• subscribe
January 05, 2010 12:00 AM

Doing More with Less in 2010

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #103394

Almost a year ago (in "Now We Really Are Doing More with Less"), I wrote about Microsoft's flagging fortunes in the economic downturn and how they mirrored the issues its customers were facing. When Microsoft's "Do More With Less" mantra comes up, it's often in the context of saving money. And certainly that's at the heart of all IT management planning—always has been, always will be. But looking ahead to 2010, I see a chance for IT infrastructure to do more with less not just because it may save money but because it's the right thing to do.

Some of this may seem painful at first. But I think there's elegance in simplicity, a simplicity that can benefit us all if we can look past our ingrained wants and see what it is we really need to get our jobs done. In my own home office, for example, I've moved to a virtualized domain infrastructure, replacing several PCs and servers with a single machine. And while anyone can generally agree that virtualization is a good thing, I've gotten to the point where I believe we can't be aggressive enough about virtualization.

Ditto for desktop consolidation. Today, many users have separate smart phones, notebooks, and desktop PCs, which represent an incredible waste of management time and resources. In my own simple environment, hardware piles up, and I have to work to ensure that the working set remains as small as possible. The benefits are enormous: Fewer machines to manage, few software updates to install, less to worry about.

You can take this even further if you're aggressive about the software you in. Consider just PCs. Does every single user need Microsoft Office? Does every single user need every single application in Microsoft Office? Now ask the same questions about every software application you deploy and consider the maintenance required to keep everything up to date. You won't have to patch Microsoft Excel if it's not installed.

This is true of OS features as well. When you combine the latest Windows versions with Group Policy, you get amazing control over which built-in applications are actually installed to your desktops. Use it.

Speaking of which, sometimes newer is better. With systems such as Windows 7 and Internet Explorer (IE) 8, it's almost laughable to compare them to the software they will replace in most businesses, that is, the aging Windows XP and IE 6. Windows XP I can almost understand, but using IE 6 in this day and age is inexcusable. It's a software time bomb. Admins shouldn't let their users use IE 6. It's that simple.

If you're worried about the cost of upgrading to newer software versions, consider this: Those (mostly small) businesses still using Windows XP/Vista and Office XP/2003 qualify for an "Up To Date (UTD)" discount of up to 50 percent for Windows 7 and Office 2007 (and Office 2010 once that ships). The deal is good through June 30, 2010. This is an unprecedented deal. Previously, Microsoft exempted software that was two or more versions old from getting such a steep discount. Find out more on the Microsoft SMB Community Blog.

Finally, my biggest office pet peeve of all, which dates back to my very first "real" job in banking 20 years ago, is this: Many employers seem to forget that little things can keep employees—or, in the case of admins, users—happy. This includes giving them the ability to work at home by substituting a notebook for that stodgy desktop, or on the go, with a modern, capable smart phone. Many users would actually be pretty impressed and appreciative to go from XP to Windows 7. I mean, you're doing it anyway, right?

All of this is common sense. But I'm amazed by the pushback I get from admins when I suggest things like outsourcing email and applications to the cloud and even virtualizing core infrastructure. It's the 21st century, people. Let's act like it. Along the way, we might just save some money and become more efficient. And stop worrying about the things that simply aren't core to our businesses.



ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • JC
    2 years ago
    Jan 08, 2010

    As usual, I agree with the comments more than the applicable article. It's amazing that Mr. Thurrott's inability to understand enterprise computing in the real world has been evident as long as I've been reading him (late 90s). Go back and read some of this articles about Vista in the enterprise and his flippant dismissal of anyone who didn't immediately adopt that piece of garbage. My old employer did deploy it (almost killed me with stress and frustration) and was rewarded by a HUGE decrease in producitivy and and HUGE increase in support costs. Cracks me up when Mr. Thurrott mentions his "home office" like it's a mirror of the real world. Read his interview with Mark Russinovich in Windows IT Pro magazine and see how he completely wasted an opportunity to pick the brain of one of the truly amazing wizards of Windows technology.

    I for one am a big fan of Windows 7 and think that the gains will definitely outweigh the costs associated with a migration to it. Every company needs to do the planning and upfront work to make it a success though. At some point hardware vendors are going to stop providing XP drivers with their new hardware and folks need to be prepared for that eventuality.

    Don't get me wrong about Mr. Thrurrott; it's not that I don't like him. I've met him and he seems like a pleasant individual. I just think he's been isolated from the real IT world for so long that he doesn't understand the issues we face every day. I think that's why I rarely learn anything useful from his articles. Now Mark Minasi? Wizard.

  • Scott
    2 years ago
    Jan 07, 2010

    rostand, I agree with you somewhat. As an I/T guy, it comes down to knowing your infrastructure & users well enough; not just the latest thing your vendors are pushing. Several folks I know run Vista & Windows 7 on their home PCs, but don't want it at work. They are still happy with XP, so we have no upgrade planned now.

  • Rostand
    2 years ago
    Jan 06, 2010

    i agree with jonbjerke. i am using VM systems now for DRP. it simplifies recovery and less hours (2 only). i was hoping to move a pure virtual system this year but we have a new corporate merging.

    i am also for email outsourcing, or moving to online email servers like Exchange Online or Google Mail for corporate. i compared between capital expenditures of servers based upon number of users, as against maintenance cots paying monthly for online email for 3 years. the costs were the same.

    so, should i wait every year for the once-in-a-while downtime of Exchange where i have to use the reliable but painstakingly slow ESEUTIL, or get more of my life by placing email services online? i go for the latter.

    PT's post has some value, keeping an open mind would help especially in our IT industry.

  • Jon
    2 years ago
    Jan 05, 2010

    rsmcomputer - you don't seem to get it. Virtualization is the way to go. It simplifies management, security, and recovery. Take a small business, if you run ESXi or Hyper-V (both free) you simplify recovery. All I have to do is load the hypervisor software on a new server - doesn't matter if it's the same brand or model, and copy the VM back over and power the VM back on, and they are back in business.

    With Windows 7 you get native powershell (it's available for XP, 2003, Vista), but it's doesn't have all the capabilities.

  • Richad
    2 years ago
    Jan 05, 2010

    While I agree that new technology should not be purchased simply for the sake of having new technology, but avoiding it is also silly. If your infrastructure is working fine, don't waste money 'upgrading'. But when it's due for replacement (for whatever reason), why would one purposely buy the old version? Windows 7 is 'better' than XP (maybe not in every facet, but overall), and while we won't be rushing out to convert all pc's immediately, I can't wait for the regular refresh cycles to occur.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here