a call from microsoft 24 november, 1999 by johnmichael patrick monty monteith

Microsoft rang today. Really. No joke this time. Apparently someone there read a previous column of mine about Microsoft copy protection and called to straighten the whole thing out. Wasn't that nice? I spoke with my new buddy from One Microsoft Way for about a half hour about the issue, and I promised I would explain the 'other side' of the story on my site. So here it is. You will have to forgive me if I am a bit biased on the interpretation.

Before I begin, I want to comment on the general tone of the friendly folks at Microsoft. Have you called recently? I have talked to employees there a few times in the past couple weeks, and suddenly their tone and attitude is so friendly it is almost sick. In fact, I think there is some contest going on between the tech support geeks to see who can be the most obnoxiously nice. I suppose most people will find it a pleasant surprise. I, on the other hand, have grown accustom to the normal "What do you want?" response I get from most tech support lines.

In addition to a contest for those being the most friendly, I think there is also a contest for who can most cunningly spout the virtues of Microsoft into regular daily conversation. Since the Justice Department ruling I can barely get through just a friendly conversation with a Microsoft employee over lunch without being overcome by the pro Microsoft chatter. It is downright eerie. If I did not know better, I would think their employees are being drugged and hypnotized. A warning to Microsoft employees everywhere: Do not drink the free soda at lunch!

Anyway, back to the phone call.

I wrote about my experiences with the Microsoft Office 2000 installation program a few weeks back. This program, compared to other installation software, is IRS tax form complicated, I-405 at rush hour slow, and just generally annoying in the need for the CDROM to be placed back in the system constantly to install this or that. I concluded that this must be some new form of copy protection by Microsoft, creating this ridiculous installation program that is difficult to use, and then making the user do more installations later on. My biggest concern about this method was for corporate settings that cannot afford to continuously run around to workstations installing Office updates.

The call I received today was to tell me that there is reason to this madness. And a solution. In fact, it is Microsoft's intention that every software vendor use this new installation wizard that they have created. The thinking behind this preposterous suggestion is that one installation wizard can install anyone's software, and is configurable to the point of ridiculousness. In fact, almost all of my problems with the software could have been "configured out of it."

How? Well, there is available in cyberspace what is called the Microsoft Office Resource Kit (ORK) that can tell you exactly how to do this. (Although you can get the information online, I recommend just purchasing the book from Microsoft Press and saving yourself the headache of sorting through the poorly designed web site.)

The ever-exciting new installation software can be configured / programmed to install any combination of the Office software on the workstation. You could program it to only install one of the pieces of software, or install all the software without Corel Office support, or however you want to do it. You can even tell it somewhere on the network where a shared CD drive might have the Office 2000 CD waiting for any update installations. (I did not have the heart to tell the poor fellow that this could be done without programming the sucker to do so, but that Office 2000 installs far too slowly from network CD drives.)

Let me give you an example of how this new installation program can be so helpful and such an enormous time saver. (Read: Sarcasm, folks.) In former versions of Office there was a directory that held all of the templates, and a user could just go delete the stuff they wanted. A new "feature" in Office 2000 requires that they are 'installed' with the software, and can only be altered by changing the installation. So, if you want to remove some of the templates to make room for your company templates, then you need to re-install Office 2000. However, if you knew about the Office Resource Kit, you could program the software to install only the templates you want, and have this same program install it that same way on all systems. Imagine the time you will save!

This example brings out a couple of points I need to mention before I continue:

1. If Microsoft stuck to the same method of storing templates, I would not need to go to this trouble to begin with.
2. This does not help me now since I have already installed this on the workstations. In fact, most of the workstations came with Office 2000 pre-installed, so this 'time saving method' actually would require I re-install software that comes pre-loaded on brand new computers.
3. How many people out there actually know about this Office Resource Kit and would know to consult it when they run into this problem?
4. How many information technology people have the time to read this book, then program their installation packages to fix problems with a piece of software that never should have shipped in the current form?

That being said, if I had known about the ability to re-program before installation, I would have done it the way he suggested. But, as the Microsoft employee conceded, it is too late for that now since all of the systems have the software installed. In addition, the lovely feature of having a shared CDROM drive with the software would also require re-installation, thereby eliminating the reason I would want to share the CDROM anyway.

No matter how many times he conceded the problems with this new piece of software, this loyal Microsoft employee continued to tell me that it really was Microsoft's intention to reduce support time, not increase it. To his credit, he attempted to address every point I mentioned. Poor chap. The one thing he simply could not convince me of is the fact that I will continue to have far more of my time spent dealing with Office installations problems than I ever have in the past.

The last point I wanted to illuminate was Microsoft's intention that all software manufacturers use this installation software. The benefits, as they were told to me, are as follows:

1. This installation program is highly configurable, and will allow I.T. folks to program exactly how they want installations done on their workstations.
2. By having only one installation program that every software manufacturer uses, it saves on hard drive space.
3. This one installation program idea allows users to learn how to use this single piece of installation software rather than having to re-learn the install process with each piece of software.

My rebuttal:

1. I would much prefer Office installed happily on a network file server, and that all I needed to do was create a shortcut on the desktops to access it. That would save me time. Workstation software installation defeats the purpose of a network.
2. This new installation program is many times larger than other software installation programs, so I hardly see this problem child saving any hard drive space. Not to mention, space on hard drives is the cheapest of I.T. problems.
3. It is easily the most complicated and annoying installation software I have ever used in my life. Sure, I know how to use it well since I have installed it on a few dozen computers. But, I would prefer the Office 97 installation program any day.
4. Microsoft has managed to program the slowest installation software ever. Microsoft Office takes 45 minutes to install on a top of the line Pentium III computer. I could install Windows 98 quicker, and that blob is slower than molasses, too. And I am supposed to be happy with the idea of every company using this software?

I am willing to concede one point to my new Microsoft buddy. I was wrong about the copy protection thing. I do not believe Microsoft created this awful installation software for copy protection. That was merely icing on the cake. Obviously the real reason they developed this software was to try to force all software manufacturers to use their software for installation. Did I hear someone mention the word, "Monopoly"? I did not mention that solely because a game of Monopoly takes less time than an Office 2000 installation.

What is the benefit of writing installation software? What would be the benefit of controlling the way every piece of software is installed on an operating system? Yes. Just about every benefit you can imagine. If, for example, Microsoft did not like Sun this week (or this millennium), they could program a future update of this software to not install Sun products correctly. Or perhaps only install Microsoft products quickly (they are saving this feature for another year, obviously.)

Anyway, you see their intention. My Redmond buddy assures me that Microsoft has only noble intentions behind this plan. Dreams of making information technology professionals happy by giving them more free time through streamlining software installation. Sugar plums dancing in our heads, no doubt. More like elephants. The whole thing is giving me a headache.

Any bets on the next time I receive a phone call from Microsoft?