Doug is out today, so covering for him is Jeff Schwartz, editor at large for Redmond magazine and executive editor at RCP magazine:
Microsoft was among those that said it will participate in the Enterprise Cloud Buyers' Council (ECBC), a consortium of software, hardware and telecom providers gunning to forge interoperability, security and common service levels among cloud providers. The consortium was brought together by the TM Forum, a telecom industry association.
More
Posted by Jeffrey Schwartz on 12/11/20090 comments
Doug is out today, so covering for him is Jeff Schwartz, editor at large for Redmond magazine and executive editor at RCP magazine:
The controversial health care bill seems to be progressing its way through the Senate, and while anything can still happen, it's looking like something might reach President Obama's desk after all.
So when I saw Microsoft's announcement yesterday that the company is acquiring Sentillion Inc., it served as yet another reminder of Redmond's effort's to capitalize on the need to provide technology that will provide better care and lower costs.
More
Posted by Jeffrey Schwartz on 12/11/20090 comments
Reports have been circulating that Microsoft would pay Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to make content exclusive to Bing, keeping it off Google. The deal would satisfy two needs: Microsoft wants traffic and Murdoch is sick of Google stealing -- I mean aggregating -- his hard-earned content.
On the other hand, paying to build search market share isn't the best approach. Let the technology speak for itself, I say. Microsoft apparently agrees, and isn't currently pursuing such a deal, it now says.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/09/20091 comments
Tomorrow, Microsoft will crack open a six-pack of patches. While not as tasty as a nice Hefeweizen, these patches at least won't leave you with a hacker-induced hangover. Half the patches are critical, while the other three are merely "important."
The most important is a roll-up of fixes for Internet Explorer 6 and 7. Those that can't move to IE 8 due to custom apps or other compatibility issues are well-advised to download and install this puppy.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/07/20092 comments
Readers share their thoughts on Los Angeles' decision to adopt Google's e-mail service, and what it means for cloud computing:
Los Angeles is run by a bunch of morons. I used to work for a firm that did IT support for the city back in the late '90s, and they had the most moronic in-house IT people. Most of the divisions ran on computers so old, opening them up for service was pretty scary, as disturbing the dust inside would many times lead to failure. Instead of replacing old equipment, they would budget only for repairs, which cost two or three times more than new equipment.
As for Google Apps, it does not even come near the robustness of Microsoft Exchange coupled with Office. They have e-mail outages for a couple of hours every few months, which my organization would never tolerate. They have no respect for privacy, as shown in the service agreement, and technical support is pretty much non existent. L.A. is a city in a budgetary crisis and is looking to cut their IT budget. For a small company or startup without an IT budget, it may make sense to use Google Apps, but for an organization like the city of L.A., I think it could be disastrous.
-Asif
Major companies like Coke and Home Depot have chosen Microsoft for the cloud. They actually make money, whereas L.A. does nothing productive but waste taxpayer money. Not sure I'd call it a win for Google.
-Anonymous
Yep, this is a major win for Google. How do you translate "use e-mail to target ads" when the people you're targeting are the government? If I said, "Monitor confidential e-mail communications of the government to influence the awarding of contracts," would that sound as benign? Hmmm.
-Dan
I think that any organization that outsources their important (and in some cases confidential) e-mail to a third-party instead of controlling it within the security of their own firewall is asking for trouble. I predict that major security breaches of information will befall Los Angeles, and they will be a poster child for why you DON'T want your sensitive information in the cloud.
-Anonymous
The move to cloud-based computing environments is unstoppable. Microsoft knows this. Google knows this. Amazon knows this. IBM and HP know this. Salesforce knows this. Novell knows this. The Great Recession is accelerating the move to cloud computing; organizations are not going to be able to afford the capital investment or obtain credit to keep running premises-based computing work loads. The IT landscape is going to radically change over the next 10 years. Resistance is futile. Your IT services will be assimilated into the cloud.
-Anonymous
Confidential business data is what you use to keep your company competitive. Why would you trust the cloud for this? I have yet to see it proven that the cloud-based messaging water is safe, nor do I think it is an inevitable move. As it appears that it was a two-way fight between Google and MS, it follows for me that the wrong solution was chosen or the wrong question was asked.
-John
The real issue is useability. Exchange (and Office) is a full-featured client application. It gets pounded for being bloatware but if it misses a feature it'll get slammed for being incomplete. Google Apps is the other extreme: feature-lite. The Web is a kludgy environment for sophisticated programs despite the promise of RIA technology. Google Apps are feature-poor and will have a second-rate (or third-rate) interface until RIA gets beyond crummy JavaScript hacks like Ajax or CSS magic. Silverlight/Flash may lead to apps down the road which obsolete client software like Office but I wouldn't migrate to it today.
-Craig
I think your angle is incorrect on this. My understanding is that both Google and Microsoft were proposing cloud solutions in L.A. If that's true, then whichever way L.A. had gone, it would have been a cloud-based solution.
The key question is whether the Google solution that L.A. chose is going to give the city what it needs. If it does THAT, then Google's cloud-based solution will be validated.
-Dave
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/07/20090 comments
Intel last week showed off a 48-core processor. That's the good news. Unfortunately, the chip giant has no plans to ship this puppy; it's for research only.
I'm excited about this breakthrough, but also a bit frustrated. With today's software, most of our extra cores remain idle because the programs are largely sequential -- not parallel. Microsoft, Intel and many others are now pushing parallel development. That means future software may take advantage of this enormous processing. For now, it's only specialized programs -- such as engineering, animation, rendering, video and design -- that are truly multicore-aware. Oh, and high-end gaming software!
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/07/20098 comments
By now you've heard that Los Angeles is going with Google's cloud e-mail solution rather than Exchange. Deals like these are game changers. If implemented successfully, L.A.'s e-mail plan is a lesson to IT: The cloud messaging water is safe.
What I'd like to see is some real analysis of costs, manageability, usability, and data security and availability. This is the kind of insight you need to truly evaluate a cloud approach.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/04/200910 comments
Redmond Report readers are an awesome bunch. When I need help with a technical problem, answers fly my way. And if I'm writing a major story, your thoughts drive the entire process.
So here's a personal thanks to the many who wrote about your Bing experiences. My son David actually wrote the story and quotes about a dozen readers. It came out great, in my opinion. So I'd like you to take a look at the story, which was a close partnership between Dave and you, the Redmond Report reader.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/04/20090 comments
Yesterday, Doug mentioned that Microsoft seems to be shedding its Evil Empire reptuation. Readers share their thoughts on Redmond's image makeover:
You asked if Microsoft's negative perception was ever valid in the first place. The answer is no. If the public only knew the truth about how far Microsoft has gone to assist us...
-Anonymous
I still consider Microsoft the "Evil Empire." Would be nice if they tightened up the code and reduced the memory hog it is. Windows 7 might be better, but Vista really sucks.
-Bill
I work for a very large company and I agree that Microsoft has changed. I hope Microsoft's customer focus continues and grows.
-Anonymous
Yes, I agree that Microsoft today is more of a partner than just a monolithic company.
-Craig
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/04/20090 comments
The recession, along with the mixed bag that is Vista, didn't exactly inspire PC sales. But Microsoft expects all that to change with Windows 7, as IT may finally get to indulge in the sometimes long-put-off PC refreshes.
Fortunately, you don't always need a new machine for Windows 7. Many older systems that run XP can do just as well with 7. New machines, though, are often the best and cleanest way to upgrade. And with prices as low as they are, new machines don't have to be a deal-breaker.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/03/20094 comments
As Microsoft picked off companies like Novell, WordPerfect and Netscape in the '80s and '90s, its public image suffered. Redmond was the evil empire, reducing consumer choice by putting key vendors out of business.
Interestingly, this was all on Bill Gates' watch. As tough a competitor as Steve Ballmer is, he has treated the competition quite differently, and as a result, Microsoft has lost much of its negative connotation. Add to Ballmer's efforts the fact that Google dominates search and many Web services the way Redmond manhandles operating systems, and Microsoft's image is lightened even further. Today, many find Microsoft a terrific and trusted partner.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/03/20092 comments