Given the hysteria in this part of the world over Tom Brady's knee, we barely
noticed that the London Stock Exchange crashed yesterday. Yes, that's right;
the news is shocking -- Tom Brady's out for the season.
No, wait, that's not the news we meant to talk about. What we meant to say
was: Yes, that's right; the news is shocking -- the
London freaking Stock Exchange went down. For almost an entire day. During
a rally.
It might not have the massive impact of Brady's injury, but a whole major stock
exchange going down for a day sounds like a pretty big deal here at RCPU. What's
an even bigger deal, you ask? The fact that some people are blaming
Microsoft for the crash.
Ugh. OK, so maybe it's not fair to blame Microsoft and .NET for the LSE's meltdown.
We really don't know. Right now, probably nobody does. But this is one of those
black eyes that Microsoft -- which had advertised the fact that the LSE picked
its wares over Linux for "reliability" -- just doesn't need.
Maybe this little mini-storm will pass -- or maybe Microsoft really will
end up being officially at fault somehow, in which case partners might have
to field a few questions about just how reliable Redmond's infrastructure is.
Is this a few strained ligaments or a torn ACL for Redmond? We'll see -- but
Microsoft folks have to hope that they'll make out better than Tom Brady.
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/10/2008 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Well, that's what
the
headline says, although we wonder how much one has to do with the other.
And, at 0.7 percent market share, Chrome seems like much less of a threat to
IE than Firefox -- for now. But, hey, we all love to read about Google, right?
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/10/2008 at 1:22 PM6 comments
From the cloud comes a cool, refreshing
rain
of updates for Microsoft's hosted CRM service.
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/09/2008 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Love it or hate it -- and, let's face it, you probably hated it the way we
did -- Microsoft's bizarre
Bill
Gates-Jerry Seinfield-shoe shopping ad at least has the blogs burning with
opinions, even if
most
of them are negative.
We understand that the ad campaign is a series, but the next installment is
going to have to do a lot of explaining and a heck of a lot more entertaining
to hold our interest.
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/09/2008 at 1:22 PM1 comments
So, this week, Microsoft held one of those non-event events in which it gathers
reporters together to release a few details about upcoming products, and reporters
go because, well, it's Microsoft.
OK, so it wasn't
a total non-event, but we do kind of wonder sometimes why Microsoft bothers
with a whole big press event when a press release and a couple of spokespeople
available to take calls would
suffice.
But that's all press stuff, and you don't care about press stuff. You care
about what Microsoft had to say earlier this week. Basically, with regard to
its virtualization plans, Redmond says that things are coming along. The Hyper-V
hypervisor is free now, as opposed to costing $28, and Redmond's working on
what it calls Live Migration -- "the ability to move a virtual machine
(VM) from one physical machine to another, with no downtime," as Virtualization
Review Editor Keith Ward so
eloquently writes.
There's a whole lineup of products either coming or on the way, and the attention
Microsoft is paying to virtualization signals that the technology will be a
cornerstone of its strategic plans going forward. And that has to be good news
given that the company won't be able to rely on the earning power of Windows
and Office forever. Besides, we could use a good rivalry in the industry these
days, and Microsoft-VMware could be a healthy battle -- an event not to be
missed.
What's your take on Microsoft's virtualization strategy? Send it to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/09/2008 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Let's just jump ahead a few years -- maybe more than a few, maybe not -- into
a world in which Software as a Service (SaaS) has made the operating system
a commodity, if not totally obsolete.
This doesn't really take that much imagination, does it? What with Google
Chrome lining up against IE and Firefox (and Safari, we suppose), it's clear
-- and has been for a while, really -- that the forthcoming battle in the software
industry won't be over software at all but over online applications, SaaS, cloud
computing ... whatever you want to call it. So we're not going too far afield
here. We all know that this is happening.
What we're wondering, though, is how important the browser (already a market
share headache for Microsoft) is in this whole scenario. Very important,
you say? Well, sure, because it's the conduit to the applications and data that
rest on some far-off server. Again, in our hypothetical world, the OS is a commodity
if it exists at all. Really, all we do in this future world -- and this, of
course, is really possible today -- is hop on a terminal of some sort, open
a browser (or just go straight into it) and get working.
