“By promoting a man whose approach to software development may be more in keeping with the Google-obsessed era in which we live, it could also signal the latest in a series of internal revolutions that have proved how dangerous it is to underestimate Microsoft, a company often written off in the technology world as a lumbering giant unsuited to the changing times, The Australian writes. Ozzie was thrust into the hot seat as chief software architect at Microsoft last week, to fill Bill Gates’ shoes.The Australian’s suggestion is expected as all eyes, or pent up hope, are on Microsoft to see if it can be turned around to actually challenge Google’s momentum. (We won’t pin its roll on innovation, Matt.) But maybe the story is on to something that Google has seemed to capitilze on, hands-on know-how.“Ray’s a programmer’s programmer,” says Rob Enderle, a technology commentator. “He’s much closer to an uber-engineer, whereas Bill hasn’t been a programmer for a number of years.” The story continues:Microsoft’s strategy under Mr Gates has centred on what the company calls “integrated innovation” — the idea that by closely linking all of its software, from Windows and Office to its server products, Microsoft can produce better products than rivals that deal with only one part of the computing ecosystem… That, however, has introduced a level of complexity that has bedeviled Microsoft’s development process, in part resulting in delays that have left the next version of Windows running years late.Ozzie has pushed for more clear objectives for projects and emphasising frequent re-releases of software, rather than the kitchen sink-approach of Vista, for example. “Complexity kills,” Mr Ozzie wrote in a recent internal memo, The Oz reports. “It sucks the life out of developers, it makes products difficult to plan, build and test, it introduces security challenges, and it causes end-user and administrator frustration.” I certainly makes business sense to release things gradually, versus waiting years to update products — say, Windows — in a meaningful way. It seems more natural with software, as the landscape changes so quickly. I’ve been promoting gradual implementation for Web sites for nearly 10 years after seeing “redesign” after “redesign” hold up needed and obvious improvements. The whole process seems to get lost when it is all bundled in to a mega-redesign, or major product release in Microsoft’s case.Why couldn’t Microsoft offer a premium (read: pay) upgrade to XP to offer some of the more needed basic features: search apps etc, some security features, and the interface tweak?? One Tech Watch commenter writes it is part of the culture Gates created:Being a former Lotus Notes programmer for one of Lotus’s closest ISVs back in the 90’s, I remember very distinctly how Lotus and particularly Iris held a very group oriented approach in all aspects. Not just the software they wrote, but in how they interacted with each other and how they perceived other’s interacting with them. There were some politics there, but by and large, it was one big happy communal family. I also worked for Microsoft for a time and my experience could not have been more diametrically opposed. Microsoft, at least back in the early 90’s was all about empowering the individual. That sounds real nice until you experience someone else empowering themselves at your expense. The politics of that organization were, well let’s just say they were inline with the largest corporations around. Gates’ departure, while significant, will not erase the hiring decisions that were made in his image over the past 30 years. Because of that I have a hard time believing that the departure of one employee, regardless of who it is, will change the organization enough to allow the kind of changes Ray Ozzie will want to make in his own image. No organization can change overnight, and I’m not sure Mr. Ozzie will be able to muster the sustained patience necessary to get comfortable again.Can Ozzie turn Microsoft around? Talk back to us below. Software Development