The Stone Blog

A refined plea to J Allard

Matt Freestone — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:56:46 GMT

Some of you may have read my previous post pleading to J Allard as the new Chief Experience Officer to provide a universal media experience across all Microsoft platforms. Well, after getting no feed-back, I am trying again with a slightly more refined plea.

So, here's what it comes down to - core tasks make all the difference.

The (what should be at least) simple tasks that you do every day on any type of device/interface are what make you love something, or hate it. If the things that should be simple ARE simple, easy to use, and easy on the eyes, you'll love whatever it is.

So, let me give you a specific example that will give Windows 7 a major driver and essentially end Sony's reign of terror in the living room. (I hate Sony by the way, I want you to vanquish them.) It's a simple concept. One that will probably be difficult to pull off due more to political issues than technical but if it's done will change the living room forever. (I posted these hopes before here addressed to J Allard as
I believe he is the one person who could make this happen due to his new position.)

A single universal interface for media/entertainment across all Microsoft platforms including a single universal codec. It's THAT simple. Right now, Windows Media player can play pretty much ANY media type out there if you install the right codecs. But, then I go into Media Center and suddenly I can't play half of my media, including inside media center on my Xbox 360. But, then I can leave media center and play media on my Xbox 360 that I couldn't play in media center. So, I want to transfer some media to my Zune. Uh oh, same problem again! Most of it I can't transfer. Even Microsoft formats are a pain. Why? I want to copy a TV show from my media center to my Zune. Cool! It says it will let me. Oh wait, why am I having to wait 4 hours for that HD show to transfer to my Zune? Well, I'm at my house, my Zune is wireless, so why can't I just setup my Zune as an extender? Or possibly even my Windows Mobile device that has wifi?

The list goes on and on. An insane amount of frustration for something that to the end user should be a quick and seamless thing. Of course, people that know better like me understand the technical issues. Codecs are very different and you could never support them all and have a good experience, etc, etc.

So, here's my solution. Again, a single user interface that spans all devices. This includes Xbox 360, Zune, Media Center and PC. I think the media center interface is a great place to start with a few exceptions. If you want different versions of Windows to have different capabilities that's fine, take out features, but keep the SAME interface. For example Win7 home vs. Win7 premium, keep the same interface but Win7 home can't make use of tuners, etc. (Honestly, I think that media center should be moved to Win7 home server, and home server should have the same UI as normal Win7.)

So, let's take that single user interface for a test drive. Rather than having to enter a completely different application on my 360 to watch TV it should simply replace the media blade on the 360. Giving me that same familiar interface from MC, but tweaked to provide me the easier access to the functions on that device. The Zune, the exact same way. Also, Win7 Premium should have FULL EXTENDER CAPABILITY. I realize the MC team made a 'deal with the devil' with hardware vendors but it's killing MC adoption. Ditch that deal, and make it an added feature of a higher sku. Merge Windows Media Player/Zune/Media Center with a SINGLE APP and interface. Put tabs on it if you really want to separate out functionality with a very simple UI when playing media directly from the file system (as you currently do in Windows 7.) Oh, and make the Zune a wireless extender. (Just add a main menu item called 'TV' and bam, there's media center.) Even Windows Mobile devices! (And make a merged Windows Mobile/Zune phone. Come on guys.)

Finally, let's tackle the codec issue. Yes, there is a way out of this codec hell. MS needs to get all their various codec people into 1 room, and they need to devise the coolest codec on the face of the planet that will
work for ALL MS media needs. 1 codec, the end. Not DVR-MS (which is now something else post Fiji) and WMV and, etc, etc. Once you have this awesome codec, you need to build into the codec a simple feature. The ability for the codec to strip a file on the fly to a different bit rate/resolution depending on the device it is going for. For example, my HD recording of House on my media center would be roughly, let's say, 2G. I don't want 2G chewed up on my Zune for resolution and bitrates I'm never going to see. So, the universal sync software strips the file on the fly as it syncs it. Yes, I know this can be done if the codec is architected with this in mind. When something is encoded in this codec the codec will mark bits in the file for different resolutions/bitrates. These can be static. Such as Zune, PC, HD. Something. 3 different programmed rates would be enough I would think. This way files can be moved/watched from device to device without a massive amount of resource consumption or waiting for hours. (something similar to this has been done with Windows Media Encoder and Windows Media Services on Windows Server for years.) Finally, we've got the codec and built in resizing feature. Now, how do we get everyone to use the codec? Simple answer, you won't. But we don't care. You add a feature to all your devices (that can accept input, such as the 360 or Win7) that say "I notice you got this new video file. Would you like me to enable universal access to the video and add it to your library?" Then give 4 options of 'yes always do this, yes, no, don't ask me again.' (I'm sure you'll think of better ways to word it.) Then the device will transcode the file into the new codec, automatically add that file to the media index and do this in the background on a lower priority thread so as to not impede the users experience. This functionality should be on the Xbox 360 and it should be able to import media to WHS or MC (which I would hope would be the same device) as it has a massive amount of horsepower and will enable those with no computer experience to do this. (Like the Wii has brought non-gamers to the console.) Once the file has been transcoded the original file can either be deleted or kept per the users discretion again with a 'never ask me again, always do this function.' So, what happens as new codecs are created? Simple, via Windows update this feature of the OS gets updated to support new codecs to transcode into the universal format. Eventually you will even have the new codec creators doing this work for you as they will want acceptance of their new format.

Of course you will have the geeks in the basements crying foul and many will continue to install 20 different codecs on their machines. But the average user, at least a good 80% of them will worship the ground MS walks on for taking something that SHOULD be simple, quick, and easy (and has been pure hell until now) and providing the experience we all expect.

If you do this, good-bye Sony. It wasn't nice knowing you.

(PS - Of course, granted, you may have companies saying "they are forcing everyone to use only THEIR codec." First off, no one is forcing anyone, you are simply trying to provide a seamless interface. Second, if they really want to try about it, then they should all get together and create a universal framework for codecs that will allow this same seamless experience as I suggested before. http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/matt/archive/2008/06/30/a-suggestion-for-j-allard-as-chief-experience-officer.aspx But let's face it, they'll never do it. That's one of the issues with open source. Something like this would get stuck in a perpetual debate and never happen. Let's let the free market drive this.)

Untouchable China

Matt Freestone — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:37:14 GMT

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1533

Mary-Jo Foley’s blog has prompted me to write something I’ve been thinking about for a while. I too read about companies in China readying their ‘Anti-Trust’ actions against Microsoft over Windows and just rolled my eyes. While I didn’t know if it was accurate or not, it wouldn’t have surprised me. After reading Mary-Jo’s update it seems they are looking more specifically at Office. This is getting absurd.

