Follow Bryant on Twitter! 
The release of Beta 1: a missed opportunity
Microsoft tossed Windows 7 Beta 1 live for public consumption yesterday. Unfortunately, inadequate planning led to servers which they were using for the release (likely hosted by Akamai, though it would look even worse if Microsoft hosted the bits directly) to collapse under pressure at least twice. This is an IT headache which, sadly, came at a terrible time for those involved (Lisa, don’t lay them off just over one mistake!)
However, this situation could have been handled in two far better ways. The first possibility would have been the bit torrent protocol. Given the ubiquity of torrent clients, this would have been a great way to get the bits into peoples’ hands fast. However, given that bit torrent is, unfortunately, automatically associated with piracy, Microsoft may have felt that using it would have legitimized the protocol’s existence, thus causing “problems” down the road for their anti-piracy teams.
Thus, bit torrent usage for distribution of Windows 7 Beta 1 would have been a Very Bad Thing™. However, this doesn’t mean Microsoft didn’t have another far more tantalizing tool up their sleeves. Keep in mind that Microsoft needed a
- cost effective
- internet scalable
- very fast file distribution solution
for distributing Beta 1.
Enter Avalanche. Let’s do a quick take on the first paragraph of Avalanche’s description, shall we?
The code-named research project “Avalanche” studies how to enable a cost effective, internet scalable and very fast file distribution solution (e.g. for TV on-demand, patches, software distribution). Such an approach leverages desktop PCs to aid in the distribution process, relieving congested servers and network links from most of the traffic.
Right. Obviously, Akamai, identified in part thanks to the wonders of 20/20 hindsight, hasn’t served its role as a “cost effective, internet scalable, very fast file distribution solution.” Avalanche, on the other hand (assuming proper implementation), would have worked perfectly given that Microsoft would have had a few “peers” online to kickstart the distribution (a fraction of the Akamai capacity it asked for). This was one of those times where Microsoft had a shot at implementing something absolutely wonderful but skipped on doing so for… well, nothing’s sake really.
Implementing Avalanche would have posed a solid number of benefits for Microsoft:
- A new protocol and application would have seen mass deployment across a solid number of computers.
- Microsoft would have reinforced their desired image as an “innovator” (using bit torrent has its benefits, but it’s hardly considered secure. The largest benefit to Avalanche is that peers have “zero-information of who has what,” which is certainly an innovation in its own right given the lack of privacy with the bit torrent protocol).
- Windows 7 Beta 1 would have been handed off to those wanting a copy far faster than the current direct download solution.
Maybe it was the piracy stigma associated with p2p technology, but a quick rewording of how Avalanche works would have solved this in the public eye.
In the end, it just seems as if Microsoft blew a great shot.
Update: Stebet points out that Avalanche did leave whitepaper status for the distribution of Visual Studio 2008 Beta 2, but it seems the client is no longer available for download.
Tags: Beta 1, IT fail, Research, trythisnexttime, Windows 7
January 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
So… you wanted Microsoft to use a _research_ and _not yet released_ project as the distribution basis for the Windows 7 Beta? Riiiiight…
And first you say that Microsoft probably didn’t choose BitTorrent because it’s associated with piracy, but later on you argue that BitTorrent isn’t secure anyway (which it really isn’t). So, which is it?
And anyway, you’re assuming that a good number of people would gladly give up their bandwidth. It isn’t necessarily true, given the nature of what they’re downloading and the place where most people download this from - work. Besides, think about the bad press it could potentially generate - “Microsoft asks users to distribute Windows 7 for them”.
Oh well… I consider this article the missed opportunity.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“So… you wanted Microsoft to use a _research_ and _not yet released_ project as the distribution basis for the Windows 7 Beta? Riiiiight…”
Well, yeah. The Avalanche concept was never actually implemented. For now, it’s basically just a whitepaper.
Anyhow, using a research project to distribute a beta is fine. Using a research project to distribute a final product (without alternate, stable distribution mechanisms) is not.
“And first you say that Microsoft probably didn’t choose BitTorrent because it’s associated with piracy, but later on you argue that BitTorrent isn’t secure anyway (which it really isn’t). So, which is it?”
It’s both.
“And anyway, you’re assuming that a good number of people would gladly give up their bandwidth. It isn’t necessarily true, given the nature of what they’re downloading and the place where most people download this from - work. Besides, think about the bad press it could potentially generate - ‘Microsoft asks users to distribute Windows 7 for them’.”
