When it comes to financial projects, Microsoft is more cautious than Neville Chamberlain in 1938. For years, Gates and Ballmer would warn analysts about the next quarter, then promptly blow projections away. The same approach is being taken with Windows 7.
Recently, a Microsoft official warned that sales may be depressed by our current, uh, depression. One factor is that many enterprise budgets are locked down for the year. That means many shops can't move to 7 even if they wanted to. Microsoft is less down on the consumer market, for which 7 should be done in time for the holidays.
There may be a demand hiccup this year for 7, but next year, watch out!
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/12/2009 at 1:16 PM3 comments
Doug's pretty pleased with Windows 7 so far, but here are a few readers whose experiences haven't been so rosy:
My wife was born in mainland China, so when the Simplified Mandarin language pack showed up on Windows Update for Windows 7 RC, I tried to install it. Got a BSOD. Rebooted and tried again. Same BSOD.
Does the RC auto-report serious bombs like this or do I need to try and report to someone at Microsoft?
-Marvin
I like Windows 7 -- just don't install anti-virus yet. Trend WFB packaged destroyed Windows 7. AVG Free ate Windows 7. McAfee home did not want to install. So Mom's new quad-core Intel with 9 gigs of RAM is running XP 32-bit for now.
Other than that, loved Windows 7. Had it running nicely on a 5-year-old 2.8 with 512 of RAM. Try that with Vista.
-Phil
I like the Win 7 RC so far, but the one fatal flaw for me (which I'm sure Microsoft will resolve) is that it is stuck in backup mode even though no backup is occurring or is even possible due to a backup already occurring. The Action Center lists "Backup in Progress." I've been to TechNet and there are several of us who have this same issue (it seems to be incompatibility with some unknown program). The MS Guru on the message boards said it will be fixed in the released version, but probably not in the RC. He told me to start uninstalling programs until I found out which one was causing the problem, but they don't have an easier way to find out what is in conflict. I just don't have time to uninstall everything and figure this out. Fortunately, the image backup part works perfectly even when the "Backup in Progress" indicator is on.
Other than that minor, little flaw (wink), I like Windows 7 a lot and will get it when it comes up for sale. But I sure do wish I could see a real MS backup take place.
-Bob
Let's not get fooled by all the hype and carrying on about Windows 7, please. Nearly everything I see about Windows 7 is that is has nicer icons, it's faster, it's what Vista should have been, etc. To a business user, this translates as marketing hype and fluff and it's never going to be enough to sell to mainstream. I will laugh out loud when I see businesses adopting Windows 7 only to walk away, screaming about costs they did not see coming and the fact that when builds break, the pathetic system restore option they are relying upon is not accessible if the disk fails to boot.
Depending on the cost, I might have one copy of Windows 7 on my shelf just in case, but I certainly have no plans to change my systems or hardware before 2014, because I just do not see any benefits that matter enough to me. I think most sensible business managers will follow suit.
-Ken
Andy wrote last week to say that based on Microsoft's naming scheme (and actual first impressions of the OS), Windows 7 is more like another version of Vista. A few of you agreed:
Not sure why Microsoft gave a new name for its upcoming Windows version (Windows 7) as the name doesn't do justice to its actual version, which is somewhere around 6.5 or so. Since it's not a major OS release but minor with a bug fix for Vista, I'd like to see Microsoft call it "Windows Vista R2" or some other fancy name, but not Windows 7.
-Umzy
I'm sure I won't be the first to correct Andy, but Windows XP is Windows 5.1, not 6; bring up a command prompt to see. Speaking of which, when XP first came out, many of us referred to it as Win 2K with a Fisher Price interface. Other than marketing, should the next version really be called Windows 7? Because 6.1 seems more appropriate.
-Mike
And Dave chimes in on the topic of Mac prices to say that price, in most cases, isn't necessarily the point:
Like you, I support a mix of Mac and PC gear in my daily computer usage. I think cost -- whether you are talking MSRP, street price, repair costs or even total cost of ownership -- is irrelevant when comparing Macs and PCs. I'm not saying cost isn't important; I am saying that it isn't as important as fulfilling the purpose for making the purchase.
For example, you bought Mac gear for your children because that is what their school uses. Even if the Mac costs 10 times what an equivalent or superior PC costs, you would pay the difference to provide your children with the tools required to matriculate through their school curriculum. On the other hand, PC gear is a logical choice for my work-related computing because it allows me to work when away from the office and not connected via VPN or modem. To have that capability, I would buy the PC, even if it cost far more than an equivalent Mac. Put simply, although cost isn't unimportant, it's not the most important thing. In the end, it is seldom the key decision criteria.
-Dave
Check in on Friday for more reader letters! Meanwhile, leave your own comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/10/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
I just got a new Dell dual-core running Windows 7 (thanks to my IT guy, Erik!). So far, Windows 7 is working extraordinarily well, though I haven't moved over all my old apps or connected to all the printers I use.
Office 2007 is a different story. I opened Word looking for the basics. You know -- creating a doc, opening a doc, saving a doc. I couldn't find the commands anywhere. Turns out I had to configure the darn thing so these were exposed. It felt bizarre. I'll see if Word 2007 gets more normal the more I use it.
This drastically new interface is one reason enterprises are holding off on upgrades. A sour economy is another, or so says Forrester Research. Just as many shops are skipping Vista and moving to Windows 7, IT folks are also skipping Office 2007 and waiting for Office 2010.
The good news for Microsoft? There's no wholesale move to OpenOffice, even though it's free.
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/10/2009 at 1:16 PM12 comments
Microsoft has long been an international company. It has operations overseas and hires a ton of international workers. That's why Bill Gates has always been so concerned with expanding H-1B visas. And if the Obama administration and Congress have their way on taxes, more Microsoft employees than ever could be in other countries.
At issue are taxes on foreign profits, which legislators are trying to raise. Steve Ballmer isn't happy, arguing these higher taxes "make U.S. jobs more expensive." As the head of a public company, Ballmer needs to look at costs, and would opt for more of these less-expensive foreign jobs.
For those that think this is all just posturing, Ballmer believes the tax hikes could reduce profits up to 15 percent!
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/10/2009 at 1:16 PM22 comments
When Microsoft begins to lose control of a market, it doesn't just break out new products -- it also breaks out the speeches and press conferences. And so it was that Microsoft announced its vision for netbooks at a conference in Taiwan, where a good many netbooks are made.
First, netbooks are not netbooks. They are "small notebook PCs." Another revelation? Microsoft is expecting netbooks to move from casual Web surfing tools and travel companions to full-fledged, full-function machines. And that's why Microsoft removed the three-application restriction from Windows 7 Starter, designed in part for netbooks.
Do you have a netbook, and can you see a day when one serves all your PC needs? Tell me more at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/10/2009 at 1:16 PM7 comments
Everyone always says Google is a threat to everything. I get the search and content aggregation (i.e. stealing) part. But taking over apps and operating systems? I just don't see it.
And maybe that's because so much of what Google does is in stealth mode. It just doesn't broadcast what it does as boldly as Microsoft.
One way Microsoft gained so much control was through developers. Get them using your languages, tools and operating system and the world is yours.
Google is going the same way, and at its recent I/O Developer Conference showed off Wave, a new tool that turns various Web feeds such as Twitter and Facebook into a single real-time stream.
So what does that mean? I'm not sure. I guess is if you are addicted to these social networking and media sites, Wave could act as an uber-RSS -- all your tweets, songs, postings and photos come in non-stop.
If I were a younger man, say a pimply-faced teen, this would be nirvana. But I have enough just to keep up with e-mail. I don't need to spend the day reading every new tweet that Wave streams my way.
Is Wave cool, or could it be the world's biggest distraction? You tell me at [email protected].
And is Google a serious development competitor? If so, why? Your insight welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/08/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
How's this for a deal? Buy one Vista PC and get Windows 7 free? If you've read the news about Windows 7, it probably sounds pretty sweet. Windows 7, which I started using three short days ago (more on this in Wednesday's newsletter) is every bit as good as many of you Redmond Report readers told me it was. Easy, fast, kinda slick. I like it.
This kind of incentive is just what the market needs to start moving some boxes. And with the Windows 7 Release Candidate as stable as it is, you could be upgrading in no time!
Any Windows 7 haters out there? You may be a minority, but your voice can always be heard at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/08/2009 at 1:16 PM3 comments
Back in the hippy days, the more patches you had on your jeans the better. My gram used to replace huge sections of my pants just so I could wear 'em out and patch 'em all over again.
What's cool for hippies is decidedly uncool for IT. For IT, patches are more annoying than an Adam Sandler movie marathon.
So get ready champs, as tomorrow Microsoft is expected to release 10 patches, almost of all which involve remote code execution. (Are networks really worth all this hassle?)
The critical patches address operating systems, including XP, Windows 2000 and Server 2008.
IE versions 6-8 also get fixes, and even if you use FireFox, IE is still there and still needs plugging.
Word also gets fixed and nearly every modern PC and Mac version should be updated.
And if that isn't enough pain, just try watching Spanglish and Don't Mess with the Zohan in one sitting. Ow.
Who is your least favorite comedic actor? Boos and hisses welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/08/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Locked-down OSes are this week's topic du jour. Today, a few readers who aren't completely opposed to the idea explain why:
I can't believe I am saying this, but I like the idea of a locked-down OS. With teenage kids, being able to provide them with a locked-down OS would mean the "emergency" repairs to that box at 10:30 at night on Thursday because the big project is due on Friday morning would be gone! And working in a hospital, the ability to provide locked-down KIOSK machines to the patients' families would be a huge benefit to them and to our IT department. I like the idea. I just wonder how much the price will go up for the new "feature"!
-Steve
I would hate to have a locked-down operating system to work WITH, but I would love a locked-down system to work ON. From an IT perspective, a locked-down computer in many cases is not optional.
Working in manufacturing, I would love to see the computer systems tied with specialized equipment to be locked down. An example case, a multimillion-dollar piece of equipment that simply cannot run anti-virus, but must be connected to the network for job information. This is a nightmare to deal with and requires a lot of custom network configuration and hardware to ensure they are not infected. In this case, a fully locked system would be helpful as long as the data can make it out of the system.
-Joe
As long as MS provides a version without this "feature," I don't see a problem. Could be very useful for company tech departments. Also, I wouldn't mind having it on may kids' computers. They have no sense about what they should or shouldn't install; they get stuff from friends and the Internet that can really mess up the system. I'm sure schools would find it very useful, too. The obvious problem comes if MS controls what can be installed, not the user or administrator. I don't mind if they prevent you from installing the same copy of Office on several machines (it is a copyright violation, you know). But suppose they decide that OpenOffice isn't "compatible" enough and prevent us from installing that?
I guess we'll all have to refuse to buy "locked-down" machines or OSes. Sounds easy enough, but on several attempts I've been unsuccessful at getting Linux to run on my systems (and I make my living as a software developer). Also, most of us are walking around with cell phones that are locked to a specific carrier and we just keep buying them, don't we? It would be nice to think that the market would prevent MS from being too draconian, but I'm not so sure we can count on that.
-Mike
The concept is interesting and my recommending it to clients would depend upon the ability to turn it on and off. (Very creative thinking on Microsoft's part! Kudos are in order.)
If we could not disable it in order to make changes -- configuration, etc. -- then I would NOT support it.
-Luke
Most of the USAF already has locked-down computers. The standard desktop configuration (SDC) is preconfigured with all the apps that 80 percent or more of the users need. The user has no admin or power user privileges. And even the local support personnel's admin rights are severely constrained by domain policies.
As a user/local admin, it is frustrating. As a security officer, it is comforting. And I'm sure to high-level IT leadership, it has reduced cost.
-Bob
But James remains solidly against the idea:
I'm sorry, but my answer to the question about locked-down computers wouldn't be no -- it would be HELL NO! There is no way I would buy or even recommend the purchase of computers that could only be upgraded or have software installed by the manufacturer. If you have end users that are breaking into your systems, past your IT-installed safeguards, then it might be time for that end user to find a new company to work for. Or if they are a continuing problem, then I would disconnect their system from the network and their call would move down the list of support calls. I have never had to do this before but I wouldn't hesitate to do it. In fact, if it got to that point, I think I would go down during after-hours, remove their computer and leave them a tablet of paper and say, "Here ya go. Since you can't seem to stop installing unsupported software, here is your new computer."
But to buy a computer that only the manufacturer could install software would be idiotic. What happens down the road when an engineer needs to install special software for testing purposes? Or a new designer is hired and we need to re-allocate a workstation and add AutoCAD to their system? To me it just doesn't make sense.
-James
Meanwhile, Ken responds to how one anonymous reader expressed his disagreement (to put it mildly) with the Microsoft patent:
I find comments like that of "Anonymous" that merely rant against Microsoft a complete waste of my time. If you want to rant and have it published, you should be willing to sign your name. I would suggest that you edit out such comments from future publications.
-Ken
And finally, Earl has a few bones to pick with recent reader comments about Mac pricing and Apple ads:
Jon wrote, "but I would hope an IT professional would be willing to admit that functional and useful differences exist between OS X and Windows."
I am an IT professional. I work with PCs, Macs and Linux. I agree that there are functional and useful differences between OS X and Windows. There are also functional and useful differences between those OSes and Linux. What is his point? All three OSes will perform similarly if properly configured on adequately powered computers. Macs will cost the most, need the least amount of configuration, be the most expensive to repair, have the most expensive software, and have the least flexibility. Linux will cost the least, be the most flexible, need the most configuration, be the cheapest to repair, have the least expensive software and the smallest selection of software. PCs are in the middle when it comes to flexibility, software availability and price, need for configuration, repair and flexibility. PCs are also the easiest to network.
Dan's comparison of PC/Mac advertising to the truth of the dangers of cigarette smoking is ludricrous. Legislation and bans of cigarette ads reduced the number of smokers and amount they smoke, not "truth." Not even legislation (antitrust lawsuits) has slowed Microsoft.
-Earl
More reader letters -- including some thoughts on Microsoft's OS naming conventions -- coming next week! Meanwhile, tell us what you think by leaving a comment below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/05/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
JavaOne, a show put on by Sun, has been a big and vibrant event. This latest show, however, was overshadowed by the
$64 million question: Will Java's new steward care as much about the language/system? Oracle, as you likely know, is buying Sun and thus buying a controlling role for the open source Java. (I know it sounds strange that a company drives an open source project, but someone has to lead, eh what?)
An equally large question concerns the future of the show itself, which pulled in an impressive 15,000 people. (If just 10 percent of these folks signed up for the Office conference, it wouldn't have been cancelled.) Once Oracle fully takes over, these questions will start to get answers.
Are you worried about Java? What should Oracle do with Sun? Thoughts welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/05/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
Any of you who've read this newsletter for more than a week or two know I'm a bit of an old-timer, at least in computer years. So when I hear that Office has turned into an actual development platform, I'm not surprised. I fondly recall conversations with Steve Ballmer back in the '80s about Visual Basic for Applications which replaced basic batch files.
Office has grown since then, and is now positioned as a front-end to database, ERP, BI and other back-ends. So why was a planned Office developer conference cancelled and merged into a SharePoint event?
Two reasons. First, events that require one to fly to a remote location and buy a hotel room are challenged. These events, when well-chosen, still make sense -- but your authorizing manager may not think so. But there's a strategic justification: Office is part of an overall environment that wants all shops to have, where Office is the client, SQL Server as the data repository and SharePoint as the holder of unstructured stuff. Those who believe in custom Office clients probably buy the SharePoint argument, as well.
And a merged show is better than no show.
Do you have custom Office clients? Tell us about them at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/05/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
Vista SP2 was released last week, but readers are reporting that little has changed:
I installed Vista SP2. I haven't noticed anything -- nothing positive, nothing negative. I consider it a success.
