Windows 7 Failure?

November 2nd, 2009 | by | apple, micro$oft

Nov
02

So I was checking out CNN today and I found this article titled Mac share grew after Windows 7 debut.

In the article, you’ll see some gems such as this:

If Microsoft (MSFT) was hoping that the launch of Windows 7 would halt the erosion of its operating system market share — and curb further inroads by Apple (AAPL) — there is no evidence that it’s working yet.

In fact, preliminary data released overnight Sunday by Net Applications show Mac OS X’s Internet share growing by 2.73% in October, from 5.12% to 5.26%.

Wow…really? Up 2.73%! Holy crap they’re kicking the crap out of Microsoft. Sell your M$ stock…they’re royally f*cked now!

Not quite.

Microsoft is still at 92.54% of the market share if you can trust these numbers, which are probably pretty accurate. So for those keeping track at home, that means that Microsoft is only up by say 87 points. Its still not even close people. So even though this is a CNN article that links to their fortune.com site, I wouldn’t read too much into this one. Is Apple making some gains, sure. But they’re still so far behind its not even funny.

And I’m an Apple fan!

Comments Closed

A device attached to the system is not functioning

August 30th, 2009 | by | devdog, micro$oft

Aug
30

As you’ve read before, I’ve had a variety of battles with the Hosted Messaging and Collaboration framework from Microsoft.

Today was another day for battle. And an interesting battle it was.

So here is the situation that I was running into. Within my code in the customer portal, I have a notification that is sent out that has a full back trace of what happened on the system, what was inputted and what was the error message that was returned. I of coarse try to give the user a friendly version of the error message to the screen before sending off this plethora of valuable detail. Out of this pile of data, I find the following error message has been returned:

“A device attached to the system is not functioning”

Really? Let’s look at that again. Because surely no one in their right mind would return such a generic error!

“A device attached to the system is not functioning”

Hmm, my clue-by-four hasn’t been brought out recently and plane tickets to Redmond aren’t that expensive right now. I guess I could go out there and start handing out clues. But why would I need to. This error message is clear and concise. A device attached to the system is not functioning. What more could I possibly need from this error message. It gives me everything I want! There’s a device, its one of 30 or so devices in the system, that is not functioning.

HOW ABOUT WHICH DEVICE YOU FUCKTARDS!!!!!!!

So we check out the domain controllers, the MPS servers, the web servers, OCS pools, exchange queues, look at SCOM alerts. Nothing pops out at us. Then I take a look a bit further at the error message. here is the full error message that I get back:

Server was unable to process request. ---> Unable to create 'cn=user@domain.com'./A device attached to the system is not functioning. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007001F)/Create Object -- ><response><errorContext description="Unable to create'cn=user@domain.com'./Adevice attached to the system is not functioning. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007001F)/Create Object" code="0x8007001f" executeSeqNo="58"><errorSourcenamespace="Error Provider" procedure="SetError"/><errorSourcenamespace="Managed_Active_Directory" procedure="RethrowError_"/><errorSourcenamespace="Managed_Active_Directory"procedure="TryCreateSamObject_"/><errorSourcenamespace="Managed_Active_Directory"
procedure="CreateSamObject_"/><errorSourcenamespace="Managed_Active_Directory" procedure="CreateUser_"/><errorSourcenamespace="Managed_Active_Directory" procedure="CreateUser"/><errorSourcenamespace="Hosted Active Directory"procedure="CreateUser"/></errorContext></response>

The CreateSamObject_ raised a red flag to two. If you search Google long enough you’ll eventually find something from MSDN stating the following:

From MSDN:

User account names are limited to 20 characters and group names are limited to 256 characters. In addition, account names cannot be terminated by a period and they cannot include commas or any of the following printable characters: “, /, \, [, ], :, |, <, >, +, =, ;, ?, *. Names also cannot include characters in the range 1-31, which are nonprintable

Eureka! We have found the issue!!!

The sAMAccountName for our system is pretty generic. Cut down the upn to 16 characters. Add a period and a unique key that we keep for each of our domain names. This way, the chances of you duplicating names both inside and outside of your OU is pretty limited. However, in this case there was an error with retrieving the unique 3 letter key for the end of the name so the sAMAccountName that we were attempting to set looked something like this:

&lt;property name='sAMAccountName' &gt;
        &lt;value&gt;user_domain.&lt;/value&gt;
&lt;/property&gt

This was an easy fix once we found the issue. But man, could there be a crappier error message from HMC? I mean seriously, how do you get from unable to create the sAMAccountName to a device attached to the system is not functioning?!?!?

Anyway, I figured that I would type this up, let the search engines find it and hopefully someone else can benefit from our digging through the depths of HMC.

Comments Closed

How are they making money?

August 30th, 2009 | by | micro$oft

Aug
30

Ready for some numbers this morning? Some scary, scary numbers for Xbox 360 gamers? Game Informer, current king of the smoldering ruins of the print gaming magazine empire, polled about 5,000 of its readers to get a feel for their gaming experiences, including just how many of them had unlocked the fabled “Red Ring of Death” achievement. We’d heard estimates ranging from 16 to 30 percent, but even the most pessimistic guesses don’t line up with the survey’s findings of a staggeringly high 54.2 percent failure rate. That’s five times higher than the PS3′s 10.6 percent, with the Wii coming in at 6.8 percent. Mind you, the Xbox 360 was the most played console, with over 40 percent of Xbox gamers button mashing for three to five hours a day, compared to 37 percent of PS3 gamers, and less than an hour’s worth of gaming per day for 41.4 percent of Wii owners. However, game consoles should be designed to shrug off marathon sessions and just keep on spewing polygons, something that the first revisions of Microsoft’s baby obviously couldn’t manage.

Source 1 Source 2

Are game sales that strong that Microsoft can get away with a 50% plus failure rate? Pretty freaking amazing if that is the case.

Comments Closed

Google Apps Sync

June 14th, 2009 | by | in the news, micro$oft

Jun
14

I’m not sure how many people have picked up on an announcement that Google made last week, but it definitely caught the attention of my dev team. (For those that may be new to this blog, I work for a company that offers Hosted Exchange and Hosted OCS services.)

Here’s the announcement.

Google has developed a way to help companies move onto Google Apps–and away from Microsoft’s Exchange e-mail software–without forcing a migration to the Gmail user interface.

Microsoft’s Outlook has been the dominant e-mail client within the business world for years, and Google’s new Apps Sync for Outlook plug-in acknowledges that some business workers just aren’t ready to give up that familiar interface, even if their CIOs are anxious to get everybody onto Google’s version of the cloud. Businesses who have already signed up for Google Apps Premier Edition–as well as Education Edition customers–will be able to roll out this plug-in across their networks and allow Outlook messages, contacts, and calendar appointments to sync with Google Apps.

Google is trying to expand its presence inside the world’s corporate IT departments with products like Google Apps, which the company says offers a cheaper and more reliable alternative to traditional IT software companies. Quoting data from Forrester, Google’s David Girouard, president of Enterprise products, said companies who chose to use Google’s hosted Gmail service save about $17 per user per month as compared to companies that build and host their own e-mail servers.

Demo:

Now, I’m sure that there are a lot of people out there thinking that we’re screwed. And I’m not sure that is completely true yet.

First off, we’re the first hosting provider to tie in hosted OCS with Broadsoft. Not something that everyone has done. But what does that have to do with Exchange? Everything. Its about presence. The killer application for exchange is NOT email, its calendering. OCS + Broadsoft is an extension of that. Having your IM status update because you are on a call is pretty cool and not something that a hosted service can typically offer.

Second, is Google ready for the Enterprise? Is the Enterprise ready for Google? There is still the perception that Google is beta (more below). Exchange can safely say that they are a carrier grade solution. They have done some heavy lifting for enterprises for many years and enterprises are well entrenched in their Exchange systems. Having an outlook plug-in may break that for some of the smaller guys. But I highly doubt that they will be converting the big boys with the 20,000-30,000 users.

Now, how well does this play in the SMB space? These would be the 5-50 email account systems. Well, I think it will play fairly well for those that want to shell out the cash for the premier version which will be required for the outlook plug-in. But for most, even when the costs are cheaper, there is still a group of admins out there that will not outsource their email to Google. Here’s an example:

Recently, one of my former co-workers a few jobs back was talking about putting up a new email system. They were working away from having it dog food off their hosted service. This way in case there was a catastrophic issue with the system, they could still get support email. The system has been around for many many years and new development isn’t part of the daily routine anymore so moving it out makes logical sense.

Now, he mentioned how he was putting together this box that would allow IMAP, POP, incoming and outgoing mail and webmail access. I had to ask him why? Why not just setup Google apps for domains? You could be up and running with all those services in under an hour and with the number of employees there, it would cost him nothing which was an important selling point. Because believe me, I’d love to sell him my service but the budget just isn’t there. His response to me was two fold. First, he doesn’t want to use a beta product. I don’t think that the email is beta anymore but even if it is, I’ve never had an issue. Second, he doesn’t trust Google. Now that one I’m not sure any convincing on my part would be able to overcome. But this isn’t the first time that I have heard it. There are some people that are drinking the Kool-Aid and think that Google can do no wrong. There are others that sense something is not right under the hood there. I personally don’t have major issues with them. I think that they collect a lot of data which makes them a bit dangerous, but so far, they haven’t done anything to jeopardize my trust with them.

So where does that leave us? I’m not 100% sure. I’m not sure having the plug-in will suddenly make people look around and go, “Holy crap, I could move all my email to Google and still use outlook, freaking awesome! ” The area that I think it will play pretty well is the smaller customers that really need the calendaring and are big time outlook users. They might start struggling for a bit of money and maybe they decide to take the leap to Google away from their hosted Exchange service to save a few bucks. But I’m pretty sure that this won’t suddenly convert a huge group of the IMAP / POP crowd as they have always had the calendaring issues and use an array of clients. So they’re not 100% sold on the outlook side of things.

Time will tell I guess.

Comments Closed

Business as usual

May 31st, 2009 | by | micro$oft, security

May
31

Over the past couple of years, I have been able to tolerate Microsoft a bit more than I used to. When your primary income relies on people purchasing Exchange and OCS accounts that you provide the back end provisioning and automation for, you quickly realize where your bread is buttered.

But this sort of crap really needs to stop. Yes, its their operating system. But that doesn’t excuse installing add-ons to 3rd party applications and disabling the uninstall options. I’m with the writer of this article, this is a great way to get your customers to not trust you and precisely the reason I haven’t had windows on my desktop for 8 years.

A routine security update for a Microsoft Windows component installed on tens of millions of computers has quietly installed an extra add-on for an untold number of users surfing the Web with Mozilla’s Firefox Web browser.

Earlier this year, Microsoft shipped a bundle of updates known as a “service pack” for a programming platform called the Microsoft .NET Framework, which Microsoft and plenty of third-party developers use to run a variety of interactive programs on Windows.

The service pack for the .NET Framework, like other updates, was pushed out to users through the Windows Update Web site. A number of readers had never heard of this platform before Windows Update started offering the service pack for it, and many of you wanted to know whether it was okay to go ahead and install this thing. Having earlier checked to see whether the service pack had caused any widespread problems or interfered with third-party programs — and not finding any that warranted waving readers away from this update — I told readers not to worry and to go ahead and install it.

source

Comments Closed