Like most situations, there are legitimate reasons why some organizations/admins aren’t moving to R2, and there are many bogus reasons.

Legitimate reasons;

• Core application compatibility issues.  Unfortunately there are some core Microsoft applications that aren’t supported with R2 in the mix.  This is very, very unfortunate and Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  The product teams need to get themselves a little more in-sync with the OS teams on this.  Many of the core apps are just listed as ‘unsupported’ which essentially means simply that the product team hasn’t certified their product for the new OS.  That doesn’t mean it won’t work, just they haven’t tested it yet to make sure it does.  The simple fact of Microsoft saying ‘unsupported’ means no corporation will move to the new OS.  This alone really hurts adoption of R2.  Below are some product examples;
• Microsoft Exchange 2003/2007 – Microsoft Exchange 2010 is fully supported on R2, 2007 and 2003 are not.  Honestly, that’s not a big deal as no one is going to migrate their OS for Exchange without migrating the app to the next version as well.  The tricky part was that you couldn’t have R2 domain controllers with Exchange involved.  That’s the problem.  Things have changed in this regard.  See the links below to see the evolution of this issue;
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/09/21/452567.aspx – We are not supporting R2
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/04/453026.aspx – We will support R2
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/30/453327.aspx - Releasing the fix
• OCS 2007/ 2007 R2 – Office Communications Server 2007 and 2007 R2 are also un-supported on Server 2008 R2.  Again, the same scenario as Exchange, you aren’t going to migrate the underlying OS of already existing production servers but the domain controller issue also exists with OCS.  The other issue is that OCS is another Microsoft product that is sorely overlooked and as more and more Enterprises are learning of it’s awesomeness (yes, that’s a new word for today) they would like to build the product on the latest OS release to prevent upgrades in the future.  Unfortunately they cannot do this.  (This is in regards to an issue with .Net framework versions if I recall correctly.)  I was actually going to help a customer add in their first 2008 R2 domain controller when we found out about the OCS issue with R2 DC’s.  Needless to say the customer was very disappointed we couldn’t add an R2 DC.
• This issue is going away in Q1 of this year - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/supported-applications.aspx
• So, while this was a major stumbling block for 2008 R2 adoption, Microsoft is quickly rectifying the situation.  For a full list of supported applications for Server 2008 R2 and when the apps will be supported, check this link here - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/supported-applications.aspx
• Core applications are already in place.  This one is fairly self evident.  If you already have Exchange 2007 or OCS 2007 or Sharepoint 2007 in place, you aren’t going to migrate these core applications to a new server/OS until the next version is released.  This is just fiscally responsible and realistic.  For any new applications or expansion of current applications many admins will want to use R2 (again for the purpose of preventing having to do upgrades in the future) and if the application allows them to, they will.  (See the above issue.)
• Honestly, these are the only legitimate reasons I can think of for NOT moving to 2008 R2.  If you know of any others, please let me know in the comments and I’ll update the article.

Bogus reasons;

• Windows Server 2008 R2 is a ‘minor’ release.  Again, this is where Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot.  The thought behind the server teams doing a ‘major’ and ‘minor’ release schedule was they thought admins were afraid of ‘major’ OS releases and therefore would be more likely to adopt ‘minor’ releases interim.  I have to say I completely disagree with this assessment and here is why;
• Admins know ANY CHANGE equals RISK.  This doesn’t mean just the changes in the OS, but changing your production environment in any way equates some risk.  Large production environments are very complex systems and one change in one arena can affect other areas of the environment you would have never expected.  (For example, adding an R2 DC and suddenly OCS or Exchange starts having issues, something you wouldn’t expect to occur.)  Not to mention there is the bureaucracy and red tape that you have to go through in a large IT organization to make a change to the production environment.  That means if Server 2008 is billed as a ‘minor’ release, admins are going to pass on it because as a ‘minor’ release it won’t be worth the hassle and risk.  I’ll just wait until the next major release, make it worth my while.
• An additional note on this topic, I personally find billing R2 as a ‘minor’ release is also insulting to the product itself and all the hard work that went into it.  Personally I would have loved to see Server 2008 R2 sold as ‘Windows Server 7’, and the branding alone would have spurred adoption due to the great market acceptance of Windows 7.  (Obviously the Windows Phone division realized this.)
• General laziness.  Yep, we all know it.  There are many admins out there that just plain don’t like learning anything new, and don’t like change.  It’s just a job to them, and anything that causes them more work they hate.  These admins are easy to spot, they are the ones that complain Microsoft releasing another product is just about ‘making more money without really doing anything other than slapping a new name on an old product with a couple of tweaks.’  Yeah, we know who you are.  (By the way, DUH, of course they want to make money.  It’s called Capitalism!)
• Ignorance.  Most admins have no idea why they SHOULD move to R2.  Again, this is a failing on Microsoft for not getting the word out.  I have never heard Direct Access mentioned by anyone at Microsoft or seen it really talked about in the Tech Press.  There have been a few mentions but come on people, this is a POWERFUL and REVOLUTIONARY FEATURE!!  Microsoft should be screaming this from the roof tops!  Every time I tell an admin about it they stare at me in disbelief.  Half the time they think I’m lying, then they wonder why they’ve never heard of it before.  I agree with them, why haven’t they heard it before???  My advice to Microsoft is once again, work with the product teams to get your word out!  Every admin has their one product they are the experts on and pride themselves on that.  If every product team got the word out, you would see a huge improvement in the uptake of Server 2008 R2.
• We need to wait until at least the first service pack.  This is one of the lamest, stupidest excuses I always hear.  Maybe, MAYBE this was true back in the Windows NT days but welcome to the 21st century people.  Server 2003 in BETA was the most stable OS I had ever used and proved itself immediately in production.  It’s time to stop being cowards and start being men.

Finally there’s one reason that fits in both the legitimate and bogus reasons categories.

• Testing before deploying.  Many organizations don’t have the time or the resources to deploy a full lab of their production environment to make sure that a new OS isn’t going to wreak havoc.  This is a legitimate concern, but Microsoft has taken steps to make this easier.  By providing free already configured .VHD’s of new products/OS’s, Microsoft is making it easy for admins to play with the new releases without having to install anything, and Microsoft is going to continue to find ways to make this process even easier and more accessible to even the smallest of IT shops.

So, in conclusion if you haven’t learned about 2008 R2, it’s time you started doing your research.  Windows Server 2008 R2 is NOT a ‘minor’ release and should be treated with the same respect and resources that a major server OS release would.  Trust me on this, and you’ll be thanking me later.

I have been asking by many server admins over the last year about Server 2008 R2, and every time the question essentially is, “So, is there any reason to run R2?”  They ask this question assuming to already know the answer of “of course not” and are shocked when I tell them the answer is ABSOLUTELY.  Now, this is just my opinion, but I  believe that 2008 R2 is as big a leap from 2008, as 2008 was from 2003.  Now, I’m sure I’ll hear some detractors on this, but here is why I believe this to be true in all the ways that matter.

So why is R2 so great?  Well, ask yourself this.  Do you think Windows 7 is far better than Windows Vista?  If you answered yes, then ask yourself why?  Got it?  Well, the exact same reasons why you love Windows 7 over Vista are the exact same reasons you will love R2 over 2008.  The resource utilization is vastly superior in R2 to 2008.  In my real world experience, I have a good 33% more efficiency in an R2 server over a 2008 one.  (That’s not an actual benchmarked stat, that is my observation of servers in production.)  Server 2008/Vista and Windows 7/2008 R2 are the same code base and kernel.  In fact, the client OS’s are now based on the Server OS’s rather than the other way around.  (This happened when they scrapped Longhorn 4000 series builds and based the new code on Server 2003 rather than XP code base.)

Now, there are many new features/improvements over 2008 in R2, but I’m just going to address a few and provide you links to learn about the rest;

• Hyper-V R2 – The new Hyper-V has many new features including live migration features, greater than 32GB RAM support/ >4 proc (host), etc.  Plus, it’s free.  To learn more, go here - http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
• Direct Access – This is the most advanced feature added to Windows Server since well, maybe Active Directory itself.  Now, while I lay claim to some credit of getting this feature into the OS (can’t talk about it :-) ) I about had a heart attack when it actually made it to the product.  What is Direct Access?
• Are you familiar with RPC over HTTPS, now called ‘Outlook Anywhere’, which is where your Outlook connects securely to Exchange without a VPN and all traffic just goes over port 443?  Well then, Direct Access is the same concept, except we’re talking ALL DOMAIN TRAFFIC.  That means you can domain manage laptops in remote offices or at users home the EXACT SAME WAY as you would if they were on your local LAN.  That means they talk to the domain before the user even logs in, applying computer and user group policies (including software deployments) access to local file and print shares, etc.  You are literally looking at domain controlled computers over the WAN with no VPN’s, MPLS, etc.  Users don’t have to change a thing, when the laptop is at work and when they are home, everything just WORKS!
• A couple of notes;
• First, this requires all client computers be Windows 7+.
• It uses some new protocols that Microsoft has implemented.  A quick layman’s description, RPC inside of IPSEC inside of SSL.
• I’ve had the documentation detailing exactly how the security layer of all this works and given it to a DOD security contractor to review.  I was told it was the most secure commercial implementation he had ever seen, and thought it may even be impervious to ‘man in the middle’ attacks.  Again, this was only his opinion, but I trust his opinion.
• In summary I cannot stress this enough.  LEARN ABOUT DIRECT ACCESS.  Get started with an over-view here - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=D8EB248B-8BF7-4798-A1D1-04D37F2E013C&displaylang=en
• IIS 7.5 – Don’t be scared, this isn’t the leap of IIS 7 from IIS 6.  Far from it, just keep the same concepts of Windows 7 over Vista in mind here.  It’s IIS 7 streamlined and more efficient.  Enough said.

To learn more about why Server 2008 R2 is so awesome, and why you should switch, see the links below.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731400.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/r2-compare-features.aspx

http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=10743

In part 2 I’ll go into some reasons WHY you might not be able to fully go R2 yet…

Yep, Microsoft has finally announced the Zune Phones.  Notice that’s plural, Zune Phones.  That means each handset maker is going to be able to make their own dream phone.  Also, they’ll have a centralized marketplace like the Apple store, except I can run any app I want that I got from anywhere, unlike the iPhone and others.  Now me, my requirements are slide out keyboard (on-screen keyboards have yet to work well enough for me) and an OLED screen.  Basically take the HTC Touch Pro 2 and 7 series it.  Want to see more, check it out!

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/LauraFoy/First-Look-Windows-Phone-7-Series-Hands-on-Demo/

Enjoy!

I’m not going to say much here as believe it or not I don’t like starting firestorms.  But it begs the question, do you feel safe hosting your data with Google?  This includes your search data, your email, Google docs, etc.  Google has been in bed with the Government for a long time, they’ve been hacked by China, and now they’re getting in bed with the NSA.  Read the article below, then let us know in the comments.  Do you feel safe hosting your data with Google and tell us why you feel one way or another.  I just ask you please don’t be crude in your comments. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html

Update:

Google’s new service ‘Buzz’ is now also ripe is privacy issues.  See some below articles just for starters;

Google Responds to Buzz Privacy Issues. Again

Google alters Buzz after privacy complaints

Google Apologizes for Buzz Privacy Issues

Thoughts anyone?

For the record, I don't think Microsoft needs to buy anyone to be successful in the smartphone market space.  I don't buy into the notion that Windows Mobile is dead or that Windows Mobile 7 will arrive too late to matter.  Sure, it’s taken Microsoft far too long to field a competitive product in the post-iPhone landscape--even if Windows Mobile’s “uncompetitiveness” is more perception than reality.  By all measures, Windows Mobile 7 will arrive later than it should have, but I respect Microsoft for taking the time to do it right versus just rushing something out to market.  It’s a Nintendo-esque approach, but if Microsoft nails it, it will be setting the foundation for a mobile strategy that can endure for the long haul. 

Fortunately for Microsoft, I’m not sure there really is such a thing as coming to market “too late” in the cell phone space.  It’s easy to forget how things were in the pre-iPhone picture, but in terms of time, it wasn't that long ago that the Motorola Razr was the hottest “dumb phone” around while Blackberries, and smartphones in general, were still somewhat of a niche market.  And you see where Motorola is today.  The turnover rate for cell phones is a lot faster than for PCs since new phones always are around the corner and consumers are stuck with their phones only for the contract period, which typically is two years.  It might be different if consumers paid full price their phones, but the carrier subsidies keep the price point low enough to make upgrading your phone every couple of years a viable proposition. 

So, while I think Microsoft can hold its own without buying anyone, I do think we might see some consolidation in the mobile market space.  There are too many proprietary players in the market: Apple’s iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry and Palm’s Pre/Pixi.  Each of these devices tie the operating system to the hardware, making them closed platforms.  There definitely are merits to having a single company developing both the hardware and software, but personally, I think separating the software from the hardware is the way to go.  It allows both pieces to evolve independently without the software developers worrying about how OS changes affect the hardware guys and vice-versa.  Furthermore, this separation helps create a partner ecosystem, which drives standardization and portability: I don’t have to buy all new applications just because I changed devices. 

To me, the hardware-software tie-in is the blessing and the curse of the iPhone.  If you have a significant monetary investment in the App Store, you’ll be hard-pressed to switch to a different smartphone platform and abandon that App Store investment.  That type of lock-in is great for Apple from a competitive standpoint, but going back to the cell phone turnover rate, I’m not sure it’s sustainable or realistic given how fast the technology changes.  However, I think that model is fine for media devices like the iPod Touch because I don’t need, or necessarily want, to buy a new one of those every two years.  But then again, given the number of free and sub-$5 applications, do most iPhone users have a “significant” investment in the App Store? 

Regardless, when you look at the PC landscape, you see the market has generally settled on 3 platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux.  And 2/3 of those arguably are niche platforms themselves.  So, I just don’t think the smartphone market can sustain 6 major platforms (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian/Maemo), 3 of which are proprietary.  Obviously, the iPhone isn’t going away, and I think Blackberry is too entrenched and popular to disappear anytime soon.  So, of the proprietary players, that leaves Palm as the odd man out.

Palm has an innovative platform with the WebOS, but in a somewhat uncharacteristic move for the company, it dropped the ball on the hardware.  Think what you will of the Pre, but there are too many complaints about the hardware for it to be a definitive success.  I thought the QWERTY-bar design of the Pixi was tempting, but it had worse hardware specs than the Pre and its price and positioning didn’t make sense. 

Hardware maladies aside, Palm was very forward thinking with the WebOS.  As a  platform built around HTML, JavaScript and CSS, developers can create Web-based applications that potentially can run on multiple devices with little modification, reducing the need to write native apps for every smartphone platform.  The need for a JavaScript runtime engine inadvertently introduced some performance issues with the Pre; however, I think better hardware would have mitigated JavaScript overhead.  And given the momentum of cloud computing and the evolution of Web technologies, a Web-centric platform seems like a pretty smart bet.

If Microsoft bought Palm, it immediately would improve its perception in the market by inheriting a modern platform that supports touch-friendly usage and capacitive screens.  Furthermore, MS could embrace and extend WebOS development with technologies like Silverlight and .Net.  And it’s the Web-centric aspect of the WebOS that would make it relatively palatable to Microsoft from an acquisition standpoint.  Yes, WebOS is based on Linux, but Palm is less in-your-face about the Linux underpinnings than Google is with Android or Nokia is with Symbian and Maemo.  And perhaps Microsoft could port the UI stack, app runtime engine and development tools to Windows Mobile.  But if MS is confident that Windows Mobile 7 will blow WebOS out of the water, than the acquisition would be predominately around talent.  Perhaps WebOS developers would drive the next phase of Windows Mobile and Zune app development—kind of like an in-house SPB Software for Microsoft.

Of course, an acquisition of Palm by Microsoft is unlikely to happen.  Microsoft has given no indication that intends to acquire anyone and given its recent job posts, the company seems 100% behind Windows Mobile 7.  But if Microsoft doesn’t buy Palm, then hopefully someone else does (maybe Nokia?).  Otherwise, I’m not sure Palm can continue to exist in its current form.  Without a financial suitor or some sort of blockbuster device, I see Palm going the way of Sega and transforming into a ghost of its former, once glorious self: a pure software developer of premium mobile applications for Android and the iPhone.

Living in a material world, and I am a material girl.  Those infamous words from Madonna's Material Girl can be slightly tweaked to sum up my operating system perspective: living in a Windows world and I am a Windows guy. But I'm writing this post from within Moblin running on the new Asus Eee PC I got for Christmas (thanks, mom & dad!). 

You might have heard about Moblin in discussions about netbooks and netbook operating systems. But for those who don't know, Moblin started as an Intel project to develop a version of Linux built around the Atom processor and netbooks.  The goal was to develop an operating system that minimized boot time, increased battery life, and provided an Internet-centric user experience designed for small screens.  The project has since been turned over to the Linux Foundation; however, Intel employees still dominate the project's steering committee.

The notion of a lightweight Linux distribution on a netbook is as old as netbooks themselves. Asus' original Eee PC shipped with a lightweight, relatively user-friendly version of Linux.  Although the original Eee PC was a relative success, netbooks didn't really take off until they started shipping with Windows XP.  In fact, consumers who purchased Linux-based netbooks often returned them for Windows-based netbooks.  My particular Eee PC shipped with Windows 7 Starter.  I've been using Windows 7 for a while and running Windows XP on my netbook seemed like a step backwards.  However, I was intrigued by Moblin and wanted to test it out.  So, I now have a dual-boot setup with Windows 7 Starter and Moblin.

Of course, other netbook-oriented versions of Linux have sprouted up, many with the Ubuntu distribution as a base, such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Eeebuntu.  There is even an Ubunto Moblin Remix.  Although these OSes have their merits and I intend to play around with them more, I'm not as intrigued by them and probably will stick with Moblin as my Windows alternative.  Why?  Well, it mainly has to do with the premise of their design: take the most popular desktop Linux distro and adapt it for smaller-screened devices.  Certainly not a bad goal, but the end result essentially is Ubuntu with a type of "dock" designed to minimize the need for the standard, full desktop by providing a one-stop shop for the most commonly used applications and tasks.  While you could argue that Moblin essentially does the same thing, the difference is that Moblin was designed for netbooks from the ground up instead of from the top down.  This might seem like semantics, but the difference is that Moblin doesn't feel like Linux whereas the other distros do.

With Moblin, the design team rethought the purpose of, and even the very need for, a desktop.  In fact, Moblin basically attempts to hide the desktop at every chance it gets in the hopes you'll forget why you needed it in the first place.  And so far, they've succeeded.  If you accept the premise of Moblin and can leave your desktop OS "baggage" behind, you'll find that your expectations are different.  Because you're not expecting a typical desktop OS, you're more patient and willing to learn the Moblin way of doing things.  In fact, you may even appreciate the Moblin way of doing things.  At least I did.

The other netbook-oriented distros still feel like Linux and ultimately lead me to the same thought I have when using their desktop counterparts: why not just use Windows?  Now before you start extolling the virtues of Linux to me, don't get me wrong: I can appreciate Linux, and the geek in me enjoys learning about and playing with other OSes as my Moblin usage hopefully demonstrates.  But Windows, Linux and Mac OS are pretty much just different ways of doing the same things.  So, from a purely pragrmatic standpoint, if one is working for you, why go through effort to learn a different OS?  That type of "comfort intertia" is partly why Windows has remained dominent on the desktop.

But with Moblin, the experience feels fresh.  Using it makes me think of netbooks less as scaled-down computers and more as purpose-built devices--kind of like mobile Internet devices (MIDs) that Intel envisions everyone using.  It's this type of fresh experience that I hope Microsoft pays attention to.  I think MS did a great job with Windows 7 and Windows 7 Starter works well on my netbook.  Asus even implemented a cool fast-boot feature in the BIOS that speeds up boot times (though I lost this feature after setting up the dual-boot).  The result is that Windows 7 boots up pretty darn fast--maybe not quite as fast as Moblin, but close.  And of course, starting up from standby is very fast.  And perhaps most importantly, I'm comfortable and confident with Windows. 

But Windows 7 Starter is still a full-fledged desktop operating system.  And as more of our computing experience occurs on Internet-centric devices like netbooks and smartphones and more of our application needs move to the Web, Microsoft needs to rethink the Windows user experience.  It's simply not enough to adapt Windows to these devices.  Rather, MS needs to figure out how these devices can leverage the benefits of Windows while providing a user experience optimized for the particular device being used.  Apple did this with the iPhone and we've all seen the response.

At the same time, Windows has that comfort inertia and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  People tend to gravitate towards what they know, which can be a huge competitive advantage since virtually everyone has used Windows at some point.  However, balancing familiarity with change is not an easy task.  In fact, after polling some of its user base (i.e., the enterprise space), implementing any change can prove a challenge.  Yet, if Microsoft can pull it off, it can extend its leadership into the next decade of computing experiences despite increased competition from Google and Apple.

So, if you were lucky enough to get a netbook this holiday season, I encourage you to check out Moblin.  If you don't want to install it, you can throw the live image on a bootable USB drive, boot it up, and play around with it.  Moblin.org provides easy instructions for doing this.  And if you already have tried Moblin, what do you think of it?

It would've been great if I could have read through at least part of Gizmodo writer John Herrman's HTC Touch HD2 review before encountering the usual Windows Mobile bashing.  But unfortunately, the bashing started right in the title: HTC Touch HD2 Review: A Tragedy.

Despite all the positive attention and excitement the HD2 has generated, you knew that someone would eventually knock the device because it runs Windows Mobile.  Personally, at this point, I think the tech press is beating a dead horse with all the WinMo bashing.  Microsoft gets it.  It has admitted that it dropped the ball on WinMo development and was careful to set WinMo 6.5 expectations properly: 6.5 should be seen as a solid step towards better touch support--not a complete overhaul.  That would have to wait until WinMo 7.  In fact, I think Steve Ballmer has been a little too apologetic.  It's hard to even give 6.5 a chance when Microsoft's CEO keeps apologizing for WinMo's slow development and basically says WinMo 7 will make up for it.

I don't really care if Herrman doesn't like Windows Mobile or feels it hinders the HD2; he's entitled to his opinion.  But it's apparent that he began the review already wishing the device ran Android instead.  He doesn't say 'Android' verbatim, but it's pretty obvious which OS he'd prefer.  I'm sure he doesn't think the HD2 should run Symbian.  But even that inherent bias in and of itself isn't the real problem: the real problem is that his bias is unsubstantiated.  And here I thought that a logical argument supporting the findings and conclusion was a prerequisite for a review...

Instead, readers see a haphazard critique that, at times, seems more about the philosophy around the phone's development than the actual device itself.  For example, Herrman extols the virtues of how tightly TouchFlo is integrated into the WinMo experience, admitting it's not often that you'll be greeted with the classic Windows Mobile UI.  But in the same breath, he decries the need for HTC to re-skin WinMo to begin with and basically claims HTC went to absurd lengths to hide the fact that the device is running Windows Mobile. 

First off, the device sports a multi-touch capacitive screen, which WinMo does not natively support.  So given that the stock UI and controls were intended for resistive touch screens and the use of styli or D-pads, HTC had to deeply re-skin the UI to make it usable with a capacitive screen.  Second, while Herrman takes HTC's customization as a slam against WinMo's UI issues, some people might think it's actually cool that WinMo can be customized to that extent.  Try doing that on the iPhone.  Heck, try publishing an iPhone app that attempts to supplant the stock UI.  Feel free to forward me the App Store rejection email when you get it.

"But the iPhone doesn't need re-skinning," the naysayers will claim.  That might be true, but so what?  What if I simply want to re-skin anyway?  Questioning the need to re-skin the UI is like questioning why import car tuners modify their Hondas to the extent that they do with body kits, spoilers, etc.  Maybe they do it simply because they can.  Now, all that customization would be for naught if TouchFlo was some sort of unusable, Frankensteinian UI.  But it's not.  And it's clear that Herrman agrees.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, when will the majority of the tech media realize that average users don't care what OS a phone runs as long as it works?  They're going to see the phone in the store, play with one their friend has, or see a demo on YouTube and think the phone is pretty cool.  Average users just aren't as passionate or invested in technology as we are.  They aren't jaded or biased and could care less what OS it's running.  Case in point: you don't hear about people walking into a Sprint store to buy a Pre and saying, "Oh, the WebOS is based on Linux?  Linux is geeky and difficult to use...No thanks, I'll pass."  Yet maybe if you stuck the person in front of a Linux shell and told him that the Pre is based on the same OS, he might be a little hesitant to buy one.  But, that would be unfair, just as dismissing HTC's customizations is unfair to the HD2.

But that's exactly what Herrman does.  He calls the experience near-magical and praises the HD2's super-speedy app launching, responsive call talk/end functions, and lightning-fast camera with a lightning-bright flash.  Then he attempts to undermine his praise by mentioning that if you turn off TouchFlo, WinMo 6.5 will rear its ugly, stylus-driven head.  No kidding!  But if those moments are rare, then who cares?  Every OS and device has its quirks.  Sure, a setting here and there might be obscure or touch unfriendly.  But history has shown that people have an amazing ability to adjust and accept all sorts of oddities, just like we do with modern desktop operating systems.  A certain setting or control might not be intuitive, but after you figure it out, the lesson is learned: you'll know right where to go next time.  Too often the tech media allows the unintuitive-ness or touch unfriendliness of some seldom-used settings to overshadow all the good things about Windows Mobile.

At no point in the review do we get an honest-to-goodness comparison between comparable devices.  You think Android is better?  Fine, explain why.  Why not compare the HD2 to HTC's own all-touch, Android-powered Eris?  Why not compare it to Motorola's Droid?  Give us a comparison of how these devices handle typical functions like messaging, calling, Web surfing, media viewing, picture taking, etc.

Better yet, why doesn't Herrman question why HTC chose Windows Mobile for the HD2?  Did he ever think to ask or at least speculate?  Maybe HTC wanted the device to appeal to professional users and consumer alike.  Maybe Microsoft co-funded its development.  Maybe HTC just wanted to see if it could create a compelling capacitive, multi-touch WinMo device.  Maybe HTC is quietly conducting some crowdsourcing by observing how the XDA developer community will customize the device.  Maybe HTC feels that WinMo apps--or at least its own WinMo apps--are better than the Android's apps.  Maybe WinMo yields better Snapdragon performance through tweaks and optimizations.  Maybe HTC simply has more WinMo experience or engineering talent.

But unfortunately, the Gizmodo review doesn't shed any light on such things.  The only takeaway is that the Herrman doesn't like WinMo and can't see past that.  His shameful knock against the paltry offerings in the Windows Marketplace proves it as Herrman is well aware that there are thousands of WinMo apps.  And without any justification as to why Android is better, we can only surmise that Herrman has drank the Google Kool-Aid.  Facts don't matter: Android is cool and new and made by Google so it must be better, right?  Admitting otherwise or at least doing an honest review wouldn't look cool in front of the iPhone and Android crowd.

No one really was surprised when Palm announced it was dropping support for Windows Mobile.  Palm had embraced Windows Mobile for its business-oriented devices, including its popular Treo line, after its own PalmOS stagnated and was no longer competitive.  But the company was bleeding badly and ultimately ended up at a crossroads: seek a buyer or attempt to reinvent itself as a last stand to avoid shutting its doors.  Palm chose the latter and began working on an allegedly revolutionary new operating system and, before its launch, received an infusion of investor funds that would keep the company on life support to see the new project through.

As soon as Palm debuted the Pre and its new WebOS, people immediately questioned how much longer Palm would develop Windows Mobile devices.  First, there was the issue of limited engineering resources.  Palm already had been pared down to a ghost of its former self and might not have enough engineers to support a dual-platform product strategy.  Second, and perhaps even more importantly, there was the issue of perception.  Equity investors didn't pour money into Palm so it could continue developing around a Microsoft product: they believed in Palm's new strategy and likely wanted to see the entire company united around the Pre and WebOS.  From a public investor side, if Palm truly believed in its new WebOS, wouldn't it want to standardize on the platform for all its devices?  So, Palm's decision to abandon Windows Mobile had more to do with the company's overall health and competitive prospects for the Pre than it did about any perceived shortcomings of Windows Mobile.

But did Palm make the right decision?  Well, I'd the say the question isn't whether Palm made the right decision, but rather, whether the Pre and WebOS have sufficiently replaced the role Windows Mobile devices had in Palm's lineup.  And the answer is no.  Although sales were down and losses were high, Palm, like RIM, has a loyal following.  It's Treo devices were relatively successful and often the device of choice for professionals or consumers seeking a Blackberry alternative.  Palm's embrace of Windows Mobile over its aging PalmOS kept the Treo line viable against the competition.

With the Pre, though, Palm alienated its loyal user base, especially business users.  Palm decided to chase Apple down the consumer-oriented-web-and-multimedia phone road.  Sure, the Pre supports business-related functions, but it wasn't designed for them.  In fact, rather than provide a PC-based syncing utility, Pre users are encouraged to use Google for PIM functionality.  Although it's an attractive device with a beautiful screen, the Pre's Motorola PEBL-like design doesn't quite evoke business prowess.  This might not matter if the Pre was a pleasure to type on, but regrettably, the slide-out keyboard's small keys and concave indentation make it difficult to type on for any extended length of time.  Some users also have complained about the Pre's build quality.  The dearth of applications and its online-driven experience make the Pre an inadequate successor to a road warrior's trusty Treo. 

That Palm has yet to reveal its plans for the Treo line and, instead, is about to release another consumer-oriented device tells me that the company simply isn't catering to business users.  It's a shame, too, because Palm had gotten quite good at developing elegant, quality Windows Mobile phones.  Its latest Treo iteration, the Treo Pro, was well received and, ironically, was praised in areas where the Pre has been criticized: it has solid build quality (though the Treo Pro was designed by HTC), a good keyboard and is generally fast enough.  Paul Thurrott, a frequent critic of Microsoft's mobile strategy, praised the device as an example of what Windows Mobile phones can be.

While I understand Palm's decision to center on a single platform, I'm not sure continuing Windows Mobile support would've required that many resources.  Palm could keep contracting HTC for device development while dedicating minimal engineering talent to Windows Mobile needs.  And, a dual-platform strategy could work if Palm was committed to it and the lines of delineation were clear.  The WebOS  and Pre could be the flagship of Palm's consumer line while Windows Mobile could anchor a Treo line of business devices. 

Palm also would have a willing partner in Microsoft, who I'm sure would rather keep Palm as an OEM partner.  Palm could've taken advantage of a lot of free press from Microsoft during the Windows Mobile 6.5 and Marketplace launch.  Imagine if Palm had debuted a new Treo phone at the Microsoft launch event and solidified itself as a premier OEM for business-oriented Windows Phones.  Furthermore, it would be maintaining the Treo brand, which was well-known and already had a loyal following of users waiting for an adequate replacement.

Some people are suggesting that Palm ditch the WebOS in favor of Android.  Regardless of the platform, my point is that Palm could maintain two platforms and leverage existing brand loyalty and an installed customer base.  But, Palm bet the house on the Pre and WebOS.  The WebOS certainly has its merits, but the Pre form-factor is a liability.  And while the Pixi form-factor seems more compelling in some ways, based on that phone's target audience, business users and hardcore Treo fans disenchanted by the Pre shouldn't hold their breath.

Please, correct me if I am wrong but I am hearing from people who have upgraded their Mac’s to Snow Leopard these below major issues/disappointments (now updated with additional user feedback);

1.  If you sign in as the ‘Guest’ user account, it deletes your primary profile - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/12/snow_leopard_guest_account_bug_deletes_user_data.html  (Yep, this is the release product.  Even the .1 update still has this issue.)

2.  Snow Leopard is a ‘64 bit’ OS, but ONLY if you hold down the 6 and 4 keys together to boot into x64.  By default, the OS always boots into 32bit mode due to massive application incompatibility.  (Thanks to Paul for this correction.)

3.  Massive hardware issues, specifically with printers and lack of properly functioning drivers.  (Hmmmm that sounds like one of the primary Vista gripes…)  The shocking issue is the firmware upgrade issues.  What makes this worse for Apple is that they control their hardware far stricter than Microsoft, especially on the computers themselves.  (No OS can have drivers for every printer out there.  Sorry people, yell at HP, not Apple on this one.)

(If you are a Snow Leopard user and you have come across other major concerns, please let us know and we’ll update this post.)

4.  General software incompatibility issues, specifically with virtual machine and utility software such as anti-virus, etc.  Again, doesn’t this sound exactly like one of the primary gripes with Vista?  Hmm…

5.  Massive stability issues.  I was pointed to this one by a Snow Leopard user - http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/problems-with-mac-os-x-10.6-snow-leopard-join-the-sizable-minority/

So everyone, keep the feedback coming!  Other issues you’ve seen, let me know and we’ll update the post here to reflect them!

So again I ask you, where is the tech press on this?  Again they prove their hypocrisy!  If Vista had issues like this (or Windows 7) I think there would have been people with pitch forks standing in Redmond ready to charge Bill Gates home!  So, I call upon the hypocritical and worthless Tech Press to do their job and report on issues no matter who they are with.

(Ok Apple fan boys, let the hate begin!)

So do you think Apple will be honest in their advertising (they never have before) and have their ‘cool’ I’m a Mac guy say “Hi PC, Snow Leopard is out and I’m not feeling so good, *freeze*, Oh hi PC, who am I?  Where did all my files go?”
I doubt it.

Thom Holwerda at OSnews proposed an interesting theory about why Nintendo saw a 52% profit drop in the first half of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008.  Basically, he claims that with the Wii, Nintendo abandoned hardcore fans in order to capture the casual gamer crowd.  However, as the novelty wears off and the casual crowd moves on to the next big thing, it's the hardcore fans that keep you going and keep sales strong.  Without support from the traditional customer base, those crazy sales peaks turn into plateaus or valleys. 

Thom's article is a good read and I encourage anyone with an affinity for the gaming industry to check it out.   But I'm going to somewhat challenge the premise: Nintendo didn't just suddenly abandon hardcore fans with the Wii.  Rather, Nintendo abandoned hardcore fans with the N64.  See, back in the Super Nintendo days, I had a Sega Genesis.  In those days, owning multiple consoles wasn't as common as it is today, and the fanbase formed camps around each platform--similar to the Mac vs. PC camps.  I stuck to my Genesis, but boy, there were times when I secretly craved that timeless gameplay from Nintendo classics like the Super Mario games, Mario Kart, Pilotwings, Star Fox, etc.  Through its exclusive franchises, Nintendo had moments of brilliance that suddenly made suffering through Nintendo's delays and draconian culture worth it.  Other game publishers were great, too, but Nintendo provided a gaming experience through its own exclusive titles that was hard to parallel on other systems. 

Nintendo is a lot like Apple: very secretive, very draconian, and obsessed with user experience.  Nintendo always thought they knew better than everyone else--including their fanbase--and, like Apple, relied heavily on hype and huge interest in (and sales of) comparatively few products a year.  While that culture can produce moments of brilliance, it also can lead to a disconnect between a company and its user base.  There is no better example of that than Nintendo's decision to stick with cartridge media when the rest of the industry was moving to CDs. 

Now don't get me wrong: I bit the bullet on the N64.  Some of my fondest gaming memories came from Super Mario 64, Super Mario Kart 64, and Wave Race--so much so that I bought a GameCube primarily for sequels to those classics.  And despite how initially expensive cartridge games were compared to CDs (try $70 for N64 games, while PS1 games could be had for around $45), I saw merit in Nintendo's decision.  CD load times on the Playstation 1 initially were ridiculous--a problem that just didn't exist with cartridges.

But in sticking with cartridges, Nintendo alienated third-party developers, particularly Square, who already was in a tenuous relationship with Nintendo.  Developers didn't want to do all the extra work required to port games to the N64, when porting between Playstation and the PC could be done relatively easily.  In Square's case, the storage constraints of cartridges prohibited the use of prolific full-motion video sequences, which were becoming a hallmark of Square games.  The effect could be somewhat replicated on N64 through real-time polygon rendering (think machinima), but required a lot of additional development work and still would never look as movie-like.  When Sony got the Final Fantasy franchise, Nintendo lost a huge swath of its core fanbase: RPG fans.  To make matters worse, Nintendo--known for its distaste for violent or mature-themed games--released a slew of G-rated games.  This went over great with the elementary school crowd, but basically shoehorned the N64 into being the "Pokemon console." 

Nintendo had an opportunity to reset and try again with the GameCube.  However, in true Nintendo fashion, they went with an uncommon mini-disc media format.  But most importantly, long-awaited franchise sequels were late to market and, when they did arrive, had a lukewarm reception.  The GameCube was a failure. 

But, I give Nintendo a lot of credit with the Wii.  When Sony and Microsoft proved to be viable competitors in the video game industry, Sega new it had to get out of the console game.  It couldn't keep up with the graphics-power arms race and certainly couldn't afford to make its consoles a loss-leader like Sony and MS.  So, Sega metamorphosed into purely a software studio.  Nintendo realized that it, too, could not win the graphics arms race and accepted that it likely would not attract hardcore gamers.  As a result, Nintendo focused on casual gamers with the Wii and sought to attract them through a simple, yet novel controller.  I applauded the logic because even for the occasional gamer, console controls had gotten crazy with the number of buttons, joysticks, and overall complexity. 

But, "novel" can lead to novelty.  I recognized that right away with the Wii and had the same sentiments as Thom: flailing my arms around and intently pointing at the screen did not seem that relaxing to me.  Sure, it can be fun for a while, but it's not sustainable.  Like Thom said and the sales figures show, the novelty wears off.

Like Apple, Nintendo is a software company living in a hardware company's body.  Aside from sleek industrial design, Apple's value-add comes from its software.  The software is what justifies the higher price for what is otherwise commodity hardware.  But ultimately, Apple's profits come from moving hardware units, as do Nintendo's profits.  But the video game market doesn't have the same planned obsolescence factor as in the computer or personal device markets.  And as revolutionary as the Wii controller scheme is, it can only distract from major graphical shortcomings for so long.  When the novelty wears off, people will want to play that cool new PS3 or Xbox game their friend has. 

The clamor to get a Wii is over.  To maintain steadier Wii sales and to continue making money from its installed user base, Nintendo needs a steady stream of quality titles.  The video game market is a marathon, not a sprint.  But as long as Nintendo identifies itself as a hardware company, it won't be committed to the long haul.  Whereas PS3 and Xbox 360 sales will remain steady, Nintendo will abandon the Wii and shift development to its next big device, again hoping to generate that initial boom of sales.  But whatever that new device will be, if you're a hardcore gamer, I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

Following quickly on the heels of the Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 launches (they have PowerShell 2.0 built in), Microsoft has released version 2.0 for all flavors of Windows since XP:

Windows Management Framework, which includes Windows PowerShell 2.0, WinRM 2.0, and BITS 4.0, was officially released to the world this morning. By providing a consistent management interface across the various flavors of Windows, we are making our platform that much more attractive to deploy. IT Professionals can now easily manage their Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 machines through PowerShell remoting – that’s a huge win!

You can grab the installer bits here.

I’ve been using SCOM 2007 R2 for a few months now, and I’m liking it. It’s a good system, and thorough. You definitely have to tune it to weed out the alerts that are false or unneeded, but after that, you really get a good insight into what’s going on with your environment. It can monitor just about any type of server, application, or network hardware. But now, thanks to the talented people over at Coretech, there is a management pack that you can use to monitor how much coffee you have left. All you need a network-connected camera, and you’re good to go. See a full demo here.

After waiting through betas, release candidates, and, well, Vista, The Windows 7 launch date is finally here. Windows 7 has taken over Microsoft’s home page with a collection of seven second demos, and I’m seeing ads galore all over the web. They’re also sporting a really nice Facebook app that  tracks what people are saying about Windows 7 in the social media space. Microsoft also opened the NASDAQ from their headquarters this morning, you can see a few (slightly blurry) pics here.

Also on Facebook, if you’re a fan of Family Guy, you’ll be happy to know that Stewie’s rocking Windows 7 on his laptop.

How is the public at large feeling about Windows 7? Well, it’s the highest grossing pre-order on Amazon. Ever. It even beat out sales for the final Harry Potter book. PC World held a midnight launch event in London, and people were lining up to get their hands on a copy. And great reviews are coming in from all over the place. Hell, even Walt Mossberg likes it.

Personally, I’ve been testing beta and RC versions for over a year, and I installed the RTM the day it was made available on MSDN. This is a really great OS with lots of great new features, it’s fast, and it’s stable. I highly recommend it. Let us know your thoughts, and have a great launch day!

UPDATE: Burger King is selling a Windows 7 Whopper. But only in Japan. It has 7 patties. Yikes!

I awoke this morning to users telling me they couldn’t sign into OCS.  This is very bad as we’re an 100% Enterprise Voice shop.  Upon investigation the OCS Edge servers access edge service wouldn’t start.  I checked the event logs and found an error stating that my ‘evaluation period had expired.’  Since I was running Volume License software this was obviously puzzling. Then I came across this article when searching Bing;

http://uc2go.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/%c2%ab-migration-from-mcafee-8-7-to-forefront-client-securitykb974571-crypto-api-update-may-break-office-communications-server-2007-r2-installations/

I uninstalled the update as they stated, rebooted, and all services came up just fine.  So, I highly recommend you turn off Windows Updates on all your OCS 2007 R2 servers until Microsoft realizes this issue and comes up with a resolution.

The FTC has changed it’s guidelines saying that bloggers must disclose any gifts or money paid to them by products they review.  Sounds like a good thing, right?  Unfortunately no.  The reason why it’s a bad thing is the language is intentionally left very vague which means it becomes very subjectional what counts as ‘disclosure’ and allows them to target blogs they don’t like, even if that blog is trying to obey the law.  Think I’m a conspiracy theorist?  I guess we’ll just have to wait and see…

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-Bloggers-must-disclose-apf-468964868.html?x=0&.v=2

(WindowsConnected bloggers always disclose any products we are sent, who sent them, and why before we do any reviews, FYI.)

A German newspaper reported that IBM is mandating employees to cease using Microsoft Office and to switch to its in-house Lotus Symphony suite within 10 days.  Word has it that some 330,000 of about 360,000 employees already have made the switch.  Though given that Symphony is probably already installed on some of the corporate images, I'm not sure there's much merit in that statistic.

Rather, this move is more of a publicity stunt for the OpenDocument (ODF) format, an XML-based document format that IBM has been promoting.  IBM and Microsoft's rivalry is legendary, and thebattle has continued into the document standards space.  Starting with Office 2007, Microsoft has implemented its Open Office XML (OOXML) format, which IBM has criticized.  

