In this moment of time, Microsoft and Windows related OSes, applications and services are pretty much the petrol of IT world. ...
That just confirms the point that they have largely become irrelevant, like IBM before them. All you can point to are legacy technologies, absolutely nothing new or innovative out of Redmond in years and years now. (Nothing successful at least.) No one is following Microsoft's lead any more, and how could they when they're so far back from the leading edge that they can't even see it.
I'll bite. What are the many viable alternatives to Active Directory?
Any LDAP solution. Now if you are going to turn around and offer up a product that ONLY works with AD, then you've already boxed yourself in. Even GPs can be managed by third party desktop management tools in a non-AD environment. And as a directory, AD is pretty much the worst solution available. No directory partitioning, only full replicas of the database, and a tree structure that doesn't really exist (contexts aren't really contexts, they are just views). It's not even fully RFC compliant as an LDAP directory.
Any LDAP solution. Now if you are going to turn around and offer up a product that ONLY works with AD, then you've already boxed yourself in. Even GPs can be managed by third party desktop management tools in a non-AD environment. And as a directory, AD is pretty much the worst solution available. No directory partitioning, only full replicas of the database, and a tree structure that doesn't really exist (contexts aren't really contexts, they are just views). It's not even fully RFC compliant as an LDAP directory.
Any LDAP solution? So to be clear here, you're stating that any LDAP solution will have any all functionality I or anyone else would or could ever expect from a Active Directory and will integrate with all current Windows-based PCs without issue?
Corporate is slow to upgrade in general, as it requires a lot of resources - time and money, with constant danger of unexpected downtime due to unforeseen reasons, regardless of how well transition was planned - to roll such update across the company.
I live and work in New Zealand, where companies are much smaller and inertia is equally not as pronounced as in really large corporates.
We have moved all our large customers to Windows 7 over last two years, which we consider huge success (even in smaller and more dynamic environment such as NZ is). I'm not expecting them to upgrade company-wide again this soon, regardless of how good or bad 8 would be for them.
But. Some of them will allow employees - especially management - to bring their own laptops and have them configured as required. We are insisting on standardised machines for main workforce - currently those are current HP EliteBooks P for laptops, and some execs see them too bulky. This is where 8 machines are trickling into our bigger users. Small users are buying their own machines outside of channel supplies, so that is another way of 8 to "sneak" in business - again, this is for company I work for, and scenario we are facing.
It seems like businesses had a habit of skipping alternate OS updates anyway. Which is fine, those delays are done for all the reasons you gave, the needs of a large business are different from the needs of individuals or small businesses.
Is Windows 8 incompatible with your infrastructure?
Any LDAP solution? So to be clear here, you're stating that any LDAP solution will have any all functionality I or anyone else would or could ever expect from a Active Directory and will integrate with all current Windows-based PCs without issue?
You aren't asking a meaningful question. What you are asking is the equivalent of, "Can HTML5 do everything that Flash can do?" It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality. As long as you can accomplish the end task with them, even if that means doing things a bit differently, then one can replace the other, just as HTML5 is replacing Flash.
You aren't asking a meaningful question. What you are asking is the equivalent of, "Can HTML5 do everything that Flash can do?" It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality. As long as you can accomplish the end task with them, even if that means doing things a bit differently, then one can replace the other, just as HTML5 is replacing Flash.
Read the comments I responded to. In no way did the original commenters state that for specific or limited tasks there are LDAP solutiona that may fit one's enterprise needs.
Read the comments I responded to. In no way did the original commenters state that for specific or limited tasks there are LDAP solutiona that may fit one's enterprise needs.
Read my original response. In no way did I restrict my comments to "specific or limited tasks".
Read my original response. In no way did I restrict my comments to "<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">specific or limited tasks".</span>
You did when you wrote, "It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality." Bottom line, MS's ownership of the enterprise isn't because IT departments are idiots.
You did when you wrote, "It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality." Bottom line, MS's ownership of the enterprise isn't because IT departments are idiots.
No, it's because IT departments are unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy, after they shifted from the, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," philosophy.
My point is that, TIMTOWTDI. You don't have to copy the exact series of steps to reach the same end. Thus, you don't necessarily need to replicate, "every single piece of functionality," to accomplish the same purpose. And, as in the case of HTML5, where the end result may not look exactly the same as what you would have developed with Flash, a solution serving the same purpose not using Active Directory doesn't have to look exactly like the Active Directory solution.
Yeah, it's functional, but so is a Blackberry phone circa 2004. That doesn't mean it's a good fit for today's market. If MS did what they did with Win8 years before Apple introduced any device using CocoaTouch I think MS would have killed in the tablet space and we might have had an iPad before we ever had an iPhone.
Now is it more functional than Win7? Are tasks natural and normal than using the iOS or even Android OS? Does it make sense to have to go through so much rigamarole to change the orientation on the Surface? I don't think so.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Sure MS would have done much better have they released Metro before Apple and Google, but even at this point of time, I'm finding this GUI not lacking compared to competition. I'll admit I still don't have Win 8 tablet or phone... but comparing my iPhone and Android tablet to Metro on my desktop, I really like Metro more than either. I'm not talking about pure looks - beauty is in the eye of beholder, anyway; I'm talking about nice step up in functionality I am personally seeing here. Others might not, and that is fine.
My work desktop is configured to use Desktop apps for work (Outlook, Office, Corel, ConnectWise...) and I have configured Metro apps for my personal stuff - email, social, calendar, to-do and likes. I really like that I can quickly flick to Metro and not only see that I have new emails, for example, but also to get some info about who are they from, and what are they about without opening mail app. Because I am married man long enough to know that wife's email has to be checked quickly, while email from Air NZ can wait for after the work
No, really; I like dynamics of Metro. I've also noticed that Metro on computer screens in shops draws my attention much more than static desktops with little still icons on it, be it Windows 7 or OSX, likely because of tile sizes and constant changes. I don't know if MS was counting on that, but according to this article:
Windows 8 is selling fine, actually better than Windows 7 in the same period. Sure lower upgrade price didn't hurt, but I'm keeping in mind that Windows 7 was supposed saviour after failed Vista and, consequently, almost 10 years of Windows XP... while 8 is coming after still fresh and very successful 7, which is not a small obstacle to overcome.
In short, I think that 8 is a decent upgrade on 7, and works well, even if it is a bit quirky at times. I also think that majority of users will not have problem to get used to it, and people complaining about it belong to the same group that complains about every new iPhone and prophesize it's demise, while phone itself keeps selling better and better - in short, small albeit vocal minority.
It seems like businesses had a habit of skipping alternate OS updates anyway. Which is fine, those delays are done for all the reasons you gave, the needs of a large business are different from the needs of individuals or small businesses.
Is Windows 8 incompatible with your infrastructure?
No, we had no major issues with deploying it. What I can think of:
ConnectWise support told us that they still don't support Windows 8, but that their software should work fine. It does.
We have noticed a small bug with IE10 used with Kaseya; when copying files to remote computer, file tree window reduces a few pixels on every mouse click. Chrome and Firefox work fine as ever, though.
Since I did an upgrade on top of my Windows 7 - upgrade pre-check complained about NIC driver which I have uninstalled (Windows 8 applied it's NIC drivers during upgrade).
CorelDRAW 5 was listed as software known to have issues (I believe it came from Windows 8 preview release user reports) but once on Windows 8, I failed to spot any issues, much as I am using Corel.
Win 8 upgrade pre-check didn't complain about NOD32 AV running, but I had to uninstall and reinstall it after OS upgrade, as it was somehow completely blocking my network traffic (but then, I should have thought about removing AV before OS upgrade anyway).
Worst issue? Ancient Counter Strike Condition Zero, which we occasionally play on Friday afternoons, does not work on 8. So I had to dual-boot. However, my Win 7 dual-boot is VHD image sitting in folder, which made it a bit easier than classic dual-boot solution with partitioned HDD etc.
That just confirms the point that they have largely become irrelevant, like IBM before them. All you can point to are legacy technologies, absolutely nothing new or innovative out of Redmond in years and years now. (Nothing successful at least.) No one is following Microsoft's lead any more, and how could they when they're so far back from the leading edge that they can't even see it.
Suuure... well based on same criteria, air we breathe is largely becoming irrelevant as it hasn't provided anything new or innovative for years and years now. Years? Millenniums. Since our ancestors left oceans and took first lungful. And it is actually becoming more stale and polluted every second. The hell with it. Lets breathe water again. We can even feed on plankton while breathing, now that is novel idea.
You are comparing trends, which can change overnight, with actual pillars of IT world, embedded in almost every pore of the world we live in. If you really think that something like that is irrelevant, we hardly have anything to talk about on this topic, simply because you are utterly wrong.
And all that even without opening can of innovations. You say they have absolutely nothing new and innovative for years. I say you should stop following up only Apple news and scope the world around you. If you drop a bit of your bias, you might see Microsoft coming out with innovations across the range of their products, from home (with Kinect, SmartGlass...) to network infrastructure (with Hyper-V, improvements in Exchange, Server 2012...) and almost everywhere in-between; MS that manages to figure out a novel GUI for touch devices, after 2 decades of safe but a bit long in tooth icon grid, from Newton, through Palm, WinMo, Symbian, Blackberry, iOS and Android... you can like or dislike Metro, but you cannot deny novelty.
Suuure... well based on same criteria, air we breathe is largely becoming irrelevant as it hasn't provided anything new or innovative for years and years now. Years? Millenniums. Since our ancestors left oceans and took first lungful. And it is actually becoming more stale and polluted every second. The hell with it. Lets breathe water again. We can even feed on plankton while breathing, now that is novel idea.
You are comparing trends, which can change overnight, with actual pillars of IT world, embedded in almost every pore of the world we live in. If you really think that something like that is irrelevant, we hardly have anything to talk about on this topic, simply because you are utterly wrong.
And all that even without opening can of innovations. You say they have absolutely nothing new and innovative for years. I say you should stop following up only Apple news and scope the world around you. If you drop a bit of your bias, you might see Microsoft coming out with innovations across the range of their products, from home (with Kinect, SmartGlass...) to network infrastructure (with Hyper-V, improvements in Exchange, Server 2012...) and almost everywhere in-between; MS that manages to figure out a novel GUI for touch devices, after 2 decades of safe but a bit long in tooth icon grid, from Newton, through Palm, WinMo, Symbian, Blackberry, iOS and Android... you can like or dislike Metro, but you cannot deny novelty.
You make an impassioned argument, but Microsoft's mindshare has shrunk to near zero. Yeah, IBM is still a pillar of the IT world too, and, yeah, the come out with new stuff all the time as well. So, I guess, according to your argument, they are relevant today too.
Sorry, at this point, no one beyond the IT pillars even cares what Microsoft is up to these days. You want to determine who's relevant? Count the inches of news published about various companies in mainstream publications. The companies with the most are the most relevant, because they are the ones creating the future of technology. Microsoft isn't in that group at the top of the list any more. Microsoft is still creating the past of technology.
Like I said, Pc users always complain. Look around, so many people still say that they don't need/want to replace their XP. XP is more than 10 years old, for old and new Gods sake. That is ancient history in IT.
The two reasonably large companies I've been with have both switched from XP ti Win 7 in the last 2 to 3 years. I expect that by the time they switch from Win7 it will be ancient history as well. From what I have seen there are many (perhaps the majority) companies on the same upgrade cycle. It is unlikely they will be switching to a new Win OS for another 5 to 10 years.
No, it's because IT departments are unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy, after they shifted from the, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," philosophy.
My point is that, TIMTOWTDI. You don't have to copy the exact series of steps to reach the same end. Thus, you don't necessarily need to replicate, "every single piece of functionality," to accomplish the same purpose. And, as in the case of HTML5, where the end result may not look exactly the same as what you would have developed with Flash, a solution serving the same purpose not using Active Directory doesn't have to look exactly like the Active Directory solution.
So now MS's server products only sell because IT is unimaginative? Now you're not even trying to have a rational argument. Bottom line is MS's server products do things that others can't so agreeing with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it is axiomatically wrong.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Sure MS would have done much better have they released Metro before Apple and Google, but even at this point of time, I'm finding this GUI not lacking compared to competition. I'll admit I still don't have Win 8 tablet or phone... but comparing my iPhone and Android tablet to Metro on my desktop, I really like Metro more than either. I'm not talking about pure looks - beauty is in the eye of beholder, anyway; I'm talking about nice step up in functionality I am personally seeing here. Others might not, and that is fine.
My work desktop is configured to use Desktop apps for work (Outlook, Office, Corel, ConnectWise...) and I have configured Metro apps for my personal stuff - email, social, calendar, to-do and likes. I really like that I can quickly flick to Metro and not only see that I have new emails, for example, but also to get some info about who are they from, and what are they about without opening mail app. Because I am married man long enough to know that wife's email has to be checked quickly, while email from Air NZ can wait for after the work
No, really; I like dynamics of Metro. I've also noticed that Metro on computer screens in shops draws my attention much more than static desktops with little still icons on it, be it Windows 7 or OSX, likely because of tile sizes and constant changes. I don't know if MS was counting on that, but according to this article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29288
Windows 8 is selling fine, actually better than Windows 7 in the same period. Sure lower upgrade price didn't hurt, but I'm keeping in mind that Windows 7 was supposed saviour after failed Vista and, consequently, almost 10 years of Windows XP... while 8 is coming after still fresh and very successful 7, which is not a small obstacle to overcome.
