Windows ... 9? (TechRepublic)

Microsoft's task in Windows 9: Win back the  base

By Jason Hiner                                                       January 27, 2014, 

The executive frantically tapped several different keys on the svelte new laptop he was demonstrating, but nothing happened. The screen didn't change. He paused, started tapping furiously again. Still nothing.

"Wait just a second, let me go grab another machine," he said.

He sped into the other room and came back with an identical looker of the new laptop. With an exhale and a smile he launched back into his demo--the same spiel he'd given to countless journalists in his company's hospitality suite throughout the week at CES 2014.

He was back in the zone. And then, suddenly, it happened again. The screen totally froze. He was in a different part of the software but the same thing happened. Tap, tap, tap, tap, tap. Nada.

The color drained from his face as he went into damage-control mode, speaking calmly and apologizing.

"It's Windows 8. What can you do?" I said and shrugged.

He said nothing. What could he say? His company had worked for over a year on product development on this, its next-generation flagship laptop. It was an extremely well-crafted device. Every edge was tapered beautifully. The new material on the cover looked and felt great. It was slimmer, faster, and ran longer on a single charge than any machine they'd ever made.

Unfortunately, it had an anchor weighing it down: Windows 8.

To be fair, I'm sure that machine made it through lots of demos at CES without Window 8 freezing up, so the fact that two machines froze up during a single demo was horribly unlucky. However, this machine's Windows 8 problems were a fitting symbol of the status of Windows 8 at CES 2014.

Windows 8 was everywhere and nowhere.

It powered lots of the latest PCs that were showcased across Central Hall at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Intel had one of the largest, splashiest booths at the show and it sported gorgeous exhibits of the best PC hardware in the world in all kinds of different configurations, almost running Windows 8.

But, hardly any vendors were actually talking about Windows 8. Microsoft pulled out of CES a couple years ago, so it wasn't there to splash Windows 8 across the show. Intel focused totally on the hardware. HP's biggest news of the show was a line of Android-powered PCs. Lenovo also announced an Android-powered PC and with its Windows machines it put the emphasis on its own software add-ons such as camera gestures and voice control. Toshiba made a big deal about announcing its first Google Chromebook and LG got a lot of attention for its new line of Google Chromebase all-in-one PCs.

Tech Pro Research on this topic: The desktop diehard's guide to making Windows 8 work like Windows 7 | Microsoft's latest mobile platforms bring back more business-friendly features | Microsoft enterprise primer on Office 365: Past, present, and future | Microsoft enterprise primer on Windows Azure networking | Intel's Haswell architecture: A tech guide | BYOD Business Strategies - Adoption Plans, Deployment Options, IT Concerns, and Cost Savings |

The bottom line is that computer makers were already looking past Windows 8 at CES. Of course, Microsoft now being in the hardware business with the Surface likely played into the Windows malaise. Whatever the case, it puts a lot of pressure on Microsoft to right the ship with Windows 9. They need to give computer makers something to rally around and give computer buyers a reason to replace that four year old laptop that's running Windows 7. Users and businesses need something that offers tangible benefits.

Windows 8 isn't it. And, while Windows 8.1 is better, it's not the answer either. The combination of the two have just barely cracked 10% market share in 18 months since Windows 8 launched. By comparison, Windows 7 had about 30% market share at this point in its history and has continued to grow to the point that it now has almost 50% market share in the Windows ecosystem.

Long-time Windows enthusiasts will argue that this isn't much of a surprise because the last six versions of Windows have alternated between a successful version accepted by the public and an unsuccessful version rejected by it. The argument goes...

Windows 98 was a success.

Windows Millenium Edition (Me) was a failure.

Windows XP was a success.

Windows Vista was a failure.

Windows 7 was a success.

Windows 8 was a failure. 

Windows 9 ... ?

So, this line of thinking goes that Microsoft will naturally gets things back on track with Windows 9. However, that's far from a sure thing. To get there, Microsoft will likely have to backtrack on forcing the tiled Modern UI on users in such a draconian way--in much the same way that Microsoft had to backtrack on Trusted Computing in Vista because it popped up security warnings so often that users eventually just tuned them out and clicked "Okay" every time.

In both cases, Microsoft overcompensated for major challenges that Windows was facing. For Vista, it was dealing with the massive security problems that had led earlier versions of Windows to become a repeated target for high-profile viruses and malware during the early 2000s. For Windows 8, it was dealing with the threat that tablets like the iPad were eating the bottom out of the PC market.

Microsoft failed the average user in both cases by not coming up with a solution that was easy enough to navigate. Both Vista and Windows 8 confused and frustrated too many users. IT departments recognized it right away, and as a result, small businesses and enterprises opted out.

While Windows 8 has a small legion of fans, the adoption numbers show that mainstream Windows users as well as businesses have rejected it. We regularly hear stories from ZDNet and TechRepublic readers that add context to that story.

We hear from consultants who tell us they have been extremely busy for the past 18 months because so many small businesses have bought Windows 8 machines and asked them to come in and install Windows 7 over the top. We hear from enterprise IT leaders who say they have no plans to put any of their employee machines on Windows 8 because there's no added value for the average desktop or laptop user. We hear from long-time Windows fans who eagerly bought a hybrid machine like the Microsoft Surface or the Dell XPS 11 or the Lenovo Yoga and have been more frustrated than empowered by the experience of going back and forth between the tablet and computer modes.

In fact, one of the executives we met at CES worked for a partner of one of the computer giants. He repeated a similar story. Recently bought a new hybrid machine. Was really excited about it. However, he admitted that switching back and forth between the tablet and laptop modes was a lot less intuitive than he expected. He was disappointed. And now, he's stuck with the machine.

These are the converted. These are people already pre-disposed to sticking around the Windows ecosystem, and too many of them are having a hard time buying in. These are the people Microsoft has to satisfy with Windows 9.

In streamlining, simplifying, and cleaning up Windows Vista and turning it into Windows 7, Microsoft did a remarkable job. We shouldn't underestimate that. But, we should also recognize it as a brilliantly-executed strategic retreat.

In Windows 9, Microsoft will likely need to make another retreat. It will need to renew some of its focus on the standard desktop and laptop users that remain its core user base. It will need to focus on the things it can do to make their work easier, faster, and more productive. Yes, that will likely mean integrating multi-touch, camera gestures, and voice recognition in smart ways. But, Microsoft has to do it without forcing new interface concepts on users in places where it doesn't necessarily add anything, and sometimes even forces extra complexity.

That's a big task. It's a bigger task than what the company had to do between Vista and Windows 7, and that was a miraculous turnaround. Don't underestimate Microsoft in this, but don't underestimate the size of the task, either.

This article was originally published on ZDNet as "Windows 9: Can Microsoft pull off another miracle?"

Goodbye net neutrality... Now what? (TechRepublic)

By Michael Kassner in Data Center, January 24, 2014, 2:57 PM PST

On January 14, 2014, a United States Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's net neutrality directive. This decision created quite a stir in the tech media, and I'd like to take a look at why. Before we begin, let's make sure we agree what net neutrality means. Net neutrality defined

The original intent of net neutrality was to prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from controlling what we, as paying members of their services, can access. Net neutrality also leveled the playing field, making sure ISPs did not show partiality to content providers. For example, under net neutrality, Comcast -- which has a relationship with NBC -- must provide the same level of service to ABC, a competitor of NBC. Without net neutrality, Comcast can give NBC preferential treatment.

Don't blame the courts

If you are thinking about blaming the courts for their decision, don't: Legal experts, even those in favor of net neutrality, have said the court made the correct ruling. Why the ruling is correct harkens back to March 2002, when the FCC decided to reclassify broadband Internet access from a telecommunications service to an information service.

By deregulating those offering broadband Internet access, the FCC had hoped the Internet service providers would increase their investment in infrastructure. An unforeseen byproduct of deregulation was that ISPs began exerting god-like control over traffic on their network, which Comcast did in 2007 when it disallowed BitTorrent traffic on its network.

Playing favorites goes against what the FCC envisioned for the Internet. So in 2010, it once again tried to regulate what it had deregulated in 2002 -- broadband Internet access -- with its Open Internet ruling:

"The 'Open Internet' is the Internet as we know it. It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way."

This attempt to return to net neutrality, or Open Internet, upset the large Telco providers, with Verizon at the forefront and eventually taking the FCC to court. The following quote from thecourt's ruling explains the FCC's mistake:

"That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."

What does the loss of net neutrality mean?

Getting rid of net neutrality will allow ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon to supply, for a price, preferential treatment to content providers. AT&T is already doing this with its Sponsored Data service.

Sponsoring companies agree to pay AT&T so its subscribers need not worry about monthly data limits -- a digital version of the razor/razor blade theory. Content providers willing to do this are giving their users more or less a free data pass, so consumers will consider this a plus. The scary downside for users is that ISPs can regulate search results and direct queries. For example, search results from one ISP's network could be dramatically different from the next.

Small businesses are potentially at risk with the loss of net neutrality. Not having the deep pockets of the larger content providers, they may not be able to afford preferential treatment by the ISPs, potentially losing customers who have come to expect fast service.

Options open to the FCC

It sounds simple enough: All the FCC has to do is reverse its 2002 decision, making broadband Internet access once more a telecommunications service. Then the FCC could enforce net neutrality. But experts consider that move a political nightmare, with Republicans in the House of Representatives adamantly opposed to net neutrality and threatening to defund the FCC if net neutrality returns.

A viewpoint biased toward users

I'd like to introduce someone who has been, and I have little doubt will continue to be, an outspoken advocate of user Internet rights:Dr. Susan P. Crawford. She focuses on telecommunications and information law, and her book Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age helped me understand the intricacies of the net neutrality debate while preparing this article.

Your take

Net neutrality is a contentious and extremely complicated topic. What's more, the decisions of others will affect all of us who use the Internet, as well as how the Internet functions going forward. I'm hoping for our sake, they get it right.

About Michael Kassner

Michael Kassner is currently a systems manager for an international company. Together with his son, he runs MKassner Net, a small IT publication consultancy.

Consejos para sobrevivir en el trabajo (Monster)

Nine Things Never to Say to Your Boss

By Megan Malugani, Monster Contributing Writer, and Charles Purdy, Monster Senior Editor

“Think before you speak” is always a good policy -- and at work it's even more important. Saying the wrong thing to your boss can do serious damage to your career -- and some of the things bosses don't like to hear may surprise you. We checked in with some managers and came up with this list of nine phrases they strongly dislike -- and we'll tell you what you should say instead:

1. "I need a raise."

Never enter salary negotiations talking about what you need -- because of rising costs or a new expense, for instance. Your employer doesn't care about your financial problems. However, management probably does want to reward success and keep high-performing employees satisfied. A raise request should always be supported by evidence of what you've achieved for the company -- along with information about what people with your responsibilities typically earn.

2. “That just isn’t possible.”

Always speak to your boss in terms of what can be done. For instance, rather than saying “We can’t get this done by Friday,” say “We could definitely get this done by Monday, or if we brought in some freelance help, we could meet the Friday deadline.” When you talk to your boss, think in terms of solving problems for her, not in terms of putting problems on her plate. 

3. “I can’t stand working with ____.”

Complaining about a coworker's personality usually reflects more poorly on you than on the coworker. Don’t make these kinds of conflicts your boss’s problem. Of course, management is interested in problems that jeopardize the company's ability to function. If you have to speak to HR about a problem such as a colleague's threatening, illegal or unethical behavior, keep your tone professional and the focus on work -- not personal issues. 

4. “I partied too hard last night -- I'm so hung over!” 

Buck up and get through the day with some ibuprofen, extra undereye concealer and coffee. But don’t share the sordid details of your night on the town with your boss. Even if you have a friendly relationship, he’s just as likely to react with (unspoken) disdain as sympathy. Maintaining a solid veneer of professionalism will pay off when it's time to discuss promotions. 

5. “But I emailed you about that last week.”

Alerting your boss to a problem via email doesn't absolve you of all responsibility for it. Bosses hate the "out of my outbox, out of my mind" attitude. Keep tabs on all critical issues you know about -- and keep checking in until you hear a firm "You don't need to worry about that anymore."

6. “It’s not my fault.” 

Are you a whiny 8-year-old or a take-charge professional? Assume responsibility and take steps to fix a problem that you did, in fact, create. And if you are being wrongly blamed for a problem, saying “Let’s get to the bottom of this” or “What can we do to make it right?” is much more effective than saying “It’s not my fault.”

7. "I don't know.” 

If your boss asks you a question you can’t answer, the correct response is not "I don't know." It's "I'll find out right away." 

8. “But we've always done it this way." 

You may find yourself with a new boss who wants to try new things -- and the best way to present yourself as a workplace relic is to meet change with a "we do it this way because this is the way we do it" attitude. When a brainstorming session takes place, be part of it and stay open to new ideas. If you have concerns about a new idea's feasibility, say "I think for this to work, we will have to…" Don't kill new ideas with negativity. 

9. “Let me set you up with...” 

Avoid the urge to play matchmaker for your single boss. The potential risk far outweighs any potential benefit. In modern workplaces, hierarchical structures are often less rigid, and bosses will often end up in semisocial situations with their direct reports. Smart workers will draw the line at "oversharing" -- definitely something to keep in mind if you're connecting to your company's managers on social networks like Facebook.

Se cambiará la política de vigilancia masiva de la NSA por...algo (BusinessWeek)

Policy

The President Will Replace NSA Mass Surveillance With ... Something

By Joshua Brustein                                                       January 17, 2014

Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Obama speaking about the National Security Agency from the U.S. Justice Department

President Obama says he will end the U.S. government’s practice of mass phone surveillance, “as it currently exists,” and eventually get it out of the business of mass data collection and storage. One question remains following the speech delivered Friday morning at the White House: How will he do this? It’s clear that even the president hasn’t figured this out.

As a mea culpa for the government’s overzealous surveillance techniques, the president’s speech was woefully lacking. He hit all the fuzzy themes guaranteed to drive critics batty. He offered a broad assurance that the National Security Agency isn’t interested in “ordinary folks” while also saying that NSA agents are just like the rest of us. He reminded the audience that private companies track online activity for advertising, and he insisted that collecting metadata is less threatening than listening to the content of calls. He even started his speech by saying that American intelligence collection has a long and noble history, going all the way back to Paul Revere surveilling the movements of the redcoats. (Ironically, the example of Revere undermines Obama’s assurances that collecting metadata isn’t that big a deal.)

The speech didn’t sit well with privacy advocates, who criticized its tone and its content. “In a speech about reform, the president announced a policy of preservation,” said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, in a statement. “What it comes down to is this: The President wants data about every single American to be collected and retained. He wants to normalize practices that sparked mass outrage just last summer. We do not.” Segal’s group and others are pushing ahead with a day of protest over the federal government’s surveillance practices.

VIDEO: Obama Defends Spying, Promises Privacy Protections

The president did propose some changes. He foresees a transition period during which requests to access data will have to go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This might not satisfy those who remember the agency’s history of dishonesty in that court, although Obama has asked Congress to create an independent panel of advocates that would present the court with an outsiders’ perspective on cases that are “significant”. Obama also said that targets will have to be two steps removed from a terrorist organization; they currently can be three steps removed.

The intelligence community and the attorney general have about three months to devise an alternative to the government’s current practice of compiling a database of this metadata. The president would then take that proposal to Congress as needed. This is where any heavy lifting would happen.

The president’s reform panel suggested that phone companies themselves hold onto the data. If that isn’t workable, a new non-governmental entity could be created to maintain it. Both approaches present challenges, Obama acknowledged, especially if they result in asking private organizations to collect or retain data in new ways. “If that’s the way they’re going, they’re going to have a battle on their hands,” says Kevin Bankston, policy director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

VIDEO: NSA Spying Scandal's Multibillion Dollar Cost

The president also detailed ways to increase transparency and attempted to tamp down concerns that the U.S. government doesn’t value the privacy of people living in other countries. Interestingly, Obama was silent on another topic that has caused widespread outrage in the security community, utterly ignoring the NSA’s attempts to force private companies to weaken their encryption practices to give the agency easier access.

STORY: Security Expert Bruce Schneier Says to Foil NSA Spies, Encrypt Everything

Brustein is a writer for Businessweek.com in New York.

Public Knowledge is a public service organization