Engineering 7: A view from the bottom
Aka: A developers view of the Windows 7 Engineering process
This post is by Larry Osterman. Larry is one of the most “experienced” developers on the Windows team and has been at Microsoft since the mid 1980’s. There are only three other folks who have worked at Microsoft longer on the entire Windows team! Personally, I remember knowing about Larry when I started at Microsoft back in 1989—I remember he worked on “multimedia” (back when we used to host the Microsoft CD-ROM Conference) and he was one of those people that stood up and received a “5 Year” award from Bill Gates at the first company meeting I went to—that seemed amazing back then! For Windows 7, Larry is a developer on the Devices and Media team which is where we work on audio, video, bluetooth, and all sorts of cool features for connecting up devices to Windows.
Larry wrote this post without any prodding and given his experience on so many Windows releases these thoughts seemed really worthwhile in terms of sharing with folks. This post goes into “how” we work as a team, which for anyone part of a software team might prove pretty interesting. While this is compared and contrasted with Vista, everyone knows that there is no perfect way to do things and this is just a little well-informed perspective.
So thank you Larry! --Steven
Thanks to Steven and Jon for letting me borrow their soapbox :-).
I wanted to discuss my experiences working on building Windows 7 (as opposed to the other technical stuff that you’ve read on this blog so far), and to contrast that with my experiences building Windows Vista. Please note that these are MY experiences. Others will have had different experiences; hopefully they will also share their stories here.
The experience of building Windows 7 is dramatically different from the experience of building Vista. The rough outlines of the product development process haven’t changed, but organizationally, the Windows 7 process is dramatically better.
For Windows Vista, I was a part of the WAVE (Windows Audio Video Excellence) group. The group was led by a general manager who was ultimately responsible for the deliverables. There was a test lead, a development lead and a program management lead who reported to the general manager. The process of building a feature roughly worked like this: the lead program managers decided (based on criteria which aren’t relevant to the post) which features would be built for Windows and which program managers would be responsible for which feature. The development leads decided which developers on the team would be responsible for the feature. The program manager for the feature wrote a functional specification (which described the feature and how it should work) in conjunction with development. Note that the testers weren’t necessarily involved in this part of the process. The developer(s) responsible for the feature wrote the design specification (which described how the feature was going to be implemented). The testers associated with the feature then wrote a test plan which described how to test the feature. The program manager or the developer also wrote the threat model for the feature.
The developer then went off to code the feature, the PM spent their time making sure that the feature was on track, and when the developer was done, the tester started writing test cases.
Once the feature was coded and checked into the source tree, it moved its way up to the “winmain” branch. Aside: The Windows source code has been arranged into “branches” – the root is “winmain”, which is the code base that would ultimately become Windows Vista. Each developer works in what are called “feature branches”, which merge changes into “aggregation branches”, the aggregation branches move into winmain.
After the feature was coded, the testers tested, the developers fixed bugs and the program managers managed the program :-). As the product moved further along, it got harder and harder to get bug fixes checked into winmain (every bug fix carries with it a chance that the fix will introduce a regression, so the risk associated with each bug fix needs to be measured and the tolerance for risk decreases incrementally). The team responsible for managing this process met in the “ship room” where they made decisions every single day about which changes went into the product and which ones were left out. There could be a huge amount of acrimony associated with that – often times there were debates that lasted for hours as the various teams responsible for quality discussed the merits associated with a particular fix.
All-in-all, this wasn’t too different from the way that features have been developed at Microsoft for decades (and is basically consistent with what I was taught back in my software engineering class back in college).
For Windows 7, management decided to alter the engineering structure of the Windows organization, especially in the WEX [Windows Experience] division where I work. Instead of being fairly hierarchical, Steven has 3 direct reports, each representing a particular discipline: Development, Test and Program Management. Under each of the discipline leads, there are 6 development/test/program management managers, one for each of the major groups in WEX. Those 2nd level managers in turn have a half a dozen or so leads, each one with between 5 and 15 direct reports. This reporting structure has been somewhat controversial, but so far IMHO it’s been remarkably successful.
The other major change is the introduction of the concept of a “triad”. A “triad” is a collection of representatives from each of the disciplines – Dev, Test and PM. Essentially all work is now organized by triads. If there’s ever a need for a group to concentrate on a particular area, a triad is spun off to manage that process. That means that all three disciplines provide input into the process. Every level of management is represented by a triad – there’s a triad at the top of each of the major groups in WEX, each of the second level leads forms a triad, etc. So in my group (Devices and Media) there’s a triad at the top (known as DKCW for the initials of the various managers). Within the sound team (where I work), there’s another triad (known as SNN for the initials of the various leads). There are also triads for security, performance, appcompat, etc.
Similar to Windows Vista, the leads of all three disciplines get together and decide a set of features that go in each release. They then created “feature crews” to implement each of the features. Typically a feature crew consists of one or two developers, a program manager and one or two testers.
This is where one of the big differences between Vista and Windows 7 occurs: In Windows 7, the feature crew is responsible for the entire feature. The crew together works on the design, the program manager(s) then writes down the functional specification, the developer(s) write the design specification and the tester(s) write the test specification. The feature crew collaborates together on the threat model and other random documents. Unlike Windows Vista where senior management continually gave “input” to the feature crew, for Windows 7, management has pretty much kept their hands off of the development process. When the feature crew decided that it was ready to start coding (and had signed off on the 3 main documents), the feature crew met with the second level triad (in my case with DKCW) to sanity check the feature – this part of the process is critical because the second level triad gets an opportunity to provide detailed feedback to the feature crew about the viability of their plans.
And then the crew finally gets to start coding. Sort-of. There are still additional reviews that need to be done before the crew can be considered “ready”. For instance, the feature’s threat model needs to be reviewed by one of the members of the security triad. There are other parts of the document that need to be reviewed by other triads as well.
A feature is not permitted to be checked into the winmain branch until it is complete. And I do mean complete: the feature has to be capable of being shipped before it hits winmain – the UI has to be finished, the feature has to be fully functional, etc. In addition, when a feature team takes a dependency on another Windows 7 feature, the feature teams for the two features MUST sign a service level agreement to ensure that each team knows about the inter-dependencies. This SLA is especially critical because it ensures that teams know about their dependants – that way when they change the design or have to cut parts of the feature, the dependent teams aren’t surprised (they may be disappointed but they’re not surprised). It also helps to ensure tighter integration between the components – because one team knows the other team, they can ensure that both teams are more closely in alignment.
Back in the Vista day, it was not uncommon for feature development to be spread over multiple milestones – stuff was checked into the tree that really didn’t work completely. During Win7, the feature crews were forced to produce coherent features that were functionally complete – we were told to operate under the assumption that each milestone was the last milestone in the product and not schedule work to be done later on. That meant that teams had to focus on ensuring that their features could actually be implemented within the milestone as opposed to pushing them out.
For the nuts and bolts, The Windows 7 development process is scheduled over several 3-month long milestones. Each milestone allowed for 6 weeks of development and 6 weeks of integration – essentially time to fine-tune the feature and ensure that most of the interoperability problems were shaken out.
Ok, that’s enough background (it’s bad when over half a post on Windows 7 is actually about Windows Vista, but a baseline needed to be established). As I said at the beginning, this post is intended to describe my experiences as a developer on Windows 7. During Windows 7, I worked on three separate feature crews. The first crew delivered two features, the second crew delivered about 8 different features all relatively minor and the third crew delivered three major features and a couple of minor features. I also worked as the development part of the WEX Devices and Media security team (which is where my series of post on Threat Modeling came from – I wrote them while I was working with the members of D&M on threat modeling). And I worked as the development part of an end-to-end scenario triad that was charged with ensuring that scenarios that the Sound team defined at the start of the Windows 7 planning process were actually delivered in a coherent and discoverable way.
In addition, because the test team was brought into the planning process very early on, the test team provided valuable input and we were able to ensure that we built features that were not only code complete but also test complete by the end of the milestone (something that didn’t always happen in Vista). And it ensured that the features we built were actually testable (it sounds stupid I know, but you’d be surprised at how hard it can be to test some features). As a concrete example, we realized during the planning process that some aspect of one of the features we were working on in M2 couldn’t be completed during the milestone. So before the milestone was completed, we ripped the feature out (to be more accurate, we changed the system so that the new code was no longer being built as a part of the product). During the next milestone, after the test team had finished writing their tests, we re-enabled the feature. But we remained true to the design philosophy – at the end of the milestone everything that was checked into the “main” branch was complete – it was code AND test complete, so that even if we had to ship Windows 7 without M3 there was no test work that was not complete. This is a massive change from Vista – in Vista, since the code was complete we’d have simply checked in the code and let the test team deal with the fallout. By integrating the test teams into the planning process at the beginning we were able to ensure that we never put the test organization into that bind. This in turn helped to ensure that the development process never spiraled out of control. Please note that features can and do stretch across multiple milestones. In fact one of the features on the Sound team is scheduled to be delivered across three milestones – the feature crews involved in that feature carefully scheduled the work to ensure that they would have something worth delivering whenever Windows 7 development was complete.
Each of the feature crews I’ve worked on so far has had dramatically different focuses – some of the features I worked on were focused on core audio infrastructure, some were focused almost entirely on UX (user experience) changes, and some features involved much higher level components. Because each of the milestones was separate, I was able to work on a series of dramatically different pieces of the system, something I’ve really never had a chance to do before.
In Windows 7, senior management has been extremely supportive of the various development teams that have had to make the hard decisions to scale back features that were not going to be able to make the quality bar associated with a Windows release – and there absolutely are major features that have gone all the way through planning only to discover that there was too much work associated with the feature to complete it in the time available. In Vista it would have been much harder to convince senior management to abandon features. In Win7 senior management has stood behind the feature teams when they’ve had to make the tough decisions. One of the messages that management has consistently driven home to the teams is “cutting is shipping”, and they’re right. If a feature isn’t coming together, it’s usually far better to decide NOT to deliver a particular feature then to have that feature jeopardize the ability to ship the whole system. In a typical Windows release there are thousands of features and it would be a real shame if one or two of those features ended up delaying the entire system because they really weren’t ready.
The process of building 7 has also been dramatically more transparent – even sitting at the bottom of the stack, I feel that I’ve got a good idea about how decisions are being made. And that increased transparency in turn means that as an individual contributor I’m able to make better decisions about scheduling. This transparency is actually a direct fallout of management’s decision to let the various feature teams make their own decisions – by letting the feature teams deeper inside the planning process, the teams naturally make better decisions.
Of course that transparency works both ways. Not only were teams allowed to see more about what was happening in the planning process, but because management introduced standardized reporting mechanisms across the product, the leads at every level of the hierarchy were able to track progress against plan at a level that we’ve never had before. From an individual developer’s standpoint, the overhead wasn’t too onerous – basically once a week, you were asked to update your progress against plan on each of your work items. That status was then rolled up into a series of spreadsheets and web pages that allowed each manager to track all the teams’ progress against plan. This allowed management to easily and quickly identify which teams were having issues and take appropriate action to ensure that the schedules were met (either by simplifying designs, assigning more developers, or whatever).
In general, it’s been a total blast building 7. We’ve built some truly awesome features into the operating system and we’ve managed to keep the system remarkably stable during that entire process.
--Larry Osterman
Comments
Anonymous
October 15, 2008
Yes guys, make Windows 7 the best OS out there. Let it be a Mac OS X killer!! :)Anonymous
October 15, 2008
I have heard that Windows 7 will only be available to some beta testers. Why? It should be open to all the users who would want to test it. That would help Microsoft to fix more bugs and security holes and result in an initial release of a more stable operating system. As usual the initial release will be full of annoying bugs and many won't just upgrade to Windows 7 until it's SP1 is released. SO THE BETA VERSION OF WINDOWS 7 SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL THE USERS!!Anonymous
October 15, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 15, 2008
Thanks Larry - a great post and pick-me-up for a Windows user. As born-again XP user, I was really depressed, thinking that my experience with Vista signalled the beginning of the end of my use of Windows, that XP was the best I'd ever see from MS. You've helped me understand some of the reasons why Vista was so poor out of the gate. From what you write it seems MS will ship Win 7 thoroughly tested and more robust than Vista. My only plea AS AN XP USER now to MS management and programmers and all is that you make the move from XP to Windows 7 as pain-free as possible, or even (dare I say) a joy! Thanks again TimAnonymous
October 15, 2008
Good to know the process if more transparent internally. Even though the difficulty to finish WPF early is a big problem, the development process is also needed to be changed. I wonder how Win7 will be like. Could it be filled with tons of WPF based goody apps?Anonymous
October 15, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 15, 2008
Nice post Mr. Larry Many many Thank's!!Anonymous
October 15, 2008
Thanks for the very interesting read. You wrote that input for feature no longer comes from senior management but from the feature crews themselves (=developers, testers). Isn't there a danger that devs will focus on new features and bugfixes and don't invest time on "boring" things like consistency and fit & finish? http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/09/18/The-Fit-2600-Finish-Balancing-Act.aspx But considering all things I have to say: Wow! You changed the whole process completly since the first years of Longhorn. Pretty impressive stuff! I wished I could work on Windows 7 too.Anonymous
October 15, 2008