-Jim
I have installed SP2 on some Vista and 2008 machines and it went fine. No problems, just a basic update. I have not really noticed any real changes after applying the update (I'm not using the wireless features). The jump from Vista to Vista SP1 was huge and the jump from Vista SP1 to Vista SP2 is very small.
-Craig
I was a beta tester and SP2 has been rock-solid for months. As soon as the RTM code was made available, I installed it on all of my family's personal systems (leaving my test systems free for Windows 7 RC). In truth, Vista has been stable since before SP1 shipped, so one shouldn't expect too much. SP2 is an improvement but it is not as big an upgrade as XP SP2 was, nor does it accomplish the performance gains found in Windows 7 RC.
Vista SP2 is not going to change the minds of Vista detractors -- nor will it keep the hardcore among us from leaping to Windows 7 when given the chance. That said, with SP2 released, no one should feel compelled to abandon Vista prematurely. On sufficient hardware, Vista is a very good OS. On lame hardware, don't expect much improvement.
-Marc
I've just installed SP2 but it's too early to comment on it. A thought occurred to me this morning about Windows 7, though. My impression is that Windows 7 is basically Vista with a few extras bolted on. Think about Microsoft's version numbers: Windows NT was Windows 4, Windows 2000 was Windows 5, Windows XP was Windows 6...you can see where this is going. Windows Vista must be Windows 7. What do you think?
-Andy
One reader last week commented that a Mac is like a Mercedes in that its price is linked to its "identity." A few of you don't think that comparison holds:
Roberto wrote that "making a Mac cheaper is like making a Mercedes as affordable as a Camry." But Mercedes does have the A-Class that is as affordable as a Camry. The catch is that you have to buy it in Europe.
-Andes
A better comparison for your opinion of Macs would be something like the Coach purses that my wife buys or just about any other designer fashion accessory that's desired as a status symbol just because of the price -- there's no functional difference between it and a cheap one. The same argument could be made for operating systems, since that's really what we're talking about, but I would hope an IT professional would be willing to admit that functional and useful differences exist between OS X and Windows.
-Jon
We hear comments Roberto's a lot. My question is this: If Apple can make the Mac cheaper but is afraid of losing its identity, aren't you really saying that there is nothing to a Mac other than marketing? Aren't you really saying there is just no substance to it? If that's true, what's to stop Apple's customers from figuring that out? If you just want to pay more for a computer, why not buy a more expensive PC with more power and more substance to it? If a Mac is really better than a PC, then lowering the price will not change that, and it will only make it sell faster.
In the '60s, cigarette manufacturers were telling people through TV ads that smoking is healthy for you and makes you look cooler. Consequently, there are a lot of walking ashtrays running around with lung disease. The reality is you can't hide the truth forever.
-Dan
Andrew writes in with one more thought about locked-down OSes (about which there's no shortage of opinions, as Friday's mailbag will show):
OS lockdown? Oh, yeah, for some situations. For the power users, developers, etc., locking down an OS usually does not make sense. But for many tasks, it does make sense. Any single-use machine, one that is closer to an appliance, is a perfect fit -- cash registers, handheld scanners, shipping docks, production lines, bank tellers, clerks, etc.
But let's turn this on its head. The open source revenue model tends to make money from support (Red Hat, for example). Microsoft's revenues model leans more toward sales of new products and patches are free -- at opposite ends compared to open source. And we know from economics that the long-term cost will move to the marginal cost, and with open source, that is near zero. What a strategic problem. We'll find out some day, but this could be part of their contingency plan in case they decide to alter their revenue model. One where perhaps they give away the base product and charge for updates and enhanced features, where the updates are part of a support contract. Only time will tell.
-Andrew
And finally, Miles leaves us with a Freudian slip:
Monday's headline: "Gates and Ballmer Bullish."
What I read: "Gates, Ballmer Bullsh*t."
I thought: It's Monday everywhere.
-Miles
Check in on Friday for more reader letters! Meanwhile, share your own thoughts by writing a comment below or e-mailing Doug at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 06/03/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments