Windows Connected

Issue Installing Exchange 2007 Management Tools On Dell Laptop

Aubrey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:24:39 GMT

Today I needed to use export-mailbox to convert a mailbox into a .pst file. As it turns out, you have to have the Exchange management tools running on a 32-bit machine running Outlook. I procured a 32-bit machine (all mine are x64), installed Outlook and Powershell, and downloaded the 32-bit version of Exchange so I could install the necessary tools. The prerequisite check failed, however, and I was given this bit of info:

Management Tools Prerequisites
Failed
Error:
This computer is running Windows XP and has not been assigned an IPv4 address. Check the network configuration. IPv6 is only supported in Exchange Server 2007 Service Pack 1 when it is installed on a computer running Windows Server 2008 that has both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=102391 for more details.

I found that rather odd, seeing as how all we use is IPv4 here and IPv6 isn’t even on this particular machine. After much frustration, reinstalling the IP stack and various other things that didn’t help, I found a fix. Uninstalling Broadcom ASF Management via Add/Remove Programs made the error go away. I don’t know if this is a problem specific to Dell machines or Broadcom software in general, but removing it allowed my Exchange 2007 install to proceed.

Sponsored Topics: Windows Server 2008 - IPv6 - Windows XP - IP address - Broadcom

Microsoft Security Essentials (Morro) is Anti-Virus actually worth having!

Matt Freestone — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:49:29 GMT

Myself, like many of you I am sure, hate anti-virus products. In fact, I hate them so much that I haven’t ran an anti-virus product on any of my machines for a good 5 years. (I have ran them for limited runs to beta test them, etc.) Why do I hate anti-virus software? Because I have had far more problems and issues caused by anti-virus products than I’ve ever had caused by a virus. (And in those 5 years I’ve never gotten a virus because through simple common sense you can avoid infections.) They are full of bloat with ‘features’ I don’t want, they chew up massive amounts of resources, cause horrible system slowness, are incredibly in-compatible breaking apps, even caused BSD’s, etc. So, when Morro was announced that Microsoft was going to make a free, simple and clean AV product which was more about saving themselves money by preventing virus’s and thus support calls than anything else I had hope that we would finally have a simple anti-virus that does nothing but AV and stays out of my way. I figured it would still hog resources and impact system performance though.

Like many of you, I have now installed Morro and it’s shockingly simple. The install was as easy as it gets, it asked if it could automatically download updates and run a quick scan. I said yes, and the scan was done in under 10 minutes, even though I have 2 large hard drives with a lot of files on this system. It only has 3G of RAM, and an AMD 3200+ processor (so not exactly a speed demon.) Then guess what happened after that? I closed it, and it disappeared. It’s not even in my system tray by default (Windows 7) and it doesn’t harass me every day telling me that it’s updated itself. In fact, most of the day I don’t even remember it’s there. I haven’t noticed any impact on my system performance but it is working in the background. (When I ran AngryIP scanner it decided that was a possible threat, prevented the app from running and asked me what action I wanted to take. I selected allow, and it’s never bothered me about it again!) Truly this is the AV app I’ve been waiting for, and what makes it even better is that it’s free. I am now running it on all my machines in my house and have yet to have any bad experiences.

So, if you haven’t had a chance to get Morro, I suggest you get it now before the downloads stop! - http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

*Update*

So, if you didn’t get your hands on Morro I’m afraid it’s too late now, the downloads have stopped. But, keep an eye on the site for the next release!

FTC to crack down on bloggers

Matt Freestone — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:04:24 GMT

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090621/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_bloggers_freebie_disclosures

Now, whenever we get products from companies here at WindowsConnected.com we typically do a contest and give the hardware away to our readers and we always post honest reviews about what we think. In fact, I would say too honest and get ourselves in trouble. (I’m a perfect example of this.) So naturally, this FTC crack down has us a bit worried.

These proposed ‘revisions’ (in other words changes to law not performed by congress or elected officials but rather by appointed bureaucrats) would allow the FTC to investigate and prosecute bloggers who ‘may’ have conflicts of interest. Of course the ‘revisions’ don’t give clear boundaries on what they can investigate. Look at this line from the article;

“The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.”

That means ANY blog, no matter what it’s about is a target because even the normal public blog sites have ads on them, and the bloggers can be paid by those sites if they generate enough hits. Even if you’ve never reviewed a product on your blog ever, you could be investigated. So, I’m confused. Wouldn’t Michael Jordan or any other celebrity have a ‘conflict of interest’ being paid to promote a product such as Haynes? Or how about paid actors that provide ‘reviews’ of a product in a commercial? Or even better, what about the paid actors pretending to be scientists and providing scientific information about products? And yet I don’t see the FTC going after them.

If the FTC truly is worried about false advertising and are not just looking for a way to exert power and influence over blogs then why aren’t they investigating the absolutely ridiculous claims of AT&T having the ‘nation’s fastest 3G network.’ That is such a blatant lie and misleading advertising and yet I don’t see anything about the FTC investigating them?

13” and 15” MacBook Pro’s have gotten downgrade….

Matt Freestone — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:12:02 GMT

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/14/13-and-15-macbook-pros-have-a-slower-sata-interface/

It looks like they’ve dropped the sata controller speed, either through firmware or cheaper hardware. I’m guessing cheaper hardware.

“Fear Grips Google”

Matt Freestone — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:31:43 GMT

I didn’t say it, the New York Post did, shockingly enough. Check the link below;

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142009/business/fear_grips_google_174235.htm

What’s interesting is that the article after describing the panic at Google that Bing might take away market share then ends by re-assuring Google they have nothing to worry about. Well, Google isn’t stupid and is taking the threat seriously, as they should. I know I’ve switched my home page to Bing and I avoid Google like the plague now. I’ve wanted to stop using Google for a while now (due to the Google founders funding lobbying groups to eliminate ISP’s in favor of a single Government ISP) but their hadn’t been any viable alternatives until Bing.

So, if you haven’t given Bing a shot yet now’s the time, and decide for yourself.

Microsoft Discontinues Money

Aubrey — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:21:00 GMT

Sad day for me. I’ve been using Microsoft Money to pay my bills online since 1995. Over the years, I’ve decided on what banks to use based on whether they supported Microsoft Money. Guess I’ll have to start using Quicken. Here's the official announcement:

Important notice: Microsoft Money Plus will not be available for purchase after June 30, 2009. All purchased Money Plus products must be activated prior to Jan. 31, 2011.
With banks, brokerage firms and Web sites now providing a range of options for managing personal finances, the consumer need for Microsoft Money Plus has changed. After suspending annual updates of Money Plus in 2008, Microsoft is announcing today that we will no longer offer Microsoft Money Plus for purchase after June 30, 2009.

Granted, I still have a year and a half until support drops off, but I’m really saddened they decided to discontinue it, it was a really good product, and one of the few that Microsoft delivered on time, year in and year out.

Bing is actually BETTER than Google! Updated!

Matt Freestone — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:24:21 GMT

I know these are fighting words, but all I’m saying is keep an open mind and give it a shot when we all finally get a crack at it. Don’t believe me? Ask Steve Wozniak - http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Woz_Microsoft_Bingastounding_46404182.html

Also in Mary Jo Foley’s article today, she addresses the question of who will Bing take search share from and the initial consensus is Yahoo. While I think that is true and Microsoft definitely has an uphill battle against Google from a technology standpoint Bing absolutely has a shot.

I think Microsoft’s under playing Bing here and wisely so. If they came out and said “We’ve finally got something that competes head on with Google and actually beats it” people would immediately dismiss it as a failure without even trying it. Smart play MS, but I’m going to say it.

Bing is better than Google. Halleluiah, it’s about time.

Can’t wait for us all to learn for ourselves. Competition is back baby!

Just remember, I said it here first :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, after some side by side comparisons with Google, here’s what I got;

So, I'll be up front. I'm not a fan of Google as a company but they have until this point by far the best search engine. So, I have used Google exclusively and as my start page for years now. Google.com/Microsoft has
been the best way to find solutions to problems with MS servers/software, etc. So, I had hopes for Bing but figured it probably still wouldn't perform anywhere near Google, until I saw it in action. My most common internet searches are 1 - problem solving, 2 - General information, 3 - commercial (such as shopping/movies, etc). So, let me give you some examples;

My initial search was for an issue I've just started experiencing with my Hyper-V servers. Here was my search criteria and experience per search engine;
Search criteria - Hyper-V certificate is expired

Bing - #1 result is the Microsoft support site with the exact issue and solution. #2 result was an MSDN blog about the issue, then ASP.NET forums post, etc. The top 3, all useful. I was shocked.

Google - #1 result, social.technet.microsoft result about an in-accurate topic, relating to an issue with the clock being off, NOT the problem or solution. #2 result a news article about Microsoft releasing a hotfix with the correct solution but a couple of clicks away. #3 result the MSDN blog about the issue, etc.

Google.com/Microsoft - #1 result is the #2 result from Google.com, etc.

First search, Bing wins hands down.

Search criteria - Star Trek

Bing - #1 result was a list of show times for local theaters with direct links. Very cool! #2 result, IMDB. Perfect. #3 result, official site, #4 result, Wikipedia, etc.

Google - #1 results, 'news' results around star trek. LAME. #2 – Official Site, #3 - IMDB, 4 - video results, etc.

Second search, Bing wins again.

So, this isn't an end all, be all, but these were my initial test searches and so far I am shocked and very glad that Bing is not only holding it's own, it's winning. I’ve been doing a lot of casual searching and so far I have remained impressed and happy with the results I am getting. All I’m saying is give Bing a legitimate chance with an open mind and I think you’ll be just as impressed as I am.

EMC World – Day 2

Jeff — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:21:56 GMT

Another rainy day here in Orlando, FL. The bloggers Lounge is hopping this morning – it must be the free latte & cappuccino. I opted for comfortable sandals today, which I’m sure violates our EMC employee dress code. I think this is the lesser of evils vs. a work comp claim for blisters. I’ll try to do some more live blogging today – starting with a morning session on Hyper-V in Windows Server 2008 R2.

Session Plans:

Morning – Hyper-V in Windows Server 2008
Afternoon – ~~Microsoft Apps in a Virtual Environment (Panel Discussion)~~, ~~Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) Considerations~~, ~~Database Deployments on Flash Drives~~, EMC Replication Manager

Microsoft Hyper-V Session: The presenter did a good job of holding his own in a hostile environment. After all, this is EMC World… and the keynote included Paul Maritz (VMware CEO). Topics included differences between Win2008 Hyper-V and Win2008 R2 Hyper-V, an overview of the Cluster Shared Volume (CSV), Live Migration demo, and a lively Q&A. I took a BUNCH of notes on my tablet and will upload them to the blog soon.

Afternoon Plans: Unfortunately I was sequestered in an internal meeting from 12:00-1:30, and I have another one at 2:45. This means I missed/will miss my afternoon Microsoft panel discussion and Cisco FCoE session. That’s one of the unintended consequences of combining the (EMC employee only) Technical Consultant Conference with EMC World.

Oh well, I’ll still get to catch the Database ~~Deployments on Flash session at 4:15~~. Strike that… the Flash session was standing room only. I decided to try a Replication Manager (RM) session instead, but it was rather basic. Not a bad thing if you are new to the product; however, I was hoping for something in the 201/301 range (sizing, troubleshooting tips, etc.). You win some, you lose some.

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Session Notes:

Coming soon…

--Jeff

My Phone Outage Planned Today

Aubrey — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:24:21 GMT

From their blog:

The My Phone service will be not be available on May 18 to enable deployment of a service upgrade. During this maintenance period, you will be unable to access the My Phone web site or to sync your phone with the service. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Site is definitely down, hopefully everything will go smoothly, and the service will be back up quickly.

EMC World Day 1

Jeff — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:08:00 GMT

I’m in Orlando, FL this week attending EMC World 2009. Since this is WindowsConnected.com and not EMCConnected.com I’ll primarily focus on Microsoft/EMC tie-ins and overlapping solutions. If anyone in the WindowsConnected audience is here @ EMC World… please drop me a PM and we’ll hook up for coffee in the Bloggers Lounge.

Status Update (Final for Day 1):

Internal EMC Pre-Sales Session: Check

Registered at Bloggers Lounge and affixed annoying blinking LED button to my badge: Check

Keynote with Tucci and Maritz up next – I”ll blog any key announcements. UPDATE - No major announcements... Tucci seemed a bit flat (maybe he's sick?) and Maritz basically covered the same content that he did during the vSphere launch. Kind of bummed... I was hoping for a new product announcement or something.

Let the sessions begin - I'm headed to a session on EMC SourceOne, our new e-mail archiving and eDiscovery application. This application replaces EmailXtender, an app that functioned OK but looked like it was written for Windows 3.1. SourceOne offers more features and also sports an Office 2007-like ribbon interface. It's good stuff... one of my customers just finished a virtual lab proof-of-concept and is moving toward a limited pilot deployment with Exchange 2003/2007. I'll blog more about this in the near future.

SourceOne Session Update – This one was standing room only. Looks like customers are interested in this new product. If you were turned away like I was, check back Tuesday @ 4:15pm for a replay session (same content, same speaker).

I’m off to an Avamar lab at 3:00pm… then a Celerra performance monitoring/troubleshooting lab at 4:30. I learn best by doing vs. watching… so I’m hitting as many labs as possible.

Avamar Lab Update: This is a product you must see to believe. Seriously… when I hear dedupe stats like 500:1 bells and buzzers go off in my head. However, now I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Not every workload will see this kind of dedupe, but Avamar should be on your short list for backing up dense VMware environments, remote offices, and NAS installations. Avamar also supports Microsoft SQL Server and Exchange Server – with no extra charge ‘per agent/client’.

FWIW the Avamar user interface could use some work. I’m not a big fan of a Java UI, let alone one that isn’t consistent from one screen to the next (right-click works one place, but not another). Anyway – I’m sure this will be fixed in the near future and shouldn’t prevent you from evaluating the solution. Note to Avamar team – talk to the SourceOne UI designers for some tips/tricks on good UI design.

Other Sessions: I waited in line for the Celerra session only to be turned away by some silly Fire Marshal rules ;) I also had to leave the Symmetrix V-Max performance session because I was getting claustrophobic. Seriously – the place was packed *and* warm. I vote for larger (and cooler) meeting rooms next year.

Useful Tips and Useless Info:

This is the 9th EMC World… and by far the most sanitary. Due to concerns over Swine Flu the convention center is sporting quite a few hand sanitizer stations.

I’m using TweetDeck to monitor the Twitterverse for EMC World info. I really like this little Adobe Air application for monitoring multiple search terms in one window. It could use some work – specifically around the filtering capabilities of broad search terms (ex. EMC, V-Max). However, it’s still an excellent app in my opinion. Here’s a screen shot of my current TweetDeck window…

Global economy meltdown = no ‘melt in my mouth’ snacks :( So far I’ve only seen water and coffee at the beverage/snack stations. Oh well, such is life. UPDATE – I was just being impatient… and showing how bad my sweet tooth really is. They brought out the snacks mid-afternoon. Cookies, salt water taffy, brownies, and even some trail mix if you want to feel good about yourself. Thanks, EMC! You helped me survive the afternoon.

I’ll blog more tomorrow.

--Jeff

Xen vs. KVM: Ending the Debate

Brad Moczik — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:53:21 GMT

Based on the reader comments, I apparently pushed some hot buttons in my last post. Basically, I stated that by encouraging Linux developers to focus on KVM, the Linux Foundation is taking a somewhat small-minded view of virtualization. Of course, I expected there to be some reaction from the Linux community to a statement like that. But needling the Linux fan base was not my intent, yet it was evident from some of the comments that my post was unintentionally interpreted as an attack on KVM and Linux. Ironically, it was the whole “versus” game between Xen and KVM that I was criticizing to begin with! In this post, I’ll expound on my position and hopefully clarify the key takeaway point. But first, I must address a few common technical inaccuracies that crept into the reader comments:

ESX employs full virtualization, which fully emulates the hardware. Xen and Hyper-V employ paravirtualization and do not fully emulate hardware. KVM employs limited support for paravirtualization through special network and memory drivers.
Xen, Hyper-V and ESX are type-1 virtual machine monitors (VMMs)/hypervisors. The hypervisor runs in Ring 0, while the parent partition (dom0) and the child partitions (domU, guest VMs) run in Ring 1. KVM, Virtual Server, VirtualBox, Parallels, VMware Workstation, etc., are type-2 VMMs. The VMM runs in Ring 3 as an application. However, through it’s limited paravirtualization, KVM is able to achieve performance closer to that of a type-1 hypervisor when compared to typical type-2 VMMs.
Hyper-V does not require installing an entire instance of Windows Server 2008. Selecting the Hyper-V role essentially installs a stripped-down version of Windows Server or Server Core in the parent partition (dom0).

Why do these architectural differences matter? For starters, type-1 VMMs generally perform much better than their type-2 counterparts. One reader who commented on my last post said that in his own tests, KVM performed better than Xen and ESX. He then admits in the next sentence that he doesn’t like Xen much anyway. So, obviously, I’m not buying it. Even if his testing was valid, I’m sure the better performance was only with Linux guest VMs. And how about stability? With a type-1 VMM, if one guest VM crashes, it should not affect the other VMs. But with a type-2 VMM in which the host potentially is running other application workloads alongside the VMM, the failure of one application could impact the VMM. Now, you can say that the Linux KVM host can be stripped down to basically only run virtualization workloads. But, if you’re going to strip down your Linux host to make it function more like a type-1 VMM, why not just run a type-1 VMM?

But, let’s assume that the technology improves and that KVM performance and stability become near that of a type-1 VMM. The issue is bigger than performance, though. It’s more about the mentality. The commoditization of hypervisors mean that they should be treated almost like hardware. When you buy servers, you buy them with the expectation that you can run a desired range of operating systems (or hypervisors) on them. It doesn’t matter whether they’re running Intel or AMD, whether they’re from Dell or HP, etc. Same goes with hypervisors (though the CPU does matter to an extent when migrating VMs between hosts).

One reader suggested that more and more functionality will be added to hypervisors so that they become more like full-fledged operating systems. But the goal is not to move hypervisors up the stack by making them more like full operating systems. If the hypervisor natively can run applications, then is it really still virtualizing? It will just be an interface between the app and the hardware, which is what an operating system is. Rather, hypervisors are moving down the stack and becoming closer to the hardware, as evident by the work Intel and Phoenix are doing to add virtualization instructions to chipsets and BIOS respectively.

The point is, enterprises run various operating system and OS workloads, and like the hardware, the hypervisor should support those workloads equally and indifferently. If my goal is to virtualize all those OS workloads, why would I want to install an operating system on bare-metal hardware just so it can host those OS workloads on top of it? Why use an operating system to host operating system workloads when I can use a type-1 VMM? And shouldn’t the VMM sit at a lower layer than the operating system?

Of course, part of the Linux Foundation’s job is to promote Linux, and I have no problem with that. As reader Bill Murray pointed out, there definitely are use cases for KVM, but by and large, those use cases are going to be predominately around hosting Linux workloads. Do you really see shops hosting Windows workloads on KVM? So for the Linux Foundation to blanketly encourage developers to focus on KVM just keeps the Xen-vs.-KVM debate going, which you think the Foundation would avoid considering the whole Xen and kernel-inclusion debacle. Furthermore, it just seems out of touch. Enterprises already are standardizing around Xen, ESX and Hyper-V. Sure, the Linux Foundation can promote KVM where it’s appropriate, but shouldn’t it also be encouraging developers to improve Linux’s performance and support on those platforms? Novell understands this, and partnered with Microsoft to support SUSE Linux workloads on Hyper-V. Conversely, Microsoft is working to improve support of Windows workloads on Novell’s Xen-based virtualization platform.

The bottom line is that none of the Big 3 hypervisors are going away anytime soon. Developers can accept this and support these platforms and the enterprise customers that have adopted them. Or, they can live in the niche.

Windows 7 RC Download now up for non-subscribers

Josh Phillips — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:09:31 GMT

As promised Microsoft has released the Windows 7 RC download for everyone else today. They are not limiting the number of people who can download this build, but make sure you get it before the end of July. You can get the build here.

Things you should know:

This build will expire on June 1, 2010 and you will start seeing bi-hourly shutdowns on March 1, 2010.
You will not be able to do an upgrade from RC to RTM
This is an RC and as with any install it is important you make a backup of your data first
You should be using a dedicated test machine.
Minimum Requirements are 1GHz or faster processor, 1GB RAM (32-bit) / 2GB RAM (64-bit), 16GB (32-bit)/20GB (64-bot) Disk space, DirectX 9 graphics processor

License Key will be given to as part of the downloading process.

Important Links

Its still a little early to say when Windows 7 will RTM even in this last stage of the game, but my bet is before the end of summer. So if you are looking to get a machine during the summer make sure you have Windows 7 in mind and start looking for free OEM upgrade offers in the near future.

Windows 7 Release Candidate Now Available For TechNet & MDSN Subscribers

Josh Phillips — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:38:16 GMT

If you are a subscriber to Microsoft’s MSDN or TechNet you should now have access to the Windows 7 Release Candidate Build. The server is very overload at the moment so you can expect to get a lot of errors for the next few hours/days. The WAIK, Device Driver toolkit, and Debugging tools for RC are also in the downloads.

Not familiar with Windows 7 then check out the Win7 Homepage here.

If you are not a subscriber the public download will be coming on May 5th. At this rate it may take the rest of that long to get the download.

josh

Office 2007 Service Pack 2 Download Now Live

Josh Phillips — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:17:52 GMT

Today as expected Service Pack 2 for Office 2007 has gone live. Before you start your SP2 install you should check out the KB article here. This should give you a good overview of the improvements and the known issues to expect.

Downloadable list of issues that the service pack fixes

2007 Office Service Pack 2 Changes.xlsx

2007 Microsoft Office Suite Service Pack 2 download

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=B444BF18-79EA-46C6-8A81-9DB49B4AB6E5

Microsoft Office Language Pack 2007 Service Pack 2

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=E1203DB2-1CC9-4809-9B6E-3F232CB8899F

For those who are dealing with MUI’s in the enterprise you can download the updates to those by changing the language on the Offline Language pack 2007 SP2 page and then applying this update after you have applied the main SP2 install.

Xen vs. KVM: The Linux Foundation’s Small-Minded View of Virtualization

Brad Moczik — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:48:21 GMT

At the Linux Foundation’s Collaboration Summit in San Francisco last week, executive director Jim Zemlin encouraged vendors and developers to standardize their virtualization activities around KVM—not Xen. This whole Xen vs. KVM debate is getting annoying, but first off, this “news” isn’t news: there shouldn’t be any shockwaves from this late-in-coming statement. Why? Because KVM has been officially included in the Linux kernel since early 2007. So it shouldn’t be any surprise that The Foundation (that has a nice Big Brother ring to it, no?) is encouraging KVM adoption.

But the crux of the issue is really around why The Foundation chose KVM in the first place. It’s simple: KVM = Linux; Xen = Xen (that is, a purpose-built hypervisor derived from Linux). In fact, guess what KVM stands for? Kernel virtual machine. So if I were going to include one in the Linux kernel, which would I choose…hmm… While that seems like an easy decision, there are consequences. For starters, Xen is the more widely-adopted platform that already has abundant commercial support and an active open-source community. Second, KVM is not a true hypervisor: it’s a hosted VMM. I don’t know why the Linux zealots are fighting this one so much, but they argue it is a hypervisor because it gives guest operating systems direct access to the hardware. Fine, I’ll make a concession: KVM gives Linux hypervisor-like functionality. But, it’s not a true hypervisor because it requires Linux. It uses the regular Linux scheduler and memory management. So, if you want to load up KVM, you have to boot up Linux—there’s no two ways around it.

What really annoys me, though, is the The Foundation’s attitude towards virtualization. Take this comment from a Linux coder at IBM, which didn’t come from The Foundation’s Summit, but pretty much sum’s up its general philosophy:

I trust Linux to run on my dvd player, my laptop, and to run on the servers that manage my 401k. Is virtualization so much harder than every other problem in the industry that Linux is somehow incompatible of doing it well on its own? Of course not. Virtualization is actually quite simple compared to things like real-time.

Wow. If Microsoft has ever been criticized for trying to make Windows do everything, then The Foundation should be criticized ten-fold since they're doing the same thing but under the auspices of being a "non-profit consortium." Of course, the undoing of the Linux coder’s logic is the last line in his very own comment. If virtualization is a “simple” workload, than why do I need to boot full-fledged Linux to get it? More importantly, why would I want to? While running virtualization as just another application workload on top of an OS might be fine for dev/test, it’s not fine for production workloads. Servers that are part of virtualization resource pools are not going to be doing anything other than hosting guest VMs because I want to eek as much performance out of those servers as possible. To ensure that, the only thing running between my OS workloads and bare-metal hardware should be a thin, purpose-built hypervisor. Why would I want the performance hit and increased attack surface that comes with booting a whole operating system if I don’t need it?

MS understands this, which is why Hyper-V is a true hypervisor as opposed to it’s Type-2 VMM predecessor, Virtual Server. Dell and HP understand this, which is why they give customers the option of ordering servers with XenServer or ESX pre-installed. Organizations understand this, which is why they’ve standardized around true hypervisors like XenServer, ESX and Hyper-V. Everyone seems to understand this except The Foundation, which seems to believe that all workloads are best run as just another application stack. They’re not. Don’t get me wrong, The Foundation’s Swiss Army Knife mentality can be appropriate—and even ideal—for many types of workloads. But if you give me a nail, I want a hammer—not some Frankenstein “utility” tool.

The New Rumor Mill (F'd Company Replacement)

Jeff — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:09:54 GMT

Some of you who lived through the post-Y2k and dot-com bubble burst may remember a little site with a foul name (I'll shorten it to F'dCompany.com to avoid any web filter issues). F'd Company was a great source for layoff rumors. Heck, I probably spent a good 30 minutes every night looking for news on my employer at the time. Not only was it a sick, morbid curiosity that drove my eyeballs to F'd Company... more often than not it was the humorous forum threads that kept me reading long past bedtime. Anyway - I haven't found a suitable replacement for the humor element... but the rumor mill component is covered by the following sites:

Note: Some of these sites may contain foul language and other inappropriate content. Please view them after hours to avoid violating your acceptable use policy at work.

Of course you can also mine Twitter if you’re fond of information overload. You can use Twitter’s built-in search engine at search.twitter.com or one of the numerous external tools like Tweetscan.com and Tweetag.com.

Bottom line – try to stay upbeat about the current situation. One of the best things that ever happened to me was getting fired from an apartment leasing position very early in my career. That got me into IT, and I’ve never looked back ;)

OCS 2007 R2 EE Web Services 401.1 Authentication Issue

Matt Freestone — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:43:26 GMT

Yeah I know, the title needs work but here’s the situation.

When deploying the new Reponse Group services workflow I noticed I couldn’t do it from the local server itself (it’s a web UI) but I could do it externally through my ISA server. I also noticed that the response group service couldn’t expand the exchange distribution lists I was trying to use for my agents in the response group either, initially due to an SSL/TLS issue (Which I resolved by replacing my external web services named certificate with a SAN, and adding the server name and OCS pool names (enterprise edition) to my cert for IIS) and after I corrected that, I was getting a 401.1 login issue.

So, it very quickly became obvious that my issue was being caused by Kerberos authentication. It is a Kerberos issue because in the Enterprise Edition of OCS, everything is done via the Pool name, rather than the server name. Kerberos uses the server name to do authentication. Therefore, with Enterprise Edition, the server itself (or internal clients for that matter) will not be able to access OCS web services directly as they will attempt to use Kerberos authentication and it will fail. Since all my users are external to ISA, which passes back only NTLM authentication, I didn’t run into this issue until I needed to server itself to be able to access the web services. So, the simplest solution would be to disable Negotiate (Kerberos) authentication in IIS right? Well, unfortunately wrong, because nothing I could find anywhere (including TechNet, etc) could show me a way that actually works to turn off Kerberos authentication in IIS. For example, you’re going to come across this command in some variation;

appcmd set config /section:windowsAuthentication -/providers.[value='Negotiate']

Unfortunately, this command and every variation of it I could find does NOT work. Nor could I find a good guide to tell me how to alter the applicationhost.config file to disable negotiate, etc. So eventually I abandoned what should have been the far simpler solution and went to correct Kerberos.

Again, this wasn’t as simple as it should have been either. First I had to do a lot of SetSPN commands. Use this KB article as your guide;

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929650/en-us

I had to do commands for the host, for http, for the authentication pool, for the user account, etc. I did them all, and it still didn’t fix the issue. So then later at the bottom of that KB is a list of ‘additional considerations’ that list things to try other than the SetSPN commands to fix Kerberos. The items I used were ‘setting the accounts for delegation in AD’ (both the computer and RTCComponentService accounts) and disabling the ‘loopback security check.’ This one has you create a DWord value in the registry. It says it is only for Server 2003 (and my OCS is on Server 2008) but it does apply to Server 2008, even though the KB doesn’t say it does, I still had to do it. The KB for it can be found here;

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896861/

After all this and rebooting the server, Kerberos authentication began working for me and Response Group was able to expand the distribution lists. I realize this isn’t exactly the most well written post (I’ve spent a lot of time on this stupid problem) but I just wanted to get it out there to hopefully save someone else the nightmare of trying to fix this issue.

Are touch screen phones a unanimous step forward in technology?

Brad Moczik — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:58:56 GMT

In a previous article, I questioned whether the iPhone—or more accurately, its wild popularity—is stunting mobile phone research and development. Why? Because Apple became a major cell phone player overnight and its relative growth vastly outpaces the growth of competitors and even growth of the overall market. Apple and the iPhone have jolted the slumbering competition to life, and competitors have jumped on the touch screen bandwagon. But as manufacturers play catch-up and try to fashion their own devices with touch screens, will we see any more real innovation in the market for a while? Or are manufacturers just engaging in a features war with Apple? Furthermore, are touch-based devices a unanimous step forward in technology?

Back in November, I entered the smart phone world with the purchase of the Sprint HTC Touch Diamond. While it has some drawbacks, it’s a good phone and does everything I wanted it to do: checks email from multiple accounts, syncs with my Exchange calendar, backs up data to the cloud, runs various apps, and provides a solid web browsing experience. HTC did a good job of hiding the more touch-unfriendly aspects of Windows Mobile 6.1 through the elegant TouchFlo 3D interface.

Lately, though, I’ve been pining for a keypad. I know, I could’ve gotten the HTC Touch Pro (or AT&T HTC Fuze). But I intentionally opted for the touch-only Diamond. I’m leery of multiple moving parts on phones—especially when it involves such a critical component—and have always preferred non-flip phones. Plus, when I think about the use cases where I’d want the keypad, the landscape, slide-out version wouldn’t really help. For instance, I want a keypad for better one-handed use. However, the landscape keyboard on the Touch Pro basically necessitates two-handed use. Plus, switching back and forth between vertical and horizontal use depending on the app didn’t seem ideal. And finally, I wanted to go full-bore into the touch screen experience without the crutch of a keypad. Hey, if iPhone users could get used to it, so could I, right?

Right. But after several months of use, I can declare that some drawbacks to touch screens have nothing to do with an adjustment period. Below are some reasons why touch screens might not necessarily be a technological step forward.

No muscle memory. Take a look around your office and note the iPhone users: they walk around, heads down, elbows tight to their sides, clutching their phones with two hands. Touch screen phones engulf you in the experience because you have to look at the screen when typing or pressing any “buttons” because your hands don’t have a frame of reference. With my last phone, a Motorola Slivr, I got fairly adept at texting using the standard number pad. I’ve never needed T9 or any of those predictor programs because I just can type the word faster. Furthermore, while I tried not to do it often, I could text when driving if I had to because typing didn’t require my full attention. Not so with the Touch Diamond. Typing is a concerted effort and, as a result, I really avoid texting when driving. Seriously. If i do have to text, it’s mostly short msgs. For safety reasons, maybe that’s a good thing. But in terms of technological progress, it’s not. To me, better technology would require less concentration, allowing you to multitask. With a tactile keypad, you can learn the location of keys through muscle memory, so to speak. That way, your eyes are on the screen (or the road, if driving)—not the keys. Not so with touch screens. They’re like high-maintenance divas who demand your full attention.

The “track pad effect.” I’m one of those people that prefers the little nubbin-based control on laptops instead of the track pad. Why? Leverage. Just moving the nubbin slightly moves the cursor a lot. On the other hand, moving the cursor across the screen often requires multiple swipes across a track pad. Touch screens are the same way. Take something like web browsing. Yeah, it’s cool to move the page with your finger, but it’s not efficient. In fact, I challenge you to load this article up on your phone and tell me how many swipes it takes to read it entirely. But what if I was using a phone that had a Blackberry-ish control wheel instead? I could keep my thumb on the wheel and read the entire article, moving my thumb only slightly to scroll the page. Compare that to the touch screen, which requires me to move my finger across the screen and obstruct the page I’m trying to view. Maybe I’m a closet kinesiologist or something, but I think technology improvements should result in fewer mechanical movements. The problem is, the touch screen is a wide-open canvas where buttons can be anywhere. With fixed controls, developers had constraints, and creative developers would think of the best way to leverage those controls. Sure, developers may get more efficient, but you will still end up making more movements with a touch screen.

A touch is a touch. I was on a call the other day when I accidentally muted myself. Why? Because my ear inadvertently touched the mute button on the screen. As long as whatever is touching the screen has capacitance, a touch is a touch. If a charge is sensed, the screen will respond, which causes a lack of precision. What you intend to press the ‘V’ key but your capacitance was sensed first around the ‘B’ key? You’ll get a ‘B'.’ Some of this has to do with design, as the Full QWERTY keypad on the Touch Diamond is a little more cramped than the keypad on the iPhone. In fact, I typically just use the Compact QWERTY keypad as the buttons are bigger and it allows for easier one-handed use. But regardless of the button layout, typing on a touch screen is a little harder and more error-prone than typing on a real keypad. This could change somewhat as the technology improves. For example, pressure sensitivity could reduce the number of errors or miss-touches. Also, an infrared light could lock the screen when it is obstructed, such as when in your pocket or next to your head during a call. The Samsung Omnia uses an infrared light to silence the phone when it is placed screen-side down. But even with these improvements, typing will be a more deliberate effort on a touch screen versus a physical keypad.

The above examples are just a little food for thought to challenge the way we gauge technological advancements. I mean, touch screens are so sleek, sexy, and downright cool that they must be better than their clunky physical counterparts…but are they? What do you think?

Is the iPhone stunting mobile phone R & D?

Brad Moczik — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:09:51 GMT

A few weeks ago, a colleague and I were talking about the iPhone and postulating about the catalyst to its touch-based approach. For starters, I think the company was considering adding phone functionality to to the iPod. With that in mind, I imagine that one day, Steve Jobs was browsing the web on his phone and became frustrated with the experience: small screens, super slow load times, improper page rendering (if pages even load at all), and painful navigation. He challenged a design team to improve the experience, and the first piece of the puzzle was to somehow increase the screen size without significantly increasing the phone size. With a bigger screen, more of a web page obviously would fit on the screen. But, what about scrolling and clicking on links and buttons? Those tasks can be awkward or inefficient when using a directional pad or some other type of control. But what if the screen became the input device? Well, the rest is history…

On the other hand, my colleague believes that Apple intentionally set out to design a device based around a touch screen because, unlike a fixed keypad, a touch screen’s controls can morph based on the application. If you’re using a phone, the screen displays a number pad. If you’re messaging, the screen displays a keypad. If you’re browsing the web, the screen displays browser controls. If you’re playing a game, the screen displays controls customized for the game. The phone’s screen is a shape-shifter, allowing the device to morph into a phone, an internet browser, a gaming device, etc.

I found that theory pretty interesting. My colleague’s a hardcore Apple fan, so might he be giving Apple a little too much credit? After all, before the iPhone, Apple didn’t show much commitment to touch screens. Apple remains one of the only major notebook manufacturers without a tablet model. And wouldn’t the iPod, a device that could benefit from touch-based controls, have been an obvious candidate for a touch screen makeover long before the iPhone came around?

Who knows. I suppose I could do some digging to see if I can find out the history of iPhone’s design. But, I’m not really concerned about that. I’m more interested in how the iPhone has been a disruptive technology causing a flood of touch-based phones to hit the scene. Every touch-based smart phone is inevitably compared to the iPhone, and analysts began writing off stalwarts like RIM and Palm with every month that went by in which they didn’t have a serious competitor. Same goes for Microsoft and the delays around the more touch-friendly Windows Mobile 7. And we all saw the hype around Google’s entrance into the market, though that seems to have died down given that apparently no manufacturers displayed Android-based phones at the Mobile World Congress (guess the analysts were wrong).

What I worry about, though, is whether touch screens are unintentionally stunting further innovation in mobile input technology. Don’t get me wrong, touch-based phones certainly are innovative and have a lot of benefits. But while the technology lends itself to improved web browsing and multimedia functions, it’s not as adept at core phone functions like calling and messaging. Because the interface isn’t designed around a particular function, it ends up having a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-nothing effect. I don’t think touch screens are a fad, but I’m not the only one who questions whether they are the be-all-end-all input method (see here and here). There are interesting alternatives. But as manufacturers continue chasing after Apple and the iPhone, I worry that R & D around other input technologies will move at a molasses-like speed until touch screen hype fades and touch-based devices become status quo.

In a follow-up article, I challenge whether touch screen technology really is a step forward based on observations as well as my own experiences with a touch screen phone, an HTC Touch Diamond that I’ve been using for several months. In the meantime, what do you think about touch screen phones?

Internet Explorer 8 Released To Web (RTW)

Josh Phillips — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:19:00 GMT

Today, sometime, Microsoft is making available for download the final release of Internet Explorer 8. They have a press release announcing its availability, here. However the IE8 homepage - http://www.microsoft.com/ie8 - still points to the RC1 download. That will change at some point this morning obviously and I will update this post with links to the download then.

Download now live

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/worldwide-sites.aspx

For now check out the IE8 Fact sheet and start getting yourself ready for the download. Those of you planning on deploying IE8 using the IEAK can start by studying up on its documentation here.

What’s new for IE8:

Full CSS 2.1 support
Passes the ACID 2 test
DOM and HTML 4.01 improvements
Accelerators
Web Slices
Instant Search
Enhanced Find on Page
InPrivate browsing
SmartScreen Filter (enhanced Phishing Filter)
Compatibility View
Smart Address Bar
Tab Groups
and More…

Be sure to check out the IE8 compatibility list below which has over 3,000 sites which need compatibility mode to function correctly, and if your site is in the this list hang your head in shame and get to work on correcting it....its small sites like digg, cnn, aol....

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=b885e621-91b7-432d-8175-a745b87d2588

Mix 09 – Day 1 Silverlight and More

Josh Phillips — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:00:37 GMT

Yesterday Microsoft kicked off Mix 09, it web developer oriented conference in Vegas, with the launch of a Silverlight 3.0 beta, new Expression Web preview, and an update to its Windows Azure platform. You can follow more on mix09 at its web site mix09.com

What’s New in Silverlight 3 Beta?

Support for Higher Quality Video & Audio. With support for native H.264/Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) Audio, live and on-demand IIS7 Smooth Streaming, full HD (720p+) playback, and an extensible decoder pipeline, Silverlight 3 brings rich, full-screen, stutter-free media experiences to the desktop. New and enhanced media features in Silverlight 3 include:
- Live and on-demand true HD (720p+) Smooth Streaming.
- More format choice. native support for MPEG-4-based H.264/AAC Audio
- True HD playback in full-screen. (720p+).
- Extensible media format support. With the new Raw AV pipeline
- Industry leading content protection. Silverlight DRM, Powered by PlayReady Content Protection
Empowering Richer Experiences.
- Perspective 3D Graphics.
- Pixel Shader effects.
- Bitmap Caching.
- New Bitmap API.
- Themed application support.
- Animation Effects.
- Enhanced control skinning.
- Improved text rendering & font support.
Improving Rich Internet Application Productivity. New features include:

60+ controls with source code : Silverlight 3 is packed with over 60 high-quality, fully skinnable and customizable out-of-the-box controls such as charting and media
Deep Linking.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO). .
Enhanced Data Support Silverlight 3 delivers:
- Element to Element binding
- Data Forms.
- New features for data validation
- Support for business objects on both client and server
Improved performance

Out of Browser Capabilities.
- Life outside the browser.
- Desktop shortcuts and start menu support.
- Safe and secure.
- Smooth installation.
- Auto-update.
- Internet connectivity detection.

Windows Home Server Available On MSDN

Aubrey — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:12:48 GMT

If you have an MSDN subscription and have been thinking about buying a Windows Home Server, it’s your lucky day. Log into your MSDN account, look under Operating Systems, and…

There you go, just provide your own hardware, and you’re good to go. I just wish it was there when I bought it. Oh well, enjoy!

Windows Virtualized On Mainframes

Brad Moczik — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:15:32 GMT

The terms “Windows” and “mainframe” aren’t typically found together in the same sentence. But if Mantissa Corporation has its way, that could change. This year, the Birmingham, AL-based company is hoping to release its z/VOS application, which virtualizes x86 hardware on IBM’s System z mainframes.

While z/VOS can support any x86-based operating system, the company is particularly interested in the prospect of running thousands of unaltered Windows instances on a single System z mainframe. Mantissa CEO and founder Gary Dennis envisions the software being deployed in a VDI scenario: users on thin clients connect over RDP to Windows desktop operating systems running on the System z mainframe. However, some people question whether the mainframe platform, which is designed for high-volume transaction processing, is appropriate for running GUI-heavy desktop workloads. They suggest the technology might be better used for running Windows Server workloads, such as SQL Server clusters or Exchange servers.

Either way, how commercially viable would a mainframe-based Windows virtualization platform be? System z mainframes cost bucu bucks, and would be out of reach for most organizations. Furthermore, the skill set required to operate System z (z/VM) mainframes is not exactly common. Knowledge of the z/VOS virtualization platform would be an even smaller niche, especially when compared to the rapidly growing talent pool for ESX, XenServer, Hyper-V and other x86-based platforms.

Still, a single mainframe supporting thousands of virtualized Windows workloads offers some serious consolidation as well as the data center power/cooling/footprint savings that go along with it. It would be great to see a TCO and ROI comparison between System z, blade, and rackable server solutions.

But regardless of its commercial viability, Mantissa and Dennis seem committed to z/VOS: "The product has been a bear for the development group but the thought of being able to run 3,000 copies of Windows on one System z so fascinated the team that we needed very little additional incentive."

Check out an interesting IBM listserv thread on the topic. Thanks to OSnews for pointing out the story.

Are Netbooks a “Trojan Horse” to Windows?

Brad Moczik — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:48:23 GMT

“Cranky Geek” John C. Dvorak recently wrote an article claiming that Microsoft’s business model for pricing it’s products—particularly Windows and Office—is “done.” Basically, he tries to point out that as netbook prices keep dropping, consumers would end up paying more for Windows and Office than they would for the entire laptop. Furthermore, Dvorak discusses instant-on technologies that make a minimal Linux desktop available in a matter of seconds. He sees these technologies as a “Trojan Horse” (the kind from Greek mythology") to Windows because, as users get more comfortable with Linux through this instant-on desktop, why even pay for Windows and Office when you can get full-fledged Linux and a competent office suite for free?

Paul Thurott already dismantled Dvorak’s faulty mathematics, so no need to beat a dead horse there. Instead, let’s look at some of his other points such as boot time. Apparently, 15 seconds isn’t fast enough for Dvorak. I admit that a 15-second startup time is probably an anomaly right now (the WinXP laptop in the video boots faster than a Nokia smart phone), but still, if even 20 seconds can become a standard, that’s pretty fast.

So, Dvorak just wants a system that boots fast and gives him a browser and a word processor. Has he not heard of Windows XPe-based thin-client laptops? OK, maybe those aren’t exactly the same since they are designed for server-based computing models (Citrix XenApp, XenDesktop, Terminal Services, etc.) But, they’re a start. Imagine if those laptops were equipped with a second or simply larger solid-state drive for storing files and maybe an additional application or two that can be used offline? In other words, what if netbook makers simply swapped WinXp for WinXPe?

In fact, WinXPe would be a better comparison to netbook he describes. His frame of reference is a netbook equipped with Phoenix’s HyperSpace, an instant-on technology that, during startup, lets users choose between booting to a full operating system or a compact, purpose-built Linux with a browser and word processor. Of course it boots faster than Windows: it’s not a full-fledged operating system. Just like Windows XPe boots faster than XP.

Dvorak suggests that as people start using HyperSpace more and get comfortable with Linux, they might question the need for Windows to begin with. But, if history repeats itself, that’s not likely. When the likes of Asus’ Eee PC first his the scene, netbooks were pretty much geekware. They had a purpose-built version of Linux with the essentials like a word processor, browser, etc. They were considered an ultraportable laptop that supplements—not replaces—an existing desktop or laptop. But when screen sizes got a little larger and models started shipping with Windows XP, netbooks became more viable for regular use. Factor in the economic climate and you’ve got a serious, low-cost alternative to typical low-end laptops, as validated by the jump in netbook sales during the holidays.

User perception also is an issue. When mom and dad buy little Johnny a netbook as his first real computer for school and play, they can feel more assured knowing it runs Windows—the same Windows that Johnny’s best friend Billy is using on the 17-inch monster laptop he has. Sure, Johnny’s parents know that his netbook might not be able to run Far Cry 2 like Billy’s notebook can, but at least it can run the same applications for school and load a Silverlight-based web site. Dvorak might be OK with running a Linux distro and settling for just a browser and word processor, but that’s because he has access to Windows on some other computer. The rest of the world who are not tech geeks, though, will demand a more mainstream platform.

Finally, faster boot times have been a “top goal” of the Windows 7 engineering team, and Microsoft is committed to the netbook platform as evident by the following session offered at last year’s WinHEC:

Designing Flash-Based Netbooks for Windows 7–MBL-T549. The session describes how to design flash-based, low-cost mobile computers (commonly referred to as netbooks), using Windows 7 to offer the best Windows experience. We will explain how to calculate the lifetime of a flash-based netbook based on specific workload numbers. The session will introduce a revised version of the Flash-Based PC Design Guide, which has been updated for Windows 7.

So, while HyperSpace certainly is cool and there definitely is a place for it, boot times could become somewhat of a moot point. Which would you rather do: wait a few seconds and get a minimal Linux desktop or wait 15 seconds and get a full-fledged Windows desktop?

XenServer and Hyper-V Have “Proven Their Mettle”

Brad Moczik — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:15:55 GMT

As a follow-up to Aubrey’s post about Citrix now offering XenServer for free, you may want to check out Virtualization Review’s hypervisor performance test. The study compares hypervisor performance between the Big 3: VMware ESX, Citrix XenServer and Microsoft Hyper-V.

For CPU- and memory-intensive applications, XenServer and Hyper-V are attractive and have proven their mettle. … What is entirely clear, however, is that all three hypervisors are legitimate virtualization platforms, and that no single company has a monopoly on virtualization any longer.

Thanks, Jaymes, for pointing out this test.

UPDATED: VMware responds to the performance test. Feel free to read it, but basically, it’s a laundry list that’s typical of benchmarking complaints:

the results are inconclusive or missing information
key SQL performance-enhancing features were not enabled
a proprietary SQL test workload was used instead of an industry standard test
storage performance was inconsistent with the configuration

VMware may have some legitimate complaints regarding the configuration and testing. However, Citrix and Microsoft probably could argue the same thing—just because their hypervisors performed better in the test doesn’t mean they performed as best as they could. So I guess that VMware unintentionally is pointing out that XenServer and Hyper-V perform better straight out of the box! :-)