IBM's internal mandate is a nice plug for ODF and might have been considered "news" two years ago when enterprises were considering or beginning Office 2007 rollouts.  But now, IBM's announcement is unlikely to prompt anyone to switch to an ODF-based solution--certainly not a switch to Lotus Symphony.  The next battleground is the hosted or Web-based productivity suite space being championed by Google with its Google Docs, GMail, and other Google Apps solutions.  Of course, Microsoft is right on Google's heels with its Office Web Applications, which currently is in tech preview.  The tech industry and organizations are eyeing this space closely, and both MS and Google are competing intensely for large enterprise deals.

While they won't be entirely insignificant, document standards will be much more of a moot point when considering Web-based document solutions--at least internally.  For organizations standardizing on an online solution, users won't be need to deal with individual files or email attachments when sharing documents.  Instead, these documents will be housed in a central workspace, such as SharePoint, where multiple users can collaboratively work on the same document without worrying about version control or handling multiple document iterations.  Sure, external document viewing as well as printing still will depend more on the document format, but PDF has pretty much become the standard format for universal readability and pre-press.  For external editing, web-based solutions may allow the creation of "public" workspaces that are accessible by users outside the organization.

Had IBM announced a web-based version of Symphony or a company-wide switch to Google Docs, that would be significant.  But IBM is no stranger to anti-Microsoft sentiments, and this internal switch to its in-house, desktop productivity suite is more or less just another public jab at its long-standing rival.

http://www.therawfeed.com/2009/09/carrier-pigeon-used-to-send-data-faster.html

This isn’t a joke, a company is using carrier pigeons with usb thumb drives attached to them to transfer data between offices.  While hilarious, it sounds like it’s actually a pretty good solution and whoever thought of it should get a raise…  That is until someone shoots down the carrier pigeon and steals the thumb drive.

Microsoft released details today confirming October 6th as the date that the new Windows Mobile 6.5 phones will hit the market. Here are some of the providers slated to have phones ready to go:

• In North America: Mobile operators AT&T, Bell Mobility, Sprint, TELUS and Verizon Wireless, and phone manufacturers HP, HTC Corp., LG Electronics, Samsung and Toshiba Corp.

• In Europe: Mobile operators Orange, Deutsche Telekom AG and Vodafone Group Plc, and phone manufacturers Acer, HTC, LG Electronics, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and Toshiba

• In Latin America: Mobile operator TIM Brazil, and phone manufacturers HTC, LG Electronics and Samsung

• In Asia Pacific: Mobile operators NTT DOCOMO Inc., SOFTBANK Mobile Corp., SK Telecom, Telstra and WILLCOM Inc., and phone manufacturers Acer Inc., HTC, LG Electronics, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and Toshiba

What’s it going to look like? Well, seeing as how Windows Mobile still doesn’t look much different than it did in 2002, it’s about time for something new.

Somehow, that interface seems familiar, but I just can’t seem to place it. Anyway, it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

I’m typing (and posting) this final blog entry from 30,000 feet above the United States in a Delta MD-88. Delta contracts with GoGo to provide high-speed Internet… which is freaking amazing. Check out my connection speed:

Considering the cost of WiFi on the ground… paying $10 at altitude seems like a bargain. I only hope Joe Six-pack doesn’t fire up Skype on his laptop. I draw the line at phone conversations in the air. What about you?

Anyway – back to the original purpose of my post. I’m retiring Jeff’s Connected Corner on WindowsConnected.com. It’s been a blast working with Josh and the other guys at WC since my first post back in February, 2006. Hopefully my posts will stay archived for some time… I’m always amazed at the traffic search engines drive to old posts. Thanks go out to the WC volunteers and readers for all their support and kind words over the years.

I still haven’t decided if I’ll create a TechNet blog now that I’m “inside” the Microsoft machine. Oh, I guess I should mention that as well. I started with Microsoft on June 22, 2009. I’m a technical sales resource (official title = Account Technology Strategist) dedicated to a handful of large customers in Kansas City. Bottom line – I’ll only start my own blog if I have enough interesting content to post regularly. Time will tell.

So, this is goodbye for now. --Jeff

I’m sure this is going to incur the wrath of the Apple boys again but here we go!

First, apparently Apple legal contacted Microsoft to pull their ‘PC Hunter’ ads because Apple decided to drop $100 off the price of some of their laptops.  Uhhh… Ok…?  Sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do on Apple’s part since it would obviously have no effect whatsoever not to mention it just gives Microsoft fodder to use in the press which is exactly what they did.  See the article below;

http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_exec_Apple_lawyers_tried_to_squelch_Windows_ads_50896452.html

Granted, we have to take the story with a grain of salt but I’m sure Apple legal did contact MS, and did ask them to pull the ads on the $100 price drop basis.  Which is hilarious in what should have been it’s obvious failure before they even made the call.

Next, it would seem Apple is losing market share…

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/07/15/idc.prelim.q2.2009/

In any case it would seem that the truth is finally starting to get out so Microsoft, keep up the good work!

When I read Google’s Chrome OS announcement via its corporate blog, I couldn’t help but chuckle throughout it.  I think my favorite line is, “The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web.”  Wow, I’m all for creative marketing and positive spin, but that takes the cake.  All this time the Windows interface has been in my way and I didn’t even know it!  How dare it let me download and organize pics from my digital camera, copy files to and from network shares and control my computer’s settings! I get what Google is doing, but that’s some pretty blatant straw man logic.

After my laugh, my first thought was that Larry Ellison might've hacked into Google’s Blogger servers.  Google’s vision essentially is the network computer reborn—though reborn at a better time.

When Ellison and Scott McNealy first championed the idea of the always-connected network computer, they were right that the Web would play a growing role in our everyday computing as more and more of the computing experience moved online.  But, the problem with their vision was that it depended on both broadband connectivity, which was not ubiquitous, and Java, which despite the hype, seemed to be an environment better suited for lightweight applets vs. robust desktop applications.

Fast forward to now.  Time certainly has made the Ellison-McNealy vision more viable, but of course, things didn’t turn out exactly as they predicted.  Ellison and McNealy saw their network computer running on Java: Windows was out of the picture.  The duo were outspoken Microsoft competitors and critics, so leaving out Windows was as much for personal reasons as it was for technical ones.  Well, even on netbooks—the network computer incarnate—Windows is still very much in the picture.  Not only is XP easily the most preferred OS for netbooks, Windows 7 has been designed to run well on lower-spec devices.  But they were right in that the underlying operating system would be less relevant as more of our tasks moved to the Web.  The Mac OS certainly owes some of its popularity to that trend.

However, Ellison and McNealy underestimated the role of the browser.  They likely saw the browser as becoming a commodity, which in many ways it has.  So, in their vision, the browser probably would be more of a launch pad for Java-based applications.  Instead, the browser has become the key application, and as the browser and Web protocols have evolved, Java competitors emerged, including everything from Flash and Silverlight to .NET and Ruby.  While each has its own pros and cons and limitations, they are viable platforms for a wide range of applications.  Take a look at Microsoft’s Gazelle project as it really lays out how browser has evolved.  A typical web page contains several dynamic elements and applets.  The browser acts as the helm or shell for it all.

In steps Google.  Google definitely understands the importance of the browser and went as far as taking the bold, but strategic move of developing its own browser so late in the game last year.  But the Chrome browser is really just the foundation for Google’s Chrome OS vision, which the company likely had even before releasing the browser.  Google has the app side covered with Google Apps, Gears, etc.  With the Chrome browser, Google has the run-time environment covered.  And with the Chrome OS, it has the whole user experience covered.  Makes perfect sense.

Of course, whenever Google makes a move, the knee-jerk reaction is to speculate how it spells doom for Microsoft.  Never mind that the Chrome OS is more than a year away, or that Google’s products live in perpetual beta, or that Google Apps have not made significant inroads within the enterprise, or that Android adoption has been lackluster.  Nope!  The clear mainstream message is that Microsoft’s days are numbered.  Please, that story is getting really old.  But not only is it getting old, it’s a distraction from a real, honest-to-goodness assessment.  And to me, that assessment should include how Google’s moves affect Apple. 

Like we already discussed, the Web-based network computer threat is not new to Microsoft.  So when you think about it, Apple’s the one that really could be impacted.  Apple’s cachet comes from its tight coupling of hardware and software in a sleek, elegant form-factor.  But that tight coupling of hardware and software is tied to the desktop computing model, which if we listen to Google, is being replaced by a Web-based experience.  However, think about the average Mac user—not the diehards or those who must use them for work.  How often do you think the average Mac user installs third-party software, barring “essentials” like Adobe Reader, Flash and Mozilla Firefox—and maybe MS Office?  I’d say not often, if ever.  Macs come with everything that an average user would need: Safari, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, GarageBand, etc.  Most Mac users probably don’t evolve beyond that functionality. 

So what happens if all that application functionality moves to the Web (as much of it has)?  If we’re all using web apps, what’s the advantage of using a Mac?  Sure, you can be guaranteed to have a solid user experience and an attractive device, but would it really be worth the higher price?  Probably not.  A catch phrase for Google’s computing vision could be open and online: open standards where the underlying platform doesn’t matter and an online experience dictated by Google search, Gmail, Google Apps, etc.  Apple’s legacy is the complete opposite: it’s approach has always been proprietary.  Apple wants to sell you on an experience that you can only get through Apple and its hardware, just like with the iPhone and the App Store.  Apple’s avoided a foray into the netbook arena, but if it does enter that market, I suspect its vision will look a lot different than Google's.  Instead, Apple’s netbook likely would build on its popular, though proprietary, App Store and leverage the affinity that people already have developed for their favorite iPhone apps.

The online-only computer is a familiar old dog with some new tricks.  But when the new tricks involve Google, people pay attention and for good reason.  However, Microsoft already has been putting the pieces in place for a Web-based computing experience with its Live Mesh, Office Live and Azure platforms.  And I can’t help but think the Softies must've smiled to themselves when Google’s announcement inadvertently brought attention to the Gazelle project.  Details of the project certainly had to take some of the air out of Google's announcement.

Today I needed to use export-mailbox to convert a mailbox into a .pst file. As it turns out, you have to have the Exchange management tools running on a 32-bit machine running Outlook. I procured a 32-bit machine (all mine are x64), installed Outlook and Powershell, and downloaded the 32-bit version of Exchange so I could install the necessary tools. The prerequisite check failed, however, and I was given this bit of info:

Management Tools Prerequisites
Failed
Error:
This computer is running Windows XP and has not been assigned an IPv4 address. Check the network configuration. IPv6 is only supported in Exchange Server 2007 Service Pack 1 when it is installed on a computer running Windows Server 2008 that has both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=102391 for more details.

I found that rather odd, seeing as how all we use is IPv4 here and IPv6 isn’t even on this particular machine. After much frustration, reinstalling the IP stack and various other things that didn’t help, I found a fix. Uninstalling Broadcom ASF Management via Add/Remove Programs made the error go away. I don’t know if this is a problem specific to Dell machines or Broadcom software in general, but removing it allowed my Exchange 2007 install to proceed.

Myself, like many of you I am sure, hate anti-virus products.  In fact, I hate them so much that I haven’t ran an anti-virus product on any of my machines for a good 5 years.  (I have ran them for limited runs to beta test them, etc.)  Why do I hate anti-virus software?  Because I have had far more problems and issues caused by anti-virus products than I’ve ever had caused by a virus.  (And in those 5 years I’ve never gotten a virus because through simple common sense you can avoid infections.)  They are full of bloat with ‘features’ I don’t want, they chew up massive amounts of resources, cause horrible system slowness, are incredibly in-compatible breaking apps, even caused BSD’s, etc.  So, when Morro was announced that Microsoft was going to make a free, simple and clean AV product which was more about saving themselves money by preventing virus’s and thus support calls than anything else I had hope that we would finally have a simple anti-virus that does nothing but AV and stays out of my way.  I figured it would still hog resources and impact system performance though.

Like many of you, I have now installed Morro and it’s shockingly simple.  The install was as easy as it gets, it asked if it could automatically download updates and run a quick scan.  I said yes, and the scan was done in under 10 minutes, even though I have 2 large hard drives with a lot of files on this system.  It only has 3G of RAM, and an AMD 3200+ processor (so not exactly a speed demon.)  Then guess what happened after that?  I closed it, and it disappeared.  It’s not even in my system tray by default (Windows 7) and it doesn’t harass me every day telling me that it’s updated itself.  In fact, most of the day I don’t even remember it’s there.  I haven’t noticed any impact on my system performance but it is working in the background.  (When I ran AngryIP scanner it decided that was a possible threat, prevented the app from running and asked me what action I wanted to take.  I selected allow, and it’s never bothered me about it again!)  Truly this is the AV app I’ve been waiting for, and what makes it even better is that it’s free.  I am now running it on all my machines in my house and have yet to have any bad experiences.

So, if you haven’t had a chance to get Morro, I suggest you get it now before the downloads stop! - http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

*Update*

So, if you didn’t get your hands on Morro I’m afraid it’s too late now, the downloads have stopped.  But, keep an eye on the site for the next release!

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090621/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_bloggers_freebie_disclosures

Now, whenever we get products from companies here at WindowsConnected.com we typically do a contest and give the hardware away to our readers and we always post honest reviews about what we think.  In fact, I would say too honest and get ourselves in trouble.  (I’m a perfect example of this.)  So naturally, this FTC crack down has us a bit worried.

These proposed ‘revisions’ (in other words changes to law not performed by congress or elected officials but rather by appointed bureaucrats) would allow the FTC to investigate and prosecute bloggers who ‘may’ have conflicts of interest.  Of course the ‘revisions’ don’t give clear boundaries on what they can investigate.  Look at this line from the article;

“The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.”

That means ANY blog, no matter what it’s about is a target because even the normal public blog sites have ads on them, and the bloggers can be paid by those sites if they generate enough hits.  Even if you’ve never reviewed a product on your blog ever, you could be investigated.  So, I’m confused.  Wouldn’t Michael Jordan or any other celebrity have a ‘conflict of interest’ being paid to promote a product such as Haynes?  Or how about paid actors that provide ‘reviews’ of a product in a commercial?  Or even better, what about the paid actors pretending to be scientists and providing scientific information about products?  And yet I don’t see the FTC going after them.

If the FTC truly is worried about false advertising and are not just looking for a way to exert power and influence over blogs then why aren’t they investigating the absolutely ridiculous claims of AT&T having the ‘nation’s fastest 3G network.’  That is such a blatant lie and misleading advertising and yet I don’t see anything about the FTC investigating them?

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/14/13-and-15-macbook-pros-have-a-slower-sata-interface/

It looks like they’ve dropped the sata controller speed, either through firmware or cheaper hardware.  I’m guessing cheaper hardware.