Read This All , Its Enjoyment, U Too Mr Wd

[rebirth]

1919 Eternal
~ Zakk Wylde's Black Label Society


See larger image List Price: $17.98
Price: $14.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details
You Save: $2.99 (17%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours from Amazon.com






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review:
Number of Reviews: 61
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

Show: Newest First Oldest First Highest Rated First Lowest Rated First Most Helpful First Least Helpful First 5-Star Reviews Only 4-Star Reviews Only 3-Star Reviews Only 2-Star Reviews Only 1-Star Reviews Only

1-10 of 61 | next
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Be sure to have a barf bag ready, July 14, 2004
Reviewer: A music fan
This is one of the worst metal album's I've ever heard. If William Hung put out a metal album, it still wouldn't be this bad. Zakk's guitar tones are terrible. Case in point: "Bleed For Me" Not only does this song have annoying guitar riffs, it has some of the worst and most cliche lyrics ever written. If you can't get past hearing Zakk say "Ow" a million times, I don't blame you. Furthermore, how many bands in history have written songs with bleeding for someone as the theme? Next time, try some originality Zakk. If you do, you might actually have a solo career.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




Deadsummer YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!!!, July 11, 2004
Reviewer: JOSEPH MORGANSTERN (AUGUSTA, GA. United States) - See all my reviews
"This CD rocks and has nothing to do with race you TARD!!!" Personaly I dont know what Zakk's views are on race and don't care .All I know is that there is nothing to do with race here dumb ass so get your facts straight.You sound as if you have a huge chip on your shoulder, you need to grow up before someone knocks it off life is too short chill. This CD rocks every song rocks . If you like his music with ozzy you'l love this one it's Old school metal.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




0 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

REDNECK!, June 30, 2004
Reviewer: "deadsummer" (no) - See all my reviews
This is a redneck album, fueled by Zakk Wylde's racist beliefs. Anyone who gives this album more than one star is racist. btw, this is a miserable album.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




0 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

everything i hate and can't stand..., June 26, 2004
Reviewer: RafaelDsilva (massachusetts) - See all my reviews
...Zakk wylde's bls sounds pretty much worthless if you ask me plus Zakk's vocals are awful! Where's the heavy sound ?This sounds like a washed out version of guns & roses or crap like that at best. Do not waste your money insted save for the new dillinger escape plan album ok ?!

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

?(He is) the eternal...BATTERING RAM!?, May 10, 2004
Reviewer: Barry Dejasu (Rehoboth, Massachusetts) - See all my reviews

One of Black Label Society?s most straightforward metal albums (at least one in a trilogy of them, along with STRONGER THAN DEATH and THE BLESSED HELLRIDE), this features some of Zakk Wylde?s best metal work. After a few noise effects and a strangely brutal howl, a fairly fast, rumbling riff smashes in with the intensity of a derailed train on ?Bleed for Me,? one of the most memorable songs in Black Label Society?s (and Zakk?s) career.
Black Label Society is one of the ultimate metal outfits I have ever heard; they (and by ?they,? I mean Zakk and whomever else he hires as extra help) can do it all. There are the fast-paced, riff-based juggernauts like ?Bleed for Me,? ?Lords of Destruction,? ?Demise of Sanity,? and ?Battering Ram.? Songs like ?Life, Birth, Blood, Doom,? ?Graveyard Disciples,? ?Refuse to Bow Down,? and ?Berserkers? carry Zakk?s signature chugging, lock-step rhythms. Then there?s a couple ballads/semi-ballads, including ?Bridge to Cross,? ?Lost Heaven,? and the absolutely amazing acoustic instrumental ?America the Beautiful,? which is to this day my favorite of Zakk?s quieter pieces.

Zakk?s vocal performance, as is unfortunately often the case with Black Label Society, is somewhat marred at times. After hearing his amazing singing voice on BOOK OF SHADOW, I know he can do better than this; but then again, Black Label Society is an entirely different beast from that album. As well, his lyrics are their usual subjects of fighting, death, war, getting drunk and/or stoned, and generally being a bada**. However, it is ultimately the instrumental work that is Zakk?s emphasis with Black Label Society, and it works.

Still one of my top 5 favorite guitarists, Zakk never fails to impress me, especially not on this album. Riffs aplenty, his solos and leads here are especially vigorous and ferocious, and often trippy (just listen to the lead in the pre-chorus of ?Lords of Destruction?). Perhaps my favorite track, instrumentally, is ?Demise of Sanity,? where he has fast riffs played in a lock-step rhythm, with simply killer bursts of distortion in the choruses. And the solo...it nearly makes me have seizures listening to it. Well, not really, but you know what I mean.

His acoustic guitar talents are fully exercised here, too, as evident on ?Bridge to Cross,? ?Lost Heaven,? and ?America the Beautiful.? He puts such soul and nice grooves into the strums and finger-picking, it really is some amazing stuff. Again, for more of this, check out BOOK OF SHADOWS. And yes, he has one of his little acoustic guitar solos, which might not be much, but sure show off his talent.

Finally, the hired musicians: Craig Nunemacher, longtime drummer for Crowbar, once again lends his excellent talents to Black Label Society. However, on several tracks (?Bleed for Me,? ?Demise of Sanity,? and ?Life, Birth, Blood, Doom?) someone known as Christian Werr is the muscle behind the percussion. Whoever he is, he is quite good. Also, on ?Demise? and ?Life...? is featured Robert Trujillo, currently the bassist for Metallica and formerly of Suicidal Tendencies and Ozzy. He adds a nice, funky sort of groove to the work, and really has a good stage presence. His work will be missed.

And...that?s it. For an ultimately good, old-fashioned heavy metal album, check out Black Label Society?s 1919 ETERNAL. Just don?t headbang too hard.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)





it's okay, still interesting. 3-4 stars? I don't know, May 4, 2004
Reviewer: A music fan
I agree with some of the fans. Some of the stuff on this album feels like nothing but filler really. Zakk Wylde's vocals weren't done so well, and the production could have been a little better at times as well. I like the sound on the other albums a little better. And those acoustic guitar solos, although they may demonstrate some skill, they aren't comparable to some other acoustic players, and didn't fit in well with the rest of the songs.
It definitely has its roots in Black Sabbath music, there's no questioning that. I have to tell you what an incredible song Bleed For Me is. Where's the man who sang with so much soul on that track? It was difficult to find him on the other ones. That's the one song that would keep me hanging on to this cd. Other than that, his efforts on other BLS albums are far more inspiring.

5/6/04
I spoke a little too strongly. This album is still interesting. Lyrically, it's quite interesting. The concept of this album seems so much darker compared to other albums as he dwells on war and grief and the hardship of being a victim or the player of war, of being a soldier. It's not a bad album. There are some good tracks, and whatever you may think of Zakk's talent as a vocalist, he does sing with a lot of soul, especially on Bleed For Me. Now saying that, as I already mentioned before, I still think I prefer the other three BLS studio albums in a sense. Maybe STRONGER THAN DEATH and 1919 ETERNAL have the strongest and most interesting themes among the four, however. But I still am uncertain of where to place this album exactly no matter how many times I listen to it. Strangely, even though he seems more inspired with the war theme and it being dedicated to his father to some extent about him and everything, even though its seems to have a stronger theme, I feel as though the overall feel of the other albums is better. Now, try to understand that.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)





2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Not a great album, but alright, April 5, 2004
Reviewer: David (Eden, NC, USA R.I.P. Ronald Reagan; greatest pres in history) - See all my reviews
This album is mediocre at best. The vocals are disturbing to say the least. I enjoy the musical/non-vocal aspect of the album for each and every track, but the lyrics are weak, and the vocals are appalling. The vocals get extremely annoying to listen to track after track. Other than that, this album rocks. I suggest this album to hardcore fans, otherwise, you don't want to waste your time with this.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Zakk Wylde Is A LEGEND!!, March 12, 2004
Reviewer: BLS RULE (South Australia) - See all my reviews
firstly, to ' a music fan' from adelaide australia who said don't buy this, you need to f**k off and get a brain. this is a great album every track is killer (except maybe 'america the beautiful')..standouts for me are "bleed for me, beserkers, battering ram and life, birth, blood, doom"...if you are a Zakk Wylde fan or BLS fan this is definately worth buying.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

Sounds bloody awful!, March 9, 2004
Reviewer: A music fan
This album is appalling! Zakk Wylde can't sing at all and the vocals sound terrible. Sure, he's a great guitar player, but he really should ask somebody else to sing. This album is a blatant Led Zeppelin rip off, Jimmy Page was doing the same stuff 30 years ago and doing it 10 times better. The guitar playing also reminds me a lot of early Def Leppard, and perhaps Aerosmith.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)




Refreshing, but too much filler (3.5 Stars), January 19, 2004
Reviewer: "black_metal_emperor" - See all my reviews
This is an album that's alternately great and frustrating. BLS brings a great style and attitude to the table, as Zakk Wylde and company have their feet firmly on the old school metal path. The style is gritty and distinctly American (perhaps best described as "biker metal"), which is refreshing since almost no one plays that style anymore. Zakk Wylde does a fine job of laying down the signature groove-laden sludge riffs and blistering solos that make up the core of the BLS sound. On the other side the rhythm section is fairly unremarkable, but that never really hinders things too much. Thankfully it seems whole band hinges on the performance of Wylde, so when he's on fire BLS as a whole is also red hot. This is evidenced by album highlights like full throttle burners "Genocide Junkies" and "Berserkers".
However, there is one main problem with this album and that's the amount of filler, it seems like for every great song there is a mediocre mid-paced throwaway. There is also the questionable inclusion of two instrumentals ("Speedball" and Wylde's admittedly excellent version of "America The Beautiful") that just don't seem to fit with the rest of the album. These are fairly major gripes, but overall if you like old school heavy metal with a distinctly American sound and can find this disc used it's still worthy of your attention. Some of the songs are definitely keepers...it's a shame they couldn't all be.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

 

[Chromatose]

adrian denning
You know sometimes, when two old friends get together? Two old best friends, and they have this little 'thing' between them and are able to bring out certain aspects of each others character? Well, Captain Beefheart hooked up with his old chum Frank Zappa again, and although would later complain of being marketed as 'a freak', the process of writing, recording and releasing 'Trout Mask Replica' was, if nothing else, hugely artistically successful. Speaking of producer Frank Zappa's influence, well. Captain Beefheart has reportedly said something along the lines of.... "he just sat in the chair and fell asleep whilst we recorded the album"... which may actually be true. There are reports the album was recorded in two four hour sessions, flat out. That may very well be true. There are other rumours the album was written AND recorded in something like twelve hours, which isn't true at all. The release of the 'Grow Fins' box set revealed 'Trout Mask Replica' rehearsal material, the material here was heavily rehearsed, it had to be for music so strange, challenging and complex. The entire Magic Band, along with Mr Captain Beefheart, all hooked up in a house for a year or so - with little food, and only one band member was allowed to go out and get supplies at a time. It was a case of mind control, well, a case of 'control' on the part of Beefheart. Not only that, during 'Fallin Ditch', when Rockette Morton tells us "I run on beans" - he's actually partly telling the truth. A quote from Drummer/Guitarist John French, aka 'Drumbo' tells us the following... "I remember once going for a month and all we had to eat every day was one four once cup of soya beans". So, there you go! The way Beefheart wrote was normally on piano, but seeing as he wasn't really a piano player, he'd only be able to play short phrases. These short phrases were then translated to the rest of the band onto guitar, drums, etc. Which explains partly the fractured, seemingly cut-up then stitched back together again nature of the music, on 'Trout Mask Replica' in particular.

Let's take the opening song 'Frownland'. You've got the sound of a drummer seemingly falling over his drum kit whilst he attempts to play it. You've got two guitars - neither of which sound like they are played by a musician, rather some chubby fingered oaf who only just that minute had picked up the instrument for the first time in his entire life. On top of all of this, we have Beefheart himself, seemingly ignoring completely the music behind him - but still managing to fit on top of it, all the same. Back to the Zappa influence. The field recordings of speech and spoken word, 'semi' music, stuff like 'The Dust Blows Forwards' were likely influenced by Zappa. Zappa was always taping everybody, no matter what they were doing or where they were. The crude lo-fi, cut-up nature of 'The Dust Blows Forwards' is clearly deliberate, and the words Captain Beefheart sings/speaks out, totally surreal - but the intention of the piece becomes clear with lines such as "the wind blowing up, me" - it's humour, total surreal humour. Arriving after such a quiet, field recording, 'Dachau Blues' is just scary as all anything. Loud, fractured - then moving off into nearly sensible flowing phrases of graspable melody. Then, a farting trumpet sound arrives. Oh, but of course. And, the good Captain just seemingly ignores everything and does what the hell he damn well pleases over the backing track. 'Dachau Blues' is a total highlight - the sound is very dark and confusing, the way the music moves off in ten directions at once. 'Ella Guru' showcases the 'Trout Mask Replica' duel guitar sound very well, layers and layers and layers of short melodic phrases played amidst challenging and different time signatures. Does it really sound like each musician is playing a different song? Well, sometimes it does, sometimes it sounds as if everybody is playing in a different studio oblivious to the other musicians and parts. But, everything eventually falls together, and during certain phrases or sections, the band are playing together and sounding just so fucking glorious that it beggars belief.

'Moonlight On Vermont' is my favourite ever Beefheart recording. The guitars are biting and aggressive and full of great melodic phrases, the vocals here are just astonishing - and the way the song progresses with so many different sections and short phrases and parts, yet still sounds totally together after repeated listening, just amazing. 'Moonlight On Vermont' is aggressive and scary and meaningful too, the lyrics contain layers and layers and layers of meaning to seemingly be unravelled. And, oh my good god, that "Gimmie that old time religion" section is just so glorious I nearly fall out of my chair every time I hear it. It fades, the sound of Beefheart plugging back into the blues, into Howlin Wolf mode, but Howlin Wolf never EVER sounded as astonishingly brilliant as this.

I've mentioned but a few of the songs on this album, but believe me when I say that all twenty eight songs on this 70 minute plus album are of the same calibre. It's tough going at times, the relentless assault can dull your ears, but keep listening and something like the very catchy and almost pop melody of 'Sugar N Spikes' will pop up. Well, a pop melody broken into a dozen pieces then thrown seemingly randomly back together again, but it sounds like the only way anybody should ever make music once you get used to it. 'Trout Mask Replica' is so intense, so full of the character of Don Van Vliet - that it proved a hard act for him to follow. It generally sounds like somebody throwing around nails and falling over drums and breaking guitar strings and scratching blackboards - against the sound of random nonsense ranting vocals on a first listen. Even on a fourth of fifth listen. Usually I'd hesitate to give such an album a perfect score, but perseverance reaps especially immense dividends with 'Trout Mask Replica', more so than any other album I can think of.
all music guide
Trout Mask Replica is Captain Beefheart's masterpiece, a fascinating, stunningly imaginative work that still sounds like little else in the rock & roll canon. Given total creative control by producer and friend Frank Zappa, Beefheart and his Magic Band rehearsed the material for this 28-song double album for over a year, wedding minimalistic R&B, blues, and garage rock to free jazz and avant-garde experimentalism. Atonal, sometimes singsong melodies; jagged, intricately constructed dual-guitar parts; stuttering, complicated rhythmic interaction — all of these elements float out seemingly at random, often without completely interlocking, while Beefheart groans his surrealist poetry in a throaty Howlin' Wolf growl. The disjointedness is perhaps partly unintentional — reportedly, Beefheart's refusal to wear headphones while recording his vocals caused him to sing in time with studio reverberations, not the actual backing tracks — but by all accounts, the music and arrangements were carefully scripted and notated by the Captain, which makes the results even more remarkable. As one might expect from music so complex and, to many ears, inaccessible, the influence of Trout Mask Replica was felt more in spirit than in direct copycatting, as a catalyst rather than a literal musical starting point. However, its inspiring reimagining of what was possible in a rock context laid the groundwork for countless future experiments in rock surrealism, especially during the punk/new wave era.
amazon
A colleague of Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart (aka Don Van Vliet) and his Magic Band produced some of the most eccentric music of the late 1960s--or, for that matter, ever. The high water mark of Beefheart's bizarre career, this double album of freeform "Dada rock" features such daunting tracks as "Pachuco Cadaver," "Hair Pie (Bakes 1 and 2)," and "Neon Meat Dream of an Octafish," all of which actually sound as unusual as their titles. Between Beefheart's mind-bending lyrics and cavernous voice, as well as the twisted playing of guitarists Zoot Horn Rollo and Antennae Jimmy Semens, bassist Rockette Morton and drummer The Mascara Snake, this album fully explains the expression "far out.
pop matters
[font=verdana,][size=-1][size=-2]I[/size][size=-2] was born in 1972. Thanks to having two older siblings preceding my arrival, our house was always filled with the sounds of the latest popular music. My older brother and sister had different tastes, but thanks to both of them, they led me down an initial musical path that would form the building blocks of my own early music collection. I recall back in 1977 my brother bringing home Billy Joel's The Stranger LP and hearing the music contained within those grooves turned me into a rock and roll junkie on the spot. I was five and forever changed.
[/size][/size][/font][font=verdana,][size=-2]My mother saw how much I enjoyed listening to my brother's records that she soon rummaged through the attic and brought down an old record player and speakers and a huge pile of 45s. "Here," she said, handing me the whole kit and kaboodle. "This is for you. Have fun." And so I did. The records were mainly from around 1960-1962 and came from my grandfather's jukebox that he had in his store at that time. Strange tunes such as Richie and the Royals' "We're Strollin'", The Expressions' "On the Corner", a weird-ass single by Jerry Reed and the Hully Girlies entitled "I'm Movin' On", as well as actual hits of the time like the Tornados' "Telstar", and more recent records that my brother had discarded like Billy Preston's "Outa-Space" and my sister's 45s of Elton John's "Rocket Man" (backed with "Susie (Dramas)", the best tune Reg ever recorded) and Cat Stevens' "Moon Shadow" (again, with another great b-side "I Think I See the Light" from Harold and Maude). [/size][/font]



[font=verdana,][size=-2]And so from there, I continued to enjoy music though my youth, becoming a huge Billy Joel fan, while also enjoying the huge stars and one hit wonders on the early '80s. By the time I reached middle school in the middle of the decade, the radios were now favoring hair metal bands by the scored. I couldn't stand it. So while all my friends were listening to Motley Crue, Poison, Cinderella, and the like, I went back in time and started exploring the '60s. It was an amazing trip discovering the likes of the Beatles, the Who, Led Zeppelin, the Kinks, the Rolling Stones, the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, and all those other phenomenal groups. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]In high school, I dug heavily into the catalog of Todd Rundgren while still mining the old greats. I had found some kindred spirits by that time and we all had a lot of fun discussing music, listening to all our old favorites that no one else seemed to dig, and forming our own band. Then my senior year rolled around in 1990. It was a typical afternoon, my friends and I sitting in my bedroom listening to the Replacements or the Stone Roses or perhaps Camper Van Beethoven when suddenly another friend busts through the door excitedly with a tape in his hands. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]"We've gotta listen to this," he exclaimed, forcing the tape in my hands. "Just put it in! Hurry!" I looked down, and there staring back up at me was Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band's Trout Mask Replica. I swore I had seen the cover before somewhere, that still cover shot of the Cap in a green jacket and funky hat with a shuttlecock on top all the while holding a trout head in front of his face against a sickly red backdrop. I put the tape in as my friend demanded. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]"A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast 'n bulbous! Got me?" Those were the first words we heard and then the song "Pachuco Cadaver" started blaring out of the speakers. What the hell was this stuff? Off-kilter rhythms, cheap sounding guitars, funny sounding saxophones, hilariously beautiful lyrics, and that voice of the Captain all coming together and making this absolutely bizarre sound. It was nothing like I had ever heard before. We sat there in awe, all four of us. We laughed out loud. We played certain lines over and over again. We were simultaneously loving and hating it. I couldn't get enough of it. For my birthday that year I got my own copy of Trout Mask Replica on CD and tried my best to turn other people onto this weirdness. Most didn't want to hear any more than three seconds of it. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]This is my favorite thing. This album right here. Oh sure, there are plenty other albums I play more than this one, but nothing ever changed all my thoughts about music and what I supposedly knew. Not the Beatles, not the Velvet Underground, not even that beloved Stone Roses disc that I once declared as being the most essential album ever. Even having said that, nothing does it for me like Trout Mask Replica, an album that still sounds a few decades ahead of its time just as much as it must have when it was originally released. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]There are 28 tracks in all, and 20 of them were recorded in one day. The Captain (Don Van Vilet) had spent nine months teaching his band how to play these songs. And in the hands of the fantastic Zoot Horn Rollo, Antennae Jimmy Semens, the Mascara Snake, Rockette Morton, and Drumbo, this double album became one of the most fascinating works ever released into the rock and roll bloodstream. Don had childhood pal Frank Zappa produce the work. Zappa gave Vilet complete freedom to do what he liked after his previous album Strictly Personal was botched thanks to various cheesy phasing effects thrown into the production without his approval. Prior to that, the Cap had released Safe As Milk featuring Ry Cooder on guitar and also had a previous hit on A&M with "Diddy Wah Diddy". [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Yet those works (including the blues-soaked Mirror Man which Buddah Records issued in retaliation against Strictly Personal) were not so freakish, not so expansive. Trout Mask Replica, on the other hand, took its fusion of rock, blues, folk, poetry, and jazz and simultaneously deconstructed and reconstructed the entire pop music landscape in one fell swoop all right before your very own ears. And it continues to do that to this day every time you put it on. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]It's hard to think of another album that has divided music fans right down the line so cleanly. Some, such as I, embrace the album with great fervor and proclaim its majesties until we're blue in the face. Others keep ten feet away from it at all times, claiming the album is nothing but noise, and if not that, than an overrated artifact in the world of avant-garde music. They think too many hipsters have come in and spoiled the soup by tossing too many accolades on top of it. But how could I have even been close to being a hipster when I had never heard the Captain prior to my initial exposure? No, I was a virgin who became seduced and ultimately skull-fucked by this brilliant work. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]It's not an album as off-putting as Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, which I also happen to own. Lester Bangs decreed Reed's magnum opus of white noise the best album of all time, which was quite the Lesterly thing to do, but honestly the album is flat-out boring no matter how many punk acts have claimed that it inspired them to rock on. It may have been quite the album when it was initially released, but as time has worn on, it has turned more into a novelty and something you own to say you own, then get to laugh when you play ten seconds of the monster to your friends who often run away in horror than it is an album with any real charm. I expect the real lovers of this album would argue with me that it does indeed have its charm, but even as a great Lou Reed fan, I cannot bother to bring myself to argue the semantics of the noisy album. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Trout Mask Replica, on the other hand, has a multitude of layers and sounds that were not issued to provoke listeners and record labels and piss them off. Don Van Vilet was finally doing what he always wanted to do. And by doing so he did release a critical darling that many bothered to not touch, yet at the same time those who did take the time to listen to its songs found an entire world of music that had probably not existed in their lives before that. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Zappa's production is bare bones for the most part, and the Captain got irked with him somewhat after the fact about the sound, but really, I couldn't imagine it sounding any other way. It has a very live feel to it. There are a couple of more "produced" moments such as the closing "Veteran's Day Poppy" and the phenomenal "Moonlight on Vermont", but for the most part it sounds like a wild, wonderful nightmare that when peeled back exposes its technicolor hues. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Then of course, there's just the plain freaky madness that envelops the whole thing. The infamous bit where the Captain is instructing the Mascara Snake to get his lines right during a "Fast 'n Bulbous" segment ("Yeah, but you gotta wait till I say 'Also! A tin … teardrop'" says the Captain, to which the Mascara Snake laughs and replies " … Christ!" in a fit of bewilderment) is classic, as is the segment where the Cap is talking to two kids outside about his music. "What do you think?" He asks. The kids, obviously a bit stunned and not knowing what to say, pause for a few seconds, then mutter "It sounds good." "We're doing a bush recording," the Captain goes on. "We're out here recording a bush. The name of the composition is 'Neon Meate Dream Of A Octafish …'" Then more nervous silence from the kids. And then Beefheart corrects himself. "No, wait. It's 'Hair Pie'." [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Add to that the sheer creepiness of "Pena", the greasy blues of "China Pig", the whimsical poetry of "The Dust Blows Forward 'N the Dust Blows Back" and "Orange Claw Hammer", the fantastic riffs of "Pachuco Cadaver", the hilarious "Old Fart at Play", and other gems like "When Big Joan Sets Up" and that "Neon Meate Dream of a Octafish", and well, you really have something there. Especially when Beefheart sings in his stunning multi-octave range and blows two saxes at the same time. None of this album is to be missed. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Probably the best thing about Trout Mask Replica is watching people start to come around to it when you play it enough for them. They might say, "Hey! Those lyrics really are kind of cool." Or perhaps they'll admit to grooving to the hypnotic silliness of "Hobo Chang Ba". But that is the whole thing about this work. The songs really are there. You just have to let them come to you. What at first sounds like a cacophonous mess eventually reveals itself to be very intricately produced songs of immeasurable substance. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana,][size=-2]Following Trout Mask Replica, Beefheart released the similar Lick My Decals off, Baby before turning towards a more accessible route due to his record label's demands. A couple of those works, such as Clear Spot and The Spotlight Kid are terrific works, whereas others like Unconditionally Guaranteed were artistic disasters. Before Beefheart retired completely from music in 1982, he managed to release a few more albums that featured him doing what he wanted to do, such as Doc at the Radar Station and Ice Cream for Crow. [/size][/font][font=verdana,][size=-2]If you've never listened to Trout Mask Replica, go give it a try. Then listen to it about five or six more times, even if you feel like you're forcing yourself. If after that you still feel that you don't like it, at least you know you gave it a real shot. On the other hand, you might find you absolutely love it, even on the first listen. Whatever the case, Trout Mask Replica may rightfully be the very first and last time an album has so thoroughly polarized the listening public. After all, after this was created, you couldn't rightfully do it again, could you? While the Beatles were off creating entire chunks of rock music, Captain Beefheart created his own musical language and universe. One that could only be listened to afterward and never reclaimed again. And if Beefheart himself couldn't replicate the Replica, then you knew this was one of a kind. Trout Mask Replica is indeed a beautiful masterpiece that shall continue to sit at the top of the rock and pop music heap.
Q
The early Beefheart band recordings, which were all boogie locomotion and Howlin' Wolf-inspired, gave no hint that in 1969 he would come up with the only "difficult" rock album worth persevering with. The story went that Beefheart imagined the music and simply taught it to the band note-by-note. Certainly beneath the apparent chaos there is the mathematical deliberation of some mutant strain of chamber music. They played it all live, producer Zappa recorded it completely dry and Beefheart roars in tongues of ants and octafish, the moonlight on Vermont and the Dachau blues. Every home should have one, if only because once a year there will be a time when Trout Mask Replica is the only thing that does it. 5/5
rolling stone
On first listen,Trout Mask Replica sounds like raw Delta blues: Don Van Vliet (a.k.a. Captain Beefheart) singing and ranting and reciting poetry over fractured guitar licks. But the seeming sonic chaos is an illusion -- to construct the songs, the Magic Band rehearsed twelve hours a day for months on end in a house with the windows blacked out. (Producer Frank Zappa was then able to record most of the album in less than five hours.) Tracks such as "Ella Guru" and "My Human Gets Me Blues" are the direct predecessors of modern musical primitives such as Tom Waits and PJ Harvey. [/size][/font]

 

[Tide In Mind Out]

those fonts are too small, both of ya. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. really.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

I LOVE SATAN

 

[Dead_Lioness]

[ those fonts are too small, both of ya. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. really.

 

[MFJ]

so then I said, "Get off me Grandma! I'm DONE!"

 

[Tide In Mind Out]

those fonts are too small, both of ya. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. really.

[ those fonts are too small, both of ya. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. really.

 

[mReEtTaIlRsEkD]

heh

 

[MajestikMøøse]

and then we danced and made merry with the elves. Unfortunately, they all turned out to be hermaphodites.

 

[mReEtTaIlRsEkD]

made merry? sounds fun

 

[mReEtTaIlRsEkD]

 

[Captain Beard]

Here's a theory you hear a lot these days: "Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will topple."

Although there is some truth to the fact that Linux is a huge threat to Microsoft, predictions of the Redmond company's demise are, to say the least, premature. Microsoft has an incredible amount of cash money in the bank and is still incredibly profitable. It has a long way to fall. It could do everything wrong for a decade before it started to be in remote danger, and you never know... they could reinvent themselves as a shaved-ice company at the last minute. So don't be so quick to write them off. In the early 90s everyone thought IBM was completely over: mainframes were history! Back then, Robert X. Cringely predicted that the era of the mainframe would end on January 1, 2000 when all the applications written in COBOL would seize up, and rather than fix those applications, for which, allegedly, the source code had long since been lost, everybody would rewrite those applications for client-server platforms.

Well, guess what. Mainframes are still with us, nothing happened on January 1, 2000, and IBM reinvented itself as a big ol' technology consulting company that also happens to make cheap plastic telephones. So extrapolating from a few data points to the theory that Microsoft is finished is really quite a severe exaggeration.

However, there is a less understood phenomenon which is going largely unnoticed: Microsoft's crown strategic jewel, the Windows API, is lost. The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers. The goose that lays the golden eggs is not quite dead, but it does have a terminal disease, one that nobody noticed yet.

Now that I've said that, allow me to apologize for the grandiloquence and pomposity of that preceding paragraph. I think I'm starting to sound like those editorial writers in the trade rags who go on and on about Microsoft's strategic asset, the Windows API. It's going to take me a few pages, here, to explain what I'm really talking about and justify my arguments. Please don't jump to any conclusions until I explain what I'm talking about. This will be a long article. I need to explain what the Windows API is; I need to demonstrate why it's the most important strategic asset to Microsoft; I need to explain how it was lost and what the implications of that are in the long term. And because I'm talking about big trends, I need to exaggerate and generalize.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers

Remember the definition of an operating system? It's the thing that manages a computer's resources so that application programs can run. People don't really care much about operating systems; they care about those application programs that the operating system makes possible. Word Processors. Instant Messaging. Email. Accounts Payable. Web sites with pictures of Paris Hilton. By itself, an operating system is not that useful. People buy operating systems because of the useful applications that run on it. And therefore the most useful operating system is the one that has the most useful applications.

The logical conclusion of this is that if you're trying to sell operating systems, the most important thing to do is make software developers want to develop software for your operating system. That's why Steve Ballmer was jumping around the stage shouting "Developers, developers, developers, developers." It's so important for Microsoft that the only reason they don't outright give away development tools for Windows is because they don't want to inadvertently cut off the oxygen to competitive development tools vendors (well, those that are left) because having a variety of development tools available for their platform makes it that much more attractive to developers. But they really want to give away the development tools. Through their Empower ISV program you can get five complete sets of MSDN Universal (otherwise known as "basically every Microsoft product except Flight Simulator") for about $375. Command line compilers for the .NET languages are included with the free .NET runtime... also free. The C++ compiler is now free. Anything to encourage developers to build for the .NET platform, and holding just short of wiping out companies like Borland.

Why Apple and Sun Can't Sell Computers

Well, of course, that's a little bit silly: of course Apple and Sun can sell computers, but not to the two most lucrative markets for computers, namely, the corporate desktop and the home computer. Apple is still down there in the very low single digits of market share and the only people with Suns on their desktops are at Sun. (Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore when I say things like "nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people," and so on and so forth.)

Why? Because Apple and Sun computers don't run Windows programs, or, if they do, it's in some kind of expensive emulation mode that doesn't work so great. Remember, people buy computers for the applications that they run, and there's so much more great desktop software available for Windows than Mac that it's very hard to be a Mac user.

Sidebar What is this "API" thing?

If you're writing a program, say, a word processor, and you want to display a menu, or write a file, you have to ask the operating system to do it for you, using a very specific set of function calls which are different on every operating system. These function calls are called the API: it's the interface that an operating system, like Windows, provides to application developers, like the programmers building word processors and spreadsheets and whatnot. It's a set of thousands and thousands of detailed and fussy functions and subroutines that programmers can use, which cause the operating system to do interesting things like display a menu, read and write files, and more esoteric things like find out how to spell out a given date in Serbian, or extremely complex things like display a web page in a window. If your program uses the API calls for Windows, it's not going to work on Linux, which has different API calls. Sometimes they do approximately the same thing. That's one important reason Windows software doesn't run on Linux. If you wanted to get a Windows program to run under Linux, you'd have to reimplement the entire Windows API, which consists of thousands of complicated functions: this is almost as much work as implementing Windows itself, something which took Microsoft thousands of person-years. And if you make one tiny mistake or leave out one function that an application needs, that application will crash.

And that's why the Windows API is such an important asset to Microsoft.

(I know, I know, at this point the 2.3% of the world that uses Macintoshes are warming up their email programs to send me a scathing letter about how much they love their Macs. Once again, I'm speaking in large trends and generalizing, so don't waste your time. I know you love your Mac. I know it runs everything you need. I love you, you're a Pepper, but you're only 2.3% of the world, so this article isn't about you.)

The Two Forces at Microsoft

There are two opposing forces inside Microsoft, which I will refer to, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as The Raymond Chen Camp and The MSDN Magazine Camp.

Raymond Chen is a developer on the Windows team at Microsoft. He's been there since 1992, and his weblog The Old New Thing is chock-full of detailed technical stories about why certain things are the way they are in Windows, even silly things, which turn out to have very good reasons.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)

​

I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.

This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."

A lot of developers and engineers don't agree with this way of working. If the application did something bad, or relied on some undocumented behavior, they think, it should just break when the OS gets upgraded. The developers of the Macintosh OS at Apple have always been in this camp. It's why so few applications from the early days of the Macintosh still work. For example, a lot of developers used to try to make their Macintosh applications run faster by copying pointers out of the jump table and calling them directly instead of using the interrupt feature of the processor like they were supposed to. Even though somewhere in Inside Macintosh, Apple's official Bible of Macintosh programming, there was a tech note saying "you can't do this," they did it, and it worked, and their programs ran faster... until the next version of the OS came out and they didn't run at all. If the company that made the application went out of business (and most of them did), well, tough luck, bubby.

To contrast, I've got DOS applications that I wrote in 1983 for the very original IBM PC that still run flawlessly, thanks to the Raymond Chen Camp at Microsoft. I know, it's not just Raymond, of course: it's the whole modus operandi of the core Windows API team. But Raymond has publicized it the most through his excellent website The Old New Thing so I'll name it after him.

That's one camp. The other camp is what I'm going to call the MSDN Magazine camp, which I will name after the developer's magazine full of exciting articles about all the different ways you can shoot yourself in the foot by using esoteric combinations of Microsoft products in your own software. The MSDN Magazine Camp is always trying to convince you to use new and complicated external technology like COM+, MSMQ, MSDE, Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer and its components, MSXML, DirectX (the very latest version, please), Windows Media Player, and Sharepoint... Sharepoint! which nobody has; a veritable panoply of external dependencies each one of which is going to be a huge headache when you ship your application to a paying customer and it doesn't work right. The technical name for this is DLL Hell. It works here: why doesn't it work there?

The Raymond Chen Camp believes in making things easy for developers by making it easy to write once and run anywhere (well, on any Windows box). The MSDN Magazine Camp believes in making things easy for developers by giving them really powerful chunks of code which they can leverage, if they are willing to pay the price of incredibly complicated deployment and installation headaches, not to mention the huge learning curve. The Raymond Chen camp is all about consolidation. Please, don't make things any worse, let's just keep making what we already have still work. The MSDN Magazine Camp needs to keep churning out new gigantic pieces of technology that nobody can keep up with.

Here's why this matters.

Microsoft Lost the Backwards Compatibility Religion

Inside Microsoft, the MSDN Magazine Camp has won the battle.

The first big win was making Visual Basic.NET not backwards-compatible with VB 6.0. This was literally the first time in living memory that when you bought an upgrade to a Microsoft product, your old data (i.e. the code you had written in VB6) could not be imported perfectly and silently. It was the first time a Microsoft upgrade did not respect the work that users did using the previous version of a product.

And the sky didn't seem to fall, not inside Microsoft. VB6 developers were up in arms, but they were disappearing anyway, because most of them were corporate developers who were migrating to web development anyway. The real long term damage was hidden.

With this major victory under their belts, the MSDN Magazine Camp took over. Suddenly it was OK to change things. IIS 6.0 came out with a different threading model that broke some old applications. I was shocked to discover that our customers with Windows Server 2003 were having trouble running FogBugz. Then .NET 1.1 was not perfectly backwards compatible with 1.0. And now that the cat was out of the bag, the OS team got into the spirit and decided that instead of adding features to the Windows API, they were going to completely replace it. Instead of Win32, we are told, we should now start getting ready for WinFX: the next generation Windows API. All different. Based on .NET with managed code. XAML. Avalon. Yes, vastly superior to Win32, I admit it. But not an upgrade: a break with the past.

Outside developers, who were never particularly happy with the complexity of Windows development, have defected from the Microsoft platform en-masse and are now developing for the web. Paul Graham, who created Yahoo! Stores in the early days of the dotcom boom, summarized it eloquently: "There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now, because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft."

Microsoft got big enough, with too many developers, and they were too addicted to upgrade revenues, so they suddenly decided that reinventing everything was not too big a project. Heck, we can do it twice. The old Microsoft, the Microsoft of Raymond Chen, might have implemented things like Avalon, the new graphics system, as a series of DLLs that can run on any version of Windows and which could be bundled with applications that need them. There's no technical reason not to do this. But Microsoft needs to give you a reason to buy Longhorn, and what they're trying to pull off is a sea change, similar to the sea change that occurred when Windows replaced DOS. The trouble is that Longhorn is not a very big advance over Windows XP; not nearly as big as Windows was over DOS. It probably won't be compelling enough to get people to buy all new computers and applications like they did for Windows. Well, maybe it will, Microsoft certainly needs it to be, but what I've seen so far is not very convincing. A lot of the bets Microsoft made are the wrong ones. For example, WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973.

Automatic Transmissions Win the Day

Don't get me wrong... I think .NET is a great development environment and Avalon with XAML is a tremendous advance over the old way of writing GUI apps for Windows. The biggest advantage of .NET is the fact that it has automatic memory management.

A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

Sidebar
Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction. 2) Because you don't have to spend any time writing code to free memory or tracking down memory leaks. 3) Because you don't have to carefully coordinate the exit points from your functions to make sure things are cleaned up properly.

Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer productivity.

If you were developing desktop applications in the early years of Windows, Microsoft offered you two ways to do it: writing C code which calls the Windows API directly and managing your own memory, or using Visual Basic and getting your memory managed for you. These are the two development environments I have used the most, personally, over the last 13 years or so, and I know them inside-out, and my experience has been that Visual Basic is significantly more productive. Often I've written the same code, once in C++ calling the Windows API and once in Visual Basic, and C++ always took three or four times as much work. Why? Memory management. The easiest way to see why is to look at the documentation for any Windows API function that needs to return a string. Look closely at how much discussion there is around the concept of who allocates the memory for the string, and how you negotiate how much memory will be needed. Typically, you have to call the function twice—on the first call, you tell it that you've allocated zero bytes, and it fails with a "not enough memory allocated" message and conveniently also tells you how much memory you need to allocate. That's if you're lucky enough not to be calling a function which returns a list of strings or a whole variable-length structure. In any case, simple operations like opening a file, writing a string, and closing it using the raw Windows API can take a page of code. In Visual Basic similar operations can take three lines.

So, you've got these two programming worlds. Everyone has pretty much decided that the world of managed code is far superior to the world of unmanaged code. Visual Basic was (and probably remains) the number one bestselling language product of all time and developers preferred it over C or C++ for Windows development, although the fact that "Basic" was in the name of the product made hardcore programmers shun it even though it was a fairly modern language with a handful of object-oriented features and very little leftover gunk (line numbers and the LET statement having gone the way of the hula hoop). The other problem with VB was that deployment required shipping a VB runtime, which was a big deal for shareware distributed over modems, and, worse, let other programmers see that your application was developed in (the shame!) Visual Basic.

One Runtime To Rule Them All

And along came .NET. This was a grand project, the super-duper unifying project to clean up the whole mess once and for all. It would have memory management, of course. It would still have Visual Basic, but it would gain a new language, one which is in spirit virtually the same as Visual Basic but with the C-like syntax of curly braces and semicolons. And best of all, the new Visual Basic/C hybrid would be called Visual C#, so you would not have to tell anyone you were a "Basic" programmer any more. All those horrid Windows functions with their tails and hooks and backwards-compatibility bugs and impossible-to-figure-out string-returning semantics would be wiped out, replaced by a single clean object oriented interface that only has one kind of string. One runtime to rule them all. It was beautiful. And they pulled it off, technically. .NET is a great programming environment that manages your memory and has a rich, complete, and consistent interface to the operating system and a rich, super complete, and elegant object library for basic operations.

And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.

Oh sure, some of them are.

But the idea of unifying the mess of Visual Basic and Windows API programming by creating a completely new, ground-up programming environment with not one, not two, but three languages (or are there four?) is sort of like the idea of getting two quarreling kids to stop arguing by shouting "shut up!" louder than either of them. It only works on TV. In real life when you shout "shut up!" to two people arguing loudly you just create a louder three-way argument.

(By the way, for those of you who follow the arcane but politically-charged world of blog syndication feed formats, you can see the same thing happening over there. RSS became fragmented with several different versions, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting, and the attempt to clean everything up by creating yet another format called Atom has resulted in several different versions of RSS plus one version of Atom, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting. When you try to unify two opposing forces by creating a third alternative, you just end up with three opposing forces. You haven't unified anything and you haven't really fixed anything.)

So now instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess, with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to .NET.

No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message ("just use .NET—trust us!"), most of their customers are still using C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web.

Oh, Wait, There's More Coming!

Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.

So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitiv

 

[Tide In Mind Out]

Here's a theory you hear a lot these days: "Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will topple."

Although there is some truth to the fact that Linux is a huge threat to Microsoft, predictions of the Redmond company's demise are, to say the least, premature. Microsoft has an incredible amount of cash money in the bank and is still incredibly profitable. It has a long way to fall. It could do everything wrong for a decade before it started to be in remote danger, and you never know... they could reinvent themselves as a shaved-ice company at the last minute. So don't be so quick to write them off. In the early 90s everyone thought IBM was completely over: mainframes were history! Back then, Robert X. Cringely predicted that the era of the mainframe would end on January 1, 2000 when all the applications written in COBOL would seize up, and rather than fix those applications, for which, allegedly, the source code had long since been lost, everybody would rewrite those applications for client-server platforms.

Well, guess what. Mainframes are still with us, nothing happened on January 1, 2000, and IBM reinvented itself as a big ol' technology consulting company that also happens to make cheap plastic telephones. So extrapolating from a few data points to the theory that Microsoft is finished is really quite a severe exaggeration.

However, there is a less understood phenomenon which is going largely unnoticed: Microsoft's crown strategic jewel, the Windows API, is lost. The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers. The goose that lays the golden eggs is not quite dead, but it does have a terminal disease, one that nobody noticed yet.

Now that I've said that, allow me to apologize for the grandiloquence and pomposity of that preceding paragraph. I think I'm starting to sound like those editorial writers in the trade rags who go on and on about Microsoft's strategic asset, the Windows API. It's going to take me a few pages, here, to explain what I'm really talking about and justify my arguments. Please don't jump to any conclusions until I explain what I'm talking about. This will be a long article. I need to explain what the Windows API is; I need to demonstrate why it's the most important strategic asset to Microsoft; I need to explain how it was lost and what the implications of that are in the long term. And because I'm talking about big trends, I need to exaggerate and generalize.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers

Remember the definition of an operating system? It's the thing that manages a computer's resources so that application programs can run. People don't really care much about operating systems; they care about those application programs that the operating system makes possible. Word Processors. Instant Messaging. Email. Accounts Payable. Web sites with pictures of Paris Hilton. By itself, an operating system is not that useful. People buy operating systems because of the useful applications that run on it. And therefore the most useful operating system is the one that has the most useful applications.

The logical conclusion of this is that if you're trying to sell operating systems, the most important thing to do is make software developers want to develop software for your operating system. That's why Steve Ballmer was jumping around the stage shouting "Developers, developers, developers, developers." It's so important for Microsoft that the only reason they don't outright give away development tools for Windows is because they don't want to inadvertently cut off the oxygen to competitive development tools vendors (well, those that are left) because having a variety of development tools available for their platform makes it that much more attractive to developers. But they really want to give away the development tools. Through their Empower ISV program you can get five complete sets of MSDN Universal (otherwise known as "basically every Microsoft product except Flight Simulator") for about $375. Command line compilers for the .NET languages are included with the free .NET runtime... also free. The C++ compiler is now free. Anything to encourage developers to build for the .NET platform, and holding just short of wiping out companies like Borland.

Why Apple and Sun Can't Sell Computers

Well, of course, that's a little bit silly: of course Apple and Sun can sell computers, but not to the two most lucrative markets for computers, namely, the corporate desktop and the home computer. Apple is still down there in the very low single digits of market share and the only people with Suns on their desktops are at Sun. (Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore when I say things like "nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people," and so on and so forth.)

Why? Because Apple and Sun computers don't run Windows programs, or, if they do, it's in some kind of expensive emulation mode that doesn't work so great. Remember, people buy computers for the applications that they run, and there's so much more great desktop software available for Windows than Mac that it's very hard to be a Mac user.

Sidebar What is this "API" thing?

If you're writing a program, say, a word processor, and you want to display a menu, or write a file, you have to ask the operating system to do it for you, using a very specific set of function calls which are different on every operating system. These function calls are called the API: it's the interface that an operating system, like Windows, provides to application developers, like the programmers building word processors and spreadsheets and whatnot. It's a set of thousands and thousands of detailed and fussy functions and subroutines that programmers can use, which cause the operating system to do interesting things like display a menu, read and write files, and more esoteric things like find out how to spell out a given date in Serbian, or extremely complex things like display a web page in a window. If your program uses the API calls for Windows, it's not going to work on Linux, which has different API calls. Sometimes they do approximately the same thing. That's one important reason Windows software doesn't run on Linux. If you wanted to get a Windows program to run under Linux, you'd have to reimplement the entire Windows API, which consists of thousands of complicated functions: this is almost as much work as implementing Windows itself, something which took Microsoft thousands of person-years. And if you make one tiny mistake or leave out one function that an application needs, that application will crash.

And that's why the Windows API is such an important asset to Microsoft.

(I know, I know, at this point the 2.3% of the world that uses Macintoshes are warming up their email programs to send me a scathing letter about how much they love their Macs. Once again, I'm speaking in large trends and generalizing, so don't waste your time. I know you love your Mac. I know it runs everything you need. I love you, you're a Pepper, but you're only 2.3% of the world, so this article isn't about you.)

The Two Forces at Microsoft

There are two opposing forces inside Microsoft, which I will refer to, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as The Raymond Chen Camp and The MSDN Magazine Camp.

Raymond Chen is a developer on the Windows team at Microsoft. He's been there since 1992, and his weblog The Old New Thing is chock-full of detailed technical stories about why certain things are the way they are in Windows, even silly things, which turn out to have very good reasons.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)


I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.

This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."

A lot of developers and engineers don't agree with this way of working. If the application did something bad, or relied on some undocumented behavior, they think, it should just break when the OS gets upgraded. The developers of the Macintosh OS at Apple have always been in this camp. It's why so few applications from the early days of the Macintosh still work. For example, a lot of developers used to try to make their Macintosh applications run faster by copying pointers out of the jump table and calling them directly instead of using the interrupt feature of the processor like they were supposed to. Even though somewhere in Inside Macintosh, Apple's official Bible of Macintosh programming, there was a tech note saying "you can't do this," they did it, and it worked, and their programs ran faster... until the next version of the OS came out and they didn't run at all. If the company that made the application went out of business (and most of them did), well, tough luck, bubby.

To contrast, I've got DOS applications that I wrote in 1983 for the very original IBM PC that still run flawlessly, thanks to the Raymond Chen Camp at Microsoft. I know, it's not just Raymond, of course: it's the whole modus operandi of the core Windows API team. But Raymond has publicized it the most through his excellent website The Old New Thing so I'll name it after him.

That's one camp. The other camp is what I'm going to call the MSDN Magazine camp, which I will name after the developer's magazine full of exciting articles about all the different ways you can shoot yourself in the foot by using esoteric combinations of Microsoft products in your own software. The MSDN Magazine Camp is always trying to convince you to use new and complicated external technology like COM+, MSMQ, MSDE, Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer and its components, MSXML, DirectX (the very latest version, please), Windows Media Player, and Sharepoint... Sharepoint! which nobody has; a veritable panoply of external dependencies each one of which is going to be a huge headache when you ship your application to a paying customer and it doesn't work right. The technical name for this is DLL Hell. It works here: why doesn't it work there?

The Raymond Chen Camp believes in making things easy for developers by making it easy to write once and run anywhere (well, on any Windows box). The MSDN Magazine Camp believes in making things easy for developers by giving them really powerful chunks of code which they can leverage, if they are willing to pay the price of incredibly complicated deployment and installation headaches, not to mention the huge learning curve. The Raymond Chen camp is all about consolidation. Please, don't make things any worse, let's just keep making what we already have still work. The MSDN Magazine Camp needs to keep churning out new gigantic pieces of technology that nobody can keep up with.

Here's why this matters.

Microsoft Lost the Backwards Compatibility Religion

Inside Microsoft, the MSDN Magazine Camp has won the battle.

The first big win was making Visual Basic.NET not backwards-compatible with VB 6.0. This was literally the first time in living memory that when you bought an upgrade to a Microsoft product, your old data (i.e. the code you had written in VB6) could not be imported perfectly and silently. It was the first time a Microsoft upgrade did not respect the work that users did using the previous version of a product.

And the sky didn't seem to fall, not inside Microsoft. VB6 developers were up in arms, but they were disappearing anyway, because most of them were corporate developers who were migrating to web development anyway. The real long term damage was hidden.

With this major victory under their belts, the MSDN Magazine Camp took over. Suddenly it was OK to change things. IIS 6.0 came out with a different threading model that broke some old applications. I was shocked to discover that our customers with Windows Server 2003 were having trouble running FogBugz. Then .NET 1.1 was not perfectly backwards compatible with 1.0. And now that the cat was out of the bag, the OS team got into the spirit and decided that instead of adding features to the Windows API, they were going to completely replace it. Instead of Win32, we are told, we should now start getting ready for WinFX: the next generation Windows API. All different. Based on .NET with managed code. XAML. Avalon. Yes, vastly superior to Win32, I admit it. But not an upgrade: a break with the past.

Outside developers, who were never particularly happy with the complexity of Windows development, have defected from the Microsoft platform en-masse and are now developing for the web. Paul Graham, who created Yahoo! Stores in the early days of the dotcom boom, summarized it eloquently: "There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now, because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft."

Microsoft got big enough, with too many developers, and they were too addicted to upgrade revenues, so they suddenly decided that reinventing everything was not too big a project. Heck, we can do it twice. The old Microsoft, the Microsoft of Raymond Chen, might have implemented things like Avalon, the new graphics system, as a series of DLLs that can run on any version of Windows and which could be bundled with applications that need them. There's no technical reason not to do this. But Microsoft needs to give you a reason to buy Longhorn, and what they're trying to pull off is a sea change, similar to the sea change that occurred when Windows replaced DOS. The trouble is that Longhorn is not a very big advance over Windows XP; not nearly as big as Windows was over DOS. It probably won't be compelling enough to get people to buy all new computers and applications like they did for Windows. Well, maybe it will, Microsoft certainly needs it to be, but what I've seen so far is not very convincing. A lot of the bets Microsoft made are the wrong ones. For example, WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973.

Automatic Transmissions Win the Day

Don't get me wrong... I think .NET is a great development environment and Avalon with XAML is a tremendous advance over the old way of writing GUI apps for Windows. The biggest advantage of .NET is the fact that it has automatic memory management.

A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

Sidebar
Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction. 2) Because you don't have to spend any time writing code to free memory or tracking down memory leaks. 3) Because you don't have to carefully coordinate the exit points from your functions to make sure things are cleaned up properly.

Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer productivity.

If you were developing desktop applications in the early years of Windows, Microsoft offered you two ways to do it: writing C code which calls the Windows API directly and managing your own memory, or using Visual Basic and getting your memory managed for you. These are the two development environments I have used the most, personally, over the last 13 years or so, and I know them inside-out, and my experience has been that Visual Basic is significantly more productive. Often I've written the same code, once in C++ calling the Windows API and once in Visual Basic, and C++ always took three or four times as much work. Why? Memory management. The easiest way to see why is to look at the documentation for any Windows API function that needs to return a string. Look closely at how much discussion there is around the concept of who allocates the memory for the string, and how you negotiate how much memory will be needed. Typically, you have to call the function twice—on the first call, you tell it that you've allocated zero bytes, and it fails with a "not enough memory allocated" message and conveniently also tells you how much memory you need to allocate. That's if you're lucky enough not to be calling a function which returns a list of strings or a whole variable-length structure. In any case, simple operations like opening a file, writing a string, and closing it using the raw Windows API can take a page of code. In Visual Basic similar operations can take three lines.

So, you've got these two programming worlds. Everyone has pretty much decided that the world of managed code is far superior to the world of unmanaged code. Visual Basic was (and probably remains) the number one bestselling language product of all time and developers preferred it over C or C++ for Windows development, although the fact that "Basic" was in the name of the product made hardcore programmers shun it even though it was a fairly modern language with a handful of object-oriented features and very little leftover gunk (line numbers and the LET statement having gone the way of the hula hoop). The other problem with VB was that deployment required shipping a VB runtime, which was a big deal for shareware distributed over modems, and, worse, let other programmers see that your application was developed in (the shame!) Visual Basic.

One Runtime To Rule Them All

And along came .NET. This was a grand project, the super-duper unifying project to clean up the whole mess once and for all. It would have memory management, of course. It would still have Visual Basic, but it would gain a new language, one which is in spirit virtually the same as Visual Basic but with the C-like syntax of curly braces and semicolons. And best of all, the new Visual Basic/C hybrid would be called Visual C#, so you would not have to tell anyone you were a "Basic" programmer any more. All those horrid Windows functions with their tails and hooks and backwards-compatibility bugs and impossible-to-figure-out string-returning semantics would be wiped out, replaced by a single clean object oriented interface that only has one kind of string. One runtime to rule them all. It was beautiful. And they pulled it off, technically. .NET is a great programming environment that manages your memory and has a rich, complete, and consistent interface to the operating system and a rich, super complete, and elegant object library for basic operations.

And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.

Oh sure, some of them are.

But the idea of unifying the mess of Visual Basic and Windows API programming by creating a completely new, ground-up programming environment with not one, not two, but three languages (or are there four?) is sort of like the idea of getting two quarreling kids to stop arguing by shouting "shut up!" louder than either of them. It only works on TV. In real life when you shout "shut up!" to two people arguing loudly you just create a louder three-way argument.

(By the way, for those of you who follow the arcane but politically-charged world of blog syndication feed formats, you can see the same thing happening over there. RSS became fragmented with several different versions, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting, and the attempt to clean everything up by creating yet another format called Atom has resulted in several different versions of RSS plus one version of Atom, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting. When you try to unify two opposing forces by creating a third alternative, you just end up with three opposing forces. You haven't unified anything and you haven't really fixed anything.)

So now instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess, with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to .NET.

No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message ("just use .NET—trust us!"), most of their customers are still using C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web.

Oh, Wait, There's More Coming!

Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.

So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

 

[mReEtTaIlRsEkD]

christ

 

[Chromatose]

Here's a theory you hear a lot these days: "Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will topple."

Although there is some truth to the fact that Linux is a huge threat to Microsoft, predictions of the Redmond company's demise are, to say the least, premature. Microsoft has an incredible amount of cash money in the bank and is still incredibly profitable. It has a long way to fall. It could do everything wrong for a decade before it started to be in remote danger, and you never know... they could reinvent themselves as a shaved-ice company at the last minute. So don't be so quick to write them off. In the early 90s everyone thought IBM was completely over: mainframes were history! Back then, Robert X. Cringely predicted that the era of the mainframe would end on January 1, 2000 when all the applications written in COBOL would seize up, and rather than fix those applications, for which, allegedly, the source code had long since been lost, everybody would rewrite those applications for client-server platforms.

Well, guess what. Mainframes are still with us, nothing happened on January 1, 2000, and IBM reinvented itself as a big ol' technology consulting company that also happens to make cheap plastic telephones. So extrapolating from a few data points to the theory that Microsoft is finished is really quite a severe exaggeration.

However, there is a less understood phenomenon which is going largely unnoticed: Microsoft's crown strategic jewel, the Windows API, is lost. The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers. The goose that lays the golden eggs is not quite dead, but it does have a terminal disease, one that nobody noticed yet.

Now that I've said that, allow me to apologize for the grandiloquence and pomposity of that preceding paragraph. I think I'm starting to sound like those editorial writers in the trade rags who go on and on about Microsoft's strategic asset, the Windows API. It's going to take me a few pages, here, to explain what I'm really talking about and justify my arguments. Please don't jump to any conclusions until I explain what I'm talking about. This will be a long article. I need to explain what the Windows API is; I need to demonstrate why it's the most important strategic asset to Microsoft; I need to explain how it was lost and what the implications of that are in the long term. And because I'm talking about big trends, I need to exaggerate and generalize.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers

Remember the definition of an operating system? It's the thing that manages a computer's resources so that application programs can run. People don't really care much about operating systems; they care about those application programs that the operating system makes possible. Word Processors. Instant Messaging. Email. Accounts Payable. Web sites with pictures of Paris Hilton. By itself, an operating system is not that useful. People buy operating systems because of the useful applications that run on it. And therefore the most useful operating system is the one that has the most useful applications.

The logical conclusion of this is that if you're trying to sell operating systems, the most important thing to do is make software developers want to develop software for your operating system. That's why Steve Ballmer was jumping around the stage shouting "Developers, developers, developers, developers." It's so important for Microsoft that the only reason they don't outright give away development tools for Windows is because they don't want to inadvertently cut off the oxygen to competitive development tools vendors (well, those that are left) because having a variety of development tools available for their platform makes it that much more attractive to developers. But they really want to give away the development tools. Through their Empower ISV program you can get five complete sets of MSDN Universal (otherwise known as "basically every Microsoft product except Flight Simulator") for about $375. Command line compilers for the .NET languages are included with the free .NET runtime... also free. The C++ compiler is now free. Anything to encourage developers to build for the .NET platform, and holding just short of wiping out companies like Borland.

Why Apple and Sun Can't Sell Computers

Well, of course, that's a little bit silly: of course Apple and Sun can sell computers, but not to the two most lucrative markets for computers, namely, the corporate desktop and the home computer. Apple is still down there in the very low single digits of market share and the only people with Suns on their desktops are at Sun. (Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore when I say things like "nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people," and so on and so forth.)

Why? Because Apple and Sun computers don't run Windows programs, or, if they do, it's in some kind of expensive emulation mode that doesn't work so great. Remember, people buy computers for the applications that they run, and there's so much more great desktop software available for Windows than Mac that it's very hard to be a Mac user.

Sidebar What is this "API" thing?

If you're writing a program, say, a word processor, and you want to display a menu, or write a file, you have to ask the operating system to do it for you, using a very specific set of function calls which are different on every operating system. These function calls are called the API: it's the interface that an operating system, like Windows, provides to application developers, like the programmers building word processors and spreadsheets and whatnot. It's a set of thousands and thousands of detailed and fussy functions and subroutines that programmers can use, which cause the operating system to do interesting things like display a menu, read and write files, and more esoteric things like find out how to spell out a given date in Serbian, or extremely complex things like display a web page in a window. If your program uses the API calls for Windows, it's not going to work on Linux, which has different API calls. Sometimes they do approximately the same thing. That's one important reason Windows software doesn't run on Linux. If you wanted to get a Windows program to run under Linux, you'd have to reimplement the entire Windows API, which consists of thousands of complicated functions: this is almost as much work as implementing Windows itself, something which took Microsoft thousands of person-years. And if you make one tiny mistake or leave out one function that an application needs, that application will crash.

And that's why the Windows API is such an important asset to Microsoft.

(I know, I know, at this point the 2.3% of the world that uses Macintoshes are warming up their email programs to send me a scathing letter about how much they love their Macs. Once again, I'm speaking in large trends and generalizing, so don't waste your time. I know you love your Mac. I know it runs everything you need. I love you, you're a Pepper, but you're only 2.3% of the world, so this article isn't about you.)

The Two Forces at Microsoft

There are two opposing forces inside Microsoft, which I will refer to, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as The Raymond Chen Camp and The MSDN Magazine Camp.

Raymond Chen is a developer on the Windows team at Microsoft. He's been there since 1992, and his weblog The Old New Thing is chock-full of detailed technical stories about why certain things are the way they are in Windows, even silly things, which turn out to have very good reasons.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)


I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.

This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."

A lot of developers and engineers don't agree with this way of working. If the application did something bad, or relied on some undocumented behavior, they think, it should just break when the OS gets upgraded. The developers of the Macintosh OS at Apple have always been in this camp. It's why so few applications from the early days of the Macintosh still work. For example, a lot of developers used to try to make their Macintosh applications run faster by copying pointers out of the jump table and calling them directly instead of using the interrupt feature of the processor like they were supposed to. Even though somewhere in Inside Macintosh, Apple's official Bible of Macintosh programming, there was a tech note saying "you can't do this," they did it, and it worked, and their programs ran faster... until the next version of the OS came out and they didn't run at all. If the company that made the application went out of business (and most of them did), well, tough luck, bubby.

To contrast, I've got DOS applications that I wrote in 1983 for the very original IBM PC that still run flawlessly, thanks to the Raymond Chen Camp at Microsoft. I know, it's not just Raymond, of course: it's the whole modus operandi of the core Windows API team. But Raymond has publicized it the most through his excellent website The Old New Thing so I'll name it after him.

That's one camp. The other camp is what I'm going to call the MSDN Magazine camp, which I will name after the developer's magazine full of exciting articles about all the different ways you can shoot yourself in the foot by using esoteric combinations of Microsoft products in your own software. The MSDN Magazine Camp is always trying to convince you to use new and complicated external technology like COM+, MSMQ, MSDE, Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer and its components, MSXML, DirectX (the very latest version, please), Windows Media Player, and Sharepoint... Sharepoint! which nobody has; a veritable panoply of external dependencies each one of which is going to be a huge headache when you ship your application to a paying customer and it doesn't work right. The technical name for this is DLL Hell. It works here: why doesn't it work there?

The Raymond Chen Camp believes in making things easy for developers by making it easy to write once and run anywhere (well, on any Windows box). The MSDN Magazine Camp believes in making things easy for developers by giving them really powerful chunks of code which they can leverage, if they are willing to pay the price of incredibly complicated deployment and installation headaches, not to mention the huge learning curve. The Raymond Chen camp is all about consolidation. Please, don't make things any worse, let's just keep making what we already have still work. The MSDN Magazine Camp needs to keep churning out new gigantic pieces of technology that nobody can keep up with.

Here's why this matters.

Microsoft Lost the Backwards Compatibility Religion

Inside Microsoft, the MSDN Magazine Camp has won the battle.

The first big win was making Visual Basic.NET not backwards-compatible with VB 6.0. This was literally the first time in living memory that when you bought an upgrade to a Microsoft product, your old data (i.e. the code you had written in VB6) could not be imported perfectly and silently. It was the first time a Microsoft upgrade did not respect the work that users did using the previous version of a product.

