Microsoft Windows

Virtualization and the Mac

As I mentioned in my previous post I’m in the midst of migrating to a MacBook Pro for my day-to-day computer, and virtualization is a big part of my making the move. I’m running VMWare’s Fusion, and it’s helping make the transition easier by keeping some of my Windows apps close by. As a company, we’re firmly in the Microsoft camp with Exchange and SharePoint, and while both of those products are accessible from the Mac, it’s much easier dealing with them running Outlook and Internet Explorer. In addition, I’ve recently become hooked on Microsoft OneNote, which is not currently available on the Mac.

So far, I’ve been fairly happy with the results. Performance has not been a huge issue, and other than some sizing issues with the drive space I allocated, it’s been smooth sailing. I’m still switching back and forth a bit between Fusion’s Unity mode which allows me to run the Windows apps on the Mac desktop, and the full-screen Windows mode. At this point, about the only time I jump back into full-screen Windows mode is when I need to access something like Remote Desktop which I haven’t yet configured to launch from the OS  X dock.

This isn’t my first foray into desktop virtualization. I used it previously on my Vista laptop, running VMWare’s Workstation product to give myself a virtual copy of XP to switch back to. That worked well for me also, and it provided me a way to easily maintain copies of both Office 2007 and Office 2007 on the same machine. In both cases, virtualization has proved invaluable in giving me with a simple way to keep one foot in two (or more) different camps during OS and application migrations.

All that being said, you also can’t lose sight of the costs associated with virtualization. You do have to license all this software, but it’s still not as costly as doing the same thing with two different pieces of hardware. I think this is a great tool for those of us in IT, but I have some concerns about putting it into end-user’s hands. It’s not always easy configuring and using networks and peripherals. We have a couple end-users trying to run it on MacBook Pro’s, and they are struggling with that aspect of things. Even more troubling from my perspective, we’re starting to get some requests for copies of both Office 2007 to run under their Windows VM in addition to the copy of Office 2008 they are running on the Mac. While I’m sure Microsoft would have no trouble selling me two copies of Office for one machine, it’s a trend which will make this a very expensive option. Something else we’re getting ready to take a look at is application virtualization, probably via Microsoft’s SoftGrid.

What’s even more interesting is watching how Apple deals with virtualization in general. We’re jumping into this in a big way on both the server and desktop, but something is missing - there is no way to virtualize OS X. I have plenty of capacity left on my VMWare ESX servers, and I’d love to add an OS X server into that mix, taking advantage of my investment there as well as the reliability and cost savings it provides. I can’t see Apple sitting this out entirely, but if and when they do jump into virtualization, I suspect they’ll only allow it on Apple hardware. That’s too bad. I think they could sell a lot of software. In fact, if I could virtualize Apple applications in a similar manner, I’d probably purchase 150 copies of Keynote tomorrow.

Migrating to a Mac?

A few years ago I spoke at an IT in the Advertising Business event, and I made the case that IT Directors in this business really need to live in both worlds. I suggested that we should have both Windows and Mac platforms on our desks, and that we should use them both on a daily basis. I still think it’s a valid point, but I haven’t been living up to it myself. In a recent review of the MacBook Pro, it was suggested that one of it’s target users should be the folks administering both platforms. That sounds like me, so when a fairly new MacBook Pro became available I decided to take the plunge. I’m right in the middle of the switch now.

Over the years I’ve moved back and forth between both platforms, and at times I’ve had both platforms on my desk. The single most significant change since I last used a Mac regularly has been the introduction of virtualization on the desktop, and that’s exactly what has brought me back to the Mac now. We’re running VMWare Fusion, and since I’m a glutton for punishment I’m running a Vista VM on my new Mac. Two or three days into this experiment I’m not so sure that was a good idea. My MacBook Pro has 4GB of RAM, and I’ve allocated 2GB to the Vista VM. I’ve heard the hype about virtualization turning Macs into the best Windows machines, but I’m not buying into it - at least not with Vista. The speed on this machine is ok most of the time, but when I’m running a lot of apps I can definitely feel the hit. My Dell laptop (running Vista with 4GB of RAM) definitely outperforms it when I’m multitasking. Still, I’m going to continue using this as my every day machine for a while. It does do a pretty good job running Windows for 90% of what I do, and it really is convenient having both platforms in one package.

I’m keeping the Dell close by for a few more days, but unless my opinion changes dramatically, it looks like I’m finally going to practice what I’ve preached.

Mac vs. PC - Round 1

It’s about time that I got around to this one, and if any of you have been wondering which side of the argument I might come down on, you might be disappointed to find out that I sit firmly on the fence on this issue. I’m a firm believer that both platforms deliver on their particular strengths, and both are outstanding tools which are helping us all to become more productive. If I didn’t believe that, why on earth would I have spent the past 15 years purchasing and supporting both platforms?

However, don’t mistake my middle of the road stance for a lack of conviction, because I do have some very strong feelings about the issue itself - in fact, I have a huge problem with the argument itself. I’ve never seen a real definitive study of our industry, but I would suspect that somewhere around 75% of advertising firms operate the same way that we do, supporting both platforms. Of the remaining 25%, I would venture to guess that the majority are Mac-only shops, with a small handful of PC-only shops.

I’ve heard all the arguments. “The Mac is a toy.” “PC’s crash all the time.” Take your pick, because you can find plenty of people out there willing to scream that their favorite system is the best, and the other system is garbage.

The latest round of Mac ads certainly don’t help, and I cringe every time I see them. Yes, they’re clever. Yes, they sell computers. But are they accurate? In my opinion they’re not even close to the truth. Apple, as well as most of the Mac evangelists, are still making arguments against Windows 98. Sure, they talk about Vista in the ads, but if you want to discuss stability and security, it’s difficult to deny that Windows has improved considerably.

I’ve been running Windows servers for over 10 years, going all the way back to Windows NT. The platform has been remarkably stable. Have I seen blue screens - certainly I have, but they have been few and far between. I have Windows servers which have run for years without anything other than a reboot for updates. At the same time, I’ve also seen plenty of my Macs crash - perhaps even more frequently than our PCs. I’ve heard the argument that the reason our Macs crash is because they’re working harder than our PCs. It’s not easy pushing around all those graphics files. No, it’s not, but by the same token it’s not easy doing what an Exchange server does - and they don’t crash. Earlier versions of Windows have been full of security holes, but here’s an interesting article on Mac security which appeared today - http://www.crn.com/hardware/207000418.

Even in writing this, and attempting to defend one platform, I find myself falling into the trap of bashing the other. That’s not my intent, but it’s nearly impossible to avoid the trap. The Mac has proven to be a superior machine for working in a graphics intensive environment. I’ve seen the benchmarks, and these machines truly are tuned for doing what they do best. I would not even begin to entertain the thought of switching.

I buy Macs. I buy PCs. I take the attacks from both sides personally. If the Mac side is correct, then I must be foolish for purchasing PCs. If the PC side is correct, then I must be foolish for purchasing Macs. The fact of the matter is, both sides are wrong. Both platforms serve their purpose, and they serve it well. I woudn’t even compare this argument to Ford vs. Chevy. It’s more like arguing that sports cars are better than pickup trucks. They serve different purposes, and they both do their job well.

I’m sure I’ll return to this topic again and again, and I welcome your opinions no matter where you sit on the issue. I’m going to try to take the high road and avoid bashing one platform in defense of the other, but I also plan to speak openly about the shortfalls of both systems. We’ll see how it goes.

Instant Messaging vs E-Mail

How many of you are currently utilizing Instant Messaging as a legitimate business tool in your organizations? We’re currently planning an implementation of Microsoft’s Unified Communications system, and their IM product – Office Communicator forms the center piece of this offering, providing information about user’s presence. I’m finding that selling Instant Messaging into our organization is not going to be an easy sell, and trying to sell the Microsoft version of it makes it even tougher.

As it turns out, our latest acquisition is an office which was already utilizing Microsoft’s Windows Live Messenger in their day-to-day business. They are thrilled over the fact that we are considering the adoption of a tool they are already using, and they would protest long and hard if we attempted to remove it from their systems. When I asked them why they chose the Microsoft client instead of a more popular product such as AIM, they told me that they actually preferred the fact that the Microsoft client was less widely accepted – and it actually made it easier to sell as a legitimate business tool. This new group of users is actually turning out to be my biggest ally in terms of selling it to my own company. Beyond that argument, it’s fairly easy to make the case in terms of Communicator’s enterprise level capabilities, including integration with Microsoft’s other products and the ability to control and manage it via Group Policy, but those arguments tend to get lost on either users or management.

One of the things I’ve been asked is how is IM different from e-mail, and I actually think that particular question is a very telling one. My users have a great deal of difficulty understanding why they would ever use an Instant Messaging tool for the simple reason that we’re already using e-mail in that fashion. The point they are missing is that we have been misusing e-mail over the past several years, and that e-mail has already become an IM tool in our business. The expectations surrounding e-mail have become so unreasonable that many of our users can and do use it as a chat tool. E-mail conversations routinely happen in real-time, and people actually get upset when an e-mailed question isn’t answered immediately.

I suspect that one of the first steps I need to take in selling the idea of IM to my users is to break them of their bad e-mail habits. If we don’t do that, then they are correct in that they don’t need a separate IM product. The question is how exactly do you break these current e-mail habits? It’s obviously going to take a concerted effort in terms of re-educating our users, and I fully expect that to be a real battle.