Stewart Alsop

ALSOP ON INFOTECH

XP Means Extra Pain

FORTUNE

Monday,April  29,2002 By Stewart Alsop

I've been looking forward to using Windows XP. I know most of the reviews
say that it isn't that big a deal, that there's not enough new here to
make people want to buy a new PC. But it sounded to me as if XP might be
more stable and easier to use than earlier versions of Windows, and it
offered cool new features for photographs and wireless networks.

Rather than take the chance of upgrading my existing machine, I waited
until I got a new computer with factory-installed XP. When my firm's IT
department got me a notebook with Wi-Fi wireless networking and XP built
in, I was ready to go. I've been using Windows XP for a few weeks now.

I agree with the reviewers. There's nothing in Windows XP to cause anyone
to go out of his way to get it. In fact, I wonder why such an amazing
giant of technology as Microsoft--which argues vociferously for its right
to integrate new technology into its operating system--can't do better
than this. XP was supposed to finally replace old-world MS-DOS with a
modern, stable platform that can be modified for new technologies without
the pain and suffering we all experienced in the past. So why doesn't XP
work a whole lot better?

Here's what's wrong with Windows XP:

XP really isn't all that new or stable. XP is based on what used to be
called Windows NT, which Microsoft developed over many years as a
competitive response to Unix. Yet XP requires you to do things Unix
doesn't require, like restart your machine when you install a new
application. That's the Windows legacy: XP has to work with software
designed for previous versions of Windows, and programmers know that with
Windows software, it's safer to tell users to restart the PC after a
program is installed. This reflects the design of the core of the
operating system, called the kernel. The kernel in XP is not fully
protected against what application programs might do; the kernel in Unix
is. So for all the hoopla about stability, XP still puts an extra burden
on the user.

Microsoft is the same old company. I discovered that something called
Windows Messenger was installed on my new machine. This is software for
Microsoft's instant-messaging service, and it kept popping up on my
screen telling me to register. I don't use instant messaging, so I was a
little miffed that Microsoft had built it into XP--particularly because
there's no way to get rid of it! (From Microsoft's Website: "How to
Prevent Windows Messenger From Running on a Windows XP-Based Computer....
The user interface does not provide a way to remove or to uninstall
Windows Messenger.") This seems like exactly the same anticompetitive
behavior that got Microsoft into hot water with the government when the
company attacked Netscape by building Internet Explorer into the
operating system. Now the competitive threat is AOL's instant messaging,
and guess what Microsoft has done. Instead of forcing Instant Messenger
on people, Microsoft should focus on beating the competition by doing
what customers want. Eventually I did figure out how to get rid of
Windows Messenger, by editing what's called the Registry file. It's not a
good thing for nonexpert users to do.

XP is not fundamentally easier to use. Windows XP is prettier than
Windows 2000 or Windows 98. The color schemes are more attractive, and
Microsoft seems to have paid a real graphic designer to refine the icons
and other screen elements. But XP is still Windows. Keeping track of
programs or data still requires you to know how the operating system
stores things. Configuring applications still requires you to dive into
multiple levels of menus. Stuff still happens that even sophisticated
support people have a hard time diagnosing. (Right now, for instance,
every time I send a message, Microsoft Outlook creates an extra blank
copy; it didn't do this when I used the same version of Outlook on
Windows 2000. I could go on.)

As many readers know, I've been using the Macintosh more and more at
home. Apple recently upgraded its operating system to what's known as OS
X. That is based on Unix. You don't have to restart your computer all the
time. Managing programs and data is even easier than before. Of course,
Apple is still the same old company too. But I'm beginning to think that
Apple might actually be able to use such advantages to compete
effectively. And I'm beginning to think that Microsoft looks like a
company too wedded to past practices to keep up. Heck, what do they need
to worry about with $38 billion in cash and net profits close to 30% on
every dollar they collect? Yes, indeed, what does Microsoft have to worry
about?

STEWART ALSOP is a partner with New Enterprise Associates, a venture
capital firm. Except as noted, neither he nor his partnership has a
financial interest in the companies mentioned. He can be reached at
[log in to unmask] His column may be bookmarked online at

www.fortune.com/technology/alsop.


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html