Very interesting post indeed... But reading and realizing it makes my hair rise. I dunno, you refer to developers like they are robots or monkeys. Maybe i feel that because you don't describe any particular change specifically, or this "6 weeks of development and 6 weeks of integration" really frightens me out. Who's the creator there? Where is the generator of the ideas? How deep feature can be cut if there's time out? Where's the GUIDELINES?! What, you don't have time and leave only a dummy UI window in some temporary library just because you can't fulfill specifications and test everything? That smells like Vista, full of unfinished taste. You have to fall back to previous milestone and 'polish' it for 6 weeks? Or team is broken apart? That bad taste is especially because you don't talk specific... sorry.Anonymous
October 15, 2008
That was very interesting... great to hear in more detail the development process... You said it's been a blast building Windows 7 and I imagine it would be, especially compared to the complications around Longhorn/Vista whatever... However surely it's also been a little stressful as well? Considering the fuss over Vista (justified initially, totally unjustified now) there must be a fair amount of pressure to improve Windows image and remove the stigma Apple has given Windows etc?Anonymous
October 16, 2008
As I said earlier. If Windows 7 is gonna be at least as half as good as this Engineering blog, it will be the best OS ever! Keep it up, guys!Anonymous
October 16, 2008
"ASUS readying touchscreen Eee PC and laptops for 2009 Windows 7 launch?" http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/16/asus-readying-touchscreen-eee-pc-and-laptop-for-2009-windows-7-l/ Does this mean that Win7 will have much lower system requirements than Vista? What can you tell us about system requirements?Anonymous
October 16, 2008
I'm a user not a programmer, as such I have no right to criticize the process. Having read you post I'm pleased that a shift I'm the management process puts the emphasis on good code. We can all dream up the killer feature but if you can get it to work then what is the point. If management were to focus on the unattainable feature at the expense of good code. All it achieves is delays and poor customer experience. From a users point of view Windows, historically always been buggie. With most geek guru's saying wait for SP1 whenever talking about new versions of Windows. If this new way of working reduces that then great. If it keeps the people working on the project happy then that's also good. We hear some odd things from Redmond about what it is like to work for MS. Having happy workers also means better code...Anonymous
October 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 16, 2008
Can't wait for the new Win7 release for public :P Wiser behaviors of the new core , lowered down size of the OS , new program rules for program architectures , better support for old and new drivers, and speed like WinXP when it's at least running on lowered down settings is one of many dreams :( Here are some sugegstions and problems -->> Make that programs work and give out popups and settings what actually can't be used by quest or non administrative accounts! During installation system files should not fragment pagefile and MFT palcements on disk and should be optimized on disk from the very first start for optimal experience! ( Perfectdisk 2008 website says it uses the info what Microsoft gaved for optimal speed with MFT and Pagefile with correct disk placement ). System restore points should be excluded from defragmenter programs and be placed on the most inner disk part so it would not make confusions or unnecessary movements during defragment. These are just problems and I don't know what things are possible do make or change :(Anonymous
October 16, 2008
Just as Messenger, and soon Movie Maker got cut, we will see more and more cuts, but the features will still be out there. Way to go. The biggest feature of Windows 7 will have to be the code shrinkage. Even if the requirements are the same, and tons of new features added, I expect the code won't grow much if at all, if not shrink a little. While that isn't the holy grail, it will still be very interesting. Also, I have to say that Seven is also a great name, and if I don't see a Bond (i.e. 007) joke before this thing hits SP1, I will have to give up on Microsoft's sense of humor or marketing.Anonymous
October 16, 2008
@lyesmith Yes I love It UMPC MT+ Windows 7 = Surface consumer :D but see this http://www.tendancehightech.com/blog/en/index.php?2007/01/31/54-canova-dual-screen-laptop Go Micosoft GO!!!Anonymous
October 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 16, 2008
Hey I thought you'd talk in general about audio instead of this, although this was an interesting read. (Milestones 2 and 3 did ship with under-the-hood features!!!, only thing ppl could do is post UI screenshots). Coming back to audio, I just hope your teams build something new for MIDI and USB interfaces and audio pros in Windows 7. (The pro audio area has been somewhat neglected by Microsoft and although Vista introduced WaveRT, it only supports PCI devices). And something new with HTPC and gaming audio as well. (Make XAudio 2 part of the OS).Anonymous
October 16, 2008
Great to see engineers participating in this blog(go Larry, go!!) It's just awesome that senior Windows executives are so engaged here (and Sinofsky's writings are excellently written, informative and unusually candid.) More devs on Engineering Windows please! Cheers, Charles http://channel9.msdn.comAnonymous
October 16, 2008
Thankyou for some insight into the process of developing Win7. The current development process is very similar to the one that I am familiar with in my limited experiences as a developer. I must say that I have found that environment much less stressful and more productive then some of the other models. What happens though with features that are not ready by the launch? Do they just disappear? Are they released later as an update or as part of a service pack?Anonymous
October 16, 2008
This is excellent stuff, and I'll bet Windows 7 is a great OS, just like Vista before it. Thanks for keeping us informed, these posts have really got me excited for what you'll be posting in the future on specific technologies. MS is truly responsible for the dream of 'a PC in every house' coming true, I hope when Windows 7 is done and the press is falling over themselves to praise it, you guys take a nice, well deserved vacation. :)Anonymous
October 16, 2008
Another great post, thanks! It sounds like the building of Windows 7 is much more dynamic than previously, and that sounds like a good thing. I'm really pleased to hear that it could essentially be shipped today and all features would be complete and tested, even if the OS was not as complete as everyone might want. I love Vista, but there's an excitement around 7 that I just can't escape...Anonymous
October 16, 2008
See a lot of talk about features which is nice but what about core OS? are we getting vista with different and more features? Hopefully this time they are actually useful!Anonymous
October 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 16, 2008
back in the old Win 3.0 days Windows was innovative, with a capital 'i'. It made computers easier to use and more powerful simply by being there. Then 3.1, WfWg, Win '95, Win '98, and Win 2000 all showed vast measurable improvements over their predecessor. People WANTED to upgrade, because it meant "more". XP was only slightly disappointing, but still had enough eye candy, hardware support, and '9x compatibility to get a general thumbs up. But then... along came ".Net". What was already working well just HAD to be re-invented, and in a bass-ackwards way that made everything that ran with it INEFFICIENT out of the gate (by comparison to what it would have been like). Never mind that senior developers such as myself were NOW faced with the prospect of having to 'learn it all again' (so that we could become JUNIOR developers again, thanks a lot). It was, in my view, the beginning of a disaster waiting to happen. Products generally go through a life cycle. In the beginning there is REVOLUTIONARY change, where early adopters get on board but that's about it. Then there's INNOVATION, which puts the product into the hands of the power users and early adopters. Then there's the "mass market" which puts the technology into everyone's hands. But without another development cycle of revolutionary change and TRUE innovation, you get DECLINE. This is what Vista is doing. Lessons to be learned: 1. TRUE INNOVATION. Why can't I speak to my computer like they do on Star Trek? Why must I mousie-clickie everything at a rate that is sometimes 10 times slower than it would be by just typing it (like MS-DOS)? 2. FASTER and BETTER (not SLOWER and MORE CUMBERSOME) 3. Eye candy is for SALES/MARKETING execs (regular folk just think it's gaudy and unnecessary). Eye candy doesn't sell OSs and Software. 4. What about the "Killer App" concept? Us developers were SUPPOSED to be the reason Windows was successful! Back to the '.Net' gripe on THIS one... 5. Computer users aren't idiots. They don't need condescending menus and terms. 'Nuff said.Anonymous
October 16, 2008
Bob, well said. I think we need to stop innovating and just focus on what we know best.Anonymous
October 16, 2008
"BigBadBombasticBob: 1. TRUE INNOVATION. Why can't I speak to my computer like they do on Star Trek? Why must I mousie-clickie everything at a rate that is sometimes 10 times slower than it would be by just typing it (like MS-DOS)?" You can control Vista using by using your voiceAnonymous
October 16, 2008
You have broken DX7 badly in Vista. Compare the start transition with WinXP. I can work with you to fix it. Do not say port to DX9, there's good reasons for 7. LINK: shapeofidentity.com Mail me for details. Thank you.Anonymous
October 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 16, 2008
I'm not sure but how do the User Interface- and User Interaction Designers fit into this triad grouping?Anonymous
October 16, 2008
Windows 7 is a make or break OS for Microsoft. If Microsoft does not deliver big time, then it is the end of Microsoft. This is the last opportunity for Microsoft to prove to the world that it is not a has-been company. If Microsoft does not deliver big with Windows 7, then I will shift to Mac OS.Anonymous
October 17, 2008
Steven, All great stuff! I'd really like to see you guys post a little more info on the tools you use internally to manage all of this as well. I know historically Microsoft has been a big 'eat our own dog food' kind of company, so are you managing all of this with Sharepoint? Project Server? Analytics? What? There are more tools in a PM's toolbox than just one, and I'm curious as to how you've used technology to help those groups interact with one another and keep track of all those interface dependencies. Thanks and keep going!Anonymous
October 17, 2008
Thanks for this very informative "how the guts of MS Development has worked and is working now" post! I'm glad the re-organization is working out well, and that this guarantees a LEAN MEAN OS this time around, right!? I have three questions I hope you can answer:
- I've heard that parts(all?) of the GDI interface wasn't hardware excellerated in Vista, will GDI(gdiplus?) be hardware excellerated in Windows 7?, Or is the WPF going to be the new standard.
- Will there ever be a DirectX10 for Windows XP?
- Except for the Direct3D interface, are all the other DirectX interfaces completely dead now? I keep reading that they are depricated, but are they truly dead, never to be updated again? I personally hope not!
Anonymous
October 17, 2008
@Steven, Friday, 17 October 2008 Steve Ballmer promises Windows 7 will be better than Vista: "Windows Vista is good, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with clean-up in user interface [and] improvements in performance," Windows Vista according to some estimations has got 3 x more entries in Registry. What like what, but it can make even the most powerful PC slow. Add DRM, Indexer, UAC and you have "wow" effect. I really hope, that Microsoft will think about it and I really hope, that recession will make, that people will think about wasting hardware resources by wrong architecture.Anonymous
October 17, 2008
3 x more entries in Registry than XP...Anonymous
October 17, 2008
Very nice reading, actually every blog was pleasent to read, good work there. I know that there people are working who u will never hear here, but for u, keep up that good work! Although, would be nice if there's is a credit page in W7 :) Making a OS that's more costly than a average Hollywood movie and no credits shown? U should be more proud of our delivered work!Anonymous
October 17, 2008
"Windows 7 is Windows Vista ..." This is very disappointing news. I was hoping for fundamental changes in kernel, registry, system requirements, file system etc. Windows 7 will be the same old stuff with more lipstick. :(. As for home use this will put Windows from 80% below 50% in 5 years.Anonymous
October 17, 2008
"Windows 7 is Windows Vista ..." Agree, it did sound like an change of lipstick. Sry guys, but that's how is Mr. Balmer made it sounds like. When reading here the effort u guys are making and the comment of Balmer, sound like a counterproductive commentary of Balmer to me. There reason choosing the name W7 is of course very bolt to me. No more fancy name's like XP, Vista, Longhorn. But again a plain number 7. To me it sounds like a distance of the existing product name want to be made, because this is such more then another lipstick..... i hope.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 18, 2008
Well, I guess Ballmer has let the cat out of the bag officially now. "Windows 7 is Windows Vista" and the rest of his comments, shows that he doesn't understand how his company works and what its core processes are. He's a sales and marketing guy - he just wants to sell code and get $$$. He doesn't understand the development process, which is THE key business process at MS; he also doesn't understand why his customers do or don't use his product, which therefore means he's simply a sales guy. I think it would be very instructive for MS to review how Apple make their products: you can tell, they've thought everything through from an integration perspective, and what you have in your hands when its done shows that - its simple, it all fits together. I think its incredible (as an engineer) that the old MS way was to develop code and then toss it over the wall to the testers. However, the current model also has its issues, and primarily its about having everyone on a single team and getting into 'group-think'. I'm going to hazard a guess that a developer likes the current structure because he is, in fact, the center of attention. The testers are now part of 'his team', and they're probably going to knuckle under when he tells them what to worry about or not worry about. Testers need to be the voice of the customer. There are still numerous issues about how they decide what features should be in the product or not, and then how the overall design comes together as a coherent whole. You knew Vista was in real trouble when they starting dropping stuff that should have been foundational like WinFS. At that point, it just becomes a scramble to get something together so you've got something to ship and get revenue against all the hours you spent on it. As they talk about features here, they are very small elements within a wider framework: if the framework is badly conceived much time can be wasted polishing the little elements that then aren't going to get used. There's clearly a hierarchy here of how less important stuff is layered on top of more important stuff, without which the less important stuff (which may be in front of an actual user) won't be delivered. At least there's mention of a 'service agreement' between teams and a clear definition of the interface, beneath which the actual implementation should be allowed to change. This is a core engineering element of 'modularity'. I'm suspecting there's still a lot of legacy stuff in Windows which will carry over and which doesn't follow modular rules, and so that runs the risk of creating massive inter-dependencies at a lower level that can unravel the entire edifice. Until that's addressed, the developers can't make the assumption that what they've done won't be broken by some other change. Its clear MS have issues deciding whether to implement a fix because it requires a need for regression testing, which shows the level of inter-dependence in the code. A simple bug fix shouldn't need this; there's actually clearly a change in behavior/specification so the problem