Microsoft admits Vista failure
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Status
Nope, DOS-box can't do just because of the direct HW-access to measuring equipment
See, those are the sorts of things that endanger your company. What happens when the hardware quits? Can you just go out and buy another one? Sure, you have several now - - but computer equipment doesn't last forever.
As for the person asking about off-the-shelf software -- probably the majorit is COTS, but we still internally develop a large chunk of software mostly because we have to for our market segment; nothing else exists that would fit our needs in many cases.
And as for government somehow not providing money? Government is in a stupid position -- nobody gets money that needs it, only those who spend it. A lot of private / corporate organizations are like that too, and it's a bad place to be. A very large portion of this problem is directly attributed to IT management staff, and I'll tell you why:
Can your IT group tell the rest of the organization where every dollar goes? I'm not talking about "well, we spent four million on email" -- but instead, actually say "it costs us $138,000 per year to store email, $218,000 a year to send and receive email over our internal networks, and $1,308,220 for the software and server equipment to run the email systems on the client and server."
No, probably not. For most organizations (government, corporate and private) IT is simply a black hole -- money goes in, computer stuff comes out. If you decrease IT's budget, stuff still comes out. In that cirumstance, where's the cost vs output link?
Big changes are coming down the pike for IT organizations; many of which aren't going to like them. The changes are business accountaibility, in terms of being able to break out a service catalog. If you want (A) level of email service, it will cost you (x) amount and will deliver the following SLA's: xxxx. If you want (B) level of email service, it will cost you
amount and will deliver the following SLA's: yyyyyWant a big example? Google for "ITIL"
This is something our company was forced to realize many years back, and is the reason my IT organization is in the position we are now. And while we're still not perfect (nor will anyone be), this is a position that IT shops across the planet will be having to take as business continues to evolve.
Government is unfortunately is a position of not having to be financially responsible for their decisions, so relying on outdated antiquated obsolete hardware and software isn't a "problem" for them, because if it breaks, they have the billion dollars to spend to fix it.
That example I was talking about had 2 basic rules:
1. The users have to be able to do theirr jobs as good and easy as possible at all times.
2. IT overhead must be reduced to the bare minimum.
It succeeded on both counts.
ITIL is stupid. It doesn't say anything about the above, or even about the technical implementation. It only goes on and on about the very extended organizational IT structure you need to do the most simple things. Which is basically what you want to eliminate, if you do it well.
1. The users have to be able to do theirr jobs as good and easy as possible at all times.
2. IT overhead must be reduced to the bare minimum.
It succeeded on both counts.
ITIL is stupid. It doesn't say anything about the above, or even about the technical implementation. It only goes on and on about the very extended organizational IT structure you need to do the most simple things. Which is basically what you want to eliminate, if you do it well.
I was originally referring to the Air Force since that is what branch I was in. And yes we actually did keep tabs on how much stuff cost. We had SLA's with the other bases that we provided support to. IT is seen differently in the military. As long as it is up no one cares (sad huh?). We tried explaining to the bean counters that upgrading our software package to the latest version (speaking on backups) was a bad idea. We should have went with vendor y, but didn't. It is probably costing the AF (i.e. you) more money to run the upgraded package versus going with vendor y. But it isn't seen that way. The upfront cost were cheaper. Screw the back-end cost.
Where you luck out is your management understands those concepts. Your management doesn't turn over every 18 months. So they can (and do) care more.
Now that I am a contractor for another government agency I see the same thing. Money with the whole war on terror is extremely tight. If what you do doesn't affect the mission in Iraq right now it isn't a priority.
I imagine you don't have that kind of headache to contend with. One day I will try to get into the private sector. It seems like you guys have much more fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
ITIL is stupid. It doesn't say anything about the above, or even about the technical implementation. It only goes on and on about the very extended organizational IT structure you need to do the most simple things. Which is basically what you want to eliminate, if you do it well.
Then you show your ignorance of ITIL.
It very much involves what I outlined above -- the IT link to the business, in terms of services and cost. We can deliver X service for Y cost, and/or if you reduce our budget by X dollars, you will reduce or eliminate Y services.
I'm not saying that ITIL is good for everyone, or that we even follow it. But IT's direct link to and facilitation of business process and finances is exactly what ITIL is about. As for what you outlined in terms of cost vs outlay -- I'm sure it works great for a purely static environment. Good luck keeping budget at minimum while making everyone an admin and using your five-minute-wonder-restore on our remote clients; hell even our main campus clients would shred your methodology.
More than a few new people have come into our organization and scoffed at how our management works -- saying how "terribly expensive" and overblown / inflated our processes are.
After they cross the six-month mark, they get REALLY friendly REALLY fast to how we do things. That includes even my boss, who rode my ass for probably his entire first quarter about some of the nonsensical things we did -- until he saw the outcomes of not doing them even for a week stint.
I have a paper that says I'm ITIL certified. And I earned it.
Nope. Not even close. It only says what organization it thinks you should have to be able to do that. Who should do what part of the paperwork for all that.
They're probably right. Because, according to ITIL, you have to run the mill for a long time to get the right stamp to be able to do something, or most likely multiple people do small parts of it, but when it comes to the actual implementation of things, ITIL is silent.
ITIL simply expects everyone to do the technical stuff "right". They do have a paper that says they're qualified to do it, after all.
But if you ask 10 network people to do the exact same thing, you get 10 totally different implementations.
If there are an unlimited amount of technical implementations for each thing that needs to be done, your system is totally broken.
You should come up with a system that only has a single solution to each problem. One that works. And you build your (small) IT organization around that.
Yes, that's a known problem with ITIL: if you don't follow all the rules and fill out all the paperwork as you should, others will notice. That's something ITIL shines in.
But I wonder if that should be the primary focus of IT personnel. They're no bureaucrats. And if they are, all the good technicians went running.
I think you should read the thread, there's plenty of those mentioned here already
Improvements? Everything that has been thrown in my face (and typically insulted thereafter) are minor changes over XP:
-improvements in server access (though slower when copying files)
-changes in the kernel (which aren't significant enough for me to observe)
-added security (most of which I find completely useless and oriented towards the computer illiterate)
-memory management improvements (like XP needed help in this area?)
-a new graphics api substituting GDI and with it an animated UI (nothing more than eyecandy)
-new programs or "improvements" to old ones (essentially things like outlook [now windows mail] made worse)
-new search (a true improvement though it could have been better)
-DX10 (I won't even go there)
-Oh and lets not forget the DRM service and vastly improved activation and checking system (now amended to do monthly checks and gather hardware information)
Hardly worth the price imo. Besides, Vista is absolutely sluggish compared to XP. Not surprising considering it has around 60 startup processes. There are alot of small improvements, whether one can consider those worthwhile as a whole is up to them. I myself think the disadvantages outweight or defeat the purpose of the few advantages and I don't like being treated as a criminal, limited on fair use and overcharged.
-improvements in server access (though slower when copying files)
-changes in the kernel (which aren't significant enough for me to observe)
-added security (most of which I find completely useless and oriented towards the computer illiterate)
-memory management improvements (like XP needed help in this area?)
-a new graphics api substituting GDI and with it an animated UI (nothing more than eyecandy)
-new programs or "improvements" to old ones (essentially things like outlook [now windows mail] made worse)
-new search (a true improvement though it could have been better)
-DX10 (I won't even go there)
-Oh and lets not forget the DRM service and vastly improved activation and checking system (now amended to do monthly checks and gather hardware information)
Hardly worth the price imo. Besides, Vista is absolutely sluggish compared to XP. Not surprising considering it has around 60 startup processes. There are alot of small improvements, whether one can consider those worthwhile as a whole is up to them. I myself think the disadvantages outweight or defeat the purpose of the few advantages and I don't like being treated as a criminal, limited on fair use and overcharged.
Sure, but we use the stuff as long as it's viable - and it still is. This equipment costs literally an arm and leg, so it's nothing you'll be changing every 2-3 years. If we did that, then I'd be worried about the company.
Obviously your one-day foundations class forgot to mention the service catalog. Can you tell me what the entire purpose of the service catalog is then, if it has nothing to do with cost vs service vs SLA? I'd love to hear this.
I'm not sure why you continued going on about ITIL, I brought it up only because of the cost to actual work output relationship. We don't use ITIL, we use our own methodology that works fine for us. I'm still curious what of the three certs you hold and yet still somehow completely missed service catalog...
You rattle off half a dozen things that you "can't observe" or "useless" to you. That doesn't mean your opinion holds water with a business organization who leverages group policy. who has to lease refresh a third of their entire PC "fleet" per year and wants it purely automated, who wants to be able to call microsoft and have their OSes supported when we need support.
Howabout this: just because you can't see it or touch it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't important.
Well, I see what you're saying, and it does make sense. You're dealing with, what seems like, a generally fixed asset. Replacing it now versus replacing it in 10 years probably won't matter, because the cost will be the same now vs then. And in that circumstance, you are right -- it doesn't make sense to replace it until you have to. There are very few things that fit that profile, but you indeed do have one.
Not in this case, it's a firmly defined image with fixed usage, not a "work" partition in any other sense. If it gets damaged, just restore a fresh image and you're good to go.
But still, some stuff requires native DOS and that's the sole reason for its existance. To end soon, hopefully
Right but who or what does the reimage and makes sure they are upto date?
That is my point.
For dos, there isn't an "up to date" since about ten years ago
So long as you can find a computer with the appropriate socket/plug/connector for whatever their device is, DOS will likely never have to change.Funny though; my father used to work for a Motorola VAR selling city, county and state government radio equipment. They ran into a problem where new laptops didn't have serial ports any longer, so they couldn't use their field radio programming thingie.
The were able to buy some USB -> Serial dongles, but it's funny how stuff like this is stuff you never think of until it suddenly isn't supported.
For dos, there isn't an "up to date" since about ten years ago
Funny though; my father used to work for a Motorola VAR selling city, county and state government radio equipment. They ran into a problem where new laptops didn't have serial ports any longer, so they couldn't use their field radio programming thingie.
The were able to buy some USB -> Serial dongles, but it's funny how stuff like this is stuff you never think of until it suddenly isn't supported.
I think you guys are missing my point which isnt surprising as most people in the business world miss it as well because it isnt something you can point to on a budget and say, this costs x amount of dollars.
Somebody has to create, validate, maintain and deploy these images with a dos partition for these old programs. That is not free.
Step back from this specific example and note the old programs in your IT business. Many of these are obsolete, unsupported, and hard to support. There is a cost involved in the act of installing and maintaining them. There is also a cost involved with it taking a nose dive and nobody knowing how to fix it.
This is what I am trying to convey. Just because the software is bought and paid for doesnt mean it is free to keep using. But try getting a manager authorized to spend the money for the upgrade to do it because you cant point to a balance sheet and tell him how much it costs.
A classic example of this was a situation I had at a previous position. Our backup server was a complete and utter mess, running on an ancient version of NetBackup with an ancient robot, tapes, and server. We tried getting the higher ups to spend the money for a new robot, server, and tapes + software and training. Total package was right in the 200K range when you got done with it. They were unwilling to look at the intangibles because there was no dollar amount anybody could come to an agreement on if this thing took a shat.
Well it finally happened and the thing took a major dive, which caused our exchange to take a dump, and in the process our incomming fax server which sends faxes to our customer order people and public boxes via exchange was unable to send.
So what happened was a 4 hour disaster recovery. The business was huge, we were doing about 1.5 million an hour in sales that essentially came to a complete halt because the exchange server took a crap and our sales odering people didnt recieve PO's, Not to mention the wasted man hours as communication ground to a halt within the organization.
So in the end it potentially cost us millions in sales to save 200K and keep a legacy system up and running because it was deemed "cheap".
This is standard IT nonsense though, isn't it? Stuff like backup and network infrastructure just sounds like a luxury, until it stops working. If it never goes wrong, then you just get it in the neck for "wasting" money on it. When the shit finally (and inevitably) hits the fan, who gets the sack? The IT guy or the (mis-)manager?
Maybe you forgot to read almost every single post of mine in this thread? 'Cause I'm toting the same line you are...
In the specific example that _xxx_ just gave, I agree with him. A utility partition is not a difficult thing to deploy -- ImageX can do it, Ghost can do it, several other imaging softwares can do it. They can do it in concert with the standard image that you'd normally deploy too.
A dos partition doesn't require maintenance. It doesn't require upkeep. It probably requires about 300kb of disk space (when compressed) plus the overhead from his specific app. And since his app is linked and based to the very specific hardware he noted which is also not in production, I doubt that it needs any updates as well.
As such, the cost overhead for something like that is essentially nill until it breaks. And when it breaks? Welp, guessing by his response, they'll just replace it with whatever is current because it's not retaining or storing any data. At least, that's how I interpreted it.
So, in his precise and defined instance, I can find no fault with what his company has chosen to do. Replacing it today for the sake of replacement probably isn't a good business decision, because there's nothing they need support of anyway. Kinda like replacing a building because it's old; there are some things that have a longer service life than others. In the computer hardware and software world these are few and far between, but they do exist.
I doubt it -- naysayers don't like Vista because of the supposedly terrible DRM enforcement, driver issues, application compatibility, cost, bloat, resource utilization, and lack of features that they can touch, taste, hear, smell or see. I'm sure there's more I left out that they'll promptly come remind me of; vLite only fixes "bloat", and generally only in terms of total disk space rather than any actual effect on system memory, CPU and GPU resources.
If they hate Vista now (which is most of what's in this thread, in terms of opponents) then vLite will do nothing for them later.
I hate backups for that very reason. My example more or less was exactly like yours, but instead of money you gamble peoples lives. Not fun stuff.
Hey if I could talk the organization I work for now to move over to Vista I would. The drive encryption alone would help ease the fear of stolen laptops. But, alas, I am only a contractor. And this years budget is retardedly tight.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