Right now, in 2008, the browser itself is a big deal. Security, interface,
stability -- they're all important factors that the new combatants in the browser
wars are trying to improve. What we want to know is: How long will it be this
way? After all, nobody really makes money off of browsers, right? They're free.
And it's hard to imagine anybody paying for one now that they've been free for
such a long time. There's no real browser revenue model.
So, in our brave new world, we can see the browser itself being kind of like
the operating system: a commodity, or just a window (as opposed to a Window).
Everything will happen in the "cloud," at the datacenter -- even the
basic browsing functionality. Right? Doesn't that make sense? Surely lots of
other people have observed this.
What "it" will really be about is the applications residing on a
server in a data center somewhere -- the word processor, spreadsheet, video editor,
security applications, whatever -- all available on a subscription basis with
some level of storage. You know the stuff -- Google Apps and Office Live Workspace
(sort of, although the idea of the death of client-hosted office must still
scare
Microsoft to death) bundled with whatever add-on applications or functionality
partners can create and host or have hosted.
So, the point is this: Enjoy the new browser wars while they last because,
just like the OS wars, they won't go on forever. In the post-browser-war reality,
it'll be the cloud that matters, not the aircraft that gets us up there. That's
why Microsoft shouldn't freak out too much about Chrome; it should figure out
how to use Office to compete with Google and others on both cost and functionality
in the cloud.
What's your vision for cloud computing? What role do you see the browser or
the OS playing? Let us know at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/04/2008 at 1:22 PM1 comments
Despite what we've been telling you here for months -- and, to be fair, the
vast majority of e-mails
we get still bash it -- not everybody is unhappy with the forlorn Vista operating
system. We've run tons of negative e-mails on Vista, and we've received some
more very good ones recently.
But in the interest of some equal time, and because we said we would, today
we're giving you positive -- or at least not screamingly negative -- e-mails
about Vista. Some of these, as always, we had to edit for length, but the basic
ideas are intact. Let's get started:
Richard starts us off by saying that if we don't like Vista, we shouldn't blame
Microsoft...we should probably blame ourselves:
"Vista's 'failure' is a communications failure between Microsoft
and its customers, between Microsoft and its partners, and mostly between
Microsoft and its Tier 1 OEMs and ISVs. The entire channel was NOWHERE NEAR
prepared for Vista's release. And while we see that a few unwise compromises
were made between key Microsoft executives and their OEM and ISV counterparts
vis-à-vis which CPUs and chipsets were 'acceptable' for the Vista experience,
almost everything they baked into Vista came out of customer feedback and
demand: bulletproof security, security best practices (least privilege), and
a much better user experience that, regrettably, demanded better hardware.
"I'll tell you too what I don't miss: I don't miss never seeing a
blue screen since I've owned Vista -- something I could never say about XP,
Windows Server 2000 or 2003...or even NT 3.51 or 4.0, for that matter."
We agree that a lot of third parties dropped the ball on Vista. The extent
to which Microsoft tried to work with them on holding the ball (how far can
we stretch that metaphor?) is another topic of discussion altogether. Anyway,
Zenner strikes a similar tone and also suggests that XP love is more like a
sickness:
"Holding on to XP (especially when required to pay for 'downgrade'
rights) is self-defeating, bordering on mental illness. I will agree that
in its initial release, driver support was a major headache, not mention the
requirement to 'finally' retire a lot of 8-, 16-, even some wholly inadequate
32-bit peripherals. The fact is, hardware as well as software were being hobbled
by backward compatibility. X86-64 processors have opened up a completely new
benchmark for PC performance; there is no need to continue with the arbitrary
designation of workstation vs. PC. PCs, even laptops, have evolved to the
point that it's almost impossible to purchase an under-powered computer anymore,
yet clients (and closet Luddites) are refusing to step up to the challenge.
"The biggest complaint I still hear seems to be a lament that Vista
is 'too' good. Finally, Microsoft creates what everyone was complaining about
-- security, stability and defaults that start secure and allow the user to
decide how much compromise he is willing to endure for connectivity and communication.
Despite being given nearly everything that magazine writers, governments (national
and international) and business concerns have lobbied for, we are faced with
a consumer revolt, and what is it they are whining about this time? That it's
too difficult having to make a few minor adjustments to reap all the benefits.
That driver compatibility (which peripheral providers had been warned years
ago would be needed) is somehow under the control of Microsoft. Maybe complaining
to the root cause entities is not nearly as satisfying as continuing to find
something, anything, to justify mistaken animus toward Microsoft."
Maybe, Zenner, there is some anti-Microsoft sentiment at work in the press
(although we try to remain objective here), but XP is also a Microsoft OS and
people seem to like it well enough. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt; in
this case, it seems as though the opposite is at work.
Grant, writing from South Africa (we love contributions from outside the U.S.,
by the way), suggests that hanging on to XP is not a good idea...and that Vista
is not so bad:
"I have deployed a number of Vista Business machines with very few
problems. Applications are catching up fast (except those that still write
in Cobol). By downloading the latest drivers from the PC manufacturers' sites,
SP1 downloads gracefully. The users seem to like the new interface and features.
From my point of view (IT administrator), Vista is good, because it is so
much more secure than XP.
"Recommending to customers that they 'downgrade' Vista to XP is irresponsible
and short-sighted (as well as lazy and selfish, because they know XP well,
so it's easier to maintain, and they don't have to learn how to maintain the
new OS (yet)).
"If Windows 7 comes out in 2010, add two years for stabilisation
and user acceptance, we're looking at running XP for the next four years.
You've got to be joking! Imagine what Apple (Cougar, Lion or whatever) will
look like by that time. What would Microsoft's credibility be then?"
Good question, Grant. We're sure some folks in Redmond are wondering the same
thing. Or maybe cloud computing will make the OS mostly irrelevant and make
the browser the only environment we need.
Finally, Dave's just happy all around with Vista:
"My system starts up, honestly, in about half the time XP took. Task
Manager -- take a look; it's been greatly enhanced. All the extra apps that
are included are great additions for novice and power users. The organization
of the Start Menu is wonderful. There's nothing worse than looking at three
columns of installed programs on an XP machine. Oh, and if you like Apple
cutesy, the dream scene desktop background rocks. Honestly, after two weeks,
I'm cruising around Vista without a hiccup."
More power to you, Dave. We're glad it's working out for you.
We're still looking for Vista tales; we'll run them -- positive and negative
-- from time to time here. Send them to [email protected].
If you haven't seen yours yet, don't give up. It might still appear. And thanks
to everybody who has contributed.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/28/2008 at 1:22 PM1 comments
With the news that '90s icon and TV syndication legend Jerry Seinfeld is going
to help Microsoft
try
to rescue Vista, we asked you this week to name your ideal Microsoft spokesperson.
Here's what we got:
Brad gets us off to a potentially controversial start:
"I suggest one word, or really one letter: W. After all, he'll be
looking for work, anyway. Maybe the copy could read something like
this: Hi, do you know me? Or maybe I should ask, 'Do you loathe me?' As the
leader of the free world, I had to make some tough, unpopular decisions. So
that's why Microsoft asked me to be their spokesman..."
Brad, we try to stay apolitical here at RCPU, aside from when we're blasting
the European Union (and we figure that it's fair game). So, without making
a political comment, we'll just say...we love this and find it hilarious. Tough,
unpopular decisions, indeed. He'd certainly get attention.
Sam chimes in with an interesting prospect:
"Morgan Freeman. Why not? He has 'The Bucket List,' and he has been
God."
Hmm, now that's intriguing. Seinfeld might be a relic these days, but Morgan
Freeman has a certain aura of timelessness and that familiar voice. He also
inspires a sense of confidence and familiarity that Vista could use. (Although
it strikes us that he's surely doing lots of voice-overs already.) We're still
sort of leaning toward W, though, with Brad as script writer.
Finally, Richard has a one-word answer: "Satan."
Heh, well, Richard, your e-mail made us laugh out loud. That's got to be worth
something. We're not sure what, exactly...but something. Anyway, thanks to all
of y'all for taking the time to respond.
Have any more suggestions? Keep sending them to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/28/2008 at 1:22 PM0 comments