Microsoft Windows Vista hasn't been quite the glowing success they'd hoped. Despite years of effort, massive pre-rollout testing, and a marketing budget that would make MTV proud, it was met with a negative reaction by even those users who really don't understand what it is. Chris Linfoot's blog about Vista's problems happened to catch me with a similar subject in mind. Between that and a conversation with Volker yesterday, I decided to write about some of the things that IBM had best learn from the fall -- and slow recovery -- of Windows Vista.

Reason 1: Nobody was asking for it.

The first negative to overcome in selling Vista is the success of Windows XP. With XP, Microsoft had finally succeeded in getting the native DOS based environment off the desktop. They'd long since done that with servers, but users really didn't buy into Windows 2000 workstation or NT because their games and other things wouldn't run well. XP has proven stable, and while prone to security problems at first, simply keeping up with patches and adding on some reasonable anti-spyware has proven a fairly reliable way to keep the system clean. Users who do still have security problems are ready to blame themselves for downloading free software, pirated music, and cheezy porn from sites they don't know.

Reason 2: It didn't really add much that anyone wanted.

The Vista operating system added things like security that everyone else wanted you to have, but most people were fine with what they had already. It also added stuff that people didn't want - like more DRM (Digital Rights Management) capabilities that were actually there to PREVENT users from doing things. To a lot of users, moving to Vista was more important for Microsoft than for them.

Reason 3: The new things that it added were poorly integrated with what was there before

For all the talk of major architectural change in the operating system, all most users saw from Vista was a very poor level of integration. They'd get a prompt from the operating system to allow something to happen and they'd be happy about that. The system was helping them be secure. That was great.

They'd click to allow it the process but then a minute later another dialog box from another part of the system asking for the same thing. Then again from somewhere else. They'd finally get through all that security, and they next time they did the same thing they were lead down the same routine again. User's could clearly see that there were different parts of the system that had no idea what other parts of the system were doing. To make matters worse, the old hardware and software that users had been using didn't always work properly. These new features not only were annoying, but they broke stuff that used to work much more cleanly.

Reason 4: To do the same things, users had to buy more expensive stuff

Even though they didn't go pick out Vista because they wanted to do something new, users found that they needed more expensive hardware just to get the same results. That hardly made it seem like a bargain.

Reason 5: For each of reasons 1-4, Apple did a better job -- and sold that message

Even as Microsoft was pushing and pushing for Vista to gain acceptance, Apple turned the PC industry into a fashion show. Microsoft was left trying to sell Toughskins, while Apple was using light, comfortable cotton tailored to the latest styles for just a few bucks more. Apple created products that did cool things -- like Garage Band -- that people wanted. They made people ask for their stuff. They went to the time and effort of integrating their software, hardware, and operating system so fully that its impossible to tell where one stops and another starts. When people plugged Apple stuff into Apple computers and used Apple software, everything was (forgive me)....peachy. Never mind that this was the most proprietary, locked in, DRM laden product series ever created. It was cool and comfortable. Being the media smart, ultra-hip company that Apple is, they lost no time in making this comparison to the public.

So, why do I think IBM had better pay attention to this more closely?

Reason 1: Nobody was asking for it.

By this I mean Eclipse. Many of us agreed to give it a chance, and could see that there would be benefits from it if it worked -- but we weren't banging on the door demanding eclipse framework plug-ins. You won't find that on the top 20 feature request lists in any BP forum going back 15 years. At best, we agreed to give it chance.

Reason 2: It hasn't added much that anyone wanted yet.

So far, what it has added is a lot of potential and a few showcase tools. Personally, I agree that the potential is massive. But that doesn't change the current condition, which is that most of that potential is as yet completely unrealized. To a lot of users, moving to Eclipse was more important for IBM than for them. IBM had better get around to leveraging that power now and blowing our socks off with functionality. They're running out of chances to make that first impression.

Reason 3: The new features and functionality are thus far poorly integrated with what came before.

For all its potential, most users won't be seeing new applications that take real advantage of the Eclipse framework for at least another year. In the meantime, people want to get the work done. So far, the result of integration between Eclipse and Notes can at best be called a pastiche. Users get oddball dialog boxes that warn them of trouble in terms that make no sense, then offer no options to do anything but acknowledge the warning. Menus are duplicated and commonly used commands are hard to find. There are different ways to do the same thing depending on if the thing you're working on is based on a Plug-In, a Component, or classic Notes element. Some keyboard or mouse clicks work differently in these different contexts. On the whole, its a pain the butt to get used to.

Reason 4: To do the same things, users had to buy more expensive stuff

Much more resource intensive, Notes 8 on Eclipse means a massive investment in new or expanded workstations with faster drives, more memory, and higher end processors. This is expensive, and justification will have to come through a real show of value.

Reason 5: For each of reasons 1-4, Apple did a better job -- and sold that message

Ok, that's almost not fair. Apple isn't competing directly with Notes are they? Well, sort of. Apple has changed the game. Users have declared that they're big kids now. Mom (the I.T. department) buying them Toughskins isn't going to be acceptable any more. They want comfortable clothing that looks good too. Apple may not be competing with Notes, but they've changed the stage enough that IBM better be paying more attention.

What do you think?

Am I on target here? Now that Ed Brill is responsible for the core Notes client, will these items get higher priority? I believe they will -- because Ed's been the guy taking the abuse from customers on this very issue for some time. What we as a community need to do is make sure that all of IBM keeps focused on what is important to users, not to IBM developers.

The core values that had better get more focus in a big hurry are:

1. Absolute, complete, and totally seamless integration between Notes and Eclipse. I should never hear about "Eclipse" at all as a user. Its Notes. Using the excuse for some failure point or badly integrated feature that "well, that's how Eclipse does it" isn't acceptable more than a year after the initial release of Notes 8.

2. Renewed focus on the core features of the client. That means forms, views, and the desktop. These cannot continue to be ignored as all the development goes toward fancy new frameworks, plug-ins, components, and Google widgets. There is no excuse for the native rich text editor to be so completely outdated. There is no excuse for the desktop to not have a complete overhaul -- something it hasn't had done successfully since version 3.0.

3. Updated focus on the way users are multi-connected today. Things like "Accounts" functionality that allow users to pull mail from other sources, but not send it out aren't acceptable any more. How many of us have Thunderbird, Outlook Express, or Gmail open frequently so we can access the communications we have that aren't directly tied to our primary business account?

I'm all about cool new XPages, and I can't wait to see what Nathan does next with cool UI integration to Eclipse - but in the mean time, my users want to do their work. They want a comfortable, crisp, and attractive place to do that work. If IBM keeps pushing Toughskins at them, they're going to look elsewhere.