The economy might be in the dumps, but don't tell that to Google who has enough spare cash to shell out $12.5 billion to buy Motorola's Mobility Division.
Motorola is a big Android proponent. The deal gives Google soup to nuts control over the cell phone hardware and software, much as Apple has with the iPhone.
One possible negative drawback for Google over the acquisition is that the buy may anger other Android hardware makers who could be lured into the Microsoft camp.
The timing of this is interesting -- last week the CEO of Motorola Mobility said his company was "open" to building Windows Phones. We'll see if that remains true once Google takes over.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/15/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Gartner sees a great future for Windows 7, claiming that at the beginning of next year 42 percent of PCs will be running the OS. The research house believes that IT budgets are getting healthier, giving IT the cash to migrate off of XP and Vista.
Another report from Net Applications places Win 7 share at 28 percent, Vista a 9 percent and XP at less than 50 percent.
What are your Win 7 plans? Shoot me the details at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/15/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Keeping PCs and servers patched seemingly never ends. Microsoft feels your pain and recently released a 30-page report full of advice to make patching easier.
One notion that surprised me is the idea of only installing critical fixes and forgetting about less important patches. Maybe that is a common and safe practice, but I just assumed all patches should ultimately get installed.
What is your patching best practice? Share your wisdom with the rest of us by writing to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/15/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Apple owns the financial markets, but Microsoft still owns the enterprise desktop. And it'll remain that way for at least the near future. Gartner's latest and greatest research foresees Windows 7 on nearly all but 6 percent of PCs being shipped well into 2012. OS X might seem like an afterthought, at only 4.5 percent of the total.
But what if things were the other way around? What if Apple had 94 percent? Apple has been making its mark in the consumer space with its iPhones and iPads. With these products becoming serious business tools, it's bound to have an effect on the enterprise at some point. With Macs nearly at price parity with Windows machines, it would take some brave IT admins to suggest turning the enterprise into an Apple-only shop.
So, imagine your enterprise as an Apple-only shop. Would that make your job easier or more difficult? Let Doug know at [email protected].
- By Michael Domingo
Posted by Michael Domingo on 08/12/2011 at 1:18 PM14 comments
Even though my high school back in 1982 had some Apple II boxes, the first computer I learned to program on was a Commodore PET -- yes, the one that used cassettes for storage. The original PET (and Apple II, for that matter) were introduced back in 1977, preceding IBM's PC by three years. But the original IBM boxes are very much the ancestors of the modern-day desktops we continue to use at home and in businesses globally.
Thirty years later, you'll rarely see my nieces and nephews banging away on PC keyboards. Instead, they're spending more time swiping their fingers across their iPod and iPad screens. In about 10 years, I wonder if they'll remember what PCs were.
What was your first computer? Date yourself by sharing with Doug at [email protected].
- By Michael Domingo
Posted by Michael Domingo on 08/12/2011 at 1:18 PM10 comments
Microsoft exec Charlie Kindel announced he will be stepping down after 21 years with Redmond to start his own company. Most recently he has been the general manager of Microsoft's Windows Phone Developer Experience. This department's focus is on bringing third-party app developers to the Windows Phone 7 platform.
While the platform had the distinction of being the fastest mobile OS to reach 10,000 apps under Kindel's governance, its overall total is still just a drop in the bucket compared to Apple's and Google's mobile platforms.
As an owner of a Windows Phone 7, I am happy with the intuitive interface, Zune support and sturdy design of the actual device. What I am not happy with is the selection of apps. I hate being shown a useful app by those with Android or iPhone devices and not being able to locate anything close to comparable in the Windows Phone 7 Marketplace.
Is Kindel's departure marked by similar sentiments of not being able to secure developers for the device? Who knows. But it doesn't sound like an overall resentment for the platform. "I may stop using some Microsoft products now that I'm out of here. But not Windows Phone. The BEST product Microsoft has ever built," Kindle wrote in his announcement.
Maybe it was just time for him to leave to start his own thing.
For those Windows Phone 7 devices, how do you feel about the selection of third-party apps? Share it with Doug at [email protected]. Also, I'm researching for an upcoming story on the top startups by former Microsoft execs. Share your favorites with me at [email protected].
-By Chris Paoli
Posted by Chris Paoli on 08/10/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Here are a couple of comments on Google's recent patent acquisitions:
A recent This American Life episode covered this sort of thing thoroughly, and what I learned there would lead me to believe that Google is probably acting defensively.
There are companies that have bought tens of thousands of patents, then offer to charge for a kind of 'insurance' to protect tech companies from patent lawsuits. This is basically the same thing the mafia does to shake down local businesses and 'protect' them from arson, theft, etc. It's all done in the name of 'innovation,' but the net effect is that it is stifling innovation and even causing some smaller companies to go out of business when they're either shaken down or sued for infringement by a company that has done nothing but purchased a bogus patent.
What's needed is serious patent law reform.
-Greg
Of course patents are necessary. Everyone should be able to benefit financially from their own inventions. That is not to say that the system isn't broken. It certainly is. Patents used to die with the inventor. Not any more!
My guess is that Google didn't actually buy patents from IBM but that Google licensed these patents from IBM. IBM patents are pretty much bullet-proof. (Few companies can defend their patent portfolio more successfully than IBM.) This defense strategy pretty much guarantees that any plaintiff suing Google for patent infringement is also suing IBM on the same grounds -- and who is going to do that?
Further, IBM has such a depth of patents that it probably has one for every one of Google's needs. If Google actually bought these patents, you can be sure that IBM retains its rights to use the patents.
-Marc
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/10/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I hope you're sitting down for this breaking news: It actually takes some time (and patience) to develop secure mobile applications.
This radical train of thought, which came out at last week's CompTIA's Tech Summit on Cybersecurity in Washington, goes against the traditional way of thinking that if you close your eyes and hit a bunch of buttons, applications will secure themselves.
While the suggested notion that dedicated time for correct testing and auditing of mobile apps will lead to less security holes seems like a no-brainer to me, only 17 percent of available apps are actually following correct practices for mobile security.
So what is the other 83 percent's excuse? Apparently it's a lack of secure development lifecycle tools. With the market evolving rapidly, and with multiple platforms (old and new) to consider, it may not be in the cards to purchase all the necessary tools to satisfy every mobile OS. And even if you do have the correct tools, who has the time to develop it properly for multiple platforms?
So what does this mean? Should mobile developers limit their reach, specializing in only the one or two platforms that it has the correct tools for? And while this study focuses on mobile development, its common sense message can be applied to all facets of development and IT.
Do you feel you have the adequate amount of time and funding to implement secure practices? Let Doug know at [email protected].
-By Chris Paoli
Posted by Chris Paoli on 08/10/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
A former Microsoft executive will replace Vivek Kundra as the new Federal CIO, we learned last week. Steven VanRoekel was a senior director for Microsoft's Windows Server Solutions group and also aided Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on "speech and strategy" issues, among other accomplishments.
Federal IT policy will now be set by a former Microsoft official. It will be one of many efforts where Microsoft stays close to Washington lawmakers to influence the public agenda. Microsoft is also engaged at the governmental level with rewriting U.S. patent laws by supporting the America Invents Act. The company also advocates changes to immigration policies to speed up the visa permit process for talented foreigners, as well as educational reforms to better focus on developing skills that might be used to produce better U.S. programmers or IT professionals.
VanRoekel did advocate the use of the open source Drupal content management system at the FCC. Can we believe that he'll also advocate the use of Linux servers as Federal CIO? Does his appointment represent a conflict of interest? Tell Doug how you vote at [email protected].
-By Kurt Mackie
Posted by Kurt Mackie on 08/08/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Patch Tuesday comes tomorrow, and it's looking like a lucky 13 batch. Two patches are expected to be "critical" to apply. All are expected to require a restart.
IT pros, as opposed to home Windows users it seems, are supposed to test each security bulletin first before pushing it out on the network. And then do that 13 times, possibly while wearing wreaths of garlic, or something like that. Well, no. Here's what Microsoft's best practices publication says:
"One of the common misconceptions about Microsoft updates is that they are mandatory and/or urgent. All updates, regardless of their type (whether they are service packs, hotfixes or security patches), are to be applied on an 'as-needed' basis. They need to be evaluated individually and treated as important optional updates."
Well, that sounds nice, but most security bulletins seem to be about basic flaws in Windows or Internet Explorer. So, in practice, wouldn't IT pros be obligated to apply them all each month? Update: a reader pointed out that this advice above from Microsoft is from an old archived Microsoft TechNet library article. To get more current best practices advice from Microsoft, see this article.
What's your approach to the monthly Microsoft patch routine? Do you bother testing them? Do you apply all of them or just some? Share your best practices with Doug and readers at [email protected].
-By Kurt Mackie
Posted by Kurt Mackie on 08/08/2011 at 1:18 PM17 comments
Microsoft is offering a $200,000 first prize to someone who can create a technology that wards off Windows exploits. It's called a BlueHat Prize, with submissions open until April 1, 2012. Apparently, this is a real thing, despite the April Fools Day submission date.
The prize winner needs to offer an innovative defense, "rather than discovering individual issues," to win the $200,000 first prize. There's also a $50,000 second place prize, plus lifetime MSDN subscriptions for third- and fourth-place winners.
Not even Microsoft, it seems, with all of its developer talent, has been able to pull this off, but maybe there's someone out there to do it. Doesn't this appeal by Microsoft really validate the case of open source advocates that the best defense can be found through community efforts? Or, maybe an operating system should stay closed to stave off the bad guys?
-By Kurt Mackie
Posted by Kurt Mackie on 08/08/2011 at 4:59 PM1 comments
Here are some more reader thoughts on the end of support for Windows XP:
Win XP is going away...finally! I hate to say it, but those that are in love with it need to move on. I always thought IT needed to stay one step ahead of our end-users. IT becomes irrelevant or unnecessary when those we support are using more current systems at home than we can provide.
My organization has 10K+ machines at this time. Half are Windows 7, and I hope to upgrade or replace the rest by the end of 2012. Wish me luck!
-Chris
I am a volunteer admin for a church. Most of the machines are running Win XP Pro with three being 64 bit, and only four are Win 7 Pro 64 bit. The XP boxes are stable, save for the fact that most are working on eight-year-old hardware. Yes, I have had to replace a few HDDs, power supplies and a motherboard -- the usual stuff. The Win 7 boxes are OK, but they don't seem to work nice with some of the firewall add-ons. It looks like I'll have to rejoin some of them to the domain. Other than that, everything is OK. I do set the swap space to a static 2x of the RAM and that does make a difference for me. Further, everyone is just a plain user too. No one has complained about strange behavior from Office. While performance may not be optimal, it is understandable due to the old hardware. Some of the boxes only have 512 MB of RAM. At this point I'd rather put the money into completely new hardware with a Win 7 upgrade at the same time. As with most non-profits, the money is just not flowing.
-Peter
Well, you probably know already how I feel. I've got no sympathy for anyone who has not moved on to Windows 7 (or other viable Windows XP replacement) by now. (This is not about Windows vs. Macintosh vs. Linux.)
Those in the enterprise should have started looking at Windows 7 the day it hit the streets. And by the release of SP1, they should have been ready for the transition to Windows 7.
End users can use Windows XP as long as they want but they have no right to complain that Microsoft has not given them enough time. After all, it has been four years since Windows Vista was released and the looming deadline for XP support is still nearly three years away!
If you have a computer purchased as long ago as mid-2006, it will run Windows 7 and the upgrade price is $120. If needed, extra RAM will cost under $20 per GB.
Further, from my experience, Windows 7 outperforms Windows XP on the same Windows 7 MINIMUM hardware requirements.
It seems to me that this is a small investment for the advances in security and usability offered by Windows 7.
Need new hardware for Windows 7? Windows 7 hardware (Dell) starts at $300 ($430 with a monitor). Netbooks start at $300 as well and full Windows 7 laptops start at $450.
These are excellent prices for modern Windows 7 hardware.
If the end-user wants to wait until mid-2014, more power to them but 'late adopters' are no better off (and are usually worse off) than 'early adopters' when it comes to the cost of transitioning to a new operating system. Being under a looming deadline makes that process just that much more painful.
Staying with Windows XP in 2011 is one of those 'pennywise, pound foolish' decisions.
-Marc
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/08/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments