danvm

nemoeac said:

danvm said:

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.

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. 

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!

tenly said:

JW0914 said:

While I'm all for constructive criticism of a product, it would appear this has little to do with the surface itself and more to do with networking issues, which the article clearly states. If that really was the issue during the game, Microsoft has nothing to do with it, nor does the surface itself. The network issues would either be due to the NFL's/Stadium's WiFi and/or the network drivers on the surface (of which Microsoft has nothing to do with at all, as drivers are written by the component manufacturer [Broadcom, Intel, Qualcomm, etc.])

All of the weeks that the system has worked, Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for the entire system.  If they're going to mislead people into thinking that somebody else's program and technology (the backend system) is a value add provided by Microsoft - then they damn well be ready to take their lumps when that system has problems.  Because Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for all the successes, they must also take the responsibility for the failure!

There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail.  Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.

Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system.  Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system.  The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft.  A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction.  Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own???  Not me!
 

nolamacguy said:

danvm said:

The post I answered mention "As for Surface and the iPad Pro, I'm all for letting the numbers describe the success of each. iPad sales for the previous quarter will be known Tuesday after the stock markets close. 

So in his POV, numbers define success.  I don't necessarily agree with that.  If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead.  And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone. 

There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales.  IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications.  For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10.  Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.  

youre getting confused and trying to compare apples & oranges. you cannot refute an ipad-to-surface sales volume contest by saying "But Windows sells more than OS X!" that isnt the question. the question is which of these two specific manufacturer devices is selling better. not which desktop OS platform has more units. you also cant suggest that not wanting to compare oranges to this question means he's saying *no numbers anywhere* can be brought up. that hasnt been suggested.

stick to the topic -- sales between two specific devices, ipad vs surface.

maestro64 said:

tezgno said:

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). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently. To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.

Not that I do not disagree with your statement and mostly likely it was more of a back end system issue, however, you have to ask who's product was running the Backend. If you can not guess I will tell you, it was Microsoft, it is their server software which was causing the problem. It does not mater here the solution was all MS and to the world it was seen as surface issue, but it was still a MS issue. Their products lack the robustness, and trust me I been using MS entire solutions for a long time and can not tell you how many times either my computer is telling a program is not responding or our servers are not responding for various reasons.

koop said:

I was laughing so hard when this happened and wondered if DED would make an article. Was not disappointed. 

Honestly they'd be better served with iPad Pros.