I enjoyed Mark Smith’s "MCSEs Speak Out." I wish Microsoft would create a certification path similar to that of Cisco Systems’ Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (CCIE). I have visions of a Master MCSE certification, for which applicants must demonstrate their skills in a lab. The written portion of the test would remain as it is now, and the lab portion would require a true hands-on demonstration of deployment, administration, and problem-resolution knowledge over a 2- to 3-day period under the eye of Microsoft engineers. The Master MCSE would elevate the pedestrian status of the MCSE, reclaim respect for the certification, and generate esprit de corps among certification holders. No more brain dumps, test kings, or abuse of the Microsoft certification system.

—Paul Wetty
]]>Paul Wetty Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:58:26 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorTue, 27 Apr 2004 11:52:04 GMT

I agree with Mark Smith’s comments in Fast Forward: "MCSEs Speak Out" (February 2004, InstantDoc ID 41392) about Microsoft’s lack of support for MCSEs. My Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 MCSE certifications are current, and I’m in the process of upgrading to a Windows Server 2003 MCSE. Companies considered my NT 4.0 MCSE valuable in its day, but my Win2K MCSE just doesn’t command the same recognition and value. However, my Novell NetWare 5.0 and

NetWare 4.11 CNE certifications have brought major benefits to my company and to me. Novell gives me discounted technical support, the Novell Knowledgebase free on CD-ROM, and a complete set of current evaluation software for my company and me to test. Novell updates the evaluation software a couple of times a year and only charges me $15 for shipping and handling. I believe Microsoft should take a cue from the support and recognition that Novell gives to its CNEs. If it did so, the MCSE would become more valuable both to professionals being certified and also to their employers and clients. As far as paper MCSEs go, I don’t believe that people with certification but no experience get very far with their limited knowledge. Yes, the situation is a problem, but I believe it’s a problem not solely for Microsoft but rather for the entire certification industry.

—Jason A. Kinder
]]>Jason A. Kinder Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:52:04 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/internet/mag-net-izing-windows-2000-nt-solutions#commentsAnchorWed, 21 Apr 2004 05:04:10 GMT
I wanna weekly magazine for knowing about networking & their problems.]]>Salaix Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:04:10 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/internet/mag-net-izing-windows-2000-nt-solutions#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorFri, 26 Mar 2004 17:56:16 GMT
Personally I dont’ understand why subscription to technet is such a big deal to many people. We had the subscription for about 3 years before we canceled it. The reason: 1. Their search engine is complete junk. I can find answers faster by using google technet search then I can with the technet software. 2. Beta software has sooo many bugs in it that it’s not even worth trying until the final product comes out. Getting a discount may be great but most of my problems can be resolvec by either google or jsifaq. As for the cert itself. I think it’s overrated and degrading to IT veterans. WHY? Because companies are more eager to hire someone with MCSE and no experience and then pay them half of what someone with 5 or more years of experience would expect. However, anyone with experience AND MCSE has far more value over experience without the cert.]]>Russ T Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:56:16 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorSun, 14 Mar 2004 17:08:39 GMT
How about this: I have been a non-MCSE administering a small Windows 2000 domain with Lotus Notes, Captaris RightFax, and Citrix for 6 years. In my situation, I have to not only deal with the day-to-day of client machines breaking down, but I also have to answer silly questions (i.e. when a user asks "what is my username?") about mundane subjects. My boss (a Controller) has no clue what kind of network I have set up nor what powerful options I have given to our user community. They should be so lucky that their only burning question from time-to-time is "what is my username?" I have already completed my A+ and my Network + certification, and, as of tomorrow, I am going to begin classes to complete my MCSE 2003 certification. In these classes, there are people ranging from those who are like me, self-taught and eager to learn, to those who are barely able to operate a mouse and to click on the correct check-box or button in a Windows environment. At the end of the day, I am hoping that my six years of Network Admin experience will allow me to leave my present job for a new one. I also am aware that my six years experience is all I have going for me in a competative job market. It would be nice if I were to encounter a prospective employer who found my resume to be a good outline of the kind of professional they want--a person who took the time to be certified; a person who, before he was certified, did what he could to effectively run a network who ingenously used the few tools at his disposal to get the job done; and a person who is eager to expand his knowledge of this trade to become good at what he does in exchange for decent pay. Such dedication makes for an excellent candidate. I also have no illusions about the Ciscos, the CompTIA’s and the Microsofts of the world who have you spend thousands to prepare and to take their certification exams. To them, you are "enrolled" in their program and enrollments equal $$$$’s The benefit to MCSE’s and other certified professions should be realized from two avenues: from the certificate vendor (for lack of a better word) and from the employers--current and future. MCSE’s should be recognized by the "vendors" like Microsoft and given more than privaledged access to a newsgroup or two. In addition, present employers should give MCSE’s the bump in salary they deserve similar to that of a college graduate--especially if they have acheived what I have on their own. Prospective employers do themselves a disservice simply scanning and sorting resumes based on keywords searching for those who are immersed in the alphabet soup of certifications--many of which really amount to nothing. These folks should invest the extra money to hire a recruiter experienced in asking the correct questions of their applicants. Were employers and vendors to do these simple things at minimal cost, the acheivement that is receiving a certification will not be minimized and really will count for something in both the employee/certificant’s career. That, in turn, will building corporate and product loyalty. The employers will see good performance from the certified employees, the employees will realize tangible rewards for their efforts, and Microsoft will be on the road to planting the long-lasting seeds of product loyalty--not just because they are the biggest, but because they have a group of Admins out there who realize that they are are good as the TVand magazine ads say they are.]]>Jorge Herrera Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:08:39 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorWed, 03 Mar 2004 08:08:35 GMT
How does one find out who these user groups are, that are involved with this Advisory Council to Microsoft?]]>Ben Ahlquist Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:08:35 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorFri, 27 Feb 2004 02:27:56 GMT
Costs, Microsoft charge for a server licence, they charge for a client OS licence, they charge for a client access licence to use the two together, they then charge to train the administrators who require the knowledge to technically implement their software. Administrators are currently Microsoft’s only real friends, IT business managers are only interested in going to the board with cost savings and will not go and ask for money to implement a new solution when the old one works fine and this is the problem. Windows98 and NT still work so why move is what the board ask? They are told there are technical reasons and they dismiss the request. More and more it is the technicians who have to make the business case and they are not given enough support, credit or reward to do this by the employer or companies like Microsoft. Microsoft should be doing a lot more for this group, without their support Microsoft do not have a future because open source will take over, because on paper it looks cheaper and that’s the bottom line.]]>Chris Marsden Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:27:56 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorThu, 26 Feb 2004 20:37:42 GMT
During the past 24 years I have manufactured, installed and supported thousands of computers and servers, and I administered to hundreds of networks. Often I support other consulting firms when they cannot find sufficient answers to their woes using the avaialable (and often costly) support options that MS offers, and they in turn have supported me when I could not find answers or help I was seeking. I personally maintain my working knowledge of the industry daily. I read computer manuals every night, test network scenarios and solutions, and I do so for hours after coming home from working in the field every day. I test new MS products as (usually) received through my action pack subscriptions, and I attend events as I can afford to or when time allows. I serve my customers needs daily and when a client calls me I do everything possible to resolve problems quickly and do so without the benefit of Microsofts backing or support. Sure, I get the same calls from Microsoft (almost daily) asking if I’d like to add "this and that" service to my network inventory, but everything comes at a cost and the price is almost always just too high. In 1996 I received my MCSE certification while in my 6th year of administering a small network of just over three hundred machines, most of which I built by hand, run by servers I built to make use of the latest technology. Quickly enough after that certification was earned, I was hired to administer a fairly large network of 11,000 pcs that had over 30,000 end users. I did so with the support of only two other individuals (both in their young 20’s) and quickly found that while we had officially contracted for MS support we had no Microsoft techs in the wings that knew anything more about their systems than I did? Within a year I had enough e-mail siasters with Exchange, server crashes from and AD integration with Novell that couldn’t officially be supported, and other woeful tales that soon led me to the decision to return to the more sane surroundings of my own small consulting business. What I found in terms of Microsoft supporting me in all these environments has often left me looking for alternative means of resolution when faced with the really tough issues. If you seek suport for MS products when integrating with any other products, the support line goes dead. User groups and webinars are about all I can stand anymore as all the professional launches, conferences and various sponsored events still leave me selling sold short, if not short of cash and they give little or no information on how things get done as much as they are ad events promoting the latest and greatest whatever. AD migrations prove to be hard to achieve, and without secondary support options which now are far too costly for me, and adding the idea that anyone would ever have to integrate a Novell system in the mix, or Linux is professional suicide in my eyes? Today, I manage small business networks (50 pcs and under only) and my end users who often find themselves treading the qaugmire of Microsofts wake of product saturations have lost intereest in the stereotypical rederick. With the constant upgrades, patches, new products and lack of support for those still existing products which seem to have been forgotten by the rolling Microsoft machine, many of them (like me) have felt like turning back to paper and pencil. I’m not so sure that MS is wrong for doing what they do when they charge for support resolution. But, to mass market their products to so many admins, who understand so little about what they are getting into and to lend so little real support when things go bad... it’s a wonder some days that Businesses get along as well as they do? From someone that holds 16 certifications from Microsoft, Novell, Prosoft and Comp-TIA that may sound sadly familiar to far too many admins who are hurting for answers. I still run Windows 2003 servers, and manage Novell networks as well but the thrill of working in IT has soured because of the lack of support I receive as an MS administrator, MCSE and end user of their products. Even though I still feel good when I can help others get their businesses back on track when things go bad, it’s hardly enough. And still I hold out hope for better tomorrows. If Microsoft really wants to help the worlds admins and businesses in general, it has to start with the people that support how business gets done. If they can really do that, I might just become a believer again. Until then though, I’ll hold onto my doubts since thats about all I can afford.]]>Wade Hoffarth Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:37:42 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorThu, 26 Feb 2004 08:27:24 GMT
"... ideas about how Microsoft can improve relations ..." M$, and its customer-victims, could reap untold benefits IF and WHEN it starts to respect its customers as intelligent human beings. How many times have we heard the story that White Hat Hackers find a flaw, inform M$ privately in good conscience, and are simply ignored for months, thus causing public disclosure of the exploit to FORCE M$ to write a patch? This is the boundless arrogance and lack of corporate responsibility that M$ demonstrates on a continuing basis. M$ has created the whole spam/virus/Trojan/Worm/DoS thing by selling the world buggy software and willfully failing to fix it. One effective technique for improving relations would be to actually RELATE, as opposed to ignore. A simple, inexpensive way to do this would be for M$ to run a newsgroup for EACH software product and actively solicit bug reports and suggestions for improving the functionality of its bugware; and then, squash the bugs and improve the software’s functionality. Too simple for a megabillion dollar company and tens of thousands of engineers to think of??]]>laurie forti Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:27:24 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorWed, 25 Feb 2004 23:40:11 GMT
First I want to say that it sounds like a good idea, but how far and wide is this initiative going to span.I hope its not just in the U.S, because don’t forget that a lot of administrators are outside the U.S, and have limited exposure to 1st hand info. Decisions(sometimes wrong ones) are made through a lot of web related research. These could have been eliminated through the proposed channels. Well, whatever is being considered should involve easily accesible channels to be set up between admins and Microsoft (and not necesarily email), especially for those of us outside the US.]]>OlalekanWed, 25 Feb 2004 23:40:11 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorWed, 25 Feb 2004 10:59:27 GMT
Microsoft constantly talks about the fact that it is the small to medium size partner that is responsible for the majority of their sales. These "Microsoft Partners" are out there day in and day out pushing their products. Every year they have a partner briefing that talks about how important we are and each year they continue to ingnore those smaller partners. When asked for recommendations or partners in the area that can do the project that the customer requires, they continue to recommend the "Gold Certified Partners". I know that their name is on the line when they recommend someone, but they need to realize that those "Gold Certified Partners" cannot do it all and they are alienating the loyal group of partners that are their backbone. We may not have thousands of employees behind us, but many of us are far better technically than the engineers in those bureaucratically challanged "Gold Certified Partners". We understand that there are some projects that are out of the scope of our abilities (from a manpower standpoint, not a technical standpoint), but if they continue to bypass us, we will have to find areas where the very people we are making successful are not taking the foor off our table.]]>Gene Kresge Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:59:27 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorTue, 24 Feb 2004 04:50:09 GMT
I agree with you 100%. Back in ’98 i passed the NT4 exams, up until now i haven’t got a real intensive from Microsoft for the Win2k upgrade, as well as for the Win2k3 exams. I really think MS should start contributing back to those MCSE guys, in return for their contribution to MS (ie: exam high prices).]]>RonenTue, 24 Feb 2004 04:50:09 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-2000-server/tivo-for-the-enterprise#commentsAnchorTue, 17 Feb 2004 16:01:53 GMT
Educom’s Exchange Archive Solution has the EDR systems you have mentioned and it is available. www.educomts.com]]>Doak HefnerTue, 17 Feb 2004 16:01:53 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-2000-server/tivo-for-the-enterprise#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorWed, 11 Feb 2004 07:26:14 GMT
Regarding "hans.straat"’s comment: Hans has a point, but it is not directly related to what Mark Smith was talking about. Mark is suggesting that Microsoft back up the very people whom it had certified and support them. He is not saying (although I do also agree) that many MCSEs out there are simply "paper MCSEs" - a completely different point. Now, are there paper MCSEs out there who are itching for hands-on experience? Of course. But the difference is in the attitude. The paper MCSE says, "All I need to get the big bucks is right here in this sliver of paper, which I got through cheating and memorizing exam answers." The *REAL* MCSE says, "Knowledge and hands-on experience go hand-in-hand." Only time will tell what kind of MCSE one encounters from day to day.]]>Simon Chang Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:26:14 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorTue, 10 Feb 2004 09:20:08 GMT
Unfortunately MCSE certs are going to be worthless in the long haul. I’ve seen several people memorize the information from practice tests and get their MCSE yet were not be able to answer a simple AD question. I agree that Microsoft needs to reward MCSE’s but also needs to change the training and testing. Not all companies use Terminal and Certificate services yet an MCSE-wannabe has to study for them. The MCSE labs need to be improved for those of us that are "hands-on" and just can’t memorize items long enough to pass the test. As usual Microsoft is making big bucks with shoddy software and support and we IT types suffer.]]>Jeff Gagne Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:20:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorMon, 09 Feb 2004 02:12:44 GMT
I think with the big boom when all people got cerftified with tools like trandumper, transenders etc most MCSE certified people only got it on paper but without technical background. They easelie got a job and although they don’t know sh*t about the reallive problems and solutions etc they stil got big paychecks. I noticed that since 2003 that has changed, people get asked technical questions at our work before they are allowed in. If they fail simple questions how to make a net use or how to fix a WINS database etc they are not welcome. The MCSE certification is in my eyes just a beginning then the jobyears count and the expirience you have. with kind regards. ]]>hans.straat Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:12:44 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/training-and-certification2/mcses-speak-out#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:33 GMT
After reading several replies to Mark Smith’s article "The Soul of Windows," I can’t resist formulating my own theory about the reason Microsoft changed the marketing focus from systems administrators to top executives. This is what I think: As many of us agree, Microsoft didn’t take market leadership because they offer better products. Was Windows 3.0 better than Macintosh? No. Was Windows NT Server better than Novell? No. The Microsoft products succeeded simply because they were less expensive.

