I'm sure most of us have all seen the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" ads on television or on the web. The reason these ads are so successful is that they are absolutely right on the money in terms of their assessment of the "Windows" ecosystem. If Microsoft were smart, they would do what every organization should do when dealing with valid criticism. FIX the issues. 
 
Let me give an example. Two years ago GreenPeace called Apple Inc. to task for polluting the environment with toxic chemicals and materials in Apple's iPods, Macintosh computers, and iPhones. So what does Apple do? They make eco-friendly manufacturing a major priority. Once their products are re-designed to be ecologically friendly, they now advertise and openly brag about the fact that they are leading their markets with this new initiative. GreenPeace released a statement a few days ago thanking Apple for their new focus. Apple converted their weakness into a strength that they can now market as a positive. 
 
Now let's look at Microsoft. Microsoft has been battling a horrible image lately. People are looking at them as a overly large corporation that puts profits first, and customers second. Apple is pummeling Windows Vista in television ads and Microsoft waited forever to decide to do something about it. 
 
So now that they've decided to fight, what did they decide to do? Rather than actively look at the state of their products and services, critically analyze them from a customer's point of view, and FIX them, they instead chose to start what some people have referred to as an ineffective ad campaign that absolutely does nothing but attempt to ARTIFICIALLY change Microsoft's image.  
 
Why not actually CORRECT the issues at play here? Your customers are no longer the technologically illiterate 1990's masses that are easily fooled by slick advertising and empty promises. They are sophisticated, well trained students and users of educational/information technology. Every state in the union has technology as an educational objective. Surely Microsoft realizes that the students graduating from these schools are no longer easily fooled into purchasing second-rate products. Yet Microsoft wants to use the same tactics of inaccurate or nebulously abstract marketing to "snow" us, the users into doing just that. 
 
Microsoft, your customers don't WANT to leave you. YOU are forcing them to make these decisions. Do what you need to do to correct the issues, don't run and hide from them. Create feature parity among all applications regardless of the platform that they run on. Stop creating proprietary web technologies that only work with Internet Explorer. Integrate Linux into Windows as the kernel. You can't tell me that simply building a new Windows OS on top of Linux wouldn't be a HUGE innovation and completely correct about 15 years of security issues. Focus on where the world is going and try to lead rather than sitting around thinking of another marketing ploy to sell software and other products that are now looked at as inferior. 
 
The latest complete waste of time coming out of Seattle arrived in the past day or so. Slashdot pointed to a story that discusses how Microsoft will combat the Apple Geniuses who are available at every Apple store. These "geniuses" are available to anyone and everyone who purchases products and services from Apple. They are willing to troubleshoot, teach, and assist with almost any issue that one might have with an iPod, iPhone, or Macintosh computer. 
 
What does Microsoft do? They announce an initiative to put Windows Gurus into stores like Best Buy, Circuit City etc. But, and this is a huge BUT, they won't be providing any tech support. Their sole purpose is to sell and convince. From the article: 
 
"The guru role is to help sell Windows-based PCs. It is not to be an alternative tech support channel for Microsoft, as this has no financial return beyond improved customer satisfaction," 
 
Excuse me? What is the definition of a guru? So basically Microsoft is paying people 20 bucks an hour to argue on their behalf. Am I the only one that thinks this is absolutely lame and ridiculous? 
 
They just don't get it. 
 
CH 
 
 

Posted by: Chris Hamady

Wow! Inside of 48 hours there has been a flurry of articles and blog posts published on the internet that discuss among other things: 
 
Microsoft Windows imminent collapse.
 
A BusinessWeek article that talks about how the superiority of Apple's Mac OS X operating system compared to Windows Vista will begin the gradual adoption of Mac OS X into corporate IT environments.
 
Microsoft's concerted effort during the development of Windows Vista to annoy their users. 
 
The most provocative and emotion generating story that I read was a blog post (or article) by Wired contributor, Ryan Singel. He writes about computer botnets and how they are causing more and more damage to personal computers, and ultimately "national security." 
 