So, let’s break down what they think is anti-competitive. Quoting Mary Jo’s quote - “Tsao said ‘there’s no question Microsoft engages in many monopolistic practices,’ adding that the tight integration between Office and Microsoft’s dominant Windows operating system makes developing a product that works as well with Windows difficult.” So, because Microsoft makes their products work really well together, that’s a monopolistic practice because other companies aren’t able to make it work quite as well together? Are you kidding? The ENTIRE POINT of Anti-Trust law to the begin with (in the US, where I believe the first Anti-Trust laws were created) was to ensure that better products continued to be made. That was the point, to allow innovation to continue by preventing brute force to keep better products from being marketed. Well? Now we’re talking about Anti-Trust action because a product is TOO GOOD? This defeats the entire purpose! And coming from a country who doesn’t obey anyone else’s laws or respect other nations trademarks, patents, etc, this is ridiculous.

So, that brings me back to untouchable China. Who, gets busted for having another girl pretend to sing in the opening ceremonies because the actual singing girl wasn’t cute enough to cheating during Olympic events (having a 13 year old girl on their gymnastics team) and yet the world just lets them get away with it. Why is this always the cycle? Why must the world always cower in fear until it’s too late and it takes a war to fix it? (Reference the entire world’s history on this one. Dictators through-out history and in the current world could be stopped with little to no causalities and chaos/wars if they were simply stopped early, rather than the world placating them thinking if we will be nice, they will too.)

Anyhow, it just seems very hypocritical coming from China where their government has a monopoly on freedom.

Mary Jo’s right, I too am surprised I haven’t seen anyone call for Anti-Trust on Microsoft due to the expiring of XP. Now companies must be forced to keep inferior older products around to not be anti-competitive. So, apparently, Microsoft is now guilty of using it’s evil anti-competitive methods against itself. I guess that’s a little like having split personalities that are arch enemies.

Absurd.

(PS – I await all the ensuing anger for me calling XP an ‘inferior’ product to Vista. I look forward to you trying to prove me wrong on that.)

A message to the Tech Press – SHUT UP!

Matt Freestone — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:48:38 GMT

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/11/technology/stream11.php

Unless you have something actually intelligent to say. Seriously, I’ve had it with the hypocrisy and blatant bias of the press. In the above article (and unfortunately, there are others) they are calling for anti-trust action against Microsoft because the Olympics will be streamed for NBC by Silverlight. Are you kidding me? Silverlight’s usage in the market isn’t even on the radar. It’s percentage of web animation/video is pretty much limited to Microsoft sites and is so far below 1% that it’s not even measurable. Quoting the article itself, “Now Microsoft is taking on another rival, Adobe, whose Flash media player is by far the dominant technology for streaming interactive content and video. Adobe, based in San Jose, California, controls roughly 99 percent of the market for streaming software. Windows Media, from Microsoft, and Quicktime, from Apple, trail.” Notice they don’t say ‘Silverlight, from Microsoft’, they say ‘Windows Media, from Microsoft.’ Notice also the percentage of the market controlled by Adobe. That’s right, 99%. So if you want to talk anti-trust, aren’t you looking at the wrong direction? (I am by no means saying Adobe should be investigated. Quite the opposite in fact, I want the free market to decide. And, to Adobe’s credit, I haven’t seen anything from them agreeing that such action should be taken against Microsoft.)

So, the next quote from the article. "They're still playing the same games," said Michael Nelson, professor of Internet studies at Georgetown University. "It's a way to lock up the content, and it's not enabling as much innovation as we would like to see." This level of outright bias is shameful. You know what they say, those who can do, and those who can’t teach. This is painfully obvious of Michael Nelson. So, let’s teach you a quick lesson Michael Nelson. Why were anti-trust regulations created in the first place? Essentially it boils down to stopping companies who have an incredible amount of market share in a particular market from preventing competition in that market space. This doesn’t mean protecting only small startup companies who want to get into a market space. In reality, trying to create and successfully market a competing product to Adobe Flash is going to take a large powerhouse corporation, and this is not going to be a battle won just because the Olympics are streamed from it. Granted, it’s the first and critical step in getting market acceptance (developers have to feel comfortable using the product and that the market will accept it before you see any broad use) but it’s hardly a call for Anti-Trust action again someone who has so little market share it can’t even be defined.

Essentially what is boils down to is anti-capitalist bias interfering with innovation. So, Michael Nelson I ask you sir directly. How does presenting Adobe with the first viable competition in the web animation market space essentially in a decade stifle innovation? It’s quite the opposite. Now Adobe will be forced to innovate faster and more creatively forcing Microsoft and other competitors to do the same. Just as more broad use and acceptance of Apple (with their creation of the OS X series) and Linux has driven Microsoft to get off their laurels and innovate with Vista. (Yes, Vista is massively innovative, that’s why people complain about it so much. It’s very different from what Windows users have been used to.)

Speaking of Vista, another point made in the article. Kevin Lynch, Adobe’s CTO is quoted as saying "The question is, are you trying to advantage one particular operating system?" he said, pointing to Microsoft's decision to reserve certain features like 3-D effects and downloading for the company's Windows Vista operating system. The reason why ‘3D’ is limited to Windows Vista is a technology issue, not a marketing issue. Silverlight takes advantage of the WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) engine that’s built into Vista to accomplish this. Users aren’t going to want to wait for a huge download just view to web content and they aren’t going to want an entire graphics engine embedded into their OS just for 3D rendering on the web. So, John Markoff please do your research before you play on people’s ignorance and make it seem as though Microsoft is trying to force people to Vista and Kevin Lynch, come on man, you know better.

Competition, in ANY space is a good thing and the free market will always, ALWAYS balance itself out. A few decades ago, everyone thought K-Mart was the invincible juggernaut and all it took was a store starting in a small town to destroy them. Wal-Mart, now considered the invincible juggernaut will eventually be felled by a more innovative company and by being brought down from within. I am sure that Microsoft at some point will fall prey to their own mistakes and industry innovation. It’s the nature of capitalism and it’s a beautiful thing. The old must be allowed to perish so the new can flourish.

If you want innovation in the market place Michael there’s one thing you need to remember.

The freedom to fail is just as important as the freedom to succeed.

Innovation and Capitalism don’t work without it.

Vista - Change is painful, but necessary

Matt Freestone — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:58:42 GMT

After reading some various articles on the web talking about the ‘Mojave’ experiment and the tech press’s negative knee jerk reaction to it (I guess because geeks think they have to be convinced of something and the regular masses don’t matter), it got me thinking. What are the root causes of the things that have given the Tech press something to complain about, and what’s truly at the heart of these causes?

