In the April
Redmond cover story, I stuck my neck out farther than the Toys "R" Us giraffe. In it, I argued that Microsoft has the talent, product set and fiscal discipline to make it through the recession relatively unscathed.
This flies in the face of longtime critics who even in times of prosperity predicted the demise of the Redmond juggernaut. First, it was the Internet that would do away with old styles of computing. More recently, open source signaled the Redmond death knell. And most recently, the Internet and cloud computing re-emerged as Microsoft's doom.
I knew my article would come out just a few weeks before another Redmond earnings report. If the news was horrible, I'd look like a real dope. So what happened? As my colleagues reported this past Friday, revenue and earnings were down, but even in a deep recession, Microsoft pulled in nearly $4 billion in profit.
Not quite Exxon territory but not too shabby. If this is as bad as it gets, Microsoft will do just fine.
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/27/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft spends billions on security, whether it's built into the products, an add-on or a fix. But as we all know, this isn't enough. Now Microsoft wants a helping hand -- from you! That's right, Microsoft wants IT professionals to
help stem the hacker tide. It also want resellers and ISVs to kick in, as well.
One recommendation, it seems, is for IT to buy into Microsoft's security vision (and product line) which includes not only malware detection and eradication, but identity verification.
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/27/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Don't worry, readers: Doug will be back on Monday to deliver Redmond Report as usual, but in the meantime, we're filling in for him. Let's get started:
Microsoft changed its plans: It won't be holding its business intelligence (BI) conference this year in October. Instead, its next BI event will take place in Seattle, Wash. Some time in October 2010, according to Microsoft's
announcement. What does this mean? The announcement simply explained that Microsoft was meeting a request from its partners and customers to hold the event every other year. Moreover, event organizers expected to see travel cutbacks in the current down economy.
David Linthicum, a consultant on distributed computing and SOA, took a different view on the cancellation.. "The larger issue is that I just don't see Microsoft as a player in the world of BI, beyond their database presence, which is significant," he wrote.
Ouch! As an indication of Microsoft's weakness in BI, Linthicum pointed to the folding of Microsoft's PerformancePoint Server into SharePoint, which was announced in late January. Stephen Elop, president of Microsoft's Business Division, later explained PerformancePoint's removal as a standalone product, saying that Microsoft was pulling back somewhat from vertical competition with IBM and SAP, as noted by Redmond magazine's Lee Pender.
However, Andrew Brust, director of new technology at twentysix New York -- and, by the way, a Microsoft Regional Director and MVP, as well as a contributor to Visual Studio Magazine -- disagreed with Linthicum's critique. He took Microsoft at its word that conference attendance is generally down and that BI will be discussed at several other upcoming Microsoft events, including next month's Tech-Ed in Los Angeles.
"Microsoft is not getting out of BI," Brust contended in an e-mail. "They are imbuing Office and SharePoint (and SQL Server and Dynamics) with BI to get BI past niche status and into the mainstream. The rest of the market is still going the niche route, which doesn't make them more dedicated or serious. It makes them more elitist and far more expensive."
Indeed, BI has shown increasing signs of commoditization or even "death," as smaller companies specializing in BI have been gobbled up by the likes of IBM, Oracle, SAP and Microsoft.
Microsoft's last BI event, held last October, highlighted three forthcoming BI components -- all currently at the CTP stage -- including the next version of SQL Server (code-named "Kilimanjaro"). In addition, Microsoft plans to release a data mash-up tool code-named "Gemini" and a scalable data warehousing solution using massive parallel processing technology that Microsoft acquired after buying DATAllegro. Other existing components in Microsoft's BI stack include Office, SharePoint and Dynamics.
Back in October, Microsoft had predicted that Kilimanjaro would be a "full product" in "the first half of calendar year 2010." Microsoft touts Kilimanjaro as a way of simplifying BI functionality for end users by supporting a beefed-up Excel interface, as Visual Studio Magazine Editor Jeff Schwartz has reported previously. Microsoft also promises that Gemini will simplify data manipulation by end users of BI. Madison is also expected to appear as a product some time in 2010.
Those who can't wait for Kilimanjaro and Madison news can sign up to hear Microsoft's webcasts planned for next week, starting Monday.
Is Microsoft's BI dying? Are you disappointed by the rescheduling of Microsoft's BI event? Tell Doug what BI means to you at [email protected].
PC Struggles Hurt Microsoft's Q3 Earnings
When the headline crossing the wire simply states "Microsoft Reports Third-Quarter Results," you know the news is gonna be bad. In my memory, it's only the second time we haven't seen a Microsoft earnings report embellished with words like "record" or "fastest" or "robust."
