Welcome to Windows Connected

Like most situations, there are legitimate reasons why some organizations/admins aren’t moving to R2, and there are many bogus reasons.

Legitimate reasons;

• Core application compatibility issues.  Unfortunately there are some core Microsoft applications that aren’t supported with R2 in the mix.  This is very, very unfortunate and Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  The product teams need to get themselves a little more in-sync with the OS teams on this.  Many of the core apps are just listed as ‘unsupported’ which essentially means simply that the product team hasn’t certified their product for the new OS.  That doesn’t mean it won’t work, just they haven’t tested it yet to make sure it does.  The simple fact of Microsoft saying ‘unsupported’ means no corporation will move to the new OS.  This alone really hurts adoption of R2.  Below are some product examples;
• Microsoft Exchange 2003/2007 – Microsoft Exchange 2010 is fully supported on R2, 2007 and 2003 are not.  Honestly, that’s not a big deal as no one is going to migrate their OS for Exchange without migrating the app to the next version as well.  The tricky part was that you couldn’t have R2 domain controllers with Exchange involved.  That’s the problem.  Things have changed in this regard.  See the links below to see the evolution of this issue;
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/09/21/452567.aspx – We are not supporting R2
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/04/453026.aspx – We will support R2
• http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/30/453327.aspx - Releasing the fix
• OCS 2007/ 2007 R2 – Office Communications Server 2007 and 2007 R2 are also un-supported on Server 2008 R2.  Again, the same scenario as Exchange, you aren’t going to migrate the underlying OS of already existing production servers but the domain controller issue also exists with OCS.  The other issue is that OCS is another Microsoft product that is sorely overlooked and as more and more Enterprises are learning of it’s awesomeness (yes, that’s a new word for today) they would like to build the product on the latest OS release to prevent upgrades in the future.  Unfortunately they cannot do this.  (This is in regards to an issue with .Net framework versions if I recall correctly.)  I was actually going to help a customer add in their first 2008 R2 domain controller when we found out about the OCS issue with R2 DC’s.  Needless to say the customer was very disappointed we couldn’t add an R2 DC.
• This issue is going away in Q1 of this year - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/supported-applications.aspx
• So, while this was a major stumbling block for 2008 R2 adoption, Microsoft is quickly rectifying the situation.  For a full list of supported applications for Server 2008 R2 and when the apps will be supported, check this link here - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/supported-applications.aspx
• Core applications are already in place.  This one is fairly self evident.  If you already have Exchange 2007 or OCS 2007 or Sharepoint 2007 in place, you aren’t going to migrate these core applications to a new server/OS until the next version is released.  This is just fiscally responsible and realistic.  For any new applications or expansion of current applications many admins will want to use R2 (again for the purpose of preventing having to do upgrades in the future) and if the application allows them to, they will.  (See the above issue.)
• Honestly, these are the only legitimate reasons I can think of for NOT moving to 2008 R2.  If you know of any others, please let me know in the comments and I’ll update the article.

Bogus reasons;

• Windows Server 2008 R2 is a ‘minor’ release.  Again, this is where Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot.  The thought behind the server teams doing a ‘major’ and ‘minor’ release schedule was they thought admins were afraid of ‘major’ OS releases and therefore would be more likely to adopt ‘minor’ releases interim.  I have to say I completely disagree with this assessment and here is why;
• Admins know ANY CHANGE equals RISK.  This doesn’t mean just the changes in the OS, but changing your production environment in any way equates some risk.  Large production environments are very complex systems and one change in one arena can affect other areas of the environment you would have never expected.  (For example, adding an R2 DC and suddenly OCS or Exchange starts having issues, something you wouldn’t expect to occur.)  Not to mention there is the bureaucracy and red tape that you have to go through in a large IT organization to make a change to the production environment.  That means if Server 2008 is billed as a ‘minor’ release, admins are going to pass on it because as a ‘minor’ release it won’t be worth the hassle and risk.  I’ll just wait until the next major release, make it worth my while.
• An additional note on this topic, I personally find billing R2 as a ‘minor’ release is also insulting to the product itself and all the hard work that went into it.  Personally I would have loved to see Server 2008 R2 sold as ‘Windows Server 7’, and the branding alone would have spurred adoption due to the great market acceptance of Windows 7.  (Obviously the Windows Phone division realized this.)
• General laziness.  Yep, we all know it.  There are many admins out there that just plain don’t like learning anything new, and don’t like change.  It’s just a job to them, and anything that causes them more work they hate.  These admins are easy to spot, they are the ones that complain Microsoft releasing another product is just about ‘making more money without really doing anything other than slapping a new name on an old product with a couple of tweaks.’  Yeah, we know who you are.  (By the way, DUH, of course they want to make money.  It’s called Capitalism!)
• Ignorance.  Most admins have no idea why they SHOULD move to R2.  Again, this is a failing on Microsoft for not getting the word out.  I have never heard Direct Access mentioned by anyone at Microsoft or seen it really talked about in the Tech Press.  There have been a few mentions but come on people, this is a POWERFUL and REVOLUTIONARY FEATURE!!  Microsoft should be screaming this from the roof tops!  Every time I tell an admin about it they stare at me in disbelief.  Half the time they think I’m lying, then they wonder why they’ve never heard of it before.  I agree with them, why haven’t they heard it before???  My advice to Microsoft is once again, work with the product teams to get your word out!  Every admin has their one product they are the experts on and pride themselves on that.  If every product team got the word out, you would see a huge improvement in the uptake of Server 2008 R2.
• We need to wait until at least the first service pack.  This is one of the lamest, stupidest excuses I always hear.  Maybe, MAYBE this was true back in the Windows NT days but welcome to the 21st century people.  Server 2003 in BETA was the most stable OS I had ever used and proved itself immediately in production.  It’s time to stop being cowards and start being men.

Finally there’s one reason that fits in both the legitimate and bogus reasons categories.

• Testing before deploying.  Many organizations don’t have the time or the resources to deploy a full lab of their production environment to make sure that a new OS isn’t going to wreak havoc.  This is a legitimate concern, but Microsoft has taken steps to make this easier.  By providing free already configured .VHD’s of new products/OS’s, Microsoft is making it easy for admins to play with the new releases without having to install anything, and Microsoft is going to continue to find ways to make this process even easier and more accessible to even the smallest of IT shops.

So, in conclusion if you haven’t learned about 2008 R2, it’s time you started doing your research.  Windows Server 2008 R2 is NOT a ‘minor’ release and should be treated with the same respect and resources that a major server OS release would.  Trust me on this, and you’ll be thanking me later.

I have been asked by many server admins over the last year about Server 2008 R2, and every time the question essentially is, “So, is there any reason to run R2?”  They ask this question assuming to already know the answer of “of course not” and are shocked when I tell them the answer is ABSOLUTELY.  Now, this is just my opinion, but I  believe that 2008 R2 is as big a leap from 2008, as 2008 was from 2003.  Now, I’m sure I’ll hear some detractors on this, but here is why I believe this to be true in all the ways that matter.

So why is R2 so great?  Well, ask yourself this.  Do you think Windows 7 is far better than Windows Vista?  If you answered yes, then ask yourself why?  Got it?  Well, the exact same reasons why you love Windows 7 over Vista are the exact same reasons you will love R2 over 2008.  The resource utilization is vastly superior in R2 to 2008.  In my real world experience, I have a good 33% more efficiency in an R2 server over a 2008 one.  (That’s not an actual benchmarked stat, that is my observation of servers in production.)  Server 2008/Vista and Windows 7/2008 R2 are the same code base and kernel.  In fact, the client OS’s are now based on the Server OS’s rather than the other way around.  (This happened when they scrapped Longhorn 4000 series builds and based the new code on Server 2003 rather than XP code base.)

Now, there are many new features/improvements over 2008 in R2, but I’m just going to address a few and provide you links to learn about the rest;

• Hyper-V R2 – The new Hyper-V has many new features including live migration features, greater than 32GB RAM support/ >4 proc (host), etc.  Plus, it’s free.  To learn more, go here - http://www.microsoft.com/hyper-v-server/en/us/default.aspx
• Direct Access – This is the most advanced feature added to Windows Server since well, maybe Active Directory itself.  Now, while I lay claim to some credit of getting this feature into the OS (can’t talk about it :-) ) I about had a heart attack when it actually made it to the product.  What is Direct Access?
  • Are you familiar with RPC over HTTPS, now called ‘Outlook Anywhere’, which is where your Outlook connects securely to Exchange without a VPN and all traffic just goes over port 443?  Well then, Direct Access is the same concept, except we’re talking ALL DOMAIN TRAFFIC.  That means you can domain manage laptops in remote offices or at users home the EXACT SAME WAY as you would if they were on your local LAN.  That means they talk to the domain before the user even logs in, applying computer and user group policies (including software deployments) access to local file and print shares, etc.  You are literally looking at domain controlled computers over the WAN with no VPN’s, MPLS, etc.  Users don’t have to change a thing, when the laptop is at work and when they are home, everything just WORKS!
  • A couple of notes;
    • First, this requires all client computers be Windows 7+.
    • It uses some new protocols that Microsoft has implemented.  A quick layman’s description, RPC inside of IPSEC inside of SSL.
    • I’ve had the documentation detailing exactly how the security layer of all this works and given it to a DOD security contractor to review.  I was told it was the most secure commercial implementation he had ever seen, and thought it may even be impervious to ‘man in the middle’ attacks.  Again, this was only his opinion, but I trust his opinion.
  • In summary I cannot stress this enough.  LEARN ABOUT DIRECT ACCESS.  Get started with an over-view here - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=D8EB248B-8BF7-4798-A1D1-04D37F2E013C&displaylang=en
• IIS 7.5 – Don’t be scared, this isn’t the leap of IIS 7 from IIS 6.  Far from it, just keep the same concepts of Windows 7 over Vista in mind here.  It’s IIS 7 streamlined and more efficient.  Enough said.

To learn more about why Server 2008 R2 is so awesome, and why you should switch, see the links below.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731400.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/r2-compare-features.aspx

http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=10743

In part 2 I’ll go into some reasons WHY you might not be able to fully go R2 yet…

Yep, Microsoft has finally announced the Zune Phones.  Notice that’s plural, Zune Phones.  That means each handset maker is going to be able to make their own dream phone.  Also, they’ll have a centralized marketplace like the Apple store, except I can run any app I want that I got from anywhere, unlike the iPhone and others.  Now me, my requirements are slide out keyboard (on-screen keyboards have yet to work well enough for me) and an OLED screen.  Basically take the HTC Touch Pro 2 and 7 series it.  Want to see more, check it out!

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/LauraFoy/First-Look-Windows-Phone-7-Series-Hands-on-Demo/

Enjoy!

I’m not going to say much here as believe it or not I don’t like starting firestorms.  But it begs the question, do you feel safe hosting your data with Google?  This includes your search data, your email, Google docs, etc.  Google has been in bed with the Government for a long time, they’ve been hacked by China, and now they’re getting in bed with the NSA.  Read the article below, then let us know in the comments.  Do you feel safe hosting your data with Google and tell us why you feel one way or another.  I just ask you please don’t be crude in your comments. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057_pf.html

Update:

Google’s new service ‘Buzz’ is now also ripe is privacy issues.  See some below articles just for starters;

Google Responds to Buzz Privacy Issues. Again

Google alters Buzz after privacy complaints

Google Apologizes for Buzz Privacy Issues

Thoughts anyone?

For the record, I don't think Microsoft needs to buy anyone to be successful in the smartphone market space.  I don't buy into the notion that Windows Mobile is dead or that Windows Mobile 7 will arrive too late to matter.  Sure, it’s taken Microsoft far too long to field a competitive product in the post-iPhone landscape--even if Windows Mobile’s “uncompetitiveness” is more perception than reality.  By all measures, Windows Mobile 7 will arrive later than it should have, but I respect Microsoft for taking the time to do it right versus just rushing something out to market.  It’s a Nintendo-esque approach, but if Microsoft nails it, it will be setting the foundation for a mobile strategy that can endure for the long haul. 

Fortunately for Microsoft, I’m not sure there really is such a thing as coming to market “too late” in the cell phone space.  It’s easy to forget how things were in the pre-iPhone picture, but in terms of time, it wasn't that long ago that the Motorola Razr was the hottest “dumb phone” around while Blackberries, and smartphones in general, were still somewhat of a niche market.  And you see where Motorola is today.  The turnover rate for cell phones is a lot faster than for PCs since new phones always are around the corner and consumers are stuck with their phones only for the contract period, which typically is two years.  It might be different if consumers paid full price their phones, but the carrier subsidies keep the price point low enough to make upgrading your phone every couple of years a viable proposition. 

So, while I think Microsoft can hold its own without buying anyone, I do think we might see some consolidation in the mobile market space.  There are too many proprietary players in the market: Apple’s iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry and Palm’s Pre/Pixi.  Each of these devices tie the operating system to the hardware, making them closed platforms.  There definitely are merits to having a single company developing both the hardware and software, but personally, I think separating the software from the hardware is the way to go.  It allows both pieces to evolve independently without the software developers worrying about how OS changes affect the hardware guys and vice-versa.  Furthermore, this separation helps create a partner ecosystem, which drives standardization and portability: I don’t have to buy all new applications just because I changed devices. 

To me, the hardware-software tie-in is the blessing and the curse of the iPhone.  If you have a significant monetary investment in the App Store, you’ll be hard-pressed to switch to a different smartphone platform and abandon that App Store investment.  That type of lock-in is great for Apple from a competitive standpoint, but going back to the cell phone turnover rate, I’m not sure it’s sustainable or realistic given how fast the technology changes.  However, I think that model is fine for media devices like the iPod Touch because I don’t need, or necessarily want, to buy a new one of those every two years.  But then again, given the number of free and sub-$5 applications, do most iPhone users have a “significant” investment in the App Store? 

Regardless, when you look at the PC landscape, you see the market has generally settled on 3 platforms: Windows, Mac and Linux.  And 2/3 of those arguably are niche platforms themselves.  So, I just don’t think the smartphone market can sustain 6 major platforms (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, WebOS, and Symbian/Maemo), 3 of which are proprietary.  Obviously, the iPhone isn’t going away, and I think Blackberry is too entrenched and popular to disappear anytime soon.  So, of the proprietary players, that leaves Palm as the odd man out.

Palm has an innovative platform with the WebOS, but in a somewhat uncharacteristic move for the company, it dropped the ball on the hardware.  Think what you will of the Pre, but there are too many complaints about the hardware for it to be a definitive success.  I thought the QWERTY-bar design of the Pixi was tempting, but it had worse hardware specs than the Pre and its price and positioning didn’t make sense. 

Hardware maladies aside, Palm was very forward thinking with the WebOS.  As a  platform built around HTML, JavaScript and CSS, developers can create Web-based applications that potentially can run on multiple devices with little modification, reducing the need to write native apps for every smartphone platform.  The need for a JavaScript runtime engine inadvertently introduced some performance issues with the Pre; however, I think better hardware would have mitigated JavaScript overhead.  And given the momentum of cloud computing and the evolution of Web technologies, a Web-centric platform seems like a pretty smart bet.

If Microsoft bought Palm, it immediately would improve its perception in the market by inheriting a modern platform that supports touch-friendly usage and capacitive screens.  Furthermore, MS could embrace and extend WebOS development with technologies like Silverlight and .Net.  And it’s the Web-centric aspect of the WebOS that would make it relatively palatable to Microsoft from an acquisition standpoint.  Yes, WebOS is based on Linux, but Palm is less in-your-face about the Linux underpinnings than Google is with Android or Nokia is with Symbian and Maemo.  And perhaps Microsoft could port the UI stack, app runtime engine and development tools to Windows Mobile.  But if MS is confident that Windows Mobile 7 will blow WebOS out of the water, than the acquisition would be predominately around talent.  Perhaps WebOS developers would drive the next phase of Windows Mobile and Zune app development—kind of like an in-house SPB Software for Microsoft.

Of course, an acquisition of Palm by Microsoft is unlikely to happen.  Microsoft has given no indication that intends to acquire anyone and given its recent job posts, the company seems 100% behind Windows Mobile 7.  But if Microsoft doesn’t buy Palm, then hopefully someone else does (maybe Nokia?).  Otherwise, I’m not sure Palm can continue to exist in its current form.  Without a financial suitor or some sort of blockbuster device, I see Palm going the way of Sega and transforming into a ghost of its former, once glorious self: a pure software developer of premium mobile applications for Android and the iPhone.