The Steve and Bill Show

News Commentary. Today, the Abbot and Costello of computing gave their farewell performance.

Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, and CEO, Steve Ballmer, kicked off this year's D Conference in Carlsbad, Calif. This year's event, the sixth, is simply called D6. Bill and Steve reminisced about the past, at a highly appropriate venue, as Microsoft's chairman prepares for his June 30 day-to-day retirement.

I refer to Gates and Ballmer as Abbot and Costello not with sarcasm, nor as insult. Over the years, the two men starred in many self-deprecating video spoofs that made fun of themselves and their company.

The evening opened with an editor's cut of the Bill Gates last day video show at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. (As I post, the two men are still on stage talking.)

I found a few other videos—and far from the best:

• Da Da Da (Quality isn't great)
• The Matrix (Comdex attendee incomplete recording)
• Xbox 360
• Gates vs. Ballmer

This wasn't the first, or even the last, time that Bill sat talking with technology columnist Walt Mossberg and Steve at the D Conference. But last year's Steve was somebody else: Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who isn't attending D6 (presumably because of preparations for his company's developer conference on June 9). Last year's Bill and Steve show brought together mythical opponents, founders of two distinct computing camps—Windows and Mac. This year's Bill and Steve show was more buddy adventure. Perhaps Buzz Lightyear and Woody would be better buddy metaphors.

Bill and Steve were card-playing buddies at Harvard, where Microsoft's co-founder was a notorious poker player. The friendship brought them both to Microsoft, where Steve took over as CEO in 2000. I've heard lots of criticisms about Steve's leadership over the years, mainly because of Microsoft's stock performance. Clearly, he still has his buddy's confidence—and with justification. Windows Vista may have crashed (and probably will burn), but Microsoft has gotten bigger and fatter during Steve's tenure.

Bill is following the tradition of all great monopolists: philanthropy. History will remember Microsoft's co-founder more for what he does as a philanthropist than as a businessman. In some respects, he will remain a monopolist. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's enormous endowment makes the organization into a quasi-charity monopoly. Giving carries great influence, and the Foundation has deep pockets for which to influence the direction of aid or research.

But back to the buddies. They were kind of college roommates, Steve said. "Bill was a pretty shy guy, I would say," Steve explained. But the future Microsoft co-founder had a "certain kind of spark, particularly late in the day."

Later Steve said, "We were close friends, pretty much from the start."

Bill left Harvard to start Microsoft. Steve graduated, worked for Proctor and Gamble and then went on to business school at Stanford. While there, after Microsoft moved to Seattle, Steve got a passive kind of request from Bill, who called and said that it was too bad he didn't have a twin brother. "That was that sales call," Steve exclaimed. Next day, Steve called Bill, "What about me? I don't have a twin brother!"

They described the early days at Microsoft, where part of the emphasis was keeping enough cash on hand that the company would survive even if no customer paid. Microsoft continues the same philosophy.

Walt asked about the perception that Bill is the technology guy and Steve is the salesman.

"I ran the Windows 1.0 development team," Steve responded. "I am not an engineer." Steve made clear that he's no technologist.

D Conference co-organizer Kara Swisher asked Bill if he was a business man, to which he quipped, "Sales minus cost equals profit." Pause and he then joked, "Is there more?"

Walt asked about the transition eight years ago and whether or not Bill had veto power. "I am the junior partner," Bill responded. "I have been for the last eight years."

There was a year transition as roles changed. "It was a little confusing." Bill said about the transition. Steve interrupted, "It was difficult."

Steve still consults Bill on important decisions, but as a "friend" rather than as Microsoft chairman.

The two men have worked together for 28 years.

Are These Windows Transparent or Translucent?

News Analysis. Could Microsoft possibly say less about Vista successor Windows 7?

Steven Sinofsky's motto should be, in the spirit of Memorial Day: "Loose lips sink ships." Office development proceeded with scant disclosure under his tenure. Little has changed since he assumed the role as Microsoft's senior veep for the Windows and Windows Live Engineering group. Open disclosure and dialog punctuated past Windows development—not that the process did much for Vista.

Now Steven is talking Windows 7 to CNET News.com. But he's not saying much. There's even a Microsoft "Communicating Windows 7" blog post, credited to Chris Flores, defending the say-no-more interview.

Microsoft seemingly has plenty of reasons to keep mum about Seven, starting with freezing Vista sales. The company claims 140 million Vista licenses shipped. But that number is deceptive. Based on interviews with analysts and enterprise IT managers, the majority of licenses are on new PCs where Vista is never deployed. Most businesses are stripping off Vista and using downgrade rights to install Windows XP.

By that measure, Vista is a disaster. It's the Titanic hitting the only iceberg within 1,000 kilometers and sinking in five minutes. Windows customers waited three to nearly six years for Vista (depending on when they deployed XP). There should have been a wild rush for Vista. But the Vista, ah, view, was more stinking landfill than garden. People are selling their Vista homes and moving back to the XP neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, I mixed metaphors.

With real world Vista deployments so bad, Microsoft shouldn't want to make adoption matters worse. Big talk about Seven could easily solidify IT organizational determination to skip Vista and wait for Seven. Microsoft knows there really shouldn't be any talk about Vista's successor. Yet Steven gave that interview where he didn't say much.

But he talked lots, which is the point. That he said so little may be more about his personality and the interview style of reporter Ina Fried. CBS just bought CNET. Windows 7 maybe isn't the stuff of "60 Minutes," but surely somebody at the network knows something about interviewing tight-lipped personalities.

Perhaps Steven needed a platform for explaining why there is so little information disclosure about Windows 7—why things have changed.

Chris offered some explanation about why things have changed in his credited blog post:

"Typically when Microsoft ships a new OS (like Windows Vista), we immediately start talking about the next version...What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows. So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we're trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners."

What Chris really means—and what Steven essentially says in his CNET News.com Q&A—Microsoft wants to take greater control regarding the information disclosed about Windows development. Microsoft will say what it wants when ready. Not any sooner. So why are Steven and Chris revealing tidbits today? I see two reasons: Myth busting and getting out some positive information about Windows (e.g., not talking about Vista).

Because Microsoft has been so mum about Windows 7, rumor mongers have set the agenda. Meanwhile, Vista has caught a kind of virtual leprosy; the operating system is shunned, and it's the object of ridicule. Microsoft simply can't let either circumstance continue. So today the company started a coordinated effort to take control of the messaging.

The big myth-busting information is a real shocker: Windows 7 plumbing won't be all that different from Vista. Chris' credited blog post explains:

"The long-term architectural investments we introduced in Windows Vista and then refined for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 will carry forward in Windows 7. Windows Vista established a very solid foundation, particularly on subsystems such as graphics, audio, and storage. Windows Server 2008 was built on that foundation and Windows 7 will be as well. Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7."

Well, son of a bitch. There's no new kernel? Seven builds on Vista's "solid foundation?" Same `ol, same `ol isn't what Microsoft customers and partners need from Seven. They need different—and, please—not a pretty new user interface. The approach is great for backward compatibility, particularly hardware drivers, but not much for advancing Windows where it needs to go.

Something else holding Seven back. From Chris' credited blog: "One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista."

In March, I strongly advocated that Microsoft start afresh with a new kernel and build up a modular operating system that could run on many devices. Clearly, Microsoft is taking no risks, which is the riskiest approach possible. Same kernel, same hardware requirements won't get Windows onto the plethora of devices it needs to be. Vista requirements are too high and best suited for PCs.

Besides myth busting, there is Microsoft's desperate need to get out something positive about Windows. That's not easy with all the negative Web chatter about Vista and the constant nitpicking of Apple "Get a Mac" TV commercials. Silence is golden only when there is no other noise. Given how bad the Vista talk is, perhaps Microsoft executives think that they can get away with talking Seven without causing too much sales harm to the current operating system.

That said, including today's reaffirmation of a ship date—"approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista," according to Chris' credited blog—any information risks freezing sales. I see extremes rather than middle ground. Either Microsoft executives see that even limited information disclosure can do little more harm, or they don't care—meaning they've already given up on Windows Vista.

If the latter explanation, isn't that delusional thinking, assuming Seven plumbing will be no better than Vista's?