what microsoft has done right... and wrong

microsoft has accomplished many things that we essentially take for granted now, including:

creating a standard platform. this goal dates back to when windows was known as interface manager. standardization enables hardware developers to build new machines and peripherals that work with windows. at one time, certain applications worked only with certain printers or displays. now, you can mix and match thousands of peripherals, and the machines that run windows range from pocket-size gadgets to server clusters.

supporting developers. sure there are developers who, because of microsoft's dominance, have steered away from producing desktop applications and operating systems. but microsoft has done a good job of courting developers with its technical conferences, technet, and microsoft developer network (msdn).

encouraging software innovation. microsoft dominates the productivity-suite market, but in just about every other software category, you have more choices on windows than on any other platform. just consider the number of cd and dvd mastering programs, video editors, and graphics tools, and thousands of industry-specific applications and utilities.

being stubborn. microsoft's relentlessness tells the whole story of windows' success. windows was announced back in 1983, but it wasn't until 1990 that it won a large number of adherents and 1995 that it became mainstream. this process continues. microsoft's early efforts with pen windows were far from successful, but the company resurrected it as the tablet pc.

on the other hand, microsoft has done a number of things wrong, including:Windows XP

not paying enough attention to security. no one could have predicted the torrent of malware that the internet has unleashed. but when microsoft had to choose between security and simplicity, it chose to make windows easier for developers and end users. unfortunately, that strategy allowed rogue software writers to install malware on your machine, and microsoft is still trying to fix that.

not making windows stable enough. the windows 2000/xp platform is more stable than previous versions of windows, but it still runs slowly when i'm loading and unloading lots of programs. and it seems as if every couple of days i get an alert from windows update or my antivirus program that i need to reboot.

making windows too complex. windows is just too hard to manage. the processes behind the scenes—registry entries, dlls, and so on—make windows more powerful and tie applications together, but what we've lost along the way is the ability for typical users to make sense of it all. we need better tools.

stifling innovation. microsoft has encouraged innovation through creating a standard platform, but its sheer dominance in many areas has scared away developers and the investors who fund software startups. in the areas where microsoft really thought it needed to win—such as the browser wars—the courts have ruled that microsoft was a monopoly and acted illegally.

taking its time microsoft has proven that when it is pushed—say by ibm, netscape, or google—it can roll out innovative products very quickly. but too often lately, microsoft has taken its time releasing new features. i can understand the delay with the incredibly complex winfs file system, but the sidebar concept and desktop search should have happened faster. —continue reading