is more profound. It's not the fact that the code doesn't work as designed, its that the design wasn't complete or there's side-effects of the implementation that weren't appreciated. Vista had huge issues with 3rd party graphics drivers at launch because they kept changing the underlying driver model on their partners - there's nothing in this blog entry that suggests that still isn't the case. Given the fact that MS has stated "Windows 7 is Windows Vista" there are fundamental building blocks that are still exposed, the whole thing is built on a shaky foundation. Add to this that entire features are being 'retired' (no more Windows Mail, you've got to go to the 'cloud' of Windows Live to get this functionality - a dreadful decision because people want to work disconnected, like on a plane) or not touched at all from version to version (Notepad, Paint, Movie Maker) shows a rampant disregard for a good design/feature selection process for a coherent product. We get a bunch of stuff that's half-baked and then left to wither, but meanwhile, its a drag on everything else. MS has virtually unlimited resources and unlimited cash, so its a management issue of how to harness all that to deliver significantly new products on a regular basis. With Windows, you're kind of getting the impression MS thinks its largely good as-is and just needs a bit of spit and polish. Ballmer then says the goal post-7 is to get closer to future processor capabilities from AMD and Intel; meanwhile, the existing product still isn't using the capabilities in current generation hardware. Its only just getting around to 64-bit versions regularly shipping on hardware thats been 64-bit capable for about 4 years, and there's still no sign of a 64-bit Office suite. Too slow, too ponderous. And the reason its too slow is because the development process fundamentally doesn't support being fast and innovative, and neither do their sales and marketing practices. Ballmer again: buy and implement Windows Vista today even though 7 is only 12 months away... and thats still 2.5 yrs between releases and they wasted much effort in fixing a botched release. And everyone is conditioned to wait for SP1 (another year) before things are really working as expected.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 18, 2008
in previous post I wanted to say of course: But, when I will read about thousands of new API only, it will be important sign for me, that I should start thinking more about other platforms than WIndows for ALL my tasks.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
@marcinw I see more and more and more person declare Windows Server 2008 an operating system phenomenal! Windows Server 2008 is Vista Sp1 +different Service STOP. Now think about this system already perfectly stable , 2500 engineers continue to work for 3 years direction By Steven Sinofsky! You just have faith and do not add anything in speeches futileAnonymous
October 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 18, 2008
Hello, I would like to ask for some things about Win 7: 1.Would it be possible to have "XP-style" dialogs/controls?I mean to be able to bypass "connection center" for example.When in XP I double click network connection(concret device) I'll get status of it and from there I get properties.In Vista there is another layer/window to get past.Can we get back old way? 2.Ability to completely disable any DRM services?(Maybe you got rid of them,but still...) And Patchguard and such if Admin wants(It might not be good thing,but there are still things where this can be neccessary and using 3rd party tools to disable is not good.) 3.Get back ability to chose what parts to install as in 9x or at least get back size on HDD as in XP.(Vista is too space hungry from what I have seen) 4.better built in tools.As Windows were more and more advanced some tools were loosing configure-ability.See defrag.In 9x it had some options,in XP almost none. 5.Optimization.Since Win 7 will for sure require advance CPU,why not to use some extended instruction sets properly.(Like in FFmpeg) 6.Will it be possible to use unsigned drivers with no limitation in x64 version? 7.Since HD is coming surely will there be no limits in usage of HD movies be it on Blu-ray or aired on DTV? That so far is all.Thank you for answers. Daniel Klima P.S.:I have only Win Vista on one notebook as part of offer and based on that experience when setting up it for company network that Vista is not good replacement for XP.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
Nice post about working as a developer on Win7 and how MS work inside... But i have some questions about Seven:
- I read about change the Registry to a SQL database...is there something in the air?
- Direct3D 11/GPGPU and .NET: will be there an easy way to work with GPGPU from the .NET Freamwork
- Also about the .NET Freamwork...when i work with Aero in my Apps i need to use "dll"s from Windows self...will you put an easyer way to work with Aero in the next .NET Freamwork?
- Steve Ballmer talks about Seven and by the question about the support of multicore CPUs he say that MS think about...its a little bit hard to hear that becose multicore CPUs are great this time and Vista can not support to mutch Cores(on my 4 Core System its great but i dont now about 8 Core Nehalem and Phenom(45nm) Systems)...
Anonymous
October 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 18, 2008
Howdy, A number of folks have specifically asked about the DirectX APIs. We have 3 sessions at the PDC on DirectX and of course more at the WinHEC conference. All the sessions will be available via the PDC site as per the information on the site. --StevenAnonymous
October 18, 2008
"As the product moved further along, it got harder and harder to get bug fixes checked into winmain (every bug fix carries with it a chance that the fix will introduce a regression, so the risk associated with each bug fix needs to be measured and the tolerance for risk decreases incrementally)." I sense contradiction. As the product moved further along, known regressions were perpetuated rather than take the risk of an unknown degree of fixing, and the tolerance for bugs increased to 100%. "the feature has to be capable of being shipped before it hits winmain" Where capable of being shipped includes having known bugs. How does this differ from any other policy? "stuff was checked into the tree that really didn’t work completely" No ship-it. I assure you, customers are already reminded of this fact, every day. Asesh: "I have heard that Windows 7 will only be available to some beta testers. Why? It should be open to all the users who would want to test it. That would help Microsoft to fix more bugs and security holes and result in an initial release of a more stable operating system." No it would not. Here's why: "As the product moved further along, it got harder and harder to get bug fixes checked into winmain..." Allowing more beta testers would increase the number of status changes from "unknown bug" to "known bug", from "not discovered" to "won't fix", from "not yet reproduced" to "reproducible only outside of Microsoft". It would not increase the number of fixes, or stability, or anything like that.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
@ndiamond -- @Asesh had a good question worthy of a good answer. Early in the product stages if you have too many testers you end up finding the same issues over and over again, and you can't "break through" and see the functionality of the product. The classic for Windows would be setup and device installation. Even with user interface changes, if the features aren't in a stable and known state, then everyone just hits the same issues. Thus you don't broaden the test coverage and improve the product quality. Rather you frustrate everyone and create a large volume of bug activity without really any progress. We announced a pre-beta for attendees to the PDC. The beta will be available broadly as we have promised. I think your analysis mixes regressions with new bugs. As a product moves further along we do reduce the number of code changes--that's just good software engineering. If something is a regression relative to existing and known functionality / behavior then we address it. However, if new functionality has "bugs" (a bug is defined as "any time anyone experiences anything they did not expect") then you always weigh the risk of new bugs (or new regressions) with the benefit of the code change. There's nothing out of the ordinary about how we approach this. --StevenAnonymous
October 18, 2008
As pointed out by GRiNSER, I would like to know why User Experience and Design people are not part of the triads. I think UX should be integrated in every feature and not just UX intensive features.Anonymous
October 18, 2008
I am not a programmer, (just Delphi code copier) but just wondering if young people would like to know what coding language you use for Windows? I'm supposing mostly C++, but you have so many available. Your C# is a 'knock-off' of Delphi, right? You'd be more modular with self contained Delphi wouldn't you? Bigger exe but you could use a 'packer' (to reduce code 50%) and this would provide more security? I have never used an Apple, but I understand from what I read that you just drag a package to install - then drag it to the bin to uninstall. This is very Delphi like. (Delphi appears to be dying?) Do you use the same throughout, or mix and match languages? Interesting that the team is now responsible for the final GUI as well, this leads to the build looking like the final. Normally I would think you would try and hide the final 'look & feel' behind the previous O/S GUI. It's good to know what it looks like a bit, stops critics saying it's just the same as the old one, and doesn't lead to over expectations. But it still leaves room for a few little 'surprises' to be included in the RTM. As each team is now implementing the UI for their project, you must get a 'blueprint' of the 'look & feel' down to forms, dialogs and glyphs? (No, I've got a big round purple button - Yeah, well I've got a small square yellow one!) It's good to know where you are all going and not living in isolation - next you'll be having a one-a-month Friday afternoon BBQ together (rain permitting :-) - no sanity please!Anonymous
October 20, 2008
@steven_sinofsky Thanks for reading trough all those comments. Regarding small beta: Betas for enthusiasts would be a good idea however. First and foremost because you'd make them happy - and some of them are influential. I'm a strong supporter of Vista primarily because I went trough all the betas. And reported non-duplicate bugs. I wasn't using legal ways to obtain ISO images, however. And that's frustrating as well... If you don't want too many bugreports on the same subject just introduce some form of punishment for duplicates. Like: Every tester can report 2 bugs. For every ACKd non-duplicate bug, a user may report another bug.Anonymous
October 20, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
October 22, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 03, 2008
Only just catching up on this blog after a couple of weeks being unable to read it, but I just wanted to say that this post is single-handedly the most reassuring post of the entire lot. I like the sound of your management's new perspective. The fact that you ('you' in the plural sense) are not letting rushed, unfinished features into the OS just to boost the list of things Win7 can do is great. I'd much rather know that any feature that wants to get into the OS needs to be of sufficient quality first than know that there were a few more features overall. I can also see the idea of triads being very helpful. If we had that kind of co-operation between the different teams at my workplace, I can already think of a handful of projects that would have run into far fewer problems. Thanks Larry, for making me aware of why I should have more faith in Windows 7.Anonymous
November 05, 2008
You shouldn't be so negative :)Anonymous
August 15, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 13, 2010
The comment has been removedAnonymous
May 16, 2010
I couldn't agree less, Brett. I'm using Vista, have 7 at work and i'm satisfied with Vista and 7. I think this 'karma' of Vista being so bad, took over the web and now everybody's talking about it.