Back in the '90s, the network computer folks, like Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy (the NC was really just a dumb terminal that talked to internal servers and/or the Internet), looked to Gartner for their cost of PC ownership studies. At the time, I had owned and used a lot of PCs -- those I bought and those my employers owned.
The numbers were staggering. Gartner claimed a PC would cost some $10,000 a year to own. I doubted that very much and I asked every IT person who also thought it was hogwash.
Now Gartner is warning of the high costs of migrating to Windows.
Nonetheless, the costs are far less than the ten grand from days of old. Getting a new PC to run Win 7 ranges from $1,200 to $2,000. It is more expensive to upgrade an existing machine (up to $2,069) mainly due to labor costs.
How much does your PC cost per year? Tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/30/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
While billionaires like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and Warren Buffett are giving away their money, Paul Allen is using some of his massive wealth to make money -- by suing the pants off everyone from FaceBook and Google, to Apple and AOL. Not everyone, exactly. These patent lawsuits somehow bypass Microsoft -- Allen's former employer and source of the money he used to create or, in other cases, buy up all these patents in the first place.
Here's the dealio: Allen launched Interval, a research firm, years ago. Now, Interval Licensing is designed to enforce patents, including some related to Web search.
The patents, in some cases, are so broad as to be ridiculous, applying to the fundamental way we all browse. Of course, back in the day, Apple had a patent on overlapping Windows, so go figure.
In Paul's defense, he did just recently pledge to give away a portion of his wealth, and these companies he is suing are not exactly crying poverty.
Does Allen have the right to sue all these folks or is much of this now public domain?
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/30/2010 at 1:18 PM19 comments
Doug asked readers to send in some thoughts on today's broadband landscape:
DSL in Southern states (Texas, the Bible Belt, etc.) is, in fact, a lot faster (blazing) than cable. Cable on the west coast (Arizona, Washington, etc.) is, as the industry says, more "blazing" than DSL.
It depends on where you are geographically located to see which service is faster. Satellite service in Arizona is your best bet, as only a fool would have satellite in Seattle.
Everyone lays claim that they provide better service than the others. Any broadband user can go to a speed reporting Web site and run a speed test. Unfortunately, providers allow for data bursts, and your results will not even be close to what your true download speed is.
-Christian
Broadband! (DSL is not really broadband technology -- and it shows.) My local provider is Comcast. When I first signed on (month-to-month, no contracts), the performance varied a lot -- based upon neighborhood load. Total bandwidth was probably under 5Mbps. Today, it is 15Mbps, and I do not experience noticeable losses based upon the time of day. And the service is rock solid, with help being accessible 24/7.
The service is $45 per month, but I get a $10 discount for having digital TV service, so the net cost is $35 per month -- no contract. It's more expensive than DSL but it is also faster and more reliable and it doesn't limit the number of HDTV shows my family can watch at one time.
Satellite suffers from latency problems (and up-front costs), and DSL is dependent upon your Telco supporting your neighborhood with "fiber to the door." Plus, you sign a contract with the Telco, and the cost for truly high-speed service start at about $80 per month.
-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 08/30/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
There's an old hack that attacks apps that have hooks to Dynamic Link Libraries (DLL) but don't actually invoke a specific path. Hackers can use these badly written hooks to load malware in place of the DLL upon remote servers.
Microsoft recently alerted customers to the fact that hackers are once again exploiting these flaws, and Redmond actually has some new workarounds, including disabling "TCP ports 139 and 445 at the firewall."
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/27/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Many IT pros won't adopt a Microsoft product until at least its first Service Pack. If you are jonesin' to move to Exchange 2010, now might be the time -- the first Service Pack is out.
SP1 boasts better mail management and discovery, as well as improved unified communications and auto-logging.
Have you tried the latest Exchange, or do you prefer a non-Microsoft alternative? Answers to both equally welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/27/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
After Intel acquired McAfee last week, Doug asked if you were a friend or foe with the antivirus company. Here's some of your responses:
FOE, big time. As an IT support professional it causes me no end of problems. But from another point of view, that's great because it causes us to have to bill a lot more support hours! Seriously though, we do have our clients 'interests' at heart and, as a rule, we do not recommend this product to our clients, nor do we recommend Trend. We usually push Webroot Corporate Edition (Spy Sweeper with AntiVirus). Something occasionally does get through, but often that's because clients cancel their sweeps or don't leave computers on at night to allow full sweeps to take place.
-Stephen
I use Sunbelt Software's Vipre. It is much better, less of a resource hog and it catches things McAfee doesn't have a clue about.
Hopefully, if Intel is going to install McAfee at the firmware level, they will allow us to disable it.
My opinion: in its present form, McAfee is like the proverbial 'bull in a china store' and is just about useless. (Also, their sales staff won't leave you alone!)
-Gene
I don't like AVG, McAfee or Trend Micro. Microsoft's Security Essentials, ForeFront Client Security (FCS) and ForeFront EndPoint Protection (FEP) are the only antiviruses I have used lately. They have caught all viruses and stopped network outage at several customers I manage.
-Justin
Kaspersky.
So, I guess the answer is NO!
-M
Why would Intel buy a product that simply does not work?
-Anonymous
McAfee is THE ONLY company that is worse is Symantec. What they did to BackupExec is simply unbelievable. Intel made a bad move. Their products are just too random.
-Anonymous
Up until the last few years, I would have said a fan. The problem I have had with their software over the last couple of years is the bloat factor. Getting fatter and fatter while hurting client performance. The protection has been grand, but the client pain has hurt.
-Dru
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 08/27/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
I just told you that so-called poorly written apps that make DLL calls without a specific path are once again being cracked. Now we are learning that these "poorly written apps" come from heavyweights including Mozilla and Microsoft's own PowerPoint, Office and Live Mail (ouch).
The company that first warned of the flaw, Acros Security, argues that over 200 programs could be targeted. I guess even the top dogs can write flawed code from time to time.
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/27/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
The last VMworld show I attended in Las Vegas was packed with customers, and full of spankin' new products. Microsoft was on the verge of really pushing Hyper-V and had attractive young lasses passing out free poker chips promoting the new hypervisor.
VMware was none too pleased.
The bickering over shows continues and is actually typical of how competitors treat each other. Microsoft doesn't always make it easy for competitors to make a splash at shows such as Tech-Ed. So I guess it is only fair VMware won't let Microsoft show off Hyper-V since it is a direct competitor. That leaves Microsoft in a paltry 10x10 booth where it is only showing off Azure.
Is it fair to exclude your competition from your show, or does it do attendees who pay top dollar a disservice. You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/25/2010 at 1:18 PM3 comments
Have you seen the ads for FIOS and Xfinity promising to set your PC ablaze with blinding-fast download speeds? So you shell out all the dough, lock into a long-term contract a car salesmen would love to have and surf.
Hmm. Why won't that YouTube video load? What's with that hourglass? How come your favorite Web site froze?
Well, besides issues with the backend servers, the networking pieces don't deliver as advertised, according to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
The FCC found that most commercials talk about average download speeds of nearly 7 megabits/sec. The reality is little more than half that on average, or some 3 megabits/sec.
I gave up on DSL long ago. Not only was it slow, it was flakier than a dried-out biscuit.
I'm on cable, and the FCC says I get, on average, 5.5 megabits/sec. Fiber kicks all rivals butts at 7.7 megabits/sec, with satellite and fixed wireless pulling up the rear at a mere 0.7 megabits/sec.
What is your favorite broadband flavor and what drove you away from your previous solution? Come clean at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/25/2010 at 1:18 PM10 comments
One reader thinks Windows Phone 7 has quite an uphill battle in store for itself:
I think Microsoft HAD a shot at the mobile phone market until Android messed things up good for them. If Apple was Microsoft's sole competitor in the mobile phone OS market, I think they would have a HUGE chance to really heat things up. I think developers (like myself) will see early success in application development with Android as opposed to Windows Phone 7 or iPhone because Android development starts with a focus on function and works its way toward outward appearance.
Windows Phone 7 development starts with appearance then on toward function. I developed an app for both Windows Phone 7 and Android. Before I could hit the ground running with Windows Phone 7 I had to wade through PDFs of how my app was supposed to look. The information was very much geared towards designers, which I am not. I then had to visit several other places for help and meaningful information.
With Android, I went to the main android development website and NEVER had to leave the site. The site is so well organized. It's almost impossible for developers to get lost. I was up and running with Android development in record time! My first application was an application that tapped into our company's time and attendance database to display a company In/Out Board (in real time, using almost no data transfer) right on your Android phone. HOW COOL IS THAT!?
Developers NEED to have functional success early in new application development. I'll leave it to the designers to then tell me that a yellow font on a green background might not look so nice.
I have no doubt that Microsoft will keep up the fight. But Android is going to make it harder to come from behind, way behind. Darn that Internet search company!
-Ryan
Here's one solution on how to bring some more accountability on the Internet:
I find it intriguing that the Internet is as "old" as it is, and yet this question of net anonymity still persists. The prescient quote from the article, IMHO, is "Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity." In order to assess that comment, it may be helpful to remember the purpose for which the Internet was created: To allow DARPAnet to communicate following a nuclear attack. That 'mission statement' does little to address the privacy vs. anonymity vs. free speech vs. censorship that has raged since it becoming available to the common man.
Echoes of these issues can be heard all around us -- some have been resolved (license plates on cars to allow for identification), and some are still open (micro-stamping ammunition). Certainly, there are many other examples, but they all seek to balance the same wobble-legged chair: Where and when does the State have the need/right/ability to intrude on a person's privacy/identity/anonymity?
Sadly, I don't think I have a 'silver bullet solution' (no pun) that works in all circumstances. However, a wise preacher once explained it this way -- your rights end where mine begin. The need of law enforcement to identify the owner of a random car on the street versus the right of a random driver to retain privacy has resulted in license plates. Having a meaningless alpha-numeric assigned to my car seems to strike a reasonable balance. It is a cheap solution (not adding in taxes and whatnot!), and it uses available technology. The jury is still out on whether a similar solution would work for handgun and/or rifle ammunition.
I bring these up because they seem to apply to the discussion at hand. I agree with the wisdom of your stance of, "I wouldn't mind if you had to prove your age or identity to see the really crazy stuff on the Web. That would be a kind of tier where my kids couldn't browse for the truly hideous, but consenting adults could." In principle, it is no different than keeping the girly magazines behind the counter and wrapped in black plastic. Also in principle, I see no harm in issuing Internet 'license plates' that allow for making "the truly hideous" out of reach for my kids.
But the rub (again, no pun) lies in the forfeiture of freedom in the interest of protection -- the ability to keep my kids away from smut is the same ability that could keep me away from... whatever 'they' don't want me to have. Likewise, the ability to identify me is the same ability to track me.
Trying to wrap all this up; yes, being able to identify someone who is "trying to commit a terrible, evil crime" is a compelling state interest. But I can't recall a case of death-by-blogging (although, some have tried). I think the balance, then, lies in issuing 'license plates' for the types of activities that could impact someone else: posting code. To rephrase my preacher, I won't argue your right to post words or images in anonymity. However, that anonymity ends when you're posting something that could infect my computer.
You want to post words or pictures that prove Rule 34? Fine. I should filter myself or my kids. You want to post code? Tell the world who you are.
- Dave
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 08/25/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Office 14 (Office 2010) is barely out the door. However, scribes are already banging the Office 15 drum. Mary-Jo Foley, who writes Foley on Microsoft for Redmond, is starting to hear rumblings of a new killer feature.
While this secret feature is still not clearly confirmed, one possibility is improving the file collaboration features of Office Web Apps and integrating them more tightly with Office itself.
Some expect Office 15 as late as four years from now. Foley believes we could see it by 2012 or 2013.
By 2013, does a large hard drive-installable Office suite still make sense? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 08/25/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments