In case you haven’t read the recent article by Dick Brass, former VP over at Microsoft, let me provide you with a precis. He condemned the Redmond Giant for their ridiculous internal “internecine warfare,” claiming it (and other poor decisions) have seen the company spiral into a stagnant pool of anti-innovation. He claims, due to internal struggles and myopic R&D, Microsoft has not only lost their edge, but also their vision (tell us all something we don’t know Dick). Anyone interested in a terrific read can jump over to the New York Time for the full story.

I have no reason to doubt Dick. He seems like an intelligent man, with great insight. Moreover, Frank Shaw, VP of Communication with Microsoft, responded to Dick’s sassy column, but never disputed the actual allegations. As a matter of fact, it was a rather limp-wristed reply that rambled on about how successful a company they still are. No facts. No evidence. Kind of like telling someone they’ll get to taste a rainbow if they join your organization. (If you’re into fluff, you’ll find his article almost frame-worthy.) So until anything surfaces, I’ll take Dick on his words. It’s nothing revolutionary, but it is nice to have another citation when you feel the need to drag Bill Gates’ legacy through the mud at your local Linux rally.

Now I’m sure the internet was abuzz with every tech journalist, salivating and ready to chime in on the debate. I’d say most would probably agree with Dick, if for nothing more than to hate on Microsoft, as they always make for a popular target, don’t they? I digress.

Enter Michael Gartenberg (of Engadget fame), who runs a column called Entelligence (a paradoxical title if you ask me). It turns out he wasn’t convinced by Dick’s words. He’s met him. Gave him some adulation, but ultimately, he just wasn’t picking up what Mr. Brass was putting down. So I’d like to publicly reply to his article, because quite frankly, I don’t think it has much of a leg to stand on. So I’m going to lean on him and quietly mutter “timber.”

As I recall, I was just getting into Linux around the time XP was set to be unveiled. Bouncing between GNOME and KDE, I finally settled on the former, before hearing about a revolutionary new way of rendering text: Font rastarization. I was a bit sceptical, and at first, I wasn’t all that fond of how the new fonts looked on my massive, radiation generating CRT (which I probably sat way to close too). Regardless, I jumped through the hoops and tweaked it to my liking. After one week, I was hooked. But I guess I was a minority. As Michael makes it appear, it was far too soon for that technology, and Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, knew that. After all, who the heck was I? Some college kid renting out a basement suite, mucking around in Gentoo—an open source operating system that was named after a penguin, but had a cow for a mascot. If I was an analyst, I’m sure I would have sided with MS too.

So just like that, we eject all of Dick’s work and ingenuity, jettison logic, and take the stance that Microsoft was indeed a pioneer. It wasn’t their lack of initiative or “spark,” but rather just prudence and a great judge of what (and when) people wanted. Sure Michael. I’ll buy that. Do you have a terrific deal on some land I can sink my mutual funds into?

The truth is Microsoft (or Dick Brass) wasn’t the only guys to work on this new technology. Moreover, it didn’t look horrendous on CRTs, just different. The technology cleaned up the edges, it didn’t blur text to all high hell. And I don’t see Michael throwing up any stats. Did Microsoft run a survey? Did they have any data whatsoever to believe people would rebel against the new font rendering? If they did, you’ll see me jump to print a retraction… maybe.

Frankly, I can see all those fears allayed through marketing. Just one more terrific feature to tote. Oh wait, it looks like Microsoft did think of that. They actually did tote ClearType as a way to sharpen up fonts—to enhance them. Sure they listed some caveats to the new enhancement, but it looks like they also offered some tips on how to get them to look great even on the old, clunky CRTs most people were probably still peering into.

And I’m always left to wonder, why not try it? If people don’t like it, turn it off in one of your service packs, or better yet, one of the umpteenth updates you generate on a daily basis?

Again, there is just no evidence that people would have been in an uproar. While I admit LCD adoption was sparse, but it was plugging along. 2001 was quite early for LCD adoption and if push came to shove, I’d concede and give it Michael. But to wait until Windows Vista? January of 2007. What was Microsoft waiting for? 99.5% LCD adoption? Really. Was it not an option to turn on the feature in a service pack? Or did they really need a full 6 years to churn out the nightmare that was Vista with ClearType enabled by default? Doesn’t that provide some support for Dick’s arguments? I think so.

It doesn’t seem like Michael really has much of an argument, other than some subjective statements about ClearType and Microsoft’s uncanny ability to judge the “right time” to loose new features. So you kind of either buy, or you don’t. I guess you all know which category I fall into. Basically, he’s responded to Dick by simply saying, “nuh huh!” Frankly, I’m more swayed by facts, but to each his own.

Frankly, I didn’t need Dick to open my eyes. I know Microsoft had one successful product (Windows 95), and through decades of smarmy tactics and underhanded business practices, they have done nothing to advance it in any major way. All they’ve accomplished was to build a monopoly and park their corporate butts in leather bucket seats, enjoying the ride.

But I am hopeful, and never forget that technology is here to serve people. When it stops making lives better, future generations will wake up and shift their revenue. So while perhaps my future kid will likely grow up knowing the name Microsoft, I am hopefully that perhaps his children or children’s children will have to consult wikipedia for that information.