After word leaked that Midori would be Microsoft's
next,
all-new OS, Doug asked readers whether Microsoft building an OS from scratch
is a good idea. Most of you said yes:
Absolutely! When you're a leader, isn't it better to aggressively compete
against yourself as opposed to aggressively competing with others? Besides,
it sounds like Midori already has a starting code base, or at least architectural
models from the Singularity project.
-Jim
Absolutely! How refreshing.
-Dallas
Absolutely! I am a former Microsoft software engineer; I worked as a developer
on Microsoft Works and Office. We've learned a great deal about what works
well in an operating system and what doesn't. Hindsight is 20/20, and taking
a look back from where we are today, it's easy to see that there are things
that we would have done differently before if we knew then what we know now.
Given this perspective, I would say that Microsoft engineers can build
a new operating system that is significantly better than our evolutionary
operating system of today when the engineers are free from the historical
baggage that's pent-up in Vista. I think that there is a great potential for
immense improvement and I'm very excited about Microsoft's new OS project!
-Chad
Yes. A new alternate OS with NO backward portability. Get rid of the
junk, all of the emulation and legacy compatibility layers. Just make it work
exceedingly well on modern hardware, perhaps 64-bit only. Create a subset
of tools in one or more of the popular programming languages for it and call
it done. That would be simplicity at its best.
-John
Although starting from scratch to build a new OS can be extremely time-consuming
and complex, who else but Microsoft could pull it off in a short timeframe?
And I think it is an excellent idea, considering that is basically where Windows
NT came into the picture. Now, when we look back at Win9x, it looks ancient
and very inferior. Now the NT codebase is reaching its limits and is getting
way too bloated. I'd be very interested in seeing where this goes and how
it turns out in the end.
-Dustin
IMHO, a less complex OS which stresses reliability (which includes security
of data) is what MS desparately needs. Vista's market problems are largely
the fault of the success of XP -- Vista is prettier and has cool features
like the sidebar, but I haven't seen a truly useful application that requires
Vista, and I have struggled with device drivers and program compatibility
both at work and at home. Even this far into Vista's life cycle, that's still
a problem. Vista recovers from crashes more gracefully than any previous MS
operating system, but they seem to happen a LOT. If a "killer app"
that requires Vista turns up, then maybe the picture will change, but I'm
not holding my breath.
-Peter
In this respect, Microsoft's success is its own millstone. Having to maintain
compatibility with prior versions (i.e., Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 etc.)
makes any improvements extraordinarily clumsy. If indeed Microsoft intends
to offer a from-scratch version, I imagine their priority needs to be on speed,
stability and security. I imagine as well that all the Microsoft apps must
be rewritten or adjusted to work cleanly with the new OS.
If this were a possibility and we could gain a serious improvement in
these three aspects (to me, this is the order of priority, as well) then supporting
prior versions could be a purely secondary issue. Anyway, though I am only
one of millions, a ground-up approach would be worth investing in from my
point of view.
-Lindsay
Why not? Didn't they do this with Windows 95, ME to Windows 2000? What
happened to DOS? Using Modori as a foundation, couldn't they then rebuild
Windows around it, redesigning around it? Keeping backward compatibitliy using
virtual technologies transparently. I can keep backward compatiblity using
a VM now, except I need go thorugh a few more hoops than others may be willing
to do.
-Stanley
If they're not going to let us continue to buy XP, most definitely! Vista
has been such an administrative nightmare. It's really unacceptable. It's
insane that we're forced to use sub-par technology simply because MS says
so. While UAC is good in concept, I shouldn't have to buy a CAD capable system
in order for a secretary to write Word documents.
As for your statement that "Singularity is designed to be simple
and safe. For instance, components are isolated from one another, and code
is automatically inspected before running to make sure it works with the OS.
And all the components are tested to make sure they interoperate." Let's
ask the real question: Will Microsoft create a new OS from scratch or will
there be a new Linux distro? That quote sounds like Linux to me. MSX, Microsix
or Winix, perhaps? I'm not very creative with names. It would be funny to
hear what other people come up with.
-Cory
A couple of you expressed some doubts, however:
Start from scratch? Absolutely not! All-new code sounds good, but I hope
they will have an eye toward the "look and feel" of what everyone
is used to. One of the most objectionable parts of Vista and Office 2007 is
that they are different in their user interface. If Microsoft wants a hit,
they better keep their eye on what is really important, and to be user-friendly
means that features are in familiar places. The first time I used Vista, I
had to be shown how to shut down the computer. Does MS think I want to leave
the power on all the time?
-John
The debate can rage on both sides, but a new OS will mean starting over
-- bugs, SPs, security fixes, upgrades, new releases, new "end-of service"
considerations, backward/cross-compatibility concerns, everything. General
uncertainty is not a pretty picture for someone in Microsoft's position or
for its customers. It basically negates all the work that's been done in these
areas to shore up the old Iron Maiden that is Win32.
If you think a "fresh start" is all positive, wait a minute.
MS has spent a lot of time, capital, lawyer fees and blood getting Windows
to the point where it's respected -- even in the eyes of haters. If they think
that dumping the name/concept will untangle and extract certain negative connotations/experiences,
it might be a rude awakening and undo all this perception repair-work. For
this to be effective, it should've been done years ago when the OS' rep was
worse. Sometimes, the better hallmark of your dedication to a cause is not
by abandoning it for another more palatable one (in name or action), but to
press on with what you have; this tends to be better at stifling the "I
told you so"s from the spectators, while letting you say your own "I
told you so"s in vindication.
-Victor
What do you think? Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/05/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
A couple recently
sued
Google for invasion of privacy after Google took pictures in their private
driveway for its Street View tool. Doug asked readers whether they think we
have enough privacy from Google and others. Here are some of your responses:
I think that you're just trying to bash Google ANY chance you get. Please
try to write from a more unbiased position.
-Anonymous
There have always been technologies to compromise privacy, from telescopes
to wiretaps. It does not mean that there is no longer a right to privacy.
Google's argument is chutzpah, which is classically defined as a child killing
his parents and then begging leniency from the court on the grounds that he
is an orphan.
-Stephen
In the age we are in, we have to be very careful to not have our rights
bulldozed over by a bunch of arrogant, rich companies who only see the moment
and their profits. This type of blind disregard for the views, wants, desires
and needs of those who currently are not in power can lead to serious backlash
when the infamous worm turns. People will only stand for so much before they
rise in mass and overthrow an oppressor.
Since the chains that bind us to companies such as Google are only those
of personal choice, they can be severed in a heartbeat. Google needs to tread
very carefully in this matter. There are plenty of alternatives for each and
every function it offers. Piss us off and we as a people could shut them down
by the most deadly method available in this Internet age: We could ignore
them.
-Mike
Read "Woodswoman II: Beyond Black Bear Lake." If you're not
familiar with who the author is, she's a self-described advocate for the environment
and especially for the Adirondack Mountains. But what I found interesting
in this book was the fact that she moved from a pretty obscure lake in the
Adirondack Mountains to a super-obscure lake due to the fact her fans kept
on trying to find her. Now, if she doesn't have privacy (she actually fought
the USAF and won on the fact they aren't allowed to fly over her place anymore),
who does?
I'd be interested in the details of that case you cited. I'll bet the
couple didn't have "posted property" signs on their road. Also,
if they really think their road is a private road, then it should be gated.
Also, it could be declared "public" if they have a deal with the
state/locality for road maintenance. There are "private road" signs
up in one hood in my county, but people go up them all the time to "house
view." Unfortunately for them, unless they took really stern measures
to safeguard the privacy of the road, they don't stand a chance in court.
However, Google's take on it is pretty bad, too, and that isn't right either.
-Bruce
Vista is the least-favorite
OS of one more reader...but a few more of you think it's not all that bad:
From 1985, my company used DOS, Windows 3, 95, 98, ME, XP Pro and Vista
Ultimate. All except Vista were certainly acceptable and our real favorite
is XP. We tried Vista on two new machines and after five months, had the hard
drives reformatted to remove all traces of it and put XP Pro on them. The
effort of installing XP and reinstalling our applications was certainly worth
to get rid of Vista.
-Gerry
I like Vista. Most all of the negative comments I've read to date concerning
Vista is just whining. The only downside that I've experienced has been support
for drivers, primarily equipment older than two years and adding print drivers
in a locked-down environment. This took a lot of time to resolve due to the
new driver signing requirements. In fact, MS said it couldn't be done, but
we proved them wrong. If you're ready for a hardware refresh, it doesn't make
sense to look backward.
-Greg
In my experience, I think that Vista itself is pretty much where enterprise
needs it to be -- although you need to have a pretty modern PC to get the
most from it. Unfortunately, it is third-party support that is still lacking.
For example, the Cisco VPN client for Vista does not have the same level of
functionality as the client under XP. You cannot, for example, pre-connect
the VPN before logging onto the PC, which is an absolutely necessary for remote
GPO updates, etc.
