Microsoft and "Vista Ready"

There have already been oodles of articles out there talking about the fiasco that is the "Vista Ready" vs "Vista Capable" fiasco. Simply put, there's evidence (including internal emails) that Microsoft lowered the standards required to meet Vista Capable. This resulted in machines with the Capable sticker barely being able to run Vista at all, let along certain advanced features, most noticeably the Aero interface, and much user annoyance and confusion.

This gives me a good opportunity to point out a common misconception about Microsoft. One that most people have, and which leads to a great deal of confusion about why Microsoft does what it does.

The confusion, simply stated, is that people think Microsoft makes software. It doesn't.

Now, now, I know what you're all thinking. What about Windows? and Office? and SQL Server, and MS Money, and all of the other Microsoft products lining the shelves at Best Buy? Okay, so Microsoft also makes advertisements. So is it an ad company? How about a payroll company, since it pays its employees?

My point is, those boxes of bits are, when you really get right down to it, in the same category as ads and pay stubs - nothing more than a means to an end. And that end is, of course, money. (The green paper stuff, that is, not the aforementioned program.) In other words, Microsoft doesn't make software; it makes money through its expertise at making software.

So why should you as a random consumer of Microsoft care? Because each and every decision that makes will have an implied footnote, a hidden subtext that reads like a banner out of Office Space: "Is this good for the company?" Each potential action will be weighted based on how much money it makes, or loses.

Sure, there will be plenty of consideration about what's good for customers, but let's face it - if Microsoft went out of its way to screw over consumers, it would have a difficult time convincing those same customers to give it money. Beyond that, Microsoft is a big company with a lot of people in it, and no doubt quite a few of them really do try to do right by their customers.

But in the end, like every other publicly traded corporation, Microsoft has to answer to it's shareholders. And each and every decision is evaluated, not on how popular it is, or on technical merit, or if it follows standards, or even ethics - but what it does for the bottom line.

Energy

Looking back at the small bits of noise I've added to that gossip factory we call the Internet, I can see that I've only really bothered to talk about tech stuff, and somewhat esoteric bits at that. So, I've decided to change bandwagons mid-stream (to quote Eric Raymond, I like my metaphors shaken, not stirred) and talk a little bit about environmental issues.

More specifically, I'd like to talk about what is, at least in the long run, the single most important issue: energy.

Everything we do, from research, to cooking, to transportation, to taking a walk around the room requires energy. As our societies become larger and more technologically sophisticated, we require our energy be delivered both in greater total quantities, and in higher density packaging. A millennium ago livestock, crops, and farm animals were enough; a century ago modest amounts of petroleum products and electricity sufficed; now it's all we can do to keep energy production matching pace with ever increasing demand.

One of hot topics that obviously flows from this discussion is where we should be squeezing all of that energy from. So what choices do we have?

1. Oil
2. Coal
3. Wind
4. Water (hydroelectric dams)
5. Nuclear
6. Hydrogen
7. Solar

Now all of these various sources have advantages and disadvantages. Water and wind are clean and renewable, but hydrocarbons have far higher energy densities. But what happens when we step back and take a longer term view? And when I say "longer", I'm not talking about the "not one, but two quarters ahead!" view that seems to dominate most companies and public debates, but a true, seven generations out view.

Let's start with hydrogen. Hydrogen does occur naturally, but not in huge quantities. The big challenge with hydrogen isn't using it, it's creating it. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy transport. It's one solution to a huge piece of the problem, but it's not a source. Since we're only talking about energy sources, let's vote it off the island and see who's left.

1. Oil
2. Coal
3. Wind
4. Water (hydroelectric dams)
5. Nuclear
6. Solar

Let's go pick on nuclear power next. Now, if handled right, nuclear could potentially offer up quite a bit of power for quite some time. A string of properly set up breeder reactors can pass material down from one to the next, extracting additional energy at each stage. Even assuming that somehow, someone could muster up the political and financial capitol to make it happen, there is still only a finite amount of glowing rocks laying around to throw in the reactors. Once those pockets are used up, it's done, so let's throw it off our list too.

1. Oil
2. Coal
3. Wind
4. Water (hydroelectric dams)
5. Solar

Now let's go all "green" here and go after the Big Bad Carbon Producers: oil and coal. When you get right down to it, they're nothing more than dinosaur and plant extract. And where did the stored energy that we pour into our gas tanks every day come from? Why, the sun, of course, as any middle school level science textbook could show you with one of those near little diagrams with arrows pointing in circles, and a picture of the sun off to one side pumping energy into the picture of plants. So since they're really just pockets of condensed sunshine (energy-wise) let's consolidate the list further by taking those fossil fuels off.

1. Wind
2. Water (hydroelectric dams)
3. Solar

That list is getting might short, isn't it? But hey! At least what's left are all clean, renewable resources, right? But wait a minute. Wind and water are great, but what makes them move? What drives them? Or, as an actor would say, what's their motivation? Well, for wind, it's heating and cooling caused by - c'mon, guess - that's right! It's the sun again.

Water? We get energy out of water falling downhill, but something has to push that water uphill in the first place to store up that kinetic energy. More specifically, on the scale we're talking about, something has to evaporate it so it can condense into rain that lands at a higher altitude than it evaporated from. Which implies heating, which... yes, yes, it's the sun again. So, now our continually shortened list.

1. Solar

And there you have it. All of the various energy sources we argue over, discriminate between, and tweak to squeeze more out of, are either solar, concentrations of stored solar, or finite resources doomed to run out, short of mining other planets in the solar system.

Now, I'm quite aware that solar power, as it currently exists, has problems. It's output is heavily influenced by weather conditions, efficiencies are still relatively low (especially when compared against the energy in a gallon of gasoline), and it's only in the last decade or so that a solar cell could be expected to produce more energy in its entire lifetime than it took to manufacture it. It's output is also limited to electrical or simple raw heat, and again, we don't have any kind of batteries that can compare to the energy transportation and storage of petroleum products.

(Some companies are looking at ways of making hydrogen more easily used by binding it up with other elements to make it more stable, such as carbon. Which gets you volatile hydrocarbons - aka, petroleum products!)

So in the end, we really don't have much of a choice. We can take advantage of little caches of energy, stored in plutonium or crude oil. We can pick the path we take to get to solar energy, whether it's through an intermediate, such as manufacturing hydrocarbons, or direct, such as boiling water or solar cells. But in the end, the sun is really the only source of energy that's going to hang around long enough for us to pretend that it's going to last forever.

(At this point, the pedants out there will point out that eventually, the sun will let us down by expanding out and destroying the earth, rather than providing us with a gentle stream of life giving radiation. I, for one, fervently hope that the human race is around long enough to have to worry about this.)

(At Least) One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others...

I just recently read Freaknomics, an interesting book on economics with interesting ideas put forth by a guy who economists claim is more of a sociologist, while sociologists claim he's an economist. The book throws out and makes a stab at answering bizarre questions about seemingly unrelated topics, like "how are teachers like sumo wrestlers?"

So, in the same spirit, I'll start off this post with the same kind of question: What do Freakonomics, Netflix, and my last hospital visit all have in common?

Now, unless you've been stalking me, I really wouldn't expect you to guess how my last hospital visit comes into play, so I'll give you a hint. My hospital is well into the process of converting from thick, massive folders of paper records, over to digital records with a PC in every exam room. While the nurse was going through medical records and scheduling procedures, she apologized for taking so long, and complained that the software layout made no sense for her field, and obviously wasn't designed by someone who knew it.

Figured it out yet? One more hint - the challenge Netflix is currently running to find a better movie recommendation looks like it just might be won, not by some MIT team of CS majors, but by a phsycologist!

Every field, be it computer science, psychology, or medicine, has boundaries. Various ideas and concepts get sorted into the right field based on those lines. An algorithm for traversing a graph? CS. A study of the effects of a new drug? Medicine, further narrowed down by specialty.

There's a problem with those lines, though. No one told the problems we're trying to solve about them!

In the first two examples, exceptional results were found by doing work that happily straddled those lines. In the Netflix example, without psychology, he likely never would have had the insight required, and without CS, he never would have been able to actually implement it.

Likewise, in the hospital example, the fact that the software engineers who created the software weren't intimately familiar with the actual job created a system that didn't match the workflow. Instead of helping the nurses, they end up stumbling around looking for options and fighting the system.

We've all heard the joke about a bunch of blind men who stumble across an elephant, and try to figure out what it is by feeling it: "It's a snake!" "No, it's a tree trunk!" "No, it's a wall!" Well, guess what? We're all a little guilty of it now and then. It's only human to try to look for solutions within the one or two fields we're comfortable in.

So what should we do about it? Recognize that the sum of human knowledge may be sorted by the Dewey Decimal System, but it is not defined by it. Read outside of your field, and see what kind of tricks those guys who went to college in a different building may have up their sleeve. Working in a college myself, I can tell you that it's not too uncommon for someone who's sacrificed any pretense of breadth for incredible depth in one field to struggle with a problem solved decades ago in an apparently unrelated field.

And in the end, ask yourself which one you'd rather be - the guy winning a Netflix prize by fusing together two superficially unrelated fields, or the software engineer who gets yelled at because he used the wrong kind of chicken guts when divining a nurses workflow?