Microsoft has confounded critics by producing an operating system
that lives up to pre-launch promises. But although Windows 2000
seems to have been designed to please, is this part of a Microsoft
plot to lock in users?
Windows 2000 finally shipped 15 months ago and the operating system
has had time to settle in and find its feet. Not only is it reeling
in the dollars for Microsoft, but it is also providing healthy
revenue for thousands of hardware and software vendors. So what was
all the fuss about? Has Windows 2000 delivered on its promises? And
is it really the ideal platform on which to do business?
On 17 February 2000, Bill Gates and Microsoft chief executive Steve
Ballmer breathed a sigh of relief. Windows 2000, the successor to
NT 4.0, finally shipped. This new operating system, touted by
Microsoft as "the next generation of PC computing", had been much
anticipated and long awaited.
Microsoft promised that Windows 2000 would offer "superior levels"
of reliability, manageability, lowered cost of ownership and the
creation of the "ideal platform for doing business over the
Internet". The software giant was positioning the operating system
as a real alternative to Linux, Unix and even mainframe systems.
Expectations were high.
Over a year has passed since the launch and, in spite of the
critics who suggested it would never work - Windows 2000 has made
its mark on the IT landscape. The new operating system has become
the preferred operating system for business users on both desktop
and mobile PCs. And thanks to improvements in clustering and
multi-processor technology, demonstrations by Microsoft of Windows
2000 server scalability suggest it is more than ready for
datacentre
 | | "If Microsoft is unable to secure
its own Web site and code from hackers, there's very little chance
for the rest of us." | | | | | |
| | Simon Moores, Windows NT
Forum | | |
|
|
applications.
Inauspicious beginnings
Windows 2000 had a jittery
start. Before Windows 95 the company began hyping an ambitious
operating system project codenamed Cairo, which later became
Windows NT 5.0. Then in October 1998 Microsoft said that Windows NT
5.0, which was expected to ship in November of that year, was to be
renamed Windows 2000.
Its shipment date would be pushed back until at least the first
quarter of 1999, and it was to be split into four versions. The
workstation
| | "Fortress Microsoft is being
built one block at a time inside corporate accounts. I'm not saying
whether this is good or bad, but it is a very clever
strategy." | | | | | |
|  | Dan Kusnetsky, IDC | | |
|
|
version would be called Windows 2000 Professional; mid-range
versions would be named Server and Advanced Server editions, and a
high-end offering would later follow known as Windows 2000
Datacenter.
Analyst group Gartner began advising users not to install Windows
2000 in a production environment - at least until the first service
pack (ie, bug fix) release of the operating system had been
released. Time passed and delivery of the OS was put back, and back
again, while Microsoft grappled with security issues and technical
glitches. A year and two months later, in December 1999, the
software giant announced that it had completed development work on
the operating system.
While Windows 2000 has a more intuitive interface than its
predecessors, and several 'nice' features such as the ability to
view HTML pages from the file manager, it is behind the scenes
where the main improvements lie. The OS is much more stable and
resilient than previous Windows offering and in this respect lives
up to Microsoft's claims for the software. Putting Windows 2000 on
laptop PCs has seen dramatic improvements in terms of stability and
reliability for mobile PC users.
But it is Active Directory that is generally regarded as the most
significant advancement in Windows 2000. Going head-to-head with
Novell Netware's directory services, Microsoft says it has provided
users with simplicity, flexibility and a reduced cost of ownership
in the print and file server arena. Fine in principle, but getting
Active Directory up and running to a level of usefulness is no mean
feet - even Microsoft admits that.
"It's a non-trivial task [deploying Active Directory] for
organisations, just in terms of collecting the data, but the
organisations who chose Active Directory are seeing real value from
it," says Neil Laver, Windows 2000 product manager at Microsoft. "I
think it's made us much more credible."
Whatever the long term benefits, this still points to a failure on
Microsoft's part to deliver an easy to use, easy to manage OS. This
flaw is compounded by the fact that migrating to Windows 2000 has
proved tricky, even from NT 4.0.
"For the most part what we've heard is that the movement from NT to
Windows 2000 is very painful," explains Dan Kusnetsky,
vice-president of system software research at IDC. "It takes
careful account of Active Directory, applications have to be
re-written or replaced and peripheral support is not good. After
people have gotten through the pain, almost every company who we've
spoken to likes the software."
So what of Microsoft's claim that Windows 2000 would elevate
Windows to a new level, enabling it to compete with Unix and
mainframe systems? The industry was clearly sceptical about this
and Microsoft's record of grand claims did nothing to quell
apprehension. However, a year on and Windows 2000 on the server is
holding its own.
Microsoft partner and OS competitor Compaq believes Windows is now
making a serious play at the higher end of the market. "Windows
2000 is a competitor [to Unix and the mainframe]," says Steve
Watling, professional services Microsoft practice director for
Compaq UK and Ireland. While Watling is obviously keen to promote
the work the company does with the Microsoft platform (it was given
the prestigious title of Microsoft Integrator of the Year, 2000),
Compaq is of course a competitor when it comes to Unix and the
mainframe.
He continues: "But datacentres have a range of needs, and Compaq
also has the NonStop kernel for the Himalaya platform [mainframe
business Compaq acquired through Tandem] which attracts very
high-end activity. I think Unix and NT play much more in the
middle. They're scalable, robust, resilient operating systems for
the main-street corporate applications. Broadly, Windows 2000 is
comparable with Unix."
A slow take-off
When Windows 2000 finally arrived, it
was something of an anti-climax. Microsoft was keen to tout
adoption figures in the operating system's early days, saying
customers had bought a million copies of Professional, Server and
Advanced Server editions within the first month of general release.
But integrators tell a different story.
Adrian Tatum, director of the Microsoft Alliance at Computacenter,
says the OS was slow to take off. "Four months ago I would have
said Windows 2000 was a little slow," he says. "Now it's picked up
more. A number of customers Computacenter has been working with
have just been doing the desktop, client implementations. We've
just really started seeing more interest in things like Active
Directory and looking at the underlying infrastructure
issues."
There was also a reluctance to upgrade because people simply didn't
need Windows 2000. "There was a relatively slow upgrade process,
but it's a 'why fix it if it's not broken' situation," says Simon
Moores, chairman of the Windows NT Forum.
According to Microsoft, adoption rates were in line with what it
expected. "There was a lot of hype surrounding the launch of
Windows 95, but Windows 2000 is a business product and we wouldn't
expect people to be queuing up outside Dixons at midnight to get
hold of a copy," says Laver. "Business users wait a few months,
evaluate it and then implement it. It has performed how we expected
and we're very happy with it."
While Microsoft doesn't disclose exact figures regarding product
adoption rates, IDC believes the OS is doing well in terms of
penetration. On the client side, various guises of Windows
accounted for 92% of the overall shipments last year, according to
IDC figures. In 2000 Microsoft managed to increase its grip on the
server-based operating arena, commanding a 41% share of shipments.
These figures were actually higher than IDC had predicted. "Windows
2000 - the client and server versions - saw more adoption than our
initial and conservative estimates," explains Kusnetsky. "It turns
out people bought in more software than they said they would. We're
seeing most adoption as a client operating system, which seems to
make sense because you can bring it in without the Active Directory
dragon."
Moores also points out that adoption rates were not initially as
high as first predicted, largely due to Microsoft's track record on
new launches. "I think in the early days, people weren't going to
buy into Windows 2000 until there were service packs available.
Businesses were not going to buy .0 versions," he explains.
A lack of general understanding of the product also contributed to
this initial hesitation. "In the post Y2K era, boards are looking
much harder at IT investment. We've been helping customers
understand where the value comes from," explains Computacenter's
Tatum. "It's like the roads in the UK. They have no inherent value,
but if you didn't have them you couldn't drive your car. Windows
2000 is the same."
Windows 2000 is obviously bringing in big bucks for Microsoft. And
because all of its software is sold indirectly, it is also
providing lucrative revenues for thousands of hardware, software
and integration companies. While the general consensus at the
moment is one of healthy sales for Windows 2000, that wasn't always
the case.
"If you look at the Microsoft product portfolio, the big products
are Windows 2000, Exchange and SQL," comments Computacenter's
Tatum. "You only have to look at our annual report. Mike Norris,
our chief executive, said the reason our figures went down was
Windows 2000 not picking up as fast as predicted."
Who is using Windows 2000?
As a general rule, users and
partners are impressed with the operating system. "As much as I'd
like to shoot it down in flames, it's really pretty successful,"
says Moores. However, while Microsoft hails the security
improvements made in the OS, Moores is a little less sure. "If
Microsoft is unable to secure its own Web site and code from
hackers, there's very little chance for the rest of us," he
observes.
The uses of Windows 2000 are many and varied. With millions of
copies installed at organisations across the globe, the OS is
obviously being used as a core enterprise platform. According to
Compaq's Watling, some of the more common uses are CRM, financial
applications, retail purposes and general back-office functions.
Compaq itself rolled out the Professional and Server versions of
the OS in a bid to reduce the number of servers it had, while
Siemens installed it on over 2,000 servers and 227,000 workstations
in a quest to provide easy access to its resources from any
location for all of its staff, vendors, suppliers, distributors and
partners.
Marks & Spencer is using the platform for its New Data Transfer
information infrastructure. BP chose the OS as its common platform,
while the University of Leicester decided to ditch its previous
Novell Netware-based network, which had 18 servers, and replaced it
with seven Compaq servers running Windows 2000 Server.
Mitsubishi Motors UK was going to implement the Professional
edition across the company to provide a single platform. However,
adverse conditions in the European motor trade have forced the
company to put that particular plan on the back burner. Mitsubishi
has nevertheless moved 50% of its servers to Windows 2000 from NT
4.0, in an attempt to simplify and increase the cost effectiveness
of its dealership network.
Dave Berwick, IS operations manager at Mitsubishi, explains the
company is using Windows 2000 as the backbone of its dealership
intranet. The company can now post all updates on the site,
compared to the previous process that involved getting 10 CDs made
for each of the 120 dealerships, at a cost of £20 per CD. Berwick
believes savings have already been made.
Berwick says the roll-out was relatively straightforward and the
company is now looking to extend the OS to the rest of the company.
But it's not all plain sailing. "Being new technology it's bringing
the support staff up to date with it that is causing the main
headache. But because they have NT 4.0 backgrounds, it's not a huge
job for them," he explains.
IDC's Kusnetsky is to the point. "Windows 2000 does what Microsoft
said it would do." According to Microsoft's Laver, there's only
thing he wishes the company could change about the OS in hindsight.
"We'd have got the product out earlier," he states.
A promising future
So could it be that Windows 2000 is
one of the few products that Microsoft has released that users
actually like? Maybe. Users, partners and integrators all seem
quite happy, at least for now.
Kusnetsky thinks the software giant has something else up its
sleeve that could leave all the reams of satisfied customers
feeling quite the opposite. He explains that Microsoft is in the
process of developing "something" centred around .Net, that users
will only be able to utilise if they have several Microsoft
products containing certain application program interfaces (APIs)
and components.
He believes Windows 2000 is the first product to contain one of
these critical components. ".Net is critical to Microsoft's
success," Kusnetsky explains. "The Internet has wrestled control
out of Microsoft's hands and they want it back. They will start
delivering a whole bunch of innocuous things and will then say
people can only use this new offering if they turn on all of these
components.
"Microsoft will then be the dominant force and it will be very
difficult for any other vendor to sell anything because everything
will be linked to these Microsoft APIs, and Windows 2000 is the
first step. Fortress Microsoft is being built one block at a time
inside corporate accounts. I'm not saying whether this is good or
bad, but it is a very clever strategy; I'm very impressed by the
thinking Microsoft has. But if I was a CIO I wouldn't want to work
that closely with any one vendor," he warns.