Bill Gates Reviews Windows...

This is the good version of Windows--XP, I think:

Full text: An epic Bill Gates e-mail rant:

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Jim Allchin
Cc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame

I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues.

Let me give you my experience from yesterday.

I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there.

The first 5 times I used the site it timed out while trying to bring up the download page. Then after an 8 second delay I got it to come up.

This site is so slow it is unusable.

It wasn't in the top 5 so I expanded the other 45.

These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear.

They are not filtered by the system ... and so many of the things are strange.

I tried scoping to Media stuff. Still no moviemaker. I typed in movie. Nothing. I typed in movie maker. Nothing.

So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?

So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated.

They told me to go to the main page search button and type movie maker (not moviemaker!).

I tried that. The site was pathetically slow but after 6 seconds of waiting up it came.

I thought for sure now I would see a button to just go do the download.

In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations.

This struck me as completely odd. Why should I have to go somewhere else and do a scan to download moviemaker?

So I went to Windows update. Windows Update decides I need to download a bunch of controls. (Not) just once but multiple times where I get to see weird dialog boxes.

Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?

Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff.

This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.

So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time.

What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.

Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time?

So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.

So I got back up and running and went to Windows Update again. I forgot why I was in Windows Update at all since all I wanted was to get Moviemaker.

So I went back to Microsoft.com and looked at the instructions. I have to click on a folder called WindowsXP. Why should I do that? Windows Update knows I am on Windows XP.

What does it mean to have to click on that folder? So I get a bunch of confusing stuff but sure enough one of them is Moviemaker.

So I do the download. The download is fast but the Install takes many minutes. Amazing how slow this thing is.

At some point I get told I need to go get Windows Media Series 9 to download.

So I decide I will go do that. This time I get dialogs saying things like "Open" or "Save". No guidance in the instructions which to do. I have no clue which to do.

The download is fast and the install takes 7 minutes for this thing.

So now I think I am going to have Moviemaker. I go to my add/remove programs place to make sure it is there.

It is not there.

What is there? The following garbage is there. Microsoft Autoupdate Exclusive test package, Microsoft Autoupdate Reboot test package, Microsoft Autoupdate testpackage1. Microsoft AUtoupdate testpackage2, Microsoft Autoupdate Test package3.

Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.

But that is just the start of the crap. Later I have listed things like Windows XP Hotfix see Q329048 for more information. What is Q329048? Why are these series of patches listed here? Some of the patches just things like Q810655 instead of saying see Q329048 for more information.

What an absolute mess.

Moviemaker is just not there at all.

So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package.

I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself.

I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.

I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again.

So after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven't run Moviemaker and I haven't got the plus package.

The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind. I thought we had reached a low with Windows Network places or the messages I get when I try to use 802.11. (don't you just love that root certificate message?)

When I really get to use the stuff I am sure I will have more feedback.

Comments

[vgbew]

And it just shows why Microsoft is the biggest software corporation in the world. Most software CEOs would not try to use their company's product if you gave them a million dollars. They are above that, their value is in leadership.

[John Emerson]

This is a hoax, right? I mean, Bill Gates has been fattening up off his monopoly for twenty years now, and deliberately distributing defective, unreliable product in order to keep people dependent of him for tech support. Does he not know that?

[Slocum]

That warms my heart on several levels. First, Bill sounds like only a moderately proficient user (kind of like my uncle) -- that's funny. And it's nice to hear he's run into the same kinds of frustrations as his customers do. I don't do much video editing, but I actually like MovieMaker and don't remember having had any particular problems downloading and installing it. But then I probably use Windows a lot more than Bill does...

[Barry]

"This is a hoax, right? I mean, Bill Gates has been fattening up off his monopoly for twenty years now, and deliberately distributing defective, unreliable product in order to keep people dependent of him for tech support. Does he not know that?"

Posted by: John Emerson

Yes, but it probably rarely bites him back.

[Doug T]

Moral of the story? He should have used a Mac.

[Slocum]

"Bill Gates has been fattening up off his monopoly for twenty years now, and deliberately distributing defective, unreliable product in order to keep people dependent of him for tech support. Does he not know that?"

Oh, nonsense. Microsoft's fortune is not made from tech support. They'd have made more money, for example, if a greater percentage of their installed base had paid to upgrade from Windows XP to Vista -- if worries about upgrade process or problems with Vista hadn't scared them away.

Microsoft has a powerful incentive to make their products as reliable and easy to use as they can -- the good news and the bad news is they're doing their best. But it's a really effing hard problem -- at this point, they're stuck with both the huge range of hardware and backward compatibility with old hardware and software. There are a lot of constraints and path dependency that even the application of arbitrary billions cannot fix.

[John Emerson]

There must have been huger incentives for Microsoft to distribute defective product, because that's what Gates did. People tell me that one of the biggest problems, and its solution, was known a couple of decades ago, but for some reason nothing was done.

When you get a Windows unit you aren't buying something you'll own, you're signing up for Microsoft dependency, and various tricks have made Microsoft the default for non geeks and people who use a cimputer at work.

In Oregon a geek in the school the Torvald kids attend converted the school to Linux as a pilot project, and was ready to convert the whole state school system when Microsoft sent a suitcase of money to Karen Minnis, the odious Christian conservative house majority leader. The Linux system worked perfectly.

[Slocum]

"There must have been huger incentives for Microsoft to distribute defective product, because that's what Gates did."

Well, in a sense, there are incentives. Microsoft could have released an backward-incompatible, clean-sheet operating system that ran only on a strictly limited set of hardware, and such an approach would be more stable (the XBox 360 for example).

But people are more willing to pay, instead, for a product that runs the software and on the hardware they already own and put up with the warts. I know I am. But MS doesn't intentionally leave in defects that they could easily fix in order to somehow make people more dependent on their products.

[John Emerson]

People have told me that releasing junk has been policy from the beginning. Maybe by now your rationalization works, in explaining what was done last year or next year.

[Slocum]

"People have told me that releasing junk has been policy from the beginning."

Well if 'people have told you', how can anyone dispute that? It must be true.

[John Emerson]

Have people told you different? These were ex-Microsoft employees. They seem to be presetning it as common knowledge within the company.

Are your arguments based on anything other than what must be true according to economic theory as you understand it and believe in it?

[supersaurus]

they only spent around $20bil on r&d in the last three years. that's probably why vista is on time and great. right? right?

[Slocum]

"Are your arguments based on anything other than what must be true according to economic theory as you understand it and believe in it?"

Oh yes, they're based on not just understanding the incentives (though that matters) but also on having been in software for ~25 years and having watched from close up (e.g. inside the code -- writing software and device drivers against pre-release versions of the operating systems) as the first versions of Windows and OS/2 were being created. I never worked for Microsoft, though.

It's certainly true that Microsoft has made trade-offs that 'purists' would not have. The most important of which was releasing a 'protected mode' Windows 3.0 thereby (knowingly) undermining their partnership with IBM on OS/2. Windows 3.0 was cruder and less stable than OS/2 -- so why did MS do that? Because Windows 3.0 ran on much less expensive computers, because it ran DOS programs much better (which mattered a lot then), and because it required much fewer changes on the part of software developers.

And within a few years, the game was pretty much over -- Windows was so ubiquitous, and the network effects so strong that it's proved almost impossible to dislodge. The bigger threat to Microsoft's sales is not that people will switch to Linux or Macs en masse, but that they won't switch at all -- that they'll keep using their copies of Windows XP and Office 2003 indefinitely and not spend money on upgrades.

Microsoft routinely put business considerations ahead of 'beautiful code' and in that sense can be accused of intentionally releasing technically inferior products. But I know of no evidence that it purposefully created bugs or intentionally left in bugs that it could have fixed easily and cheaply in some kind of 'planned obsolescence' strategy -- do you?

[John Emerson]

**"Microsoft routinely put business considerations ahead of 'beautiful code' and in that sense can be accused of intentionally releasing technically inferior products.

But I know of no evidence that it purposefully created bugs or intentionally left in bugs that it could have fixed easily and cheaply in some kind of 'planned obsolescence' strategy -- do you?"**

Let me do a few substitutions. For your heavily ironic "beautiful code" put "applications that work reliably". For "in that sense can be accused" put "for this reason can be accused".

In answer to your question: no, they didn't need to. Their policy of benign neglect did the job for them. Their most excellent hardball business practices got them a monopoly, and why should they change? But you're right that if they inadvertently did finally allow a reliable product to be released, that will cost them.

[Slocum]

"Let me do a few substitutions. For your heavily ironic 'beautiful code' put 'applications that work reliably'. For "in that sense can be accused" put 'for this reason can be accused'.

But there are always tradeoffs between reliability and a host of other factors, in particular:

- How much does it cost?
- How soon can I have it?
- Does it work with what I already have and already know how to use?
- How quickly and cheaply can other vendors produce products that work with my system?

From a business perspective, these things mattered more than the highest possible reliability. Customers may *say* they value reliability above all else, but when it comes to spending their money -- they've shown that they don't.

"But you're right that if they inadvertently did finally allow a reliable product to be released, that will cost them."

I didn't say that and don't agree -- they'd be selling many millions more copies of Vista if users felt safer to upgrade.

[John Emerson]

Customers may *say* they value reliability above all else, but when it comes to spending their money -- they've shown that they don't.

Even people who don't want Windows end up having to buy it in order to work at home, etc., because Windows is everywhere and often you don't want to deal with finding interfacing.

The weakest of your four reasons is "How soon can I have it?" The scheduling of Windows releases isn't driven by consumer demand for a NEW VERSION NOW!!

[Slocum]

"Even people who don't want Windows end up having to buy it in order to work at home, etc., because Windows is everywhere and often you don't want to deal with finding interfacing."

Right -- those are the network effects/path dependency in action. Windows got to be in that position because it was the first to gain critical mass. Apple was there first with the Mac, but it didn't gain critical mass because it was a closed system, was too expensive, and lacked the necessary business software. OS/2 didn't gain critical mass because IBM made it elegant at the expense of being cheap, compatible, and out the door quickly. Windows 3 could run existing windows 2 applications with very little modification -- not so OS/2. Windows 3 could multi-task multiple DOS applications -- not so OS/2 for several versions. Windows 3 could generally run on the hardware that people already had, whereas OS/2 needed more horsepower. In a day when all computers come with at least a gigabyte of RAM, it's odd to think that one of the main reasons that you're running Windows rather than OS/2 is that in 1990, Windows 3 could run in 2 megs of RAM while OS/2 required 4.

"The weakest of your four reasons is "How soon can I have it?" The scheduling of Windows releases isn't driven by consumer demand for a NEW VERSION NOW!!"

No, not now. But being first to release a system that could achieve critical mass in 1990 was the key. And the key to critical mass was taking a set of technical shortcuts that now seem silly, quaint (or egregious depending on your perspective) but turned out to be absolutely critical at that time.

If you want to understand why almost everybody is using Windows in 2008, you have to look at what happened almost 20 years ago -- not what's happening right now.

[Lib]

"Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time?

So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state."

Oh her should've tried NOT rebooting and continuing with the other interesting things he was trying to do on his computer before he went o download moviemaker.

His computer would have popped up with a dialogbox reminding him "Windows has installed xyz. xyz will not run until you have rebooted your computer. Do you wish to reboot now or later? [Now] [Later]"... or something to the effect, EVERY 10 minutes non-stop, until you tear your hair and reboot.

This happens to me everytime they send in an update and I want to download the update at my leisure, but it updates in the background unbeknownst to me, and then the reminerd keeps popping up.

While acknowledging the fairly significant efficiencies that MS computing (and Web computing) has offered us, it seems that there is a whole level of activity that occurs that is just like jogging in place - doesn;t take us anywhere! Like the "are you there, are you there now" conversations of the verizon caller in that ad...

[sglover]

"OS/2 didn't gain critical mass because IBM made it elegant at the expense of being cheap, compatible, and out the door quickly."

Gotta quibble with that. OS/2 WAS "out the door" at about the same time as Windows 3.x, was a very sweet environment, and in my experience ran Windows applications a lot better than Windows itself. IBM screwed up by not giving it sufficient institutional (marketing, mainly) support.

[Slocum]

"Gotta quibble with that. OS/2 WAS "out the door" at about the same time as Windows 3.x, was a very sweet environment, and in my experience ran Windows applications a lot better than Windows itself. IBM screwed up by not giving it sufficient institutional (marketing, mainly) support."

But it really wasn't about the same time -- Windows 3.0 came out in 1990 whereas it wasn't until 2 years later that IBM released a version of OS/2 that could run Windows programs. And it could only do so by running a copy of Windows (much in the way OSX now runs Windows programs by running Windows). So to use OS/2 to run Windows programs, you needed beefy enough hardware not just to run OS/2 but also to host Windows 3.x virtually inside OS/2. And it couldn't run Windows device drivers, which limited hardware compatibility. In any case, IBM's 'Better Windows than Windows' claims were null and void when Windows 95 was released because OS/2 never had the ability to run Windows 95 programs.

[Bruce Wilder]

Today, I got back my iMac, whose harddrive had failed, and tried to restore my files from the backup, which had been made to my iDisk partition.

Restoring files from a Backup, evidently, was not a scenario anticipated by the designers of the program.

The experience made me want Windows Vista.