Let’s start off with UAC, or User Access Control. (Again, I try to target my blog entries for everyone, not just the geeks.) UAC is that ‘annoying’ prompt that you get anytime an application tries to do something that requires administrative rights. UAC is one of these ‘necessary evils’ that must exist in life for a couple of reasons. (In fact, you should rarely see a UAC prompt.) Really, the only time you should ever see a UAC prompt is when you install a new application or device, or you yourself are making a system change that could be potentially dangerous. So why do we see them more often? For that my friends you need to blame the developer of the application that is causing the prompt. For years, essentially since XP SP2, Microsoft has been telling developers ‘it’s time you started playing by the rules.’ Lazy programming is the cause of all those UAC prompts. Software doesn’t need administrative rights to run or perform virtually any of its operations and yet, due to lazy programming that has been a constant leading to security breaches and vulnerability. In fact, during the last black hat the Vista machine that ‘got hacked’ was hacked through Adobe Flash. Is Vista to blame for this? Applications need to run at the user rights level and with UAC in place they are now being forced to play by the programming rules and write secure code that runs within the correct parameters. (They do this only kicking and screaming blaming MS the entire way.) Since running the RTM version of Vista up to now, the number of UAC prompts I have ran into have dropped to 1/3 what they used to be. This is due in large part to application vendors releasing newer versions and updates so that their application plays within the rules. (Microsoft is also an offender in this area as some of their own applications didn’t play by the rules causing these prompts unnecessarily. Microsoft really needs to set the example here and they’ve been updating the offending software.) This trend will continue until soon UAC prompts will be few and far between and you’ll forget why this used to irritate you so much.

The second major issue is hardware incompatibility. This is primarily in the areas of video cards and printers. The reason for this is the underlying engines for these hardware types were drastically upgraded in Vista and rightly so. The engines driving these devices were so old and archaic they didn’t allow the OS to take advantage of many of the new features and technologies taking place in these arenas. Microsoft, wisely, decided to build a new platform ground up to ensure that not only could the OS take advantage of current technologies but to ensure it could continue to take advantage of future technologies. In doing so they warned hardware vendors years (yes, years, in fact I think the new video driver framework was essentially finalized 3 years before Vista’s release) in advance that Vista would only work with drivers following the new framework. Unfortunately the hardware vendors didn’t prepare in time and we all suffered from driver pain for over a year. As for printers, many of the manufacturers (HP especially) just decided not to even write drivers for older hardware as they deemed it ‘too expensive’ and besides, it forces people to buy new printers. Sounds like a win-win for them especially when they can just blame it on Microsoft when customers call to complain.

So, in summary, let me make a prediction. Windows 7 (which I would assume is essentially going to be a more polished feature rich version of Vista with no major under the hood changes) is going to be widely accepted with great acclaim and enthusiasm and said to be ‘what Windows Vista should have been.’ This is essentially like complaining about pioneers who started building a city and saying 20 years later ‘this is what the city should have always been like.’ If Windows Vista had never existed and Windows 7 came out it would be facing the same painful transition period and bad press that Vista had. Vista was a new engine and platform (or foundation if you will) that will allow Microsoft to build great new Operating Systems for at least 3 more versions without any major transition period. In fact, it’s this ‘Vista’ foundation that will take Microsoft through until the next major Operation System shift, Midori.

And if you think Vista was a big change, just wait until Midori hits.

Midori - The true future of 'cloud' computing?

Matt Freestone — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:19:25 GMT

First, let me reference the article that's put me on this topic. This is an excellent article, one I really hope everyone reads. It's an incredibly detailed (and hopefully accurate) article describing what Microsoft is hoping to accomplish in their MSR incubation project for the next generation OS's.

http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32627

Remember the days of DOS? Then the Mac OS and Windows 95 came along and completely changed that dynamic. Then Mac OSX, a completely new rebuilt concept from Apple that revolutionized their product line. Windows Vista/Server 2008 is also a huge leap from the Windows 2000/XP family which were a huge leap from the Win95/98 family. (No one ever claims ME, that's the red headed step child.) None of these will be the leap that Midori could be.

This concept of 'cloud computing' that Google, Yahoo, and essentially every company out there has been touting and saying is the wave of the future has never made any sense to me. The one company to essentially stay silent (comparatively speaking) has been Microsoft on this subject, which I was glad to hear. It's like jumping on the many times dis-proven global warming hysteria. You just do it because it's 'cool' and makes you somehow 'in the know.' Apparently MS has had something under wraps which from my perspective is the true next evolution of computer interfaces and I hope it actually makes it to market intact.

Here's why the current 'cloud computing' model doesn't make sense to me. I come from the Enterprise world and most of my perspective is going to be skewed from that. Google is a great example as they are the ones pushing this currently perceived model so much. They are constantly creating these 'virtual apps' that are completely web based replacements for desktop applications. Their office applications is a great example. While working with another company on a project who was using Google apps I used them myself. Honestly, I expected more. The functionality wasn't there, it was ugly as sin (seriously, have you used Google's spreadsheet app? I felt like I was back on Word Perfect and trying to remember the keyboard commands) and where would I store my documents? Also, Google hasn't met any of it's profit projections for the last 4 quarters. Why do you think that is? Giving everything away hasn't worked. Ad revenue? Who's paying attention to ads when they are working on a spreadsheet. If anything, that just irritates me as it's a distraction while I'm trying to work.

Here's where the enterprise will never go for it. Enterprise, especially large companies want to control their own data. That's why things such as Sharepoint are so attractive to the enterprise. I can have a fantastic collaborative intranet that's securely accessible from anywhere in the world for all of my employees with granular security (in the cloud per se) but all it's data is stored on MY servers, on MY SAN, in MY datacenter. Thinking that the enterprise is just going to allow it's data to sit on Google servers (who's proven their trustworthy with our privacy, hahaha) or anyone else's servers is just living in a fantasy land. That's not a change that's going to happen any time soon.

Now, I'm not a developer, I gave that up years ago when I realized I was writing programs 10 times longer than they should be because I was avoiding doing algorithms. (Yes, I suck at math.) But the concept of a cross platform Operating System designed from the ground up to be compartmentalized, componentized, and distributed (across cores, local LAN machines and yes over the cloud) while accessing storage in the same way seems like the far more logical fit to me. Allowing the Enterprise to still maintain their own servers and datastores/applications while providing a uniform and universally accessible interface across devices and cyberspace without sacrificing the power of the local application is a very compelling future to me.

I truly hope that Midori will become what MS hopes it will be. But, don't get your hopes up. Longhorn had a lot of promise too that realistically couldn't be brought fully to fruition in a logical time table. I think that's why Microsoft is taking it's time with Midori and keeping quiet. They want to get this one right, and I hope they do.

So, read the article and tell us... What do you think?

Microsoft FINALLY shoots back!

Matt Freestone — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:34:42 GMT

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9998336-56.html?tag=nl.e703

I know, it's a miracle! Microsoft is finally firing back against all the pathetic whining of the Tech Press and the lies propagated by Apple. Their concept was simple. Bring in people off the street, ask their opinions about Vista (which were of course negative) then take them into a room to try a 'new' OS called Mojave. After giving them some time to play with the OS they asked their impressions of Mojave, which were overwhelmingly positive. And, as I am sure you guessed it, Mojave was actually just Vista.

So, what's the simple moral of the story? Once you take the lies out of the equation (in other words, people just regurgitating what they've heard/been told by the Tech Press, Apple ads, and wanna be geeks) people suddenly love Vista. What a shock!

This is why I hate the tech press, and the press in general. I really angers me when people take advantages of other's ignorance to force their self motivated point of view, and not the truth. I thought journalism was just reporting truth, not forcing opinion? Ahhh and there in lies the greatest lie of all. Everyone has a point of view. Ask any cop who's questioning witnesses. Just be honest and tell people when it's an opinion.

I'm truly glad to finally see Microsoft defending itself. Time to show the school yard bullies what you're made of MS!

(Oh, and for those of who you want to know my definition of a 'wanna be geek'? It's simple. A wanna be geek is someone who thinks they know computers/technology but has never held a professional position (in other words, job) where they are paid for their skill set. It's the same thing with sports, comedy, etc. You become a professional or 'true geek' when you are actually well compensated for said skills.)

A suggestion for J Allard as Chief Experience Officer

Matt Freestone — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:25 GMT

From Mary-Jo Foley’s blog……

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1463

So, since Windows 7 is in development as MS has said, now is the time to offer ideas/suggestions.

Hi J.... I realize of course that he'll never see this message but I hope perhaps the concept reaches him at some point. If you really want to make a compelling argument for Win7 and secure dominance of the MS platform against competitors, here's a suggestion.

Provide a seamless and unified experience with all Microsoft's primary devices. What devices am I referring to? Win7 (PC), Xbox 360, and the Zune. What do I mean by this? I mean that my Windows 7 PC (whether it be my Home Server (which should be a Win7 SKU if you ask me) my primary desktop, my laptop, etc) will talk to my Xbox 360 over the network in ways never before seen. For example, any codecs I have installed on my Win7 Media Center are 'offered' to the Xbox 360 (through a framework that MS designs) so I can play (inside of Media Center, or in the dashboard) any of my video files across any of my devices. This same framework would 'offer' the codecs to my other Win7 PCs as well, as well as my Zune. This way I only have to install the codecs on a single machine, once. (Since MS controls the OS for all these devices this shouldn’t be that difficult a feat with codecs designed to work in the new framework.) All my media, accessible from any of my devices, over the network. Seems like a simple enough concept. I know, there are quite a bit of logistics to work out but honestly? Not really that much. Create this framework and make it an open source project so that it is adopted quickly and easily. (I'm typically against giving away code but since this is a project would want the entire community to be a part of it’s necessary.) Honestly, how incredible would this simple, brand new compelling feature be? You would have everyone who does any kind of media or owns any of the other devices upgrading to Win7 en mass.

Next, as part of Win7 Media Center, offer the Media Center Server option. Even include it as part of the Home Server SKU (which I think it should be.) This way I have my primary media server, and then I can watch TV shows or even live TV via my PCs as well as my Xbox 360's and even a simple feed transport on my Zune via wifi. My point is that each of these devices/skus (Vista Premium, Home Server, Xbox 360 (dashboard and extender), Zune), all have this completely different (and none of them feature complete) interfaces that require me to switch from one to another to another to get everything I want. It's insane. Why???? Honestly, WHY?? If you could provide a completely unified front-end (which, I hate to admit Apple is quite well at doing) you can provide a huge reason for Win7 and secure Microsoft's OS dominance. Trust me, I have a ton more ideas/concepts for this 'unified experience' but I don't want this to be 10 pages long.

Just a thought.

One additional note. Instead of the insane SKU’s that really are irrelevant, let’s have Win7 SKUs that do have a purpose. Here are my proposed Win7 SKUs - (Windows 7 Home (includes standard Media Center, essentially Home Premium), Windows 7 Home Server (This includes all Home Server options plus some additional features such as Folder Redirection and other enterprise tools, and this is the SKU that contains Media Center Server), Windows 7 Business, Windows 7 Ultimate (that has all features of every SKU.)

So, what do you think? What features or concepts would you like in Win7? Now’s the time to be heard while development is still happening. Once the beta starts, I doubt they’ll listen to any feature requests.

Just wanted to say thanks for proving my point....

Matt Freestone — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:57:31 GMT

I'm sorry but after not checking the post for a few days and coming back trying to read through all the comments I just had to laugh out of both glee and frustration. Glee, because the comments themselves prove my point far better than I ever could, and frustration due to how none of these detractors either didn't actually read the article, or aren't capable of understanding what they read. So, let's start off with how they proved my point for me.

In the first paragraph of my post I said this - "As I read the constant, continuous and typically regurgitated bad press about Vista it reminds me of how kids in elementary school act. They want to seem cool so when they see someone picking on a kid, they join in. They do so, thinking that somehow the comment they make at the kid will somehow be unique and make them impressive in the other children's eyes, making themselves cooler." Now, perhaps in retrospect I should have made this point clearer and put more emphasis on it as the comments to the post proved the point. As I read through them all (79 at the time I write this) everyone is saying the same thing over, and over, and over again. Each of them, I guess thinking they are making a new point, repeat the same thing in their own words. Essentially it boils down to how I'm stupid, I don't know anything about Apple, (admittedly I did make a couple of mistakes for example that OS X is based off of FreeBSD, not OpenBSD as was pointed out to me) and how dare I compare Vista to Leopard. That is by far the funniest part, as I never once compared Vista to Leopard as OS's. What I did compare is the difference between how the OS's were designed, targeted, and how they are covered in the press, etc. I made a lot of other points in the article but I guess no one could find any way to argue those points. So, everyone rehashed the same ones over and over, I guess thinking that their rewording would be found more intellectual. Finally, how all these people came out to tell me that Leopard runs just as fast on their old machine as it does on new ones.

Sorry guys, I don't buy it. Not for a second. Granted, older Apple PC's did have better GPU's compared to their standard PC counterparts that your average home user had for email, etc. So, while some of the fancier interface options for Leopard work better than on a PC at the same timeframe with Vista doesn't invalidate the point. So, I put out this challenge.

Since you all say that Leopard runs just as good on your 3 or more year old standard machine (not upgraded, as shipped from the factory with standard hardware) as it does on a new one, please, post some benchmarks. Prove to everyone that it's not just that your feelings are hurt because someone would dare point out the hypocrisy of the tech press, but that's it's true. Post some benchmarks on the comments, I dare you. Should you be able to back up your claim, I will officially apologize on my blog for saying a new OS won't run as fast on old hardware as it does new hardware.

And one additional note to some of the supposed systems administrators out there who claim Vista runs like crap, even on brand new Dells, etc. I weep for the people who employ you. As some said of me, I hope your employer reads your comments and puts out a want ad. If by some miracle you can't install Vista on a new Dell system and have it work well, then perhaps you should find a new career. That may sound harsh, but I will stand by that to the grave. That's pathetic. Scream at me and call me all the names you want but if your excuse to your boss is that Vista sucks I'm sorry to say my friend, it is you that sucks.

And finally a note on those who said that Vista's missing of some 'promised' (which they never were) features makes it a bad OS I say this. Microsoft, keep your ideas to yourselves until the RC phase unless people are under NDA. The level of hypocrisy here is astounding. Apple sues bloggers who even dare talk about a feature in a future Apple product. Microsoft (and I'll even say, not wisely) have openly talked about what they wanted to accomplish in their next OS. I say Microsoft, just don't do it anymore. Obviously being open and honest with people doesn't help you, so keep it to yourselves. Besides, you'll get a lot more free viral marketing out of everyone trying to guess at your next move rather than arm chair developers decrying every step you take.

So, let the hate fly everyone. Just do me one favor. If you have seen the same point repeated 60 times already in the comments, try and come up with something of your own instead of repeating the same point in different words. It really doesn't make you look cooler.

(PS - The comment about WinFS being talked about for 10 years is true. MS has been wanting to make a layer over the file system a relational DB for quite some time. The main issue has been that other features have had a stronger market value (at least in MS's opinion) and so it's had to be cut, and that's their call to make. Agree with it or not it was never promised for Vista. It was listed as a pillar in the Longhorn development cycle but was removed before the project left the R&D phase for the product phase.)

Comments on opinion posts...

Matt Freestone — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:42:38 GMT

I just wanted to throw a quick post out there apologizing about comments not showing up on my blog. I thought the default setting was to allow all comments to post but it wasn't set that way. So, I've since gone back and published all the posts that were caught and changed the settings so that it shouldn't happen again. When I write opinion pieces I want everyone's opinion. That's why I end with "So, what do you think?" Love or hate what I said, feel free to express it. I won't censor or unpublish your comment with the exception of vulgarity or profuse language. We want to keep WC clean, so just keep in mind that kids can, and we hope do, read this site. With that said, feel free to call me anything you want as many of you have. Just remember that freedom of speech lets you say anything you want, but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say. (Which seems to be something many people are confused about. For example, when the Dixie Chicks lost their fan base because of something they said and felt their freedom of speech was infringed. Crazy.)

Thanks again for reading WindowsConnected.Com!

A plea to Microsoft....

Matt Freestone — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:35:38 GMT

I realize that when I post, they end up long. I apologize, and I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing from me but I have to make one plea to Microsoft.

Please don't apologize for adding 'cool' UI, etc into Vista. In fact, I want you to do the exact opposite. I want you to take advantage of the awesome technologies you've built into Vista and really make people go "Wow." How? By using WPF in your applications.

WPF is another looked over feature that most end users don't know about. Why? Simply because no one has implemented the power of WPF in any of their applications. Most disappointing of all is that Microsoft themselves haven't used it in any of their mainstream applications, at least that I know of. (If someone has found some, please reply to this post as I would love to know!) WPF, or Windows Presentation Foundation is essentially a 3D accelerated programming architecture allowing you to provide amazing interfaces in your applications. The kind of cool interfaces that you see in movies or in video games are not only possible, but very feasible using WPF. Yet Microsoft, you haven't used this power in any of your applications. Even Live Messenger doesn't have it, which I would have thought would be the first app to get a WPF face lift. How can you expect other vendors to use this framework when you yourselves aren't using it. I think even the Office suite would benefit greatly from a WPF interface. I know for a fact that both Outlook and PowerPoint would be fantastic with a WPF GUI.

Apple gets all this credit for 'cool' interfaces. With WPF, you have the power to make Apple's interfaces look about as cool as an 80 year old man in a diaper.

So, my plea to Microsoft is, take off the gloves. Start with some beta versions of low impact applications like Live Messenger, Live Mail, and other applications. Give them a beautiful intuitive and powerful WPF interface. Show the world what cool really is and send Apple scrambling to try and create their own version of WPF, and by the time they get it, release WPF 2. Apple has crossed the line with their ads, take off the gloves and show them what Microsoft can really do!

The Vista Schoolyard Bullies........

Matt Freestone — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:23:00 GMT

As I read the constant, continuous and typically regurgitated bad press about Vista it reminds me of how kids in elementary school act. They want to seem cool so when they see someone picking on a kid, they join in. They do so, thinking that somehow the comment they make at the kid will somehow be unique and make them impressive in the other children's eyes, making themselves cooler. In reality, it simply points out their own ineptitude's. Unfortunately this is a rampant issue in tech reporting these days. Someone will decide something is 'bad' and suddenly that's all anyone is out there saying. The poor kid eventually gets self esteem issues and even starts to rip on himself (such as Steve Ballmer mentioning that Vista is a 'work in progress.') Today I just wanted to take a minute and point out the hypocrisy of this situation and how some of Microsoft's competitors are taking advantage of it.

So, let's start off with the 'performance' issues that everyone is so fond of using to rip on Vista. Before I explain some common sense things, let's first take a look at Apple's OS history and deployment strategies. I ask you, how many Apple users do you know that own a 3 year old Mac, and install Leopard on it? The silence is deafening. All the Mac OS's through it's life cycle have been hardware dependant. In other words, for the most part, you bought a new PC to get the new Mac OS. Obviously that has changed in the last 5 or more years, and has changed more drastically with Apple's adoption of Intel processors. But still, this question is a valid one. Mac OS's have never been designed with backward compatibility (hardware wise) in mind. Why? Simple, Apple is a hardware vendor, not just a software vendor. Apple makes 50% of it's profit from the hardware. It's against their best interest for you to simply upgrade your old computer with their new OS. They want you to buy a brand new computer. This is a very liberating thing as it allows them to design the OS to take advantage of the latest hardware and provide much 'cooler' user interfaces as they don't have to worry about older or slower hardware not being able to run it. So again, I ask you. How many Mac users have wanted to install Leopard on a 3 year old Mac, and if they do, how many complain about it's performance? They don't because they knew it would be horrible. That's again, the advantage of Apple's strategy as their end users are used to this. They don't expect to be able to run the latest and greatest OS on a old machine. So, Microsoft catches all this flack over not having 'cool', 'flashy' interfaces. Windows doesn't have that 'wow' factor that Apple users get to enjoy. So, what does Microsoft do? They say "well, there must be a market demand for this, so we're going to provide it." And they did, and Aero is fantastic. Oh wait, on my old machine Aero makes my computer run slow, or, Aero won't run on my old graphics card. Vista must suck. Windows end users have gotten used to be able to install the new OS on their old hardware, and when they can't run the 'cool' parts of the OS on their old system (or it slows it down) they get mad. Why? It's obvious that if you want to run the latest OS with the coolest features you have to have the hardware to back it up, right? It seems obvious enough, but people don't seem to grasp that. Or how about the fact that games don't run as fast on Directx 10 as they did on 9? Could it be because the game creators optimized their code for the engine at the time, and that those optimization tweaks may not completely port over to a new engine? And you know what, end users who don't understand these things, and it's very understandable. What is completely unacceptable to me is that Apple (and many tech writers) will play on this ignorance and fuel this ignorance into hatred of a fantastic product.

So, let's discuss Apple's product releases. This is probably the thing that frustrates me the most about all this. Any time Apple releases a new version of the product, many people refer to it lovingly as it's 'beta' phase. Seriously, even Mr. Paul Thurrott himself when talking about a new version of iTunes 7 outright states "First, the initial iTunes 7 release is really just a public beta. It will be updated several times in the days ahead. And all those problems people are reporting will begin to disappear." (Find the referred to article here - iTunes 7 Review.) How is this not the most hypocritical thing you've ever heard? Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft released such an app, do you think it would be treated this way? And yet this is accepted as normal by most Apple users. And yet these same people decry Vista's hardware compatibility issues (mostly due to poorly written drivers by 3rd party vendors.) Which leads me to the ads.

I run a Vista media center in my home, and therefore skip nearly all the ads. With the exception of the latest 'misstatements' by Apple in their "I'm a PC" ads. I don't know why, maybe I like to get angry sometimes but my curiosity drives me to know what 'misstatements' they've decided to spread (and oddly enough, never get called out on) this week. So let's talk about hardware compatibility, one of the latest ads that shockingly enough isn't full of 'misstatements'. This ad features the shrink telling PC that "all these hardware problems, it's not your fault." Which, shockingly enough is a very true statement, one I was blown away Apple would make. Then the shrink goes on to explain that Mac is superior because all of it's hardware is made by Apple and therefore Mac's don't have hardware compatibility problems. First of all, in the little experience I've had with Leopard, I've had horrible hardware compatibility issues with printers, especially older printers (which just work natively in Vista) when setting up customer offices on consulting jobs. So, the compatibility issues are less, simply because as the ad states, most of the hardware is made by Apple. To me, this is a horrible thing. Having lots of vendors make parts for your system provides you a much greater variety of options, as well as driving prices down, the beauty of competition. This is one of the reasons why owning a Mac has been so notoriously expensive. The ad then finishes by PC blaming Mac for all it's problems. This part of course makes no sense but I guess it's just a cute marketing gimmick. By the way, can I please point out something that has really bothered me. Why aren't all the open source people crying foul of Apple? OSX is based off of Open BSD, which is open source. Yet Apple doesn't release their source code, nor is it free? Again, hypocrisy abounds. I could go on and on, but this is getting long as it is.

Another sore spot that tech writers love to rip Vista on is all the 'dropped features.' This, I'm sorry to say is Microsoft's fault for daring to tell everyone what they hoped to accomplish in their next OS release, starting back in the very early days of the first Longhorn 4000 build series. Please, go back and read everything Microsoft put out back then. Those 'features' were never set in stone. In fact, a feature isn't set in stone until the RC phase of a product. To make a great product you always need to aim for the stars, and then come back down to Earth as you must to make a solid product at a realistic release time table. Microsoft had to do that with Vista, in fact scrapping the entire code base of the 4000 series and starting over. Things such as WinFS and other features that I was just dying for, never made it to the final product design. Was I disappointed? Of course. Does that make Vista any less of a fantastic OS? Absolutely not.

And here lies the underlying issue. Everyone compares Vista to what they thought it was going to be, and it doesn't quite match up to their expectations. So they throw tantrums. They try to get XP users on older machines to switch to Linux or Mac OSX (which again is buying new hardware, big shock) or demand that the XP life cycle be extended because they didn't get what they wanted. Let's be realistic here people. Does anyone remember Windows XP at launch? It was no where near as stable or compatible as Vista was at launch and Vista was a far bolder advanced than XP was over 2000.

So, children, please stop throwing your temper tantrums. Stop picking on Vista just because everyone else is. Vista wasn't everything you thought it was going to be. Get over it. It is a fantastic, stable OS that is a huge step in a direction that Windows has needed to move in for a long time. Stop playing on the average user's ignorance by telling them half truth's and sometimes out right 'misstatements' for your fear mongering purposes. I assure you that while you may think you sound very smart and cool, your own ineptitude is giving you away. End this nonsense of "keep letting us sell XP on new systems" InfoWorld and other 'tech' organizations. Being a dissenter for dissension's sake doesn't make you heroic or cool, it just makes you a tool.... of Microsoft's competitors.

(To be politically correct in today's world, I was forced to use 'misstatements' instead of more accurate terms.)

So, what do you think?

Xbox Live Stability Unacceptable

Matt Freestone — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:41:11 GMT

Now, I don't normally do this in my blog but I'm going to call someone out directly. Marc Whitten, the instability of Xbox Live is not only unacceptable to have continued for this long, but your answer and your teams lack of communication is even more disheartening. Even now as I write this post at 5:30pm Sunday afternoon (1/06/08) Xbox Live is still essentially useless. Last night I played Halo 3 for about 5 hours while getting about 2 hours worth of gameplay. Today, when attempting to play Call of Duty 4, I spent about 2 hours to play about 3 rounds. Getting constantly dropped from the lobby, constantly dropped from games, and sometimes a complete inability to find a game was the norm, and not just for me. I spoke with people in every game lobby (when I was lucky enough to get into one) and they all reported the exact same issues, since Christmas.

Marc, your original letter would have been acceptable if the outage (and yes, it is an outage no matter how you might want to interpret it) had lasted only the initial weekend. I understand that you underestimated the load your servers would experience and we expected that your team would be hard at work for the next 2 days to get more hardware in place to handle the new load. Except that didn't happen, did it? Xbox Live is still experiencing an outage. (When the power company is experiencing constant rolling blackouts, back up, then out, do you think they can get away with saying it's not an outage?) When visiting the Xbox Live support page, the service status messages I have seen are either 'everything is up and working fine' (which is what Xbox Live reports as I write this entry) or the earlier posting stating there might be an issue signing in, or creating new accounts. Marc, we all know the issue is far more severe than that. We pay for Xbox Live so we can have a stable, fast way of doing online gaming. Online gaming can be done for free via the PC, or even the PS3 but nothing has been created to provide a universal, consistent and stable environment like Xbox Live before. In the 5 years I have been on Xbox Live, I have never experienced an outage as this. I have absolutely loved Xbox Live until this last week or so. We pay for the stability of the network, and if that isn't there, there isn't much worth paying for.

So what do we want Marc? I don't want a free Xbox Live arcade game, although that is a nice gesture. I just want Live working again, normally, and I want to be told the truth. Open and honest communication. I find it insulting to visit the Xbox Live support site when Live hasn't worked for days to see a 'everything is working fine' message. And if you really want to make a meaningful gesture, I'd suggest extending everyone's subscription the length of time of the outage. In your letter you refer to how many new accounts were created around the holidays. If you want to keep those accounts, Live needs to actually work, and you need to find a way to make this up to people.

I'd like to ask everyone who reads this blog and has an Xbox Live account to please post their comments to this post. Let Marc Whitten and everyone at Xbox Live know that their loyal customers are sick of paying for a service that doesn't work, and we don't like being lied to about it.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but my sincere worry is that the Xbox Live team may be assuming that much of this new load on the servers is going to disappear when all the free 'month' subscriptions run out, and if that's the case we can all look forward to another 3 weeks of problems. I really hope that isn't your plan Marc.

So everyone, are you as frustrated as I am?

Zune 2 x64 Software Doesn't Install

Matt Freestone — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:00:00 GMT

When attempting to install the x86 version of the Zune software on an x64 edition of Vista or LH Server (yeah, I know) says you need to download the x64 version of the software. Well, here's the link to download the x64 version - 64-bit version, problem is that it won't do you much good. The x64 installer fails for everyone I've contacted on both Vista x64 and LH Server x64 with the following error;

Me and many others have attempted many methods to get it to install but it just won't fly. If anyone has any luck, please post a reply and let us all know.

By the way, I've installed on my x86 Vista laptop and updated my Zune. Both the new firmware and software rock!

Why all the secrecy about Vista SP1?

Matt Freestone — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:45:28 GMT

One thing I have always loved about the computer industry is that if you're the big kid on the block, you're always wrong. No matter what you do, you're wrong. No matter how you approach things you're wrong. And, most specifically, you are obligated to share everything to everyone, immediately. Such is the attitude with the industry and Microsoft. Well, I'm coming to the aid of Microsoft by trying to point things out from their point of view.

First, does Apple pre-release information about upcoming products or OS releases/features? Absolutely not. In fact, Apple is notorious for being highly secretive, to the point of leaking false information (even internally) firing people for even breathing a product name, suing blogger's who dare mention something they've heard, etc. (The iPhone is a perfect example.) And yet, with Apple, and the iPhone specifically, did you hear outrage at Apple's secrecy? No, everyone thought it to be 'cool', and it helped hype the product beyond appropriate levels. Now, while I find Apple's approach sometimes excessive, I don't dis-agree with secrecy about your upcoming technologies, nor am I against creating hype. In fact, I am all for it. So why is it ok for Apple and other companies to do so, but not Microsoft? Why would Microsoft be secretive about SP1, and other future product releases? I think Microsoft has learned their lesson. Here's some reasons why.

Windows Longhorn is announced, and Microsoft does some very early concept demo's of what they want to pull off. 3D accelerated interface, instant desktop search, sidebar, WinFS, .Net Framework 3.0 (with components such as WPF, or Windows Presentation Foundation), etc. What happened? Well, first off, they bit off more than they could chew. A lot of the technology they wanted to deliver, they just couldn't pull it off in time. This was caused by a few issues, one of them being how they approached the initial development project of Longhorn just wouldn't work so they had to scrap it and start over. (This was a huge cause in all the technologies that slipped from Vista RTM.) The other main issue that came from talking about their project concepts was that competitors took those ideas and ran with them faster than Microsoft could deliver the OS. Of course, I am referring to instant desktop search among others. Of course the competition was able to beat them to market on these concepts because Microsoft was going to deliver this concept in a future OS release, not as a stand alone app as their competition did.

So, with just these few examples, is it not evident that Microsoft has learned that it does nothing but hurt you to release your concepts and hopes for a project early on? Bungie, now a Microsoft subsidiary learned this lesson a long time ago, and very rarely leaks anything related to it's 'Halo' titles until those concepts have come to fruition and the release is imminent.

So, again, why all the secrecy about Vista SP1? I have a few thoughts. First, something I learned very early on in my career. If you want to make a great impression, under promise, and over deliver. I personally would guess this is Microsoft's main thoughts about Vista SP1. There are rumors flying about that Microsoft is also looking to plug 'leaks' now with Vista SP1, so they know who not to trust with early information regarding Windows 7. I think this is a fantastic idea. So why do we in the industry feel that Microsoft 'owes' us early information about product releases and concepts? And why are we so hypocritical that we don't demand the same from every vendor? I think everyone out there who's complaining (and you know who you are) about how Microsoft is 'mis-handling' the information release regarding Vista SP1 needs to take an honest look at yourselves and ask, "Why do I feel so entitled when it comes to Microsoft?" I'm not sure who's at fault for creating this entitled attitude. Perhaps it's Microsoft's fault because of how they've freely handed out information in the past. What it comes down to is that it's irrelevant how it happened, we just all need to get over it and let Microsoft try and protect it's IP for a change, at least until they are confident in releasing information.

So, what do you think?

Halo3 Beta Initial Thoughts

Matt Freestone — Fri, 18 May 2007 18:09:00 GMT

Unfortunately I'm not near as fortunate as Aubrey, and had to buy a 'specially marked box' of extortion, I mean Crackdown to get into the Halo 3 beta. I waited until the evening to try and get on, hoping that the mass frantic downloads and mass server load would have diminished by then, but alas, there was an issue with Crackdown and no one had been able to download it via the game to get on. (This issue only affected the crackdown beta participants, see link below for more information on the crackdown issues.)

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=news&cid=12468

So, I was finally able to get in around 9:30, 10:00pm MST with my boss sitting in his corner of my theatre with his 360 hooked up to a little TV. (I know, he likes to play on a little TV for some reason instead of the big projected screen, I don't get it either but he plays very well on it.) So, we finally download play 1 round when the servers get overloaded and simply say 'downloading information from Xbox Live' in the matchmaking theater.' Jeff got on at this point, joined our party, we tried but alas he had to go to bed before the servers were able to handle the load again. We got to play for about an hour or so, server load brought them down again, etc. So, first night was pretty buggy, but well worth the pain!

So, now that we've got the issues out of the way, how is the game itself? One word. Amazing. First, I have to agree with Aubrey that the brute grenades rock! Nothing is better than hearing the 'thud' when you stick someone with a brute grenade and laugh hysterically while you wait for him to die. The Mongoose is a long over-due, very welcome edition to the game. I don't think I've actually run anyone over with one yet, but I look forward to doing it, and riding a mongoose off the man cannon is something that everyone must experience. Now, one of the most amazing things that I don't think anyone has commented on yet is the sound. I don't know how good it is on a TV, but in a surround sound setup in a theater, it is beyond amazing. First, the sounds are far more realistic in every way. The gun shots actually sound much more like a real firearm, you even hear the sound of the metal of the magazine and bolt sliding closed. Distant battles actually sound distant and vehicle engines sound like a combustion engine. The mongoose in particular sounds like a motorcycle on steroids. And having your corpse fall into deep water is something else everyone must experience. It sounds too real.

Graphics is something a lot of people have complained about. "It's looks just like Halo2." Well, first off, that's wrong. Again, I'm not sure how much is a standard TV vs. HD issue, but the graphics are remarkably improved. The amazing stuff is in the details. Character movement is remarkable. Gun reloads are seamless. Death and explosions better than ever, environment contrast, movement, reaction and detail are astounding. And, as Frankie loves to point out, the water is the best I've ever seen in game engine. One last thing to point out, Bungie is notorious for holding back the best for launch day, and I think the graphics, even in multiplayer on the Gold product are going to absolutely blow everyone away, so please don't lose heart when you hear the nay-sayers out there.

