Replies

Yeah, Microsoft has a lot of difficulty when entering into markets where they can't use and abuse their monopoly marketshare of MS-Windows.

Yeah, just like they did with Xbox, and with browsers, and with PC OSes, where, they didn't even have a presence, before they became a contender, and then, the leader. Now, they don't even have a presence to speak of in tablets, and they're about to use that monopoly they have in tablets to become a bigger monopoly? Is that about right? Methinks that, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

One huge matter you're forgetting about, is the application side, where, as far as I can recall, people still have to design them, and develop them, before they become part of the overall system. Microsoft has, as of yet, not figured out a way to replace the development side of the computing equation. Perhaps you're one of those that believes that, all apps that were and will ever be needed, already exist in the app store? Administratively, applications need to be handled too, and, it means, administrators who understand the functionality and purposes for those applications.

I suspect that they'll do o.k. with this 'surface' thing though, because theycan depend upon legions of IT workers who think that because they can click "OK" on a bunch of dialog boxes, that they are some kind of "administrator", to push this in the enterprise because they will expect Microsoft to do all the actual configuration and integration for them.

Something tells me that, you don't really know what the heck you're talking about in this area too. If administration is as simple as just clicking on a series of buttons and dialog items, WITHOUT the understanding the people MUST HAVE before doing that clicking and selecting, then, you would be correct. But, that isn't all that's required is it? Perhaps you need to investigate what the heck is required before being so dismissive about what it takes to administer a server system.

Perhaps we'll have systems that are as simple as you state, but, not yet.

Besides, isn't making things as simple as possible what the Apple fanboys keep telling us that Apple accomplishes so nicely. IOW, people who use Apple computers, do so because, they don't have to think, and things come to the intuitively. So, if Microsoft is doing the same, or attempting to do the same, why would it be such a negative when Microsoft does it? Methinks that, you're just exhibiting your hate for anything Microsoft.

Along the way, any incompatibilities that crop up that make it difficult to interoperate with any other non-Microsoft solution will be someone else's problem.

Actually, the bigger, or biggest, fear that MS server administrators have in mind, is the attempt by MS to simplify matters so much, that, the admin jobs will no longer be needed, and, the OS might end up being capable of taking care of most, if not all, administrative functions. When the total system gets to that point, there won't be a need to worry about incompatibilities, since, the system will have become a lot "smarter", and it will be able to recognize differences between the different components and systems and OSes and hardware attached to the network. That is one of the directions for the cloud, where, no matter what hardware and/or software is communicating via the network, the network will handle all of them, including systems and hardware and software from all different vendors/manufacturers.

Basically, I see no problem at all with trying to get all computers to be able to talk to each other seamlessly, and that's the direction which Windows 8, and perhaps even iOS are trying to take us. Perhaps you prefer the old days of old technology, where you do all the thinking and setting up of all the painstaking details, in order to get things done.

Perhaps the times have left you behind, and you are in dire need of upgrading your thinking and technology ideas.

If administration is as simple as just clicking on a series of buttons and dialog items, WITHOUT the understanding the people MUST HAVE before doing that clicking and selecting, then, you would be correct. But, that isn't all that's required is it?

Microsoft is doing a better job of abstracting complexity for the administrator, and that's a good thing that saves time. Clustering with Server 2003 was a PITA, but in 2008 it's pretty easy, click, click, click. However, what differentiates the real administrators is that 20% of the time when it doesn't go that easily, strange errors occur, things don't work as the Microsoft instructions say they should. You pay more for the guy who can still get that cluster installed, regardless of any errors that pop up. You don't trust the guy who just has "2008 clustering" on his resume, because he may have just learned point-and-click.

Kind of sounds like the reason we keep airline pilots around. The plane can take off and land itself, but you need a pilot if something unexpected happens.

indows. Yeah, just like they did with Xbox, and with browsers, and with PC OSes, where, they didn't even have a presence, before they became a contender, and then, the leader. Now, they don't even have a presence to speak of in tablets, and they're about to use that monopoly they have in tablets to become a bigger monopoly? Is that about right? Methinks that, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Did you even bother to read my post or did you just jump at keywords to post this drivel? Feel free to find in my post where I said they have a monopoly in tablets. You're seem to be so interested in defending microsoft for some reason that you can't seem to even understan simple english.

Perhaps you're one of those that believes that, all apps that were and will ever be needed, already exist in the app store?

What makes you think I have any use for an app store, by apple, microsoft (who is now copying this concept as well), or any other company?

Administratively, applications need to be handled too, and, it means, administrators who understand the functionality and purposes for those applications.

Well, we agree on that. The point I was making is that far too many MS-windows "administrators" don't understand the software they are using. If microsoft hasn't provided them with a "wizard" to walk them through the process, they are lost.

Perhaps you need to investigate what the heck is required before being so dismissive about what it takes to administer a server system.

LOL. you have no idea what it is that I do for a living, or what kind of systems I've worked with over the past few decades.

Besides, isn't making things as simple as possible what the Apple fanboys keep telling us that Apple accomplishes so nicely. IOW, people who use Apple computers, do so because, they don't have to think, and things come to the intuitively. So, if Microsoft is doing the same, or attempting to do the same, why would it be such a negative when Microsoft does it? Methinks that, you're just exhibiting your hate for anything Microsoft.

Again, you make assumtions about me that you don't have any rational basis for. I'll put this in small words so you can understand it. I do not use OSX. From what little time I've had to become familiar with it, it does not suit the way I work. Similarly, microsoft does not make a product that suits the way I work either. I'm sorry that it appears to bothers you deeply that some people manage to escape the clutches of microsoft and their continued push to embrace, extend, and extinguish competing products. You also conflate two vastly different environments. Desktop systems are a completely different breed than servers that do actual work. Desktop systems need to be simple and hassle free because in general users don't have a clue how to manage them efficiently. Servers, on the other hand, are supposed to be managed by people who understand the technology being deployed, not jsut monkeys that can click "OK" a couple of dozen times and think they're some kind of genious.

When the total system gets to that point, there won't be a need to worry about incompatibilities, since, the system will have become a lot "smarter", and it will be able to recognize differences between the different components and systems and OSes and hardware attached to the network.

Here, you are making an assumption that is simply not in evidence, that microsoft is interested in interoperating with any product they do not sell, unless they are forced to. They broke Kerberos, for pete's sake.

That is one of the directions for the cloud, where, no matter what hardware and/or software is communicating via the network, the network will handle all of them, including systems and hardware and software from all different vendors/manufacturers.

LOL. Yeah, the "cloud" will solve all our problems. I'm sure every company (and individual for that matter) feels perfectly comfortable shipping their confidential and proprietary data into the "cloud".

Perhaps the times have left you behind, and you are in dire need of upgrading your thinking and technology ideas.

Nope. I've just been involved in rather complex mission-critical data and applications that need security, reduncancy (localized as well as geographic), and availability. These are not generally systems you can build by clicking on a few dialogue boxes, and they take a bit more planning than saying "hey, the default options and file locations will be just fine".