8 to be released before Windows "7." I'm expecting us to start hearing about betas in 2008 with an early 2009 release. Granted, I have no basis for that timeline, but a 2008 release date seems a bit too soon, given the lack of information we've seen. Either way, IE8 will be an exciting release. I'm expecting some game-changing features.

There were also a few features for Windows Mail and Calendar mentioned. I wonder how much Microsoft will be putting into these products. Currently, Microsoft has four actively supported desktop mail/calendar clients: Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows Mail/Calendar, and Windows Live Mail. Obviously, Outlook Express has been deprecated. I have a feeling Windows Mail will be deprecated, as well. The only thing stopping that, in my mind, is potential legal problems. I see Windows Mail and Calendar as apps necessary for the Windows Vista release. With the Windows Live suite, there's no reason to keep them around.

YouTube Going HD

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:55:00 GMT

Looks like YouTube is planning on switching to HD quality videos. I'm curious how they plan on attacking this. Currently, the site uses Flash, which isn't capable of supporting HD quality videos. They could go with direct file streaming, but the concern there is portability across platforms. What's left? Silverlight. Do I really think this will happen? No. Let's face it, Google isn't a big supporter of Microsoft. Of course, if Silverlight was implemented, that'd be a huge win for Microsoft. Google won't let that happen, tho. I'm thinking they'll probably stick with Flash and just deal with a less-than-HD experience.

TFS Offline Capabilities

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:48:00 GMT

I love TFS for everything it provides, but one of my top aggravations is its horrible support for disconnected users *grumble, grumble* Subversion was better *grumble, grumble* I saw something that made me put 2 and 2 together, tho. Will TFS be introducing better disconnected support a la Microsoft Sync Framework? It's too late to tie this into the TFS 2008 release, which is coming out at the end of November, so I'd say we should definitely see something in Visual Studio "Rosario," which I'm expecting to see in early 2009, at the latest. Of course, this is something I imagine they'll want to get out to people a lot sooner, so I'm actually leaning more towards the possibility of a power tool. The TFS team has done a good job of getting power tools out. It'll be very nice to have the current tools integrated into the core platform, but I still look forward to what else is coming down the road. I don't know about you, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one. Despite the fact that I think this was a horrible oversight on the TFS team's behalf, better late than never.

Microsoft Gunning for Google Gears?

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:02:00 GMT

Microsoft recently announced the Microsoft Sync Framework, which keeps disconnected users connected. Those familiar with it might wonder how this relates to Google Gears. There is a key difference, however; Gears is a browser plug-in, while the Sync Framework is, well, a framework. Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction, but Google definitely showed Microsoft up on this one. I imagine we might see something from Microsoft in the way of a browser plug-in, but that's not Microsoft's typical style. Actually, I'd put my money on sync integration built into Silverlight 1.1. Coding in .NET and built-in sync? Silverlight's sounding better and better. Eat your heart out Flash.

Windows "7": UX, Consumers, and the S+S Vision

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:30:00 GMT

Anyone who knows about the history of Microsoft knows the company works best when challenged. While I can't imagine many reasons people would question XP vs. Vista, nobody can argue Microsoft has made a lot of stupid mistakes with this release. I foresee a change with Windows "7," tho. I'm expecting Windows "7" to be more focused on user experience and consumerisms than some of the previous releases. If not "7," then the follow-on release. Why? Because Apple is picking up steam.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Apple gets user interface design. Microsoft needs to take this to heart a bit more and strive to innovate on how users interact with the OS. I see this being the key differentiator in years to come. We've grown accustomed to the same old thing and I think we think there has to be a better way. I'm not saying today's computing experience is flawed. I merely think there's probably a better way to make the computer act like we do and predict our actions more than it does today... which is none. Microsoft started with Office 2007, so now it's time to do it with Windows.

Usability is one thing, but there's more to the equation. Let's face it, consumers have different needs than enterprises and Microsoft has seemingly put more effort in meeting enterprise needs than those of the consumer. How will Microsoft seek to improve on this? Today, I think the answer to that question is easy: Windows Live. The itch of the consumer is scratched with what comes in Windows Vista, but there's still much to be desired. What's the answer here? The growing suite of Windows Live products, of course. We're starting to see a one-to-one mapping of core Windows apps (i.e. mail and photo management) to Windows Live apps. Coincidence? I think not. Microsoft is treading new territory with the Windows Live suite, tho. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next year or two; especially with the next release of Windows. With or without Windows Live, Windows is what needs to change to keep people from switching. Perhaps the Windows Live suite will replace what's built into Windows, perhaps not. I have to admit I can see that being a possibility. My only concern would be antitrust issues. Then again, most of the Windows Live apps I've used work with other services, as well, so maybe that won't be a problem. I imagine we simply need more of a plugin model or standardized service interfaces to augment that more for other service vendors. Hmm... maybe I'll stick with that. Windows Live being part of Windows just seems to make sense. With this, the software plus services (S+S) vision could almost be fully realized within Windows "7."

The Vista Catch 22

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:55:00 GMT

I feel like I've been hearing more and more about how Vista is a flop lately. Some even say Microsoft should abandon Vista. I honestly have no idea what these people are talking about. I've switched myself and others on every machine I've had the opportunity to, 7 at last count, and nobody's looked back once. The only valid concern I've heard from people about upgrading is the fact that some hardware/software doesn't work or has problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the value of these things. I'm merely saying this isn't Microsoft's fault. Vista has been no secret. Microsoft is pretty good about letting its partners know what's coming. Heck, over the past 3-5 years, they've been getting better and better about letting us all know what's coming. Granted, all this one-sided effort to prepare vendors for the upgrade doesn't mean much if the vendors choose not to upgrade their software. Speaking of which, I have to say that the vast majority of the upgrade issues come from bad practices, including insecure software design from lazy developers. If you have an app that doesn't work, I'd question how secure it is and possibly the stance and effort the vendor has on and puts into security altogether. The bottom line is there's nothing Microsoft can really do at this point -- it's in the hands of vendors, now. With that, I'm going to say there's a catch 22 for those who've chosen not to upgrade/fix their software. Vendors won't put effort into fixing their products for Vista if users aren't migrating and users won't migrate unless their products are supported. What's everyone to do? Sure, Virtual PC can solve some problems, but not all. Besides, the idea of VPC boggles the minds of most end users, so I wouldn't even try to suggest that.

I have no idea what the right answer is, but it's an interesting problem Microsoft faces. This is a problem they've faced before, but never so drastic. Clearly, this is a key opportunity for other OS vendors to benefit as they offer potential migration paths for those not willing to migrate to Vista, but there's faulty logic there, too. Linux is still not an option for most users; and, Mac is more appealing than it's ever been -- especially with the latest release -- but we're starting to see it gravitate to more of a power user base -- especially with the latest release -- which doesn't make sense for the vast majority of users. On the Mac side, they suggest virtualization to solve any Windows-specific needs, which I'd argue is still too complex for most users.

Just to touch on the "abandon Vista" thought, I will say I think Microsoft should speed up it's plans to migrate off the Win32 platform. Well, let me clarify by saying I don't know if that's actually a plan or not. If it isn't, it should be. I've seen it coming for a while, but that's mostly in vague directions Microsoft has taken with different tools/technologies. I'd like to see a solid effort to dump the crap that's plagued Windows users for years. Not all at once, perhaps, but there needs to be a migration strategy. I think I've made my desires known: I want to see a .NET-based OS. There will be a platform shift, the question is when will it hit?

Enhancing Concurrency Development Models

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:27:00 GMT

Looks like C++ will be seeing an upgrade in the coming years. Seeing as tho I don't use C++, I was about to brush this aside. Then, I started to get curious about the changes. In what has been dubbed C++ 0x, there will be changes to remove errors and inconsistencies, add garbage collection, and support for concurrency and multithreading. While the former two sound like big wins for the C++ community, the last one triggered something. Anyone can tell you the only constant is change, but looking at where hardware is moving and today's limitations in programming, it's become apparent current approaches to multi-threading need to be revised. Of course, this leaves us with the all too often asked, "how can we improve this?" Honestly, the change in C++ is just about promoting features from system-specific libraries to the core language, so there's nothing revolutionary going on. I want more. We now have Linq; I want Lint -- languge integrated threading. I don't really know what this means, yet, but the idea just sounds right. I want the compiler and/or run-time to make some decisions about how to manage threading code blocks or method calls. Attributes are a gimme to identify methods to thread, but I feel like there's so much more we can do. Forcing someone to create a method to contain threaded code may not be all too bad of an idea. I guess what I'm thinking of would include a thread{} block with some sort of eventing mechanism. Perhaps something like thread (ThreadArgs t = new ThreadArgs()) {...}. Like standard event handlers, the ThreadArgs class would be extended for special scenarios. The key to this class would be its built-in eventing structure and thread processing instructions. The framework would know how to manage the thread based on a ThreadHandler<ThreadArgs> instance. Factory and provider patterns jump out at me here, but I'd have to put more thought into it to determine what would be the most beneficial. The heart of the idea is that threading patterns would be programmed into handlers or providers, which would provide an extensible way to enable .NET to manage threads without forcing the developer to wrap his/her head around how it will work.

As nice as something like this may sound in my head, I don't think the full capabilities are coming out in my explanation. The real value lies within the ability to describe how a thread should execute in the ThreadArgs and the robustness of the handler to be able to execute that. This is still only half of the equation, tho. The compiler needs to be smart enough to detect common pitfalls, like deadlocks. This is obviously the harder problem to attack. Tooling also comes into play, when looking at how to avoid these problems.

All this is pretty half-baked, tho. In truth, someone a lot more threading savvy than I needs to look at this. I have no doubts that is going on, tho. I'd be interested in seeing what comes out of it all. I'm betting we'll see improvements inn .NET 4.0. Not that any such release has been discussed, but I suspect we'll start hearing feature news by mid-2008 and see a release in 2009 with the next OS release. Again, I know nothing. I'm merely making wild speculations.

Google Reads Your Email

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:55:00 GMT

A small big deal was made about Steve Ballmer saying Google reads its users' email. When I read this, I thought, "You've gotta be kidding me! When does he stop!?" Ballmer's made a number of comments that go against company policy, which I think is funny. He's a very controversial CEO and a number of people think the company would do good without him because of this. I'm not going to go into that, tho. What I do want to go into is his comment. He did, in fact say, "...they read your mail and we don't," but I think it was taken out of context. Specifically, Ballmer was referring to targeted ads. Ads on Gmail are targeted based the content of your email, while Hotmail's aren't. What this means is that Google reads thru your email to determine what ads to display. Of course, we have no idea what, if at all, Google is doing with this content beyond creating targeted ads. Google's seen a barrage of publicity about this in the past and I don't expect that to lessen anytime soon. This is perhaps why Microsoft has chosen to avoid the hoopla and opt for a more secure practice... at least, a logical barrier between Microsoft and your email content. Personally, I don't care about the targeted ads. In fact, I think, if you're going to show me ads, you might want to show me an ad I'm likely to click on, but privacy Nazis are probably loving it. All I care about is that it's not stored and/or used without my consent. All that aside, tho, I guess it was nice to see Ballmer actually making a truly factual statement that wasn't really about slamming the competition. The discussion was about ads and his statement about how Google generates ads was completely within reason. Heck, watch it for yourself.

There was a comment in the video about Visual Studio on Mac/Linux. He claimed that there was no plan now, but that it would be evaluated if/when there was a market. Just to chime in, I see it coming. Let Silverlight grow over the next two years and I believe we'll start seeing full cross-platform .NET. After that, we'll see more Microsoft apps that have been at least partially built on .NET be transitioned. The future of Microsoft is .NET. I can already see the day that Windows is build on .NET. Maybe I'm crazy, tho. I'm sure all the C++ guys think I am.

Is Web 2.0 Coming to an End?

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:26:00 GMT

Jim Rapoza mentions something that should probably be in the back of all our minds: the probability of the Web 2.0 bubble burst . He mentions a few well thought-out observations about previous bubbles. I, for one, am looking forward to this burst. Part of my reasoning behind that is the fact that, at its peak, the bubble becomes more about marketing than the elegance of the technology in question. After a burst, things even out and it's back to business as usual, except we then have a technology we can implement without the overzealous polluting the waters... well, at least not as many of them. Beyond all of this, tho, I'm excited about the potential of Web 2.0 getting back to it's roots. Too many people think Web 2.0 is about a dynamic, AJAX experience when, in fact, it's about a more consumable, "semantic" experience. The closest we've been to this original dream is the abundance of service-orientation around technologies such as RSS and Atom. You'll see this in intriguing mash-ups such as those created from services like Pipes and Popfly. One of those recent mashups centered around the Windows Live family of services is Tafiti, a Silverlight-based search utility.

This burst couldn't come any sooner, but I'm afraid we probably have a bit longer to deal with this bubble. While the burst is inevitable, I don't expect to see a significant change until late 2008. Of course, by that time, we'll be seeing the beginnings of the next big thing. I just wonder what that will be...

Adobe Talks About Flex[ibility]

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:36:00 GMT

SD Times had a recent article discussing Adobe Flex and the recent announcement that it'll be available under the open source, Mozilla Public License (MPL). The article was less than informative, but I found the last paragraph somewhat interesting. Adobe spokesperson, Jeff Whatcott, vice president of product marketing, took what jabs he could against Microsoft regarding the recently anounced Silverlight product. Apparently, Whatcott claims he's "puzzled by Microsoft." I don't buy it. If Adobe doesn't see the possibilities with Silverlight, they have no chance. I do wonder how well Adobe will be able to compete in the long run, tho. As I see it, Adobe has three major products: Photoshop, Flash, and Acrobat. Then again, it's not really Acrobat, it's the PDF document format. Either way, Adobe has built itself around these products and hasn't done a whole lot to maintain that. Adobe's been lucky to have had enough of a lead to keep its head above the water, but this isn't the first time a market-leader has led with a lack-luster product. Hell, look at IBM Rational and their Rose tool. Honestly, if you ask me, Adobe isn't very good at software. Outside of the Macromedia tools, Adobe doesn't have what I'd consider quality tools -- they're slow, bloated, and less than user-friendly. It's only a matter of time before they become obsolete. I'm not saying it'll be Microsoft or that Microsoft "get's it," because I think there's a long way to go. On the other hand, I believe Microsoft has a decent chance. Now, if only they'd perform at their peak.

Whatcott continued by saying, "[Microsoft is] doing what they need to do to have a story in the marketplace." I thought this was funny. He obviously is trying to insinuate that Microsoft doesn't have a chance and is only giving Silverlight a shot to roll the dice. I have to say that this is definitely not the case. I see Silverlight as a serious competitor to Flash. True, Microsoft is quick to state that Silverlight isn't a "Flash killer;" but think about it, they're simply staying away from that because they know Silverlight isn't quite there yet -- heck, it hasn't even been released. Let's face it, how cocky would it be to say, "We have Flash++ right here." That's just not a smart move. That'd be just as moronic as the "unbreakable" campaign Oracle ran for a while (see also: Oracle Unbreakable No More? ) or the funny ad I saw for Sun Solaris stating that it was the most complicated operating system available -- seriously, does that make you want to buy it? There's a long road to go for this interactive media game and my money's on Microsoft... literally. I think Microsoft has the superior solution, roadmap, and game plan. Adobe has the marketshare, but that's fairly volatile. I expect to see Silverlight on most people's computers within two years of its release, if not one. As-is, Flash is rarely used for truly interactive content. Macromedia never really pushed it enough to squeeze out its potential and now, with Silverlight integrated into the client and server -- especially with .NET -- Flash's time is limited. Flex is merely a gasp for air. Ok, maybe it's not quite that dire, but the future will definitely be interesting and I think Microsoft has the upperhand... even tho it's starting from the bottom. Heck, Adobe is grasping for straws with comments like, "[Microsoft is] simply trying to drive more people to Windows," and, "We're not about any particular operating system." First off, Silverlight is being released for multiple browsers on multiple platforms with plans to expand that fairly quickly to mobile devices. That's only the start. So tell me, what does that have to do with Windows? Absolutely nothing. Nothing about Silverlight requires Windows. You can create your Silverlight apps in vi, host them on Unix, and view them on a Mac. Where is Windows there? Whatcott's follow-on comment is even funnier. No, Adobe's not about any particular operating system because it's not an OS company. Whatcott is throwing out comments that have nothing to do with the discussion to gain favor of the anti-Microsoft zealots and make it seem like Microsoft is all about the almighty dollar. Believe it or not, there's a bigger picture and Microsoft sees and pushes towards that more than any other software company in the world. Just look at how much money Microsoft puts into research and development. What has Adobe done to progress the industry?

Server Core Missing the Mark

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 30 May 2007 22:30:00 GMT

One of the exciting things about Windows Server 2008 (codename Longhorn), is the fact that you can deploy it in its most minimal form, known as Server Core. Of course, after reading a bit about this interesting new installation in a recent eWeek article, 'Longhorn' does more with less , all isn't as sweet as I initially thought. The first deal-breaker for me was the fact that .NET isn't included. Admittedly, Microsoft never said .NET would be the core of Windows before, but I still think the future of Windows is going to be .NET (or .NET's successor). It just makes sense. Well, unless you ask the Win32 zealots, of course. Apparently, .NET has so many dependancies, by the time you add them all, you're almost up to the full install Windows install. So, it sounds like .NET will only be in the full install. Ok, if that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse. One thing you should know is that, as I understand it, Server Core only provides a command-line interface. Some will like this, some won't. What does this tell you? PowerShell, right? Yeah, not quite. PowerShell depends on .NET. Granted, you may have seen this coming with the lack of .NET. The lack of these two makes Server Core useless to me. As much as I liked the idea of having a minimal install, I just don't see ever using that.

As Jason Brooks mentions, Server 2008 is a while away from producing the individual software packages you'll find in Linux installs, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. I can see this being further enhanced in 2010 or '11, with the next version of Windows. The future is definitely exciting; especially when you look at how far Windows has come in the past ten years. If you don't think it's come that far, take a look at other operating systems, like Linux distros as a whole, Sun Solaris, and/or Apple Macintosh. None have come even close. Of course, this is my opinion and I'm sure many would argue.

While I'm on the subject of the next version of Windows, I'd have to say that getting .NET into Server Core is a must. Well, maybe not necessarily in Server Core, but at least making it a small package to easily be added without a problem. Perhaps making .NET more modular might be an answer to that. Then again, I can only imagine the headaches that could bring. All I know is the heads better get together and figure out a way around this. I just can't imagine the "next generation" Windows without the "next generation" command-line. Seriously, who thought this one out?

Lundquist on Microsoft's Web Initiatives

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 12 May 2007 20:21:00 GMT

Eric Lundquist speaks to Ray Ozzie's description of Google as the "command line of the internet" in an old eWeek article. He suggests that this isn't quite true, arguing that the simplicity of search is nowhere near the same as the complexity of the command line. I have to say I agree with Ozzie. The truth of the matter is that search is the closest thing to the command line when it comes to the web. You type in what you want to do (or look for) and the search engine reacts. There's a deeper reasoning behind Ozzie's comment, but I won't get into that. I will say there's a lot to come and the next year will bring some of that to life.

Taking the general topic of the web a little closer to home, Lundquist poses 10 issues he believes must be addressed for Microsoft to truly compete in today's -- and tomorrow's -- web-focused world...

Integration of online and offline offerings. Lundquist is definitely on-target when he mentions the gap between the two. Microsoft's missing the boat big time, right now. I'm very faithful that it will all come together, but it's taking too long, in my opinion. He also makes a direct reference to Google's productivity apps as "enterprise-level" here, but I think he's way off on that. These apps may be enterprise-scalable, but are far from enterprise-functional. There's a big difference. Google's a long way from getting there.
Browsers are the new OS. Lundquist asks why Vista apps is being stressed more than browser apps. Let's face it, Microsoft is a commercial entity. Selling Vista makes money. Let's put two and two together, here. Some of this has changed with the new Silverlight announcements, but don't think that'll stop the push for applications to be updated for Vista and beyond.
Google's offline weaknesses. Lundquist suggests that Microsoft should play on Google's weakness in offline data. I understand what Lundquist is saying, but I don't think this is a good strategy. Google's mantra was to "do one thing and do it good." Well, they did that with web search. With that popularity, they've tried to dig into other realms. The unfortunate problem there is that web search isn't the same as the other areas Google's tried to dig into. Sure, they've created some intriguing services and applications, but they aren't nearly as well thought out as their web search offering. Hell, they can't even get enterprise search right. Google hasn't been very good at taking in all the angles, so their weaknesses speak for themselves. If Microsoft steadily pointed fingers, that would simply back-fire.
Online security. Lundquist wants Ozzie to explain the Windows Live security initiative. While I would never argue against it, I think this is more of something that needs to be proven, rather than described. Time will tell. All I really have to say about it is that the struggling OneCare service isn't doing a very good job of proving Microsoft's strong emphasis on security. As usual, I think this will improve significantly over time.
Identity. Passport, and now Windows Live Id, is great an all, but I wish Microsoft would pick up and support something like Open Id. Lundquist just wants to know what Microsoft has to offer here and, well, I think that's a good question.
Standards compliance. This is an area where Microsoft has been getting better and better at. I think we'll see this continue over the next few years and, eventually, I think we'll even surpass others in the same space, being more compliant than them. Of course, this all depends on consumers' desire for such compliance.
Internal cross-pollinization. Knowing how online and offline teams are working together to build more integrated environments is something we're not seeing from the outside. Oh, wait... not from the inside, either. Actually, I know it's happening, but the vision of how that's happening should be shared a bit more. Microsoft's been good with transparency over the past few years, but they've also been careful about what they've shared due to the problems with Vista. The ideal balance has yet to be achieved. Who knows how long that'll take to perfect.
Future of Windows Live. That's a damn good question. I can try to foresee some possibilities, but it's wide open. The first year or two has been all about defensive strategy as Microsoft plays catch-up. We all know Microsoft is best when in attack mode, tho. I truly see this as a turning point. I expect big things from the Windows Live platform. I just hope Microsoft will deliver the next generation experience it's capable of delivering.
Timeliness. As I mentioned before, Lundquist is right on here. Microsoft has had a problem with over-envisioning the capabilities in its next gen products and services. I think the Windows Live platform has been better at that, with releases every 3-6 months -- I don't know what the actual release schedule is, but I think it's quarterly. The problem is that this isn't publicized. I'd like to see what is pushed so I can take advantage of the new features as they come online. Otherwise, the products and services just seem stagnant, like others have the reputation of being.
Names and faces. Lundquist would apparently like to see more from the likes of those closer to the trenches than Ballmer and Ozzie. I can't blame him with this, but I don't know how much I care. Personally, give me the info. I could care less who it comes from. I may be off on what he's really getting at, but I'd rather hear the news than know who's behind it.

Silverlight and Mix '07 Addendum 2

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:03:00 GMT

Well, it's about damn time! In the essence of the Expression Suite, Microsoft just released WPF/e with it's official name: Silverlight . All I can say is that it's about damn time they give a tool a "cool" name. I almost wish they'd do the same for the .NET 3.0 technologies and Visual Studio line, but there's so much history there (at least with the latter), I doubt that'll ever happen. Either way, great job, team Silverlight!

Well, I'm 0 for 2 in the "guess what's going to be announced at Mix '07" game . My first and third guess have both come to light before the conference. Well, then again, part of that third guess was regarding a user-friendly development/design tool for what is now Silverlight. That one is still possible. I still think a preemptive release of Visual Studio would be somewhat out of place at Mix. Well, I guess we'll have to wait two more weeks to find out for sure.

Expression Tools on MSDN

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:16:00 GMT

I called it! The Expression tools will be available on MSDN . I figured this was an easy one to guess, seeing as tho the Expression suite is Microsoft's first attempt at design tools. I have to say that I'm not impressed, but I have faith that future releases will be much better. I still want to play with them more, but just haven't had much time. Nonetheless, I think their availability on MSDN will make them much more likely to be adopted. The only thing I'm wondering now is, what will the big announcement at Mix '07 be? Hmm... There are still a number of things I can think of, but my curiosity is even more piqued given this turn of events.

Announcement at Mix '07

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:20:00 GMT

Everyone who knows about Mix '07 most likely knows that we're expecting a big announcement. I have to admit that I don't know what it is, but I have a couple of guesses. If I had to pick one, I'd have to say it'll be the announcement that the Expression tools will be available on MSDN. This has been a complaint I've heard from countless sources and, I honestly don't think Microsoft will drive too much adoption without this. I understand Microsoft's logic behind not putting the tools on MSDN, but I think it makes more sense to put it there.

I will say some of the talk I've heard leads me to believe my guess isn't big enough of an announcement. Trying to think of what else might be on the horizon is kind of hard, tho, seeing how open Microsoft is. Perhaps the biggest announcement I could see would be the release of Visual Studio codename "Orcas". In the same breath, I don't see this being released at a mixed developer/designer event; especially considering this event has a lot of designer-friendly content. With that, I'm left with the announcement of WPF/e and/or a friendly WPF/e design/development tool. If that's it, all I can say is I hope they come up with a nice, "cool" product name. I wish they'd just fall back on the codename, Sparkle. Beyond these ideas, I can come up with a few small possibilities, but nothing that is too big of a deal. I ultimately decided to skip out on this conference, so I won't be there to get the announcement, but I'm excited to find out what it is.

Tech Year in Review: Media Devices, OSs, and AOL

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:07:00 GMT

I just listened to a recent This Week in Tech cast, The Year in Review . There were several things that were discussed I wanted to talk about. I have to say all of the TWiT casts tend to irk me in one small way or another because just about everyone on them seems to be one small step short of being an Apple fanboy. Nonetheless, there are some interesting discussions that go on...

As usual, the Zune was hated on. One thing I think is funny is that Apple fanboys tend to talk down on the fact that there's a brown Zune. I have to admit that I don't like the brown Zune. If I had interchangable covers, I might be willing to get one; but outside of that, I doubt it. Most people say that the brown Zune is much better in person and the majority of those say it's the best of the three primary colors. I haven't seen it in person, so I can't say. Back to the TWiT discussion, they did say that most people who're buying into the Zune are doing so more for what will come rather than what it is today. In part, I can agree with that. While my iPod experience is limited, I never found the devices interesting enough to throw money at one and I think the Zune will ultimately be a force to be reckoned with. With that, I expect it to take some time, tho. If Microsoft releases a wider range of device form factors that target different niches, they'll have much more success; but I expect the Zune to hit 25% market share by mid-2008.

While I'm ranting about what fanboys these guys are, I must say they actually talked nice about Windows Vista. One person said most Windows users weren't impressed. I have to say I haven't met one Windows user who thought that way. The only negative comments I've gotten with respect to Vista are from Mac users who don't have much (if any) experience with Vista. I'm not saying Vista is revolutionary, but it is a must-have advancement for Windows. I think anyone who looks at it will find that it's a worthwhile, much needed improvement on many levels.

One of the predictions for 2007 was that this year would be the year for the three-headed OS war. MacOS is and has been a viable consumer OS for quite some time. Now, with better positioning on standard hardware and with a Unix core, the OS is even better off... again, for consumers. I don't think Mac is ready for enterprise usage. Not that the OS can't survive, but I don't see any major organization switching from Windows to Mac even if it was completely free. Mac doesn't have anything near the enterprise management features of Windows. I'd like to see some details on such a transition, but don't ever expect to. Linux, on the other hand, has a different niche. Linux is for gear-heads who want the most productive "feel." I say "feel" as opposed to feel because command lines aren't always more productive. That's besides the point, tho. I've ventured the way of Linux on several occasions and get so aggravated at the waste of time to do somewhat menial tasks that should be simple. From what I've seen in the few Linux implementations I've played with, Linux is going to a lot more than one year to get any true capability to take over the corporate or consumer desktop. Again, this isn't because it's not capable, but because it's still too damn hard to do simple tasks. Techies can figure it out, sure, but we aren't the average user. Why do you think people like Mac? Part of Mac's appeal is its oversimplification of some tasks; the other major part is that it looks pretty. Both of these things are nowhere to be found in the Linux world... at least as far as I've seen, anyway. If I had to throw out some random numbers based on no real conecpt of what percentages are today, I'd say Linux usage might increase a few percentage points and Mac usage will probably get into the low 10's. I also see a great many new PCs coming out with Windows Vista and, poised to take on the major post-Vista changes, I expect both Linux and Mac numbers to drop in 2008; especially as iPod sales start to decline, which I expect to start late this year.

Perhaps the most exciting topic discussed was the idea of AOL's acquisition. When this came up, one word came to mind: Google. Of course, this is the same thing the TWiT guys were thinking. AOL would be a more than perfect complement to Google's arsenal. Google has the search strong-hold, but I don't think its other features have much usage outside of the heavily tech savvy crowd. Taking over AOL would give them unprecedented (for them) access to the desktop in a very new area for them -- the "average" (and lower) user. Google started with techies and worked its way down from there. This was a perfect approach; especially as a search provider. Think back to where you learned about Google from and I guarantee you it was ultimately from a techie -- who am I kidding, only techies are going to read this Anyway, an AOL purchase would see massive changes. First and foremost, IE would be changed out with Firefox. Second to come would be the extensive use of Google tools in all areas of AOL. The major ones being web and desktop search and Google Talk/AIM merger (or at least connected networks w/ shared friends); but don't think Google wouldn't take this the extra mile by including a "free productivity suite" in AOL. Introducing this to AOL's userbase would be more than ideal for Google. Again, I have to stress that Google's top-down proliferation mixed with AOL's years of bottom-feeding are the perfect match made in heaven.

One person said that, if Google did purchase AOL, Microsoft would look into purchasing Yahoo; however, Yahoo would strive for individuality. While I understand this point of view, Google can get away with an AOL buyout; however, I don't think Microsoft could get away with a Yahoo buyout. While AOL has the lowest denominator, Yahoo shares some of that along with more of the "average" userbase. This didn't come up in the cast, but an AOL-Yahoo merger would rule the world of the lower 2/3 of the interent userbase. It's just too bad they wouldn't make any money.

Oh, let me explain Microsoft's current position with respect to Google, AOL, and Yahoo. Well, first off, I don't think AOL is in the game very much; but I do know they're into more than I know about -- always important to know what you don't know There's been a lot of confusion around why Microsoft has MSN and Live.com; but, in actuality, the answer is pretty simple: Microsoft competes on more levels than Google, Yahoo, or AOL alone. MSN competes with Yahoo for the users who like news. In the cast, Leo asked why people still use MSN. Well Leo, that's why. They don't want the simplicity of a blank screen, they want news. Their web world revolves around news content. Live tries to get into this game with their custom homepage, but that's more of a techie feature, if you ask me, and maps bet to Google's personalized homepage. While we're on the topic of Live, we all know it's a Google compete. Live Spaces is a MySpace and Yahoo compete. Soapbox is a YouTube and Yahoo compete. Live Mail is a Gmail and Yahoo Mail compete. Live Maps competes with Google Maps and MapQuest (AOL). And, there's the all-way IM battle between AOL, Yahoo, MSN/Live, and Google Talk. Honestly, there's a lot more than just these, but I'll leave it at that. This should be good enough of a list. With all this, I think a Yahoo merger would be beneficial because it would increase Microsoft's userbase, but I don't think it would happen. Microsoft typically acquires innovative start-ups, not web giants. Instead of a merger, I'd expect stronger co-opetition. Expect to see Live and Yahoo services working better together, like the IM coop that started this year. Beyond this, I don't expect much. I'd even go out on a limb to say this will definitely not happen. In the same breath, if Google goes for AOL, which would be the smartest move of 2007, in my opinion, Microsoft will have to do something to solidify its desktop. Having such a strong competitor who's already taking pot-shots from the web on the desktop is not going to be good for the bottom line.

If it isn't obvious, I'm very interested in this AOL issue. The only thing I could say about it would be that Microsoft might want to go for a buyout as somewhat of a preemptive strike before Google can. At the same time, I think AOL would deny that based on principle. As a company, I think AOL would rather go to Google. Man, the more I say it, the more I can see Google-AOL... this may be one exciting year!

The Next Windows, Part 2

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:47:00 GMT

James Kyton writes about what might be expected in the next 2 releases of Windows , which he claims we should start seeing the results from within the next 2 years. There are a few things I wanted to comment on...

First, I have to say his timing with the next release is probably about right; however, with Balmer's intentions on time between releases, the following release shouldn't be any more than 3 years after that. In the same breath, I do question a completely new OS in 5 years time. Then again, all they have to do is rewrite the core and update immediately dependant parts; I imagine they've done a somewhat decent job of separating core functionality. At the same time, I know a complete rewrite would be better.

James claims Fiji will come with .NET 3.5. I think I can say what's being called .NET "3.5" today will be out well before the next version of Winodws. While I'm on the subject, the "3.5" in .NET "3.5" is not the expected version number. Instead, this is merely an abstract identifier for a future version of .NET that will include certain features. While it may not be likely, there could potentially be a release before this one. Think of this as Microsoft sharing information without committing to anything. James does say the .NET release could be 4.0, tho, and I think that could be a possibility. Whatever the version is, expect a new version of .NET with Windows.

While integration with Windows Live is definitely a very likely possibility, expect to see a lot of push-back. All I can say is there better be some sort of provider framework built around these. I've mentioned this before in regards to the search features in Vista. I've thought about looking into replacing some of these capabilities with open source alternatives, but the time just isn't there.

Speech recognition in Windows is a gimme. This is obvious with all three of the latest tool releases: Vista, Exchange, and Office. Looking into these will show a vast array of speech tools. I expect speech to be the next great input device in the coming years. Innovations in this space will be very interesting.

The future of managed code is another area I've talked about a lot in the past. To sum up my thoughts, I see a completely managed OS being the ultimate goal of Microsoft. The idea that all non-managed code will run in a sandbox is a touchy subject. There's been a soft-spoken battle between managed and unmanaged code since .NET came out. Most of this has been because the impression was that C++ developers had no choice but to upgrade to .NET. In fact, that's never been true. That's still the case; even in the future of Windows, if you ask me. James seems to be [inadvertantly] backing up my opinions with his comments. I see this being a huge move in the right direction. I expect managed and unmanaged code to completely switch sides in terms of performance, power, and respect, just to name a few.

Devcasting on Adobe, Google, Vista, Firefox, and More

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:04:00 GMT

Devcasting is a new cast that discusses random development topics. Their first episode was pretty good. I did want to share my thoughts on a few of the topics they discussed.

First, the discussion on Adobe Apollo was good. My brief thoughts are that Adobe's trying to bite off too much. Microsoft did it with their original thoughts on Vista (Longhorn, at the time) and all it did was cause problems on multiple fronts. I expect Adobe to see the same type of issues and the delays that go along with them. At the same time, Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) will be gaining momentum in the Windows world with WPF/E ("E" for everywhere) will be slowly seeping into the web world on other platforms and browsers. While Flash has time on its side, I see WPF, with WPF/E as a part of that, to be a vastly superior technology. Adobe needs Apollo today. There will probably be a slow start with WPF, but I see a half-and-half WPF/Flash world in 2008, 2009 at the latest.

Another topic that came up was Google's request to have Google search as an option in IE7 . While I understand this, I have to say that just adding Google wouldn't really be fair. What about the other search engines? Now, I will say this is an opportunity for Microsoft to make some money. If Google really wants it, Microsoft should put a price on it. With as wide of a distribution IE7 will get, that should cost a pretty penny, in my opinion. Outside of that, they'll just have to keep on keepin' on with their custom IE install.

Of course, the Google seach in IE idea sparked something I thought of when I first saw Vista: Should Vista provide support for other desktop search engines? This may be more and more of a problem as Vista becomes more mainstream, since search is baked into the OS. If someone prefers Google Desktop Search, replacing Windows Desktop Search can't be an easy task and nobody would want both running. Granted, you can turn off indexing, but without integrating another search engine into the OS would leave you at a major disadvantage, in my opinion. Sure, you can get to content without search, but it's so much easier and better, in my opinion. I haven't looked at the possibilities in this arena, but if Google wants to compete here, they'll have to.

One big thing I'm glad to hear about was the screen rotator in Windows Mobility Center . I noticed my tablet wasn't rotating anymore after installing Vista and it's been somewhat aggravating. I've downloaded the latest drivers, but it still doesn't work correctly. While I've known about the Mobility Center, I guess I didn't realize there was a screen rotator in there. Thank you! Now, all I need is a shortcut and/or icon to click instead of manually having to activate it from the keyboard. I may work on that, depending on what info is out there on integration.

Lastly, Firefox 2.0 came up with all its complaints. I admit, I was a very big Firefox user. I still love Firefox, but after IE7, I just don't feel the overwhelming need for it. I have both on my computers, but IE7 is my primary browser. Anyway, Firefox 2.0 has been getting a lot of complaints. Part of that is because of some bugs due to a rush to get it out, but I think the larger issue is due to IE7. I can't remember who said it, but IE7 was a huge improvement, while Firefox 2 was a very minor improvement. I think the hardcore Firefox enthusiasts are upset that IE7 gained so much ground on technical capabilities in the new browser war. There's still ground there, but if Microsoft takes this on as they've done in the past, it's only a matter of time before IE supercedes Firefox. I can see another interesting release for IE coming by the end of 2007, but I don't think it'll be as major.

Aside from these topics, more were discussed. I just wanted to comment on these. Check out the cast and enjoy the other 2 that are out right now. I'll be sure to catch up with them soon, that's for sure.

My Plea to the Blogosphere: Be Mobile-Ready

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:52:00 GMT

As I’ve spent more and more time catching up on my blogroll with my phone, I’ve realized just how far we really need to go to truly support Web 2.0 (and beyond) -- well, my [more than likely] misguided view of what Web 2.0 should be about, anyway. I've tried to outline the top ten in this, my 10 mobile-ready commandments...

Thou Shalt Employ Full-Text Posts. I can’t stand it when I start to read a post that I’m really interested in, but come to find out that it only has the first 500 characters or so. I want to read it all. I don’t want to have to wait until I get to my PC to finish it. Of course, I can click on the obligatory “read more” link, but I’m risking 2 things: (1) chances are that the target page isn’t mobile-ready, either (I’ll touch on links next); and, (2) Mobile IE only supports one, non-tabbed browser window, which means I can’t bounce between different windows. They do a pretty good job of caching for the back button, but when I’m in the middle of reading things on my phone, I tend to get interrupted or have to put it down for a bit. I’d rather just have everything all on one page so I can read it easier without having to scroll thru links, bring up new pages, and then return back to old pages. That process can get very tiresome. I do admit my issues with this are in part because of and can be resolved with software -- I use Bloglines to read my blogs. Still, I stand by this one.
Thou Shalt Exploit Mobile-Ready Links. All too often -- like EVERY link I’ve ever seen in a blog post -- we copy a URL of a page and don’t even think twice about the reader. It’s time to be mobile-ready. We need to enable our mobile readers with the ability to bring up these third party pages without depending on the mobile browser to decide how to format a non-mobile-ready page. I admit that I have had this same problem in the past, but I set a precedence to fix that in my blog posts back in September. I’m introducing my mobile-ready icon: . From here on -- at least until there’s a standard for this sort of thing -- I vow to provide mobile-ready links after every link I use in my blog posts. This way, mobile users will be able to consume everything related to my post, not just my comments on it. Without some sort of identifier validating the link, there’s no telling what will happen when you try to load a non-mobile-ready link. Just to touch on my first point, if you feel you just can’t live without summary views, at least provide a mobile-ready link to the full content.
Thou Shalt Summarize Linked Posts. More often than we probably notice, we tend to say things like, “This post is completely misguided,” or, “I just read this article and it’s the best! Check it out!” Well, this one goes beyond mobile, but it is worse for mobile users, but the problem is, as a user who has no idea what you’re linking to, I have no idea what the target web page says. Please summarize it for me. At least frame it in the slightest form (i.e. “This intro to generics is completely misguided” or “I just read this article on non-deterministic turing machines and it’s the best! Check it out!”). Having an idea of what the linked page discusses can tell me if it’s worth my time to dig into it. Just give me at least the smallest idea of what idea it’s trying to get across so I don’t have to look for myself. Remember: my mobile time is usually short and mobile bandwidth is limited.
Thou Shalt Localize Aggregated Feeds. For [place your deity/profanity here]’s sake, localize your freakin’ aggregated feeds!!! I have no problem with the idea of sharing information on one site in multiple languages, but I have a huge problem when there’s only one aggregation and I have to skip past posts in 5 different languages, which is completely oblivious to my language settings. My mobile device can’t read Cantonese, for instance, and when it tries, it sometimes freaks out because the memory load is seemingly double (if not more) than normal. All you need to do is provide language-specific aggregations and then throw an all-in aggregation for good measure. That’s all I ask.
Thou Shalt Not Renew Prior Convictions. This one is a huuuuge pet peeve of mine. Admittedly, it’s not just a mobile issue, but it’s an issue nonetheless. If you see others posting on a topic and don’t have anything to add to the topic, don’t post! Sifting thru post after post that all point to each other is getting overly ridiculous. If you don’t have something original to add to a discussion, just leave it alone! The only well-respected bloggers (and I think I can go as far as to say outspoken people, in general) are the ones who have something to add to the story. If all you do is repeat, then nobody will want to listen. When I’m on a mobile device, that makes my tolerance for such waste of bandwidth and time even lower.
Thou Shalt Value Brevity. This one isn’t really all that bad of a problem, but it still happens. Let’s try to keep our titles short, sweet, and to the point. I hate seeing post titles that are too long and wrap 3 or 4 times on a mobile screen. Have some respect! I realize that it’s sometimes necessary, but we need/love our space in the mobile world. For instance, here’s an example: “If you ask a Yes/No question, make sure the user also knows what happens when they say No.” What the crap is that? That could’ve been condensed a lot!
Thou Shalt Value Order and Tranquility. When people format their text in all kinds of crazy colors and sizes -- especially sizes -- all you're doing is making it harder and harder to read on a mobile device. I'm not saying all formatting is bad; just use it judiciously. Be sure that your formatting adds to the message or makes it easier to read and understand. If it goes against any of these principles, remove it. There's just no reason to bold-red-25pt your statement because you want to get it across. Bold-red, or even just bold, should work just fine.
Thou Shalt Separate Posts and Articles. Perhaps this isn't that big of a problem, but there's a difference between a blog post and an article. Typically, blog posts are one-time discussions regarding the topic at hand. You may have a long-running set of posts that map together, and that's fine, but don't post a 5 page article which depicts a step-by-step process to perform a complex task. These are better off as articles. The way I look at it is that an article will probably be something you might want to come back to and update, whereas a blog post would be left alone and another one would be created. Another way of looking at it is the degree of information included. Blog posts should be seemingly short, sweet, and to the point while an article may discuss the ins-and-outs of a particular problem. If in doubt, make it an article and keep it separate from your weblog and follow that up with a simple post describing and linking to the article. If you have a lot of articles, create a feed for them. As long as the feeds content style/type is known, I'm all for it.
Thou Shalt Not Spam Tech Blogs. If you run a technical blog, please try to keep the non-technical posts to a minimum. If at all possible, maintain a few different blogs for different topics. This also allows you to manage blog categories better. For instance, I have 5 mini-blogs for different things I like to blog about. My main tech blog, tech articles, product feedback, and two personal blogs to track shows/movies I watch and places I go. Each has its purpose and keeping them separate allows anyone interested to consume only what they want.
Thou Shalt Respect Thy Resources. There were obviously undertones of this in several other pleas. Honestly, this is probably the most important one. All I ask is that you respect the resources mobile users have at their disposal. Take these main three into consideration: time, space, and bandwidth. Typically -- at least for me, personally -- mobile users don't intend to spend a lot of time on their mobile device. I usually check weblogs when I'm waiting for something; whether it be at a stoplight, stand-still traffic, in line for something, or just plain waiting for something/someone. If I have 5-10 minutes and I'm away from a computer, this is good blog-reading time. Because I do this in short time frames, I don't want to deal with any [aforementioned] issues and I want to get thru as much content as possible. I'll leave it at that for the time issue. Space is probably the first thing that comes to people's minds when thinking about mobility. Yes, it's true; my space is very limited. This is why we need mobile-ready content without crazy formatting. Granted, the space issue goes deeper, but these are the key areas I've noticed the most. Finally, bandwidth is also an issue. Virtually nobody has direct problems with bandwidth; however, virtually everyone has indirect bandwith issues. Whether it be due to heavy site graphics, posting point-less material, or any of the other annoyances, remember that anything you post takes up bandwidth. All I ask is that you make it worth my while by providing something of true interest.

I started this list back in August and am just now getting around to finalizing a posting it. There are so many things I want to say about being mobile-ready, so I just had to sum them up and get the post done. I'm sure others will come up with their own pleas and I welcome them. Anything to help enhance moble-readiness! I truly believe this will become more and more of a factor in 2007.

Lundquists' 2007 Tech To Do's

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:01:00 GMT

Eric Lundquist talks about 5 things you should be thinking about for your technology road map in 2007: open-source/Microsoft, mobility, simplicity, people, and customers. I wanted to comment on a few of them.

The first thing Eric touches on is the somewhat controversial deal between Microsoft and Novell to share patented information/technology. I have to say that Microsoft is not necessarily the wolf in sheep's clothing that most seem to think it is. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft -- as well as Novell -- is in this game to make money. My unofficial view of the deal is that Microsoft honestly wants better interoperability between the two operating systems. Novell just got lucky it was with them, in a sense. I don't expect Microsoft to ease up on any Linux vendor, tho. If anything, this will position them better to replace Linux. Microsoft has long had the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy, tho. I believe this is exactly why this deal happened. Not that I'm saying one or the other can "win;" I honestly don't think it's a fight anyone can "win." They both exist and for different reasons. Sure, you can do what you need in both, but that doesn't mean everyone can live in one world or the other. That's why there are so many choices in every realm of technology -- beneath the covers, it's all the same game.

Next, Eric brings up the fact that we need to be looking at mobility. Mobility is something I feel very strongly about . I started a post a few months back ~~that I haven't posted yet~~ that touches on this very topic. This is almost a spark to get me to finish and post it.

Simplicity is always important. The one thing that has been fairly constant over the years is we continually increase simplicity. Granted, complexity is probably growing at double the simplicity rate, but at least there's somewhat of a balance. Software as a service (SAAS) is definitely a step in the right direction, but we can (and will) go so much further. I remember seeing something about hardware as a service being a possibility. I'd have to say that's been happening for years, but it isn't really a mainstream thing, so it defintely has room to grow, as well. There's something beyond that, tho. All of the big technology shifts we've had in the past 10 years have all been relatively known concepts that simply get applied on a macro scale. The question is, what's next? We're always looking to make life easier, so the next 5 years will most likely prove to be more interesting than the last 10. Honestly, Vista is one big step in that direction. The simplicity I've found in Vista is outstanding. (This wasn't intended to be a shameless plug, it's just how I feel.)

The last two items Eric mentions, thinking about people and customers, really resonates Microsoft's new people-ready campaign . Beyond that, I'd have to say that the mobility and simplicity points both have their own less obvious people-ready aspects, as well. Honestly, there are a lot of facets of being people-ready, but I think Microsoft hit the nail on the head when they coined this phrase. We've known it for years, but with the triple launch of Vista , Office , and Exchange , Microsoft really wanted to bring it home. It seems like Eric would have to agree.

Vista-Ready Hardware

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:29:00 GMT

I have to admit that I'm not one to keep up with hardware advances. I know a lot of gamers keep up with the video cards, for instance, to better support the latest games. I just haven't ever cared about all that. As long as I have something strong enough to create the software I need, I'm happy. Obviously, Vista is going to change the overall landscape of hardware in the everyday household -- well, as is spreads it will, anyway. Due to this, I think one thing we'll see as we get closer to the official release, is the idea of a Vista-ready hardware rating.

Anyone who's played with Vista or read about the vast level of graphics utilized will know about the experience rating. You can read a little about it here (which includes this screenshot). Note that this review is from very early March and a lot has changed since then, but the idea is the same. Basically, each hardware component is analyzed to determine how much it can support. This analysis results in a numeric rating, which is ultimately used to determine what software can be run and at what level.

I expect to see this start popping up on computer and component manufacturers' websites and boxes in the next 3 months. I've alerady seen Vista-ready stickers on a few laptops, but it hasn't really permeated the overall scene, yet. What I expect to see is pre-calculated experience ratings for every piece of hardware so consumers will know within seconds how to build the most "ready" system. This way, you can buy a system that can support exactly what you need it to. You'll know before you buy a computer or hardware component exactly what rating it has and how it will affect your score. For instance, I have an old video card which was rated 1.9. If I upgraded that to a 5.1-rated card, my overall score would jump up significantly. And, if this is what I'm looking for and I don't know a whole lot about hardware, I can simply look for a card that's rated at the level I'm interested in. Not really the best way to hardware shop, but it'll give consumers something to really make a base their needs on.

Anyway, I think it'll be something to pop up in the near future and I think it will definitely change the way people are looking at their computer purchases. I wouldn't be surprised if the idea caught on to other tech gadgets.

Upcoming Versions of .NET

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:43:00 GMT

This is something I've wanted to post about for quite some time. Seeing all the whining and complaining behind the decision to rename WinFX to .NET 3.0 just drives me crazy. Maybe I'm just part of a small group that actually realizes this, but I was never surprised by this. Honestly, I expected it. I assumed that everyone did. Did you people really think that .NET was some simplified dev platform that wouldn't be expanded upon that much? I may be reaching pretty far on this one, but I see .NET becoming core to the entire operating system. I've said it before and I'll say it again: in time, I see Win32 being a wrapper to .NET instead of vice-versa, which is how it works, now. I see Windows components being built directly on .NET and .NET being built (by Microsoft) at an even lower level than it is, now. Doing this would advance .NET to a level above and beyond (well, actually below, if you want to get technical) C++. If done right, this could also usher in a new era of .NET-based operating systems. Could you imagine a .NET Linux distribution? I can. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I can see it happening. For all of the frustrations people seem to have over the naming of future versions of WinFX, Atlas, LINQ, and the myriad of other tidbits related to .NET, I just don't see the benefit in the argument against .NET 3.0 and/or "3.5" (not the official version number). This is part of the problem of the blogosphere. With so much information-flow, society as a whole -- well, the dev community, anyway -- can't handle it. We may be smart individually (some of us, anyway); but as a whole, we're completely moronic. This is no different than any other group.

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, yet, check out this Channel 9 video that discusses the current and upcoming releases of .NET and the related technologies. Atlas isn't mentioned, but you can expect to see some news about its release coming out within the next month. For now, just know that it's well on its way to being ready for prime-time use.

A Tidbit on Sun and Java

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:59:00 GMT

For the past month or so, I've been watching quarterly stock percentage changes for a few top tech companies and I've noticed that Sun went down a good bit, but then jumped up pretty quickly, too. Sun made the largest jump by far in the past month. Interesting...

On a side and perhaps related note, Java is moving towards supporting more languages. Java 6 is currently in beta 2 and has added some support for JavaScript, but plans for Java 7 include adding support for even more languages, one of those being Visual Basic. Now, this isn't all that surprising. A few years back, Sun started a program to try and get VB developers over to their side and this seems like more of the same. Don't get me wrong, I think the move is probably a good one, but I don't know how much it'll help. It all depends on the strategy they'll put behind the move. This is where they've failed in the past. From what I understand, they won't plan on supporting a specific Microsoft-released version of VB, but instead support some "popular" features of VB.NET. What that means is really up in the air, but it'll be interesting to see how things play out. The best move Sun could make with respect to VB would probably be to support VB6 to try to bring some of those "estranged" developers to the Java world. Then again, I can't imagine that this would be an easy task.

There are a lot of mixed emotions about the changes in the next two versions. Those looking for multi-language support are excited about the changes; however, the traditional Java developers who have been supporting Java-only systems for a while aren't very interested in the upcoming versions. I believe everyone sees some good in the move, but the question seems to be: How much will this actually affect the Java ecosystem? I can see the potential of the ideas, but I seriously don't think it'll change the Java market enough to effect .NET. Sun is simply attempting to capitalize on the big shift back to dynamic languages. We'll see...

Thoughts on Balmer's Promise

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:10:00 GMT

While catching up on some old weblog posts, something triggered a thought. As I mentioned before, Balmer promised to keep product groups pumping out releases. Specifically, he said there would be no more 5 year gaps between releases. There wasn't much said beyond that, so what will really change is still up in the air. My guess is that we'll get more info on this a few months after the Vista release or, worse yet, after the Longhorn release. To get to the point, my worry is that all these CTPs and betas are going to be included in that promise. If they are, not much will change from today. Granted, a lot of things have changed over the years, so it's better, but my hope is that we'd see official major version releases every year or two. Two years is more likely, but every year would be nice; especially when you consider the move to service-based licensing. My biggest fear is that there might be a staggered approach to releases. Microsoft has a lot of products to release. There could be product releases every 3-6 months for different products to make it seem like they're very busy, but that could still keep them at 3 year individual product cycles. Not quite ideal, but it would seemingly bring the gap between releases down. The only thing about that approach that doesn't directly match what they've been doing in the past, which is try to release products in groups (i.e. Windows Vista and Office 2007, VS 2005 and SQL Server 2005). I guess we'll see what happens within the next year. Vista should be in stores in January, so hopefully we'll see something a little more firm come out after that.

IE7 B3

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:39:00 GMT

I have to admit that, since I first played with Firefox, IE just hasn't been an option to me. Actually, it's worse than that. I haven't even given IE7 a chance since my love affair with Firefox started, which was before any IE7 beta was out. When it came out, I'd admire from over the shoulders of others, but wouldn't even think twice about downloading it. A bad position to take, I'll admit, but I had it set in my mind that it wouldn't be a revolutionary change, but an evolutionary one. I will say that, if you'd ask my why I prefer Firefox, my quick response would be, "Because it's better." Obviously, not scientific. I never thought about nailing down an exact set of reasons for my Firefox preferences, but the primary was tabbed browsing. I know there are other add-ons that support tabbed browsing in IE, but for some reason, I always felt like IE jujst didn't compare. After working more with Firefox from a dev standpoint, I have to say that the ability to create extensions so easily in Firefox makes it leaps and bounds ahead of IE7. I did switch to IE7 on a new work laptop to give it more of a chance, but I don't use that laptop for dev work, so that was my primary reason. There are so many Firefox extensions that I don't think I could live without as a developer. IE7 is an improvement, but there's still so much that needs to be done. Just like my opinion of Windows, IE needs to be re-architected from the ground-up. Sure, it can survive by growing bit by bit, but a complete change from the ground up, built on .NET would be just the revolutionary change IE needs. Why built on .NET? Two reasons: (1) marketing, duh :-P; and, (2) the future of Windows is going to be built on .NET, so having one of the core features built on .NET now, would simply be a step in the right direction.

For now, I'll keep IE7 around, but I don't think it'll be default on any dev computer. We'll have to see how IE8 pans out.

VS in Windows!?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:32:00 GMT

A post on TSS.net, triggered by a post by Jeroen van der Bos, asks whether Visual Studio should be part of Windows. I just don't think having a full development environment would be a good idea. First off, if someone wants to develop in .NET, they should know where to go. I do think the additional visibility would be good for .NET growth from a hobbyist/student perspective, but I'm just not sure it's appropriate. I admit that I first started playing with scripting languages on a Mac when I was in high school, but that's pretty much the equivalent of DOS (and now, PowerShell) batch files. A full development environment might be a little too dangerous for some. It's like scissors - sure, they're great to cut paper, but would you want to leave them sitting around so you can grab them at any time to cut paper when a small child may be running around? Or, would you want to put it somewhere where those who were capable of not hurting themselves (or others) knew how to get to them? It's a pretty simple question and very applicable to this situation.

Legality was brought up, but I don't think there would be a problem. A development environment is simply a utility to provide extra reach into the system.

Another point was brought up about how useful this would be. I have to agree that the vast majority of Windows users could really care less about doing any scripting, let alone development within the OS. Jeroen is definitely looking at this idea from a biased point of view. I won't discuss the claims, but it's just not something the community has been asking for.

All-in-all, the idea might be interesting from the perspective of someone who grew into development by playing around, but it just doesn't make sense for the Windows user-base. I will say that I would like to see the VS framework bundled with Windows. It should be an optional addition that may not even be included by default, but having it available would be nice. This way, other utilities could be built off of that framework. I see this being something like MMC, in a sense. There are tons of MMC plug-ins within Windows. Most vendors don't build off of that because of its complexities; however, if the VS framework was available, it could be utilized in a similar manner. My guess is that the framework SQL Server Management Studio is built on will probably be replacing MMC, but who knows. I haven't played with Vista, yet, tho.