Game types are tremendously improved. A game type I have always hated is territories. Well, in Halo3, territories is actually pretty cool. Now, don't get me wrong, it's still not my favorite by any means, but I actually enjoy playing it now. Instead of holding a territory to gain time, and having the ability to lose it, it is now an offense vs. defense game type. Defense has all 5 territories, and the offensive team must hold a territory long enough to capture it. (This time has gone from roughly 10 seconds to a minute. Again, this is me just guessing.) Once the offensive team has captured a territory, they get a point. The end for that territory that round. There is no capturing it back, there is no 'timed' scoring. The team that captured the most territories while on offense wins the game. Much cooler than the original. Another new to Halo game type is 'VIP', where one person on each team is the 'VIP', and has an overshield. You get a point for each 'VIP' kill you get on the other team. This was quickly one of our favorite game types to play.

Weapon balance is another major improvement in Halo3. Something that has become increasingly annoying in Halo2 is the over-use of the battle rifle. In a Bungie ViDoc, they described how when Halo2 launched, they spawned people with dual wieldable weapons and that it changed the game. No one melee' d or used grenades anymore, so they have everyone spawn with the battle rifle now. Well, Bungie, I would disagree with your solution, because spawning with the battle rifle has the same effect. I never dual wield anymore because you can never get close enough to an enemy for it to be effective. The battle rifle keeps opponents at a distance. Besides, I melee all the time while dual wielding. Sure, I drop my second weapon, but I melee to finish them off, pick my other weapon back up and I'm on my merry way. Halo3 corrects this problem, in the exact same way that Halo 1 didn't have this problem. The assault rifle. It's lower accuracy at even mid range provides a perfect starting weapon balance. The battle rifle does slightly more damage now from my perspective, but it also shoots slower. So, if you are close to an opponent and you have the battle rifle and they have the assault rifle, your toast, but at a great distance, they're history. It's a beautiful balance to have everyone spawn with the assault rifle, and I really hope they keep it that way. Also, the needler is actually worth picking up for the first time. (At least so far, during Halo2 before release they had it powerful too and then backed it off.) Bungie, please leave the needler as it is. It's perfect! I noticed that the Spartan laser takes a lot more time to charge and fire now than it did in the video released by Bungie of an earlier build (http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=news&cid=12432) and this is probably wise as it might be too power to shoot as quickly as in the video, but I think it's a tad bit on the too slow side in the public beta, but that's just my opinion. Lasering a Mongoose in the air after flying off the 'man cannon' is a near spiritual experience, one I hope to have more of.

The environments in Halo3 are beautiful, functional, and fun! Water effects, wind effects on vegetation, climate all provide a beautiful and more drawing atmosphere to play in. The maps feel bigger and really draw you into the action more, and best of all are the additional game play elements in the maps. The man cannon is a great concept and I hope that concept is used in other multiplayer maps as well. The shield 'walls' that block weapons fire, but not movement are another great addition to gameplay. During 'VIP', the opposing team's 'VIP' would hide in a small room that has those shield walls on each side thinking it would make him safe. It was a blast to walk through the wall just quick enough to drop a grenade and then walk back out as he fired futilely at me. As soon as it would detonate I'd walk through and deposit my next present. Great fun!

Matchmaking, other than the issues I mentioned in the beginning of my article is far improved. If you enjoyed a team you just played with, it gives you like 20 seconds to hit the 'x button' to instantly form a party and continue together. If a map/gametype comes up that you hate, you can again hit your 'x button' to veto it. If the majority of the players veto, it skips to another map/gametype. It only lets you do this once to prevent being stuck waiting for everyone to stop vetoing. This is a great feature that has already come in handy in the beta, seeing as how for some reason territories is weighted very heavily in the lists. (I think they're really wanting to see if people like the new way of playing territories vs. the original) So, stick with the way guys, it rocks!

The control style in Halo3 is different than Halo2, slightly confusing at first, but you pick it up really quick, and it's far better! Another great call Bungie! The new control style give you more control, flexibility and speed in combat situations. I'm still working on getting used to it, but it's well worth it!

The vehicles available in the beta are the chain gun Warthog, the Ghost, and the Mongoose. The Warthog is the same solid favorite it's ever been. The Ghost, I'm not so sure yet. The plasma bolts it shoots are a lot small, might be moving a bit faster, and I'm not sure how effective they are. I ran a couple of people over at full boost and it never killed them, so I'm a little unsure about the Ghost. I haven't had much opportunity to use it yet, so I'll try to get more time on it and let you know. Other than the Gauss Warthog, the Ghost is my all time favorite vehicle, and I hope it stays that way. The Mongoose, again, is awesome. It really picks up speed the long you floor it, it's considerably more unstable than the Warthog (which is should be) hard to shoot from on the back, but boy is it a blast! You'll wanna just jump on it to drive it around.

Some additional features of the Halo3 beta are saved films. This is going to be an awesome feature in Halo3, one I am very excited about. It's very easy to record. Every game is recording and in the battle aftermath screen, simply hit the 'x button' and it saves. Easy! Currently in the beta through, all you can do is re-watch the game with the same perspective as playing it, with no fast forward/rewind options, camera angle changes, etc. Now, they said this would be the case going in, and I completely understand it. In the beta though, it's almost pointless, but I really look forward to the final product. Customizing your Spartan is easier and much cooler. Not much to say about it, just more colors and looks cool. Another additional thing is the 3 character 'quick reference' name. Rather than trying to figure out everyone's gamertag (half of them you can't even figure out what it's supposed to be) you can simply call out their Letter/2 number combination. This is a great idea, I just wish I could use 2 letters and then a number. (I wanted to use XM8, which is the project name for the US military's replacement rifle for the M16.) Since it requires 1 letter, then 2 numbers, I went with M08, which spoken should come out 'M8', which will be it's name when finished. And of course, I can't forget the bubble shield, the portable grav lift, trip mine, and the energy drain. You use these items by hitting and holding the 'x button.' It's actually more intuative and easier than you would think, and they add a great aspect to the game. The bubble shield has saved me on more than 1 occasion is a great tool for 'King of the Hill' battles (keeps people from just hucking grenads to the hill from a distance) among other situations. The energy drain, basically the opposite of the bubble shield was awesome to use to protect a territory, and the trip mine is great to leave in a hall way or on a vehicle. The grav lift can help you get a drop on the enemy or allow a more stealthy incursion into a base. All great additions that I hope make it to the final game.

Well, that's about everything I can think of off the top of my head. I hope this will provide a little bit of insight for those who aren't in the beta, or don't yet own a 360. (WHY NOT?? Get out and buy one already! Yes, I am talking to you Josh!) For much more detailed and official information, please visit Bungie's official beta guide;

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=WelcometotheBeta