And the sky didn't seem to fall, not inside Microsoft. VB6 developers were up in arms, but they were disappearing anyway, because most of them were corporate developers who were migrating to web development anyway. The real long term damage was hidden.

With this major victory under their belts, the MSDN Magazine Camp took over. Suddenly it was OK to change things. IIS 6.0 came out with a different threading model that broke some old applications. I was shocked to discover that our customers with Windows Server 2003 were having trouble running FogBugz. Then .NET 1.1 was not perfectly backwards compatible with 1.0. And now that the cat was out of the bag, the OS team got into the spirit and decided that instead of adding features to the Windows API, they were going to completely replace it. Instead of Win32, we are told, we should now start getting ready for WinFX: the next generation Windows API. All different. Based on .NET with managed code. XAML. Avalon. Yes, vastly superior to Win32, I admit it. But not an upgrade: a break with the past.

Outside developers, who were never particularly happy with the complexity of Windows development, have defected from the Microsoft platform en-masse and are now developing for the web. Paul Graham, who created Yahoo! Stores in the early days of the dotcom boom, summarized it eloquently: "There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now, because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft."

Microsoft got big enough, with too many developers, and they were too addicted to upgrade revenues, so they suddenly decided that reinventing everything was not too big a project. Heck, we can do it twice. The old Microsoft, the Microsoft of Raymond Chen, might have implemented things like Avalon, the new graphics system, as a series of DLLs that can run on any version of Windows and which could be bundled with applications that need them. There's no technical reason not to do this. But Microsoft needs to give you a reason to buy Longhorn, and what they're trying to pull off is a sea change, similar to the sea change that occurred when Windows replaced DOS. The trouble is that Longhorn is not a very big advance over Windows XP; not nearly as big as Windows was over DOS. It probably won't be compelling enough to get people to buy all new computers and applications like they did for Windows. Well, maybe it will, Microsoft certainly needs it to be, but what I've seen so far is not very convincing. A lot of the bets Microsoft made are the wrong ones. For example, WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973.

Automatic Transmissions Win the Day

Don't get me wrong... I think .NET is a great development environment and Avalon with XAML is a tremendous advance over the old way of writing GUI apps for Windows. The biggest advantage of .NET is the fact that it has automatic memory management.

A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

Sidebar
Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction. 2) Because you don't have to spend any time writing code to free memory or tracking down memory leaks. 3) Because you don't have to carefully coordinate the exit points from your functions to make sure things are cleaned up properly.

Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer productivity.

If you were developing desktop applications in the early years of Windows, Microsoft offered you two ways to do it: writing C code which calls the Windows API directly and managing your own memory, or using Visual Basic and getting your memory managed for you. These are the two development environments I have used the most, personally, over the last 13 years or so, and I know them inside-out, and my experience has been that Visual Basic is significantly more productive. Often I've written the same code, once in C++ calling the Windows API and once in Visual Basic, and C++ always took three or four times as much work. Why? Memory management. The easiest way to see why is to look at the documentation for any Windows API function that needs to return a string. Look closely at how much discussion there is around the concept of who allocates the memory for the string, and how you negotiate how much memory will be needed. Typically, you have to call the function twice—on the first call, you tell it that you've allocated zero bytes, and it fails with a "not enough memory allocated" message and conveniently also tells you how much memory you need to allocate. That's if you're lucky enough not to be calling a function which returns a list of strings or a whole variable-length structure. In any case, simple operations like opening a file, writing a string, and closing it using the raw Windows API can take a page of code. In Visual Basic similar operations can take three lines.

So, you've got these two programming worlds. Everyone has pretty much decided that the world of managed code is far superior to the world of unmanaged code. Visual Basic was (and probably remains) the number one bestselling language product of all time and developers preferred it over C or C++ for Windows development, although the fact that "Basic" was in the name of the product made hardcore programmers shun it even though it was a fairly modern language with a handful of object-oriented features and very little leftover gunk (line numbers and the LET statement having gone the way of the hula hoop). The other problem with VB was that deployment required shipping a VB runtime, which was a big deal for shareware distributed over modems, and, worse, let other programmers see that your application was developed in (the shame!) Visual Basic.

One Runtime To Rule Them All

And along came .NET. This was a grand project, the super-duper unifying project to clean up the whole mess once and for all. It would have memory management, of course. It would still have Visual Basic, but it would gain a new language, one which is in spirit virtually the same as Visual Basic but with the C-like syntax of curly braces and semicolons. And best of all, the new Visual Basic/C hybrid would be called Visual C#, so you would not have to tell anyone you were a "Basic" programmer any more. All those horrid Windows functions with their tails and hooks and backwards-compatibility bugs and impossible-to-figure-out string-returning semantics would be wiped out, replaced by a single clean object oriented interface that only has one kind of string. One runtime to rule them all. It was beautiful. And they pulled it off, technically. .NET is a great programming environment that manages your memory and has a rich, complete, and consistent interface to the operating system and a rich, super complete, and elegant object library for basic operations.

And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.

Oh sure, some of them are.

But the idea of unifying the mess of Visual Basic and Windows API programming by creating a completely new, ground-up programming environment with not one, not two, but three languages (or are there four?) is sort of like the idea of getting two quarreling kids to stop arguing by shouting "shut up!" louder than either of them. It only works on TV. In real life when you shout "shut up!" to two people arguing loudly you just create a louder three-way argument.

(By the way, for those of you who follow the arcane but politically-charged world of blog syndication feed formats, you can see the same thing happening over there. RSS became fragmented with several different versions, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting, and the attempt to clean everything up by creating yet another format called Atom has resulted in several different versions of RSS plus one version of Atom, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting. When you try to unify two opposing forces by creating a third alternative, you just end up with three opposing forces. You haven't unified anything and you haven't really fixed anything.)

So now instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess, with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to .NET.

No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message ("just use .NET—trust us!"), most of their customers are still using C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web.

Oh, Wait, There's More Coming!

Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.

So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

thanks, i had trouble reading the other one

 

[Captain Beard]

Here's a theory you hear a lot these days: "Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will topple."

Although there is some truth to the fact that Linux is a huge threat to Microsoft, predictions of the Redmond company's demise are, to say the least, premature. Microsoft has an incredible amount of cash money in the bank and is still incredibly profitable. It has a long way to fall. It could do everything wrong for a decade before it started to be in remote danger, and you never know... they could reinvent themselves as a shaved-ice company at the last minute. So don't be so quick to write them off. In the early 90s everyone thought IBM was completely over: mainframes were history! Back then, Robert X. Cringely predicted that the era of the mainframe would end on January 1, 2000 when all the applications written in COBOL would seize up, and rather than fix those applications, for which, allegedly, the source code had long since been lost, everybody would rewrite those applications for client-server platforms.

Well, guess what. Mainframes are still with us, nothing happened on January 1, 2000, and IBM reinvented itself as a big ol' technology consulting company that also happens to make cheap plastic telephones. So extrapolating from a few data points to the theory that Microsoft is finished is really quite a severe exaggeration.

However, there is a less understood phenomenon which is going largely unnoticed: Microsoft's crown strategic jewel, the Windows API, is lost. The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers. The goose that lays the golden eggs is not quite dead, but it does have a terminal disease, one that nobody noticed yet.

Now that I've said that, allow me to apologize for the grandiloquence and pomposity of that preceding paragraph. I think I'm starting to sound like those editorial writers in the trade rags who go on and on about Microsoft's strategic asset, the Windows API. It's going to take me a few pages, here, to explain what I'm really talking about and justify my arguments. Please don't jump to any conclusions until I explain what I'm talking about. This will be a long article. I need to explain what the Windows API is; I need to demonstrate why it's the most important strategic asset to Microsoft; I need to explain how it was lost and what the implications of that are in the long term. And because I'm talking about big trends, I need to exaggerate and generalize.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers

Remember the definition of an operating system? It's the thing that manages a computer's resources so that application programs can run. People don't really care much about operating systems; they care about those application programs that the operating system makes possible. Word Processors. Instant Messaging. Email. Accounts Payable. Web sites with pictures of Paris Hilton. By itself, an operating system is not that useful. People buy operating systems because of the useful applications that run on it. And therefore the most useful operating system is the one that has the most useful applications.

The logical conclusion of this is that if you're trying to sell operating systems, the most important thing to do is make software developers want to develop software for your operating system. That's why Steve Ballmer was jumping around the stage shouting "Developers, developers, developers, developers." It's so important for Microsoft that the only reason they don't outright give away development tools for Windows is because they don't want to inadvertently cut off the oxygen to competitive development tools vendors (well, those that are left) because having a variety of development tools available for their platform makes it that much more attractive to developers. But they really want to give away the development tools. Through their Empower ISV program you can get five complete sets of MSDN Universal (otherwise known as "basically every Microsoft product except Flight Simulator") for about $375. Command line compilers for the .NET languages are included with the free .NET runtime... also free. The C++ compiler is now free. Anything to encourage developers to build for the .NET platform, and holding just short of wiping out companies like Borland.

Why Apple and Sun Can't Sell Computers

Well, of course, that's a little bit silly: of course Apple and Sun can sell computers, but not to the two most lucrative markets for computers, namely, the corporate desktop and the home computer. Apple is still down there in the very low single digits of market share and the only people with Suns on their desktops are at Sun. (Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore when I say things like "nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people," and so on and so forth.)

Why? Because Apple and Sun computers don't run Windows programs, or, if they do, it's in some kind of expensive emulation mode that doesn't work so great. Remember, people buy computers for the applications that they run, and there's so much more great desktop software available for Windows than Mac that it's very hard to be a Mac user.

Sidebar What is this "API" thing?

If you're writing a program, say, a word processor, and you want to display a menu, or write a file, you have to ask the operating system to do it for you, using a very specific set of function calls which are different on every operating system. These function calls are called the API: it's the interface that an operating system, like Windows, provides to application developers, like the programmers building word processors and spreadsheets and whatnot. It's a set of thousands and thousands of detailed and fussy functions and subroutines that programmers can use, which cause the operating system to do interesting things like display a menu, read and write files, and more esoteric things like find out how to spell out a given date in Serbian, or extremely complex things like display a web page in a window. If your program uses the API calls for Windows, it's not going to work on Linux, which has different API calls. Sometimes they do approximately the same thing. That's one important reason Windows software doesn't run on Linux. If you wanted to get a Windows program to run under Linux, you'd have to reimplement the entire Windows API, which consists of thousands of complicated functions: this is almost as much work as implementing Windows itself, something which took Microsoft thousands of person-years. And if you make one tiny mistake or leave out one function that an application needs, that application will crash.

And that's why the Windows API is such an important asset to Microsoft.

(I know, I know, at this point the 2.3% of the world that uses Macintoshes are warming up their email programs to send me a scathing letter about how much they love their Macs. Once again, I'm speaking in large trends and generalizing, so don't waste your time. I know you love your Mac. I know it runs everything you need. I love you, you're a Pepper, but you're only 2.3% of the world, so this article isn't about you.)

The Two Forces at Microsoft

There are two opposing forces inside Microsoft, which I will refer to, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as The Raymond Chen Camp and The MSDN Magazine Camp.

Raymond Chen is a developer on the Windows team at Microsoft. He's been there since 1992, and his weblog The Old New Thing is chock-full of detailed technical stories about why certain things are the way they are in Windows, even silly things, which turn out to have very good reasons.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond's weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)


I first heard about this from one of the developers of the hit game SimCity, who told me that there was a critical bug in his application: it used memory right after freeing it, a major no-no that happened to work OK on DOS but would not work under Windows where memory that is freed is likely to be snatched up by another running application right away. The testers on the Windows team were going through various popular applications, testing them to make sure they worked OK, but SimCity kept crashing. They reported this to the Windows developers, who disassembled SimCity, stepped through it in a debugger, found the bug, and added special code that checked if SimCity was running, and if it did, ran the memory allocator in a special mode in which you could still use memory after freeing it.

This was not an unusual case. The Windows testing team is huge and one of their most important responsibilities is guaranteeing that everyone can safely upgrade their operating system, no matter what applications they have installed, and those applications will continue to run, even if those applications do bad things or use undocumented functions or rely on buggy behavior that happens to be buggy in Windows n but is no longer buggy in Windows n+1. In fact if you poke around in the AppCompatibility section of your registry you'll see a whole list of applications that Windows treats specially, emulating various old bugs and quirky behaviors so they'll continue to work. Raymond Chen writes, "I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95."

A lot of developers and engineers don't agree with this way of working. If the application did something bad, or relied on some undocumented behavior, they think, it should just break when the OS gets upgraded. The developers of the Macintosh OS at Apple have always been in this camp. It's why so few applications from the early days of the Macintosh still work. For example, a lot of developers used to try to make their Macintosh applications run faster by copying pointers out of the jump table and calling them directly instead of using the interrupt feature of the processor like they were supposed to. Even though somewhere in Inside Macintosh, Apple's official Bible of Macintosh programming, there was a tech note saying "you can't do this," they did it, and it worked, and their programs ran faster... until the next version of the OS came out and they didn't run at all. If the company that made the application went out of business (and most of them did), well, tough luck, bubby.

To contrast, I've got DOS applications that I wrote in 1983 for the very original IBM PC that still run flawlessly, thanks to the Raymond Chen Camp at Microsoft. I know, it's not just Raymond, of course: it's the whole modus operandi of the core Windows API team. But Raymond has publicized it the most through his excellent website The Old New Thing so I'll name it after him.

That's one camp. The other camp is what I'm going to call the MSDN Magazine camp, which I will name after the developer's magazine full of exciting articles about all the different ways you can shoot yourself in the foot by using esoteric combinations of Microsoft products in your own software. The MSDN Magazine Camp is always trying to convince you to use new and complicated external technology like COM+, MSMQ, MSDE, Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer and its components, MSXML, DirectX (the very latest version, please), Windows Media Player, and Sharepoint... Sharepoint! which nobody has; a veritable panoply of external dependencies each one of which is going to be a huge headache when you ship your application to a paying customer and it doesn't work right. The technical name for this is DLL Hell. It works here: why doesn't it work there?

The Raymond Chen Camp believes in making things easy for developers by making it easy to write once and run anywhere (well, on any Windows box). The MSDN Magazine Camp believes in making things easy for developers by giving them really powerful chunks of code which they can leverage, if they are willing to pay the price of incredibly complicated deployment and installation headaches, not to mention the huge learning curve. The Raymond Chen camp is all about consolidation. Please, don't make things any worse, let's just keep making what we already have still work. The MSDN Magazine Camp needs to keep churning out new gigantic pieces of technology that nobody can keep up with.

Here's why this matters.

Microsoft Lost the Backwards Compatibility Religion

Inside Microsoft, the MSDN Magazine Camp has won the battle.

The first big win was making Visual Basic.NET not backwards-compatible with VB 6.0. This was literally the first time in living memory that when you bought an upgrade to a Microsoft product, your old data (i.e. the code you had written in VB6) could not be imported perfectly and silently. It was the first time a Microsoft upgrade did not respect the work that users did using the previous version of a product.

And the sky didn't seem to fall, not inside Microsoft. VB6 developers were up in arms, but they were disappearing anyway, because most of them were corporate developers who were migrating to web development anyway. The real long term damage was hidden.

With this major victory under their belts, the MSDN Magazine Camp took over. Suddenly it was OK to change things. IIS 6.0 came out with a different threading model that broke some old applications. I was shocked to discover that our customers with Windows Server 2003 were having trouble running FogBugz. Then .NET 1.1 was not perfectly backwards compatible with 1.0. And now that the cat was out of the bag, the OS team got into the spirit and decided that instead of adding features to the Windows API, they were going to completely replace it. Instead of Win32, we are told, we should now start getting ready for WinFX: the next generation Windows API. All different. Based on .NET with managed code. XAML. Avalon. Yes, vastly superior to Win32, I admit it. But not an upgrade: a break with the past.

Outside developers, who were never particularly happy with the complexity of Windows development, have defected from the Microsoft platform en-masse and are now developing for the web. Paul Graham, who created Yahoo! Stores in the early days of the dotcom boom, summarized it eloquently: "There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now, because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for Microsoft."

Microsoft got big enough, with too many developers, and they were too addicted to upgrade revenues, so they suddenly decided that reinventing everything was not too big a project. Heck, we can do it twice. The old Microsoft, the Microsoft of Raymond Chen, might have implemented things like Avalon, the new graphics system, as a series of DLLs that can run on any version of Windows and which could be bundled with applications that need them. There's no technical reason not to do this. But Microsoft needs to give you a reason to buy Longhorn, and what they're trying to pull off is a sea change, similar to the sea change that occurred when Windows replaced DOS. The trouble is that Longhorn is not a very big advance over Windows XP; not nearly as big as Windows was over DOS. It probably won't be compelling enough to get people to buy all new computers and applications like they did for Windows. Well, maybe it will, Microsoft certainly needs it to be, but what I've seen so far is not very convincing. A lot of the bets Microsoft made are the wrong ones. For example, WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973.

Automatic Transmissions Win the Day

Don't get me wrong... I think .NET is a great development environment and Avalon with XAML is a tremendous advance over the old way of writing GUI apps for Windows. The biggest advantage of .NET is the fact that it has automatic memory management.

A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

Sidebar
Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction. 2) Because you don't have to spend any time writing code to free memory or tracking down memory leaks. 3) Because you don't have to carefully coordinate the exit points from your functions to make sure things are cleaned up properly.

Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer productivity.

If you were developing desktop applications in the early years of Windows, Microsoft offered you two ways to do it: writing C code which calls the Windows API directly and managing your own memory, or using Visual Basic and getting your memory managed for you. These are the two development environments I have used the most, personally, over the last 13 years or so, and I know them inside-out, and my experience has been that Visual Basic is significantly more productive. Often I've written the same code, once in C++ calling the Windows API and once in Visual Basic, and C++ always took three or four times as much work. Why? Memory management. The easiest way to see why is to look at the documentation for any Windows API function that needs to return a string. Look closely at how much discussion there is around the concept of who allocates the memory for the string, and how you negotiate how much memory will be needed. Typically, you have to call the function twice—on the first call, you tell it that you've allocated zero bytes, and it fails with a "not enough memory allocated" message and conveniently also tells you how much memory you need to allocate. That's if you're lucky enough not to be calling a function which returns a list of strings or a whole variable-length structure. In any case, simple operations like opening a file, writing a string, and closing it using the raw Windows API can take a page of code. In Visual Basic similar operations can take three lines.

So, you've got these two programming worlds. Everyone has pretty much decided that the world of managed code is far superior to the world of unmanaged code. Visual Basic was (and probably remains) the number one bestselling language product of all time and developers preferred it over C or C++ for Windows development, although the fact that "Basic" was in the name of the product made hardcore programmers shun it even though it was a fairly modern language with a handful of object-oriented features and very little leftover gunk (line numbers and the LET statement having gone the way of the hula hoop). The other problem with VB was that deployment required shipping a VB runtime, which was a big deal for shareware distributed over modems, and, worse, let other programmers see that your application was developed in (the shame!) Visual Basic.

One Runtime To Rule Them All

And along came .NET. This was a grand project, the super-duper unifying project to clean up the whole mess once and for all. It would have memory management, of course. It would still have Visual Basic, but it would gain a new language, one which is in spirit virtually the same as Visual Basic but with the C-like syntax of curly braces and semicolons. And best of all, the new Visual Basic/C hybrid would be called Visual C#, so you would not have to tell anyone you were a "Basic" programmer any more. All those horrid Windows functions with their tails and hooks and backwards-compatibility bugs and impossible-to-figure-out string-returning semantics would be wiped out, replaced by a single clean object oriented interface that only has one kind of string. One runtime to rule them all. It was beautiful. And they pulled it off, technically. .NET is a great programming environment that manages your memory and has a rich, complete, and consistent interface to the operating system and a rich, super complete, and elegant object library for basic operations.

And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.

Oh sure, some of them are.

But the idea of unifying the mess of Visual Basic and Windows API programming by creating a completely new, ground-up programming environment with not one, not two, but three languages (or are there four?) is sort of like the idea of getting two quarreling kids to stop arguing by shouting "shut up!" louder than either of them. It only works on TV. In real life when you shout "shut up!" to two people arguing loudly you just create a louder three-way argument.

(By the way, for those of you who follow the arcane but politically-charged world of blog syndication feed formats, you can see the same thing happening over there. RSS became fragmented with several different versions, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting, and the attempt to clean everything up by creating yet another format called Atom has resulted in several different versions of RSS plus one version of Atom, inaccurate specs and lots of political fighting. When you try to unify two opposing forces by creating a third alternative, you just end up with three opposing forces. You haven't unified anything and you haven't really fixed anything.)

So now instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess, with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to .NET.

No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message ("just use .NET—trust us!"), most of their customers are still using C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web.

Oh, Wait, There's More Coming!

Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.

So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

I feel the exact same way, chromo.

 

[Kvlt Wench]

For fuck's sake, I hate you all.

 

[Necromunchkin]

Damnit, and the doctor's told me masturbation would strike me blind.

 

[unknown]

For fuck's sake, I hate you all.

(insert small unreadable text)
(insert insanely large & bright text)
(quote of the previous post)
(quote of the previous post)

after reading the entire thread I can firmly say this...




I still don't really care for Zakk Wylde

 

[rebirth]

This website is temporarilly offline for maintenance.


We apologise for any inconvenience and normal operation will be resumed very shortly.