Microsoft’s target used to be systems administrators. Microsoft was trying to convince administrators that its programs were good enough to replace the market leaders but at much less cost for the enterprise*so, we could make the appropriate justification (i.e., the Return on Investment—ROI—argument) to the finance group. Let’s face it: We don’t have any decision power in the enterprise. Or do we? Can any admins implement any high-tech project (e.g., Storage Area Network—SAN, wireless) without the approval of the chief financial guy? Our job is to evaluate, recommend, and, if approved, implement. Microsoft understood the buying process very well and still does. Now that the company has taken the enterprise environment, it doesn’t need the systems administrators any more to justify its programs. Now it can go directly to that financial guy. The reason Microsoft is scared by Linux and the open-source initiative is not that the programs could be better than Microsoft’s but because implementing and maintaining them could be much less expensive than using Microsoft products.

Until one company demonstrates that it can live with open-source applications alone, Microsoft’s dominance won’t be threatened. But Microsoft doesn’t want to wait for that day. What does that mean for systems administrators? Well, in the same way we brought Microsoft to the enterprise, we can get rid of Microsoft by justifying the cost of using alternatives to Microsoft products. I have to admit that this task is more difficult than it was in the early 1990s. But it’s not impossible. Install a small network in your home, test the applications, extrapolate the results, and calculate the cost. You might be surprised!]]>Ricardo Torres Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:33 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:17 GMT
Mark Smith’s "The Soul of Windows" (January 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc 27392) was informative, but I would like to present an additional view. I wasn’t a part of the initial Windows "club" when it first started, and I’ve been a network administrator for only 4 years. Microsoft isn’t a club or a hobby anymore. It’s a company. Why is this so wrong? The company was successful and made money. Most of the magazine’s readers have jobs because someone somewhere made a profit and hired people to help their company make a profit.

Some of the readers responding to this article are looking for a warm and fuzzy club feeling from Microsoft. But considering the company’s size, I think that’s an unrealistic and possibly unfair expectation. I think Microsoft makes an honest effort to serve the customer and be helpful. I’ve found that Microsoft’s technicians and customer representatives have great attitudes, and they’re concerned about equipping me to help the people I support.

Many new IT employees in the market aren’t looking for a club but for employment. I read Windows & .NET Magazine for helpful instruction and advice, not to be in a community. For most of us, it’s how we get a job. It’s not about being in a club. So let’s just get to work.]]>Ken Brooks Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:40:17 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 11:15:50 GMT
In Fast Forward: "The Hazards of Closed-Process Development" (February 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 37586), Mark Smith asserts that Microsoft is losing customers to Linux because Microsoft hasn’t gone to an open-source model. Maybe some customers are defecting. But open source is, I think, the least likely reason. Most people who implement Linux simply despise Microsoft for one reason or another. Some people have been with Linux for quite some time. As for those who are adopting Linux later in life, the reason might simply be cost.

The concept of open source is not something that most IT shops are up in arms about. Most organizations are more concerned about security, stability, and cost. Mark uses as an example the need for Microsoft to make the wizard development process more open. I don’t know too many Linux administrators who use wizards. In fact, the UI is one of the primary reasons they stay away from Windows. I suppose an API for creating wizards would be nice. I’m not so sure that an entire open-source OS would help most developers create wizards of their own.

Why should Microsoft make its OSs open source? Doesn’t it have enough trouble with security holes without unscrupulous individuals probing Windows’ innards? Besides, what other vendor has been as helpful to its community of software developers? Microsoft’s bread-and-butter to this day is the large number of applications available. If the company were that closed with its OS, where would it be today?

Who really wants open source in the Microsoft OS anyway? Linux developers have been working very hard to achieve an emulation environment that would let all Windows applications run under Linux natively (that is, without VMware running an entire Windows OS). Wouldn’t an open-source Windows eliminate the legal and technical barriers to such development? What organization wouldn’t jump ship to Linux if they could run all of their current applications under a free (or nearly so) OS?

Mark mentions that open source makes getting improvements into the product easier. On the horizon is a new collaboration of Linux vendors called UnitedLinux (The SCO Group, Conectiva , SuSE Linux, and Turbolinux). How will they agree on the improvements to be adopted across all of their Linux flavors? Will that collaboration slow the development process? It remains to be seen but probably means a better OS in the end.

Linux is growing on me every day—much as Windows NT grew on me during Novell’s glory days. Linux is gaining ground in the server arena and will gain more in the desktop realm after Linux has more of the "wizard" feel of the Microsoft OS. What’s ironic is how much the Linux OS is striving to be like Windows. If Linux has learned anything from Windows, it’s that imitation remains the greatest form of flattery.]]>Mark Morgan Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:15:50 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 10:34:56 GMT
I agree with Mark Smith’s assertion that Microsoft has abandoned IT administrators. The first version of Windows NT that I booted up was the October 1992 beta version of NT 3.1. At the time, I was researching alternatives to Windows 3.1, which required frequent reboots, and I wasn’t looking forward to the warmed-over upgrade that Microsoft named Windows 95. NT has been a good choice for my organization, and I think it has contributed to making our organization productive. At the time that I recommended our organization standardize on NT, I expected the licensing cost to drop after Microsoft succeeded in migrating home users to an NT-based version of Windows. I based my expectations on the industrywide trend for software costs to fall over time. That has never happened with Windows. I am distressed to see licensing costs rise as Microsoft gains a larger share of the business enterprise. In addition, Microsoft’s onerous licensing terms practically force regular upgrades according to Microsoft’s schedule, paying for Windows twice on every desktop. Microsoft has deliberately confusing licensing terms, sales reps who feign ignorance of licensing details (I speak from experience), and (worst of all) Windows Product Activation (WPA). I feel betrayed by Microsoft. I am so philosophically opposed to WPA that I plan to load Linux on my next home computer.]]>Glenn Schultz Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:34:56 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 10:34:52 GMT
I’ve been a Microsoft support engineer since the release of Windows/286 and Windows NT 3.1, and I’ve subscribed to Windows & .NET Magazine since the first issue. I’m also a former Microsoft employee. In the last year, I’ve mostly returned to the UNIX environment where I began my computing career 12 years ago. Although I’ve felt slighted by Microsoft for the last several years, I made my decision to depart from Windows mainly because, as I told my supervisors, Microsoft doesn’t understand computer security. The Klez and Bugbear worms are the latest examples of that lack of understanding.

Regarding the Windows community, in the past, Microsoft cultivated the community by holding technical presentations in major cities and giving attendees CD-ROMs of Microsoft OSs and applications. I got my certifications not by attending expensive classes but by setting up small networks at home and living with the code so that I could learn how to deploy and support it long before I installed it in the office. I passed the certification tests by living in an NT environment at home first and later at work. I still have the NT 4.0 three­CD-ROM pack that Microsoft gave to those who attended the IT conference when NT 4.0 was released.

Since then, Microsoft has stopped building the IT community that got NT into corporate offices. The company stopped listening to IT people and developed global products that have features that most offices never use and sometimes make the products poorly suited to small to midsized shops. For example, the integration of Microsoft Exchange Server with Active Directory (AD) prevents you from using a single Exchange Server system as a bridgehead to route mail to multiple Internet domains. If you’re supporting several 100-user email domains, this "feature" makes Exchange 2000 Server an expensive choice. Exchange Server 5.5 was better suited to small to midsized offices, and I supported Exchange 5.5 at Nortel Networks, where we had 87,000 users at one point.

I know that Microsoft, like any other software developer, makes most of its money by licensing software to businesses. I have no doubt that it’s easier to ensure license compliance in corporations, which use license-metering applications to ensure compliance, than in small businesses that are more concerned with surviving to fight another day. But small businesses—not global corporations—made Microsoft successful. It was Microsoft’s determination to scale Windows and Windows applications to global corporation sizes that exposed the security flaws in the Microsoft platform and the scalability limitations in SQL Server. Because of these problems, most Windows administrators still choose to scale out, rather than scale up, and use someone else’s (read that non-Microsoft) tools to secure the network perimeter.

Most of my contracts currently involve integrating UNIX, particularly Linux, into already existing Windows networks. However, one client was redeveloping its point-of-sales application to run on Red Hat Linux 7.0, offering a non-Microsoft alternative that’s easier to support than Windows 2000 or NT in a highly distributed environment (convenience store chains). Linux looks poised to eat up the low end of the Microsoft customer base just as Windows did to Sun Microsystems, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard (HP) several years ago. The Linux community very much reminds me of the NT community of the NT 4.0 days. Has Microsoft lost its community? Yes, but it doesn’t seem to care. The company seems to think that CEOs, not IT managers, decide whose software gets installed. This top-down marketing scheme is one more slap in the face of those who really do implement the technology that runs businesses, daring us to try to go to some other platform. OK, Microsoft, we will.]]>Thomas S. Fortner Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:34:52 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 10:33:37 GMT
Regarding Mark Smith’s Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows," congratulations on saying what needed to be said. The author voiced the feelings of everyone involved with the trials and tribulations of Microsoft. I hope the company will sit up and take notice. In the meantime, I will continue to juggle my time between Windows NT and Linux, waiting to see who will come out on top.]]>Andrew Szasz Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:33:37 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 10:32:05 GMT
Mark Smith’s Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows" was well written, but you could make myriad analogies and comparisons that put Microsoft’s behavior in a different light. First, there seems to be a cycle of aging in the business world. Your description of Microsoft’s early days seems comparable to the first steps in that cycle. Microsoft’s current behavior seems analogous to a more mature part of that same cycle. Companies grow up and mature. Should Microsoft not be allowed to do that? Should Microsoft be allowed to remain only in its startup phase with startup-style marketing and not be allowed to grow and mature as the early-style marketing brings success and growth?

Second, wasn’t this magazine formerly Windows NT Magazine—before you sold out to a big behemoth? I liked Windows NT Magazine’s early days and its early style of writing and marketing and advertising. Now that the magazine is older, everything has changed. The publisher is big-time and not grassroots anymore. Can’t you go back to the way it used to be?

Third, look at Hewlett-Packard (HP). The company went from a garage to a gigantic global company. Think you can still walk into the garage and talk to Carly? Do you think HP still maintains grassroots marketing styles? Products change and mature. Companies grow and mature.

I think we should applaud Microsoft because it’s trying to look forward and create the next great thing. Although I agree with your initial premise and I do miss the grassroots days of the early and mid-1990s, would you still have Microsoft looking back to 7 years ago rather than marching forward?

Finally, can you provide an example of a company that has experienced phenomenal success and growth and still has retained its grassroots marketing efforts? I hope one is out there, but I can’t think of one at the moment.

Thanks for your comments. The grassroots or bottoms-up marketing approach is still possible for Microsoft but a lot trickier given the overwhelming success of the Windows platform. Microsoft has finally admitted, however, that IT administrators won’t automatically run out and buy the latest version of Windows Server and upgrade their entire shop.

Every large company can spend its marketing money by taking a product approach or a branding approach. For example, General Motors (GM) could promote its brand or promote specific cars. The company chooses the latter approach because it works. The products build the brand. Think about it: GM could dump all its car-specific ads and simply advertise, "GM: The Car for the Agile Driver." People would say, "Yeah, but what are the features, what am I getting, and how does it compare with other cars? I don’t get it." That’s exactly what IT administrators are saying.

Technical communities are built on products and product groupings. Are you a Microsoft SQL Server developer, an Exchange Server administrator, a .NET guy, a Windows 2000 administrator, or a Cisco Systems VPN expert? Or, are you an Agile computer guy? One of the results of Microsoft’s success is the number of Microsoft products IT people need to be aware of. No one can be an expert at all of them—so we specialize and form product communities. We want Microsoft to talk about the overall vision but also talk to our community as if it’s the most important community in the world to the company. Microsoft might find this tactic tough but not impossible to do. Marketing to CFOs and other business executives is an entirely different matter. Executives don’t really care about the functionality or features of our technical gear—they just want to know the Return on Investment (ROI), the headcount impact, and the expense reductions. Perhaps "Agile" works with these guys, if Agile implies "Most bang for the buck."

I gave Microsoft credit for getting Bill Gates out in the market to promote the .NET vision to developers. But Gates needs to talk to IT administrators or get someone else to do it. I don’t think the size of the company affects this need for a strong vision in a rapidly changing market. The bottom line is that customers need to feel some sense of community around a product set. If they don’t, they go somewhere where they do feel that community.
—Mark Smith]]>Jeff Bach Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:32:05 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 10:31:14 GMT
In Mark Smith’s Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows" (January 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 27392), the author states, "The Windows community didn’t hate anyone in the way the Linux folks seem to hate Gates." I also consider myself to have been a part of the Windows NT community (which is quite distinct from the Windows community). I recall holding a visceral dislike for Apple Computer, IBM, Corel’s WordPerfect, and particularly Novell.

Today, I consider myself to be more a part of the Linux community. I don’t hate either Bill Gates or Microsoft. But it seems to me that as Microsoft vanquished its competitors, it moved on to targeting its customers.

One of the fundamental issues in the antitrust suit is that we expect achieving success to be a forceful and often brutal process. We also expect that upon achieving dominance, the vicious tactics we admired on the way up will be abandoned for more subtle ones. Microsoft still hasn’t learned subtlety.

Microsoft has not only abandoned its community, but it seems to have lost focus on its customers. What both Microsoft and its critics fail to appreciate is that Microsoft’s success was driven more by the failures of its competitors than by Microsoft’s aggressive tactics. Microsoft needs to worry less about crushing Linux and more about making its customers happy.

Microsoft’s products aren’t that good—they’re just better than those they supplanted. But other vendors will eventually replace Microsoft products with products that are even better. The Linux community is striving for and will attain that. The open-source initiative will improve inexorably at a slowly accelerating pace. The open question is whether Microsoft will also significantly improve the quality of its products in a reasonable amount of time. Occasionally the right words emanate from Redmond, but Microsoft has lost credibility. Promises of stable, secure software 3 years down the road requiring costly upgrades of both software and hardware aren’t going to cut it.]]>David H. Lynch, Jr. Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:31:14 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/in-search-of-net#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 09:52:55 GMT
Regarding Mark Smith’s "In Search of .NET," (July 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 39178), I work for a large telecommunications firm with more than 80,000 employees, but my 14-person workgroup is more like a small business. I am the server administrator, DBA, and application developer. Since upgrading to SQL Server 2000, Visual Studio .NET 2003, and Windows Server 2003, my personal productivity has exploded. Now that I’ve clicked with .NET as a developer, the ideas for redesigning old apps and databases and creating new ones just keep coming. I don’t know how to measure the ROI in dollars, but I feel more valuable as an asset. Implementing .NET has helped me increase my contribution to the business by providing improved service to the knowledge workers I support. Plus, it is invaluable to me to feel renewed enthusiasm for my work after 21.5 years at the same company.]]>Tim Bodie Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:52:55 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/in-search-of-net#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/data-access/san-and-nas-better-together#commentsAnchorThu, 15 Jan 2004 09:49:20 GMT
I was interested in Mark Smith’s examination of Network Attached Storage (NAS) and Storage Area Network (SAN) usefulness in "SAN and NAS: Better Together" (July 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 39189). However, I think the SAN and NAS vendors have done an excellent job of obscuring the true costs of these technologies. Direct Attached Storage (DAS) gets little respect these days, but it is still an extremely cost-effective solution for most small to mid-sized IT organizations that are Windows-centric. We have a Dell (Clariion) SAN, but after living with it for a couple of years, I have yet to see reduced costs, either in purchase price, maintenance costs, or administrative costs. I seldom see realistic implementation costs in articles about SANs. The fibre channel drives are typically double the cost of equivalent SCSI drives. Fibre channel HBAs are typically about $2000 to $3000 per server (for redundant host bus adapters—HBAs). Fibre switches are about $750 to $1000 per port, and redundant configurations require two ports per server and two switches (minimum) per SAN.

The added complexity of SANs is a significant concern. Typically, only a few people in an IT organization will be able to master the nuances and details of SAN configuration. And although the storage vendors talk a good game about the system being redundant, we have found many instances where the recommendation is to "restart the SAN" after maintenance. If I have many clients/servers depending upon a massive central storage device, they are all affected by any downtime on that device.

Using low-cost NAS technology for disk-to-disk backups is useful. However, it doesn’t replace tape for archiving because tape is designed to retain data for decades. Tape cartridges can also be easily taken offsite to provide protection against physical disasters. I understand that special requirements can mandate the choice of a NAS or SAN. However, I think DAS is not getting credit for continuing to be a cost-effective solution for many IT shops.]]>David Martin Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:49:20 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/data-access/san-and-nas-better-together#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 14:09:31 GMT
Mark Smith deserves kudos for Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows" (January 2003, http://www.win netmag.com, InstantDoc ID 27392) and "The Soul of Windows Revisited." His point about Microsoft switching the focus of the advertising message in commercials is right on. Mark requested suggestions about how Microsoft can "improve relations with the Windows administrator community," and I can think of only one thing*a free Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) software subscription for the Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP). I have been an MCP since the release of NT 4.0, and I think that certified administrators should have unfettered access to software to set up in a home or work lab for testing, practicing, and gaining "real" experience. (By lab I mean a nonproduction system. I’m not an advocate of the open-source initiative, and I believe Microsoft should be paid for its intellectual property.) A CD-ROM with a key based on a hash that uses the user’s MCP ID plus birth date and social security number would deter anyone who tries to give the resource to friends and family. One of the reasons I’m interested in free software is that I’ve taken about 25 IT exams at a cost of more than $100 per exam. I don’t mind paying for exams; I think that charging a fee to take the exams separates the people who are serious about certification from the people who aren’t.]]>Nick Boardman Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:09:31 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 14:07:46 GMT
I received my MCSE certification for Windows NT in 1999, and I’m frustrated with the way Microsoft treats its MCSEs. I do have some hope after reading Mark Smith’s Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows Revisited" (September 2003, http://www.winnet mag.com, InstantDoc ID 39749). During the past couple of years, I’ve completely ignored the rhetoric from Microsoft; I felt that acquiring an MCSE certification had done very little for me and my quest for excellence. I have a steady job, but I like to do side jobs, and the certification showed potential clients that I have the skills to succeed in the project. But Microsoft seems to drop the ball in supporting MCSEs. Would the company consider having a free or reduced-cost support line for MCSEs? Then when we’re at client sites pushing Microsoft products and features and we get into a snag while configuring products, we’ll have a place to call for immediate assistance.]]>Matt Bonar Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:07:46 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/email/-almost-perfect-devices#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 13:53:32 GMT
I enjoyed Mark Smith’s "(Almost) Perfect Devices" (May 2003, http://www.winnetmag .com, InstantDoc ID 38481). I purchased two Handspring Treo 300 devices--one each for my wife and me. This device seemed to be the perfect solution for consolidating phones and Research In Motion (RIM) BlackBerry devices and services, as well as being a great deal from Sprint. Everything worked as Mark described, except setting up mail accounts.

First, the Sprint technical support representatives aren’t familiar with the 2bAnywhere software, which I had downloaded and synchronized with the Treo 300. I didn’t get my email accounts to work. So the Sprint representatives suggested that I download the QUALCOMM Eudora Internet Suite (EIS) 2.1 software because they were familiar with it.

Second, after I uninstalled 2bAnywhere and installed the Eudora email software, Sprint could set up only my Sprint email account. I could receive but not send mail because of a time zone setting that they couldn’t find in the software. After some research on the Eudora Web site, I found the setting and selected the automatic selection. It didn’t work. When I retrieve my email from my other accounts, the Eudora software does connect to my email server but it returns an I/O error.

I would rather use the 2bAnywhere software instead, if I can get it to work. It seems more capable than Eudora. Where can I find documentation about how to set up 2bAnywhere?

I use my Treo with 2bAnywhere on my POP3 account, so I can verify that it works. You do need to register with 2bAnywhere, but the software is free. After you register with 2bAnywhere and configure the client, you should be up and working. If you’re still having trouble, support is available from an email list that you can subscribe to on the 2bAnywhere Web site.
--Mark Smith]]>Joe Hidalgo Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:53:32 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/email/-almost-perfect-devices#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-server-2003/small-business-in-a-box#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 13:32:41 GMT
In Fast Forward: "Small Business in a Box" (October 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 40040), Mark Smith mentions a 120GB Network Attached Storage (NAS) device with the Small Business Server (SBS) bundle for a street price of less than $1000. Can you tell me which manufacturer offers these boxes? I priced the lowest-end Dell machine imaginable (with no redundancy, 256MB of RAM, a Celeron processor, an SBS five-user license, no tape drive, and no monitor), and it came to about $1200. I would love to find a reliable NAS device for my clients for less than $1000, but I would need redundant hard drives and a way to back up the device to mobile media. Thanks for the article. Overall, I agree with everything that you wrote about concerning the applications you would recommend.

Thanks for writing, Jared. In my research for this article, I found a Windows Storage Server 2003based Iomega NAS 200m/160GB box for $999.
--Mark Smith]]>Jared Shapiro Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:32:41 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-server-2003/small-business-in-a-box#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 13:31:06 GMT
I read "The Soul of Windows Revisited" and would like to give some insight from the trenches. I’m a Microsoft Windows network administrator and geek. I’ve been working, studying, researching, and attending seminars for the past 4-plus years. The message Microsoft is giving me is that in an attempt to increase profits, the company is decreasing the value of the computer network administrator. I attribute this problem to three factors. First, training is now a profit center. Technicians should be trained to deliver customer support service for a particular product. To deliver a good service, the technician needs to receive consistent training over time and needs to keep up with technology changes and updates. This training philosophy is being totally undermined by ads promising that for "$5000 you can get your MCSE in 5 days." This type of marketing has flooded the market with incompetent technicians. The systems administrator will soon be making $8 an hour.

Second, Microsoft is flooding the market with products. If you’re a private consultant and can dedicate 10 hours a day to studying, testing, and evaluating these new systems, you might become fairly proficient in some or all of these changes. But if you’re out in the field rebuilding a server, training users, setting up the executive conference room, and making this quarter’s technology budget proposal to the general manager, you don’t have time for this frenzy.

Third, the total cost of ownership (TCO) initiative hurts the IT community. The most expensive cost in a network infrastructure and computer-based business is personnel. Microsoft’s TCO program is intended to eliminate my job. As always, greed exceeds integrity or loyalty.

My response to these three factors is to shift my training, concentration, and recommendations away from Microsoft, Dell, Cisco Systems, and Gateway. Instead, my emphasis is on UNIX, Gateway, and home-built PCs and servers because the general public isn’t as familiar with these systems and products, resulting in the increased value and need of my services.]]>Richard L. English Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:31:06 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorMon, 12 Jan 2004 13:22:23 GMT
Mark Smith’s Fast Forward: "The Soul of Windows Revisited" (September 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 39749) didn’t provide a lot of actionable information. Here are my comments about how Microsoft treats its certified professionals: Microsoft doesn’t just take its certified professionals for granted; the company deliberately makes keeping up expensive and difficult. Each premier certification becomes extinct, or at least dated, about every 3 years, coinciding with the release of the next great version of a Microsoft product. In addition, each year it seems we have more tests to take at a higher fee, and we need further classroom time (which is not affordable) to get boned up on the latest technology. (For the record, I am a Microsoft shareholder. I’ve also been an avid promoter of Microsoft products and technologies.) It seems to me that Microsoft could make an effort to establish more user groups. In addition, especially at a time when work is hard to come by, Microsoft could establish a clearinghouse for employers or certified professionals to find one another and waive exam fees for unemployed certification holders trying to upgrade their credentials. As a longtime user of Microsoft products and a certified administrator, I feel well ignored by the mother ship. I suspect I’m not the only one.]]>John Sikorski Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:22:23 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-soul-of-windows-revisited39749#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/migration/mapping-the-migration#commentsAnchorWed, 10 Dec 2003 21:47:24 GMT
This Article is the best help I ever heard. It has a little bit of everything. I can say that it will realy help me a lot in Migrating from NT to Exchange 2003.]]>Zay Zay Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:47:24 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/migration/mapping-the-migration#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorFri, 28 Nov 2003 06:25:22 GMT
I like the article and have a few things to add. The first problem was that for the year 2000, Microsoft should have had Windows 2000 on the market before everyone spent so much money getting ready for the year 2000. It did not make much sence to come out 6 months later with a new product. The shop I work at is just now shutting down Novell to go to NT and I have been pushing AD. The administrators do not seem to know much about AD and have not even started testing AD. They are running NT and Novell so just a shutdown of Novell has taken 2 years of planning and moving dept. directories to NT. One of the admins and I went through the 2000 MCSE track together and have tried to show the dept. the advantages of AD. We do not get any support nor do we see that it will be put in place for another year. As stated if you want to use Exchange 2000 or 2003 you need AD. We are still on 5.5! Because so many companies are still on NT Microsoft has extended the support. Maybe things will change if they stop support. 2003 server might just be released at the right time to get more to move to AD. I for one hope so! My MCSE in 2000 is not doing me a lot of good in the real world if we are not useing AD. So it looks like I need to find a way to show the advantages and COST savings of AD or we may never unless forced move to AD.]]>Jeff Wallen Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:25:22 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorWed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:55 GMT
A good article. I like your suggestions for Microsoft, but rather than firing these off into the ether as it were, with presumably the hope that somewhere someone responsible at Microsoft is reading it (this is how it appears to the casual reader anyway), I’d like to see these points put directly to the responsible executive at Microsoft and a response printed.]]>Paul Farmer Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:55 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorWed, 26 Nov 2003 13:54:46 GMT
Yeah, spend money on an AD conversion just so we can... spend money on new applications to take advantage of AD... sounds kinda circular to me. My CFO would laugh me out of the office, if he didn’t fire me first. LDAP not as sophisticated as AD? comeon, gimme a break. AD is LDAP in (heavy) makeup. You want a better solution? Try NDS - but then again, there aren’t that many applications that use NDS for authentication either...]]>James Price Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:54:46 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/group-policy/the-active-directory-dilemma#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-95/new-logo-for-windows-nt#commentsAnchorSat, 15 Nov 2003 21:23:05 GMT
I need LOGO for Win NT]]>INDRAJIT GHOSH Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:23:05 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-95/new-logo-for-windows-nt#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/email/-almost-perfect-devices#commentsAnchorWed, 29 Oct 2003 11:17:52 GMT
Nice evaluation but you only skimmed over the fact that its Internet connection works in "every major city in the United States". Define "major". I live and work in a city of 260k and we do not have that capability. Nor does everybody else work in a "major city" but all across the country. The problem with these devices is their limited use for the majority of people. I have a hard enough time just getting a good signal for my cell phone let alone anything else. Until service is truly nationwide at a reasonable cost, these devices will only be useful for the limited few.]]>BobWed, 29 Oct 2003 11:17:52 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/email/-almost-perfect-devices#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/microsoft-launches-windows-storage-server-2003#commentsAnchorWed, 29 Oct 2003 09:37:54 GMT
hello my name is pedram golkar.i am 15 years old.i read A+ book and ready to exam.]]>pedram golkar Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:37:54 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/microsoft-launches-windows-storage-server-2003#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/product-review/powerpc-gets-serious-about-windows-nt#commentsAnchorWed, 22 Oct 2003 19:32:26 GMT
Can you give me what is the Disk Scheduling in Windows NT?]]>N Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:32:26 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/product-review/powerpc-gets-serious-about-windows-nt#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/throw-away-your-pcs#commentsAnchorMon, 20 Oct 2003 19:07:11 GMT
What do you do for video, NIC, etc.. problems. Does the board have to be replaced?]]>anthonyMon, 20 Oct 2003 19:07:11 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/throw-away-your-pcs#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-server-2003/small-business-in-a-box#commentsAnchorSat, 18 Oct 2003 07:01:31 GMT
Thanks for this very informative article. I am evaluating SBS 2003 for an environment which includes Windows XP and Macintosh clients (OSX and OS9). Can I run Services for Macintosh on either edition of SBS 2003, or would I need to add another member server running 2k Server with Services for Macintosh installed? Thanks, ]]>Andy Condon Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:01:31 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-server-2003/small-business-in-a-box#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/windows-administration-1995-vs-2003#commentsAnchorWed, 24 Sep 2003 10:40:06 GMT
At $175,000 per second, you know where you can store *that* server!! ;-)]]>CliffWed, 24 Sep 2003 10:40:06 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/windows-administration-1995-vs-2003#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/xml/who-cares-about-net-#commentsAnchorWed, 27 Aug 2003 14:49:03 GMT
Since when is a "sandbox" unique? Java provided a sandbox environment years ago.]]>Jim Patterson Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:49:03 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/xml/who-cares-about-net-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/xml/who-cares-about-net-#commentsAnchorWed, 27 Aug 2003 11:44:36 GMT
Informative article. Thank you.]]>DanWed, 27 Aug 2003 11:44:36 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/xml/who-cares-about-net-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorWed, 30 Jul 2003 21:37:03 GMT
A comment for Jeff Richardson. Linux is great for techies AND great for the normal user. Just look here: http://www.kde.org/screenshots/kde310shots.php]]>Con Zymaris Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:37:03 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/windows-storage-server-2003-part-2#commentsAnchorThu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:59 GMT
sir, The material is good.But I want to know about "The File System & Storage" which will be useful to my project.]]>RAJESH KUMAR C D Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:59 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/windows-storage-server-2003-part-2#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorWed, 25 Jun 2003 14:18:52 GMT
Actually, Microsoft just helped launch the Chicago Windows Users Group (cwug.net) - exactly to the audience of administrators you’re talking about.]]>Stan Balog Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:18:52 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/thin-client-server-computing-works#commentsAnchorMon, 28 Apr 2003 23:17:29 GMT
please post me some topics related to Client -server Technology details. ]]>bidhan chakraborty Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:17:29 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/thin-client-server-computing-works#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorFri, 25 Apr 2003 21:11:15 GMT
Why brake something that works. Linux is great for techies but sucks for the normal user. Thank god for Microsoft and their process of building applications. Tell me how many disabled users are using Linux. ]]>Jeff Richardson Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:11:15 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-hazards-of-closed-process-development#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/windows-powered-nas-heads-provide-integration-with-existing-sans#commentsAnchorWed, 23 Apr 2003 08:13:38 GMT
We experienced these exact security problems with non-Windows NAS heads. Despite constant visits by the manufacturer’s engineers, the NAS heads just would not perform as promissed. So we returned the non-Win heads, and bought 4 nice Win2k platforms in a double cluster. ]]>Ryker Abel Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:13:38 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/windows-powered-nas-heads-provide-integration-with-existing-sans#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 30 Jan 2003 17:15:41 GMT
"Unfortunately for Microsoft, the company might see the Linux community fulfill Gates’s dream because achieving his vision is simpler, cheaper, and more fun with Linux than with Windows." Please God , make it so.]]>PeterThu, 30 Jan 2003 17:15:41 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorThu, 30 Jan 2003 17:09:04 GMT
Re: the soul of Windows. Led Zepplin said it best: "and as we wind on down the road our shadow taller than our soul"]]>penguinz Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:09:04 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorTue, 14 Jan 2003 13:43:14 GMT
Great article. I’ve used NT since 3.51 and have been a vocal proponent for the NT product family. I agree with Mark’s description of the early days and I remember them fondly!]]>Fred Harper Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:43:14 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/interoperability/the-soul-of-windows#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/why-buy-a-file-server-#commentsAnchorTue, 10 Dec 2002 07:36:54 GMT
This is all fine and great, but why use a slow and unstable operating system for my file access? Novell Netware works great, its reliable, easy to setup, secure, and best of all more affordable. Also, I am unsure of the direction here from Microsoft presented in this article: "a version of the Windows OS that’s dedicated to one application" How much more hardware must we purchase to do the same thing that one or two NetWare or Linux systems can handle? Go back to the basics Microsoft: Reliability, Security, Speed, Functionality - then build upon it.]]>KevinTue, 10 Dec 2002 07:36:54 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/hardware/why-buy-a-file-server-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/remote-computing/5-ways-to-equip-telecommuters#commentsAnchorTue, 07 May 2002 09:38:01 GMT
One thing to watch out for if you plan to use VPN- at this time Satellite does not support IPSec. I know there may be other ways of keeping VPN data secure, but if you plan to use IPSec, check the details before locking into a long term contract with a satellite provider.]]>Wesley Miles Tue, 07 May 2002 09:38:01 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/remote-computing/5-ways-to-equip-telecommuters#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/remote-computing/5-ways-to-equip-telecommuters#commentsAnchorMon, 06 May 2002 11:16:51 GMT
Step 1: Provide Broadband ... Or use Citrix - Windows Terminal Services. For users that don’t have inexpensive broadband access. Citrix / Windows Terminal server is a very good choice. Even if they have broadband Terminal Services works very well. Users can check email, open attachments, run Word, Access, Excel, and even print. They can essentially do anything they can do connected to the LAN. Especially with Citrix’s Secure ICA protocol you don’t need client-side firewalls to protect the data. Data is encrypted so you only need a firewall on the server side. Cellular access is also fairly acceptable. Using a laptop or handheld computer we also can login through cell phones quite nicely. Many of our sales people use this on the road. This year many cellular providors like Verizon are rolling out high speed Internet access, average 40-60k burstable to roughly 150k. Sincerely, Bill Louth IT Manager, MCSE]]>Bill Louth Mon, 06 May 2002 11:16:51 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/remote-computing/5-ways-to-equip-telecommuters#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/migration/migrating-to-windows-20007755#commentsAnchorMon, 07 May 2001 10:45:57 GMT
I justed wanted to know what would be the steps for migrating to Windows 2000. step by step. thanks]]>jillian chappell Mon, 07 May 2001 10:45:57 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/migration/migrating-to-windows-20007755#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-death-of-alpha-on-nt#commentsAnchorThu, 29 Mar 2001 14:59:36 GMT
I agree with all commentors: should be NT on Alpha, meaning OS on box. Certainly it was an oversight as I don’t believe the author meant OS on OS (NT on AlphaVMS) and we do know that operating systems run on boxes, so NT on Alpha (the 64-bit processor, not the AlphaVMS operating system) it should have been titled. The only reason I read the article is because of its title, wanted to see what it was about. Maybe the author did this intentionally to draw our attention.]]>Terry Embry Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:59:36 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/windows-client/the-death-of-alpha-on-nt#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorFri, 16 Feb 2001 11:21:58 GMT

I’m interested in .NET, and I think it will provide a lot of advantages to users and corporations. After reading "Delivering on the .NET Vision," I have a question about the future of MCSEs and Solution Providers. From what I see, Microsoft will be able to centrally provide its .NET services through the Web to businesses and individuals. What will be the role of MCSEs and Solution Providers who support Microsoft technologies?
]]>Mutasem Abu Remaileh Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:21:58 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorFri, 16 Feb 2001 11:18:43 GMT

Microsoft won’t be delivering all the .NET services itself, although it’s already entered the market with http://www.bcentral.com, which focuses on small businesses, and MSN, which targets consumers. MCSEs will continue doing what they’ve always been doing: supporting the Microsoft platform in a corporate IT environment or for a Solution Provider. Solution Pro- viders will get yet another opportunity to make money with Web-ready solutions that use the .NET framework. I think .NET will provide more opportunity than Microsoft can possibly take for itself.
--Mark Smith]]>Mark Smith Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:18:43 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorFri, 16 Feb 2001 11:14:38 GMT

Regarding Mark Smith’s December 2000 Editorial: "Delivering on the .NET Vision," do you think that raising the bar on Internet applications so that "Microsoft’s .NET platform is the only technology able to deliver the Internet experience that end users demand" is a good thing? Do you feel comfortable entrusting your personal information or data to Microsoft? Consider that the company is unable to keep its own crown jewels secure.]]>Bill Burke Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:14:38 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/delivering-on-the-net-vision#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorSun, 24 Dec 2000 08:24:44 GMT
I have the .NET runtime infrastructure installed on my W2k Server, and use it to develop ASP+ applications. Where is the incompatability between Windows.NET and W2k?]]>Robert Cripe Sun, 24 Dec 2000 08:24:44 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorWed, 13 Dec 2000 10:15:23 GMT


In his November 2000 editorial, "Microsoft .NET and Windows 2000", Mark Smith concludes that Microsoft might be undermining its Windows 2000 message by placing so much emphasis on .NET and that Microsoft is sending a mixed message to its current and potential customers. In the editorial, Mark asks, "Are you confused about Win2K and .NET?" We were definitely confused at first. My company was part of the Win2K Joint Deployment Program (JDP), then Microsoft rolled out .NET. Initially, we thought we got caught holding the early-adopter bag, but now we agree with the Bob O’Brien (group product manager for Win2K) quote at the end of the editorial; we’re in the perfect position to implement .NET services on top of our existing Win2K infrastructure.

]]>John P Studdard Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:15:23 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorWed, 08 Nov 2000 15:04:15 GMT
Without a lasting attitude change within the Microsoft campus .NET will be nothing more then yet another way of locking your company into a future that makes them dependent on the exclusive club they’ve joined. As anyone knows exclusive clubs have recurring high membership fee’s and are generally incompatible with the ways of the rest of the world. Fact is that Microsoft solutions aren’t known for their outstanding compatibility with other vendors solutions (or even Microsoft’s own previous versions). And being able to communicate (be compatible) with anything about anything without issues seems to be what it’s going to be about.]]>Arthur B. Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:04:15 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorFri, 03 Nov 2000 07:30:48 GMT
I think your last question is important. Are MS confusing their customers with a mixed message? O’Brien’s answer is good "Customers who have already built on the Windows 2000 foundation will definitely be at a time-to-market advantage over someone holding off and trying to do it all at once." But MS will need to put a lot of effort into helping IT DIrectors, who have been working on their Boards, to convey a coherent plan to their business, showing how this new strategy builds on the previous one and that their investment, past or future, in Win2K will still show a return in costs or in ability of the company to compete. ]]>Joe Kelly Fri, 03 Nov 2000 07:30:48 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorMon, 30 Oct 2000 06:44:46 GMT
being part of the ASP dev community, the .NET framework is a very welcome addition to the MS product line. the .NET framework isn’t just some new buzz word. This offers many things that are built on the win2k OS. ASP+, web services will open up programming for the web. The other tools, biztalk, app center, exchange 2k among the products that can be added to fit business needs. All the hype and confusion I see in articles is from peoples lack of understanding of a business role technology plays. This doesn’t apply to all but the media I don’t think has a clue. Microsoft is doing the right thing in my opinion. Doing something right takes time and as I’ve seen with win2k, the wait was worth it!]]>Steve S. Mon, 30 Oct 2000 06:44:46 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorThu, 26 Oct 2000 06:49:49 GMT
Making the AD project a priority at this time would reduce later conversion to .NET is a big plus for any company. All medium and larger organizations need to have NDS or AD to become a fluent member of a network infrastructure and to be a member of larger nets. These nets of course are larger than the organization. These types of services will be provided to smaller organizations by a service parallel to ISPs. The resource availability and security will be a central part of these nets.]]>Carl Fisher Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:49:49 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorWed, 25 Oct 2000 22:01:09 GMT
I have to agree that Microsoft is going full force in too many directions now, especially with the .NET initiative. I’m worried about (and sick of) training my guys and spending money on COM+ and other technologies that are going to be obsolete in 1-2 years! I want a clear vision of what platforms and tools I can implement for my customers that I can leave in place for at least a couple YEARS. Is that really too much to ask? We all know Microsoft is under pressure from investors to the money machine humming along. I think that since some of the new solutions like the "Snap File Server" and Linux are really cutting away at future sales potential, they have to come up with new ways to keep us buying and buying (constant new software upgrades) ... I’m finally getting sick of the contant upgrade cycle because I just can’t keep up well enough. :(]]>Jeremy Goemaat Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:01:09 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchorTue, 24 Oct 2000 11:22:28 GMT
I think Microsoft is definitely moving FAST on this one. I have been using Windows 2000 over 2+ years now and am currently on a Windows 2000 Project. People need to get on the BAND WAGON now or reap the consequences later. Windows 2000 is just the begginning of the fast moving FUTURE.]]>Carl Cousino Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:22:28 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/net-framework2/microsoft-net-and-windows-2000#commentsAnchor