Cloud Cover

Should Microsoft save Palm?

2010-01-03T02:57:09Z

For the record, I don't think Microsoft needs to buy anyone to be successful in the smartphone market space. I don't buy into the notion that Windows Mobile is dead or that Windows Mobile 7 will arrive too late to matter. Sure, it’s taken Microsoft far too long to field a competitive product in the post-iPhone landscape--even if Windows Mobile’s “uncompetitiveness” is more perception than reality. By all measures, Windows Mobile 7 will arrive later than it should have, but I respect Microsoft for taking the time to do it right versus just rushing something out to market. It’s a Nintendo-esque approach, but if Microsoft nails it, it will be setting the foundation for a mobile strategy that can endure for the long haul.

Fortunately for Microsoft, I’m not sure there really is such a thing as coming to market “too late” in the cell phone space. It’s easy to forget how things were in the pre-iPhone picture, but in terms of time, it wasn't that long ago that the Motorola Razr was the hottest “dumb phone” around while Blackberries, and smartphones in general, were still somewhat of a niche market. And you see where Motorola is today. The turnover rate for cell phones is a lot faster than for PCs since new phones always are around the corner and consumers are stuck with their phones only for the contract period, which typically is two years. It might be different if consumers paid full price their phones, but the carrier subsidies keep the price point low enough to make upgrading your phone every couple of years a viable proposition.

So, while I think Microsoft can hold its own without buying anyone, I do think we might see some consolidation in the mobile market space. There are too many proprietary players in the market: Apple’s iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry and Palm’s Pre/Pixi. Each of these devices tie the operating system to the hardware, making them closed platforms. There definitely are merits to having a single company developing both the hardware and software, but personally, I think separating the software from the hardware is the way to go. It allows both pieces to evolve independently without the software developers worrying about how OS changes affect the hardware guys and vice-versa. Furthermore, this separation helps create a partner ecosystem, which drives standardization and portability: I don’t have to buy all new applications just because I changed devices.

To me, the hardware-software tie-in is the blessing and the curse of the iPhone. If you have a significant monetary investment in the App Store, you’ll be hard-pressed to switch to a different smartphone platform and abandon that App Store investment. That type of lock-in is great for Apple from a competitive standpoint, but going back to the cell phone turnover rate, I’m not sure it’s sustainable or realistic given how fast the technology changes. However, I think that model is fine for media devices like the iPod Touch because I don’t need, or necessarily want, to buy a new one of those every two years. But then again, given the number of free and sub-$5 applications, do most iPhone users have a “significant” investment in the App Store?

Regardless, when you look at the PC landscape, you see the market has generally settled on 3 platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux. And 2/3 of those arguably are niche platforms themselves. So, I just don’t think the smartphone market can sustain 6 major platforms (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian/Maemo), 3 of which are proprietary. Obviously, the iPhone isn’t going away, and I think Blackberry is too entrenched and popular to disappear anytime soon. So, of the proprietary players, that leaves Palm as the odd man out.

Palm has an innovative platform with the WebOS, but in a somewhat uncharacteristic move for the company, it dropped the ball on the hardware. Think what you will of the Pre, but there are too many complaints about the hardware for it to be a definitive success. I thought the QWERTY-bar design of the Pixi was tempting, but it had worse hardware specs than the Pre and its price and positioning didn’t make sense.

Hardware maladies aside, Palm was very forward thinking with the WebOS. As a platform built around HTML, JavaScript and CSS, developers can create Web-based applications that potentially can run on multiple devices with little modification, reducing the need to write native apps for every smartphone platform. The need for a JavaScript runtime engine inadvertently introduced some performance issues with the Pre; however, I think better hardware would have mitigated JavaScript overhead. And given the momentum of cloud computing and the evolution of Web technologies, a Web-centric platform seems like a pretty smart bet.

If Microsoft bought Palm, it immediately would improve its perception in the market by inheriting a modern platform that supports touch-friendly usage and capacitive screens. Furthermore, MS could embrace and extend WebOS development with technologies like Silverlight and .Net. And it’s the Web-centric aspect of the WebOS that would make it relatively palatable to Microsoft from an acquisition standpoint. Yes, WebOS is based on Linux, but Palm is less in-your-face about the Linux underpinnings than Google is with Android or Nokia is with Symbian and Maemo. And perhaps Microsoft could port the UI stack, app runtime engine and development tools to Windows Mobile. But if MS is confident that Windows Mobile 7 will blow WebOS out of the water, than the acquisition would be predominately around talent. Perhaps WebOS developers would drive the next phase of Windows Mobile and Zune app development—kind of like an in-house SPB Software for Microsoft.

Of course, an acquisition of Palm by Microsoft is unlikely to happen. Microsoft has given no indication that intends to acquire anyone and given its recent job posts, the company seems 100% behind Windows Mobile 7. But if Microsoft doesn’t buy Palm, then hopefully someone else does (maybe Nokia?). Otherwise, I’m not sure Palm can continue to exist in its current form. Without a financial suitor or some sort of blockbuster device, I see Palm going the way of Sega and transforming into a ghost of its former, once glorious self: a pure software developer of premium mobile applications for Android and the iPhone.

What Microsoft can learn from Moblin

2010-01-02T01:24:00Z

Living in a material world, and I am a material girl. Those infamous words from Madonna's Material Girl can be slightly tweaked to sum up my operating system perspective: living in a Windows world and I am a Windows guy. But I'm writing this post from within Moblin running on the new Asus Eee PC I got for Christmas (thanks, mom & dad!).

You might have heard about Moblin in discussions about netbooks and netbook operating systems. But for those who don't know, Moblin started as an Intel project to develop a version of Linux built around the Atom processor and netbooks. The goal was to develop an operating system that minimized boot time, increased battery life, and provided an Internet-centric user experience designed for small screens. The project has since been turned over to the Linux Foundation; however, Intel employees still dominate the project's steering committee.

The notion of a lightweight Linux distribution on a netbook is as old as netbooks themselves. Asus' original Eee PC shipped with a lightweight, relatively user-friendly version of Linux. Although the original Eee PC was a relative success, netbooks didn't really take off until they started shipping with Windows XP. In fact, consumers who purchased Linux-based netbooks often returned them for Windows-based netbooks. My particular Eee PC shipped with Windows 7 Starter. I've been using Windows 7 for a while and running Windows XP on my netbook seemed like a step backwards. However, I was intrigued by Moblin and wanted to test it out. So, I now have a dual-boot setup with Windows 7 Starter and Moblin.

Of course, other netbook-oriented versions of Linux have sprouted up, many with the Ubuntu distribution as a base, such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Eeebuntu. There is even an Ubunto Moblin Remix. Although these OSes have their merits and I intend to play around with them more, I'm not as intrigued by them and probably will stick with Moblin as my Windows alternative. Why? Well, it mainly has to do with the premise of their design: take the most popular desktop Linux distro and adapt it for smaller-screened devices. Certainly not a bad goal, but the end result essentially is Ubuntu with a type of "dock" designed to minimize the need for the standard, full desktop by providing a one-stop shop for the most commonly used applications and tasks. While you could argue that Moblin essentially does the same thing, the difference is that Moblin was designed for netbooks from the ground up instead of from the top down. This might seem like semantics, but the difference is that Moblin doesn't feel like Linux whereas the other distros do.

With Moblin, the design team rethought the purpose of, and even the very need for, a desktop. In fact, Moblin basically attempts to hide the desktop at every chance it gets in the hopes you'll forget why you needed it in the first place. And so far, they've succeeded. If you accept the premise of Moblin and can leave your desktop OS "baggage" behind, you'll find that your expectations are different. Because you're not expecting a typical desktop OS, you're more patient and willing to learn the Moblin way of doing things. In fact, you may even appreciate the Moblin way of doing things. At least I did.

The other netbook-oriented distros still feel like Linux and ultimately lead me to the same thought I have when using their desktop counterparts: why not just use Windows? Now before you start extolling the virtues of Linux to me, don't get me wrong: I can appreciate Linux, and the geek in me enjoys learning about and playing with other OSes as my Moblin usage hopefully demonstrates. But Windows, Linux and Mac OS are pretty much just different ways of doing the same things. So, from a purely pragrmatic standpoint, if one is working for you, why go through effort to learn a different OS? That type of "comfort intertia" is partly why Windows has remained dominent on the desktop.

But with Moblin, the experience feels fresh. Using it makes me think of netbooks less as scaled-down computers and more as purpose-built devices--kind of like mobile Internet devices (MIDs) that Intel envisions everyone using. It's this type of fresh experience that I hope Microsoft pays attention to. I think MS did a great job with Windows 7 and Windows 7 Starter works well on my netbook. Asus even implemented a cool fast-boot feature in the BIOS that speeds up boot times (though I lost this feature after setting up the dual-boot). The result is that Windows 7 boots up pretty darn fast--maybe not quite as fast as Moblin, but close. And of course, starting up from standby is very fast. And perhaps most importantly, I'm comfortable and confident with Windows.

But Windows 7 Starter is still a full-fledged desktop operating system. And as more of our computing experience occurs on Internet-centric devices like netbooks and smartphones and more of our application needs move to the Web, Microsoft needs to rethink the Windows user experience. It's simply not enough to adapt Windows to these devices. Rather, MS needs to figure out how these devices can leverage the benefits of Windows while providing a user experience optimized for the particular device being used. Apple did this with the iPhone and we've all seen the response.

At the same time, Windows has that comfort inertia and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. People tend to gravitate towards what they know, which can be a huge competitive advantage since virtually everyone has used Windows at some point. However, balancing familiarity with change is not an easy task. In fact, after polling some of its user base (i.e., the enterprise space), implementing any change can prove a challenge. Yet, if Microsoft can pull it off, it can extend its leadership into the next decade of computing experiences despite increased competition from Google and Apple.

So, if you were lucky enough to get a netbook this holiday season, I encourage you to check out Moblin. If you don't want to install it, you can throw the live image on a bootable USB drive, boot it up, and play around with it. Moblin.org provides easy instructions for doing this. And if you already have tried Moblin, what do you think of it?

sigh Gizmodo rains on the Touch HD2 parade

2009-11-10T12:26:00Z

It would've been great if I could have read through at least part of Gizmodo writer John Herrman's HTC Touch HD2 review before encountering the usual Windows Mobile bashing. But unfortunately, the bashing started right in the title: HTC Touch HD2 Review: A Tragedy.

Despite all the positive attention and excitement the HD2 has generated, you knew that someone would eventually knock the device because it runs Windows Mobile. Personally, at this point, I think the tech press is beating a dead horse with all the WinMo bashing. Microsoft gets it. It has admitted that it dropped the ball on WinMo development and was careful to set WinMo 6.5 expectations properly: 6.5 should be seen as a solid step towards better touch support--not a complete overhaul. That would have to wait until WinMo 7. In fact, I think Steve Ballmer has been a little too apologetic. It's hard to even give 6.5 a chance when Microsoft's CEO keeps apologizing for WinMo's slow development and basically says WinMo 7 will make up for it.

I don't really care if Herrman doesn't like Windows Mobile or feels it hinders the HD2; he's entitled to his opinion. But it's apparent that he began the review already wishing the device ran Android instead. He doesn't say 'Android' verbatim, but it's pretty obvious which OS he'd prefer. I'm sure he doesn't think the HD2 should run Symbian. But even that inherent bias in and of itself isn't the real problem: the real problem is that his bias is unsubstantiated. And here I thought that a logical argument supporting the findings and conclusion was a prerequisite for a review...

Instead, readers see a haphazard critique that, at times, seems more about the philosophy around the phone's development than the actual device itself. For example, Herrman extols the virtues of how tightly TouchFlo is integrated into the WinMo experience, admitting it's not often that you'll be greeted with the classic Windows Mobile UI. But in the same breath, he decries the need for HTC to re-skin WinMo to begin with and basically claims HTC went to absurd lengths to hide the fact that the device is running Windows Mobile.

First off, the device sports a multi-touch capacitive screen, which WinMo does not natively support. So given that the stock UI and controls were intended for resistive touch screens and the use of styli or D-pads, HTC had to deeply re-skin the UI to make it usable with a capacitive screen. Second, while Herrman takes HTC's customization as a slam against WinMo's UI issues, some people might think it's actually cool that WinMo can be customized to that extent. Try doing that on the iPhone. Heck, try publishing an iPhone app that attempts to supplant the stock UI. Feel free to forward me the App Store rejection email when you get it.

"But the iPhone doesn't need re-skinning," the naysayers will claim. That might be true, but so what? What if I simply want to re-skin anyway? Questioning the need to re-skin the UI is like questioning why import car tuners modify their Hondas to the extent that they do with body kits, spoilers, etc. Maybe they do it simply because they can. Now, all that customization would be for naught if TouchFlo was some sort of unusable, Frankensteinian UI. But it's not. And it's clear that Herrman agrees.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, when will the majority of the tech media realize that average users don't care what OS a phone runs as long as it works? They're going to see the phone in the store, play with one their friend has, or see a demo on YouTube and think the phone is pretty cool. Average users just aren't as passionate or invested in technology as we are. They aren't jaded or biased and could care less what OS it's running. Case in point: you don't hear about people walking into a Sprint store to buy a Pre and saying, "Oh, the WebOS is based on Linux? Linux is geeky and difficult to use...No thanks, I'll pass." Yet maybe if you stuck the person in front of a Linux shell and told him that the Pre is based on the same OS, he might be a little hesitant to buy one. But, that would be unfair, just as dismissing HTC's customizations is unfair to the HD2.

But that's exactly what Herrman does. He calls the experience near-magical and praises the HD2's super-speedy app launching, responsive call talk/end functions, and lightning-fast camera with a lightning-bright flash. Then he attempts to undermine his praise by mentioning that if you turn off TouchFlo, WinMo 6.5 will rear its ugly, stylus-driven head. No kidding! But if those moments are rare, then who cares? Every OS and device has its quirks. Sure, a setting here and there might be obscure or touch unfriendly. But history has shown that people have an amazing ability to adjust and accept all sorts of oddities, just like we do with modern desktop operating systems. A certain setting or control might not be intuitive, but after you figure it out, the lesson is learned: you'll know right where to go next time. Too often the tech media allows the unintuitive-ness or touch unfriendliness of some seldom-used settings to overshadow all the good things about Windows Mobile.

At no point in the review do we get an honest-to-goodness comparison between comparable devices. You think Android is better? Fine, explain why. Why not compare the HD2 to HTC's own all-touch, Android-powered Eris? Why not compare it to Motorola's Droid? Give us a comparison of how these devices handle typical functions like messaging, calling, Web surfing, media viewing, picture taking, etc.

Better yet, why doesn't Herrman question why HTC chose Windows Mobile for the HD2? Did he ever think to ask or at least speculate? Maybe HTC wanted the device to appeal to professional users and consumer alike. Maybe Microsoft co-funded its development. Maybe HTC just wanted to see if it could create a compelling capacitive, multi-touch WinMo device. Maybe HTC is quietly conducting some crowdsourcing by observing how the XDA developer community will customize the device. Maybe HTC feels that WinMo apps--or at least its own WinMo apps--are better than the Android's apps. Maybe WinMo yields better Snapdragon performance through tweaks and optimizations. Maybe HTC simply has more WinMo experience or engineering talent.

But unfortunately, the Gizmodo review doesn't shed any light on such things. The only takeaway is that the Herrman doesn't like WinMo and can't see past that. His shameful knock against the paltry offerings in the Windows Marketplace proves it as Herrman is well aware that there are thousands of WinMo apps. And without any justification as to why Android is better, we can only surmise that Herrman has drank the Google Kool-Aid. Facts don't matter: Android is cool and new and made by Google so it must be better, right? Admitting otherwise or at least doing an honest review wouldn't look cool in front of the iPhone and Android crowd.

Was Palm wrong to drop Windows Mobile?

2009-11-09T08:02:00Z

No one really was surprised when Palm announced it was dropping support for Windows Mobile. Palm had embraced Windows Mobile for its business-oriented devices, including its popular Treo line, after its own PalmOS stagnated and was no longer competitive. But the company was bleeding badly and ultimately ended up at a crossroads: seek a buyer or attempt to reinvent itself as a last stand to avoid shutting its doors. Palm chose the latter and began working on an allegedly revolutionary new operating system and, before its launch, received an infusion of investor funds that would keep the company on life support to see the new project through.

As soon as Palm debuted the Pre and its new WebOS, people immediately questioned how much longer Palm would develop Windows Mobile devices. First, there was the issue of limited engineering resources. Palm already had been pared down to a ghost of its former self and might not have enough engineers to support a dual-platform product strategy. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there was the issue of perception. Equity investors didn't pour money into Palm so it could continue developing around a Microsoft product: they believed in Palm's new strategy and likely wanted to see the entire company united around the Pre and WebOS. From a public investor side, if Palm truly believed in its new WebOS, wouldn't it want to standardize on the platform for all its devices? So, Palm's decision to abandon Windows Mobile had more to do with the company's overall health and competitive prospects for the Pre than it did about any perceived shortcomings of Windows Mobile.

But did Palm make the right decision? Well, I'd the say the question isn't whether Palm made the right decision, but rather, whether the Pre and WebOS have sufficiently replaced the role Windows Mobile devices had in Palm's lineup. And the answer is no. Although sales were down and losses were high, Palm, like RIM, has a loyal following. It's Treo devices were relatively successful and often the device of choice for professionals or consumers seeking a Blackberry alternative. Palm's embrace of Windows Mobile over its aging PalmOS kept the Treo line viable against the competition.

With the Pre, though, Palm alienated its loyal user base, especially business users. Palm decided to chase Apple down the consumer-oriented-web-and-multimedia phone road. Sure, the Pre supports business-related functions, but it wasn't designed for them. In fact, rather than provide a PC-based syncing utility, Pre users are encouraged to use Google for PIM functionality. Although it's an attractive device with a beautiful screen, the Pre's Motorola PEBL-like design doesn't quite evoke business prowess. This might not matter if the Pre was a pleasure to type on, but regrettably, the slide-out keyboard's small keys and concave indentation make it difficult to type on for any extended length of time. Some users also have complained about the Pre's build quality. The dearth of applications and its online-driven experience make the Pre an inadequate successor to a road warrior's trusty Treo.

That Palm has yet to reveal its plans for the Treo line and, instead, is about to release another consumer-oriented device tells me that the company simply isn't catering to business users. It's a shame, too, because Palm had gotten quite good at developing elegant, quality Windows Mobile phones. Its latest Treo iteration, the Treo Pro, was well received and, ironically, was praised in areas where the Pre has been criticized: it has solid build quality (though the Treo Pro was designed by HTC), a good keyboard and is generally fast enough. Paul Thurrott, a frequent critic of Microsoft's mobile strategy, praised the device as an example of what Windows Mobile phones can be.

While I understand Palm's decision to center on a single platform, I'm not sure continuing Windows Mobile support would've required that many resources. Palm could keep contracting HTC for device development while dedicating minimal engineering talent to Windows Mobile needs. And, a dual-platform strategy could work if Palm was committed to it and the lines of delineation were clear. The WebOS and Pre could be the flagship of Palm's consumer line while Windows Mobile could anchor a Treo line of business devices.

Palm also would have a willing partner in Microsoft, who I'm sure would rather keep Palm as an OEM partner. Palm could've taken advantage of a lot of free press from Microsoft during the Windows Mobile 6.5 and Marketplace launch. Imagine if Palm had debuted a new Treo phone at the Microsoft launch event and solidified itself as a premier OEM for business-oriented Windows Phones. Furthermore, it would be maintaining the Treo brand, which was well-known and already had a loyal following of users waiting for an adequate replacement.

Some people are suggesting that Palm ditch the WebOS in favor of Android. Regardless of the platform, my point is that Palm could maintain two platforms and leverage existing brand loyalty and an installed customer base. But, Palm bet the house on the Pre and WebOS. The WebOS certainly has its merits, but the Pre form-factor is a liability. And while the Pixi form-factor seems more compelling in some ways, based on that phone's target audience, business users and hardcore Treo fans disenchanted by the Pre shouldn't hold their breath.

The Rise & Fall of Wii Sales

2009-11-05T07:30:00Z

Thom Holwerda at OSnews proposed an interesting theory about why Nintendo saw a 52% profit drop in the first half of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Basically, he claims that with the Wii, Nintendo abandoned hardcore fans in order to capture the casual gamer crowd. However, as the novelty wears off and the casual crowd moves on to the next big thing, it's the hardcore fans that keep you going and keep sales strong. Without support from the traditional customer base, those crazy sales peaks turn into plateaus or valleys.

Thom's article is a good read and I encourage anyone with an affinity for the gaming industry to check it out. But I'm going to somewhat challenge the premise: Nintendo didn't just suddenly abandon hardcore fans with the Wii. Rather, Nintendo abandoned hardcore fans with the N64. See, back in the Super Nintendo days, I had a Sega Genesis. In those days, owning multiple consoles wasn't as common as it is today, and the fanbase formed camps around each platform--similar to the Mac vs. PC camps. I stuck to my Genesis, but boy, there were times when I secretly craved that timeless gameplay from Nintendo classics like the Super Mario games, Mario Kart, Pilotwings, Star Fox, etc. Through its exclusive franchises, Nintendo had moments of brilliance that suddenly made suffering through Nintendo's delays and draconian culture worth it. Other game publishers were great, too, but Nintendo provided a gaming experience through its own exclusive titles that was hard to parallel on other systems.

Nintendo is a lot like Apple: very secretive, very draconian, and obsessed with user experience. Nintendo always thought they knew better than everyone else--including their fanbase--and, like Apple, relied heavily on hype and huge interest in (and sales of) comparatively few products a year. While that culture can produce moments of brilliance, it also can lead to a disconnect between a company and its user base. There is no better example of that than Nintendo's decision to stick with cartridge media when the rest of the industry was moving to CDs.

Now don't get me wrong: I bit the bullet on the N64. Some of my fondest gaming memories came from Super Mario 64, Super Mario Kart 64, and Wave Race--so much so that I bought a GameCube primarily for sequels to those classics. And despite how initially expensive cartridge games were compared to CDs (try $70 for N64 games, while PS1 games could be had for around $45), I saw merit in Nintendo's decision. CD load times on the Playstation 1 initially were ridiculous--a problem that just didn't exist with cartridges.

But in sticking with cartridges, Nintendo alienated third-party developers, particularly Square, who already was in a tenuous relationship with Nintendo. Developers didn't want to do all the extra work required to port games to the N64, when porting between Playstation and the PC could be done relatively easily. In Square's case, the storage constraints of cartridges prohibited the use of prolific full-motion video sequences, which were becoming a hallmark of Square games. The effect could be somewhat replicated on N64 through real-time polygon rendering (think machinima), but required a lot of additional development work and still would never look as movie-like. When Sony got the Final Fantasy franchise, Nintendo lost a huge swath of its core fanbase: RPG fans. To make matters worse, Nintendo--known for its distaste for violent or mature-themed games--released a slew of G-rated games. This went over great with the elementary school crowd, but basically shoehorned the N64 into being the "Pokemon console."

Nintendo had an opportunity to reset and try again with the GameCube. However, in true Nintendo fashion, they went with an uncommon mini-disc media format. But most importantly, long-awaited franchise sequels were late to market and, when they did arrive, had a lukewarm reception. The GameCube was a failure.

But, I give Nintendo a lot of credit with the Wii. When Sony and Microsoft proved to be viable competitors in the video game industry, Sega new it had to get out of the console game. It couldn't keep up with the graphics-power arms race and certainly couldn't afford to make its consoles a loss-leader like Sony and MS. So, Sega metamorphosed into purely a software studio. Nintendo realized that it, too, could not win the graphics arms race and accepted that it likely would not attract hardcore gamers. As a result, Nintendo focused on casual gamers with the Wii and sought to attract them through a simple, yet novel controller. I applauded the logic because even for the occasional gamer, console controls had gotten crazy with the number of buttons, joysticks, and overall complexity.

But, "novel" can lead to novelty. I recognized that right away with the Wii and had the same sentiments as Thom: flailing my arms around and intently pointing at the screen did not seem that relaxing to me. Sure, it can be fun for a while, but it's not sustainable. Like Thom said and the sales figures show, the novelty wears off.

Like Apple, Nintendo is a software company living in a hardware company's body. Aside from sleek industrial design, Apple's value-add comes from its software. The software is what justifies the higher price for what is otherwise commodity hardware. But ultimately, Apple's profits come from moving hardware units, as do Nintendo's profits. But the video game market doesn't have the same planned obsolescence factor as in the computer or personal device markets. And as revolutionary as the Wii controller scheme is, it can only distract from major graphical shortcomings for so long. When the novelty wears off, people will want to play that cool new PS3 or Xbox game their friend has.

The clamor to get a Wii is over. To maintain steadier Wii sales and to continue making money from its installed user base, Nintendo needs a steady stream of quality titles. The video game market is a marathon, not a sprint. But as long as Nintendo identifies itself as a hardware company, it won't be committed to the long haul. Whereas PS3 and Xbox 360 sales will remain steady, Nintendo will abandon the Wii and shift development to its next big device, again hoping to generate that initial boom of sales. But whatever that new device will be, if you're a hardcore gamer, I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

IBM swings and misses with latest jab at Microsoft

2009-09-21T12:39:00Z

A German newspaper reported that IBM is mandating employees to cease using Microsoft Office and to switch to its in-house Lotus Symphony suite within 10 days. Word has it that some 330,000 of about 360,000 employees already have made the switch. Though given that Symphony is probably already installed on some of the corporate images, I'm not sure there's much merit in that statistic.

Rather, this move is more of a publicity stunt for the OpenDocument (ODF) format, an XML-based document format that IBM has been promoting. IBM and Microsoft's rivalry is legendary, and thebattle has continued into the document standards space. Starting with Office 2007, Microsoft has implemented its Open Office XML (OOXML) format, which IBM has criticized.

IBM's internal mandate is a nice plug for ODF and might have been considered "news" two years ago when enterprises were considering or beginning Office 2007 rollouts. But now, IBM's announcement is unlikely to prompt anyone to switch to an ODF-based solution--certainly not a switch to Lotus Symphony. The next battleground is the hosted or Web-based productivity suite space being championed by Google with its Google Docs, GMail, and other Google Apps solutions. Of course, Microsoft is right on Google's heels with its Office Web Applications, which currently is in tech preview. The tech industry and organizations are eyeing this space closely, and both MS and Google are competing intensely for large enterprise deals.

While they won't be entirely insignificant, document standards will be much more of a moot point when considering Web-based document solutions--at least internally. For organizations standardizing on an online solution, users won't be need to deal with individual files or email attachments when sharing documents. Instead, these documents will be housed in a central workspace, such as SharePoint, where multiple users can collaboratively work on the same document without worrying about version control or handling multiple document iterations. Sure, external document viewing as well as printing still will depend more on the document format, but PDF has pretty much become the standard format for universal readability and pre-press. For external editing, web-based solutions may allow the creation of "public" workspaces that are accessible by users outside the organization.

Had IBM announced a web-based version of Symphony or a company-wide switch to Google Docs, that would be significant. But IBM is no stranger to anti-Microsoft sentiments, and this internal switch to its in-house, desktop productivity suite is more or less just another public jab at its long-standing rival.

Google’s Chrome OS: An Old Dog with New Tricks

2009-07-13T04:03:00Z

When I read Google’s Chrome OS announcement via its corporate blog, I couldn’t help but chuckle throughout it. I think my favorite line is, “The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web.” Wow, I’m all for creative marketing and positive spin, but that takes the cake. All this time the Windows interface has been in my way and I didn’t even know it! How dare it let me download and organize pics from my digital camera, copy files to and from network shares and control my computer’s settings! I get what Google is doing, but that’s some pretty blatant straw man logic.

After my laugh, my first thought was that Larry Ellison might've hacked into Google’s Blogger servers. Google’s vision essentially is the network computer reborn—though reborn at a better time.

When Ellison and Scott McNealy first championed the idea of the always-connected network computer, they were right that the Web would play a growing role in our everyday computing as more and more of the computing experience moved online. But, the problem with their vision was that it depended on both broadband connectivity, which was not ubiquitous, and Java, which despite the hype, seemed to be an environment better suited for lightweight applets vs. robust desktop applications.

Fast forward to now. Time certainly has made the Ellison-McNealy vision more viable, but of course, things didn’t turn out exactly as they predicted. Ellison and McNealy saw their network computer running on Java: Windows was out of the picture. The duo were outspoken Microsoft competitors and critics, so leaving out Windows was as much for personal reasons as it was for technical ones. Well, even on netbooks—the network computer incarnate—Windows is still very much in the picture. Not only is XP easily the most preferred OS for netbooks, Windows 7 has been designed to run well on lower-spec devices. But they were right in that the underlying operating system would be less relevant as more of our tasks moved to the Web. The Mac OS certainly owes some of its popularity to that trend.

However, Ellison and McNealy underestimated the role of the browser. They likely saw the browser as becoming a commodity, which in many ways it has. So, in their vision, the browser probably would be more of a launch pad for Java-based applications. Instead, the browser has become the key application, and as the browser and Web protocols have evolved, Java competitors emerged, including everything from Flash and Silverlight to .NET and Ruby. While each has its own pros and cons and limitations, they are viable platforms for a wide range of applications. Take a look at Microsoft’s Gazelle project as it really lays out how browser has evolved. A typical web page contains several dynamic elements and applets. The browser acts as the helm or shell for it all.

In steps Google. Google definitely understands the importance of the browser and went as far as taking the bold, but strategic move of developing its own browser so late in the game last year. But the Chrome browser is really just the foundation for Google’s Chrome OS vision, which the company likely had even before releasing the browser. Google has the app side covered with Google Apps, Gears, etc. With the Chrome browser, Google has the run-time environment covered. And with the Chrome OS, it has the whole user experience covered. Makes perfect sense.