I don't know if Microsoft can do anything to help third parties overcome
these issues, but the slow adoption of Vista is not entirely of Microsoft's
making.
-Philip
And Jonathan wonders why OneCare's more obscure OEM supporters
got
mentioned in a recent Redmond Report, but not others:
I saw your post regarding Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare announcement
in the Redmond Report and wanted to thank you for the coverage, but I'm also
hoping you can provide some clarity as to why you omitted mention of Sony
and Toshiba from the list of participants. I understand that OEM deals outside
the U.S. may not be relevant to all of your readers, but I'm concerned that
actively excluding mention of Sony and Toshiba in your commentary provides
a limited view of the actual news that was announced.
-Jonathan
Got something to say? Let us know! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail
to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Last week, I
told
you about the Mojave experiment, in which end users tried out an unknown
operating system and loved it, and the OS turned out to be a disguised version
of Vista.
Microsoft has been fighting back against critics in other ways. For instance,
after Forrester Research declared that far less than 10 percent of enterprise
users were in Vista, a Microsoft exec blogged that Forrester
was "schizophrenic" because some analysts were big fans of the
OS.
The problem? The blog by Chris Flores included a comments section. Actual end
users ripped Microsoft a new one, not just by complaining, but by going into
great detail about Vista problems, lost files, crashes, multiple rebuilds and
things just not working. Oops!
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Lately, the news has been full of reports of
Cuil,
a new search engine that will be the death of Google. Founded by former Google-meisters,
the new search engine promises new algorithms and claims to index a vaster swath
of the Internet.
It's pretty easy to easy to check this out; just type in your name. In my case,
the results were more scant than they should've been, and many of them were
downright random. For instance, there are images from things I've written next
to items that have nothing to do with the text. And when you click on the image
-- say, of a white paper -- it brings you somewhere else. Bizarre.
As for the "Doug Barney" search test, Google returns 4,300 while
Cuil only gives me 3,235 -- not exactly a wider swath. Also, the only option
I could find in Cuil was a straight search, with no options for images, news
groups or blogs.
Next, I searched "Cuil" on Cuil and got 121,578 results, mostly about
Ireland. I searched for "Cuil" on Google and got over 5 million. The
first result? "Cuil Needs to Fix its Technology Before it Gets Hot."
Coincidence?
And as my 15-year-old son David pointed out, Cuil is spending money like it's
already made it, with free lunches, free personal trainers and complimentary
strawberries and muffins.
Dave did some investigating himself. Knowing that Digg has been knocking Cuil,
he did a little searching. He looked on Digg and Cuil, and didn't see these
any of these negative articles. He did the same thing with Google and the second
result is "Cuil = Epic Fail."
While I'd love for someone, anyone, to knock Google off its pretentious perch,
Cuil ain't it -- at least, so far. Does anyone like any search engine other
than Google? Tell us why it's safe to ditch Google by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Recently, I've been talking about potential vulnerabilities with DNS. One reader
set
me straight, pointing out that DNS has never been attacked.
Someone may have taken that as a challenge, as an AT&T DNS was attacked
by someone using a recently reported vulnerability. That's exactly why Microsoft
was so
adamant that IT should patch their DNS.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/04/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
The press is abuzz with news that Microsoft is working a brand-new, from-the-bottom-up
desktop operating system. Where Windows 7 will be
based
on Vista, the other OS, Midori, starts with a
blank
slate.
Midori appears to either be based on or takes concepts from a Microsoft Research
project, Singularity. And if you've been reading Redmond Report, you probably
heard about Singularity here first. Fact is, I've already written about it twice
since April (here
and here).
Singularity, and thus Midori, attack Vista's No. 1 problem: It's too complex.
All these features make software hard to use and unstable, and fosters incompatibility.
And you need a monster machine to run it all.
Singularity is designed to be simple and safe. For instance, components are
isolated from one another, and code is automatically inspected before running
to make sure it works with the OS. And all the components are tested to make
sure they interoperate.
Should Microsoft start from scratch with a new OS? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/31/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
To build Street View, Google sends trucks with video cameras to film stores,
streets and people's houses. One such truck drove up the driveway of a Pennsylvania
couple (the couple consider it a private road), took a bunch of shots and then
posted it all on the Internet. The couple sued for invasion of privacy.
Google's well-heeled lawyers told the court that "complete
privacy does not exist." The argument is that because technology that
compromises privacy exists, the right to privacy itself is diminished.
Of course, when CNET -- which owns news.com -- published
information about Google CEO Eric Schmidt that it found in the Internet,
Google pulled a nutty. It blacklisted CNET reporters and complained the reporter
had gone too far in, er, Googling.
If you search for "google"+"hypocrite" you get 1,640,000
results. I thought it would be more!
Do we have enough privacy from Google et al.? Send thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/31/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Readers share their thoughts on Microsoft's somewhat unexpected
alliance
with Apache, which includes a $100K pledge:
I am so sure that this will be good for Apache. After all, look at all
the other "successful" collaborative efforts that Microsoft has
had with other vendors:
IBM + Microsoft = OS/2 (IBM got the short end of that stick) Sybase +
Microsoft = Does anyone still use Sybase?
And let's not forget Sun + Microsoft with the Java fun, which led to
Microsoft coming out with .NET.
-Raymond
Microsoft's mantra has always been: Embrace, extend, exterminate. The
$100K is the embrace part. A set of open source extensions that make existing
Apache-based code easier to run on IIS7 and vice versa will come next under
the guise of interoperability. The ensuing migration to Windows Server 2008
w/IIS7 will trigger self-extermination over time.
-Anonymous
I personally love the way Microsoft is handling itself now. Minus the
Linux threat to maybe 3 percent of its server share, MS has been stepping
it up for the developer side. I had no idea it provided the MySQL connectors
for dotNet, and was happy to hear about the Silverlight "help" it
is giving Novell -- not that I use *nix. Projects such as SubSonic, Ajax Toolkit
and log4net have made me start building more Microsoft projects. I'm still
treading lightly, though, because of the threats they put out there when the
open source culture shock hit.
MS made its money being the integration vendor and standards-compliant.
Now that it is getting back to its roots, it should get stronger.
-Phil
Doug asked readers recently to share their least
and most favorite OSes. Here are some of your votes:
Remember Windows ME? It frequently caused issues on my old PC, so much
so that the more pleasant conversion to Windows XP has made me hesitant to
switch to anything other than XP. It does leave me wondering if in the next
decade long after the next version of the Windows OS (Windows 7?) is stable,
whether Vista become the OS that everyone should have skipped.
-Joe
The worst OS to come out of Redmond has to be Windows ME. I ran it on
a few home computers and it made us suffer tremendously.
-Phil
Favorite OS? XP, of course. Problem with Vista is it is a huge resource
hog. It is the ME of the 21st century. I do not know who Microsoft went with
in the development, but it was not the users.
-Harold
I am an Microsoft Certified Professional providing IT support to small
businesses. So far, I have seen no reason to move to Vista and several reasons
not to.
Least favorite O/S: Windows 95 (Windows ME was a close second, but I
have only seen it on one machine).
Most favorite: Windows XP Pro.
-Lyle
Most favorite: XP Pro. Least favorite: ME.
I'm in the 91 percent that goes out of their way to purchase only XP desktops/notebooks.
-Joe
I like OSes that don't give me grief. Am still running Win2K SP4 on two
home machines (Toshiba P-300 and Thinkpad P-500), and am debating a new purchase
-- might go with Linux to avoid Vista.
At work, I still support some scanstations with Fujitsu 93GX scanners
which will not work in XP and Kofax Ascent, so I run them on older Gateways
with Win2K and the latest version of Kofax Ascent. I've got a couple more
scanners, Fujtisu 4097Ds, which will work with Kofax Ascent 7.5 and XP SP2,
but not if the XP is running on a dual processor Dell GX 755! Kofax and I
still haven't figured that one out, so I'm sticking with single-processor
Dells for those applications. With these kinds of compatibility issues on
older hardware (the scannes cost a lot more than PCs do!), I don't even want
to think about Vista!
-Fred
Windows 2000 was probably my favorite OS from Microsoft. I never thought
Microsoft would be able to put out an OS that I hated more than ME -- but
Vista proved me wrong! Even XP, with its original problems with drivers, etc.,
didn't require wholesale replacement of equipment like Vista did in the beginning.
I got my copy of Vista Home Ultimate and installed it on my Shuttle system
I built myself. It has an AMD 6000+ X2 CPU, 2GB of memory and a 1TB hard drive
with a 16MB cache. The video is an nVidia GeForce 7600 with 512MB of memory.
I was totally unprepared for how slow my system felt after the install! Plus,
my printer no longer worked in anything but basic mode, my scanner wouldn't
work at all, my label printer would print double size if it printed at all,
etc. I also had several software programs that would no longer work properly.
I would have had to spend about $2,000 to replace everything with stuff that
would work with Vista...if they could be found at all. Clients had trouble
getting things to work that were listed as Vista-compatible and the Vista
drivers were terrible! After two months, I yanked Vista off my system and
reinstalled XP on it.
-Matt
Speaking of Vista, readers air more of their concerns -- and some praise --
over the maligned OS:
Vista has three big obstacles, which is why I don't see it here within
three years.
- It requires all-new hardware. We simply cannot run Vista on our old
XP machines, even with added memory.
- It has not shown itself to operate either faster or better.
- It will require our people to learn a new way of doing things.
This is not Microsoft's first OS bomb; ME was also a disaster. Its biggest
failing was that it was incompatible with most of the existing software. XP
solved that problem as was a tremendous hit. We moved directly from Windows
98 to Windows XP. Current plans are to wait for whatever is after Vista and
hope it solves all of Vista's problems. We also plan to wait for the next
version of Office.
-John
I don't follow blogs/forums on Vista, but I can tell you the thing that
hit me upon Vista's release and continues to prove true. A dominating reason
for not moving to it is Vista's failure to support Microsoft's own products
that are not that old. If I recall correctly, for instance, if you're not
running Office 2003 or later, it won't run under Vista. It looks to me like
Microsoft just plain shot itself in the foot.
-Albert
I am going to reiterate that Microsoft's own worst enemy this time around
is itself. Windows XP is a solid OS, and was seriously upgraded with SP2.
We're already at SP3, which breathed new life into it again, and after Vista's
launch.
Microsoft should take a lesson from its own success rather than try to
make a (very) fat client out of every PC in the world. In our slowing economy,
homes and IT departments cannot cost-justify a rich user experience on every
desktop -- especially when XP did that job more than sufficiently. A lightweight,
functional OS is where it's at in most cases, and most applications are being
delivered via Web browser anyway. Where is the real value add?
-Jeremy
I must take exception to the common assertion/misconception that Windows
7 will magically fix compatibility and migration issues. It will not; all
indications are that, architecturally, Windows 7 is an evolution of Vista.
That being said, anyone who does not start making efforts to migrate will
be in for a painful surprise in three years and find that many of the same
issues remain. I am not defending MS, but any shop that plans on staying with
Windows in the future would be very well-served to start their migration efforts
now, meaning testing, hammering vendors for updates, getting hardware roadmaps,
etc. This will save much heartache down the road when forced to go with whatever
Windows 7 turns out to be.
As to what went wrong with Vista: As I see it, the public and the press
have been (rightly) clamoring for years for Windows to be more secure. So
MS focuses on exactly that, with the result that everyone complains that Vista
is not XP and they do not like, or see the reason for, UAC. (Mechanisms similar
to this exist and have existed for years in OS X and *nix, by the way. And
do what they were intended to do.)
-Dean
As an IT person, I believe that Vista is still getting the wrong end
of the stick. I have been using Vista Home Premium for about a year now. I
purchased a new computer with the OS already installed. I have not experienced
any of the horror stories of devices not working, slow, always crashing, etc.
Now is that to say it's perfect? No. I don't believe that we will ever see
the perfect OS from a developer because when you're trying to satisfy the
masses, there is always going to be one feature missing or it doesn't work
right.
I guess my biggest hang-up about Vista would be the UAC. Now, being a
savvy IT person, I could go in and disable it, but I don't want to do that,
even if I could. The reason why is UAC does exactly what it is supposed to
do: It makes it painful to install software and thus forces me to make the
decision, "Yes, I want to do this." I myself hope Microsoft includes
it in the next version of Windows because as painful as it is to click a button
(two to three seconds max) it reminds us that we have a choice. You can't
have security without a little pain.
-Phil
I've had a totally different experience in moving to Vista (100 workstations).
Our move from Win98 to XP was FAR more painful. The security model and driver
model changes were far most numerous and difficult to accommodate.
Our Vista migration has been relatively smooth and painless. I love the
UAC feature (our admins have it much easier now -- no logging off and back
on as admin). I also love the integrated search, the vast improvements to
the task scheduler, better wireless management, better overall security, much
improved power management (including group policy improvements), far better
backup and restore, and hundreds of minor refinements.
-Vern
I didn't want to touch Vista with a 10-foot pole as all I saw in the press
and heard from my friends was that Vista was not any good. I believe that
Vista did have its share of problems but is slowly overcoming them.
Once Microsoft released Vista SP1 and RSAT, and I found I could do all
my Windows administrative work using Vista, I decided to switch from running
Vista as a VM on XP to Vista being the host OS and XP being the VM. My experience
is that Vista with SP1 works and does so quite well. Yes, there was a little
learning curve, but it did not take too long to get use to it. I don't have
any problems with Vista and I find the new features useful.
-Craig
Reed's got a gripe of his own -- this time, about OneCare:
I installed a beta version of OneCare early on. After the install, neither
my administrator account or any other account would allow me to log on. Nothing
worked. I tried and tried to get help from Microsoft, but they had absolutely
no interest. I had to reformat my entire disk, losing some data, in order
to have a functional machine. Subsequently, I advised everyone in our enterprise
and others that OneCare was real trouble. I sincerely hope companies do not
make it a part of OEM default software installation.
-Reed
And finally, Graham keeps us honest:
I smell some scare-mongering here. In yesterday's Redmond Report newsletter,
you had a link: "a
rash of DNS attacks." So I followed the link, interested in knowing
more about these attacks. Well, to quote you a second time, from the page
I landed on: "Nevertheless, Microsoft is 'urgently warning' IT to patch
their DNS. The vulnerability can allow spoofing attacks, although no such
attacks have yet been reported."
Hmph. I'm going to coin a new phrase here: "hyperlink letdown."
What attacks? Just trying to get people excited about a problem that so far
hasn't been exploited by hackers?
-Graham
Join the fray! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/31/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
Smarting from low market share and unrelenting criticism, Microsoft is trying
to spruce up Vista's image. Steve Ballmer says a big marketing campaign is in
the works -- which is kinda like throwing a bunch of ad dollars to promote the
Yugo. It's still a Yugo.
Microsoft also announced the results of some research it did. Of course, everything
at Microsoft has to have a code name, so in this case the research is called
"Mojave."
Microsoft sat a bunch of people in front of PCs running Vista, except all the
branding and items that would say "Vista" were removed. People, according
to Microsoft, loved it.
This research really misses the point. The complaints are less about the user
interface than they are about crashes, lost data, slowness, and hardware and
software incompatibility.
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/31/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
I can't believe Vista has been out for a year-and-a-half. I still call it new
-- because I barely know anyone that uses it!
Forrester Research and Kace Research explain that my experience is the rule,
not the exception. According to Forrester, Vista's enterprise penetration is
less
than 9 percent. With the amount of PC turnover, IT actually has to go out
of its way to not use Vista. This means downgrading machines or making
special provisions with Microsoft or OEMs to get units with XP -- not the new
OS.
I've covered Microsoft since around 1984 and have never seen so much trouble
moving to a new OS. Even DOS to Windows was a cakewalk compared to this. I upgraded
four or five old machines from Windows 95/98 to XP, and in each case it was
a breeze. I'm not sure why Vista went so wrong and I'm not sure how Microsoft
can fix it other than with Windows 7, which is years away.
My prediction is that IT will keep going the extra mile to install XP, and
that despite the Vista debacle, Microsoft will maintain a hold on its desktop
monopoly. Now, that's one strong monopoly to survive Vista.
What is your most and least favorite Microsoft OS? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/30/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
I've been writing a lot about virtualization lately, for two reasons. For one,
I think it's a pretty dang important subject. For another, I helped launch
Virtualization
Review, our new magazine and
Web
site, so I'm pretty steeped in all things virtual.
Having this little bit of knowledge gives me big opinions. So when Saugatuck
Research released
a report claiming that Citrix, VMware and Cisco are the three most powerful
forces in virtualization, I almost choked on my Cheerios.
Actually, I only disagree 66.6 percent. Citrix, maybe. It has Xen and the best
lineup of desktop virt tools. And VMware, absolutely. But Cisco? Not this year,
and not next. Cisco has a tool called VFrame that helps virtualize networks
and I/O, but when I asked IBM's virtualization guru about it, she had never
heard of it. And IBM resells VFrame!
Am I writing too much or too little about virtualization? Compliments and complaints
welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/30/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments
OneCare, Microsoft's consumer-based answer to Symantec and McAfee, is
being
bundled on a bunch of new PCs.
But before you get all excited, these are trial versions of the security software
and the OEMs aren't exactly top-tier. Instead of the likes of Dell, HP and Leveno,
how about MDG Computers, or LEO Gesellschaft, Wortmann, Olidata, Hyrican, Sotec
and TICNOVA?
With partners like this, OneCare is sure to take over. Not.
Posted by Doug Barney on 07/30/2008 at 1:15 PM0 comments