As the saying goes, what goes up must come down. The global recession makes for a good excuse right now, and indeed the 6 percent revenue drop -- the more painful number was the 32 percent drop in Q3 net income -- was mainly attributed to sluggish sales of Windows-loaded PCs worldwide.
The sky didn't completely collapse, though: Microsoft made gains in software license renewals, as well as Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008 and the Systems Center suite.
With two straight losing quarters, is this the beginning of the end for Microsoft? Chicken Littles can send their predictions to [email protected].
Oracle's Sun Buy: Will OpenOffice Remain Free?
There are already lots of analyses about Oracle's purchase of Sun, mainly looking at how the buy will affect Microsoft (think MySQL and Oracle 11g), IBM (think DB2 and Big Blue's failed talks with Sun) and Web browsing and development (think Java).
Not mentioned much is OpenOffice. It'd be interesting to see if OO continues to remain free, figuratively and literally. All I care about at this point is that I don't have to resort to migrating once again to Google Docs or Zoho.
Mailbag: Upgrading from XP, Microsoft Security Falls Short, More
On the topic of upgrading to Windows 7, one reader says not offering an upgrade path from XP isn't very a smart move on Microsoft's part, but another says he probably wouldn't take the upgrade anyway:
Microsoft HAS to provide an update path from XP Pro to Windows 7. They may be posturing to get some dupes to buy Vista as a means to upgrade, but the overwhelming majority of XP users may bail, go Apple/Linux and use VM platforms to run Windows apps. Not providing an update path is political and commercial suicide.
-Bernie
Speaking only for our organization and as an IT professional, I see little interest in upgrading to Windows 7 from XP. The main reason would be that there is little value gained and the industry is looking at acquiring low-cost netbooks with either Android or Windows XP Home utilized for free. So why upgrade?
-Matt
Meanwhile, Kevin thinks it's not completely the end of the road for XP support:
You might want to verify for your readers' benefit that the support that's about to end on XP is only for the version that shipped originally. To my knowledge, Microsoft's support for XP running with certain service packs will continue for quite a while. I don't have the exact dates in my head but I'm sure a journalist of your \ caliber could find them quickly enough.
I only mention this as I think what you wrote is a bit misleading without this additional, very important information. I don't write this to dissuade people from upgrading to Vista or Windows 7, as I think they are both fine operating systems. I'm just pointing out what I believe is an important thing to know.
-Kevin
These readers say it doesn't make much sense to pay Microsoft for its security products:
I can't see myself selling Microsoft security to my clients. Why would I trust my security to the company who created the security problems in the first place? And why should I pay for something from Microsoft that helps fix those holes? If they can develop software that will protect their security problems, why don't they just fix them in the OS like they should?
The last thing I would do is try to sell my clients on a Microsoft security solution. I don't care how great Forefront is -- it just seems like paying them twice for something I shouldn't have to worry about in the first place.
-Matt
If software is open to attacks, isn't that a flaw in the software? Should the publisher charge you an additional fee to protect you from the flaws in the software it just sold you? Isn't this a bit absurd? Are there other industries that openly sell you a defective product, then charge you an additional fee to remedy the defects?
-Jim
I give Forefront an "A" just because it did the job. After using it for a few years, I have replaced it with a more comprehensive and cost-effective SaaS solution. In a cost comparison, I give it a solid "C" and I don't really miss it.
-Kurt
One reader responds to John's gripe last week about paying for a full-year subscription for the soon-to-be-axed OneCare:
Microsoft has publicly stated that they're going to support OneCare until all the paid subscriptions expire.
I couldn't tell if John was saying it was asinine for them to sell it to him, or for him to buy it.
-Anonymous
And speaking of gripes, Bill's letter last week about IT pros who "blame Microsoft" struck a chord with some readers:
Thanks for printing Bill's rant. It is the best thing I have read in a long, long time!
-Art
Many thanks to Bill for pointing out that most user problems with Microsoft are because the user either has poor administration skills or will not follow best practices. Kudos for pointing out that this incompetence actually improves job security. As I told my college students, if they ever bill clients hourly, learn how to say, "Darn Microsoft and Bill Gates" and keep the meter running. And if you can sweat a little, you can be totally incompetent but your client will believe you are an expert.
-Earl
Blaming Microsoft for your computer/server rebooting from a security patch during a 4TB RAID rebuild is ridiculous. Any admin worth anything would NEVER have their server update automatically. For the love of God, turn off auto update.
Ignorance is bliss, isnt it? Ignorant users who have no idea what they are doing, thinking the grass is greener on the other side. All computers are a pain in the ass, whether it's Apple, Linux or Microsoft. You just need to know how to use them correctly. Otherwise, it's all bash and not one fact to back it up.
-Charles
Tune in Monday for more reader letters. In the meanwhile submit your own comments below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/24/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
VMware loves clouds so much it wants to help you build your own. VMware last year announced a broad strategy to help service providers build clouds, and for IT to do the same. Then these IT clouds can be linked to outside clouds so extra capacity doesn't require more internal servers -- just a fatter WAN connection.
The notion of an internal cloud may be a bit ahead of its time. We wanted to do a full cover story on how to build your own cloud but felt the tools weren't mature enough and IT not quite ready.
VMware hopes its latest cloud tool, vSphere 4, will offer a shortcut. This puppy used to be called VMware Infrastructure (I guess like Microsoft, VMware likes to change product names midstream), and helps IT build clouds based on virtual machines.
The main breakthrough of vSphere 4, as I understand it, is that IT can load up each server with more VMs. The overall idea is that all applications run as services across the virtual servers, stay up via heavy-duty fault tolerance, and always have the right amount of storage through thin provisioning.
Is this really a cloud or just a virtualized and efficient datacenter? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/22/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Some journalists break big stories like Watergate and Monica. Others search the Internet looking for the tiniest of clues to the tiniest of news which we all rush to publish.
Here is one such story: It seems that an Internet reporter found a Windows 7 screenshot and, by looking closely, identified May 5 as the possible day TechNet and MSDN customers could download the release candidate of Windows 7. Heavens to Murgatroyd!
The only reason I'm bringing you this little speck of news is that you have me excited about Windows 7, because many of you are running the beta and you really like it!
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/22/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Press reports of Oracle buying Sun imply it's a done deal, and maybe it is. Some of these deals go fast and smooth and others collapse faster than a Jenga stack. Some open source fans may prefer the latter as it's unclear how the commercially oriented Oracle (and boy, is it ever) may not have the love for Java, open source IDEs and MySQL that Sun has.
With the wealth of Sun open tools, it's pretty clear that not all would survive being commandeered by Oracle. Many see NetBeans getting quickly roasted. Beyond that, will Oracle put muscle behind OpenOffice just to irritate Microsoft, or set it adrift? And what about Java itself?
In the short term, all this uncertainty plays to Microsoft's favor, at least in the developer market. Everyone knows that Microsoft and Visual Studio ain't going anywhere and that new products and new versions will steadily appear for years to come.
What should Larry do with the Sun portfolio? Free business advice welcome and passed along at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/22/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Readers had mostly positive reactions to the recently announced
Oracle-Sun deal, with just a few words of caution mixed in:
I think that you're right. The creative company meets the marketing giant. Could be a great match!
-Chris
I have to agree with you. I didn't see it coming either, but for high-end databases requiring more robust hardware than Intel can offer, Oracle+Sun could be a winning combination to compete against IBM.
-Marc
I think the Oracle acquisition of Sun makes a whole LOT of sense. Oracle's No. 1 platform is Sun; it's their core development platform for the Oracle database. Oracle's DB is heavily Java-centric; their management tools and installers are all Java. They need Java to survive unless they want to rewrite their installers, Oracle Enterprise Manager, etc. Sun now owns MySQL, a free, powerful, entry-level database. Now, THERE'S a good play for Sun/Oracle to build a migration path from MySQL to an enterprise-class DB when your needs "grow up." Databases are highly storage performance-dependent. Sun has a great storage story, excellent products in the disk and tape worlds, and excellent OEM agreements. Now Oracle has the ability to enhance revenue on both sides of the equation: leverage storage with DB engine licenses, or vice-versa. Oracle already had a "preferred" licensing model on Sun's SPARC processors that makes even more sense now. Buy Oracle on Sun and pay less than if you put in on Wintel platforms, etc. Overall, I just think it makes darn good sense.
What was IBM going to do with Sun? Migrate Solaris to PowerPC? More likely just kill it and "migrate" users to AIX. There was no strategic play in that world. Everything Sun has, IBM already has. It was just more of a "buy a competitor and shut them down" play to me than a marriage of technologies.
-Pete
If Oracle acquires Sun, it creates a large-systems-plus-applications rival to IBM. It might work for a while and then die like Unisys or DEC. It moves BOTH Oracle and Sun away from their failed bids to beat Microsoft on low-end servers and high-end desktops.
The Oracle-Sun California tech culture is a far better fit than if IBM absorbs Sun. Such a combination may be the only way to keep Sun's valuable hardware innovations alive for several more years. However, a far better combination would be a Cisco acquisition of Sun. The California tech synergy would still be there but with a far better product fit for both firms.
-Mark
Not sure about how Oracle will deal with the HW/OS mix. They currently are dabbling in Linux distros, though. They do share a similar Bay Area corporate culture, in a way that the Sun/IBM combo didn't.
The real question is: Is $7.4 billion too much to pay to squash a competitor (MySQL)? That open source DB has a large footprint in the Web world. I'll be downloading the latest (last?) version, just in case.
-R.C.Z.
The thing I'm most concerned about is the ripple effect in the open source continuum. Ellison will no doubt kill MySQL, creating a black hole that could suck in many more open source projects.
-Jacob
Meanwhile, Bernie was just impressed by his foresight:
I was right! This was what I wrote to you a few weeks ago. Oracle and Sun make a complementary fit where IBM and Sun overlapped.
I got something right! Wow...
-Bernie
After Friday's mixed bag of responses, these readers share their defense of the Office ribbon:
After getting used to the differences, I love the ribbon. I configure it the way I want it, then double-click to hide it until I need it again.
-Elgin
If Apple had come up with this first, Microsoft would have been seen as copying instead of innovating on their own.
There's nothing wrong with the ribbon that a couple of hours of use won't fix. And for those that really can't stand it, you're only a few keystrokes away from an Internet search for "Office 2007 classic menu."
-Anonymous
I didn't notice anyone mentioning why Microsoft came up with the ribbon interface. It seems that when Microsoft was asking customers what they wanted to see in the next version of Office, 80 percent of what was being asked for was already present! Microsoft realized that instead of adding more features, it had to have a better way to find what was already there. Instead of having to know where something was, clicking down menus, submenus and below, most of the features in Office 2007 are directly visible from the tab. If you aren't sure where to find something, hover your mouse over the ribbon and roll the scroll wheel to view everything with ease.
For me it works, and it seems it works for about half of the population. I have a suspicion that it works best for right-brained folks. My recommendation to everyone who has a problem with the ribbon is to stop resisting and try to adapt. It really takes less mouse clicks once you get the hang of it. And it isn't going away as Microsoft is going to use it more and more.
-Bruce
And finally, Qadar leaves us with a tip:
Did you know you could install Ubuntu Linux 8.10 desktop version as an application on top of XP? (I am not sure about Vista.) It shows up as a dual-boot with XP. You can also uninstall as application from XP. It is very interesting. If you haven't tried, check it out and let your readers know. People like me who do not know anything about Linux can benefit from it.
-Qadar
Check back on Friday for more reader letters, including your thoughts on Microsoft security. Meanwhile, share your thoughts by writing a comment below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/22/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Office 2007 is gaining a
new service pack -- and this puppy isn't just about bug fixes, performance tweaks and random features that few will use. SP2 brings Office further into the open world with native support for the OpenDoc file format, letting you share files with your OpenOffice brethren. And finally it gains the built-in ability to save files as PDFs, rather than through a clumsy add-on.
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
A few weeks ago, it was IBM looking to buy Sun. Today it's
Oracle offering $7.4 billion to buy the company that brought us Solaris, SPARC, Java and Jonathan Schwartz's ponytail.
At first blush, I just didn't see a fit. Buying Sun turns Oracle into an altogether different company, one focused on server and storage hardware, operating systems, and infrastructure and development software.
But does that really matter? Is, perhaps, the attitude and culture of the buyer more important? And here there's an interesting match. Sun has always been aggressive and since few of its products are me-too, it needs a charged-up company to push them. Who better than Larry Ellison? I kinda like this deal! Tell me where I'm right or wrong at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
One reader shares his thoughts about the impact of malware writers taking shots at Windows, while another wonders what can be done to stop them in the first place:
Regarding patches, at some point, it could be that Windows might just end up the most secure. When everyone is taking shots, Windows will either die from the wounds, or strengthen the armor. But who knows?
-Andrew
I would love to help nab some of the malware promoters, or at least divert some of their energies. But running a honeypot properly takes a bunch of time and energy, both of which are in short supply in most IT shops.
-Robert
Here are more of your thoughts on upgrading to Windows 7 from XP:
This whole XP ugprade in the enterprise thing is ridiculous! If an enterprise is moving to Windows 7, there's no way it's going to do individual upgrades on thousands of PCs. Every large company that I've worked at uses images. They'll dump a new working Windows 7 image on the existing hardware if that's the route they're going, or they'll just phase Windows 7 in with the hardware replacements over time. I've had some experience with companies in the 100,000-plus desktop range. Problems with a desktop? Step 1: reimage it.
Other thoughts: Why would you want to carry over all the junk that accumulated in your XP box over the years when you try to "upgrade" the OS to Win 7? For how many years have the "experts" been telling us to do clean installs? Why upgrade to Win 7 if you've got a working system?
-Anonymous
Many of your readers are complaining that they will not be able to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP. This is causing them to move to Mac. There are many reasons to move to Mac -- but this is not one of them. OS X didn't work on older Macs. Older Mac software didn't work on OS X. Where was the uproar about this? Weren't there enough users to care about the problem? What will they say when Apple does this again? Mac makes an excellent machine and it is very stable because they control the entire process. This prevents users from using incompatible hardware and software. That is the biggest advantage to using a Mac. It is not enough to make me overpay for the privilege.
I supply computer support for Windows, Linux and Macs. There are not many people who support Macs and if my clients' experiences with Mac tech support are an indication, even they don't do a very good job. I saw a blog from one arrogant Mac user that said, "I can use my Mac to do anything you can do on your PC and I'll do it better." He is wrong. There is not as much software or hardware available for Macs as there is for PCs. Further, I can do anything on my PC that he can do on his Mac. I can do it just as well -- and it will cost me much less to do it.
-Earl
And Bill calls out a couple of readers for their criticism of Microsoft:
I normally don't let commenters get under my skin, but the constant bashing of Vista/Windows 7 has finally made me snap. First of all, to Jeff talking about the implementation rate: I'm the IT director for a small business. I haven't upgraded operating systems in a long time; it just makes sense to do a full install. With Windows Deployment Services (free) and the Microsoft Deployment Toolkit (also free), I am able to install a full OS, including driver injection, in 60 minutes. In addition, I can deploy apps through GPO or as part of the MDT, and let their user profile propogate. It takes me an hour to install a full system! Why would I upgrade?
Secondly, David has me confused: Microsoft doesn't just "push" updates. Of course, if you set your machine to automatically download and install then reboot, it will. Three or four clicks and you can just have them download and notify for installation (no reboot required). For that matter, use Group Policies (part of the Active Directory that he apparently despises) to set it for you. Also, I'm curious as to what RAID controller he was using; I have never seen one that doesn't continue rebuilding after a reboot. For that matter, Windows itself will work through reboots (if using Disk Management to create your array, but that is servers only). Additionally, the fact that it was taking three days to rebuild an array tells me that he wasn't using best practices, anyway. The comment about AD is confusing and technically inaccurate. Active Directory is a huge asset to any IT person -- I can't imagine NOT centrally managing all of my users, groups, permissions, etc.
I just don't get so-called "IT pros" who don't do the basics and then blame Microsoft (often spelled with a childish $ instead of an "s") when their poor planning is really at fault. It seems that most of the negative comments come from users who don't really understand basic networking. It can bring job security to blame Microsoft -- but it certainly isn't honest.
-Bill
More letters coming on Wednesday. Meanwhile, join the fray! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft tried to play in the consumer client security space with OneCare and then enterprise client security with Forefront. OneCare got the hook, but Forefront is still very much alive.
I wasn't a fan of Microsoft's client security play. I felt Microsoft was simply copying the pioneering work of companies like Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro and Sunbelt.
Fortunately, Microsoft is pushing a more comprehensive strategy in the form of "Stirling," a suite of tools that protects clients and servers, and handles identity management and compliance. As Microsoft has built a large suite of IT products, it makes sense for it to have a broad suite of security tools. Stirling will be out next year.
Would you trust a Microsoft security suite? Have you used Forefront, and if so, how would you grade it? "A"s, "B"s, "C"s, "D"s and "F"s can be forwarded to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/20/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft is looking to have a busy year next year,
rolling out new revs of SharePoint, Exchange, Office and Office Web tools. Even Project and Visio will get facelifts.
Microsoft product names can be confusing, and when you get used to one, Microsoft is liable to change it on you. It also has names like Word, Project and Windows Server that actually describe function. Then it has names that don't mean a thing but are just meant to sound cool, like Zune and Vista.
Next year a tiny bit of this confusion will go away as key products all get the 2010 tag. And as part of its new naming scheme, Microsoft is renaming Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) as just Microsoft SharePoint Server. Be still, my heart!
Posted by Doug Barney on 04/17/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments