Mmmm yes, it's failing so badly that Apple decided that it needed to make a "Pro" version of the iPad to "compete" with it. I will not argue the sales or revenue numbers. I admit that Apple is the unopposed king as far as raw revenue and margin go. However, the Surface line has done a lot to reinvigorate the Windows OEM landscape. Overall build quality has drastically increased in the high end windows space over the last few years in response to MS actually investing time and effort into showing what an innovative and premium Windows experience can be. My college campus is filled with 2 in 1 touchscreen Windows laptops and tablets. Surface may not move the same numbers as MacBook and iPad, but you're forgetting that there is an entire Windows ecosystem out there to choose from, you aren't limited to the five or 6 offerings that Apple has to offer. MS and Apple have strikingly different business models and to judge the success of any given product line by using the same criteria as the other is absolute lunacy.
And that, dear readers, is how you move the goal posts when badly losing an argument. Troll.
You clearly have no idea how the Windows PC space works. It's not a walled garden like Apple. You can't compare Apples to Oranges. You literally have no argument here, all you've said is that I'm wrong, and then you called me a troll. It's not like it matters here anyways because everyone here is so dead set on their own righteousness that vitriolic claims like yours get everyone salivating.
While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time)...
According to the article, the outage only affected the Patriots sideline while the Broncos were still using their Surfaces without issue. If true then you are going to have to modify your defense a little bit.
Your facts will fall on deaf ears here. Everyone here seems to be more interested in "feels" than "reals".
Facts? The data in that article doesn't prove the Surface is doing well. The Surface 3 was a major flop. Surface Pro 4 hasn't been doing well either if you look at the earnings report from Microsoft.
For some reason, you post mention redundant servers, when the problem was related to a network issue. If the system was running with iPads, they would have the same problem because (again) it was a network problem. Maybe it would be worst, since the Surface went hardwire, something you cannot do with iPads (at least from what I know).
BTW, MS had personnel in the field to give support, and the situation was fixed. That's part of a recovery plan, and looks like the downtime was minimum because of that. I think the issue would have taken longer to fix if the had no backup plan at all. IMO, they had been very successful all year long. Too bad your opinion is based in 15-20 minutes instead of how the system have work the whole season.
I mentioned redundant systems which would include network and servers. It doesn't matter that this particular problem was network related - my comments stand that there should have been backup servers. They should not have had to fix the network - they should have had a hot standby network ready and waiting. The downtime could/should have been reduced to less than a minute as opposed to the 15 or 20 it took to switch to a hard-wired solution.
Again, I don't see how in this specific case backup servers would help, since the network was the issue. And I don't think they have "backup servers" in this kind of business. Those are big league teams with huge pockets, so it's no strange to hear them using clusters, SAN storage and cloud replication. And you still mention how the downtime could reduced to less than a minute, without even knowing what kind of infrastructure they have.
When evaluating a disaster recovery plan/process - it doesn't matter how well the system worked or for what length of time things ran without issue. Evaluating the response to a problem, the impact the problem creates and the length of the outage is what is important - and that is where Microsoft failed. Microsoft knew that the eyes of the world were on them and yet they chose not to implement a truly resilient system - so in my opinion, they deserve all of the negativity arising from the incident. Instead of trying to pass the buck and blame someone else for the problem, they should be apologizing for dropping the ball and for thinking that a 15-20 minute outage mid-game was acceptable.
Here is some information from the CNet regarding the issue, "An NFL spokesman confirmed that the Surfaces were not the problem. He told me: "The issue was identified as a network cable malfunction and was resolved during the 2nd quarter. The issue was not caused by the tablets or the software that runs on the tablets. We have experienced no issues with the tablets this season. Any issues were network related."
So it looks like the problem was with networking hardware. So now you blame MS that they didn't implement a "truly resilient system". You know why? Here is another line from the article,
"A Microsoft spokesman told me: "Not once this season have we experienced an issue related to the devices themselves. The issue is one of network stability in the various stadiums, which we have little control over."
So MS has little control over what they can do with stadium networks. Looks like the stadium manager are the one how need to apologise. I hope the whole article clarify more of your questions.
BTW, from what I understood from the live game, the fixed the issue quickly going hardwire. The 15-20 minutes was to fix the network problem. Al least with the Surface you have to option to use ethernet.
Really? Because the advertising campaigns Microsoft has used over the years do not give me that impression at all. So I just assumed that the NFL deal was similar in nature.
Your criteria for being picky is strange. But to keep in line with your post, maybe you should see this,
15-20 minutes of downtime is an eternity in such a situation. If there really was a redundancy plan in place (mirrored servers, parallel Wi-Fi networks), I'd expect a few minutes of downtime in the worst case scenario (the time it takes to detect the problem and move all of the devices onto the backup system).
What I understood from the live game, they switch to hardwire and the 15-20 minutes was to the fix the network issue. And from a CNet article, the NFL said that it was a cabling problem. So the redundancy plan you mention may not even work, depending where the cabling problem was.
Obviously there are iCloud outages on occasion (though it's been much better lately), and the debacle over their partnership with Pearson for providing curriculum content on iPads in L.A. school districts is definitely a deal which I'm sure Apple regrets (didn't do their usual due diligence). But overall, from what I've seen and read, I get the sense that if Apple can't do something well (and/or can't find a business partner to work with which meets their standards), they won't do it all.
From what I have read, Surfaces Pro have been doing good in the field, so looks like MS did their homework.
I mentioned redundant systems which would include network and servers. It doesn't matter that this particular problem was network related - my comments stand that there should have been backup servers. They should not have had to fix the network - they should have had a hot standby network ready and waiting. The downtime could/should have been reduced to less than a minute as opposed to the 15 or 20 it took to switch to a hard-wired solution.
Again, I don't see how in this specific case backup servers would help, since the network was the issue. And I don't think they have "backup servers" in this kind of business. Those are big league teams with huge pockets, so it's no strange to hear them using clusters, SAN storage and cloud replication. And you still mention how the downtime could reduced to less than a minute, without even knowing what kind of infrastructure they have.
Here is some information from the CNet regarding the issue, "An NFL spokesman confirmed that the Surfaces were not the problem. He told me: "The issue was identified as a network cable malfunction and was resolved during the 2nd quarter. The issue was not caused by the tablets or the software that runs on the tablets. We have experienced no issues with the tablets this season. Any issues were network related."
So it looks like the problem was with networking hardware. So now you blame MS that they didn't implement a "truly resilient system". You know why? Here is another line from the article,
"A Microsoft spokesman told me: "Not once this season have we experienced an issue related to the devices themselves. The issue is one of network stability in the various stadiums, which we have little control over."
So MS has little control over what they can do with stadium networks. Looks like the stadium manager are the one how need to apologise. I hope the whole article clarify more of your questions.
BTW, from what I understood from the live game, the fixed the issue quickly going hardwire. The 15-20 minutes was to fix the network problem. Al least with the Surface you have to option to use ethernet.
Wow. My 11-year old son wanted me to ask "How dumb are you?" but I explained to him that we have to be polite on the public forums and can't ask a question like that.
But, the fact that you can't understand why a well-designed, resilient system would include backup servers baffles both of us. We are all aware that in this case, it was the network that failed. But at the time the system is being designed - nothing has failed - and a proper design will assume that ANY part of the system is capable of failing and therefore should have some sort of hot standby. You keep harping on the fact that backup servers were not necessary because it was the network that failed. LOL We think you have a problem understanding how "time" flows. We know now - AFTER the failure has occurred - that it was the network that failed so there should not have been any redundancies except maybe for the network. But if you can't understand why parallels systems are required - for every part of the system - we can't explain it to you any better than we already have. Its frustrating for us. We really want you to understand - but I guess we have to realize and accept that sometimes, some people just don't have the capacity to understand even the simplest of concepts.
Moving on to another comment you made - that you think excuses Microsoft (but doesn't) - is the fact that they have "very little control over" the stadium networks! Wow. Big red flag for me as a project manager!!! If there was a component critical to my projects success (such as the network) that I had "very little control over" - I wouldn't use it! I would have (and Microsoft should have) installed their own network that they DID have control over. It's not THAT major of an undertaking and it would have put them back in control of their own destiny.
Make all the excuses you want for Microsoft's negligence. They gambled and lost. They built a half-assed system and hoped nothing would break. While it wasn't specifically a problem with the surface - the problem was still one that Microsoft could have avoided so I agree that they deserve the negative publicity. And as far as negative publicity is concerned - this is almost nothing compared to how people would be screaming if this were Apple instaead of Microsoft - even if the outage was only for 5 minutes instead of 20!
Again, I don't see how in this specific case backup servers would help, since the network was the issue. And I don't think they have "backup servers" in this kind of business. Those are big league teams with huge pockets, so it's no strange to hear them using clusters, SAN storage and cloud replication. And you still mention how the downtime could reduced to less than a minute, without even knowing what kind of infrastructure they have.
Here is some information from the CNet regarding the issue,
"An NFL spokesman confirmed that the Surfaces were not the problem. He told me: "The issue was identified as a network cable malfunction and was resolved during the 2nd quarter. The issue was not caused by the tablets or the software that runs on the tablets. We have experienced no issues with the tablets this season. Any issues were network related."
So it looks like the problem was with networking hardware. So now you blame MS that they didn't implement a "truly resilient system". You know why? Here is another line from the article,
"A Microsoft spokesman told me: "Not once this season have we experienced an issue related to the devices themselves. The issue is one of network stability in the various stadiums, which we have little control over."
So MS has little control over what they can do with stadium networks. Looks like the stadium manager are the one how need to apologise. I hope the whole article clarify more of your questions.
BTW, from what I understood from the live game, the fixed the issue quickly going hardwire. The 15-20 minutes was to fix the network problem. Al least with the Surface you have to option to use ethernet.
Wow. My 11-year old son wanted me to ask "How dumb are you?" but I explained to him that we have to be polite on the public forums and can't ask a question like that.
I find interesting how you still answer the "dumb" guy posts.
But, the fact that you can't understand why a well-designed, resilient system would include backup servers baffles both of us. We are all aware that in this case, it was the network that failed. But at the time the system is being designed - nothing has failed - and a proper design will assume that ANY part of the system is capable of failing and therefore should have some sort of hot standby. You keep harping on the fact that backup servers were not necessary because it was the network that failed. LOL We think you have a problem understanding how "time" flows. We know now - AFTER the failure has occurred - that it was the network that failed so there should not have been any redundancies except maybe for the network. But if you can't understand why parallels systems are required - for every part of the system - we can't explain it to you any better than we already have. Its frustrating for us. We really want you to understand - but I guess we have to realize and accept that sometimes, some people just don't have the capacity to understand even the simplest of concepts.
I understand the importance of redundancy. But we are talking about the yesterday event. If you read about the problem, you'll understood that the backend was operational, so there was no need to switch to the redundant system. That's the reason the workaround was to use hardwire, while the Denver bench had no problems at all. More servers would not do anything in this specific case.
Moving on to another comment you made - that you think excuses Microsoft (but doesn't) - is the fact that they have "very little control over" the stadium networks! Wow. Big red flag for me as a project manager!!! If there was a component critical to my projects success (such as the network) that I had "very little control over" - I wouldn't use it! I would have (and Microsoft should have) installed their own network that they DID have control over. It's not THAT major of an undertaking and it would have put them back in control of their own destiny.
Make all the excuses you want for Microsoft's negligence. They gambled and lost. They built a half-assed system and hoped nothing would break. While it wasn't specifically a problem with the surface - the problem was still one that Microsoft could have avoided so I agree that they deserve the negative publicity. And as far as negative publicity is concerned - this is almost nothing compared to how people would be screaming if this were Apple instaead of Microsoft - even if the outage was only for 5 minutes instead of 20!
First of all, I don't have to make excuses for no one. Second, MS do not need to mange stadiums networks if it wasn't part of the agreement. It means that the IT department for the colosseum is responsible for the network. If you ask me, those are the people responsible of making my devices connect to the network, and sadly, yesterday they had a serious problem, while the Surface Pros were operational. Again, the Surface Pro neither MS had nothing to do with yesterday problem (at least from what I have read in the news). Sometime bad things have to happen before good things start to appear. I hope the league make some guidelines so this don't happen again.
One more thing, I have been very respectful in my posts. Calling me "dumb" and that "I don't have to capacity to understand" is completely unnecessary. I'll hope your next posts are more respectful.
Wow. My 11-year old son wanted me to ask "How dumb are you?" but I explained to him that we have to be polite on the public forums and can't ask a question like that.
I find interesting how you still answer the "dumb" guy posts.
I understand the importance of redundancy. But we are talking about the yesterday event. If you read about the problem, you'll understood that the backend was operational, so there was no need to switch to the redundant system. That's the reason the workaround was to use hardwire, while the Denver bench had no problems at all. More servers would not do anything in this specific case.
First of all, I don't have to make excuses for no one. Second, MS do not need to mange stadiums networks if it wasn't part of the agreement. It means that the IT department for the colosseum is responsible for the network. If you ask me, those are the people responsible of making my devices connect to the network, and sadly, yesterday they had a serious problem, while the Surface Pros were operational. Again, the Surface Pro neither MS had nothing to do with yesterday problem (at least from what I have read in the news). Sometime bad things have to happen before good things start to appear. I hope the league make some guidelines so this don't happen again.
One more thing, I have been very respectful in my posts. Calling me "dumb" and that "I don't have to capacity to understand" is completely unnecessary. I'll hope your next posts are more respectful.
Tenly said that there should have been redundancies in the system and then went on to explain what spme of the redundancies should have been - network, servers, etc. He was speaking about the design of the system as whole - and then you jumped in claiming that the servers had nothing to do with the failure. That's a completely irrelevant point and does not change the fact that the system should include redundancies for possible server faults
You obviously know a little about computers and technology - but not enough to be jumping in and arguing nonsense with people that know a lot more. Tenly sounds (mostly) like he knows what he's talking about - and I have been building resilient systems for large enterprises for the past 15 years. Perhaps "dumb" was the wrong word. Maybe "childish" would have fit better because it honestly seems like you know how to build a bridge with Lego blocks and you think that qualifies you to jump out of the car and argue design parameters with the architect leading the construction of a real life bridge over the highway. You don't realize how much there is that you don't know - in this case about enterprise systems - and you're not willing to listen when more knowledgeable people try to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge.
Two examples just from your precious message:
First: You say "there was no need to switch to the redundant system" which would be true if there was a single redundant system which is obviously what you imagined. In reality, there would have been redundancies with each component of the system - but only in the largest disaster would they ever be activated as a whole. Examples of the redundancies that should have been in place: - a box of spare Surface tables in case the main ones broke - redundant networks wired and wireless that could be activated if necessary - redundant access points, switches and routers - redundant servers When a problem is discovered, the defective component of the system should be replaced by its redundant counterpart - so in this case, it would have meant activating the standby network - but if the problem were with the servers, you'd cut over to the standby servers. The system could even be smart enough to cut over automatically when certain types of failures are discovered.
Secondly: you refer to the network as if there can obviously only be 1 network and in this case that it is clearly in the hands of the colliseum staff. You also imply that it's the same network that your device your connect to had you been at the game. Both wrong. You can have dozens of networks in a given area - some connector to the Internet, some not. If I had been Microsoft, I would definitely have set up my own, dedicated network for this system - to ensure that I'm not competing for bandwidth with other systems and so that i can control its configuration and positioning and ensure it meets the needs of the system. It would also be managed by my own people so that problems are less likely to occur - and if they did occur, I could cut over immediately to my redundant network.
But instead of acknowledging that the system could have been designed better - you've decided to argue and incorrectly claim that there was nothing that Microsoft could have done to avoid this embarrassment.
So....dumb may not be the right word to describe you and your posts...but what is? Ignorant? It may be accurate, but it sounds more offensive than dumb. Stupid? That's like dumb, but an order of magnitude worse. Dense! That's it. Dense works. And that's not for being wrong - it's for refusing to listen when we tried to explain WHY you were wrong. I don't blame you in any way for not knowing. It's obviously not your job to know any of this. But I do think that it was wrong for you to be so dismissive and to argue as much as you have with those of us that obviously know a little more on the topic.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Microsoft could have done more? It seems like your defending them blindly. It's not the first time they've messed up and won't be the last. For me - it was nice to see something in the news other than Apple for a change. First Nest, now Microsoft! Don't worry, I have no doubt that something minor about Apple will appear and be blown completely out of proportion soon - and it will draw attention away from the Micrososft NFL F*** up!
I find interesting how you still answer the "dumb" guy posts.
I understand the importance of redundancy. But we are talking about the yesterday event. If you read about the problem, you'll understood that the backend was operational, so there was no need to switch to the redundant system. That's the reason the workaround was to use hardwire, while the Denver bench had no problems at all. More servers would not do anything in this specific case.
First of all, I don't have to make excuses for no one. Second, MS do not need to mange stadiums networks if it wasn't part of the agreement. It means that the IT department for the colosseum is responsible for the network. If you ask me, those are the people responsible of making my devices connect to the network, and sadly, yesterday they had a serious problem, while the Surface Pros were operational. Again, the Surface Pro neither MS had nothing to do with yesterday problem (at least from what I have read in the news). Sometime bad things have to happen before good things start to appear. I hope the league make some guidelines so this don't happen again.
One more thing, I have been very respectful in my posts. Calling me "dumb" and that "I don't have to capacity to understand" is completely unnecessary. I'll hope your next posts are more respectful.
Tenly said that there should have been redundancies in the system and then went on to explain what spme of the redundancies should have been - network, servers, etc. He was speaking about the design of the system as whole - and then you jumped in claiming that the servers had nothing to do with the failure. That's a completely irrelevant point and does not change the fact that the system should include redundancies for possible server faults
Like I posted before, I work IT and know the importance of redundant systems, and I agree with what Tenly said about that. My post is based in the what happened in the game. The backend was running, the network was working for Denver and NE via ethernet network. I'm just pointing out that switching to the redundant servers would not had solved the problem. BTW, there is a big chance an arena that host a big league team as the Broncos have a very robust network, which includes redundant systems.
You obviously know a little about computers and technology - but not enough to be jumping in and arguing nonsense with people that know a lot more. Tenly sounds (mostly) like he knows what he's talking about - and I have been building resilient systems for large enterprises for the past 15 years. Perhaps "dumb" was the wrong word. Maybe "childish" would have fit better because it honestly seems like you know how to build a bridge with Lego blocks and you think that qualifies you to jump out of the car and argue design parameters with the architect leading the construction of a real life bridge over the highway. You don't realize how much there is that you don't know - in this case about enterprise systems - and you're not willing to listen when more knowledgeable people try to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge.
I'm looking forward to learn from you...
Two examples just from your precious message:
First: You say "there was no need to switch to the redundant system" which would be true if there was a single redundant system which is obviously what you imagined. In reality, there would have been redundancies with each component of the system - but only in the largest disaster would they ever be activated as a whole. Examples of the redundancies that should have been in place: - a box of spare Surface tables in case the main ones broke - redundant networks wired and wireless that could be activated if necessary - redundant access points, switches and routers - redundant servers When a problem is discovered, the defective component of the system should be replaced by its redundant counterpart - so in this case, it would have meant activating the standby network - but if the problem were with the servers, you'd cut over to the standby servers. The system could even be smart enough to cut over automatically when certain types of failures are discovered.
First, I didn't imagined nothing. I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers. BTW, there is nothing new for me to learn from your post. You don't have to be an expert to know this.
Secondly: you refer to the network as if there can obviously only be 1 network and in this case that it is clearly in the hands of the colliseum staff. You also imply that it's the same network that your device your connect to had you been at the game. Both wrong. You can have dozens of networks in a given area - some connector to the Internet, some not. If I had been Microsoft, I would definitely have set up my own, dedicated network for this system - to ensure that I'm not competing for bandwidth with other systems and so that i can control its configuration and positioning and ensure it meets the needs of the system. It would also be managed by my own people so that problems are less likely to occur - and if they did occur, I could cut over immediately to my redundant network.
The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong. And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post? You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.
Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues. So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable. Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.
BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point. I already knew that.
But instead of acknowledging that the system could have been designed better - you've decided to argue and incorrectly claim that there was nothing that Microsoft could have done to avoid this embarrassment.
No, I didn't say that. I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas. Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.
So....dumb may not be the right word to describe you and your posts...but what is? Ignorant? It may be accurate, but it sounds more offensive than dumb. Stupid? That's like dumb, but an order of magnitude worse. Dense! That's it. Dense works. And that's not for being wrong - it's for refusing to listen when we tried to explain WHY you were wrong. I don't blame you in any way for not knowing. It's obviously not your job to know any of this. But I do think that it was wrong for you to be so dismissive and to argue as much as you have with those of us that obviously know a little more on the topic.
I'm not too good with name calling. On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know. Looks like this is not the case.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Microsoft could have done more? It seems like your defending them blindly.
No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.
It's not the first time they've messed up and won't be the last. For me - it was nice to see something in the news other than Apple for a change. First Nest, now Microsoft! Don't worry, I have no doubt that something minor about Apple will appear and be blown completely out of proportion soon - and it will draw attention away from the Micrososft NFL F*** up!
Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon. And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.
Tenly said that there should have been redundancies in the system and then went on to explain what spme of the redundancies should have been - network, servers, etc. He was speaking about the design of the system as whole - and then you jumped in claiming that the servers had nothing to do with the failure. That's a completely irrelevant point and does not change the fact that the system should include redundancies for possible server faults
Like I posted before, I work IT and know the importance of redundant systems, and I agree with what Tenly said about that. My post is based in the what happened in the game. The backend was running, the network was working for Denver and NE via ethernet network. I'm just pointing out that switching to the redundant servers would not had solved the problem. BTW, there is a big chance an arena that host a big league team as the Broncos have a very robust network, which includes redundant systems.
I'm looking forward to learn from you...
First, I didn't imagined nothing. I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers. BTW, there is nothing new for me to learn from your post. You don't have to be an expert to know this.
The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong. And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post? You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.
Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues. So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable. Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.
BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point. I already knew that.
No, I didn't say that. I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas. Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.
I'm not too good with name calling. On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know. Looks like this is not the case.
No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.
Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon. And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.
Tenly may want to continue this engagement with you, but I'm done. I've wasted a lot of time trying to make you see things from a wider viewpoint but you just don't get it and I'm not sure you ever will.
Continue to visit forums like this one. Do more listening and less arguing. Realize that there are many gaps in your knowledge, and in time - maybe you will actually learn something.
As for your very last sentence. Through this entire thread, I never once claimed that there was any fault with the Surface tablets.
I get that this isn't a problem with the Surface. These things happen. What's more troubling to me is that Microsoft has to pay people to use their stuff…
What do you expect from a DED article? This article seems to bash Microsoft more than what the article is about which is typical for a ded article, trashing the competition, and then the apple fanboys come to his defense. Look i could care less about microsoft but DED articles are way too bias.
Yes, if only there was some internet-type place where Apple could get bashed in return…
According to the article, the outage only affected the Patriots sideline while the Broncos were still using their Surfaces without issue. If true then you are going to have to modify your defense a little bit.
It was a wifi outage, literally a router problem.
"Literally a router problem"? LOL! What makes you so sure? You're just showing off your limited knowledge by making proclamations that are so literally WRONG!
If it was a confirmed wifi problem it is literally NOT a router problem. Your home network has a device that is connected to or is built into your modem which consists of several network devices - a router, a gateway, an access point and a switch. In most enterprise systems, such as the ones in use at the football stadiums, they use enterprise class devices - instead of bundling them all into one. If they determined that the problem was "the wifi", then that translates into the Access Point/Switch - no router! The wifi setup would have consisted of several access points feeding switches which eventually passed through a separate router - but if the router were the issue, it would not have been classed a "wi-if" problem, it would have been called a "network" problem. You literally don't have a clue so stop pretending that you do. With every word you write, you are proving more and more that your comments are inaccurate and not worth reading.
Like I posted before, I work IT and know the importance of redundant systems, and I agree with what Tenly said about that. My post is based in the what happened in the game. The backend was running, the network was working for Denver and NE via ethernet network. I'm just pointing out that switching to the redundant servers would not had solved the problem. BTW, there is a big chance an arena that host a big league team as the Broncos have a very robust network, which includes redundant systems.
I'm looking forward to learn from you...
First, I didn't imagined nothing. I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers. BTW, there is nothing new for me to learn from your post. You don't have to be an expert to know this.
The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong. And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post? You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.
Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues. So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable. Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.
BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point. I already knew that.
No, I didn't say that. I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas. Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.
I'm not too good with name calling. On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know. Looks like this is not the case.
No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.
Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon. And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.
Tenly may want to continue this engagement with you, but I'm done. I've wasted a lot of time trying to make you see things from a wider viewpoint but you just don't get it and I'm not sure you ever will.
Continue to visit forums like this one. Do more listening and less arguing. Realize that there are many gaps in your knowledge, and in time - maybe you will actually learn something.
As for your very last sentence. Through this entire thread, I never once claimed that there was any fault with the Surface tablets.
Good luck Tenly. He's all yours.
Ha ha! Well said nemoeac! I agree with 99% of what you said and I admire your patience. He obviously has a deep rooted need to defend Microsoft - probably an employee. It's clear to me that he doesn't want to understand reality. He's not worth me wasting any more of my time on either.
Like I posted before, I work IT and know the importance of redundant systems, and I agree with what Tenly said about that. My post is based in the what happened in the game. The backend was running, the network was working for Denver and NE via ethernet network. I'm just pointing out that switching to the redundant servers would not had solved the problem. BTW, there is a big chance an arena that host a big league team as the Broncos have a very robust network, which includes redundant systems.
I'm looking forward to learn from you...
First, I didn't imagined nothing. I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers. BTW, there is nothing new for me to learn from your post. You don't have to be an expert to know this.
The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong. And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post? You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.
Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues. So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable. Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.
BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point. I already knew that.
No, I didn't say that. I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas. Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.
I'm not too good with name calling. On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know. Looks like this is not the case.
No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.
Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon. And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.
Tenly may want to continue this engagement with you, but I'm done. I've wasted a lot of time trying to make you see things from a wider viewpoint but you just don't get it and I'm not sure you ever will.
Continue to visit forums like this one. Do more listening and less arguing. Realize that there are many gaps in your knowledge, and in time - maybe you will actually learn something.
As for your very last sentence. Through this entire thread, I never once claimed that there was any fault with the Surface tablets.
Good luck Tenly. He's all yours.
You've wasted your time because you didn't bring anything new to the table. I'm open to new ideas and learn from different experiences, but I already knew everything you mentioned. Obviously I still have gaps, but those gaps are not related to what you posted.
And regarding my last line, I mentioned it to bring back the discussion to the point of the article.
What do you expect from a DED article? This article seems to bash Microsoft more than what the article is about which is typical for a ded article, trashing the competition, and then the apple fanboys come to his defense. Look i could care less about microsoft but DED articles are way too bias.
You've arrived at APPLEinsider.com It appears you were looking for unbiasedinsider.com You're in the wrong place.
Most of us enjoy DED's articles that expose the lies spread by the Apple haters and document the truth that the haters try to hide or twist into a negative themed click-bait headline. Daniels articles definitely have a pro-Apple slant to them - but they are factual, well researched and a refreshing change to the non-stop Apple bashing!
Thanks for stopping by and for all 4 of your tantalizing posts. The community will miss you and your contributions. (Heavy sarcasm)
Comments
Here is some information from the CNet regarding the issue,
"An NFL spokesman confirmed that the Surfaces were not the problem. He told me: "The issue was identified as a network cable malfunction and was resolved during the 2nd quarter. The issue was not caused by the tablets or the software that runs on the tablets. We have experienced no issues with the tablets this season. Any issues were network related."
So it looks like the problem was with networking hardware. So now you blame MS that they didn't implement a "truly resilient system". You know why? Here is another line from the article,
"A Microsoft spokesman told me: "Not once this season have we experienced an issue related to the devices themselves. The issue is one of network stability in the various stadiums, which we have little control over."
So MS has little control over what they can do with stadium networks. Looks like the stadium manager are the one how need to apologise. I hope the whole article clarify more of your questions.
http://www.cnet.com/news/patriots-belichick-says-microsoft-surface-breakdowns-are-commonplace/
BTW, from what I understood from the live game, the fixed the issue quickly going hardwire. The 15-20 minutes was to fix the network problem. Al least with the Surface you have to option to use ethernet.
http://www.cultofmac.com/182021/the-top-10-worst-apple-ads-of-all-time-feature/
So looks like Apple isn't that picky after all.
What I understood from the live game, they switch to hardwire and the 15-20 minutes was to the fix the network issue. And from a CNet article, the NFL said that it was a cabling problem. So the redundancy plan you mention may not even work, depending where the cabling problem was.
http://www.cnet.com/news/patriots-belichick-says-microsoft-surface-breakdowns-are-commonplace/
From what I have read, Surfaces Pro have been doing good in the field, so looks like MS did their homework.
Wow. My 11-year old son wanted me to ask "How dumb are you?" but I explained to him that we have to be polite on the public forums and can't ask a question like that.
But, the fact that you can't understand why a well-designed, resilient system would include backup servers baffles both of us. We are all aware that in this case, it was the network that failed. But at the time the system is being designed - nothing has failed - and a proper design will assume that ANY part of the system is capable of failing and therefore should have some sort of hot standby. You keep harping on the fact that backup servers were not necessary because it was the network that failed. LOL We think you have a problem understanding how "time" flows. We know now - AFTER the failure has occurred - that it was the network that failed so there should not have been any redundancies except maybe for the network. But if you can't understand why parallels systems are required - for every part of the system - we can't explain it to you any better than we already have. Its frustrating for us. We really want you to understand - but I guess we have to realize and accept that sometimes, some people just don't have the capacity to understand even the simplest of concepts.
Moving on to another comment you made - that you think excuses Microsoft (but doesn't) - is the fact that they have "very little control over" the stadium networks! Wow. Big red flag for me as a project manager!!! If there was a component critical to my projects success (such as the network) that I had "very little control over" - I wouldn't use it! I would have (and Microsoft should have) installed their own network that they DID have control over. It's not THAT major of an undertaking and it would have put them back in control of their own destiny.
Make all the excuses you want for Microsoft's negligence. They gambled and lost. They built a half-assed system and hoped nothing would break. While it wasn't specifically a problem with the surface - the problem was still one that Microsoft could have avoided so I agree that they deserve the negative publicity. And as far as negative publicity is concerned - this is almost nothing compared to how people would be screaming if this were Apple instaead of Microsoft - even if the outage was only for 5 minutes instead of 20!
I understand the importance of redundancy. But we are talking about the yesterday event. If you read about the problem, you'll understood that the backend was operational, so there was no need to switch to the redundant system. That's the reason the workaround was to use hardwire, while the Denver bench had no problems at all. More servers would not do anything in this specific case.
First of all, I don't have to make excuses for no one. Second, MS do not need to mange stadiums networks if it wasn't part of the agreement. It means that the IT department for the colosseum is responsible for the network. If you ask me, those are the people responsible of making my devices connect to the network, and sadly, yesterday they had a serious problem, while the Surface Pros were operational. Again, the Surface Pro neither MS had nothing to do with yesterday problem (at least from what I have read in the news). Sometime bad things have to happen before good things start to appear. I hope the league make some guidelines so this don't happen again.
One more thing, I have been very respectful in my posts. Calling me "dumb" and that "I don't have to capacity to understand" is completely unnecessary. I'll hope your next posts are more respectful.
You obviously know a little about computers and technology - but not enough to be jumping in and arguing nonsense with people that know a lot more. Tenly sounds (mostly) like he knows what he's talking about - and I have been building resilient systems for large enterprises for the past 15 years. Perhaps "dumb" was the wrong word. Maybe "childish" would have fit better because it honestly seems like you know how to build a bridge with Lego blocks and you think that qualifies you to jump out of the car and argue design parameters with the architect leading the construction of a real life bridge over the highway. You don't realize how much there is that you don't know - in this case about enterprise systems - and you're not willing to listen when more knowledgeable people try to fill in some of the gaps in your knowledge.
Two examples just from your precious message:
First: You say "there was no need to switch to the redundant system" which would be true if there was a single redundant system which is obviously what you imagined. In reality, there would have been redundancies with each component of the system - but only in the largest disaster would they ever be activated as a whole. Examples of the redundancies that should have been in place:
- a box of spare Surface tables in case the main ones broke
- redundant networks wired and wireless that could be activated if necessary
- redundant access points, switches and routers
- redundant servers
When a problem is discovered, the defective component of the system should be replaced by its redundant counterpart - so in this case, it would have meant activating the standby network - but if the problem were with the servers, you'd cut over to the standby servers. The system could even be smart enough to cut over automatically when certain types of failures are discovered.
Secondly: you refer to the network as if there can obviously only be 1 network and in this case that it is clearly in the hands of the colliseum staff. You also imply that it's the same network that your device your connect to had you been at the game. Both wrong. You can have dozens of networks in a given area - some connector to the Internet, some not. If I had been Microsoft, I would definitely have set up my own, dedicated network for this system - to ensure that I'm not competing for bandwidth with other systems and so that i can control its configuration and positioning and ensure it meets the needs of the system. It would also be managed by my own people so that problems are less likely to occur - and if they did occur, I could cut over immediately to my redundant network.
But instead of acknowledging that the system could have been designed better - you've decided to argue and incorrectly claim that there was nothing that Microsoft could have done to avoid this embarrassment.
So....dumb may not be the right word to describe you and your posts...but what is? Ignorant? It may be accurate, but it sounds more offensive than dumb. Stupid? That's like dumb, but an order of magnitude worse. Dense! That's it. Dense works. And that's not for being wrong - it's for refusing to listen when we tried to explain WHY you were wrong. I don't blame you in any way for not knowing. It's obviously not your job to know any of this. But I do think that it was wrong for you to be so dismissive and to argue as much as you have with those of us that obviously know a little more on the topic.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Microsoft could have done more? It seems like your defending them blindly. It's not the first time they've messed up and won't be the last. For me - it was nice to see something in the news other than Apple for a change. First Nest, now Microsoft! Don't worry, I have no doubt that something minor about Apple will appear and be blown completely out of proportion soon - and it will draw attention away from the Micrososft NFL F*** up!
I'm looking forward to learn from you...
First, I didn't imagined nothing. I know they have redundancy at different levels and layers. BTW, there is nothing new for me to learn from your post. You don't have to be an expert to know this.
The first two lines are assumptions from you part, and both are wrong. And second, Have you consider the possibility that the arena already have configured the kind of network you mention in your post? You are not the only person that know about this kind of infrastructure.
Back to the point, they connect the SP using cable and it worked without issues. So it looks like they had a plan that worked while they fixed the cabling issue that brought down the wireless in the NE side. They didn't not have to use a redundant network, since they were already connected to the network via cable. Now you may understand why I mentioned that adding redundant servers, while it's a must for this kind of environment, wasn't a solution to the problem.
BTW, I didn't learn nothing from your second point. I already knew that.
No, I didn't say that. I mentioned that the NFL should check the guidelines for networks in the arenas. Obviously MS should be part of that since they use their devices.
I'm not too good with name calling. On the contrary, I'm very respectful in my posts because I know I'm talking with many professionals I don't even know. Looks like this is not the case.
No, I don't need to defend nobody, be it MS, Apple, Amazon or whatever company exist.
Every company have it's list of issues, including Apple, MS, Google or Amazon. And on Sunday it was the NFL and the Sports Authority Field at Mile High IT department. Don't forget that Surface Pros were working all the time, even when there was no wireless in the NE side.
Continue to visit forums like this one. Do more listening and less arguing. Realize that there are many gaps in your knowledge, and in time - maybe you will actually learn something.
As for your very last sentence. Through this entire thread, I never once claimed that there was any fault with the Surface tablets.
Good luck Tenly. He's all yours.
If it was a confirmed wifi problem it is literally NOT a router problem. Your home network has a device that is connected to or is built into your modem which consists of several network devices - a router, a gateway, an access point and a switch. In most enterprise systems, such as the ones in use at the football stadiums, they use enterprise class devices - instead of bundling them all into one. If they determined that the problem was "the wifi", then that translates into the Access Point/Switch - no router! The wifi setup would have consisted of several access points feeding switches which eventually passed through a separate router - but if the router were the issue, it would not have been classed a "wi-if" problem, it would have been called a "network" problem. You literally don't have a clue so stop pretending that you do. With every word you write, you are proving more and more that your comments are inaccurate and not worth reading.
Ha ha! Well said nemoeac! I agree with 99% of what you said and I admire your patience. He obviously has a deep rooted need to defend Microsoft - probably an employee. It's clear to me that he doesn't want to understand reality. He's not worth me wasting any more of my time on either.
And regarding my last line, I mentioned it to bring back the discussion to the point of the article.
It appears you were looking for unbiasedinsider.com
You're in the wrong place.
Most of us enjoy DED's articles that expose the lies spread by the Apple haters and document the truth that the haters try to hide or twist into a negative themed click-bait headline. Daniels articles definitely have a pro-Apple slant to them - but they are factual, well researched and a refreshing change to the non-stop Apple bashing!
Thanks for stopping by and for all 4 of your tantalizing posts. The community will miss you and your contributions. (Heavy sarcasm)