I recently wrote an item about research indicating that IE users were less intelligent than Chrome or Firefox users. One theory was that IE users don't have to do anything -- the browser comes on their computers, while other browser users actually have to seek out their browser of choice (something that takes brainpower).
That theory may be true, but the research to support it was one big lie -- one I fell for.
I wasn't the only dummy. Forbes, CNN and the BBC also swallowed the bait.
The story seemed very odd at first, but the methodology made sense. There was supposedly a Web company that offered free IQ tests and simply compared the results to the browsers they came from.
The company, or fake company, behind the study had a deep and rich Web site, with the content lifted from a French company and repurposed. If you went to check the company out, just hit the Web site (which seemed legit) Aptiquant.
Now the Web site for this farce of a company named Aptiquant is laughing at all of us who fell for it.
Should I be angry? Not at all. This is an abject lesson in how not to be a journalist. Information should be vetted as much as possible. I, lemming like, went with the crowd and ran with it.
Let me have it or make me feel better about myself by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/05/2011 at 1:18 PM10 comments
I'm no math whiz, so I can't for the life of me calculate the percentage increase when an operating system goes from free to about $15. That's what may happen to Android if Apple, Microsoft and Oracle have their way.
This trio mutually own patents that could be used to boost the cost of using Android -- possibly causing Google's mobile device manufacturing partners to pay up! Defending against this may be the real reason Google scarfed up cash to buy more than 1,000 IBM patents.
One report claims that Microsoft is demanding $15 in royalties for every Samsung mobile device sold that runs Google's Android OS.
Google is now shouting to the heavens about this injustice. It tried to buy Novell's patents for legal defense purposes but was shut out by a bidding coalition that included Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and EMC. In a war of words, Microsoft now claims Google was asked to be part of this bidding coalition. Google countered that the offer was a trick
While patent fights are bad for commercial products, they are murder on free tools.
Are Android devices worth an extra $15, paid to Microsoft and others, or does it chafe you to give these companies money for nothing? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/05/2011 at 1:18 PM23 comments
IT pros, have you caught a rogue employee stealing from the company, divulging competitive secrets or engaging in some other form of malfeasance? Have you been able to use your IT skills to sniff out and put a stop to sketchy activity inside your company? If so, Lee Pender would like to hear from you. Lee is doing a story for Redmond on IT Heroes -- folks who have used their tech savvy to bust wrongdoers. If you're one of those people or know a good story about one, please contact him at [email protected]. Confidentiality absolutely guaranteed, as always.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/05/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
When VMware announced vSphere 5, many loyal customers were delighted, especially with the new cloud features. When the price sheet came out, that excitement turned to exasperation.
VMware heard the chorus of boos and essentially cut the price in half by doubling the amount of virtual memory a given licensed product can address -- at least for the enterprise version. Lower end tools are able to address almost 50 percent more memory for the same price.
Virtualization licensing is complicated, so if you are really interested in the subject, you best follow this here link.
Have you tried any iterations of VSphere? If so, I'd love to hear your impressions at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/05/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Wonder why Google is so interested in IBM patents? Patents can mean big paydays for those that own them and mega losses for those that don't.
Microsoft, which owns thousands of patents, recently felt the sting when it lost to Alcatel-Lucent and was ordered to pony up $70 million.
So what did Microsoft do that was so terrible? Well, Outlook and Windows Mobile made the mistake of entering data into screen fields in a manner that Alcatel-Lucent claims it owns.
Alcatel-Lucent earlier won $1.5 billion from Microsoft over Windows Media Player's use of MP3, but that was overturned on appeal.
Here's what one Redmond reader had to say about the data input dispute: "I'll admit I do not know the specifics of this, but it sounds like a ridiculous thing to grant a patent for. And doesn't this mean LOTS of other companies can be sued as well for the same thing (i.e. a method of entering text on the screen w/o using a keyboard)?"
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/03/2011 at 1:18 PM9 comments
Does making the move to IE 9 really mean more money for companies? Here's what you have to say:
Aren't we all tired of the 'X paid Y and Y magically they found out that product Z from company X is better than sliced bread' crapola? Most IT 'professionals' would not know how to calculate NPV, even with a gun held to their head. And the finance people that do know how to calculate NPV were given some made-up numbers by IT that could not possibly stand to a close examination. Seems appropriate to read this on the same day we are handed nonsense from Washington regarding the debt ceiling with cuts we will never see.
Fact: IE9 is incrementally better than IE 8. Fact: The javascript engine is still way too slow in IE9. Fact: My customers are still running (in the same organization) IE 6, IE 7 and IE 8, and IT has no plans to move to IE 9 (and users don't even have a clue on how to even check the version they are running!). Most of our users will continue to open up one browser window at a time per Web site with no regard to smart usage of tabs
-Daniel
My NPV has been negative so far on this one. I installed six desktop computers for one of my basic customers and was called back in because they couldn't print from IE 9 to their printer. The quick fix was to revert to IE 8 (which had to be removed as an 'update' rather than a program, if I recall... contrary to the MS documentation).
The server in this instance was Win2k3 and other desktops were XP running IE 8.
-Dan
If your incident response rates were lowered due to the browser, it could save much more then that number you provided. Cost of a single incident is really complex by itself and varies by organization.
The projected savings works well in some companies but gets difficult to calculate in larger firms. Without knowing the math and formulas it's hard to say how much you could save.
-Robert
I am not surprised that some MS-sponsored survey has come back with positive outcome. I've been in the biz a while and have seen many, many 'an attacker could take complete control of your system' bulletins. You could not pay me any sum of money to use IE. Period. I only use it for Windows update on my older servers and to download Firefox when a local copy is not available. They will NEVER secure IE -- and that is the bottom line.
-Galen
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/03/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Visual Studio LightSwitch is trying to do what programming vendors have attempted for decades -- make it possible to write good software without writing code.
I don't think you'll develop the next Halo or Microsoft Excel with LightSwitch. Instead, the tool is aimed at data-driven apps. You can use templates to build basic interfaces and tables that are fed from data sources.
These .NET apps can run in the cloud, on the desktop or from a browser. The software will sell for around three hundred smackers and there is a 90-day free trial.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/03/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I know that those that invent things, or at least the companies they work for, deserve the fruits of these labors. That's where patents and copyrights come in.
But computer vendors often abuse the patent system by buying patents for things they had nothing to do with and then suing the pants off their biggest rivals. Some companies are even founded just to buy patents and force for settlements. And quite often it works.
When I heard Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM, I didn't know what to think. On the Web, Google doesn't create intellectual property -- it hijacks it.
Is Google looking to sue those who violate these former IBM patents? I wouldn't put it past them. But one patent guru thinks this is more of a defense mechanism, meant to protect Android and other technologies from suits waged by companies that have far more patents than Google.
What is your take? Are patents a necessary evil or just evil? Share your opinions at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/03/2011 at 1:18 PM7 comments
A company named AptiQuant offers free IQ tests. After 100,000 people took them up on the offer, AptiQuant compared the scores to the browser from which the test was taken. Turns out IE users are dumber than Safari, FireFox or Chrome fans. On the other hand, IE users who installed Chrome Frame scored quite well.
On theory is it takes a certain amount of brainpower to choose and then install an alternative browser.
What is your browser and was it a smart decision? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/01/2011 at 1:18 PM11 comments
Recently I told you about an Exchange 2010 SP1 rollup that got yanked after causing data to get misplaced in moved or copied folders (though there was a way to get the data back) .
Details about the cause of the problem were sketchy at the time. Now Microsoft has had time to reflect and provide an explanation. The change was an added customer-requested feature to help IT recover deleted folders, but this addition uncovered a latent flaw. Microsoft's Exchange team had deleted some Outlook code that it thought was no longer needed, but that assumption turned out not to be the case. The two teams are now collaborating on their testing processes to avoid such problems in the future.
Microsoft still advises against installing the rollup, and anyone who has installed it should contact support.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/01/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Microsoft paid Forrester Research to do a study defining the economic value of moving from IE 8 to IE 9. The research house only interviewed a half dozen shops, none of which were named. The conclusion? For large shops the move to IE 9 represents $3.3 million in net present value (NPV) over three year's time (NPV is a bit complex but basically means that the company comes out ahead by that amount). In fact, a lot of shops do NPV analysis instead of return on investment (ROI) analysis.
So why is IE 9 so economical when one has to go through the time and expense of upgrading? Because it is more secure and more productive, Forrester argues.
Does this make sense? Write me at [email protected] with your own economic analysis.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/01/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Doug asks if his criticism of Cisco laying off workers to improve the bottom line borders communistic ideals or just common sense:
Neither one, Doug!
Gross margins don't tell you a lot. It might look like Cisco is dumping workers just to save money, but I think something worse is happening at Cisco. It seems to me that the 'new kid on the block' is Juniper when it comes to enterprise-class networking.
While Cisco has spent a lot of time and money in recent years upgrading its line of consumer products (following its acquisition of LinkSys) Cisco has let Juniper come into the enterprise marketplace with innovative new technology at very competitive prices. Cisco might very well find itself making a lot of money on the consumer end but watching those margins slip away as the competition for that space heats up. I don't think Cisco can live off the reputation of LinkSys forever if it allows itself to lose that lucrative enterprise business to Juniper.
-Marc
I have no idea what you are. I don't think you're a commie (does anyone even use that term anymore?) but I don't think you are a common sense American either. I think you are just a journalist that will flip positions at the drop of a hat. Just a couple days ago you were suggesting that Microsoft was a good corporate citizen. In fact, I thought you were going to nominate them for sainthood or something. But today you're suggesting Microsoft is a scum sucking bottom feeder along with Cisco for the way they pummel their competition into oblivion and kick their employees to the curb just to make an extra buck.
As far as I am concerned both of these companies have a lot to learn about being good corporate citizens, and since they both seem to care only about profits I would like nothing better than to see both their profits and stock prices nose drive. I don't want them to go belly up because that would just put more people out of work but let's see how they like it when their share holders start getting nervous and start throwing out the clowns that claim eliminating 5,000, 6,000 or 11,500 jobs is a 'good thing.' The douchebags that run these companies have their heads so far up their butts they are going to need a road map to get it out.
-James
You're an idealist maybe?
-Dan
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/01/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments