InfoWorld's Oliver Rist takes a look at how Microsoft's delays ultimately impact the customer..mentioning Vista, Expressions, Visual Studio, and Exchange:
The problem is that Redmond is dictating a 64-bit-only future for pretty much all of its back-server products once Longhorn sees daylight. I'm fine with that -- it's the natural evolution of server-side computing, so they might as well develop toward it and cut down on complexity. Besides, most folks lease their servers nowadays, so we're swapping out once every three years anyway -- it works out.As if that is a new behavior for the mentioned software vendor...
That is, it works out provided Longhorn ships on time. But it won't. Vista has already been pushed back and Longhorn will undoubtedly get pushed right along with it. Yet for some reason, back-end products such as Exchange 2007 are still shipping on time -- that'll be around November for Exchange 2007.
That means a 64-bit-only version of Exchange will be delivered several months before Longhorn. And this means anyone trying to run the thing as soon as it comes out will need to run it on Windows Server 2003 x64 -- until Longhorn comes out, at which point Microsoft will strongly suggest that you upgrade the OS.
See, that's just blatant disregard for your customer.
but then Oliver blows it by saying
Of course, the fix is easy: We just won't buy it until Longhorn sees daylight.Well, actually, the fix is easier -- don't buy it, ever, and switch [back?] to a vendor who respects your need to have predictable, non-destructive, in-place upgrade as part of your IT architecture.
As an aside, is he accurate when he says that "most folks lease their servers nowadays"?
Link: InfoWorld: Microsoft's delays cause more than just frowns > (Thanks, Steve)
Post a Comment
- 2
Mike Brown | 7/20/2006 11:31:27 AM
The "most folks lease their servers nowadays" claim is news to me too. We own all ours.
And we don't replace them "every three years" either. Five years would be nearer the mark.
Cheers,
- Mike
- 3
Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 7/20/2006 11:44:49 AM
The only servers I have ever leased were the iSeries servers from IBM. It has been my experience that companies lease laptops and desktops was more often than they lease servers.
Sean---
- 4
Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/20/2006 12:05:49 PM
When we were doing stand-alone servers we purchased them outright. When we decided to consolidate into a BladeCenter we leased that, a SAN and a backup solution all at the same time. In the future we will purchase blades and SAN drawers.
I just had lunch with the VAR who sold me the BladeCenter and he said the leasing side of his business is languishing. His customers are expecting 3 - 5 year life cycles out of equipment, which makes it more compelling to depreciate than expense a lease. The only equipment being leased anymore are the big ticket items.
- 5
Villi Helgason | 7/20/2006 12:11:54 PM
I for one hope Microsoft turns things around, and for once does what they say they are going to do. Build good software. Google needs the competition, and we already have Novell. Perhaps MS does like IBM, and re-invents itself. Good luck to them.
- 6
Scott Gentzen http://www.scottandmargo.net | 7/20/2006 12:32:00 PM
Historically, I've been told that I tend to work in unusual orgs so my experience tends to not be average...
But I've never been anyplace that leases their servers either. Desktops, yes, but not servers.
In theory, we have a hardware refresh every three years for servers, but I have some 5-6 year old boxes still chugging away happily (running Domino).
I do have one 64-bit server, but can't think of anything to do with it yet.
- 7
Andy B http://andy.the-broyles.com | 7/20/2006 2:10:42 PM
I think it depends on what type of lease is being discussed.
I would bet that a lot of capitalized leases ($1 buy outs) are used in financing equipment, but not a true traditional lease. And it doesn't really matter in this case; but it does affect the depreciation of the equipment.
On the other hand, due to a statuatory account practice (SAP) constraints, quite a few insurance companies use traditional leases for their equipment. I know that we do at least. It is very nice being able to honestly have a three year rolling equipment refresh (servers one year, desktops the next, then laptops, then start it all over again)
- 8
Dennis Ellison | 7/20/2006 5:31:13 PM
In 1997 we converted to an AS/400, all programs converted "on the fly" to 64 bit (no issues), had virtual machines and all data files on the system were automatically DB2 database files. The technology has been around for years...thank you IBM. We may look at MS 64 bit server software after they actually deliver, plus 6 to 12 months, and dependant upon 3rd party application software availability. I'm thinking maybe 2008...
- 9
Richard Smith http://www.deliberatelyfakedomain.com | 7/20/2006 6:27:13 PM
Just so that I can't be accused of trying to push my company, i've entered a fake domain.
My point however: We move millions of pounds worth of server hardware every year. All are bought, very few are financed, no leases.
Server hardware lifecycles are rarely 3 years. Accounting policies on company assets such as cars, machinery and IT kit tends, in my experience tend to be on a 4 year write off. Thus compounding why people wont loose the kit in 3 years.
Working with SMB sector accounts also, many IT managers I know, have to sweat blood and tears to get senior managers to approve Server capex. (often not worrying about spending cash on extras on a car, such as leather, but arguing against why a raid controller in a server might be a good idea on a server that was being replaced after 6 years in a move from ND5x << actual occurance)
- 10
Paul Gagnon | 7/21/2006 9:42:55 AM
The big ticket items like new IBM i5's I see go the lease route more often than not. From what I've seen, those that do lease servers usually do like @7 mentions, a $1 buyout at the end of the term and then run the server for a couple more years. Desktops and especially laptops are probably better suited for a 2 - 3 year lease cycle. Laptops tend to get outdated faster with fewer hardware upgrade choices available. Plus they do take a beating.
With tighter, ever scrutinized budgets, I am seeing more adoption of solutions like Citrix that can extend the life of older desktop equipment significantly.
In the server space, VMWare is making a lot of sense these days, even more-so if you have a SAN. Their ESX Server is a fantastic piece of software. The list of supported vendors in this type of environment is growing weekly. ESX is datacenter and enterprise quality software, just like Domino is, and who doesn't like that?
It is equally as good for those older servers and applications where there are no plans to upgrade the hardware or software but the hardware has you concerned because of it's age. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult to find parts to keep the older stuff going. So you P2V it to ESX.
Windows servers and Domino run real nice in a VM too. We've got a BES running on a W2003 Server with ND 7.0.1 and it just purrs like a kitten. No hardware leases needed. ;-)
- 11
Jeff Picco | 7/22/2006 1:59:39 AM
I work for a very large health care company with thousands of servers and we lease the majority, even the wintel stuff. 45 month leases on most. Not my department though and I'm not sure how that term was decided upon.
- 12
Bob Balaban http://www.lotus.com/notesforsap | 7/22/2006 8:23:05 AM
You can probably add "Duet" to the list of delayed products (was supposed to ship June 28).
To be fair, it might not be Microsoft's fault in this case. They are dependent on major server patches from SAP.
Yet another useless piece of misinformation from a publication that purports to have a handle on IT, yet continually hires writers that don't appear to even own a computer.
HP quietly sent out word last year that they didn't plan to produce 64 bit drivers for their hardware. So based on that tidbit, one would seem to need to have a strong strategic relationship with one's hardware vendor prior to commiting to a 64 bit environment.
In regard to taking any announcements from Microsoft seriously regarding future product shipment dates, their current track record speaks for itself. Five years to update Internet Explorer? Seven years for a new version of Windows? The company's ineptitude from top management on down does not convey a sense of security or stability strong enough to maintain a dependable business relationship.
As for "most" companies leasing their servers that's certainly news to me. I've never encountered that scenario. That shoots down any last bit of credibility that I would place on that reporter's writing.