Sponsors

Google Search

  • Google Search
    Google

    WWW
    softwaresafari.typepad.com
My Photo
Blog powered by TypePad

Bloglines Feedblitz

  • Technorati
  • FeedBlitz - Would You Like to Get These Posts Via Email?

    Enter your Email


    Powered by FeedBlitz

  • Bloglines

Before You Install Vista Service Pack 1

How To Save Yourself Some Grief in a Couple of Easy Steps

Yesterday, Windows Update gave me the wondrous news that my computer had been selected for an upgrade to Vista Service Pack 1.

I read many of the pre-install items on the Microsoft site including the one about downloading all of the latest drivers before installing SP1. I did this.  A MSFT tech indicated that computers connected to domains cannot load this upgrade. Apparently, all of the security patches (and the registry changes these invoke) really screw with the SP1 upgrade. FYI - I use Kapersky anti-virus, PC Tools SpyWare Doctor and Threatfire.

The install was doing great for about 30 minutes and then it hung up in Step 3 of 3 at 77%. Apparently, it got wrapped around something and only a hard stop of the computer would get it out of this snafu. Upon re-booting, the system continued with the SP1 and finished Step 3 at 100%. At that point, the system went into a perpetual reboot cycle and could not ever complete the install.

Needless to say, I lost a lot of productive time because of this and had to do a lot of work to get my machine back in working order.

If you'd like to avoid this, then:

  • upgrade all drivers first
  • upgrade BIOS if a newer version is available
  • backup your hard drive
  • have your system recovery disks handy
  • get the original installation CDs for your anti-virus software
  • set a system restore point
  • NOW, this is critical:
  • disable your anti-virus, firewall and other malware protection software
  • reboot
  • download and install the Service Pack
  • reinstall your anti-virus and other protective software

If you experience the infinite loop problem I did:

  • power down the pc
  • restart the pc but intercept the bootup with a F8 function key
  • request the software repair any startup problems, then have it restore the machine to the last good restore point (the one just prior to the SP1 update)
  • after this completes (it takes a while), remove (don't just disable) the anti-virus, etc.
  • go to the Start button and key in MSCONFIG - disable all non-MSFT startup processes
  • double-check that no new driver updates need to be applied
  • download the SP1 upgrade
  • install
  • pray
  • when complete, reinstall anti-virus, etc.
  • re-enable all startup processes (select 'normal')
  • good luck

  In a strange way, I'm glad my security software stopped this stuff cold as it showed me that if MSFT can't hack my machine, then maybe it's reasonably protected from others. But, I really wish I had those 6+ hours of my life back.

I'll Take Some, You Take Some and We'll Both Stick It to the Consumer

               Who Gets Apple's Love? Customers or Shareholders?

I've been thinking about a recent conversation I had with Vinnie over at Deal Architect (www.dealarchitect.typepad.com) about the Apple iPhone. I've also been re-reading a BusinessWeek piece titled "On the Trail of the Missing iPhones" (see www.businessweek.com 2/11/2008).  The nagging issue I'm struggling with is "What arrangement should Apple have taken with wireless carriers and was the deal with AT&T the correct one?"

After reading the BusinessWeek article, here are some relevant data points to ponder:

Sales Math

  • total iPhone sales in 2007 equal 3.7 million units
  • fewer than 2 million units have been activated
  • 800,000 to 1 million units may have been unlocked
  • 315,000 phones were sold via authorized carriers outside the U.S.
  • 100,000 phones may have been sold but not yet activated
  • 300,000 - 500,000 phones may reside in the sales channel

Financial Math

  • AT&T may pay Apple $10/month/subscriber for 2 years
  • Apple still makes a $120/unit gross profit even on unlocked phones

What I'm uncomfortable about is the following:

  • Technology over the last several decades has proved to be highly deflationary. Pick the category and costs drop. Even the iPhone has come down in price. So, smart vendors identify opportunities for future price reductions.
  • More consumers will buy the iPhone if its price continues to drop
  • Total landed cost of the iPhone is quite high (see one of Vinnie's other blogs) and is certainly not a bargain relative to other phones
  • Apple is a very large firm that should have been able to negotiate a substantial price discount for its phone users. Instead, it cut a deal that takes even more money from customers and uses AT&T as the transfer agent
  • Had Apple struck a consumer friendly deal, it would generate even more demand for its iPhone. It went the opposite way instead.

When Apple developed the technical specs for the iPhone, I would bet that they shopped around for the best component prices globally. Why? So that they could build a high quality product at a low price and maximize margins. They probably even locked up critical supplies of certain components, too. They did this with the iPod and this shouldn't have been different. This aspect of Apple's sourcing strategy benefits both consumer and shareholder.

But, when it came to negotiating with carriers, Apple took a different tack. They chose to negotiate a deal that was one-sided and favored Apple shareholders (not consumers). Instead of bargaining hard for consumers, they bargained selfishly. They could have:

  • asked AT&T to reduce its prices to consumers who buy an iPhone if AT&T wanted an exclusive arrangement
  • sold the phone as an unlocked device and made it immediately workable on several carriers. As it stands, consumers tied to contracts with other carriers must defer upgrading to an iPhone until their contracts lapse or pay heavy fees to cancel these contracts. These options are expensive and not consumer friendly

Apple is in the consumer product business and maybe they should take some pointers from (Gasp!) Wal-Mart on this. Wal-Mart does a fine job of understanding a product's underlying cost and then finding suppliers who can deliver it as close to that figure as possible. Then, and this is the part Apple needs to fully comprehend, Wal-Mart sets it retail price very low to ensure it captures the maximum number of customers and to drive its competitors out of the market. This then creates a virtuous cycle that gives Wal-Mart more market share, which gives it more volume leverage with suppliers, which lowers prices more, which brings in more customers and the cycle keeps repeating. This cycle is what makes Wal-Mart the biggest retailer on earth.

There are some high-end retailers who won't play the Wal-Mart way. They fight to protect their high margins and they are not growing like Wal-Mart, if they grow at all. If Apple wants to move out of being a niche tech player (and become a tech supplier to the masses instead), then it can't think like a high-end retailer. It has to think like Wal-Mart.

I don't do business with companies that put their interests ahead of their customers. Right now, the iPhone has a total cost of ownership that's too rich for my blood/pocketbook. Guess I'll just have to wait some more and hang onto that old Nokia of mine a while longer ....

Sourcing: Sustainability or Durability?

Sustainable Technology?

This weekend, I had some help cleaning up the office.  In the course of that effort, we discovered a Dell laptop with all of its accessories still in the box.  This device can't have more than 15 hours of usage on it; however, because it is an older machine with Windows ME as the operating system and an insufficient hard drive, it is hopelessly obsolete.  This is a shame as it’s actually a fantastic system but in today’s marketplace it has zero value.

We also found a Fujitsu laptop that is even older and less capable of being upgraded.  There's also a Sony VAIO laptop with Windows 98 SE on it.  This machine is probably eight years old but it does a phenomenal job of supporting multimedia tasks but, alas, it is no longer current.

Holding the floor down, I have an E-Machine desktop unit with a fried motherboard.  I've been slowly cannibalizing parts from this device and will continue to do so for some time.

Lastly, we emptied out five boxes of miscellaneous cell phones and cell phone accessories (to paraphrase Hank Hill).  Some of those date back to two cell phone generations. I've retained them because I sometimes need them when my current phone drops and breaks.

The cell phones are an interesting technology because my older Nokia cell phones took incredible abuse over the years.  Sure, some of those older Nokia's weren’t very attractive (I still have one with a monochrome screen) and yet they still work just fine today.  With the Nokia's, all I needed to do was move the SIM card from one phone to the next and I was done.  Earlier generation Nokia phones required me to visit the cell phone store and switch the ESN number whenever I needed to change devices.  However, for the most part, the Nokia devices and their accessories were long-lasting with a high degree of interchangeable parts.

Today's cell phones are far from that.  The phones my son and daughter possess rarely make it through the first 30 days without some material break or failure.  They aren't made to be durable or to last.  Just like our laptops and desktop computers, failure and/or planned obsolescence is running at an ever more rapid clip.  The throwaway nature of technology is clearly running counter to the concepts of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Yes, I'm aware that computer hardware manufacturers are getting more aggressive in recycling their own products; however, before we applaud their recycling efforts we should ask what they are doing to extend the lives of the products they sell in the first place.

Let's go back to those laptops I discussed at the beginning of this post.  These devices are obsolete because Microsoft no longer supports security patches for the operating systems found on each.  To complicate matters, the minimum memory and hard drive storage requirements that newer operating systems like XP require are well beyond the disk/memory capacity or capabilities of these machines. I have offered these devices to many people who might have uses for them only to find that they want to immediately connect them to the Internet.  To do so would be almost irresponsible in this day and age knowing that these devices cannot be protected from hackers and other malcontents.

The first and most important step in improving the sustainability of technology is to develop technology that:

  • can be upgraded easily
  • is durable
  • is supported for 10 years not 10 months

I don't want the technology I use contributing to the toxicity of other lands and people.  Nor, I do not I do not want my technology purchases filling up landfills needlessly and quickly.

Oh, check this out, I just found a bunch of old AOL installation CDs.  I wonder how I can recycle these?

*****************************************

(If you ever get a sick iPod were soon be sure to check out www.rapidrepair.com . It could save you some serious coin and save the environment from other piece of technology headed for the landfill.)

The Extra Cost of Vista

                     This is no Upgrade - Just Ask My Pocketbook

Product Review

I recently purchased a new Compaq laptop (Presario F730US) and with it came Microsoft's Vista Home Premium software. This laptop has not delighted me and much of that dissatisfaction is due to the presence and quirkiness of Vista.

I was flabbergasted as to the number of applications that didn't make the tranfer to the new machine. I use Corex's CardScan product and have been a user for many, many years. I still have the CardScan 500 scanner and the CardScan 700c scanner that I purchased a couple of years ago. Guess what. Neither is Vista compatible. If I want to use CardScan again, I've got to spring for an additional $120-150 so that Corex (the makers of CardScan) will ship me a newer version that does work with Vista.

My pdf creation software did not work under Vista (and neither did several other products). Because I was in a pinch, I ended up paying $69 to another vendor to get a product that actually worked in Vista.

I removed the pre-supplied trial version of Microsoft Office 2007 that came with the laptop and installed a copy of Office 2003 Professional. That product has worked great from the get-go.

My previous laptop lacked a parallel port to connect to my HP Laserjet 4000tn. That printer is a beast and will likely outlive us all. I like it and it has served me very well. To connect it to my prior laptop, I bought a Targus USB port docking station from HP online a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, Targus doesn't make Vista drivers for it. I called HP about this as they made the new laptop, the printer and sold me the replicator. They wanted to charge me $39 for a technical service call to 'fix' the problem. Their help line transferred me three times before telling me I'd need to spend the money and then they wouldn't guarantee I'd get the problem fixed. I passed and through sheer tenacity got some generic driver to do the job.

HP has some software on the new laptop that alerts you to potential security and performance issues. On my new laptop, it tells me that System Restore isn't enabled. Unfortunately, neither I nor HP/Compaq help desk folks can figure out how it can be activated since my version of Vista doesn't work they way (or look the way) theirs does. That one is still screwed up. My last hope on this is to restore the system to the way it was when it was shipped to me and reload/reinstall everything. Let's see, that will set back my productivity another 8-10 hours.

Vista has had problems booting up. It has restored itself back to a version of itself on the second day of my ownership several times now. Everytime it does this, it completely whacks out my copy of Dragon Naturally Speaking. I've retrained that software 6 times in less than two weeks. How about that productivity killer folks!

Amazingly, my neighbor bought the identical laptop at the same store at the same time that I bought mine.  Interestingly, her system is confused about completely different problems.  For some reason, her laptop wants her to upgrade its DVD player software while mine is blissfully content with its DVD playing software.

The last few times that Vista had trouble booting on my machine, it caused the pre-supplied Symantec Norton Internet Security product to shut down. While the Symantec website did provide a patch program that restarted the product twice, the third time proved to be a killer.  Yesterday, I removed the software and installed a McAfee suite in its place.  If I can keep this version of Vista steady, I will probably retain the McAfee software.  I want to be clear though that Norton was not a problem here and that their help was quite useful.  However, the fact that this problem is so well-known within Norton that they have developed repair programs would indicate that all is not right with Vista today.

All of these system restores have also messed up other applications.  ITunes has tried to upgrade itself three times now.  Unfortunately, some of its upgrading or restoration experience has caused it to store three or four copies of the same song.  Given the size of my music library, this is turning to be a disk gobbling nightmare.  Apple does not provide a duplicate song removal utility in iTunes.  But of course, a software entrepreneur has obviously encountered this problem and sells a solution for the PC world to solve it.  Thankfully, it only cost $24.95 and I may have to do it just to recover some of my hard drive.

Bottom line: Comparisons between Microsoft Vista and Microsoft ME are justified. Until Vista, Microsoft ME was the operating system that caused me the most compatibility and operational issues. I greatly resent the tremendous loss of productive time I have had to endure the last two weeks.  Furthermore, I don't think that a machine that already cost me over $650 and another $59 in additional memory should also require several hundred dollars or more to get newer versions of software that work on Vista. What's really galling is that these products don't really provide new/additional functionality other than Vista compatibility.

Am I happy with Vista - NO! Am I happy with HP/Compaq? No. Who is happy with Vista? All those memory manufacturers, software vendors and others siphoning off their piece of the upgrade revenues.

Value of the Vista ecosystem - priceless. Value derived from Vista - pointless.

Andy Grove Article

    Andy Grove Rethinks Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma"

This month's issue of Conde Nast's Portfolio has an article by Andy Grove of Intel fame ("Think Disruptive"). In this piece, he outlines a theory call XBD: cross-boundary disruption. XBD explains how large firms can successfully innovate in adjacent or new markets when their size seems to limit their ability to grow in their own market spaces.

This is one sharp piece of writing and analysis and I highly recommend you check it out.(http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/2007/11/15/Innovation-At-Big-Companies

Software joinery at work

Bill Gates calls the gap between personal productivity and business application software the "last mile" in productivity. In this guest blog excerpted from KiteBlue, Jyoti Banerjee assesses if the gap has been bridged.

The use of portable computing, mobile connectivity and the Internet has changed the way we work over the past decade. However, the organisations we work in, with few exceptions, still work in the same way as they used to ten years ago. Business processes may have got automated along the way, but the engagement between person and process has not changed as much as the changes in personal productivity.

This past week Bill Gates focused attention on what he calls the “last mile of productivity" in his keynote at the Convergence 2006 event in Munich, which he describes as the gap between personal productivity software and back-end business systems. In other words, the  gap between people and process.

What is different about Gates’ solution is the breadth of vision employed in bridging this productivity gap. Of course, we are talking about Microsoft - whose record in translating vision into reality can be likened to a patchwork quilt that has a few squares missing - so we need to be careful about assessing when the vision translates into reality. More about timelines later.

Bridging the gap

In computing terms, I have been waiting for the day when we stop going to the software and the software comes to us instead. Gates’ last mile vision is the first step in getting the software to where we are. Let me explain how in three ways.

One, in combining personal productivity (Office 2007), desktop infrastructure (Windows Vista) and ERP/CRM business applications (Microsoft Dynamics) into a single visual and functional grammar, the user is able to take advantage of business software without the complex, proprietary, training-intensive interactions of current and previous examples of business software. I remain unconvinced about the individual worth of Vista and Office 2007, compared to their predecessors. But combine them with Dynamics and the result is much, much stronger.

The user gets role-specific business information delivered to the desktop without needing to access the business applications that create and store that information. Further, the user can interact with and act on that information inside their personal applications, and still engage with integrity with the business processes that are captured in the line-of-business applications. In practice, this means that the sidebar in Vista can be populated with, say, real-time data from the CRM system – the user can interact with the CRM data inside their Office system, without needing to login to the CRM application.

Secondly, the deep integration between Office and Dynamics is extended by online services. Dynamics CRM is already available as a hosted product via Microsoft’s partners. Now Dynamics ERP has been added to the mix. Next year both products will be available as hosted products direct from Microsoft. Interestingly, as the code base is identical to the one used “on-premise,” it should be possible for medium enterprise with multiple locations to mix and match in-house products with hosted services.

(Personal aside cum plea to Microsoft: on-premise is a nothing word – it means zip. At least, not in Europe. Please do not compound the dismembering of the English language by semi-literate geeks by using premise when you mean premises – they sound similar but they mean completely different things.)

Finally, the Dynamics offering is enriched by online services that bring new internet capabilities to users of business applications. For example, Dynamics CRM customers can integrate keyword marketing with Microsoft adCenter into their online marketing campaigns. And Dynamics AX customers can use eBay as an online sales channel, allowing placement of stock items on the auction channel, as well as downloading financial details for sold items.

Visibility
How much of this exists today? That is much harder to answer. We will have a better idea when Windows Vista and Office 2007 release later this month. The last mile of productivity will be bridged more effectively when we can see next year's hosted versions of the CRM and ERP applications, as well as what Microsoft calls Dynamics snaps: mash-ups that combine Dynamics information with Office 2007 and Windows Live internet services.

The technologies discussed here are not exclusive to Microsoft. Others who expose web services APIs in their business applications should also be able to integrate with the desktop and online services. Ultimately, for the user, the most authoritative bridging of the last mile will come when their need for awareness of the business applications that work in the background will slip away to near-zero. This is not a pipedream, as vendors can already start building custom or vertical applications that exploit the deep integration between Vista, Office and Dynamics. The user can concentrate on the custom software and not worry about visibility of the ERP or CRM suites.