Two readers share their thoughts on Google's Chrome OS devices:
The biggest single failing of the Chromebooks is the lack of local storage (of any significant size) and provision for offline apps. And here's why:
This past weekend we had a service outage with Comcast, our cable provider. As our cable provider they also provide our Internet service. Everything was down, and not just in our neighborhood. Apparently it was a fairly large outage -- towns within a 15-mile radius of where we live were affected, according to the recorded message I heard when I phoned in to see what was going on. Incidentally, I used my cell phone for that call -- our home phone service is provided by Skype, and without Internet service, there's no phone either.
If I had depended on an always-on service to run a business, I would have been dead in the water during this outage. As in the past, when a utility drops service, the things that you do with that service don't get done. In an ice storm (very common here in the Midwest), you can lose power, phone and cable anytime, sometimes for days at a time. Business must go on, but these events will definitely bring it to a stop.
I like the idea of the Chromebook, but until there's better provision made for dealing with the entire spectrum of possible conditions, I don't think it's a good model for business to rely on.
-Dennis
The Chromebook is just a rehash of the 'thin client' invented by Ellison and McNeely all those years ago when hard drives were expensive, RAM was more so and network speeds (typically 9600 baud) were sufficient for text-based communications.
These technologies have always promised low upfront costs but they have never quite delivered when it came to TCO (total cost of ownership). The Chromebook will be no different for 'paying customers.'
Right off the bat, most American homes are still communicating at 1-3Mbps. Many are still running at DSL speeds (768Kbps) so the network bottleneck is far from addressed.
Of course, there are all of your unanswered questions and it strikes me that the Google Business model (free apps for consumers, paid for by advertisers -- and business customers) is a bit of a house of cards that could collapse quickly were Google to experience an outage like the one Sony recently encountered (and is still suffering from).
-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 05/25/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
San Francisco city workers will be losing their Notes and exchanging them for a hosted Exchange. About two-thirds of San Francisco's 23,000 employees now use Notes, with the rest using premises-based Exchange.
One reason for the move is simplicity -- this will eliminate a bunch of servers and different hunks of software with WAN connections talking to the cloud. Oh, and the city expects to save money.
While some may worry about a recent Exchange online outage, on-premise servers go down too -- I'm not sure which is worse.
Google and IBM both made a run for this business, with Microsoft ultimately prevailing.
Do you have any cloud apps? If so, how's it going? Let us all know at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/25/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Here are some responses to Doug's question on what your shop is doing about Internet addresses:
A couple of years ago I attended an IPv6 class and learned some good information. They said it would take 10 years to transition to a full IPv6 world. Until that time we would be using both IPv4 and IPv6. I believe that IPv6 will happen when we have no other choice or a killer application is released. Of course the entire OSI model of equipment and software (NIC, router, firewall, DNS, OS, applications, etc.) needs to be IPv6 aware. I have played around with IPv6 even though we are still an IPv4 shop at this time. The path of least resistance is IPv4.
-Craig
This is exactly what happened with Y2K... Everyone and his uncle saw the Y2K problem coming as early as the 1980s, but people kept designing databases with 2-digit year codes because they were too damned lazy to do it right the first time. It wasn't until the late 1990s that anyone got serious, and millions more was spent that didn't need to be spent if they had only added those two bytes to the year fields of their databases in the first place.
Vendors are behind with IPv6 because the same reasons. They cannot justify spending product development money on products which nobody will buy and, until now, nobody was buying. Short sighted? Hell yes! Surprising? Not really. It's all about making money.
-Marc
We recently switched from a Novell shop to Windows 2008 R2 -- specifically to take advantage of DFS and replication. I found that if IPv6 is enabled, DFS will have problems. After working for three days with Microsoft support, it finally came up with the solution in KB929852 (option b) to solve the problem. Which in effect, turns off IPv6. Not good if you want to take advantage of the current features built into its OS that require IPv6. So if Microsoft can't get it right in its Server OS, what hope do we have until they do?
-Anonymous
A reader clues Doug in on the latest tech lingo:
"Am I stupid not knowing what 'pwn' or 'NPAPI' mean, or is Evans a moron for assuming that I do?"
Stupid? No. But since you're an online publisher of technical info, you should be well-versed on most Internet memes and 133tspeak.
Most people who read printed newspapers probably don't use 'pwn.' I'm sure that most Twitter users do. (See how I did that without calling anyone a dinosaur? )
NPAPI is more obscure, but that's why we have a Google toolbar to help us. (Back in my day, we had dictionaries printed on paper!)
BTW, Bng thinks that pwn is the Professional Women's Network. Google FTW!
And if you get desperate, you can always try Urban Dictionary.
-Todd
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 05/23/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I know you all love Jim and Pam, but at some point you have to turn off The Office and get a life. Maybe grow some beets like Dwight or move to Colorado like Michael Scott.
And when it comes to spreadsheets, documents and presentations, many grow weary of paying the Microsoft tax.
Forrester surveyed and, surprise, companies want out of this tax. They just need something better than Office. Forrester's conclusion? IT is interested in alternatives that are better than Office.
So the über geniuses at Forrester have come through with research that sub-analyst minds has been thinking for years.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/23/2011 at 1:18 PM10 comments
Yeah, many folks and shops are indeed moving on up to the Windows side, to that deluxe operating system in the sky. But to get that piece of pie you must migrate, otherwise your fish won't fry in the kitchen and your beans will surely burn on the grill.
A bunch of third parties are taking their turn at bat trying to help you up that Win 7 migration hill. With their help it should take a whole lotta trying to get your users on what is the best MS desktop OS yet.
We looked at two migration powerhouses, ChangeBASE and Prowess who strutted their stuff at Tech-Ed -- but there are far more. Bottom line? For mass Win 7 migrations, help isn't on the way... It's already here!
Okay, I bit some rhymes to write this time. But from whom did I steal? Old sitcom junkies welcome to bust me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/23/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
I make no secret of the fact that I like third parties. These companies take risks and drive innovation. Some third parties I'm closer to than others, and Shavlik is one of them. This company pioneered patching and is now moving much of its software to the cloud. It has built a great brand with a cool company name (it is the last name of the founder Mark) and a quirky product name: NetChx. I always need to spell check that one.
VMware just announced plans to buy Shavlik and hopes to seal the deal by next month.
I'm happy for Shavlik -- I'm sure it is a great deal. But I truly hope VMware keep the Shavlik brand that has been around longer than VMware.
A few years ago I wrote about what makes technical entrepreneurs tick and where their ideas come from. Check this out to gain insight into how Mark Shavlik and other tech geniuses think.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
There's a zillion research reports out there -- and with so many, they are bound to contradict one another. I've seen Microsoft's reputation go up and down by companies that try to prove the success or colossal failure of Windows 7 -- everything you can study can be spun as good or bad by research houses. What are these guys...lawyers?
So it is with relative skepticism that I view a study by the ASCI organization that claims Microsoft software is rated relatively awesome by 78 percent of consumers. And this satisfaction has been on the rise for the last three years. I agree Redmond software has gotten better, but many users are still choking on the Ribbon and trying to uninstall Vista.
That's not the only source of misgivings. Verizon also got high marks as a wireless provider. Has ASCI watched how long it takes my Verizon phone to download a Web page, and how awful it looks once it shows up? Even worse, has it seen my bill? Eegads!
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
All week the crack staff at Redmond have been bringing you the hottest news and analysis from Tech-Ed. It was an awesome show in Atlanta with probably about 10,000 attendees (just my conjecture). Here is a collection of our best stuff.
I am not big on keynotes and training sessions -- I spend most of my time yakking with readers and hubbubbing with third parties. I hung out with Lieberman, Scriptlogic, Blackbird, Veeam, Ultrabac, Odyssey, Neverfail and Idera -- just to name a few.
While Redmond had a booth at the show, our major emphasis was our annual vendor party (and each and every time it is a rager). Hundreds of Tech-Ed's best minds reduced their brain capacity at our open bar, which is where you learn the best stuff.
What third parties or third-party execs do you admire and why? Lay it on us at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/20/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Here's a few responses to Microsoft's acquisition of Skype:
My concerns are for the iOS and OSX. I use all three major platforms daily (Windows, MAC and iOS -- both iPhone and iPad). I am concerned about MS pledging to continue to support the Apple platforms. Only time will tell if Ballmer's promise is true.
-Scott
If Microsoft maintains and expands the user base (and that includes keeping the core free), and then expands out the premium services over the longer term, Skype could prove to be the world's primary global telephone system. Everyone will already have a Skype number. Simple video chats should be free, while holographic 3D conference calls will have a slight up charge. High resolution business 3D holographic calls can have a bigger up charge (and fast 'cause its now part of Outlook!). And, if my memory is correct, Microsoft purchased an early interest in Facebook (2007), so it may make a multifaceted approach with a social network angle. And what better way to play war games with special Xbox 'Navy Seal' communication gear (sold by Microsoft) directly connected to all your pals jointly playing as a team, against another real team via Skype. Sign me up!
To Skype or not to Skype, that is not the question. Man does not communicate solely by Twitter alone.
-Andrew
Here are a reader's thoughts on a new Windows version timeline:
Whatever the name, 2013 (or maybe in time for the 2012 holiday season) sounds about right to me.
With Windows Vista in 2007 and Windows 7 in 2010, Windows '8' in 2013 certainly fits a pattern. Microsoft certainly learned its lessons from the Vista debacle...
You don't spend six years giving away free patches and service packs and then spring a new product with a new kernel onto ISVs and customers without plenty of caveats.
With XP going away in 2014, a 2013 launch of Windows '8' would give 'early-adopters' a nice overlap, and by then the transition to Windows 7 will be complete for those 'late adopters' in the enterprise.
By then, most Vista 'early-adopters' will have moved on to Windows 7, and Microsoft will once again be supporting two OSes.
Make sense to me!
-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 05/18/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
In the myriad of announcements by Microsoft this week at Atlanta's Tech-Ed was the news that Google's Chrome browser will be able to support Office Web Applications. The added support should be coming sometime in June when Office 2010 SP1 is scheduled to be released.
Up to this point, Microsoft's Office applications were compatible with IE, Apple's Safari and Mozilla's Firefox browsers. However, it had purposely avoided Google's browser, which also has online office suite offerings of its own, for unknown and undisclosed reasons.
Chrome is the relative newcomer in the browser wars, so maybe Microsoft was just waiting for the user base to form before adding support. Or maybe it was hoping it would just quietly go away. Unfortunately for any doom wishers, Google's browser has steadily increased its market share, while Microsoft's IE, which is still ahead of the pack, is on the decline.
With Office apps now compatible on Chrome, will this take a bite out of Google's Docs users? Let Doug know at [email protected].
Posted by Chris Paoli on 05/18/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
In a BBC news report, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates said he helped in backing Microsoft to get the $8.5 billion deal with Skype wrapped up. "I was a strong proponent at the board-level for the deal being done," said Gates in BBC's Hardtalk program.
Whether he was integral in the formation, research and negations of the deal, or just had a hand in convincing the other board members to go along with it, remains to be seen. The one thing that I can say is that no matter the outcome of the merger, whether it's a check in the win or loss column for Microsoft, Gates' present position is a great one to be in.
Think about it, if the Skype deal ends up propelling Microsoft stock in the future, Gates is allowed some bragging rights, and can point back to how he supported and took part in convincing the other board members to crack open the company checkbook.
On the other hand, if this ends up being a colossal waste of money and potential, then Gates doesn't end up looking like the bad guy. He made this clear by commenting in the same interview that it's now all in the hands of Microsoft's development team and execs. That puts the pressure on the company and its leader, Steve Ballmer.
As for the current (at least official) face of Microsoft, CEO Ballmer has already taken his hits for the acquisition due to the hefty price tag, an unclear picture of what his plans for the technology and the overall lack of vision in just buying up new tech. If this becomes a money pit for Microsoft, nobody will remember that Gates talked to some board members in passing to go along with the deal, but they will know whose door they will be knocking on for answers.
Does Gates deserve some of the praise (or boos) of the Skype deal? Let Doug know at [email protected].
Posted by Chris Paoli on 05/18/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Wow. Here I am busting Amazon's chops over its huge three-day outage, and then Microsoft goes ahead and has a critical online e-mail outage.
I'm not talking about Hotmail, which is really for casual use, but Exchange, for gosh sake. The Web version of Exchange, part of BPOS, fell apart a few times, and most of the damage was e-mails that took forever to send or arrive. So far there are no reports of data loss.
This is getting scary. Amazon, VMware and now Redmond have had serious outages. Are we all to move to a cloud we can't trust?
Have you had cloud/Internet catastrophes? Spill the beans at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/16/2011 at 1:18 PM9 comments