I really enjoyed this article but it got me a bit fired up. My only complaint lies with the authors apparent unwillingness (or apathetic attitude) to report the big picture. Without technological perspective, namely a discussion of affected computer operating system platforms, he does his readers a disservice. How does one write this article and release Microsoft from any and all culpability? He even quoted a rather controversial statement from security consultant Ira Winkler: 
 
QUOTE: 
"The problem is no one is doing anything," Winkler said, proposing that users be fined or blocked if their computer is infected. 
 
"Guess what? If your system has a bot on it, you don't get on the internet," Winkler said, summarizing his proposal. 
 
"We need to hold people responsible when they present an imminent threat to other people," Winkler said to wide applause from the audience. He contrasted the lack of computer regulation to laws preventing unsafe cars from taking the road. 
END QUOTE 
 
Mr. Singel, how about correcting Mr. Winkler's horrible analogy and write something like, "Mr. Winkler could supply a better analogy by suggesting that we hold computer operating system manufacturers accountable the same way we would hold car manufacturers accountable for selling door locks and ignition switches that are dysfunctional at best." 
 
How about asking the tough questions in your article like, "When is someone going to hold Microsoft accountable for the vulnerabilities that people are exploiting to create these botnets?" How about mentioning that Microsoft operating systems make up the largest portion of these botnet computers (more likely 100%). This information is easily available on the web at: 
 
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet : 
"The majority of these computers are running Microsoft Windows operating systems..." 
 
From http://www.honeynet.org/papers/bots/ : 
 
"These days, home PCs are a desirable target for attackers. Most of these systems run Microsoft Windows and often are not properly patched or secured behind a firewall, leaving them vulnerable to attack. In addition to these direct attacks, indirect attacks against programs the victim uses are steadily increasing. Examples of these indirect attacks include malicious HTML-files that exploit vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer or attacks using malware in Peer-to-Peer networks." 
 
I'm not at all sure that I'm comfortable with someone suggesting that ALL home computers need some sort of regulation. There are many computer users that currently do not participate in any of these spyware-induced botnets, and they should absolutely not be punished because other people choose to use an operating system that has a propensity for compromised security. 
 
I really wish he would have put this article into perspective for the average user that may, or may not realize that Linux, Unix, and Macintosh based systems are in all likelihood not the botnet infected systems in this story. I understand that he was reporting and not overtly offering commentary, but I feel that there was (and is) sufficient evidence that he could have brought to this story in an effort to better educate his readership with some sorely needed operating system vulnerability perspective.  
 
Crazy times for Microsoft seem to be ahead. 
CH 

Posted by: Chris Hamady

If you purchase a digital picture frame for use in your home, buyer beware! According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a number of digital picture frames being sold by major department stores are infected with a Windows trojan horse that: 
 
1. Disables any anti-virus on the machine 
2. Disables the Windows firewall 
3. Steals user data and sends it back to the worm writer. 
 
Here's the best part. The article author contacted the world renowned SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) institute for advice. According to the article, Deborah Hale from SANS suggested, "...that PC users find friends with Macintosh or Linux machines and have them check for malware before plugging any device into a PC." 
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just remove Windows and use the Linux or Mac-based computer? 
 
CH 
 
 

Posted by: Chris Hamady

According to Computerworld, Microsoft attempted to bribe a standards body member in order to get their Open XML specification ratified as an international standard. According to the web site: 
 
"Microsoft Corp. admitted Wednesday that an employee at its Swedish subsidiary offered monetary compensation to partners for voting in favor of the Office Open XML document format's approval as an ISO standard. 
 
Microsoft said the offer, when discovered, was quickly retracted and that its Sweden managers voluntarily notified the SIS, the national standards body." 
 
It feels to me like this company is in a total self-destructive downward spiral. 
CH 

Posted by: Chris Hamady

Wall Street Journal Chief Technology Editor Walt Mossberg buys a new Sony Vaio and finds out just how painful a new Vista-loaded PC can be. He writes: 
 
"The problem is a lack of respect for the consumer. The manufacturers don't act as if the computer belongs to you. They act as if it is a billboard for restricted trial versions of software and ads for Web sites and services that they can sell to third-party companies who want you to buy these products." 
 
and 
 
"I also was shocked at how long this machine took to restart and to do a cold start after being completely shut down. Restarting took over three minutes, and a cold start took more than two minutes. That suggests the computer is loading a bunch of stuff I neither know about nor want. By contrast, a brand new Apple MacBook laptop, under the same test conditions, restarted in 34 seconds and did a cold start in 29 seconds." 
 
Here is the complete story. 

Posted by: Chris Hamady

Vista rant dead ahead. If reading about how Microsoft Vista causes pain and suffering to end users is offensive to you, you may not want to read this blog entry. You have been warned.  
 
I ordered Microsoft Vista licensing and media CDs on February 8th. About 4 days later, I received some official looking documents from our authorized Microsoft vendor. I set those aside knowing that I would have to call Microsoft for my volume license keys once the CDs arrived.  
 
The CDs arrived approximately 9 days after the initial order. Is this acceptable? If I'm planning on deploying software into an enterprise environment, is waiting 9 days for the software to arrive really acceptable? I digress. (oh yea...because we were going to use Vista in a virtual machine, we had to pay top dollar for the enterprise version)  
 
Once the CDs arrived, I called our MS authorized vendor back and asked for the volume license keys (this process started at 3:40 PM). I checked my email 5 minutes later and was surprised to find keys that I was sure didn't belong to me. I figured this because the name of who the keys were assigned to did not match our school name. : ) 
 
At the bottom of this email was a phone number to call for help. I dialed the number and a nice man (who was difficult to understand) answered the phone cheerfully with, "How may I help you?" I explained my situation to him and he said that he had to go look something up in the computer. He came back 5 minutes later apologizing that it took so long to get the information. (I'm guessing that he was really probably just answering another call to maximize his productivity, but I'm pretty jaded at this point). 
 
He asked me again what I needed and after I told him that I needed volume license keys, he politely informed me that I dialed the wrong number (even though this was the helpline listed in the email that contained the incorrect volume license keys). He gave me the correct number and I hung up with him. It was now 3:55 PM.  
 
I dialed the new number and went into the usual phone menu routine pressing the appropriate numbers. The last menu was, "For Volume License Keys press 2." I pressed the button and waited. And waited. After 2 minutes of waiting a voice came on and said, "We're sorry. We could not connect your call. Please hang up and dial again." DIALTONE 
 
Soooooo...once again I dialed the phone number and finally got connected to another nice gentlemen that was hard to understand. He asked me for my agreement number. I took out the envelope that I received from my Microsoft authorized reseller and looked through those official looking documents for an agreement number. Nada....nope....zip. So I told him that I could give him a PO number, or a manufacturers part number, or an invoice number. Nope...that wouldn't do. We parted ways at around 4:05.  
 
Now I'm frustrated. I went over to the box that the CDs came in and start looking on the media for the agreement number. Nope...not there either. I start pulling the packing material out of the box. WAIT! What's this? At the bottom of the box there is what appears to be an invoice. Lo and behold it contains an agreement number.  
 
I called Microsoft back and after giving him my email address he read it back to me: 
Charlie, Hotel, Alpha, Mary, Alpha, Delta, Yoshi (ok...I made that last one up). What gives? Is there some sort of war going on that requires this codespeak? I guess Microsoft REALLY doesn't want to accidentally send someone license codes that shouldn't be receiving them. Oh, wait a second. That's how this whole mess started about THIRTY MINUTES AGO!  
 
Is this acceptable? Seriously? What IT administrator truly believes that this is better than installing a copy of Mac OS X that DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY CODES FOR INSTALLATIONS....EVER! 
 
I'm done. I had to blog this as soon as it happened. Where's the Tylenol? My eye is killing me. 
 
CH 

Posted by: Chris Hamady