Web site Politico, which gained huge traction through the course of the election,
has
an article light on details and heavy on fear about Google CEO Eric Schmidt
and President-elect Barack Obama.
The theory is that Schmidt is Obama's de facto technical adviser, and
that an Obama administration would craft policies more to Google's liking than
to Microsoft's. It even quoted an unnamed source (and just one, mind you) who
said that Microsoft is "terrified."
I've covered Redmond on and off since 1985 and I've never seen Microsoft terrified,
or even really nervous; it's like the John Wayne of software. I don't think
Microsoft has any reason to worry, either. One of the key issues is whether
the Democrats will get tougher on antitrust, but these days there are just as
many Google antitrust issues as Microsoft.
Terrified? I bet Bill and Steve are sleeping just fine!
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/12/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft recently revealed that the next rev of Windows Server 2008 would be
able to use
up
to 256 processors, but Seth isn't really buying the multi-core excitement:
You're missing the point with the core support: There's virtually no
application software out there that will leverage the multi-core systems at
the scale they exist at today, and there isn't really need to grow it in the
future. The only thing that will need that many cores is a virtualization
platform, and even then you're going to have RAM limitations well before you
get to the processor bottleneck.
Show me an application platform that will benefit from the processor
scaling and do so cost-effectively in a single chassis, and I'll get excited.
Until then, it is just a marketing number that is rather irrelevant. Talking
with an MS program manager a couple months back, he let on that 256 processors
was probably going to happen, but also that there really is about zero demand
for it in the market and that demand isn't expected to grow. It isn't that
surprising really.
-Seth
Today is Veterans Day in the U.S. Readers share their thoughts on the holiday,
and how they plan to pay their respects:
As a Vietnam vet, I take this holiday very seriously. Having seen war
first-hand, I can appreciate the contributions of those that served before,
during and after my time. God bless them all.
-George
My husband and I are both taking the day off as we are both veterans.
He's a veteran of Vietnam and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I'm a veteran of
the Air Force. We both have some very dear fellow veterans to salute and remember.
-Anonymous
Having lived in the U.S. for nearly two decades, we're astonished at the
ease with which many disrespect the military and deride those who chose to
extinguish modern-day tyranny. It seems we in the U.S. are incapable of putting
ourselves in the shoes of others who are being systematically eradicated just
because they don't agree with the ruler. Imagine if the Constitution were
set aside by a government with sufficient authority that wanted to silence
its opponents; wouldn't 'the targets to be silenced' want someone to come
in and decisively put an end to that? I would suspect that even the President-elect
would welcome that.
We know several veterans of Iraq -- one, at least, multi-tour -- who
have yet to reach 25 years of age, and the parents of other such sons who
died in Iraq setting people free. All these are worthy of respect and honor
-- doubly so, in my opinion, as multitudes of them are so young.
-Stephen
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/11/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
During the heat of the antitrust prosecutions of Microsoft, the Redmond giant
made friends with lots of its enemies. Two former foes remain tight: Novell
and Microsoft are doing great work on interoperability, and the Sun deal --
though less dramatic -- is working out, as well.
This week, in fact, Sun announced that the MSN Toolbar can
be downloaded as part of the Java Runtime. That means the Google Toolbar
is getting kicked off, at least in the U.S.
I'd say Microsoft did some pretty fancy negotiating.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/11/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Both Google and Microsoft agree on one thing -- that the airwaves that will
be abandoned when we move to digital television should be used for wireless
Internet access. The FCC agrees, and is making these airwaves
available
for 'Net services.
That's the great part. Here's my fear, though: I worry that these spectrums,
even though they're unlicensed, will be sold or given to service providers who
will charge whatever the market will bear.
That's capitalism and isn't an entirely bad thing. But we also have an opportunity
to serve some poor rural communities and poor urban communities here (hey, we
might even find some suburbs that could use cheap or free access). I'd especially
like to see this access spread to school kids so they have the same opportunity
as Bunny and Biff in Greenwich, Conn.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/11/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Yesterday morning, I got an e-mail from VMware talking about
virtualization
for mobile phones. I double-checked the date and sure enough, it was Nov.
10, not April 1!
Under the VMware Mobile Virtualization Platform, the phone itself is virtualized
so that the hardware is separate from the embedded apps (could be a cool way
to have an iPhone and Google phone running at the same time, eh what?).
This way, your phone can have different personalities depending on whether
you're at work, home or vacationing in Acapulco. It also makes it easier for
phone makers to update their software since it's not tied directly to the hardware.
No fooling.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/11/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Tomorrow, many (but not enough, in my opinion) will take the day off in honor
of Veterans Day. The only trouble for IT is tomorrow is also Patch Tuesday.
Luckily,
only
two patches are expected tomorrow. And only one of these patches, to fix
a remote code execution in Office and Windows, is deemed critical.
Are you taking off Veterans Days, and if so, why? Your opinions and beliefs
welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/10/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Microsoft and Yahoo sometimes act more like dating teenagers than real grown-up
companies. First, Microsoft asked Yahoo to be its one and only with a multibillion-dollar
bid. Yahoo wanted to play the field, and said, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Then Microsoft, feeling snubbed, pulled back its affections -- just when Yahoo
was starting to get interested.
Now that Yahoo's relationship with Google to share ad revenue fell
apart, Yahoo is pining for good old Microsoft. In fact, last week, Yahoo's
Jerry Yang said Microsoft
would be well-served by buying his company. Alas, it appears that Steve
Ballmer has moved on.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/10/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Based on early demos,
Windows
7 already looks much-improved compared to Vista. Doug asked readers how
they think the next OS will stack up to its predecessors:
Maybe Microsoft will get it right with Windows 7. I've said all along
that if Microsoft had an OS which was small and responsive, it would win over
many companies. If the price is right and the performance is better than XP
on our computers, we would switch to the new Vista.
-Mike
Windows 7 was good to take out some of the driver loading. But I've seen
some of the videos of demos and they are ALL about appearance. Most of us
don't need fancy front-ends (many people rarely have more than one app running
at a time, possibly two if they are daft enough to monitor their e-mail).
They need something simpler, more stable and more secure.
-Joe
I think Windows 7 is already competing more with Vista than it will with
XP. However, as I think of my recently bought laptop and the pain I went through
to get my apps working, I doubt that I will risk losing them by updating to
Windows 7. This is in spite of the good words about Win 7. There is peripheral
hardware involved and I am not confident the change would go well.
-John
Windows XP can be a more effective OS, but it still lacks in operating
ability, troubleshooting techniques and user-friendliness. XP has been around
for about seven years, but it still doesn't meet today's customer expectations.
I think Microsoft should have developed and invested more on XP rather than
any other OS.
-Brian
We have resisted using XP in our organisation for some time now since
upgrading from 2000. Because of the fact that XP is very stable (ironically,
not on my PC at home) and performs very well on our newer PCs, we have no
reason to use Vista. We will be keeping a keen eye on Win 7 as hopefully it
will fulfil the role Vista was supposed to.
I have used Vista a number of times and although the general look and
feel are OK and functional, it still seems overly heavy on hardware.
-Colin
What do you think? Leave your comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/10/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
I've long been concerned about XP's and Vista's inability to exploit
multi-core
processors. Both generally do a good job of using dual-cores and, depending
on the apps, can gain some benefit from quad-cores.
Windows Server is different. The latest rev of Windows Server 2008 uses up
to 64 processors. R2, due out in the next year or two, promises to exploit as
many as 256. That could handle some mighty big databases, legions of mailboxes
and a fair share of SharePoint!
What is your biggest server and what does it do? Brag to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/10/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Last week, after Microsoft announced plans to offer a stripped-down version
of Office to
run
in the cloud, Doug asked readers what it would take for them to put their
files on the Web. Here's what you said:
A frontal lobotomy and a bottle in front of me.
-James
In your article, you ask what it would take for a reader to put their
files in a cloud somewhere. My answer is: NOTHING. I wouldn't do it. I know
we're breeding a whole new generation that believes having your apps and files
in a cloud is supposed to be more appealing and secure than traditional methods,
but for me, I don't want my files to be the responsibility of anyone but myself.
If my Internet connection is down and I need to work, where are my files?
If the Web site where they are stored gets taken down or fails, where are
my files? If I have to access the Internet over dial-up, are my files really
accessible? If someone hacks the site hosting my files, are they still there,
and if so, are they all over the world, as well?
No thank you! I will keep my files safe, secure and backed up at my home
office and continue to use offline files when I travel. It's worked for me
for years, and with nine copies and regular tape backups (moved offsite every
week), I'll continue to have my files to work with when I need them and without
all the worries. For individuals who are comfortable with the possibility
of having their files unavailable, maybe it's a good thing. For myself, I
can't imagine giving my file storage and safety away. It's almost like asking
your best friend to mind your checkbook for you and make sure all your bills
are paid, too. I may trust them, but never that far.
-Anonymous
I can't see myself using such capabilities in the near future. I have
100GB of information and backups that I manage securely between my three personal
computers. Growth rate is 1 to 1.5GB per month. Remote access has not been
an issue thus far as a flash drive and a laptop have proved sufficient for
data I need to access away from home.
-Brian
I think cloud computing and Internet banking have some similarities. Why
do I manage my money over the Web? I have a written contract with the bank.
I can see my bank balance and my transactions at any time. I have access to
history. I know that I can withdraw my money whenever I need it. (The analogy
breaks down a bit here.) And I'm working with a firm that I can trust.
I'd want all of these things before storing my data in the cloud. I'd
also want to be able to 'back up' my files onto my personal computer whenever
I choose.
-Dave
And Floyd responds to another
reader's thoughts about Azure -- specifically, that people with dial-up
wouldn't be able to access the cloud OS:
Recently, Mike said that "dial-up...with today's large data transfer
requirements, is quite useless." I think Mike misses an opportunity for
dial up users in that Azure could be the perfect solution to these folks.
Why? Well, just like with the remote terminals we use here, the only bandwidth
that's needed is for updating those parts of the screen that change as the
user moves the mouse, opens a window, closes a window and so on. Since the
data is stored and worked on remotely, there would only be a couple of instances
where a large download of data would be required -- say, when printing a document
to a local printer or when saving a file to a local drive.
If Azure can provide me with cloud encryption for my files that I can
control, I say, "Bring it on!"
-Floyd
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/06/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Google's Android OS may be small (small enough to drive the new Google phone)
but it has plenty of code it seems for hackers to attack. Case in point: Last
week, researchers showed how hackers can take over the phone by tricking the
user into going to a malicious Web page. With that control, your passwords could
be stolen, no matter how many obscure letters and characters they contain.
The patch is now
out and requires a simple restart.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/06/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
With the Professional Developers Conference (PDC) barely over, Microsoft conference
organizers have already moved onto WinHEC, the Windows Hardware Engineering
Conference. PDC was all about Windows 7. Guess what?
So
is WinHEC!
Most know that one of Vista's biggest bugaboos is hardware incompatibility.
It's no surprise, then, that hardware compatibility was Topic No. 1 at WinHEC,
where Windows execs touted a new approach to integrating and loading all those
device drivers.
Most also know that one of Vista's biggest bugaboos is performance -- at least,
the lack thereof on lower-end hardware. For Windows 7, Microsoft is using parallel
techniques to speed hardware and is changing the way applications load. Instead
of loading and remaining in memory, applications will be loaded just when needed.
Finally, most know that one of Vista's biggest bugaboos is the eternity it
can take to shut down the machine. Windows 7 should be orders of magnitude faster
to turn off -- in part, I'd guess, because fewer items remain active in memory.
Will Windows 7 compete more with Vista or XP? And does XP SP2 satisfy your
computing needs? Send me your thoughts at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/06/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments