************************************************************** 
*                                                            * 
*                         CYBERSPACE                         * 
*         A biweekly column on net culture appearing         * 
*                in the Toronto Sunday Sun                   * 
*                                                            * 
* Copyright 2000 Karl Mamer                                  * 
* Free for online distribution                               * 
* All Rights Reserved                                        * 
* Direct comments and questions to:                          * 
*                                         * 
*                                                            * 
************************************************************** 
The Microsoft breakup
Microsoft's breakup is a near certainty. The company seems a 
bit like Hitler in his bunker in the last days. A couple weeks 
ago it put forward the argument that the world needs a strong, 
united Microsoft to fight future "ILOVEYOU" viruses. It ignores 
the fact that it created the problem in the first place. People 
have been warning for years when email applications like 
Microsoft Outlook start supporting HTML and launching embedded 
code like Microsoft's Visual Basic there's going to be mayhem.
I truly believe Microsoft employs people vastly smarter than 
people who write script viruses. There has to be someone in 
Microsoft with enough insight to grasp it's dangerous to create 
a scripting language that supports self replication and the 
ability to bulk email everyone on your address list. How about 
something as simple as dialog box? "Are you sure you totally 
want to email this document to everyone you've ever sent an 
email to?" I mean anytime you try to move a file you get three 
dialog boxes asking you if you really, really want to do that.
Monopolies traditionally don't do a good job of listening to 
critics and customers. Microsoft has long operated under the 
entirely correct assumption that you merely have to fumble the 
ball once and your company folds. Companies like VisiCalc, 
Lotus, Digital Research (makers of the once universal C/PM 
operating system) and WordPerfect are all testament.
Microsoft acts like it running scared, however its own track 
record is marked by a number of notorious stumbles. Odd 
Microsoft has never been victim to this immutable law. Pact 
with Satan, eh?
Spreadsheet software is what launched the personal computer 
industry. Spreadsheets turned the PC from a mere game machine 
into an indispensable business tool. The original VisiCalc was 
soon eclipsed by the more innovative Lotus 1-2-3. Microsoft's 
own competing spreadsheet software Excel, which is ubiquitous 
today, seemed to gain only a foothold in France on release. Due 
to contractual obligations with IBM, Microsoft had to limit 
Excel's memory use (hence, features) to support 512K IBM 
computers.
It wasn't until Windows 3.1 made graphical user interfaces the 
rage that Excel crushed Lotus. Microsoft had considerable 
experience designing clean GUI software because it supported 
Macintosh. Much the same happened with WordPerfect. WordPerfect 
incorrectly guessed IBM's OS/2 (a stillborn operating system 
referred to as "half an OS") would be the next big thing and 
spent it resources developing an OS/2 word processor. When it 
became obvious Windows was the way to go, WordPerfect had a 
hard time integrating with the Windows environment. WordPerfect 
for Windows introduced the term "bloatware". It was big and 
slow. The word processor's inability to actually print was 
probably what killed it.
Critics point to WordPerfect's failure as one reason there 
should be a separation between Microsoft's application 
development and its operating system development. Microsoft has 
a decided advantage when producing applications that work 
seamlessly. There's a joke here in Seattle following a judge's 
recommendation that Microsoft be split up into two. Employees 
are asking each other "are you going to work for Micro or 
Soft?"
When Microsoft is on a level playing field, like the Internet, 
it displays its own learning curves when it's behind the curve. 
Microsoft's first browser, Explorer 1.0, was shockingly bad. 
Strategically it was probably a good move, lulling Netscape 
into a fall sense of security. In the Microsoft anti-trust 
case, it was argued having Explorer on the desktop gave the 
company an unfair advantage over Netscape. This however doesn't 
account for AOL's triumph over Microsoft Network (MSN), despite 
Microsoft having a setup icon for MSN right on the desktop.
Microsoft's most embarrassing missteps have been on its 
cherished operating side. Its attempt to create a user friendly 
Windows resulted in a product named Bob. The idea was to make 
the interface to look like a house. Not everyone can afford a 
real house, but everyone knows how to use a house right? It 
also had these friendly cartoon characters pop up regularly to 
tell you you have to flip your mouse button-side up to get it 
to work. Despite positive feedback from focus groups, critics 
lambasted the Bob constantly. It's probably the only software 
product in history that generated more jokes than sales. 
Unfortunately, Microsoft's investment in this "technology" 
found its way into current versions of Office. You have Bob to 
blame for the Office Assistant (better know as "that goddamn 
paperclip") that pops-up when you select a menu item other than 
save.
Bob generated only jokes. What really upset users was the DOS 
4.0 fiasco. At the time of its release, Microsoft was working 
with IBM on OS/2 and Windows. DOS 4.0 seems to have gotten the 
short end of the resource stick in terms of really bright 
programmers and testers. DOS 4.0 was supposed to allow 
computers to access up to 8 megs of RAM and support 2 gig hard 
disks. Unfortunately, the bugs drove many users to return to 
DOS 3.3.
Microsoft learned its lesson with DOS 5.0. It established an 
extensive beta-testing regime that carried over to Windows 95 
and 98. It's also rumored that the bad experience with DOS 4.0 
also established a superstition about naming any product 4.0 
again. For example, it is mere coincidence the successor to 
Windows 3.1 it was Windows 95 and not Windows 4.0?

    Source: geocities.com/lapetitelesson/cs/text

               ( geocities.com/lapetitelesson/cs)                   ( geocities.com/lapetitelesson)