In short, I think that 8 is a decent upgrade on 7, and works well, even if it is a bit quirky at times. I also think that majority of users will not have problem to get used to it, and people complaining about it belong to the same group that complains about every new iPhone and prophesize it's demise, while phone itself keeps selling better and better - in short, small albeit vocal minority.
Your opinion is completely valid as stated and for your sake I hope that enough people agree with your PoV, but I certainly don't. I think it makes the tablet and desktop UX worse on both, not better.
So now MS's server products only sell because IT is unimaginative? Now you're not even trying to have a rational argument. Bottom line is MS's server products do things that others can't so agreeing with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it is axiomatically wrong.
First of all, I didn't, "[agree] with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it." I merely stated that demanding feature for feature parity wasn't a valid argument against his claims.
However, yes, I think it is the case that, in the past, IT people bought stuff from Microsoft because it was from Microsoft, just as in the more distant past, they bought stuff from IBM because it was from IBM. I think denying this fact undermines any argument you might have about why people buy Microsoft technologies.
Lastly, I'm not sure what being "axiomatically wrong" means in this context. Perhaps you were struggling to find the right word?
First of all, I didn't, "[agree] with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it." I merely stated that demanding feature for feature parity wasn't a valid argument against his claims.
However, yes, I think it is the case that, in the past, IT people bought stuff from Microsoft because it was from Microsoft, just as in the more distant past, they bought stuff from IBM because it was from IBM. I think denying this fact undermines any argument you might have about why people buy Microsoft technologies.
Lastly, I'm not sure what being "axiomatically wrong" means in this context. Perhaps you were struggling to find the right word?
1) You took the stance that I was wrong and the OP was correct in his assertion in that any LDAP solution could replace all Active Directory setups.
2) Every IT I'm been part of or affiliated with has always looked to reduce costs. IT is a cost center so finding ways to reduce costs is an important part of that department. That isn't to say that all IT departments function as such (as noted by anecdotal first sentence) but your implication that all IT departments are 'unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy' is simple false. I'm sure there are people and departments that exist within that "philosophy" but it is not an inherent trait of being in IT.
1) You took the stance that I was wrong and the OP was correct in his assertion in that any LDAP solution could replace all Active Directory setups.
2) Every IT I'm been part of or affiliated with has always looked to reduce costs. IT is a cost center so finding ways to reduce costs is an important part of that department. That isn't to say that all IT departments function as such (as noted by anecdotal first sentence) but your implication that all IT departments are 'unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy' is simple false. I'm sure there are people and departments that exist within that "philosophy" but it is not an inherent trait of being in IT.
1) You need to re-read the discussion.
2) From my experience with IT departments, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," is the prevailing attitude for shops where they depend on Microsoft technology, and, typically, in these shops, the staff are gushingly enthusiastic about the same, but know little else. IT departments pay a lot of lip service to "reducing costs", but not so many of them actually approach this in a rational way. If they were all so cost conscious, they'd be using Macs on their desktops, and while more are these days, the majority are not. IT Managers say a lot of things, but you have to take most of their rationale with more than a grain of salt.
Perhaps we just haven't dealt with the same IT shops, but I haven't seen what you have.
You make an impassioned argument, but Microsoft's mindshare has shrunk to near zero. Yeah, IBM is still a pillar of the IT world too, and, yeah, the come out with new stuff all the time as well. So, I guess, according to your argument, they are relevant today too.
Sorry, at this point, no one beyond the IT pillars even cares what Microsoft is up to these days. You want to determine who's relevant? Count the inches of news published about various companies in mainstream publications. The companies with the most are the most relevant, because they are the ones creating the future of technology. Microsoft isn't in that group at the top of the list any more. Microsoft is still creating the past of technology.
It seems we live in different worlds. In world I live and work, MS mindshare is doing well.
But that is actually irrelevant, because even if your statement is true for your environment, mindshare has nothing to do with relevancy.
Milk, bread, butter and water mindshares are pretty poor these days. People talk about milk only when price jumps. Same with petrol, electricity. That is because all of them are constant part of our everyday, and it is our nature to pay more attention to things less common in our everyday existence. I will talk with my wife and my friends about our next year trip to Barcelona for hours, plan what to do, what to see, yet I will not have a second thought about water - I will drink it when I am thirsty, and that is all. I am expecting water to be there for me when I need it, nothing more, nothing less.
But just because water doesn't occupy my mind these days, not even remotely much as travelling, or buying a new smartphone, camera or computer, does not mean water is irrelevant. It only means I'm taking it for granted. If water is to disappear from the face of earth, it will suddenly take a lot of mindshare, take my word for that.
Same with Microsoft. It is nowadays so common, everyday, heck a bit boring. We have to use it on daily basis at work, and so many people had jobs they need, not jobs they want, so for them it even symbolises lack of success in their career, definitely not something they want to spend too much time thinking about. We don't think about it, and majority don't even know how much Microsoft technology is built in whatever they do, whenever they do.
But all that has nothing to do about relevancy.
Re IBM server... no, it is not the same. IBM server can easily be replaced with Lenovo, HP or DELL server. If you are virtualising, you don't even need to think about hardware drivers and other potential difference. All that because IBM servers are compatible with Windows, like any other brand servers.
Today, there is no replacement for Microsoft. You can replace some products, but as a whole, no. That is the part I'm finding scary, so many things depending on one company. But that is reality, and that is relevance. Not mindshare. relevance.
I think I made my opinion reasonably clear, so I will stop here. If you managed to find a spot on this planet where Internet, credit card, cable TV, emergency services and everything else you need, like or just use work fine without Microsoft products, well good on you.
It seems we live in different worlds. In world I live and work, MS mindshare is doing well.
But that is actually irrelevant, because even if your statement is true for your environment, mindshare has nothing to do with relevancy.
Milk, bread, butter and water mindshares are pretty poor these days. People talk about milk only when price jumps. Same with petrol, electricity. That is because all of them are constant part of our everyday, and it is our nature to pay more attention to things less common in our everyday existence. I will talk with my wife and my friends about our next year trip to Barcelona for hours, plan what to do, what to see, yet I will not have a second thought about water - I will drink it when I am thirsty, and that is all. I am expecting water to be there for me when I need it, nothing more, nothing less.
But just because water doesn't occupy my mind these days, not even remotely much as travelling, or buying a new smartphone, camera or computer, does not mean water is irrelevant. It only means I'm taking it for granted. If water is to disappear from the face of earth, it will suddenly take a lot of mindshare, take my word for that.
Same with Microsoft. It is nowadays so common, everyday, heck a bit boring. We have to use it on daily basis at work, and so many people had jobs they need, not jobs they want, so for them it even symbolises lack of success in their career, definitely not something they want to spend too much time thinking about. We don't think about it, and majority don't even know how much Microsoft technology is built in whatever they do, whenever they do.
But all that has nothing to do about relevancy.
Re IBM server... no, it is not the same. IBM server can easily be replaced with Lenovo, HP or DELL server. If you are virtualising, you don't even need to think about hardware drivers and other potential difference. All that because IBM servers are compatible with Windows, like any other brand servers.
Today, there is no replacement for Microsoft. You can replace some products, but as a whole, no. That is the part I'm finding scary, so many things depending on one company. But that is reality, and that is relevance. Not mindshare. relevance.
I think I made my opinion reasonably clear, so I will stop here. If you managed to find a spot on this planet where Internet, credit card, cable TV, emergency services and everything else you need, like or just use work fine without Microsoft products, well good on you.
Only problem is... I don't think so.
I think we obviously have different ideas of relevance. You are focused on the past. I'm focused on the future. For the future of computing, as things stand at present, Microsoft will have little or no influence. I don't see anything going on in Redmond that will change that.
Comments
That just confirms the point that they have largely become irrelevant, like IBM before them. All you can point to are legacy technologies, absolutely nothing new or innovative out of Redmond in years and years now. (Nothing successful at least.) No one is following Microsoft's lead any more, and how could they when they're so far back from the leading edge that they can't even see it.
Any LDAP solution? So to be clear here, you're stating that any LDAP solution will have any all functionality I or anyone else would or could ever expect from a Active Directory and will integrate with all current Windows-based PCs without issue?
It seems like businesses had a habit of skipping alternate OS updates anyway. Which is fine, those delays are done for all the reasons you gave, the needs of a large business are different from the needs of individuals or small businesses.
Is Windows 8 incompatible with your infrastructure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Any LDAP solution? So to be clear here, you're stating that any LDAP solution will have any all functionality I or anyone else would or could ever expect from a Active Directory and will integrate with all current Windows-based PCs without issue?
You aren't asking a meaningful question. What you are asking is the equivalent of, "Can HTML5 do everything that Flash can do?" It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality. As long as you can accomplish the end task with them, even if that means doing things a bit differently, then one can replace the other, just as HTML5 is replacing Flash.
Read the comments I responded to. In no way did the original commenters state that for specific or limited tasks there are LDAP solutiona that may fit one's enterprise needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Read the comments I responded to. In no way did the original commenters state that for specific or limited tasks there are LDAP solutiona that may fit one's enterprise needs.
Read my original response. In no way did I restrict my comments to "specific or limited tasks".
You did when you wrote, "It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality." Bottom line, MS's ownership of the enterprise isn't because IT departments are idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You did when you wrote, "It isn't necessary that other solutions replicate every single piece of functionality." Bottom line, MS's ownership of the enterprise isn't because IT departments are idiots.
No, it's because IT departments are unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy, after they shifted from the, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," philosophy.
My point is that, TIMTOWTDI. You don't have to copy the exact series of steps to reach the same end. Thus, you don't necessarily need to replicate, "every single piece of functionality," to accomplish the same purpose. And, as in the case of HTML5, where the end result may not look exactly the same as what you would have developed with Flash, a solution serving the same purpose not using Active Directory doesn't have to look exactly like the Active Directory solution.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Sure MS would have done much better have they released Metro before Apple and Google, but even at this point of time, I'm finding this GUI not lacking compared to competition. I'll admit I still don't have Win 8 tablet or phone... but comparing my iPhone and Android tablet to Metro on my desktop, I really like Metro more than either. I'm not talking about pure looks - beauty is in the eye of beholder, anyway; I'm talking about nice step up in functionality I am personally seeing here. Others might not, and that is fine.
My work desktop is configured to use Desktop apps for work (Outlook, Office, Corel, ConnectWise...) and I have configured Metro apps for my personal stuff - email, social, calendar, to-do and likes. I really like that I can quickly flick to Metro and not only see that I have new emails, for example, but also to get some info about who are they from, and what are they about without opening mail app. Because I am married man long enough to know that wife's email has to be checked quickly, while email from Air NZ can wait for after the work
No, really; I like dynamics of Metro. I've also noticed that Metro on computer screens in shops draws my attention much more than static desktops with little still icons on it, be it Windows 7 or OSX, likely because of tile sizes and constant changes. I don't know if MS was counting on that, but according to this article:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29288
Windows 8 is selling fine, actually better than Windows 7 in the same period. Sure lower upgrade price didn't hurt, but I'm keeping in mind that Windows 7 was supposed saviour after failed Vista and, consequently, almost 10 years of Windows XP... while 8 is coming after still fresh and very successful 7, which is not a small obstacle to overcome.
In short, I think that 8 is a decent upgrade on 7, and works well, even if it is a bit quirky at times. I also think that majority of users will not have problem to get used to it, and people complaining about it belong to the same group that complains about every new iPhone and prophesize it's demise, while phone itself keeps selling better and better - in short, small albeit vocal minority.
No, we had no major issues with deploying it. What I can think of:
ConnectWise support told us that they still don't support Windows 8, but that their software should work fine. It does.
We have noticed a small bug with IE10 used with Kaseya; when copying files to remote computer, file tree window reduces a few pixels on every mouse click. Chrome and Firefox work fine as ever, though.
Since I did an upgrade on top of my Windows 7 - upgrade pre-check complained about NIC driver which I have uninstalled (Windows 8 applied it's NIC drivers during upgrade).
CorelDRAW 5 was listed as software known to have issues (I believe it came from Windows 8 preview release user reports) but once on Windows 8, I failed to spot any issues, much as I am using Corel.
Win 8 upgrade pre-check didn't complain about NOD32 AV running, but I had to uninstall and reinstall it after OS upgrade, as it was somehow completely blocking my network traffic (but then, I should have thought about removing AV before OS upgrade anyway).
Worst issue? Ancient Counter Strike Condition Zero, which we occasionally play on Friday afternoons, does not work on 8. So I had to dual-boot. However, my Win 7 dual-boot is VHD image sitting in folder, which made it a bit easier than classic dual-boot solution with partitioned HDD etc.
That would be it.
