Ray Ozzie's first love is not public speaking. While he does just fine in front of a mic, I reckon he'd rather be talking to his developers or maybe just thinking. But as the leader of Microsoft's cloud push, Ozzie has to get out and about -- and that's how he landed at the J.P. Morgan Technology, Media and Telecom conference last week.
Much of Ozzie's talk consisted of the well-worn message of mixing standard apps with Web services. He also pitched the bean counters on Azure and then promised to integrate their PCs, phones and televisions.
The only real news was Ozzie's honest appraisal of Vista, where Microsoft tried to do too much in one fell swoop and failed to get enough drivers built.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/27/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS 2007) just got a service pack and now the service pack needs a service pack.
SP2 works fine, but only for six months. That's when the software is inadvertently set to expire. The good news is a fix is on the way. The better news? Microsoft has about a half a year to get the fix right!
Do you use SharePoint, and if so, for what? Shoot me the deets at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/27/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft just earned a patent for technology that can lock down an operating system and only allow the manufacturer to upgrade the OS or let software to be installed.
If this sounds like Soviet-style computing, you may be right. If abused, the vendor can centrally control your machine, and paying off Politburo members with Stoli won't even help you out.
Here's another take: IT loves to lock down computers because there are fewer viruses, inappropriate applications and data theft. A locked-down computer could be seen as a utility -- it does what you ask and no more. And if that means I can't install Linux or LimeWire, so be it.
Would you use such restricted PCs, or recommend them for your company? Yeses and nos can be forwarded to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/27/2009 at 1:16 PM5 comments
Internet Information Services (IIS) has a big hole, and so far there's no fix -- just a warning. Versions 5 through 6 are vulnerable to an "elevation of privilege" attack.
So far no one has been struck, as far as we know, and there are some things you can do. Make sure your access control lists are disciplined and that those who don't need access don't have it. You can also set up fake admin accounts that don't actually have admin rights. This way an intruder may think he's cracked your system, but can't actually do anything. Pretty clever.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
Microsoft is getting busy on unified communications, announcing that HP will be a larger and even more committed partner and that Redmond's communications wares can now be virtualized.
I thought I knew a bit about virtualization. After all, early last year I launched Virtualization Review magazine. So I just assumed that unified communications software could be virtualized just as nearly any other app. Apparently, I was wrong, and Microsoft put extra effort into ensuring that presence, instant messaging and more can all be hosted on VMs.
If this lowers the costs of unified communications and makes it easier to migrate from a failed VM to a healthy one, I'm all for it.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft loves controlling file formats, but as OpenDoc and OpenOffice took hold, Redmond started to lose its grip just a bit. The answer? Office Open XML (OOXML), a new XML-based file format for Office 2007 that's close, but not a perfect match, to OpenDoc.
Keeping DOCX moving forward, Microsoft announced a host of new tools, some of them open source, to broaden the reach of OOXML. One tool lets Office 2007 files be read by Java apps, another makes the file format more Web page-friendly, and yet another eases the translation between Office files and OpenDoc.
But not all is perfect in Office file land. The Office 2007 file format, based on XML, is fundamentally different. Simple documents can be passed back and forth between Office 2007 and older Offices fairly easy. But once the files get complex, corruption during translation is a real problem.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Recent rumors have Microsoft trying to buy up SAP, but a couple of readers see some problems in that match-up:
About Microsoft and SAP -- what a culture clash! Marketing into the big enterprise is sooooo different from Microsoft's current sales channel. Now, at the enterprise level, the C-level staff would probably feel better with SAP buying Microsoft.
-Andrew
Can't they do better? SAP is horrid!
-Robin
Doug recently mentioned a recent PC World review of Windows 7 that put the new OS on the same level as Vista, at least in terms of speed. Redmond readers, on the other hand, pegged Windows 7 as faster. Readers weigh in:
As a matter of fact, with Windows 7 on one machine only (a Fujitsu U810), the speed of the operating system has improved, but Office 2007 performance has decreased under Windows 7. Some tests that PC World ran appear to test applications rather than Windows tasks, so perhaps the results are accurate but poorly described.
Nevertheless, this is an important issue for Microsoft. The vast majority of home users have no idea where Windows ends and Office starts. While fast boot times are nice to have, an issue with Outlook or Word will result in users claiming that "Windows is too slow." I would guess that 90 percent of the complaints I heard about Vista were Office 2007-related. Thus, PC World's results matter, and should be taken more seriously. Why? Because people like my father, a Windows user since 3.11, are now running Office on Apple.
-April
Interviews with 50 users and tests on three computers are not comparable. One is subjective, impressionistic, qualitative "research" and the other is quantitative measurement. Any researcher can attest to the built-in biases and inherent unreliability of interviews and surveys.
Windows 7 may be faster than Vista or slower, and it no doubt depends heavily on who is running what, on what and at what time. Test suites and test protocols can certainly be contested and usually are. But in the end it is a quantitative question that can only be settled by direct measurement, not by interviews, even with thousands of respondents.
-Larry
I just saw your item on the speed of Windows 7 in the test being equivalent to Vista. I can't really comment on that as I don't use Vista. I can comment on one aspect, though. I run Virtual PC with separate XP instances for testing and such and created an instance of Windows 7. In my real-world experience (just use of various applications including custom-built), Windows 7 appears to be faster than XP in a virtual environment. I've really been impressed with how quickly it boots and how fast programs load. It might be worth having someone run the numbers on in a true test.
-Joe
In my opinion, Windows 7 is snappier, not faster. The input lag is reduced and it feels faster. Perception is reality when it comes to these things.
-Stephen
I think the problem is responsiveness vs. speed. Vista is plenty fast, particularly after SP1. On performance tests it equals or betters XP nearly across the board. However, it just feels slow because the UI is unresponsive quite often. I have not yet tried Windows 7 but my hunch is that it is no faster but much more responsive. Users typically report responsiveness as speed/performance when in fact the two are not the same and can diverge quite a bit.
-Ryan
As is often the case, the slow reportees probably report less enthusiastically. There is a lot of milk-age behind the "Vista is hopeless" lobby (I speak as an XP user).
Or maybe their installation is so slow that it is retarding their e-mails?
-Joe
And Doug recently expressed his concern about rumors that Windows 7 will be released in October, saying that OSes aren't like cheese, which have a known "ready" date. James thinks that's beside the point:
You need to clue in the rumor mill about the difference between cheese and software. Although it is true that cheese cannot and should not be released before its time. Microsoft doesn't make cheese, so it doesn't matter if the software is ready or not; it can be, and usually is, released before it is ready. They just figure, "Hey, if it ain't workin' now, we'll just send out a patch/upgrade or SP later to fix it." If we had to wait until software was truly ready, anyone running MS would still be back around 3.1. It ain't about "ready" -- it is more about "ready enough" and how MS can maximize their bottom line (or as the like to say around here, the ROI).
-James
Tell us what you think! Share your thoughts below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Who should I trust: one PC World reviewer or nearly 50 Redmond magazine readers? I did a two-part series about Windows 7 and dozens of you told me Windows 7 was far faster than Vista. Now comes PC World with a single test -- albeit on three computers -- showing that they're roughly equivalent. I'm sure the results of that one test are accurate, but that's the problem -- it was only one test.
When you interview 50 people, not all will have the same result. For me, the fact that most of you found Windows 7 faster is proof enough. Has anyone found Windows 7 too slow? Complaints and compliments equally welcome at [email protected]. And check out my Windows 7 two-parter here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/18/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
PC World has a couple of stories worth commenting on, the first of which has Apple thumbing its nose at Vista in a new series of ads. Spending millions on clever ads is all well and good -- after all, network execs and ad agency owners have Mercedeses to pay for.
But isn't the real challenge over technology and economics? I think Apple has the technology, but it's flunking PC Economics 101. Want to take a bite out of Windows? Take the ad millions and convert them into real savings for consumers. In the economy, what dope wants to spend three times as much for a Mac? (Well, since I've bought five of them for my kids, maybe I'm not so bright, either.)
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/18/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments
Microsoft issued bonds in recent days, but there wasn't a direct word about what the dough was for. Whenever there's an information vacuum, rumors are sure to fill it, and the scuttlebutt has Microsoft making a play for SAP.
Does this make sense? Well, if you care about the best technology bang for the buck, buying SAP is like spending money on 8-tracks -- they work, but modern they ain't. But from a pure business standpoint, the deal makes perfect sense. This could give Microsoft more control over corporate computing and it could eventually move SAP to the cloud. And since SAP goes to the largest enterprises, and Microsoft Dynamics to medium-size, there's little overlap. The deal, while not terribly exciting, makes far more sense than buying Yahoo.
Should Redmond buy SAP? Yeas, nays and heys all welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/18/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Tech-Ed is usually bursting with people and bubbling with Microsoft news. This one was a bit of a fizzle -- and you can blame the economy for that! In these days of layoffs, paycuts, and budget reductions paying for a plane, hotel and meals in Los Angeles is hard to justify. And taking the time away from work, well that ain't too cool either.
Microsoft, I think, saw the writing on the wall and played it low key. The only real news was some scheduling updates that we reported on Wednesday http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?editorialsid=10839. The news here was more or less a commitment to ship Windows 7 this year. While an economic recovery would be better news, Windows 7 this year isn't too shabby.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/15/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Earlier this week, Doug wrote about a new plan in the works among some service
providers to charge Internet users based on bandwidth use. Most (though
not all) of you think that would be pretty unfair:
"My monthly bill is getting close to $150 month, and that's bad
enough. My message to the providers is: Raise the price and I will
declare my freedom -- from them."
-- Anonymous
"I shell out about $200 a month for phone and Internet. I even dropped
my home phone to save a little. I agree, tacking on another fee would
be too much."
-- Anonymous
"Americans have had it too good for too long. Here in Australia, we've had tiered Internet plans from day dot because a large
percentage of Internet traffic goes overseas on costly undersea cables
or satellite. As the Internet originated from networks put together by U.S. universities and defense departments, a large portion of all Internet traffic went to American sites and therefore ISPs could sell
unlimited plans because only a small amount of traffic was going
overseas. Now, however, the Internet is truly global and Americans are
now surfing the world for content, not just in their back yards. This
is why your ISPs no longer wish to give you unlimited accounts; it's
costing them money when you 'travel' outside the USA.
Usage payments should be embraced and it should encourage low-bandwidth users to the Internet by giving them cheaper accounts (i.e., $10 per month for 1G of data, $30 for 25G, and $50 for 100G).
People who are clogging up the Internet by using high-bandwidth
applications will pay for the privilege, and if you just want to read e-mails from your family occasionally, you'll be able to find a
cheaper plan than your current all-you-can-eat plans."
-- John
"Interesting you had to mention shelling out extra money for Internet at your summer home. You could use some help in the sensitivity department. There are lots of people out of work right now that are lucky to even have a primary home, given the foreclosure mess and unemployment rates.
As for the rate hikes, they are ridiculous. No one can afford this nonsense in the current economic climate. I'm all for everyone earning a buck, but do it the right way and don't be greedy. Time Warner Cable continues to hike prices at every opportunity and if I had a choice where we live, we would NOT continue paying their exorbitant rates."
-- Anonymous
"The DSL/cable companies alike are making more than their fair share of the money with no significant improvement in service to justify the cost(s)."
-- Anonymous
And one reader is dismissing cloud computing until it settles some
security issues:
"Until they take security seriously out-of-the-box and forego
'backwards compatibility' for new applications that also take
security seriously, or get automatically shut down and locked out by
the operating system (sort of like network access control), this
'cloud' stuff is all vaporware. That is my belief and that of the
SMBs I work with here in Louisville, Ky."
-- Anonymous
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/15/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments