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