Window Shopping
The next generation of Windows is looming on the horizon, and even before release it is generating more controversy than any version before it!
Windows XP (or Windows Experience to give it the full title) is due out in the near future, but upon viewing its proposed "features" it is probably an idea to avoid it like the plague! Although this article is based purely on speculation most of what I'm talking about here is likely to make it into the final XP release.
The new "unlock code" system is the main area of worry. Whereas previous versions of Windows require you enter a serial code when you install, XP uses a combination of the original serial and a unique, personalised unlock code. The idea behind the concept being that you won't be able to take your copy of Windows and load it on more than one machine. Apparently, the way it will operate is that you will install Windows and at some point in the installation procedure it will generate a code based upon something unique about your computer. It is widely believed that it will be the specific hardware configuration of your machine. Then you have to ring up Micro$oft (getting tedious yet?!) and quote this code over the phone, which they will verify is genuine. If all is well they will then give you your unlock code in order to complete the Windows install.
Now, apart from the extra time and effort the customer has to endure, if the code is generated via your computer's specific hardware configuration this brings up two interesting points. One, what happens if you change your motherboard, processor or another major system component? Does Windows stop working? Do you have to phone Micro$oft yet again for another unlock code? And two, why should you give information to Micro$oft that details to them exactly what hardware you are using on your system? Of course, the unlock code could work in a completely different way but it's hard to see how this whole protection method will be workable in practise.
Possibly the MOST worrying feature so far that could make it into XP is the need for ALL programs to be certified. Presumably, this would mean that the only programs that would run on the system would be those certified and licensed to be. I guess the official reason for this would be so that virus or trojan writers can't infect your system (as if they couldn't find an exploit in an M$ product anywayz! ;)).
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this though because I don't think it has a realistic chance of making it into the final release. For example, in order for this to work you would have to certify hundreds of games and applications for XP. Considering the amount of Windows software available this would take a very long time to achieve. Of course, you could have an OS with just a few programs that will run on it... But who is going to upgrade their system if they can't use all their current software?
The second complication is, how would Windows know which software is certified and okay to execute? The only way I can think of is the system would automatically check your program against the database of an online service such as Verisign. This would require a permanent connection to the internet (which fits in rather nicely with Micro$ofts .NET vision of the future, but we'll come to that next). Not every computer in the world is connected to the internet so this makes this solution completely unworkable, at least for the time being. Most computers which do have an internet connection are still using 56k modem technology so that wouldn't make life exactly easy... Dial up the internet every time you want to load WinAmp... As if!
Windows XP is rumoured to be the first OS from Micro$oft that incorporates .NET. What the hell is .NET? Well, in their infinite wisdom, Micro$oft has decided that buying software on CDs and installing it on your hard drive is completely wrong. Tut! What an insane idea! ;) The better option is to use software over the net which is running on a remote server and pay a "rental fee" either monthly or for every instance you use the software. This is fine I guess if you don't use the computer that much, but most of us tend to use a wide selection of applications on a regular basis. Be it at work or at home. Another side feature of .NET is that you may store all your datafiles on the remote server too, which is kinda risky if you have particularly sensitive information contained within. For example, say you run a business and use an online .NET version of Excel to keep track of important financial figures. What happens if someone else manages to access your .NET account? They would have all your business transactions displayed on their monitor. There is a risk of this happening with any online service (especially with the desperate lack of security concerning M$ operating systems and the internet at the present time) so to entrust ALL the data on your computer to the internet is crazy!
The only way that .NET can work though is for every user to have a permanent, broadband internet connection which just isn't going to happen in the near future. In the UK some remote areas won't even be able to access broadband internet until the year 2005 at the earliest.
Phew! Moan over, you can come back now!! ;)
You may think I'm attacking Windows XP before I've even seen the finished product (and, if I'm honest, I probably am!), but based on Windows history so far I don't think there is much cause for optimism.
It all started for most of us with Windows 3.1 years ago. Which, thinking back, was actually pretty damn stable! A few years later the revolutionary Windows 95 was released. Bigger (a lot bigger!!) and better, with the disadvantage of it being prone to crashing. Next came Windows 98 which was even more improved... And even more unstable! See a pattern emerging here?? Except this is where Micro$oft got a little cheeky. They released Windows 98 Second Edition, which was basically Windows 98 standard with bug fixes and a few extra features you could download for free off the internet anyway. But they CHARGED the original Windows 98 users for this new version!! Presently, the latest version is Windows ME (cutely named Windows Millennium) which seems to me to be yet another upgraded Windows 98 but blessed with some particularly annoying features. Such as an uninstallable version of Windows Media Player 7 and the removal of REAL mode DOS emulation. Thankfully, there are some underhanded methods of shifting Media Player 7 and regaining DOS capability, but it's a pain in the ass all the same.
I'll reserve final judgement on Windows XP until I see the final result, but I'm not exactly holding my breath that it is going to be what the computing world has been waiting for. You can tell I'm a big Windows fan huh!! hehe ;) Personally, I think it's a good time to keep a close eye on the Linux distributions. Linux has steadily been growing in popularity over the last two years to the point where the general computing press covers developments regular and recognises it as a serious operating platform. Hell, most computer magazines even take regular jibes at Micro$oft these days, which was unheard of in the past! IBM is also putting some major resources into Linux development these days, and I think it is only a matter of time before one of the many Linux distributions becomes easy enough to install for the average home user.
The future of computing is either going to get much better or much worse! Come to think of it, fuck knows what's going on!?! ;)