Readers talk browsers -- specifically, why Firefox trumps IE, and whether Netscape
died a natural death:
I don't know what you don't like about Firefox. I find it fast, intuitive,
extensible and easy to use. Granted, I've been in on this session since 1982;
I've seen EVERY version of IE. I've seen everything that IE can possibly do
and I am not happy with IE. I only use IE because of some Web sites, like
the educational system's Web site. Otherwise, I do everything else in Firefox.
If I had to choose just one feature of Firefox that I rely on most, it's
the infinite zoom feature.
-Ari
Netscape definetely died. Take a look at Firefox (well, it's free). It's
still gaining momentum over IE, and now Chrome is doing its part. If Netscape
would've offered a very compelling reason to stick with it, it would be alive.
But I'm sure it would be as freeware.
I think Microsoft did a good job (even tough, unconsciously) in making the
market for the Web browsers at no cost. I don't think paying for such a piece
of software would've improved the security and quality.
-Armando
John isn't sure how, exactly, the movement toward cloud
computing is going to help him save energy:
Let see if I am getting this right: If I use the cloud instead of my
own datacenter, I can save energy? As I see it, the datacenter I use, either
Microsoft's or my own, may or may not be energy-efficient. I do not see how
the location has anything to do with how much energy it uses. Try this: If
I use my home computer, which is bloated because it is running Vista, and
buy a cloud service to handle my checkbook, correspondence and record keeping,
according to your theory I would save energy. I don't understand how that
can be true.
This reminds me of the fellow who is going to save energy by charging
his cell phone from the car. No, that isn't free energy; the car's engine
has to run a tiny bit harder to charge the phone. It isn't much, but it is
the same amount as you would draw from the wall outlet at home. Charging where
you get it is a trade, and not necessarily an improvement. It depends on all
the factors involved. Maybe if I buy one of China's $99 laptops instead of
my home desktop with 2GB et al., that might save me some energy. But it is
not because the laptop is battery-powered -- it is because it might, just
might, use less power to do its work.
-John
Speaking of cheap
laptops, Marc thinks that no matter how inexpensive they get, Linux laptops
won't catch on in the States:
In the U.S., low-cost PCs are extremely attractive to cost-conscious
segments. But in the end, American consumers are needed to drive costs down.
In the end, no matter how much you drive down costs with low-power, Linux-based
systems, user demand is the key and consumers (at least in the USA) ask for
Windows. Why? Well, lots of Web sites are dependent upon IE (Firefox just
won't cut it). Commercial products, be they for personal productivity, multimedia
or gaming, overwhelmingly are available for Windows and, sometimes, Macintosh.
Not much commercial software is available for Linux. The fact that most Linux
software is free just doesn't help when the consumer cannot shop of those
Linux choices at their favorite retailer.
This new Chinese laptop might do well in European and Asian markets,
but without the ability to run Widows applications or view IE-centric Web
sites, don't expect it to take hold in the USA.
-Marc
And Chris, who was in Las Vegas during 9/11, shares his memories of the aftermath:
A day or so after the tragedy, all gaming stopped for one minute at noon
to remember the victims. All major attractions were closed (such as the Stratosphere
rides and headliner acts), since they were considered potential targets. The
oversized electronic hotel signs had patriotic messages such as "God
bless America" instead of the usual advertising. The Fitzgerald casino
downtown changed its marquee to read, "Our thoughts and prayers go out
to the victims of this week's tragedies." It is probably the only time
they've ever had a prayer on their marquee. Every sports book was shut down;
instead, their mammoth screens displayed the news channels.
Friday, Sept. 14, the hotels minimized all exterior lighting, including
turning off marquees and decorative lighting, to memorialize Tuesday's events.
In addition, for 10 minutes, they turned off ALL exterior lighting. We were
in a cab, and it was as if the entire strip simply disappeared. It was an
unbelievable sight, or rather a lack thereof!
-Chris
Tell us what you think! Leave comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/17/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
New VMware CEO Paul Maritz stood in front of a crowd of (I'd have to guess)
thousands and, like Sarah Palin,
gave
the speech of his life. What's the difference between a former VMware CEO
and a pitbull? Lipstick. And if you put lipstick on Hyper-V, it's still Hyper-V.
No, Maritz really didn't say any of those things. In fact, that's probably
the lamest joke I've ever penned (send barbs my way at [email protected]).
The Maritz talk wasn't quite as well-received as Palin's convention speech.
Virtualization Review Editor Keith Ward wasn't
impressed, whereas I thought Martitz came across as thoughtful, highly technical
and one not afraid of pushing the envelope.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/17/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
While Microsoft has a series of discrete tools for servers, PCs, applications
and management, VMware is now
talking
about what it calls a Datacenter Operating System. If that wasn't bold enough,
this OS (well, it's not really an OS) handles computers, networks and storage
(not sure how Cisco and NetApp feel about all that).
Essentially, VMware wants you to build your own clouds. The cloud isn't just
Google et al., but the datacenter right down the hall. Under this plan, computing
becomes a utility -- carefully managed by VMware.
This works for fine Google, which invests billions in built-from-scratch server
farms to which it adds built-from-scratch applications. But how do you do that
when you don't have billions to invest in built-from-scratch server farms to
which you can add built-from-scratch applications? You have to deal with all
things legacy.
To me, going forward this is a fine IT goal, but while the end result sounds
simple, getting there is immensely complex. If VMware succeeds with these plans,
it will not only become the new Microsoft, but the new Cisco and EMC, as well
(oh, yeah, they already are EMC).
Is this pie in the sky or money in the bank? Answers readily accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/17/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
In a Q&A session, Maritz was asked about support for non-VMware hypervisors.
He said, "At this point in time, we don't support hypervisors other than
our own," adding that VMware isn't religious about hypervisors and it would
consider it if there was enough demand.
After private conversations, it's clear that the door is open for other hypervisors.
The trouble is in doing things like VMotion with Hyper-V et al. that are so
easily accomplished with ESX.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/17/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Sun may not get the same attention in the virtualization space as, say, a Microsoft
or a VMware, but like IBM on the mainframe, Sun is no stranger to virtualization.
Sneaking its message in just before VMworld, Sun announced that its new hypervisor,
xVM Server, and its management platform for virtualization, Ops Center 2.0,
are
both
now ready.
Sun already added the Xen hypervisor to Solaris. xVM Server is actually the
exact opposite; it adds chunks of Solaris to Xen, which Sun claims makes the
hypervisor more secure and full-featured.
Sun's virtualization strategy is rich and complex -- that's what happens when
you've been doing something for 20-plus years. I spent a solid month trying
to figure it all out. Here's
what I came up with. Let me know if I got it right by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/16/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Redmond Report reader Michael P. (you know who you are) told me the
second
Seinfeld-Microsoft commercial is out, and pointed me to the four-plus-minute
version online. After the first outing -- which most of you agree
is
horrible -- I feared the worst.
In the second commercial, Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld move in with an average
American family so they can reconnect with normal people. I watched it and thought
it was OK. Then as I thought about it more and more, clever scenes came back
to me -- and I liked 'em. Fact is, I can actually imagine this as a sitcom.
And once again, Gates did a great job playing Gates.
So as much as I blasted the first commercial, I really like this new one --
very unusual, very different and very good. Tell me where I'm wrong at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/16/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
I like things feisty. Lance Armstrong, Bill Parcells and Vince K. McMahon are
all well-known jerks, but I love 'em anyway. That self-centeredness, that will
to succeed, is what makes them great. Microsoft is that kind of company. On
the eve of VMworld (actually, the week before) Microsoft had a massive product
launch for Hyper-V where it lowered the price to...
free!
Today, on the morning of VMware CEO (and former Microsoft powerbroker) Paul
Maritz's keynote, Microsoft sent out an e-mail about a Q&A with Mike Neil
on virtualization. Minutes after reading this on my BlackBerry, an attractive
woman dressed in black slipped me a poker chip.
The joke? When it comes to virtualization, Microsoft is the best bet.
Once inside The Venetian hotel in Las Vegas, site of VMworld, another attractive
woman dressed in black slipped me a poker chip. Thanks to Microsoft, I'm already
up two bucks, and haven't even fed the slots.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/16/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Based on the aforementioned Michael's reaction, the second Seinfeld-Gates commercial
is already
more
successful than the first:
In case you haven't seen it yet, here
is the next installment. It's on YouTube. I was crying about 30 seconds in.
That grandmother is hilarious.
-Michael
But that might not make a difference for Darren from the U.K., who has just
one question:
Sorry, who is Seinfeld?
-Darren
And Raymond shares his thoughts on the naysayers who think the Large Hadron
Collider will
only spell disaster:
I do not understand why the fear mongers want to stop the LHC. I may
not be a particle physics major, but I would love to see what we will learn
from their experiments and, like the article stated, we have higher energy
collisions that are being caused by cosmic rays all around us and they have
not destroyed the earth.
There are always doom-and-gloom people out there and we never seem to
learn to ignore them. When they tested the first atomic bomb, there were people
that were worried that the chain reaction would not stop and the earth would
be destroyed. I can remember when all the planets aligned on the same side
of our sun and it was not torn apart like some apocalypse doomsayers said
it would. By the way, if I recall, we were supposed to go back to the Stone
Age when the year 2000 hit because of the Y2K computer bug...so I guess I
am not really writing this message to you after all.
-Raymond
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/16/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Yesterday I got up early, kissed the family goodbye and made the monstrous
multi-stop airplane journey to Las Vegas. You might think the author of a prestigious
newsletter such as Redmond Report would travel in style, but like many of you
I'm purely a coach potato. Traveling in that crowed stockade they call a fuselage
makes me appreciate where I'm going.
And that is VMworld, where I was instantly joined by 10,000 to 14,000 other
virtualization freaks. Today and the rest of the week I'll give you hands-on
reports from the show, along with a smattering of what's going on in the rest
of the computing universe.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/16/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
Chrome may be based on Mozilla, Safari and a huge dose of Google code, but at
least
one
chunk is pure Microsoft. Chrome uses the Windows Template Library (WTL),
a technology for running small programs that Redmond donated to the open source
community, according to Microsoft's Scott Hanselman.
Chrome authors also reportedly "disassembled part of the Windows kernel"
in order to make the browser more secure under XP.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/15/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Ever since Netscape died (Did it die on its own or was it murder? Verdicts welcome
at
[email protected]),
IE has been the standard in browsers. IE worked fine for me, but security worries
and the desire for something new led me to Firefox.
Unlike some, I don't find Firefox fun or particularly cool. It is, however,
very good -- and through add-ons, nicely extensible. Foxmarks is great for keeping
bookmarks, and the browser blocks ads awfully well (it does crash a lot, though;
should I blame XP or Mozilla?). But there's nothing truly killer about Firefox.
So does IE 8 have the juice? According to one
early report, IE is getting better with version 8, including tighter security
and thumbnails for tabs. But like Firefox, it's no revolution.
And from what I can see (and hear from Redmond Report readers), Chrome is tight
and fast, but not yet an overthrow of the status quo. Has Google shown all of
its Chrome cards, or is there more to come? Initial impressions and further
Chrome, IE and Firefox thoughts readily accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/15/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments
You may know us for
Redmond magazine and our associated Web site. But
did you know that we have four other magazines, including
Redmond
Channel Partner, aimed at Microsoft VARs and integrators;
Visual
Studio Magazine, aimed at programmers;
Virtualization
Review for IT folks; and
Redmond
Developer News (RDN) for development managers?
Two RDN reporters attended our recent VSLive!
New York show and came away with a better understanding of Microsoft's
cloud plans. Microsoft believes that much of what's in your datacenter right
now will move to the cloud. In fact, nearly everything that's essentially me-too
software -- such as database, e-mail and CRM -- will be remote.
While you may lament the lack of control, ultimately cloud computing could
save us loads of electricity. And because the software runs in massive, centralized
datacenters, security may well improve. Tell me where I'm wrong at [email protected].
Meanwhile, here's
a cover story we did on Ray Ozzie's cloud plans.
Posted by Doug Barney on 09/15/2008 at 1:16 PM0 comments