Bots Won't Stop

This is why botnets are on the rise, at least according to Symantec, with attacks increasing almost a third last year.

Symantec also argues that botnet authors are getting sneakier and more obnoxious, and their attacks "are much more silent but much more deadly." And we all know how nauseating that can be.

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/17/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

2010: An Exchange Odyssey

IE haters will love the fact that the Web client is now fully compatible with Safari and Firefox. I use Firefox and never had a problem with the Web client.

For archiving, PST files -- which confused even the smartest end users -- have been replaced by an "integrated archive." I'd upgrade for just this one feature alone!

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/17/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

Mailbag: Ribbon Yeas/Nays, More

You said, "The new Office 2007 interface is more confusing than a conversation with Paula Abdul." At first. But I'm starting to like the changing icons based on context of the tabs. It makes more sense, but it is way different than in the past.

I'll give Microsoft credit. They are trying to come out with a better approach, rather than wait for someone else to come up with it. Many companies would just let the product turn into a cash cow and eventually die.
-Andrew

Regarding the Office 2007 ribbon -- OMG, I can never find anything on the thing. The few users that I have tried installing it for begged me to switch them back, and these were the users that normally like change and trying new things. As long as you don't actually want to do anything requiring actually finding anything buried in the ribbon, it is fine.
-Tom

I have used Office 2007 for quite some time now. I use Access, Word, Excel and Outlook on a regular basis. At first, I didn't like the ribbon menus at all but it was probably because I was so familiar with the old toolbars and menu style that when I started using the new ribbon, I couldn't find where everything was.

With time and learning, I now like the ribbon style and know where to find things. I don't think it is better but different and requires some relearning so people don't want to leave their comfort zone.
-Duane

I have worked with Office 2007 since the beta and now have become so used to it that when I am faced with Office 2003, I really have to think. It was hard at first before Microsoft introduced the interactive command reference guides. Now if you need to know where something lives, just download the guides. You'll soon get used to it and remember. Hell, I was even tempted to try OpenOffice, but that was going to be just the same sort of learning curve, and if you used Excel to any degree of sophistication, forget it.

OK, so learning the new menu system wasn't easy. We always look for the negative: Oh, but where do I find this? And where do I find that? Oh, poor me. Go to a country which drives on the other side of the road; you'll hate it just as much, but in the end you learn to accept the change. Move on, get over it, forget the past. Accept change and you learn something new. If you resist, you'll just get left behind or run over by the truck coming the other way.
-Dave

The Office 2007 UI is only usable if you know where things were under the old 2003 menus, because you can then find them under similar menus -- but you have to have memorised the menu commands (sad that I am). The command groupings don't make sense and don't provide the features our users want grouped together. It wouldn't be so bad if it were totally customisable, but even then rolling out customisations to all our users will be difficult.

Bottom line this is not new and improved, and the old is not old and inferior. The old UI is comfortable, clear, well-understood and already trained and supported. Change for changes sake is of no use to us. And if Microsoft thinks we can be forced to change, it's wrong.
-Anonymous

I believe the ribbon is an interesting user interface trip. Might not be perfect, but I prefer it to the other more confusing old interface, which I am not able to work with again. The logic put into the interface is suitable for most of the people I know and can be easily explained in 15 minutes to users via phone. Users seem to be more independent and need little to be explained.

Now, of course this is not entirely true with people who know the older interfaces and do not want to migrate, because they might know some shortcuts, and use Office more on a gesture-driven manner. But once you explain to them the logic (sometimes it's quite difficult to break old paradigms), they are able to move freely.
-Izcoatl

I don't like the ribbon and I resent software that requires me to waste time relearning an interface. The ribbon is very ironic. Microsoft worked hard to standardize application menus -- File on the left with open, save, save as, Help on the right. And they're the ones ruining the consistent Windows application interface.

I had a hard enough time as it was teaching my mother how to use a computer. The one thing I had going for me was saying, "Once you learn one application, you've learned 25 percent of all of them due to consistent menus, icon usage..."
-Anonymous

As for the ribbon, it takes quite a while to overcome the years of training and usage of the old-style menu, but I'm finally there. To be honest, it is only marginally better overall than the previous iterations, and as such will take many years of use to make up for the productivity lost in the transition. Why they didn't make the old UI available as a user installation or configuration option is beyond me.

Change for the sake of significant improvement is good. Change for the sake of change -- to provide a slick, new UI, or as a marketing gimmick -- is yet another form of the asinine in practice.
-John

I don't like the ribbon.
-Rick

But most readers agree that free XP and Office 2003 support shouldn't have ended this week:

Free support should not end until at least five years after the product is pulled from the market. Ending support and sales at the same time is so counter to good customer service as to qualify as asinine. In fact, since both products can still be purchased -- from Microsoft, no less -- and in the case of XP, still being produced and sold on current and future systems, even asinine doesn't describe the massive stupidity behind the move.
-John

XP Home is still selling, and apparently selling well, on many different netbook models. To (the generally clueless) home consumers, Microsoft not supporting XP makes no sense and will annoy a lot of new netbook buyers as soon as they need to call support. (Corporate users should be OK, because they aren't so clueless. And in their case, if something doesn't work, it's often just cheaper and easier to just replace or rebuild the system.)

My take: XP should be generally supported at least until six to nine months after Windows 7 ships and is in general availability. Which means probably around July or so next year. Microsoft has relented on these dates before and should do so again. Microsoft should grin and bear it to keep its customers happy.
-Matt

I'm not sure what the answer to ending mainstream support is, but I don't think it is time yet. We have three machines running Vista out of 100-plus running XP, and I still have more issues with the three than with the other 100-plus combined.
-Tom

As for when to end free support, I don't know. MS might be getting too greedy with its monopoly. I've switched to OpenOffice at home and the "community" does pretty good at support. OpenOffice isn't there yet, but it's close.
-Rick

A manufacturer I used to work for had a policy that the product was supported for seven years after the last date that product was sold by the manufacturer. That always sounded fair to me. I think Microsoft is dropping support for Office 2003 and Windows XP way too soon. I like you thoughts that the new product be a reasonable replacement for the old, but that is not always possible.
-John

Once again Microsoft is doing what it must to force consumers to buy their products. Microsoft does not care about inconveniences to the average computer user; Microsoft cares about Microsoft's bottom line. Who wants to have to totally relearn everything? Windows Vista and Office 2007 may be 'better' (whatever that means), but many of us may never know.
-Paul

And John, who above shared his thoughts about XP/Office support ending and the Office ribbon (both asinine, in his opinion), leaves us with one more gripe:

And while I'm bending your ear regarding the asinine, let's whittle on the wooden-headed morons that decided it would be a good idea to continue taking full-year subscriptions on OneCare when the product is going to cease to exist in a matter of months.

I renewed a business license for the product last month and was charged the full-year subscription rate, even though they'll be killing it off in a couple more months. Charging a full year's subscription fees for a product that's going away in a quarter of that time is, you got it, asinine.
-John

More reader letters to come on Monday, including a few on XP-to-Windows 7 upgrade paths, security and more. Meanwhile, leave your comments below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/17/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

IE an Intranet Attack Vector?

Regardless of the extra measures, IE 8 and earlier versions have one big flaw, at least according to one security firm: There are four core security settings and the one for internal networks, intranets, is too lax. This could allow scumbag loser hacker creeps to creep into your network and have their way. The saving grace? The hackers need some detail on how your intranet interface looks.

I wouldn't mind more of us using honeypots to lure these hackers in, solid forensics to find out who they are, and law enforcement to nab 'em. Even better, how about a few Navy Seals? Should more be done to identify hackers and would you implement technology that helps? Calm, rational and off-your-rocker commentary welcome at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/15/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

Mailbag: Windows 7

No upgrade path from Windows XP to Windows 7 will just delay the rate of implementation as Corporate America isn't going to go buy new systems just for Windows 7. An upgrade would have made it much more appealing. Bad more on Microsoft's part. You would have thought it would have learned by now.
-Jeff

The might of Microsoft at work again! No soup for you, XP rebels! My way or the highway! OK, the highway it is. The prospect of a decent, lightweight OS (Windows 7) was -- I say WAS -- worth waiting for. But no upgrade path from XP? Is Mr. Ballmer barmy? Who the hell do they think they are? Microstupid deserves to feel the wrath of Corporate and Citizen America for its unabashed arrogance.

My NAS is happy with Mac machines. I don't need my Windows box for anything beyond TurboTax, so I think I finally have reason to say, "Up yours, Micro$oft -- you are truly superfluous!" Apple, I will happily expend my dollars on your rock-solid, fast-booting OS, and bid the trogs farewell. A decade of struggles and finally I can see an end to them. Thank you, Mr. Ballmer -- to every cloud there IS a silver lining, and it is freedom from Microsoft! Thank you in spades!
-Stephen

I can't put a dollar value on the costs associated with "upgrading" to Vista, but I can't imagine migration expenses for even a small company will be less than what it costs to hire a full-time employee. For us, I think the last straw was when Microsoft pushed an update to a machine that was three days into reconstructing a 4TB RAID array, and it caused a reboot. We are transitioning to OS X and Solaris everywhere. Windows CE smartphones are also outlawed. We don't miss Active Directory one bit. In fact (and you can quote me on this because I have never seen it in print), you wouldn't need Active Directory if it wasn't FOR Active Directory. Blue screens are a thing of the past. We still use Exchange, but it is outsourced to Rackspace so it is no longer my headache.

I have no doubt that Microosft will break all Vista-related records for missed earnings and disappointments with Windows 7 -- and I also declare that anybody who proposes Windows 7 deployment puts their job at risk.
-David

Saying, "There will be no upgrade path from Windows XP to Windows 7" is extremely misleading. XP license holders will be able to upgrade to Windows 7 without a problem. What they will NOT be able to do is perform an 'upgrade'-type installation. This is not at all uncommon for changes of the magnitude of those involving the differences between the NT5 (XP) kernel and the NT6 (Vista, Windows 7) kernel. Further, the bootstrap loader process was changed dramatically from XP to Vista.

The bottom line is that Microsoft wants customers to have the best experience possible. And when customers don't follow guidelines, bad things can happen to negatively impact that experience. Those of us in the trenches know that the best installation is always a clean installation. And yes, from what I have seen, Windows 7 WILL be worth the switch.
-Marc

A few others share their takes on Windows 7's XP downgrade option (and whether it makes sense at all):

It does not make sense -- why would I want to buy a new PC downgraded to XP when the current PCs I have running XP are doing fine? Especially when there is NO path to upgrade the OS when I'm ready to use Windows 7. Is the same group that gave us Vista responsible for this as vengance for not wanting to accept a subpar OS? Again, Microsoft's biggest enemy is itself.
-Bruce

I would not get a downgraded PC. There are some apps we use that I would have to test if they would work in Windows 7 that would influence laptop purchases.
-Edward

First, users have to find out if they legally can downgrade. If they can, sure, it is a great option. However, I really feel that once users see Windows 7 in action, they will want to ditch Windows XP pretty quick. It runs much faster than Vista and as good as XP on decent systems. This is nothing new and I feel that any story representing such is bad journalism.
-Brian

What do you think? Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/15/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

XP and Office Support Saga

If Vista and Office 2007 were easy transitions, I'd cut Microsoft some slack. But Vista is a known nuisance and the new Office 2007 interface is more confusing than a conversation with Paula Abdul. My quick take? If the software can be installed and work properly on existing hardware, not utterly confuse the customer, and has a reasonable upgrade price, then phasing out free support is justified. Neither Vista nor Office 2007 seem to suit this rather simple criteria.

When is the right time to end free support, and who out there likes the ribbon? Answers to either question equally welcome at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/15/2009 at 1:16 PM1 comments

Patches in Abundance

This month is on the high side, with eight patches that cure some 23 software ills. Among the patches are remedies for WordPad and the Office text converter. Microsoft also fixed an HTTP hole that plagued virtually all versions of Windows.

I'm no expert on Microsoft security, but here's what Eric Schultze, CTO of Shavlik, thinks. While eight patches may seem like a lot, much of the work was to fix problems Microsoft earlier argued took much time to resolve, or weren't a big deal. The fact that Microsoft went back and fixed these holes is to be commended.

Yes, my friends, Microsoft really does want all these security hassles to go away.

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/15/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

Sticking with Windows XP

Doug Barney has safely deplaned from his trip to Redmond and will be back for Wednesday's Redmond Report. I'm covering for him today, in the meantime. Here we go:

Most IT pros (84 percent) don't plan to move to Windows 7 in the next year, so says a March survey sponsored by system management appliance vendor KACE.

That result from a survey of 1,142 participants isn't really surprising. Microsoft has suggested that Windows 7 will be released some time in 2010, although rumors have suggested a release to manufacturing some time this fall.

However, Windows 7's timing is just part of the issue. The survey indicated that 53 percent of those who plan to move to Windows 7 want to do so to skip Vista. Ouch! It seems there's still some lingering resentment out there about Vista. Vista's problems stemmed from early software incompatibilities, as well as hardware requirements that meant upgrading equipment for many IT departments. However, that's all in the past, right?

Maybe not. Despite what Microsoft has been saying -- that applications working on Vista will work on Windows 7 -- the respondents didn't seem to accept that premise. The top concern with moving to Windows 7 was software compatibility (88 percent). 

Perhaps that result reflects the general inexperience with Windows 7, as just 17 percent of the participants had installed the Windows 7 beta. It also suggests that IT shops haven't forgotten the pain of Vista.

Free mainstream support for XP will run out tomorrow on April 14. Microsoft also says that extended (paid) support for XP will be available until April 8, 2014. Given that timeline, is your IT shop feeling any pressure to move from XP? Let Doug know at [email protected].

Desktop Virtualization: Who Uses It?
Speaking of migrations, Microsoft rolled out a new tool to help tide over IT shops as they migrate from one operating system to another. Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization Version (MED-V) 1.0 was released this month.

The MED-V tool lets you run those XP "legacy" apps on Vista (if you're using that OS). However, there's a catch: You've got to have Software Assurance licensing to use MED-V.

Are you using MED-V? Is it the solution to your OS migration problems (assuming that you're moving off Windows XP)? Send your thoughts to Doug at [email protected].

As the Worm Turns
No one can stop talking about the Conficker worm. We were told it was going to update itself and expand its domains on April 1. Now CERT (the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team) tells us that a new variant of the worm is trying to update previously infected machines.

Microsoft had originally issued a patch (MS08-067) for the Windows vulnerability back in October. Apparently, the worm continued to proliferate, and company officials complained that many IT organizations were lax in applying the patch. There's even a bounty out for the virus-maker, but no word back on whether that worked.

Anti-virus companies -- including Symantec, Microsoft and McAafee -- have responded by offering free Conficker (also knows as Downadup) removal tools. Shavlik Technologies is also extending its offer of a free scan to check the network's patch status and the configurations of devices connected to it. This "Health Assessment" scan tool is free to use through May 1.

Do you know of any IT shops that have experienced a Conficker infection or does this all just seem overhyped? Sound off at [email protected].

Mailbag: Windows 7 Worth It?
Last week, Kurt asked readers what -- if anything -- would make them upgrade to Windows 7. Here are just some of your responses (more to come Wednesday):

To address this question with some validity is a somewhat daunting task. My competitive nature says, "Make it compete with Mac OS X and kick the megabytes out of them." The other side of me is saying, "Can we just simply come up with a product that is valued from the inside out? Starting with the nagging idea of spyware, viruses, hackers, networks and beyond."

I believe the switch is going to be worth it. The footprint seems smaller and less clunky than Vista. The much-needed security elevates the pressure looming in the air, and the new features give it an ability to compete. Way to go, Microsoft!
-Jeremy

I run a relatively small IT consultancy out of Melbourne, Australia and I have to say that although Windows 7 appears to be faster than Vista, I do not think it's faster than XP (probably about the same, overall). The driver base seems better than Vista but that alone is not enough for me to see Windows 7 as a compelling upgrade.

I really think that as per usual, Microsoft has been carried away with trying to look like it's inventing something new. In the process it has overlooked what a lot of people want from an OS. What I wanted from Windows 7 was the old, classic Start menu; the old repair and restore feature; and, yes, an option to upgrade from XP. Now all of those features that I wanted/needed/valued and would have paid for have been removed, and to that extent my immediate reaction is: You can go to hell, Microsoft. I will decide what I want and need from an OS, not you.
-Ken

We intend to move from XP to Windows 7, particularly with the good reviews the beta is getting. So, if we had the money to buy some new PCs and they came with Windows 7, we would keep them Windows 7.
-Jim

Check in on Wednesday to read more letters, including readers' thoughts XP-to-Windows 7 upgrade paths. Meanwhile, tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/13/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

April: The Cruelest Month

Doug's still on the road at Redmond, Wash. today, but he'll be back on the Redmond Report saddle next week. I'll be covering for him in this issue -- so let's get started:

Eliot famously wrote that "April is the cruelest month," and for 2009, it's certainly turning out that way, as admins will be busy next week getting systems patched up on Tuesday. Two patches to keep tabs on are a fix for IE flaws that were exposed at a recent hacker contest, as well one for an Excel hole.

Naturally, the day after is bound to come with reports of zero-day flaws, just as many of us are wrapping up more important things -- like mailing our tax forms. Ouch!

What's the Word?
Mainstream support for Office 2003 ends next week. For my part, since I'm mostly holed up at the home office without an official Office 2003 license, I switched to OpenOffice long ago. I just can't fork over the dough when there's a free, highly capable alternative.

I'd like to know your thoughts on OpenOffice 3.0, especially if a) you're an admin who's moving to OO rather than Office, b) you switched, only to find out that Office has features that your company really needs, or c) you're running both (and explain why). Your comments might make it into an upcoming feature. Send them to me at [email protected].

A Mac Tax, or a Windows Deduction
Doug has previously touted the virtues of Macs in this column, most recently here. (By the way, click here to subscribe to the newsletter.)

I've got Mac-envy and have been forwarding my wishlist to the IT folks. They tell me to keep dreaming -- my five-year-old, business-class desktop is a solid hunk of hardware that hasn't had major problems, save for a hard drive upgrade about three months ago. Further thwarting my Mac upgrade efforts is Microsoft again dredging up the Mac Tax -- just in time for next Wednesday, of course.

Adobe Bats Clean Up, But Grounds Out
Early last spring, Microsoft Silverlight was the supposed RIA of choice for major league baseball's online game streaming. We saw the demo and then we waited. And waited. In November, MLB Advanced Media benched Silverlight for Adobe's Flash Player.

The baseball season opened this week and it looks like some streaming customers reported poor performance and glitches. Both players look like they need some more time down at triple-A ball.

Mailbag: On SBS
On Monday, Doug asked readers to weigh in with their thoughts on SBS. One reader didn't find much to complain about, while another...did:

I don't play with Microsoft's SBS all that often and have only run into it as an option for a business client a few times. However, the few times it has come up as a possible solution, it has worked far beyond all expectations.

Yes, those granular administrators have to learn to hold back a little and let the wizards do their thing, but in doing so the one server solution -- or as I like to call it, "business in a box" -- just flat-out works. No, it's not for every business out there, but it sure does answer the call when needed.
-Kris

Let's talk about SBS, first the console. The console was designed in 2003 as a one-shot to do everything. In 2008, it became the "Office Ribbon" -- it is confusing, not laid-out right. It has actually been easier to do things in Server 2003 and not use the console. Also (this is good), when you first log on, the console opens. If you close the console and reopen it, you get a UAC! Since I found it easier to use "Active Directory users and computers," I found you can enable the REAL admin account. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? Because it is a SMALL BUSINESS SERVER, there is ONE admin -- ME! I log on to do one thing: administrate the server! This is great, no more UAC. If someone can see UAC, you're already in trouble! UAC is plain stupid on a server!

Let's go to one of the GREATEST things built into SBS 2003: remote workspace and OWA. It was great. Some training on where NOT to use it, and you were set! Now, to connect you need to have the cert file first to install. Then when you go to log on, it wants to do a "computername\username." My home computer is NOT on my work network! Now I have to remove my computer name -- this is STUPID. The company Web page removed the "check my e-mail link" -- again, less usability. I wonder if the effort isn't in making us FEEL more secure, or is this just aggravation? I feel like I am being treated as incapable!

I almost forgot: Home Server has a great backup idea. They did NOT put that in SBS because of resources. RESOURCES. In a time when we have quad-core processors and 64-bit with 16GB of RAM. That is SO LAME. That was the same excuse for pulling SBS Premium into separate boxes. Rubbish.
-Ron

Share your own thoughts with us by writing a comment below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Michael Domingo on 04/10/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

Windows 7: Worth the Switch?

Hello, readers -- and yes, I'm not Doug Barney! Your regular Redmond Report columnist is off traveling to Redmond, Wash. He'll be having some deep discussions with the Microsofties, giving them your feedback, no doubt. In the meantime, I'll be covering for him today. So here we go:

Microsoft on Tuesday settled some questions for those testing the Window 7 beta -- and you're all doing that, right? First, there will be a way to upgrade to the release candidate from the beta, but it involves some tweaking that leaves me woozy, quite frankly.

Second, there will be no upgrade path from Windows XP to Windows 7. I can hear your groans already. Sorry, but no soup for you!

Once again, the question looms for IT orgs: What value are you seeing in Windows 7 so far that might cause you to make the move? Tell Doug your thoughts at [email protected].

Downgrading Windows in a Down Economy
Windows 7 users will be able to downgrade to Windows XP. Skipping editions of the operating system is actually a long-standing part of Microsoft's downgrade policy, but it still seemed to surprise journalists, including me.

Downgrade rights might make it easier for IT departments to buy new PCs loaded with Windows 7, since it eliminates having to maintain different Microsoft operating system versions in the same shop. The availability of XP downgrade media from OEMs -- ostensibly cutting off in July for Vista-based PCs -- seems to have a longer timeline, depending on the OEM.

Every OEM will offer this downgrade capability with new PCs, but it gets a little hazy from there. In the past, some OEMs have charged for downgrades to be performed, while others don't charge. In addition, the Business and Ultimate editions of the OS can be downgraded typically, but not other Windows editions, which is mostly confusing for consumers.

Still, with the economy on the slide, new PC purchases might not be on the radar screen for IT departments. A new quarterly report on the U.S. IT market published by Forrester Research suggests that we're entering a bleak period for IT spending in 2009. The report predicts that purchases of IT services and goods will decrease by "3.1% in 2009." It singled out computer equipment purchases as bearing "the brunt of cutbacks in tech investment."

Assuming that you could buy a new Windows 7-based PC in late 2009, would downgrade rights to XP make it easier for your IT shop to purchase them? Tell Doug how downgrade rights matter, or don't, to your IT plans at [email protected].

Also, Lee Pender, executive editor of Redmond magazine, is looking for any bad experiences you may have had with OEMs in downgrading Windows. Talk to Lee here, if you'd like to share.

Virtually Free
VMware claims that its virtualization software can save organizations 50 percent on their server hardware costs. Virtualization Review Editor in Chief Keith Ward described the offer here.

If VMware can't demonstrate such cost savings, its virtualization services will be provided for free. Organizations wanting to take up VMware's offer need to be running "between 200 and 750 servers" and be based in the United States.

Mailbag: Should Sun Shop Around?
On Monday, Doug asked readers if they think IBM and Sun are a perfect match, or if Sun would be better suited with another company. Readers on both sides weigh in:

I think Microsoft should buy Sun. That would get the bees buzzing.
-Tim

It should be Sun and Oracle. Nowhere near the overlap and some good complementary interleavings.
-Bernie

In my short, simple opinion, I feel that Sun should take the offer from IBM. This will allow for more collaboration and a more powerful offering with less overhead. In addition, the business smarts of IBM can do better than Sun, and Sun will strengthen IBM in development areas.
-Jason

I think that Microsoft should buy Sun. It would then put the Java (J2EE)-.NET war at ease and also open the door for Microsoft Server platforms to further make its dominance present. We all know that Microsoft would love to squash Java and get its own server hardware plants.
-Joseph

If the government allows it to go through without very significant alterations or a protracted approval process, the Sun-IBM deal makes great sense for all. For the stockholders, there will be no better deal. For the employees and executives, they will be most at risk with IBM as the acquirer as opposed to another acquirer, but still better off than if they proceed to go it alone.
-Al

With the economy the way it is, the deal may help Sun and IBM. The question is, what does Sun have to lose and what can Sun gain? I would put together an analysis team to look at the advantages and disadvantages for both companies, and see where it stands at the midway point with an opt-out clause. Overall, I think it may be a good deal.
-Charles

Check in on Friday for more reader letters. In the meantime, share your own thoughts by writing a comment below, or sending an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/08/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

Windows Server 2008: A Foundation for Small Business

This server is very traditional in that it handles print and file sharing. But like any modern hunk of software, it's Internet-friendly, handling Web hosting and remote access.

I've heard good things about Microsoft small business servers. What's your experience? Feedback welcome at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/06/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments

IBM-Sun Deal Dashed

If Sun's very survival is at stake, I say take the offered $7 billion. But if Sun is a viable concern, and I think it is, it should stay independent or at least partner with a company without the near-total overlap IBM brings to the table.

Should IBM still buy Sun, or is there a better suitor? Tell me what you think at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on 04/06/2009 at 1:16 PM0 comments