Given the amount of good press Windows 7 has been receiving since PDC on outlets such as Slashdot and Digg, I highly doubt it.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“Myself”’s tone makes him look like he has something against you, Bryant
anyhoo, Avalanche would have taken a while to implement, but I agree that it would have worked wonders here.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Another time seems that people in Redmond are not talking to each other. That is leading to a poor Microsoft image and to a little user satisfaction.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
@myself (sounds a bit strange)
We are talking with what happened yesterday in the eyes, and all we can see is a big failure of the chosen release model. These are the facts.
The author of this post is showing that other technologies would have been more appropriate to deliver the beta, and a lot of users wrote on forums that they were actually downloading a leaked version on torrent instead of waiting for the never-ending official download.
Make the choice to do this “by design” would have improved user satisfaction that is what really matters.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
They should have released the different languages separate, so maybe on day one only the English version and it also was a failure to say it will be limited to only 2.5 million downloads.
The other thing that bugs me: why can’t they actually implement the mp3 patch to the beta build? There was enough time for it.
All this combined and with those strange ugly screen shots on the official site tells me, that there is really something wrong in the Windows team. Don’t let 7 be the next Vista marketing-wise!
January 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I agree with you Bryant. From your description of Avalanche, it sounds like it would have worked very well.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
You make it sound as though somehow Avalanche is production-ready and is just waiting to be used. You just gotta plug in the bits and you’re done. Another failure for Microsoft, no? Think again. If you’ve ever tried to write production software for the masses, you’d see that just because something looks good in research or a demo setting, doesn’t mean it’s ready to be plugged in whenever. It’s easy to speculate on what things could have been done (and let’s be honest, that’s all bloggers really do), but really, this particular speculation is worthless when based on false assumptions as above. “Myself”’s comments are spot on.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I also agree with you Bryant. Considering the world reaction to Vista, anyone with half a brain knew that millions of users would keep an eye on the next version of Windows. The second part of the brain-failure at Microsoft was at the International CES. Windows enthusiast around the world along with professionals were watching. Did they honestly think only 2.5 Million would show up? I bet the number is closer to 25 Million that showed up for the Windows 7 beta. I’m lucky the folks at NeoWin provided a download to the ISO. I was also fortunate to find keys and its now running on my desk top’s second hard drive.
In my experience you should always plan for the worst and the maximum and hope for the best. In a way, this initial beta distribution failure has a major silver lining. All those pundits and Mac fans who already blew off Windows 7 have been proven wrong. It also shows that when the beta delivers, Microsoft can do some really great work. It also means that Microsoft didn’t learn from Apple’s iPhone 3G launch, that servers have to be ready for the locust horde users.
It makes also feel very proud to be a Windows user. The Windows 7 Beta is just too sweet! Hope the RTM is just as clean, responsive, and fast.
January 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
This simply wouldn’t have helped, and neither would BitTorrent. Apparently the problem wasn’t in server capacity for the file transfers, but rather with the registration system that users were asked to go through before accessing the actual download.
January 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
@Allen, Microsoft has created brand new file distribution mechanisms for the purpose of distributing preview software in the past (think of the Microsoft Beta Client). Time would have had to go into Avalanche, but the concept dates back to 2006 (before Vista launched!), so they had time to cook it up and flesh it out.
@Brandon, downloads were constantly breaking last night and running at speeds sub-50KB/s for the bulk of the time, even with multiple connections established. Some people got lucky, but most were pretty well capped, hence my post.
January 10th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I think the main problem was not the content distribution (since download.microsoft.com is already very load-balanced using Limelight)
What they did wrong was using the same old profile.microsoft.com registration servers (and service) to allow people sign up for the beta. I’d anticipate that such a server, since rarely being under high load, would succumb to the pressure of millions of registrations. Had they isolated the signups for Windows 7 product keys to one server, then I think the launch would’ve gone smoothly.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:10 am
[...] Update: I also agree with this article. [...]
January 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Bryant:
Actually Avalanche did leave the whitepaper status and was actually publically tested once. It was used to distribute Visual Studio 2008 Beta 2
http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?showtopic=9671&hl=
It would have been awesome to see an improved version of it to distribute the Windows 7 Beta though. A missed opportunity indeed.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:25 am
But wasn’t it their login servers failing?
January 12th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Um, or yeah, like Maurice said above, the profile servers. I’ve heard that from other sources as well.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am
but Bryant still has a point: the actual file servers were slow as hell that day, and that’s assuming they worked (which they mostly didn’t).
January 13th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Heh, I was able to grab this. Quite similar to Build 7000.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Darren, you are comparing Build 7000 with Build 7000 and only get to “Quite similiar”?
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
I see what you mean.
Everyone makes mistakes.