Welcome to our blog site. Visit us on the web at www.berkeleylogic.com.
Showing posts with label microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label microsoft. Show all posts

Friday, April 5, 2013

Windows 8 Is Bad For Business, and Microsoft

Microsoft is in deep trouble, and if you run a business or enterprise you should be concerned. They have apparently suffered a fatal case of iPad Envy. In a failed attempt to thwart the iPad, the momentum of Microsoft's bad decisions now threatens to destabilize the 30-year-old Windows ecosystem.

The short version of this post is that business and enterprise computer buyers have no reason to prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7. There are very few new features worth chasing, and the training and support costs required to roll out Windows 8 don't make sense.

Berkeley Logic customers should avoid buying Windows 8 computers for their businesses. Customers should continue to order computers from resellers like Berkeley Logic, since we can get new Windows 7 computers from the big distributors until the end of 2014. Online shoppers can find Windows 7 computers today at Amazon.com and directly from the Dell, HP, Acer and Lenovo websites.

This is a change in course for me. Throughout my career I had regularly been a proponent of buying the latest versions of Microsoft OS and applications. But, the problems are so serious now that I strongly advise against Windows 8 at this time. It is disconcerting to me to break a decades-long recommendation because now I cannot give a good prediction of what my customers will be buying for IT solutions five years from now.

Microsoft’s reaction to Apple's iPad tablet computer is what is killing them. The three-year-old iPad has the momentum to replace Windows as a preferred platform for IT in the home. Only Google's Android, and its cousin Amazon Kindle Fire, has gained headway into the home tablet market.

While its days in the home may be numbered, Windows still matters plenty in business and enterprises like governments, schools and nonprofits. The world has spent the last twenty years investing trillions of US$ into IT, much of it going into Windows clients and servers. This investment has yielded tremendous productivity gains in businesses and enterprises of every size. There are now tens of trillions of US$ in global and local economic activity being facilitated by Windows computers every year.

Despite this success in the enterprise, the PC industry in is crisis over a lack of growth. In the last decade the PC  industry went from a growth industry to a commodity durable goods industry. Except for China, India and Africa, it seems like of the rest of the world has bought all the PCs they will need. Today the PC industry is all about replacements and incremental improvements. We aren't even sure if next-generation IT will even need a PC or if those emerging markets will make do with mobile platforms.

Even if the PC market is not growing, IT departments and small enterprises are happy with Windows as a platform, even as a desktop client. Even with flat growth, the PC industry is huge, at over $800B in revenue and 361 million units shipped in 2011 according to IDC (see this Guardian article for a great analysis of IDC research). The problem is the PC industry isn't growing in North America, Europe and Japan. This is a problem for the big hardware makers because Wall Street and investors don't care about industries without a growth trajectory.

The fact the PC market isn't growing can explain why we are four months into the Windows 8 era, and this new OS has barely made a dent in the IT world. Unfortunately, the lack of adoption could be due to a bigger problem. In an effort to appease itself Microsoft has made Windows 8 unattractive to their core audience: enterprise IT departments.

How did all this happen? It started when Microsoft took much too long to react to the quantum leaps in touch and mobile computing made by Apple and Google in the late 2000's. Android, iPhone and the iPad quickly made Microsoft's phone and touch solutions seem pathetic. Instead of reacting to touch and mobile innovations like Bill Gates reacted to Netscape's Internet innovations in the 1990's, Microsoft's CEO Steve Balmer allowed infighting, politics and lack of focus take over.

While we don't know the real inside story, there is evidence of discord in the ranks. Soon after the November 2012 launch of Windows 8, Steven Sinofsky, president of the Windows division, resigned with little explanation.

The result of Microsoft's machinations has given Windows 8 a dualistic view of IT. One view, Microsoft claims, is the future. This future consists of a touch interface with active tiles and device independence through use of the cloud. Previously known as Metro, the new official term for the tiles interface is the Modern UI.

The other view is the familiar desktop. And never the twain shall meet. You have to flip your screen back and forth between the desktop and the tiles. Yes, there is a way to park tiles next to the desktop, but practically speaking, most Windows 8 desktop and laptop users simply stay in the desktop mode to use their familiar applications. We have yet to see if Windows 8 tablets will gain any traction in the home, much less the enterprise.

The dualism is where the problem lies for enterprise users of Windows desktop computers. All business users care about is using their familiar applications. Whether it's Quickbooks, Adobe CS, Microsoft Office, or even Internet Explorer, the introduction of the Modern UI does nothing to enhance the use of those applications. In fact, all the tiles do is get in the way of using productivity apps. The Windows Modern UI is decidedly anti-productive.

The biggest anti-productivity feature of Modern UI is what IT departments have to do integrate Windows 8 into their enterprise. They will need massive training and help-desk programs to support the introduction of a radically new user interface. And for what? To help users learn how to get back to the desktop so they can get work done?

The Modern UI is so useless to enterprise IT that it threatens to bury all the good things about Windows 8, and there is plenty to love about the goodies in Windows 8 and Server 2012. Windows 8 is faster, more reliable, very compatible, and quite a bit more manageable. Windows 8 and Server 2012 are designed to work together very well for large enterprises, and there are a ton of new storage management and remote access features that could be worth deploying.

But why ship what is clearly a dual-mode UI, even on Server 2012? Microsoft decided to stand up to the iPad in order to maintain their relevance in mobile platforms and the home market. My guess is that Microsoft finally saw what the iPad and Android were doing, and decided it had to finally react.  This is when they had their all in moment, and decreed that the Modern UI had to be on everything. Unfortunately for the IT world, it looks like the decision to graft Modern UI on top of planned major upgrades to Windows OS was a huge mistake. 

When Ballmer and Sinofsky approved the plan to have Desktop and Modern UI in Windows 8 is when Microsoft management started to make their fatal errors. Their next major mistake was the introduction of Windows RT.

Now, four months after the introduction of Windows RT, this ARM-based version of Windows is an afterthought. In fact, it damaged the Windows brand by introducing another set of complicated explanations of what Windows really is. Right at the launch of a new touch UI, they had to explain why you couldn't run x86 applications like Adobe Flash on a Windows computer. It looks like Microsoft botched a few billion in R&D making Windows run on a new CPU/APU architecture.

The Microsoft Surface hasn't done anything to help Windows 8 adoption either. Surface is another multi-billion dollar mistake.

How is the failure of Windows 8 relevant to everyday business owners and enterprise managers? The answer is simple and unnerving: uncertainty is entering the PC business. Up until now, it seemed reasonable that we could count on Microsoft being relevant by advancing the state-of-the-art in IT. We were counting on that leadership to help leverage the trillions of US$ invested in an enormous, global infrastructure that impacts billions of lives. 

Instead of leadership, Balmer and Sinofsky have delivered uncertainty. Microsoft literally bet the farm that they could make a difference in mobile and touch computing. Instead of making a difference, they diluted and damaged the Windows brand. Their failure to make any impact at all in touch or mobile computing means that leadership is now compromised. 

Take the simple premise of how to advise your friends and relatives about what PC to buy for the home. I’m sure many of you steer people to Apple products, but I’m also sure you also know plenty of happy Windows users who don’t want to convert. 

What do you tell someone who has an old Windows XP or 7 computer and needs an upgrade? Do you tell them to buy a Windows 8 laptop at BestBuy or Fry’s? I am now wary of telling individuals to invest in Windows, because I can see how it could become a dead end choice. Take the sum total of mistakes and one has to conclude the Windows 8 launch is totally botched and a major setback. This new uncertainty about Microsoft worries me.

If Microsoft’s leadership is diminished, this means we will depend more on vendors who will see the light and help to maintain the status quo for IT departments. I am encouraged by Dell’s move to go private because, in theory at least, that will allow them to focus more on customers.

Hewlett Packard's CEO Meg Whitman, on the other hand, has recently stated that tablet computing and Windows 8 is their future. If you follow my logic, that could be a fatal choice for HP too. Perhaps getting out of the Wall Street spotlight is what this industry needs to help with further consolidation of Windows investments. Maybe we will get lucky and Dell will ship an OEM version of Windows 8 without the Modern UI. 

The story of Microsoft's failure to maintain its relevance as a new technology vendor is a familiar one in American business. Once, Microsoft was a leading catalyst for wealth creation and the spread of the information age. Today, instead of innovating the company bears the yoke of supporting a huge installed base. That limits Microsoft’s ability to react quickly and effectively. It's not unlike what has happened in steel, railroads, autos, telecom and other big American innovations that bestowed monopoly-status upon a revolutionary innovator.

In the mid-1990’s Microsoft under the leadership of Bill Gates managed to “turn the supertanker on a dime” by quickly adopting Internet Explorer as a response to Netscape. Will this latest attack by Apple and Google, Microsoft under Balmer’s leadership has failed to react in time. As it stagnates, Microsoft is now not a single entity but competing technical, political and business interests.

There is no doubt we have entered a new post-Microsoft age of uncertainty in IT. For now, businesses and enterprises should continue to buy Windows 7 and invest in 2008-era Microsoft technology. Enterprises should hold dearly to their investments and hope that vendors like Dell will come to their rescue and keep things afloat. And, hopefully we can look to innovators like Apple and Google, plus others yet unknown, to continue the advance of the information age.


Saturday, June 23, 2012

How Storage Area Networks Can Save The Day!

Being responsible for running a company network is usually smooth sailing, but there are a few situations that will make for a very bad day. A critical component of your server will fail and all of your applications and file servers will be down. Then you will be at the mercy of a computer repair man who may or may not be able to get your systems up in a day or two.

Don't you wish there was a way to keep that from ever happening again? Big companies and service providers can't afford to have any downtime, so they have elaborate systems of redundant hardware that automatically take over when something goes wrong. Until recently, smaller businesses couldn't easily afford redundant systems. Now there are plenty of affordable options that can harden a small business network.

Divide and Conquer with SANs


The first step in hardening computer networks is to take a divide and conquer approach. This is where you separate the file storage from computing power through the use of Storage Area Networks, or a SAN.

A SAN presents persistent storage to a Windows or Linux server completely transparently. Both Windows and Linux effectively use a SAN just like how an operating system uses a local hard drive.

With a SAN one may easily create backup computer resources and even have off-site backups. With a full SAN deployment it only takes a few keystrokes and mouse clicks to recover from a hard drive failure. A SAN recovers from hardware and software failures within minutes instead of days.

I Want a SAN Now!


Sounds exciting, but how exactly does one buy a SAN? Just a few years ago, the answer would be "call up a SAN vendor and pay a whole bunch of money." The reason was that the SAN computer interconnects and networks were specialized products. The computer boxes that were sold as SAN storage servers were also specialized and commanded a high price to guarantee compatibility.

Berkeley Logic Small Business Storage Area Network Design


Fortunately the march of computer technology has make everything cheaper, so that even SAN technology is now affordable. Through the use of standard network and computer equipment, the cost of a SAN has come down nearly ten-fold in the last five years.

Two factors share the honor of bringing SANs to the masses: iSCSI running on Gigabit Ethernet and Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Cheap and fast gigabit Ethernet replaces the specialized computer interconnects sold by SAN vendors. The FOSS stacks FreeNAS and OpenFiler both turn standard computer server hardware into SAN storage servers using a TCP/IP protocol called iSCSI. FreeNAS and OpenFiler used the tried-and-true FreeBSD and CentOS operating systems, respectively.

My NAS must do iSCSI?


Servers built with FreeNAS or OpenFiler are called NAS devices, where NAS stands for Network Attached Storage. NAS devices are standard computers configured as a server, with persistent, redundant storage being fast hard drives or maybe SSDs.

As a Dell Partner, Berkeley Logic has found an extremely practical way to create an OpenFiler or FreeNAS server is to order a low-end Dell server with the necessary storage. We make it a single-socket system with 16 GB of RAM. The R310 has worked fine for us. We prefer to use hardware RAID with the PERC controllers, but OpenFiler and FreeNAS are perfectly happy without the extra card. Use a 4 GB SATA DOM (Disk On Module) to install the NAS operating system. Set the server to boot to the SATA device, and away you go!

If you don't feel like rolling your own NAS device with FOSS, there are plenty of affordable iSCSI NAS devices are coming onto the market all the time. Many of them are based on the same Linux and FreeBSD kernels as OpenFiler and FreeNAS.

Be careful, though. Most NAS devices on the market are not iSCSI-compatible. One of the latest compatible market entries is the Buffalo TerraStation iSCSI, which comes in 4 TB mini tower and rack-mount configurations for well under $2,000.

How do I recover with a SAN?


A SAN gets its power by switching connections between servers quickly and easily. Here's a scenario on how a SAN works. A basic SAN configuration is to segregate all of your file shares into an iSCSI volume on a NAS. A separate server computer has Windows Server 2008R2 installed and running. The Windows server attaches the iSCSI volume and publishes the file shares using enhanced Windows DFS file sharing.

Suppose your Windows file server goes down due to a new malware infection. A backup file server can be brought online and attach to the same iSCSI volume and take over where the old server left off. The advanced capabilities of Windows DFS (Distributed File System) makes the server switch invisible to end users.

NAS devices are much more reliable than standard Windows servers due to their small attack surface and advanced security capabilities. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to have a backup NAS sitting around somewhere ready to take over if the main server goes down or needs maintenance.

The combination of Windows DFS replication and iSCSI makes is simple to make an exact, dynamically-updated backup of one iSCSI volume to another iSCSI volume. This backup can be made even better by putting the backup NAS at a branch office location connected by the company Wide Area Network (WAN), thus helping to implement a sophisticated disaster recovery plan.

Sounds Good, What's Next?


Upgrading to a basic SAN architecture mainly involves carefully reviewing all of your file shares and organizing them into a Windows DFS hierarchy. After you've implemented DFS, then it's time to bring your new NAS online. Configure the NAS to publish an iSCSI volume, and attach it to your server. Copy all of your files into the new iSCSI volume, move the DFS targets, and your're in business!

DFS can be quite an undertaking in terms of learning Windows. Be sure to check out some links at the end of this post for some resources to get you going.

But, Windows DFS isn't technically needed to get going with iSCSI. DFS is strongly recommended, however, because it implements fail-over transparently to your users. DFS has the added bonus of making iSCSI volume replication a snap.

You may also be wondering how to affordably have a backup to your Windows and Linux servers. One way is to use a Virtual Machine Hypervisor like VMware or Windows HyperV and "physical to virtual" tools to create a backup of all of your servers and keep them on stand-by in your hypervisor host. More on the power of virtualization in hardening a small business network in a future post!

Good Luck!


Affordable SANs are now within the reach of many small business network owners. Best wishes as you undertake this exciting upgrade that makes sys admins sleep easier. If you're in the East Bay be sure to give Berkeley Logic a call to help you with your SAN network needs at 510-228-4500.


Vernon Keenan -- June 23, 2012


Resources

  • SAN Vendor: EMC - web
  • SAN Vendor: Dell - web
  • SAN Vendor: HP - web
  • NAS Software: OpenFiler - web
  • NAS Software: FreeNAS - web
  • FOSS: CentOS Linux - web
  • FOSS: FreeBSD Unix - web
  • Microsoft DFS How It Works - web
  • Microsoft DFS Step-by-Step Guide - web
  • Microsoft DFS Replication Overview - web
  • NAS Vendor Information - WhichNAS - web



Thursday, May 3, 2012

Enterprise Computing

Berkeley Logic sells and installs a wide range of laptop, desktop and server computers suitable for organizations of any size. We can meet or beat advertised prices for many business-class computer systems, plus we will deliver and install new equipment at your business location.

Berkeley Logic recommends some of the features found in business-class computer brands. For example, when one compares business-class computing brands like Dell Optiplex and Lenovo Thinkpad to more consumer brands like HP Pavilion or Acer Aspire, a big difference is the length of time a particular model stays on the market.

The short lifespan of IT products is one greatest frustrations of business computer buyers. The rapid rate of change means it is usually impossible to buy a new version of the same computer you bought only six months ago.

Being able to buy a computer that has the same basic architecture, but has all the latest and greatest processors and memory components, allows Berkeley Logic to use advanced system management techniques to greatly streamline buying new systems. The is a leading reason why we recommend Dell Optiplex and Latitude for business computer buyers.

When building a business network Berkeley Logic uses disk imaging and network profiles to cut-down on per-computer setup chores. Estimates for installation and setup charges for business network installation vary according to individual customer requirements.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Apple Extends Their World Domination With iPhone 4?

Vernon Keenan
Berkeley, California
June 9, 2010

The latest announcements from Apple, combined with the fact it has recently passed Microsoft as the world's most valuable technology company, highlights a remarkable 15 year evolution.

I am deeply impressed with how Apple has taken devotion to various computer industry strategies, and transformed these devotions into real market share, economic activity, and platform domination.

Apple's success with the iPhone and iPad are tremendous testaments to the power of proprietary vertical industry integration. Smartphones like the iPhone, Google Nexus 1 and the HTC HD2 are designed using various layers of functionality, such as an operating system that talks to a certain piece of hardware, and its all enhanced with a rich source of software and a global digital network. Alone amongst my examples, the iPhone is based on products and services from a single technology vendor, Apple. The others are all based on loose confederations of technology companies who work together to deliver a single product to the consumer.

The content, the apps, the operating system, the hardware platform and the Internet are each a layer in a technology ecosystem that runs a smartphone. In the Microsoft technology ecosystem Microsoft has tight control over just one of those layers: the operating system. It emulates the way Microsoft grew to dominate the computer industry. The whole premise of how the Microsoft computer ecosystem grew was based on interoperability of the various pieces of the hardware layer. Since Microsoft didn't make the hardware, they left the market free to compete for customers based on technology innovation.

Hardware interoperability worked tremendously from the start for Microsoft. Companies like Compaq and Dell flourished as they shipped PC systems around the world. The Mac languished in a proprietary backwater while the whole world geared up with Microsoft-based desktops, servers, laptops and networks. In the subsequent decades the diversified hardware ecosystem worked beautifully for Microsoft and Apple became a virtual afterthought by 1995.

But the evolution of the Microsoft ecosystem slowed tremendously throughout the 2000's. This was primarily due to the nightmarish scenarios confronted by system integrators and hardware builders who had to deal with the inherently unstable design of the Microsoft hardware driver and memory management systems. Every time a new technology was introduced, such as more RAM, wireless networking or more powerful graphics cards, it was up to Microsoft to orchestrate the chorus of hardware vendors who chimed in with their own APIs and programmatic controls. Often, the result was incompatibility and fragile systems.

My feeling is that a commodity hardware marketplace worked pretty good for the computer industry from the 1980's until about 2005. Then we all stood around waiting for Microsoft to figure out how to keep up with the hardware innovations and then watching them misfire with Vista in 2007.

Although it didn't seem to be true at the time, Steve Jobs had it figured out way back in 1985 when he dealt with his biggest crisis at Apple. He had to face how the IBM PC hardware ecosystem had displaced Apple as the #1 computer company, and how he might have hired the wrong CEO, former PepsiCo chief executive John Sculley. Jobs quit Apple because he believed so deeply in integrating the hardware and the operating system. He was forced out by Sculley who decided to bow to ever-increasing power of the Microsoft-IBM-Intel "standard." When he was told the company would emulate the Microsoft business model by licensing the MacOS to other hardware companies, Jobs turned in his resignation and sold all but one share of his stock.

Without re-telling the whole John Sculley and Gil Amelio story, Steve Jobs eventually came back in 1997 and used his NeXT operating system to form the basis of OS X, the next generation OS for the Macintosh. As Jobs was vindicated, he canceled the MacOS licensing agreement with all the clone makers, thus reasserting his belief in vertical integration within a technology platform.

Apple also vertically integrated the retail industry stack. Steve Jobs' control ethic is in full force with the Apple Stores where the staff are actual Apple employees and all of the stores have a consistent look and feel. No other global brand has such a successful retail presence. Millions of iPods were sold in the Apple Stores, and the iTunes digital store tamed the wild digital music world.

As the PC industry languished for the last five years, the features and usability of OS X consistently outpaced Windows. Microsoft still hasn't recovered from the Vista debacle, and the growth in the industry is now degraded to replacement of older equipment instead of delivering on new capabilities. iTunes is now a such a major factor in music sales Apple can afford to dictate terms to most of the music labels. It was Apple's ability to slowly evolve their platform with consistent and reliable results that has caught the attention of the world.

Until 2007 the smartphone marketplace was a mishmash of hardware and operating systems, most of them hard to use with inaccessible features. People put up with it because they wanted the communication and messaging features. When Apple introduced the iPhone they not only vertically integrated the hardware and the operating system, but also set out strict rules for developers and created a digital delivery mechanism that they controlled. While leaving the wireless part up to service providers, the only layer they don't control in the iPhone package is the content itself.

By simply announcing the iPhone in 2007 Apple lapped all of the competition. What Apple delivered wasn't just a phone, but a pocket Internet computer that worked very well. Plus, it was so easy to use that many advanced features are well-used by iPhone owners. The marketplace has caught on and the iPhone is now the leading smartphone as measured by unit sales. This week's iPhone 4 and iOS announcement totally solidifies Apple's leadership in smartphone technology and platform dominance.

Even as Apple becomes the world's most valuable technology company in 2010 they are still very well positioned for what could be a shift from PC products in the home to more iOS-based products. iOS is revolutionary in it's approach to the human-computer interface by eliminating the mouse and using touch. That advantage could translate into sales for new products in the digital home.

As the smartphone becomes better integrated into business information, iOS could penetrate more into corporations. I think that Apple could even experience a resurgence of OS X in corporations as users want better integration between IT systems and smartphones.

There is still plenty of room for the iPhone to grow within the US smartphone market as soon as versions compatible with other 3G networks become available. Plus, Apple is well-established in all the major international markets. A major set of decisions and challenges will be how fast and where Apple will scale its operation.

It seems to be coming down to vertical platform integration, aka Steve Jobs' personal religion! Using that platform philosophy already sells more iPhones than any other smartphone. The rest of the smartphone industry is based on the hardware ecosystem model that served the computer industry so well in the 1980's and 1990's. Apple's unit sales, financial success and iPhone momentum makes the Steve Jobs' way of doing things seem to be a safe bet.

I've been an observer and fan of Apple since 1984 when I got my first Macintosh. I abandoned them in 1995 when they weren't paying attention to the Internet. I got excited again when I got my iPhone in 2007. Now I'm saying they are well positioned for a long-predicted inflection point in the technology industry where they could even grow much larger.