Suuure... well based on same criteria, air we breathe is largely becoming irrelevant as it hasn't provided anything new or innovative for years and years now. Years? Millenniums. Since our ancestors left oceans and took first lungful. And it is actually becoming more stale and polluted every second. The hell with it. Lets breathe water again. We can even feed on plankton while breathing, now that is novel idea.
You are comparing trends, which can change overnight, with actual pillars of IT world, embedded in almost every pore of the world we live in. If you really think that something like that is irrelevant, we hardly have anything to talk about on this topic, simply because you are utterly wrong.
And all that even without opening can of innovations. You say they have absolutely nothing new and innovative for years. I say you should stop following up only Apple news and scope the world around you. If you drop a bit of your bias, you might see Microsoft coming out with innovations across the range of their products, from home (with Kinect, SmartGlass...) to network infrastructure (with Hyper-V, improvements in Exchange, Server 2012...) and almost everywhere in-between; MS that manages to figure out a novel GUI for touch devices, after 2 decades of safe but a bit long in tooth icon grid, from Newton, through Palm, WinMo, Symbian, Blackberry, iOS and Android... you can like or dislike Metro, but you cannot deny novelty.
You make an impassioned argument, but Microsoft's mindshare has shrunk to near zero. Yeah, IBM is still a pillar of the IT world too, and, yeah, the come out with new stuff all the time as well. So, I guess, according to your argument, they are relevant today too.
Sorry, at this point, no one beyond the IT pillars even cares what Microsoft is up to these days. You want to determine who's relevant? Count the inches of news published about various companies in mainstream publications. The companies with the most are the most relevant, because they are the ones creating the future of technology. Microsoft isn't in that group at the top of the list any more. Microsoft is still creating the past of technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
<snip>
Like I said, Pc users always complain. Look around, so many people still say that they don't need/want to replace their XP. XP is more than 10 years old, for old and new Gods sake. That is ancient history in IT.
The two reasonably large companies I've been with have both switched from XP ti Win 7 in the last 2 to 3 years. I expect that by the time they switch from Win7 it will be ancient history as well. From what I have seen there are many (perhaps the majority) companies on the same upgrade cycle. It is unlikely they will be switching to a new Win OS for another 5 to 10 years.
So now MS's server products only sell because IT is unimaginative? Now you're not even trying to have a rational argument. Bottom line is MS's server products do things that others can't so agreeing with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it is axiomatically wrong.
Your opinion is completely valid as stated and for your sake I hope that enough people agree with your PoV, but I certainly don't. I think it makes the tablet and desktop UX worse on both, not better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So now MS's server products only sell because IT is unimaginative? Now you're not even trying to have a rational argument. Bottom line is MS's server products do things that others can't so agreeing with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it is axiomatically wrong.
First of all, I didn't, "[agree] with the OP that any LDAP option can do what Active Directory does as easily as AD does it." I merely stated that demanding feature for feature parity wasn't a valid argument against his claims.
However, yes, I think it is the case that, in the past, IT people bought stuff from Microsoft because it was from Microsoft, just as in the more distant past, they bought stuff from IBM because it was from IBM. I think denying this fact undermines any argument you might have about why people buy Microsoft technologies.
Lastly, I'm not sure what being "axiomatically wrong" means in this context. Perhaps you were struggling to find the right word?
1) You took the stance that I was wrong and the OP was correct in his assertion in that any LDAP solution could replace all Active Directory setups.
2) Every IT I'm been part of or affiliated with has always looked to reduce costs. IT is a cost center so finding ways to reduce costs is an important part of that department. That isn't to say that all IT departments function as such (as noted by anecdotal first sentence) but your implication that all IT departments are 'unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy' is simple false. I'm sure there are people and departments that exist within that "philosophy" but it is not an inherent trait of being in IT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) You took the stance that I was wrong and the OP was correct in his assertion in that any LDAP solution could replace all Active Directory setups.
2) Every IT I'm been part of or affiliated with has always looked to reduce costs. IT is a cost center so finding ways to reduce costs is an important part of that department. That isn't to say that all IT departments function as such (as noted by anecdotal first sentence) but your implication that all IT departments are 'unimaginative, ultra-conservative and subscribe to the, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," philosophy' is simple false. I'm sure there are people and departments that exist within that "philosophy" but it is not an inherent trait of being in IT.
1) You need to re-read the discussion.
2) From my experience with IT departments, "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft," is the prevailing attitude for shops where they depend on Microsoft technology, and, typically, in these shops, the staff are gushingly enthusiastic about the same, but know little else. IT departments pay a lot of lip service to "reducing costs", but not so many of them actually approach this in a rational way. If they were all so cost conscious, they'd be using Macs on their desktops, and while more are these days, the majority are not. IT Managers say a lot of things, but you have to take most of their rationale with more than a grain of salt.
Perhaps we just haven't dealt with the same IT shops, but I haven't seen what you have.
It seems we live in different worlds. In world I live and work, MS mindshare is doing well.
But that is actually irrelevant, because even if your statement is true for your environment, mindshare has nothing to do with relevancy.
Milk, bread, butter and water mindshares are pretty poor these days. People talk about milk only when price jumps. Same with petrol, electricity. That is because all of them are constant part of our everyday, and it is our nature to pay more attention to things less common in our everyday existence. I will talk with my wife and my friends about our next year trip to Barcelona for hours, plan what to do, what to see, yet I will not have a second thought about water - I will drink it when I am thirsty, and that is all. I am expecting water to be there for me when I need it, nothing more, nothing less.
But just because water doesn't occupy my mind these days, not even remotely much as travelling, or buying a new smartphone, camera or computer, does not mean water is irrelevant. It only means I'm taking it for granted. If water is to disappear from the face of earth, it will suddenly take a lot of mindshare, take my word for that.
Same with Microsoft. It is nowadays so common, everyday, heck a bit boring. We have to use it on daily basis at work, and so many people had jobs they need, not jobs they want, so for them it even symbolises lack of success in their career, definitely not something they want to spend too much time thinking about. We don't think about it, and majority don't even know how much Microsoft technology is built in whatever they do, whenever they do.
But all that has nothing to do about relevancy.
Re IBM server... no, it is not the same. IBM server can easily be replaced with Lenovo, HP or DELL server. If you are virtualising, you don't even need to think about hardware drivers and other potential difference. All that because IBM servers are compatible with Windows, like any other brand servers.
Today, there is no replacement for Microsoft. You can replace some products, but as a whole, no. That is the part I'm finding scary, so many things depending on one company. But that is reality, and that is relevance. Not mindshare. relevance.
I think I made my opinion reasonably clear, so I will stop here. If you managed to find a spot on this planet where Internet, credit card, cable TV, emergency services and everything else you need, like or just use work fine without Microsoft products, well good on you.
Only problem is... I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
It seems we live in different worlds. In world I live and work, MS mindshare is doing well.
But that is actually irrelevant, because even if your statement is true for your environment, mindshare has nothing to do with relevancy.
Milk, bread, butter and water mindshares are pretty poor these days. People talk about milk only when price jumps. Same with petrol, electricity. That is because all of them are constant part of our everyday, and it is our nature to pay more attention to things less common in our everyday existence. I will talk with my wife and my friends about our next year trip to Barcelona for hours, plan what to do, what to see, yet I will not have a second thought about water - I will drink it when I am thirsty, and that is all. I am expecting water to be there for me when I need it, nothing more, nothing less.
But just because water doesn't occupy my mind these days, not even remotely much as travelling, or buying a new smartphone, camera or computer, does not mean water is irrelevant. It only means I'm taking it for granted. If water is to disappear from the face of earth, it will suddenly take a lot of mindshare, take my word for that.
Same with Microsoft. It is nowadays so common, everyday, heck a bit boring. We have to use it on daily basis at work, and so many people had jobs they need, not jobs they want, so for them it even symbolises lack of success in their career, definitely not something they want to spend too much time thinking about. We don't think about it, and majority don't even know how much Microsoft technology is built in whatever they do, whenever they do.
But all that has nothing to do about relevancy.
Re IBM server... no, it is not the same. IBM server can easily be replaced with Lenovo, HP or DELL server. If you are virtualising, you don't even need to think about hardware drivers and other potential difference. All that because IBM servers are compatible with Windows, like any other brand servers.
Today, there is no replacement for Microsoft. You can replace some products, but as a whole, no. That is the part I'm finding scary, so many things depending on one company. But that is reality, and that is relevance. Not mindshare. relevance.
I think I made my opinion reasonably clear, so I will stop here. If you managed to find a spot on this planet where Internet, credit card, cable TV, emergency services and everything else you need, like or just use work fine without Microsoft products, well good on you.
Only problem is... I don't think so.
I think we obviously have different ideas of relevance. You are focused on the past. I'm focused on the future. For the future of computing, as things stand at present, Microsoft will have little or no influence. I don't see anything going on in Redmond that will change that.