[link|http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=207355|[link|http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml|http://www.fortune....artcol.jhtml]&doc_id=207355]

ALSOP ON INFOTECH
XP Means Extra Pain
Microsoft Windows XP promised to usher in an era of computing in which users suffer less. Aspirin, anyone?
FORTUNE
Monday, April 29, 2002
By Stewart Alsop

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

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

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

Here's what's wrong with Windows XP:

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

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

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

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