If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP

The initial simplicity almost never survives contact with software installers. Most of them ignore Microsoft's programming guidelines by dumping shortcuts and icons across the Start Menu, the desktop and the "tray," that parking lot of tiny icons at the bottom-right corner. Good luck finding anything on the screen after you've let the likes of AOL Instant Messenger or RealPlayer have their way with XP.

With all that extra software, Microsoft needs to persuade other companies to play by its rules, but it's had trouble getting even its own programmers to do that. The mere presence of Windows Vista can't change this failure to communicate.

Software that looks ugly can work ugly, and XP has been too forgiving of that as well. The operating system has done little to ensure that programs move in and move out in an orderly manner; they can throw supporting files and data all over the hard drive, then leave the junk behind when software is uninstalled. As a result, something that should have been fixed in Win 95 -- the way Windows slowly chokes on the leftovers of old programs -- remains a problem.

Microsoft also did nothing to make the system registry -- the collection of settings that constitutes a single, system-wide point of failure -- less of a nightmare. It should have slain that dragon five years ago, instead of waiting to move away from it in Vista.

Microsoft did get one aspect of system maintenance right in XP -- software updates -- although it needed to ship a major system patch first. With the changes that Service Pack 2 brought in August 2004, you don't have to touch a single setting to have Windows get the latest fixes for you.

But Microsoft has had trouble getting users to trust its automatic updates. Some of the suspicion can be understood (remember how Microsoft installed its "Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications" anti-piracy software through this mechanism), but it becomes self-defeating when people keep copies of XP in a less-secure state because they think somebody in Redmond is out to get them.

Microsoft's updates have largely neglected the programs bundled with XP-- Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, MSN Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Windows Movie Maker. Only Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger have had meaningful updates over the past two years, although the far-improved Internet Explorer 7 is nearing its release.

(Note, also, what Microsoft never thought to include in XP: anti-virus software and a capable backup utility.)

Windows XP has failed its users worst at keeping them safe from viruses, worms and spyware. Service Pack 2 shut some of the worst holes, but XP still demands far more oversight than its competitors.

You can't just blame that on the cockroach-like persistence of the crooks responsible for releasing all the garbage. Microsoft didn't do its job, and that failing goes far beyond individual vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer and Outlook Express.

The root problem is XP's inability to police the conduct of any program. Its default "administrator" setup grants the user and every application the run of the entire system.

That's why each new Windows-transmitted disease -- such as invasive spyware like Aurora or MoviePass.tv -- is so hard to eradicate. The only guaranteed cure for such infections is to reformat the hard drive and reinstall everything from scratch.

Windows Vista will no longer allow such liberty to users and programs. But making that change while maintaining compatibility with old Windows programs -- developed, of course, in violation of programming guidelines mandating that they work without "admin" access-- is a monstrously difficult job.

XP represents a missed opportunity. If Microsoft had known it would be living with XP for so long, it should have pushed back its release to fix some of those problems.

But could it have known how bad things would get? Could anyone? The review of XP that ran under this byline five years ago never even used the word "security."

That raises a scary thought: What's the ugly flaw in Windows Vista that people will be screaming about in 2010, but is escaping people's attention right now?

Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro atrobp@washpost.com.