Of course, whenever Google makes a move, the knee-jerk reaction is to speculate how it spells doom for Microsoft. Never mind that the Chrome OS is more than a year away, or that Google’s products live in perpetual beta, or that Google Apps have not made significant inroads within the enterprise, or that Android adoption has been lackluster. Nope! The clear mainstream message is that Microsoft’s days are numbered. Please, that story is getting really old. But not only is it getting old, it’s a distraction from a real, honest-to-goodness assessment. And to me, that assessment should include how Google’s moves affect Apple.

Like we already discussed, the Web-based network computer threat is not new to Microsoft. So when you think about it, Apple’s the one that really could be impacted. Apple’s cachet comes from its tight coupling of hardware and software in a sleek, elegant form-factor. But that tight coupling of hardware and software is tied to the desktop computing model, which if we listen to Google, is being replaced by a Web-based experience. However, think about the average Mac user—not the diehards or those who must use them for work. How often do you think the average Mac user installs third-party software, barring “essentials” like Adobe Reader, Flash and Mozilla Firefox—and maybe MS Office? I’d say not often, if ever. Macs come with everything that an average user would need: Safari, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, GarageBand, etc. Most Mac users probably don’t evolve beyond that functionality.

So what happens if all that application functionality moves to the Web (as much of it has)? If we’re all using web apps, what’s the advantage of using a Mac? Sure, you can be guaranteed to have a solid user experience and an attractive device, but would it really be worth the higher price? Probably not. A catch phrase for Google’s computing vision could be open and online: open standards where the underlying platform doesn’t matter and an online experience dictated by Google search, Gmail, Google Apps, etc. Apple’s legacy is the complete opposite: it’s approach has always been proprietary. Apple wants to sell you on an experience that you can only get through Apple and its hardware, just like with the iPhone and the App Store. Apple’s avoided a foray into the netbook arena, but if it does enter that market, I suspect its vision will look a lot different than Google's. Instead, Apple’s netbook likely would build on its popular, though proprietary, App Store and leverage the affinity that people already have developed for their favorite iPhone apps.

The online-only computer is a familiar old dog with some new tricks. But when the new tricks involve Google, people pay attention and for good reason. However, Microsoft already has been putting the pieces in place for a Web-based computing experience with its Live Mesh, Office Live and Azure platforms. And I can’t help but think the Softies must've smiled to themselves when Google’s announcement inadvertently brought attention to the Gazelle project. Details of the project certainly had to take some of the air out of Google's announcement.

Xen vs. KVM: Ending the Debate

2009-05-12T12:53:21Z

Based on the reader comments, I apparently pushed some hot buttons in my last post. Basically, I stated that by encouraging Linux developers to focus on KVM, the Linux Foundation is taking a somewhat small-minded view of virtualization. Of course, I expected there to be some reaction from the Linux community to a statement like that. But needling the Linux fan base was not my intent, yet it was evident from some of the comments that my post was unintentionally interpreted as an attack on KVM and Linux. Ironically, it was the whole “versus” game between Xen and KVM that I was criticizing to begin with! In this post, I’ll expound on my position and hopefully clarify the key takeaway point. But first, I must address a few common technical inaccuracies that crept into the reader comments:

ESX employs full virtualization, which fully emulates the hardware. Xen and Hyper-V employ paravirtualization and do not fully emulate hardware. KVM employs limited support for paravirtualization through special network and memory drivers.
Xen, Hyper-V and ESX are type-1 virtual machine monitors (VMMs)/hypervisors. The hypervisor runs in Ring 0, while the parent partition (dom0) and the child partitions (domU, guest VMs) run in Ring 1. KVM, Virtual Server, VirtualBox, Parallels, VMware Workstation, etc., are type-2 VMMs. The VMM runs in Ring 3 as an application. However, through it’s limited paravirtualization, KVM is able to achieve performance closer to that of a type-1 hypervisor when compared to typical type-2 VMMs.
Hyper-V does not require installing an entire instance of Windows Server 2008. Selecting the Hyper-V role essentially installs a stripped-down version of Windows Server or Server Core in the parent partition (dom0).

Why do these architectural differences matter? For starters, type-1 VMMs generally perform much better than their type-2 counterparts. One reader who commented on my last post said that in his own tests, KVM performed better than Xen and ESX. He then admits in the next sentence that he doesn’t like Xen much anyway. So, obviously, I’m not buying it. Even if his testing was valid, I’m sure the better performance was only with Linux guest VMs. And how about stability? With a type-1 VMM, if one guest VM crashes, it should not affect the other VMs. But with a type-2 VMM in which the host potentially is running other application workloads alongside the VMM, the failure of one application could impact the VMM. Now, you can say that the Linux KVM host can be stripped down to basically only run virtualization workloads. But, if you’re going to strip down your Linux host to make it function more like a type-1 VMM, why not just run a type-1 VMM?

But, let’s assume that the technology improves and that KVM performance and stability become near that of a type-1 VMM. The issue is bigger than performance, though. It’s more about the mentality. The commoditization of hypervisors mean that they should be treated almost like hardware. When you buy servers, you buy them with the expectation that you can run a desired range of operating systems (or hypervisors) on them. It doesn’t matter whether they’re running Intel or AMD, whether they’re from Dell or HP, etc. Same goes with hypervisors (though the CPU does matter to an extent when migrating VMs between hosts).

One reader suggested that more and more functionality will be added to hypervisors so that they become more like full-fledged operating systems. But the goal is not to move hypervisors up the stack by making them more like full operating systems. If the hypervisor natively can run applications, then is it really still virtualizing? It will just be an interface between the app and the hardware, which is what an operating system is. Rather, hypervisors are moving down the stack and becoming closer to the hardware, as evident by the work Intel and Phoenix are doing to add virtualization instructions to chipsets and BIOS respectively.

The point is, enterprises run various operating system and OS workloads, and like the hardware, the hypervisor should support those workloads equally and indifferently. If my goal is to virtualize all those OS workloads, why would I want to install an operating system on bare-metal hardware just so it can host those OS workloads on top of it? Why use an operating system to host operating system workloads when I can use a type-1 VMM? And shouldn’t the VMM sit at a lower layer than the operating system?

Of course, part of the Linux Foundation’s job is to promote Linux, and I have no problem with that. As reader Bill Murray pointed out, there definitely are use cases for KVM, but by and large, those use cases are going to be predominately around hosting Linux workloads. Do you really see shops hosting Windows workloads on KVM? So for the Linux Foundation to blanketly encourage developers to focus on KVM just keeps the Xen-vs.-KVM debate going, which you think the Foundation would avoid considering the whole Xen and kernel-inclusion debacle. Furthermore, it just seems out of touch. Enterprises already are standardizing around Xen, ESX and Hyper-V. Sure, the Linux Foundation can promote KVM where it’s appropriate, but shouldn’t it also be encouraging developers to improve Linux’s performance and support on those platforms? Novell understands this, and partnered with Microsoft to support SUSE Linux workloads on Hyper-V. Conversely, Microsoft is working to improve support of Windows workloads on Novell’s Xen-based virtualization platform.

The bottom line is that none of the Big 3 hypervisors are going away anytime soon. Developers can accept this and support these platforms and the enterprise customers that have adopted them. Or, they can live in the niche.

