Michael Silver Quotations

If I rely on the user to remove metadata, a lot of that metadata is inevitably going to get through. It really needs to be automated.

If anything, it makes it better for Apple users because it gets more people into the Apple fold.

For most enterprises, it will take them 18 months for testing and planning before they can start deploying Windows Vista anyway, so this delay won't affect their plans all that much.

With Microsoft, there's always a question of whether it's a home release or a business release. There's a feeling by some that because home and business share a lot of the same components, Microsoft just makes the market target bigger by talking about those common features. But that makes businesses feel uncertain, and there's some merit to that feeling.

Most businesses will need to take some action.

Microsoft is going to be feeling more pressure, especially as applications get to be more OS -agnostic.

Microsoft has had a tendency to group home and business together, because many of those customers will be using the same features anyway. So, whenever there's a new release, there tends to be uncertainty over whether it's for consumers or enterprises.

Microsoft has become more aware that it needs to do a better job in promoting itself to enterprises, especially with Vista. It's not completely there yet, but it's started to see the light.

Microsoft could slip the business editions into 2007 without a big impact on what most companies would do, and that?s certainly possible. The Home editions were really the more important ones to get out this year. Once they miss Christmas, slipping again has fewer ramifications.

Microsoft should produce a single patch for Office 2003 SP1. SP1 is still supported and installing it, and a patch would be much easier for users than having to test and install a whole service pack, which is what they need to do to comply today.

Microsoft is seeing the light on some of what it needs to do to promote Vista to enterprises. But they're not all the way there yet.

Vista is inevitable for a lot of people. When a consumer buys a new PC, it likely is going to come with Vista.

Even for people with bad lung disease, bronchitis, end-stage emphysema and asthma, the mere effect of focusing on a basic body function like breathing can be restorative.

There should be a plan and policy in place to address metadata management before you deploy Windows Vista.

There would be cost and complexity, and the key for many business users, the reason they wouldn't migrate, is because it would just be too much effort for very little demonstrated need,

Companies experimenting with requiring users to purchase their own PCs should expect more Macs to enter their environments.

Companies already think that switching to a Mac OS from Microsoft wouldn't be worth the hassle. A large company with thousands of PCs has a huge number of applications that require Windows, so they wouldn't even think of migrating. That puts them in a very non-Apple frame of mind.

Companies on Windows 2000 will have the most additional pressure, because they need to start moving relatively early anyway.

That's why Linux has not taken off more than it has today,

The more proficient you are with Microsoft Office, the more you'll be annoyed.

For business users, bringing on new equipment, much like changing operating systems, has to be because there's a demonstrated need.

It looks like they did, to some extent, what the Department of Justice couldn't. I could see where this could make it harder for Windows and Office groups to work together, and they do need to.

Do I have tools to get something this large onto my PCs without administrator intervention?

Eventually, they will need to do consumer releases more often. They don't need to do enterprise releases as often, but they need to be predictable.

It's still a manual process. It's still something you have to remember to do. Any time you're relying on the user to remember something, there's a good chance that they'll forget.

They want the enterprise to have excellent Windows NT support, but they don't necessarily want to be the ones to provide it, ... Microsoft does want that involvement and to have more account control over their larger enterprise customers.

The issue is whether it's cheaper to support two operating systems and have lower operating costs, or spend the money on migration. Most companies don't have an automated way to do an OS upgrade, so a full-scale migration would be the higher cost.

Immediate is pretty quick. It would be nice if there was some sort of time line that says you have to do it within six months or a year.

If there's one word that I use to sum up what I'm hearing from customers, it's resentment.

If they add too little, people don't find it compelling, and if they change too much, businesses can't absorb (the new software), even if they do get it out the door. This is the 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' situation that Microsoft finds itself in.

Installing the patches on new implementations without testing may be a quick alternative that minimizes legal risk, but risks breaking applications.

But it's a heavy-handed way to get companies into Software Assurance.