* Why Microsoft should fix what it already has instead of building new software
Last time, I pointed you to a story about some of the things Bill Gates told financial analysts at a recent meeting in Redmond (see editorial link below). While I talked about Microsoft and security in the last issue, there was something else Gates said that I found even scarier. According to the story, Gates told attendees that Microsoft probably has more software in the pipeline than at any other time in its history, and offered as evidence the fact that the company will apply for 3,000 patents in fiscal year 2005 – up from just over 2,000 the previous year.
Actually, there are two scary thoughts here.
Microsoft may well have more software than ever in the pipeline, but the problem is that the pipe appears to be clogged. Software has never before been so late coming out of that pipeline as it has in the past year or so. Windows Server 2003 was almost two years late (based on statements made by Redmond officials in the late 1990s) while its successor isn’t due until 2008 or later. Probably much later. Can we really wait that long?
And what about the 3,000 patents predicted for this year (and 2,000 last year)? That’s almost 10 per day – more if you only consider a five-day work week. A patent is issued for a process, a new process. Three thousand patents means 3,000 new processes. But not all process changes lead to a new patent. Sometimes older processes get updated. Still, those 10 new processes a day means at least 10 new places for incompatibilities with existing software. And at least 10 new places for security vulnerabilities. And, let’s face it, do we really want that much new software?
From the e-mail I’m getting, there are many of you running server versions prior to Windows Server 2003 – even a number of places still on NT 3.51! While some are running older systems because they need to in order to support particular applications, still others have simply not had the time to do the testing and rollout needed to upgrade to current versions.
Suppose Microsoft took a break from “new” development. Suppose Redmond spent the next year simply fixing the problems in existing software and put a moratorium on developing new versions. I’m sure some marketing maven will say that would be a recipe for disaster, as people would abandon the Microsoft platforms for other, “newer,” operating systems. Nonsense. I think users would give Gates & Co. a standing ovation. What do you think? Let me know whether you prefer Microsoft work on new versions (or new applications) or spend a year fixing what’s already in the marketplace.