Xen vs. KVM: The Linux Foundation’s Small-Minded View of Virtualization

2009-04-17T04:48:21Z

At the Linux Foundation’s Collaboration Summit in San Francisco last week, executive director Jim Zemlin encouraged vendors and developers to standardize their virtualization activities around KVM—not Xen. This whole Xen vs. KVM debate is getting annoying, but first off, this “news” isn’t news: there shouldn’t be any shockwaves from this late-in-coming statement. Why? Because KVM has been officially included in the Linux kernel since early 2007. So it shouldn’t be any surprise that The Foundation (that has a nice Big Brother ring to it, no?) is encouraging KVM adoption.

But the crux of the issue is really around why The Foundation chose KVM in the first place. It’s simple: KVM = Linux; Xen = Xen (that is, a purpose-built hypervisor derived from Linux). In fact, guess what KVM stands for? Kernel virtual machine. So if I were going to include one in the Linux kernel, which would I choose…hmm… While that seems like an easy decision, there are consequences. For starters, Xen is the more widely-adopted platform that already has abundant commercial support and an active open-source community. Second, KVM is not a true hypervisor: it’s a hosted VMM. I don’t know why the Linux zealots are fighting this one so much, but they argue it is a hypervisor because it gives guest operating systems direct access to the hardware. Fine, I’ll make a concession: KVM gives Linux hypervisor-like functionality. But, it’s not a true hypervisor because it requires Linux. It uses the regular Linux scheduler and memory management. So, if you want to load up KVM, you have to boot up Linux—there’s no two ways around it.

What really annoys me, though, is the The Foundation’s attitude towards virtualization. Take this comment from a Linux coder at IBM, which didn’t come from The Foundation’s Summit, but pretty much sum’s up its general philosophy:

I trust Linux to run on my dvd player, my laptop, and to run on the servers that manage my 401k. Is virtualization so much harder than every other problem in the industry that Linux is somehow incompatible of doing it well on its own? Of course not. Virtualization is actually quite simple compared to things like real-time.

Wow. If Microsoft has ever been criticized for trying to make Windows do everything, then The Foundation should be criticized ten-fold since they're doing the same thing but under the auspices of being a "non-profit consortium." Of course, the undoing of the Linux coder’s logic is the last line in his very own comment. If virtualization is a “simple” workload, than why do I need to boot full-fledged Linux to get it? More importantly, why would I want to? While running virtualization as just another application workload on top of an OS might be fine for dev/test, it’s not fine for production workloads. Servers that are part of virtualization resource pools are not going to be doing anything other than hosting guest VMs because I want to eek as much performance out of those servers as possible. To ensure that, the only thing running between my OS workloads and bare-metal hardware should be a thin, purpose-built hypervisor. Why would I want the performance hit and increased attack surface that comes with booting a whole operating system if I don’t need it?

MS understands this, which is why Hyper-V is a true hypervisor as opposed to it’s Type-2 VMM predecessor, Virtual Server. Dell and HP understand this, which is why they give customers the option of ordering servers with XenServer or ESX pre-installed. Organizations understand this, which is why they’ve standardized around true hypervisors like XenServer, ESX and Hyper-V. Everyone seems to understand this except The Foundation, which seems to believe that all workloads are best run as just another application stack. They’re not. Don’t get me wrong, The Foundation’s Swiss Army Knife mentality can be appropriate—and even ideal—for many types of workloads. But if you give me a nail, I want a hammer—not some Frankenstein “utility” tool.

Are touch screen phones a unanimous step forward in technology?

2009-03-26T12:58:56Z

In a previous article, I questioned whether the iPhone—or more accurately, its wild popularity—is stunting mobile phone research and development. Why? Because Apple became a major cell phone player overnight and its relative growth vastly outpaces the growth of competitors and even growth of the overall market. Apple and the iPhone have jolted the slumbering competition to life, and competitors have jumped on the touch screen bandwagon. But as manufacturers play catch-up and try to fashion their own devices with touch screens, will we see any more real innovation in the market for a while? Or are manufacturers just engaging in a features war with Apple? Furthermore, are touch-based devices a unanimous step forward in technology?

Back in November, I entered the smart phone world with the purchase of the Sprint HTC Touch Diamond. While it has some drawbacks, it’s a good phone and does everything I wanted it to do: checks email from multiple accounts, syncs with my Exchange calendar, backs up data to the cloud, runs various apps, and provides a solid web browsing experience. HTC did a good job of hiding the more touch-unfriendly aspects of Windows Mobile 6.1 through the elegant TouchFlo 3D interface.

Lately, though, I’ve been pining for a keypad. I know, I could’ve gotten the HTC Touch Pro (or AT&T HTC Fuze). But I intentionally opted for the touch-only Diamond. I’m leery of multiple moving parts on phones—especially when it involves such a critical component—and have always preferred non-flip phones. Plus, when I think about the use cases where I’d want the keypad, the landscape, slide-out version wouldn’t really help. For instance, I want a keypad for better one-handed use. However, the landscape keyboard on the Touch Pro basically necessitates two-handed use. Plus, switching back and forth between vertical and horizontal use depending on the app didn’t seem ideal. And finally, I wanted to go full-bore into the touch screen experience without the crutch of a keypad. Hey, if iPhone users could get used to it, so could I, right?

Right. But after several months of use, I can declare that some drawbacks to touch screens have nothing to do with an adjustment period. Below are some reasons why touch screens might not necessarily be a technological step forward.

No muscle memory. Take a look around your office and note the iPhone users: they walk around, heads down, elbows tight to their sides, clutching their phones with two hands. Touch screen phones engulf you in the experience because you have to look at the screen when typing or pressing any “buttons” because your hands don’t have a frame of reference. With my last phone, a Motorola Slivr, I got fairly adept at texting using the standard number pad. I’ve never needed T9 or any of those predictor programs because I just can type the word faster. Furthermore, while I tried not to do it often, I could text when driving if I had to because typing didn’t require my full attention. Not so with the Touch Diamond. Typing is a concerted effort and, as a result, I really avoid texting when driving. Seriously. If i do have to text, it’s mostly short msgs. For safety reasons, maybe that’s a good thing. But in terms of technological progress, it’s not. To me, better technology would require less concentration, allowing you to multitask. With a tactile keypad, you can learn the location of keys through muscle memory, so to speak. That way, your eyes are on the screen (or the road, if driving)—not the keys. Not so with touch screens. They’re like high-maintenance divas who demand your full attention.

The “track pad effect.” I’m one of those people that prefers the little nubbin-based control on laptops instead of the track pad. Why? Leverage. Just moving the nubbin slightly moves the cursor a lot. On the other hand, moving the cursor across the screen often requires multiple swipes across a track pad. Touch screens are the same way. Take something like web browsing. Yeah, it’s cool to move the page with your finger, but it’s not efficient. In fact, I challenge you to load this article up on your phone and tell me how many swipes it takes to read it entirely. But what if I was using a phone that had a Blackberry-ish control wheel instead? I could keep my thumb on the wheel and read the entire article, moving my thumb only slightly to scroll the page. Compare that to the touch screen, which requires me to move my finger across the screen and obstruct the page I’m trying to view. Maybe I’m a closet kinesiologist or something, but I think technology improvements should result in fewer mechanical movements. The problem is, the touch screen is a wide-open canvas where buttons can be anywhere. With fixed controls, developers had constraints, and creative developers would think of the best way to leverage those controls. Sure, developers may get more efficient, but you will still end up making more movements with a touch screen.

A touch is a touch. I was on a call the other day when I accidentally muted myself. Why? Because my ear inadvertently touched the mute button on the screen. As long as whatever is touching the screen has capacitance, a touch is a touch. If a charge is sensed, the screen will respond, which causes a lack of precision. What you intend to press the ‘V’ key but your capacitance was sensed first around the ‘B’ key? You’ll get a ‘B'.’ Some of this has to do with design, as the Full QWERTY keypad on the Touch Diamond is a little more cramped than the keypad on the iPhone. In fact, I typically just use the Compact QWERTY keypad as the buttons are bigger and it allows for easier one-handed use. But regardless of the button layout, typing on a touch screen is a little harder and more error-prone than typing on a real keypad. This could change somewhat as the technology improves. For example, pressure sensitivity could reduce the number of errors or miss-touches. Also, an infrared light could lock the screen when it is obstructed, such as when in your pocket or next to your head during a call. The Samsung Omnia uses an infrared light to silence the phone when it is placed screen-side down. But even with these improvements, typing will be a more deliberate effort on a touch screen versus a physical keypad.

The above examples are just a little food for thought to challenge the way we gauge technological advancements. I mean, touch screens are so sleek, sexy, and downright cool that they must be better than their clunky physical counterparts…but are they? What do you think?

Is the iPhone stunting mobile phone R & D?

2009-03-23T12:09:51Z

A few weeks ago, a colleague and I were talking about the iPhone and postulating about the catalyst to its touch-based approach. For starters, I think the company was considering adding phone functionality to to the iPod. With that in mind, I imagine that one day, Steve Jobs was browsing the web on his phone and became frustrated with the experience: small screens, super slow load times, improper page rendering (if pages even load at all), and painful navigation. He challenged a design team to improve the experience, and the first piece of the puzzle was to somehow increase the screen size without significantly increasing the phone size. With a bigger screen, more of a web page obviously would fit on the screen. But, what about scrolling and clicking on links and buttons? Those tasks can be awkward or inefficient when using a directional pad or some other type of control. But what if the screen became the input device? Well, the rest is history…

On the other hand, my colleague believes that Apple intentionally set out to design a device based around a touch screen because, unlike a fixed keypad, a touch screen’s controls can morph based on the application. If you’re using a phone, the screen displays a number pad. If you’re messaging, the screen displays a keypad. If you’re browsing the web, the screen displays browser controls. If you’re playing a game, the screen displays controls customized for the game. The phone’s screen is a shape-shifter, allowing the device to morph into a phone, an internet browser, a gaming device, etc.

I found that theory pretty interesting. My colleague’s a hardcore Apple fan, so might he be giving Apple a little too much credit? After all, before the iPhone, Apple didn’t show much commitment to touch screens. Apple remains one of the only major notebook manufacturers without a tablet model. And wouldn’t the iPod, a device that could benefit from touch-based controls, have been an obvious candidate for a touch screen makeover long before the iPhone came around?

Who knows. I suppose I could do some digging to see if I can find out the history of iPhone’s design. But, I’m not really concerned about that. I’m more interested in how the iPhone has been a disruptive technology causing a flood of touch-based phones to hit the scene. Every touch-based smart phone is inevitably compared to the iPhone, and analysts began writing off stalwarts like RIM and Palm with every month that went by in which they didn’t have a serious competitor. Same goes for Microsoft and the delays around the more touch-friendly Windows Mobile 7. And we all saw the hype around Google’s entrance into the market, though that seems to have died down given that apparently no manufacturers displayed Android-based phones at the Mobile World Congress (guess the analysts were wrong).

What I worry about, though, is whether touch screens are unintentionally stunting further innovation in mobile input technology. Don’t get me wrong, touch-based phones certainly are innovative and have a lot of benefits. But while the technology lends itself to improved web browsing and multimedia functions, it’s not as adept at core phone functions like calling and messaging. Because the interface isn’t designed around a particular function, it ends up having a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-nothing effect. I don’t think touch screens are a fad, but I’m not the only one who questions whether they are the be-all-end-all input method (see here and here). There are interesting alternatives. But as manufacturers continue chasing after Apple and the iPhone, I worry that R & D around other input technologies will move at a molasses-like speed until touch screen hype fades and touch-based devices become status quo.

In a follow-up article, I challenge whether touch screen technology really is a step forward based on observations as well as my own experiences with a touch screen phone, an HTC Touch Diamond that I’ve been using for several months. In the meantime, what do you think about touch screen phones?

Windows Virtualized On Mainframes

2009-03-16T15:15:32Z

The terms “Windows” and “mainframe” aren’t typically found together in the same sentence. But if Mantissa Corporation has its way, that could change. This year, the Birmingham, AL-based company is hoping to release its z/VOS application, which virtualizes x86 hardware on IBM’s System z mainframes.

While z/VOS can support any x86-based operating system, the company is particularly interested in the prospect of running thousands of unaltered Windows instances on a single System z mainframe. Mantissa CEO and founder Gary Dennis envisions the software being deployed in a VDI scenario: users on thin clients connect over RDP to Windows desktop operating systems running on the System z mainframe. However, some people question whether the mainframe platform, which is designed for high-volume transaction processing, is appropriate for running GUI-heavy desktop workloads. They suggest the technology might be better used for running Windows Server workloads, such as SQL Server clusters or Exchange servers.

Either way, how commercially viable would a mainframe-based Windows virtualization platform be? System z mainframes cost bucu bucks, and would be out of reach for most organizations. Furthermore, the skill set required to operate System z (z/VM) mainframes is not exactly common. Knowledge of the z/VOS virtualization platform would be an even smaller niche, especially when compared to the rapidly growing talent pool for ESX, XenServer, Hyper-V and other x86-based platforms.

Still, a single mainframe supporting thousands of virtualized Windows workloads offers some serious consolidation as well as the data center power/cooling/footprint savings that go along with it. It would be great to see a TCO and ROI comparison between System z, blade, and rackable server solutions.

But regardless of its commercial viability, Mantissa and Dennis seem committed to z/VOS: "The product has been a bear for the development group but the thought of being able to run 3,000 copies of Windows on one System z so fascinated the team that we needed very little additional incentive."

Check out an interesting IBM listserv thread on the topic. Thanks to OSnews for pointing out the story.

Are Netbooks a “Trojan Horse” to Windows?

2009-03-13T15:48:23Z

“Cranky Geek” John C. Dvorak recently wrote an article claiming that Microsoft’s business model for pricing it’s products—particularly Windows and Office—is “done.” Basically, he tries to point out that as netbook prices keep dropping, consumers would end up paying more for Windows and Office than they would for the entire laptop. Furthermore, Dvorak discusses instant-on technologies that make a minimal Linux desktop available in a matter of seconds. He sees these technologies as a “Trojan Horse” (the kind from Greek mythology") to Windows because, as users get more comfortable with Linux through this instant-on desktop, why even pay for Windows and Office when you can get full-fledged Linux and a competent office suite for free?

Paul Thurott already dismantled Dvorak’s faulty mathematics, so no need to beat a dead horse there. Instead, let’s look at some of his other points such as boot time. Apparently, 15 seconds isn’t fast enough for Dvorak. I admit that a 15-second startup time is probably an anomaly right now (the WinXP laptop in the video boots faster than a Nokia smart phone), but still, if even 20 seconds can become a standard, that’s pretty fast.

So, Dvorak just wants a system that boots fast and gives him a browser and a word processor. Has he not heard of Windows XPe-based thin-client laptops? OK, maybe those aren’t exactly the same since they are designed for server-based computing models (Citrix XenApp, XenDesktop, Terminal Services, etc.) But, they’re a start. Imagine if those laptops were equipped with a second or simply larger solid-state drive for storing files and maybe an additional application or two that can be used offline? In other words, what if netbook makers simply swapped WinXp for WinXPe?

In fact, WinXPe would be a better comparison to netbook he describes. His frame of reference is a netbook equipped with Phoenix’s HyperSpace, an instant-on technology that, during startup, lets users choose between booting to a full operating system or a compact, purpose-built Linux with a browser and word processor. Of course it boots faster than Windows: it’s not a full-fledged operating system. Just like Windows XPe boots faster than XP.

Dvorak suggests that as people start using HyperSpace more and get comfortable with Linux, they might question the need for Windows to begin with. But, if history repeats itself, that’s not likely. When the likes of Asus’ Eee PC first his the scene, netbooks were pretty much geekware. They had a purpose-built version of Linux with the essentials like a word processor, browser, etc. They were considered an ultraportable laptop that supplements—not replaces—an existing desktop or laptop. But when screen sizes got a little larger and models started shipping with Windows XP, netbooks became more viable for regular use. Factor in the economic climate and you’ve got a serious, low-cost alternative to typical low-end laptops, as validated by the jump in netbook sales during the holidays.

User perception also is an issue. When mom and dad buy little Johnny a netbook as his first real computer for school and play, they can feel more assured knowing it runs Windows—the same Windows that Johnny’s best friend Billy is using on the 17-inch monster laptop he has. Sure, Johnny’s parents know that his netbook might not be able to run Far Cry 2 like Billy’s notebook can, but at least it can run the same applications for school and load a Silverlight-based web site. Dvorak might be OK with running a Linux distro and settling for just a browser and word processor, but that’s because he has access to Windows on some other computer. The rest of the world who are not tech geeks, though, will demand a more mainstream platform.

Finally, faster boot times have been a “top goal” of the Windows 7 engineering team, and Microsoft is committed to the netbook platform as evident by the following session offered at last year’s WinHEC:

Designing Flash-Based Netbooks for Windows 7–MBL-T549. The session describes how to design flash-based, low-cost mobile computers (commonly referred to as netbooks), using Windows 7 to offer the best Windows experience. We will explain how to calculate the lifetime of a flash-based netbook based on specific workload numbers. The session will introduce a revised version of the Flash-Based PC Design Guide, which has been updated for Windows 7.

So, while HyperSpace certainly is cool and there definitely is a place for it, boot times could become somewhat of a moot point. Which would you rather do: wait a few seconds and get a minimal Linux desktop or wait 15 seconds and get a full-fledged Windows desktop?

XenServer and Hyper-V Have “Proven Their Mettle”

2009-03-13T05:15:55Z

As a follow-up to Aubrey’s post about Citrix now offering XenServer for free, you may want to check out Virtualization Review’s hypervisor performance test. The study compares hypervisor performance between the Big 3: VMware ESX, Citrix XenServer and Microsoft Hyper-V.

For CPU- and memory-intensive applications, XenServer and Hyper-V are attractive and have proven their mettle. … What is entirely clear, however, is that all three hypervisors are legitimate virtualization platforms, and that no single company has a monopoly on virtualization any longer.

Thanks, Jaymes, for pointing out this test.

UPDATED: VMware responds to the performance test. Feel free to read it, but basically, it’s a laundry list that’s typical of benchmarking complaints:

the results are inconclusive or missing information
key SQL performance-enhancing features were not enabled
a proprietary SQL test workload was used instead of an industry standard test
storage performance was inconsistent with the configuration

VMware may have some legitimate complaints regarding the configuration and testing. However, Citrix and Microsoft probably could argue the same thing—just because their hypervisors performed better in the test doesn’t mean they performed as best as they could. So I guess that VMware unintentionally is pointing out that XenServer and Hyper-V perform better straight out of the box! :-)

It Was a Matter of Time: The Windows 7 FUD Machine Cranks Up

2008-12-18T13:02:07Z

If you didn't catch the Windows 7 kernel debate between OSNews' Thom Holwerda and InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, I highly recommend it. Basically, via a series of back-and-forth emails, the two agreed to debate Kennedy's claim that because the Windows 7 kernel has a similar thread count to Windows Vista, it is a minor point-type release and probably will have Vista-like performance.

Personally, I think Holwerda had the more logical argument. Simply looking at the number of running threads won't tell you whether those threads differ from threads in previous versions and if performance is directly proportional to thread count. Granted, history might reveal a common trend with thread count and performance, but that's still a big assumption.

Kennedy acknowledges that he's drawing conclusions, but feels it's warranted based on his knowledge of kernel changes over the years. I side with Holwerda on the issue, but I don't have a problem with Kennedy looking at the thread count metric and drawing some conclusions--even if they are a little hasty. What I do have a problem with is his motive behind looking at metrics like the thread count.

The first thing I noticed in the debate was Kennedy's skepticism around Windows 7. I don't know if the "Mojave campaign" raised his suspicions or what, but Kennedy immediately came across as doubtful about Windows 7's alleged improvements from the start. I couldn't help thinking that he was chomping at the bit to get his hands on beta code to prove himself right. Furthermore, I'm trying to figure out what Kennedy was expecting. Take the following example from his benchmarking, which prompted the whole debate:

In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities.

Really? Was he thinking that Microsoft spent tons of time and money re-architecting the code base for Longhorn so engineers could go back to the drawing and start all over from scratch using the XP code base? Yes, Vista had some problems early on and wasn't well-received, but that's due to a combination of factors--not necessarily problems with the kernel. In fact, consider the following comment from eWeek regarding Windows Server 2008:

And, yet, Microsoft's Windows Server 2008, which recently hit the RTM (release to manufacturing) milestone, demonstrates that Microsoft is capable of producing a lean, mean server machine—and doing it, no less, atop the same code base that backs the company's oft-maligned Windows Vista client operating system.

Well, what do you know: the same code base used in Vista was used in the "lean, mean" Windows Server 2008. To me, that would suggest that Vista's alleged "problems" likely are rooted in the user-land or other aspects of the OS--not the code base. In fact, Windows Server 2008 seems largely well-received. Sure, uptake may be relatively lukewarm and methodical as most server upgrades are, but customers are pleased with the security, usability, performance and functionality enhancements. Several IT shops I've talked to already are testing the server OS and planning an upgrade plan for 2009. So, the code base is good enough for them, but apparently not good enough for Kennedy.

Oddly, though Kennedy recalls Microsoft's public suggestions that Windows 7 would be based on the same Longhorn platform as Vista/Server 2008, he doesn't set his expectations accordingly, as evident in the following example (I've included the section heading as well):

Lipstick on the pig

So where does this leave us? For starters, we can now say with some certainty that Windows 7 is in fact just a repackaging of Windows Vista -- an "R2" release, to use Microsoft's nomenclature on the Windows Server side of the house.

So Kennedy doesn't mind making assumptions about kernel thread count and performance, but when Microsoft announced that the server-side name for Windows 7 would be Windows Server 2008 R2, he didn't want to assume that both upcoming OSes would be based on the same existing platform. Nope, he was expecting MS to reinvent the wheel even though the "pig's" Longhorn platform was looking pretty darn good on the server side.

Like I said earlier, I don't mind a speculative review or benchmarking of pre-release code as long as it's honest and objective. I'm not sure where along his 16-year history with the Windows kernel he got so jaded, but Kennedy obviously has an agenda here. I could highlight even more examples like those mentioned above, but I think you get the idea: this is FUD designed to scare you into thinking that Windows 7 will largely be more of the same (wait, that sounds familiar... ;-). In fact, Kennedy triumphantly announces: "Welcome to Windows Vista R2!"

<sarcasm> Uh oh, watch out, Microsoft: the cat's out of the bag! </sarcasm> I'm sorry, Randall, that you already are so disappointed in Windows 7 based on pre-release code. But really, I think you wanted to be disappointed and would've looked for some justification for it in any code you tested.