As a longtime troubleshooter and seeker of stability in IT infrastructure I would say that Microsoft's "abandonment" of XP as an operating system effective June 30th 2008 is shameful at best. Realistically they are not really abandoning XP but surely making it harder to implement it on home machines or others bought through retail channels. This impacts individuals and small businesses more than enterprises.
With the advent of Service Pack 2 came one of the more stable OS's we have known. Everyone knew how to use it, most applications ran on it, and drivers were seldom an issue. Now that Vista is being forced on a small segment of the user population we now have the joy of doing downgrades, making application performance and drivers more of an issue. Three cheers for Microsoft indicating they would "support" XP through April 2014. The question is, if you are going to support it that long why not make it easy to get it for those who want it?
A majority of enterprises I speak with are delaying Vista implementation until 2009 or after and now that Windows 7 is slated for delivery in January 2009 who would go with Vista anyway? Perhaps it is because Microsoft has warned all of us that going straight from XP to Windows 7 is not advisable, or that they have never met a delivery schedule for a new OS since..... well ever.
Suggestion for Microsoft- Let XP be widely available until support is no longer available and let the end user or their support staff decide which OS is the most appropriate one to use.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Hello, Nice to see you
Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that one of the major justifications for video conferencing is to cut down on the need for travel. Recent conversations I have been involved in indicate that this may be coming true finally. There are organization out there that are justifying video conferencing enhancements through travel reductions. This is not hard to believe with the price of airfares and such.
What strikes me now is the question of whether face time is really necessary these days. Social networking has advanced to the point that some people are falling in love and practically getting married through the internet and yet we still have vendors inventing ways to have video to our desktops. One recent article quoted a Skype product manger indicating that nearly 25% of their traffic was video based. Is this a toy or a real business tool? In the same article was quote about Tandberg coming out with a $1,500 desktop phone that provided DVD quality images on a 10 inch screen. Is that really what enterprises really need these days or again, is this going to just be a toy?
Video is certainly an important way of communicating but the open question is, how necessary is it for effective discussions, collaboration and productivity? My feeling right now is that it is not really a necessity. To prove that point I would suggest that there is very little video conferencing going on between North America and APAC outsourcers. If it was all that important we would see a growing traffic volume between these two regions of the world. There is not evidence that this is happening, at least no yet.
Until then, I would say that it is great to see you, but not necessary to get the job done.
What strikes me now is the question of whether face time is really necessary these days. Social networking has advanced to the point that some people are falling in love and practically getting married through the internet and yet we still have vendors inventing ways to have video to our desktops. One recent article quoted a Skype product manger indicating that nearly 25% of their traffic was video based. Is this a toy or a real business tool? In the same article was quote about Tandberg coming out with a $1,500 desktop phone that provided DVD quality images on a 10 inch screen. Is that really what enterprises really need these days or again, is this going to just be a toy?
Video is certainly an important way of communicating but the open question is, how necessary is it for effective discussions, collaboration and productivity? My feeling right now is that it is not really a necessity. To prove that point I would suggest that there is very little video conferencing going on between North America and APAC outsourcers. If it was all that important we would see a growing traffic volume between these two regions of the world. There is not evidence that this is happening, at least no yet.
Until then, I would say that it is great to see you, but not necessary to get the job done.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Out with the Old, and in with the New?
I had a need recently to go out and purchase a new laptop. Not rocket science by any means but it sure seemed to get to that point by the time I was done. All that led to more conclusions. First some background.
For my wedding anniversary this year I wanted to buy my wife her own laptop. She was the only one in the house without one so it made sense. Also, having her have a machine that was portable would allow for her to use a computer without needing to be in the office. This is not convenient at times as I frequently need to be alone in office for meetings and conferences as well as recording web and voice mail broadcasts.
The trouble began when I went looking for a laptop with XP preinstalled on it. I have had no end of issues with machines requiring to be downgraded from Vista to XP. I did not want to have to deal with all the issues of training my wife on Vista, nor dealing with driver issues due to the downgrade. So with that I was off looking for a machine with XP on it. After looking long and hard I only found 1 out of about 50 that I looked at at various places. I wound up with a Lenovo machine from an online retailer. To their credit, I had the machine in 3 days, just in time for my anniversary, and it has worked perfectly thus far.
So what's the point? First, I believe all consumers and enterprises should be afforded the opportunity to choose which OS they want. It would be in Microsoft's best interest to offer both XP and Vista and allow all OEMs to do the same. They would be best served to make Vista be so compelling to change to that requests for XP drop to near zero. At that point only should they discontinue supporting it. Better yet, how about letting another organization support it on into the future. Thus far it is apparent that the only reason for the uptake in Vista is that Microsoft has forced it upon the distribution channel. Owners are truning off so many features of Vista just to make it perform that it is hardy worth having it.
I will do everything I can to stick with XP until it is "time" to switch. In the mean time, the only thing getting old around here is me.
For my wedding anniversary this year I wanted to buy my wife her own laptop. She was the only one in the house without one so it made sense. Also, having her have a machine that was portable would allow for her to use a computer without needing to be in the office. This is not convenient at times as I frequently need to be alone in office for meetings and conferences as well as recording web and voice mail broadcasts.
The trouble began when I went looking for a laptop with XP preinstalled on it. I have had no end of issues with machines requiring to be downgraded from Vista to XP. I did not want to have to deal with all the issues of training my wife on Vista, nor dealing with driver issues due to the downgrade. So with that I was off looking for a machine with XP on it. After looking long and hard I only found 1 out of about 50 that I looked at at various places. I wound up with a Lenovo machine from an online retailer. To their credit, I had the machine in 3 days, just in time for my anniversary, and it has worked perfectly thus far.
So what's the point? First, I believe all consumers and enterprises should be afforded the opportunity to choose which OS they want. It would be in Microsoft's best interest to offer both XP and Vista and allow all OEMs to do the same. They would be best served to make Vista be so compelling to change to that requests for XP drop to near zero. At that point only should they discontinue supporting it. Better yet, how about letting another organization support it on into the future. Thus far it is apparent that the only reason for the uptake in Vista is that Microsoft has forced it upon the distribution channel. Owners are truning off so many features of Vista just to make it perform that it is hardy worth having it.
I will do everything I can to stick with XP until it is "time" to switch. In the mean time, the only thing getting old around here is me.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Telecom Expenses
Nearly seven years ago I was introduced to the concept of automated telecom expense management (TEM). Nearly 30 years ago I was introduced to the concept of telecom billing being messed up. The question is "Why the gap in time"?
It has been widely established that any telecom bill, fixed or mobile, of any size is probably in error. The really cool part is that it is very predictable in which direction the errors are, and it is certainly not in the favor of the enterprise. Most billings from the big telecom providers are in error from 1o% to over 30% in favor of the carrier. Some larger enterprises spend north of $50 Million on voice and data transport facilities and other services. The net result is there is $5 Million plus to be had by doing a good job managing these expenses. Imagine those savings falling strait to the bottom line.
The process to achieve this used to be complex but has gotten a lot easier these days. It used to be that you had to hire a very smart person, who was a little suicidal, to look through your bills to find the errors and to argue with the carriers to get the money back. These days you can implement one of a number of software applications or sign up for a service to do the function for you ( for a rather hefty fee). The carriers have become accustom to providing the bills in electronic form, although they are not very willing to do so initially. The key is to know what your "inventory" of telecom assets looks like and then be able to match it against the actual expenses. Only those that match get paid and the rest get disputed until you get a refund. This can take many months but the money usually comes back eventually. Once the initial reconciliation is done, change control becomes very critical. One would assume that change control is part of your everyday processes so we will not dwell on this.
Telecom Expense Management (TEM) is ideal for delivery as a service (SaaS) or as a stand alone application but does need special attention to detail as billing formats vary widely among the carriers, and among each service they provide. Remember that most carrier billing systems are actually a collection of inherited applications from many decades of mergers, with very little integration. That said, it is well worth the effort with the ROI never in doubt.
It has been widely established that any telecom bill, fixed or mobile, of any size is probably in error. The really cool part is that it is very predictable in which direction the errors are, and it is certainly not in the favor of the enterprise. Most billings from the big telecom providers are in error from 1o% to over 30% in favor of the carrier. Some larger enterprises spend north of $50 Million on voice and data transport facilities and other services. The net result is there is $5 Million plus to be had by doing a good job managing these expenses. Imagine those savings falling strait to the bottom line.
The process to achieve this used to be complex but has gotten a lot easier these days. It used to be that you had to hire a very smart person, who was a little suicidal, to look through your bills to find the errors and to argue with the carriers to get the money back. These days you can implement one of a number of software applications or sign up for a service to do the function for you ( for a rather hefty fee). The carriers have become accustom to providing the bills in electronic form, although they are not very willing to do so initially. The key is to know what your "inventory" of telecom assets looks like and then be able to match it against the actual expenses. Only those that match get paid and the rest get disputed until you get a refund. This can take many months but the money usually comes back eventually. Once the initial reconciliation is done, change control becomes very critical. One would assume that change control is part of your everyday processes so we will not dwell on this.
Telecom Expense Management (TEM) is ideal for delivery as a service (SaaS) or as a stand alone application but does need special attention to detail as billing formats vary widely among the carriers, and among each service they provide. Remember that most carrier billing systems are actually a collection of inherited applications from many decades of mergers, with very little integration. That said, it is well worth the effort with the ROI never in doubt.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Disaster Recovery Facilities in the making?
As promised, more on the subject of disaster recovery planning, with a twist.
A recent article in my local news paper, The Morning Call, got me thinking about the whole issue of disaster recovery facilities as an economic development project. The article chronicles the trials and tribulations of a group attempting to create an environment attractive enough to convince disaster planners from Wall Street's largest investment firms to locate their disaster facilities to the Pocono Mountain region. The group has amassed $15 Million in funding to be used to convince the firms that it would be a good idea to house such facilities outside of a "blast zone" that is Manhattan, and one that is on a separate power grid zone. I give a lot of credit to the local power authority for isolating my region from the last large power outage that affected most of the North East US. This alone does not make the Pocono mountain area an ideal place to put disaster backup facilities.
There are only two main routes that run to the west out of Manhattan, Interstate 80 which runs to the Pocono's and Interstate 78, which runs through New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. Both routes would likely be affected by any wide scale disaster in the area, making it harder to get people to these newly established facilities. Both regions discussed in the article, the Pocono's and the Lehigh Valley are about 2 hours away from Manhattan on a good day. As a result of this and other factors, most Wall Street firms have located their backup facilities in northern New Jersey. The bandwidth required to support synchronous data replication is already in place between Manhattan and say Jersey City. The same can not be said for the Pocono's or Lehigh Valley areas. Most disaster recovery plans call for generating your own power for a good amount of time, so being on a separate power grid just relieves you from getting fuel to your generators over a long term.
So what is the point? I am somewhat embarrassed to say that the leaders of the region in which I live would spend $15 Million on training and education and not have a single tangible thing to show for the investment. No enhancements to network bandwidth, facilities, or agreement with service firms to provide the essential support functions that would make the region a viable option for disaster recovery services. If they really wanted to gain the respect needed to be in the running for consideration as a viable disaster recovery location, then at least get the bandwidth in place. Until large firms sign up to use it, at least the local citizens could enjoy having great Internet service.
The opposite of "if you build it, they will come" seems to be "if you promise it, they might consider it" and in this case not one firm has taken the bait. This makes for a pretty expensive fishing trip.
A recent article in my local news paper, The Morning Call, got me thinking about the whole issue of disaster recovery facilities as an economic development project. The article chronicles the trials and tribulations of a group attempting to create an environment attractive enough to convince disaster planners from Wall Street's largest investment firms to locate their disaster facilities to the Pocono Mountain region. The group has amassed $15 Million in funding to be used to convince the firms that it would be a good idea to house such facilities outside of a "blast zone" that is Manhattan, and one that is on a separate power grid zone. I give a lot of credit to the local power authority for isolating my region from the last large power outage that affected most of the North East US. This alone does not make the Pocono mountain area an ideal place to put disaster backup facilities.
There are only two main routes that run to the west out of Manhattan, Interstate 80 which runs to the Pocono's and Interstate 78, which runs through New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. Both routes would likely be affected by any wide scale disaster in the area, making it harder to get people to these newly established facilities. Both regions discussed in the article, the Pocono's and the Lehigh Valley are about 2 hours away from Manhattan on a good day. As a result of this and other factors, most Wall Street firms have located their backup facilities in northern New Jersey. The bandwidth required to support synchronous data replication is already in place between Manhattan and say Jersey City. The same can not be said for the Pocono's or Lehigh Valley areas. Most disaster recovery plans call for generating your own power for a good amount of time, so being on a separate power grid just relieves you from getting fuel to your generators over a long term.
So what is the point? I am somewhat embarrassed to say that the leaders of the region in which I live would spend $15 Million on training and education and not have a single tangible thing to show for the investment. No enhancements to network bandwidth, facilities, or agreement with service firms to provide the essential support functions that would make the region a viable option for disaster recovery services. If they really wanted to gain the respect needed to be in the running for consideration as a viable disaster recovery location, then at least get the bandwidth in place. Until large firms sign up to use it, at least the local citizens could enjoy having great Internet service.
The opposite of "if you build it, they will come" seems to be "if you promise it, they might consider it" and in this case not one firm has taken the bait. This makes for a pretty expensive fishing trip.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Disaster recovery planning-The need
Having been around the network awhile I have to admit that I have been a party to some disaster recovery efforts. Thankfully most of them have been pretty minor. Some have been averted due to some prior planning and some have been recoverable with some ingenious use of technology, such as it was at the time. It was also not like we could not see it coming.
In some of my past positions I have done some strange things to get the information we needed in order to plan for a disaster scenario. The good news was we had forward thinking management at the time who saw the need to plan ahead. The most odd thing I ever did was buy the power company lineman coffee if he would allow me to see his site planning books with enough time to copy the relevant pages. It took a while but we got what we needed not only to prove we were single threaded at our major data center but that there was an alternate feed available for us to split our power feeds with little effort on the part of the utility. The comment on the part of the field engineering manager was "Boy you guys sure know a lot about our physical plant"! That "knowledge" cost me a cheap cup of coffee and came in handy on the day that a 150KV line went up in smoke without explanation, and no outage.
The other scenario was the recognition that we were single threaded in our main telecom feeds going along a well travelled road up north to the first "PoP" to a national network. I do not take credit for the discovery, but when the ultimate disaster scenario came true one day we were all standing in the data center looking at each other wondering what we could do about it. We were told that we were hours or longer away from having service restored to one of our primary service systems. Insult to injury was our "dial backup" service followed the same path as it turned out. I will take credit for using my calling card from an alternate provider to establish 14 alternate paths out of our data center and up to a backup site a thousand miles away. It turns out we were down on our primary service for over 13 hours.
If the message has not gotten through already, everyone and every organization needs to think about what they would do in the event of a disaster of some kind. More on this topic to follow based on current events.
In some of my past positions I have done some strange things to get the information we needed in order to plan for a disaster scenario. The good news was we had forward thinking management at the time who saw the need to plan ahead. The most odd thing I ever did was buy the power company lineman coffee if he would allow me to see his site planning books with enough time to copy the relevant pages. It took a while but we got what we needed not only to prove we were single threaded at our major data center but that there was an alternate feed available for us to split our power feeds with little effort on the part of the utility. The comment on the part of the field engineering manager was "Boy you guys sure know a lot about our physical plant"! That "knowledge" cost me a cheap cup of coffee and came in handy on the day that a 150KV line went up in smoke without explanation, and no outage.
The other scenario was the recognition that we were single threaded in our main telecom feeds going along a well travelled road up north to the first "PoP" to a national network. I do not take credit for the discovery, but when the ultimate disaster scenario came true one day we were all standing in the data center looking at each other wondering what we could do about it. We were told that we were hours or longer away from having service restored to one of our primary service systems. Insult to injury was our "dial backup" service followed the same path as it turned out. I will take credit for using my calling card from an alternate provider to establish 14 alternate paths out of our data center and up to a backup site a thousand miles away. It turns out we were down on our primary service for over 13 hours.
If the message has not gotten through already, everyone and every organization needs to think about what they would do in the event of a disaster of some kind. More on this topic to follow based on current events.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Should Administrators be licensed?
We live in a world where there are licenses and certifications required to do just about anything. I carry around 5 or 6 every day, but none of them for IT.
While we have professional certifications in the IT business we have few requirements for having and using Admin rights on servers and end user workstations. With data leakage becoming more of an issue every day it would seem appropriate that Admin rights come with a requirement to be licensed to use them. While nine out of every 10 people you ask will tell you that data leakage is centered around non-malicious activities, it is the one in 10, the malicious one, that is the most damaging and costly. It is usually pulled off with help from inside the enterprise and it is usually someone that has admin access rights. Doesn't it make sense that we know who we are giving these rights to, and then require them to be bonded to do their job?
I am not into burdening people unnecessarily but we have gotten to the point in IT where it would make some sense to stand up and say to everyone who entrusts personal data to us "You can trust me to do the right thing." Don't want to be required to have your background checked and live up to a professional code of ethics? Give up your admin rights then.
Enterprises are being required to spend millions of dollars on software and appliance based security tools to prevent data leakage and other malicious activities. Those costs are being passed on to all of us as consumers with little being provided in return. Perhaps we can offer some additional value to the equation.
While we have professional certifications in the IT business we have few requirements for having and using Admin rights on servers and end user workstations. With data leakage becoming more of an issue every day it would seem appropriate that Admin rights come with a requirement to be licensed to use them. While nine out of every 10 people you ask will tell you that data leakage is centered around non-malicious activities, it is the one in 10, the malicious one, that is the most damaging and costly. It is usually pulled off with help from inside the enterprise and it is usually someone that has admin access rights. Doesn't it make sense that we know who we are giving these rights to, and then require them to be bonded to do their job?
I am not into burdening people unnecessarily but we have gotten to the point in IT where it would make some sense to stand up and say to everyone who entrusts personal data to us "You can trust me to do the right thing." Don't want to be required to have your background checked and live up to a professional code of ethics? Give up your admin rights then.
Enterprises are being required to spend millions of dollars on software and appliance based security tools to prevent data leakage and other malicious activities. Those costs are being passed on to all of us as consumers with little being provided in return. Perhaps we can offer some additional value to the equation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)