J A N U A R Y   2 7,   2 0 0 0

  WINDOWS2000, just beginning to ship, and slated for a high profile launch next month, will fundamentally alter the nature of Windows' competition with Linux, its only real competitor. Up until now, this competition has focused on two separate spheres: servers and desktops. In the server arena, Linux is largely thought to have the upper hand over WindowsNT, with a smaller installed base but much faster growth. On the desktop, though, Linux's success as a server has had as yet little effect, and the ubiquity of Windows remains unchallenged. With the launch of Windows2000, the battle will no longer be fought in two separate arenas, because just as rising chip power destroyed the distinction between PCs and "workstations," growing connectivity is destroying the distinction between the desktop and the server. All operating systems are moving in this direction, but the first one to catch the average customer's eye will rock the market.

The fusion of desktop and server, already underway, is turning the internet inside out. The current network is built on a "content in the center" architecture, where a core of always-on, always-connected servers provides content on demand to a much larger group of PCs which only connect to the net from time to time (mostly to request content, rarely to provide it). With the rise of faster and more stable PCs, however, the ability for a desktop machine to take on the work of a server increases annually. In addition, the newer networking services like cable modems and DSL offer "always on" connectivity -- instead of dialing up, their connection to the internet is (at least theoretically) persistent. Add to these forces an increasing number of PCs in networked offices and dorms, and you have the outlines of a new "content at the edges" architecture. This architecture is exemplified by software like Napster or Hotline, designed for sharing MP3s, images, and other files from one PC to another without the need for a central server. In the Napster model, the content resides on the PCs at the edges of the net, and the center is only used for bit-transport. In this "content at the edges" system, the old separation between desktop and server vanishes, with the PC playing both functions at different times. This is the future, and Microsoft knows it.

In the same way Windows95 had built-in dial-up software, Windows2000 has a built-in Web server. The average user has terrible trouble uploading files, but would like to use the web to share their resumes, recipes, cat pictures, pirated music, amateur porn, and powerpoint presentations, so Microsoft wants to make running a web server with Windows2000 as easy as establishing a dialup connection was with Windows95. In addition to giving Microsoft potentially huge competitive leverage over Linux, this desktop/server combo will also allow them to better compete with the phenomenally successful Apache web server and give them a foothold for making Microsoft Word leverage over HTML as the chosen format for web documents -- as long as both sender and receiver are running Windows2000.

The Linux camp's response to this challenge is unclear. Microsoft has typically employed an "attack from below" strategy, using incremental improvements to an initially inferior product to erode a competitor's advantage. Linux has some defenses against this strategy -- the Open Source methodology gives Linux the edge in incremental improvements, and the fact that Linux is free gives Microsoft no way to win a "price vs. features" comparison -- but the central fact remains that as desktop computers become servers as well, Microsoft's desktop monopoly will give them a huge advantage, if they can provide (or even claim to provide) a simple and painless upgrade. Windows2000 has not been out long, it is not yet being targeted at the home user, and developments on the Linux front are coming thick and fast, but the battle lines are clear: The fusing of the functions of desktop and server represents Microsoft's best (and perhaps last) chance to prevent Linux from toppling its monopoly.


Clay Shirky is a contributing editor at FEED and Professor of Media Studies at Hunter College.

Post your thoughts on today's column in the FEED Daily Loop. For discussion of other recent FEED Dailies, check out last month's Daily Loop.

Can David Foster Wallace ever escape the anxiety of influence? A.O. Scott considers the case in The New York Review of Books: "Like many other Americans who grew up in the wake of the 1960s, he seems haunted by a feeling of belatedness: he came of age in a world in which revolt, to paraphrase the poet Thom Gunn, had once again become a style.

With the break up of Chet and Natalie (the Boston-based supercouple of local news anchor duos) Pop Matters wonders what we really want from our television personalities: "So much for those who maintain television viewers care more about the content of their nightly newscasts more than they do about the personalities delivering the news."