Windows 2000, Users Zilch The Y2K Disaster Parading as Microsoft's Windows NT Marketing Plan
By Robert X. Cringely (online at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19990311.html)
The event I attended last week in Melbourne, Australia, was a meeting of Toshiba's big corporate customers in that part of the world. In addition to me, the speakers included some of the users themselves, as well as representatives from Intel, Microsoft and the Gartner Group. The Gartner guy was sharp and I think gave good advice. The Intel guy was careful and did his best to keep all the customers happy while pretending that Toshiba didn't also use processors from AMD. The Microsoft guy was in some marketing zone that makes sense only within the Redmond city limits. It seemed to me that his advice was irresponsible.
Sitting for 15 hours on the plane flying back to San Francisco -- with United Airlines for some reason repeating the same movies I saw on the way over -- I had plenty of time to go over in my mind what the Microsoft rep had said. It was simple: "Our operating system for business is Windows NT. With relatively few exceptions we recommend upgrading to Windows NT 4 and, once it is available, to Windows 2000 (formerly NT 5)."
What could be wrong with advice like that? Plenty. It is probably enough to get an IT director fired for following it. The problem is Y2K.
For those who don't follow these things closely, Windows NT is the bigger brother of Windows 98. NT offers more robust multitasking and a better file system than Windows 95/98. It is intended to compete with Unix and Netware while offering the same user interface and ease of use as Windows 95. While most of us don't use Windows NT, enough people (at least two million) do use it on workstations and especially, in servers, that it represents more than $1 billion in annual revenue to Microsoft.
The current version of NT is 4.0. In order to make changes and improvements in the current product, Microsoft gives out for free what it (and IBM before it) calls Service Packs. These are bug fixes and feature upgrades. The most stable version of NT available right now is version 4.0 using Service Pack 3 (SP3). Unfortunately, SP3 is not in itself Y2K compliant despite Microsoft's past claims to the contrary. The company has since shipped additional hotfixes (fixes to the Service Pack) that make SP3 sort of Y2K-ready. But sort of isn't good enough, and even Microsoft has recognized that by issuing a new Service Pack specifically for Y2K -- SP4. That's the good news. The bad news is that SP4 is buggy and there are now so many hotfixes to it that Microsoft is preparing SP5.
Now pretend you are in charge of computers for some big company. This is March. Y2K is looming. In order to be ready for the end of the year, the smart thing to do is "freeze" all software by June 30. This means Microsoft is almost out of runway. If there is not a 100 percent complete and reliable Y2K fix for Windows NT real soon, things will get ugly.
Is anyone in Redmond on top of this? Not that I can see. The Microsoft spokesman in Melbourne said the answer was Windows 2000, but he couldn't say Windows 2000 would ship by June 30, nor would he guarantee it would ship without bugs.
Here's a dose of reality. Windows 2000 is a HUGE technology change. For a moderate to large shop it will take at least six months of planning, design and testing before they could even consider deployment. A very important aspect to the migration is to clean up and simplify the present NT 3/4 operation. If you've let your shop evolve out of control into a chaotic mess, you've got to fix it first. Yet what we know so far is that the last stable version of NT isn't Y2K-ready, the version that is supposed to be Y2K ready isn't reliable, and Microsoft's answer is to shift your entire system to a new OS that probably won't be reliable, either.
A conservative information systems organization will freeze their software for the last six months of this year, the experts tell me. The third quarter should be spent double-checking everything to make sure it's Y2K ready. This leaves three months for schedule slippage and/or to fix any problem that comes up. Something always comes up.
An aggressive information systems organization will probably freeze his software for the last three months of the year. That time will be spent in testing and last minute panic efforts to fix whatever is broken.
The bottom line here is that no one in his right mind would consider upgrading to Windows 2000 on a large scale this year, especially if it ships after June. If the code is not clearly 100 percent free of serious bugs, the risk is just too great, YET MICROSOFT RECOMMENDS JUST THAT. Even the most bullheaded IS folks will understand if there are big problems in January, and they spent the last half of 1999 playing with new stuff and did not adequately protect their companies from Y2K, then they will be fired. Only an idiot would not play it safe for the last three months. But then there will always be idiots.
If moving to Windows 2000 is such a bad idea, why does Microsoft suggest it? Well, it probably made good sense when NT 5 (Windows 2000) was supposed to ship in early-to-mid-1998. So part of what we are seeing here is just a lag in Microsoft's marketing program coming to terms with the reality of its engineering situation. If only we knew that reality. All Microsoft will say for publication is that Windows 2000 will ship in the near future and that we ought to move to it, pronto.
Microsoft has proved time and again that it can shift marketing direction very quickly, so this delay in changing the marketing message probably has meaning, too. It can mean one of three things: 1) Windows 2000 is so far from shipping that we won't actually see the product until well into 2000, but Microsoft doesn't want to admit it; 2) Microsoft is in denial about how late and/or buggy Windows 2000 is going to be, or ; 3) Microsoft intends to ship Windows 2000 this year no matter what, and needs the sales to meet its plan. Only reason two shows any respect for customers, but it is based on the theory that Microsoft is incompetent. Is this the best we can hope for from Microsoft, that they are incompetent?
What seems to be happening here is Microsoft's typical strategy of relying on software upgrades for revenue growth. But with these upgrades also comes the need to replace hardware. I will bet my tax refund, for example, that Windows 2000 will require substantially more memory than NT 4. This need for hardware upgrades complicates the current situation even more because logistics get in the way. Intel is introducing a new chip, the Pentium III, which means they will want to stop making the old ones ASAP. This usually causes supply and pricing problems. PC sales and profits are dropping. Intel is changing chips. PC makers are thinning their inventory. Some Y2K remediation projects are only just starting. What if the Fortune 500 companies find themselves each needing an average of 10,000 new PCs? Those PC profits will improve, sure, but there may not be enough manufacturing capacity to deliver the machines by September. Remember it takes time to receive, setup and install all those PCs. If PC makers are running at low inventory levels, it will take them 60-120 days to ramp up their supplies. That does not leave much time for them to actually MAKE the PCs.
So if by July, Mr. Bigshot IT director, you've discovered you have to replace more than a few hundred PCs, it could mean big trouble. I think Windows 2000's name is good advice. It should not even be a consideration until well into 2000.
Okay, so Windows 2000 is unrealistic and we have to stay with NT 4.0. But remember, we're on shaky quality ground on the upgrade needed to make even that software Y2K ready. And with Microsoft so fixated on Windows 2000, they might not be working very hard on NT 4. Uh-oh.
There are other ways to handle this situation. Apple, for example, has been Y2K ready for years. Novell has done a great job of checking every mainstream version of their code and providing the needed fixes. You do not have to upgrade Netware or invest in new hardware to get your shop Y2K ready. Apple and Novell, despite their financial problems, are being very responsible companies. Only Microsoft sees Y2K as an opportunity to force its customers into bearing a lot of expense.
What's Microsoft's problem? The best case says they simply don't understand the severity of their own situation. Of all the big companies in the world, I predict Microsoft will have the most internal Y2K problems. If they were seriously preparing for Y2K, they would have a better appreciation of the problem and would not be shipping so many faulty upgrades. There is clearly not a sense of urgency at Microsoft.
Microsoft's antitrust case is very much an evaluation of perceptions. Redmond always has a chance to be found innocent. However, failure to provide adequate Y2K bug fixes can be easily and factually proven. The legal risk could be huge. It won't take long to build a case and prove it in court. Bill's a clever guy. Maybe one justification for splitting up the company would be to provide insulation from Y2K claims.
Microsoft has to get deadly serious about Y2K immediately and have a 100 percent solution for all their mainstream products (and versions) by May 1. Microsoft's Web site is already overloaded and too slow. They had better invest in some industrial strength technology to handle the upcoming demand. Microsoft should plan on mass producing and mass shipping CDs with your bug fixes at almost no cost. USERS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR MICROSOFT'S MISTAKES.
What about the home users, the small businesses, the millions of folks who still aren't on the Internet? It would be a real good idea if I could walk into any store that sells PC products and get a diskette that would make my Microsoft code Y2K ready. Ideally that diskette should be free, but under no circumstances should it cost more than $5. There should be diskettes for Office 4.2, Office 95, Office 97, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, NT 3.51 & 4.0. Every upgrade should include general purpose code to deal with hardware that is not Y2K ready. Resellers should be permitted to download the diskette images and produce as many diskettes as needed.
Anything less than this kind of effort is unacceptable, but it probably won't happen and there will be hell to pay.
Remember, you heard it here first.
Bob Nunn - President, Operator Headgap Systems President, AppleCore of Memphis, Inc. E-mail: headgap@headgap.com
*=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* | Operator Headgap Web BBS | V.34 Modem : (901) 759-1542 | | Supporting Mac, 64&128, Amiga | 33.6k Support: (901) 759-1543 | *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* | Visit our TeleFinder Site at: bbs.headgap.com - port 1474 | | Visit our Telnet Site at: telnet://bbs.headgap.com:1474 | | Visit our WWW Site at: http://www.headgap.com | | IP Address: 208.246.252.34 Fast ISDN Web Access! | *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-* | New AppleCore Web BBS Page http://www.headgap.com/applecore.spml | *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
