Inside TechRepublic Press

Palmetto, I may well go ahead and publish this item as a discussion thread, too. If I do, I'll be sure to post a link here.

Thanks for the suggestion!

I hope I didn't mislead you. When I sync my Smartphone with my desktop computer I'm syncing it with my Windows Media Center PC, not my Mac. I'll go back and note that in the blog post (done).

I believe a few utilities exist to help Macs sync with Smartphones (here's info on one), but I haven't tried any. If you find one that works, I'd appreciate your letting me know.

I use a Nokia 9300 running OpenHand mobile software. Unlike BlackBerry
and the other applications out there that use push technology, OpenHand
uses pull with notification which means I have much more control over
my mail and I'm told when mail arrives in my inbox, this way I use a
lot less data! I also get contacts, calendar, tasks and I have full
access to files on our server. I can also download and edit
attachments! Security is excellent with the added bonus that nothing is
stored on my 9300 so if I lose it I just have to replace the phone.
FYI OpenHand currently sits on over 200 smartphones and PDAs, I also
have it on my IPAQ and my laptop which I don't pay any extra for.

To be honest the Crackberry is not what i wanted.....I wanted something that would allow me the freedom of using the technologies that come with Exchange 2003, so the company i am with  decided to go with the Treo 700w (MS Windows Mobile 5.0) from Verizon Wireless and to utilize the Exchange Active Sync. Which is like the Crackberry service of wireless sync of email, calander, contacts as new items arrive or 5/10/15/etc minute intervals. This can be done with out the need for device to sync directly with your workstation.

The Treo 700w is a very nice well engineered device and it is going to be hit with people that loved the Treo 600/650. Plus it is still hard to beleive that Palm turned to the Darkside (Microsoft).

I'm actually pretty happy about my Windows Mobile 2003 phone (Audiovox XV6600 from Verizon.  We use Checkpoint for our firewall and the only mobile client they support is a Windows Mobile one.  This allows me to VPN into my network, pull up Terminal Services, and manage any server in my network.  Now granted trying to manage ARCserve on a 3" screen is a hassle, but so is bringing my laptop with me on a weekend trip to the mountains.

I'm actually pretty happy about my Windows Mobile 2003 phone (Audiovox XV6600 from Verizon.  We use Checkpoint for our firewall and the only mobile client they support is a Windows Mobile one.  This allows me to VPN into my network, pull up Terminal Services, and manage any server in my network.  Now granted trying to manage ARCserve on a 3" screen is a hassle, but so is bringing my laptop with me on a weekend trip to the mountains.

I just got a Treo 700 through Verizon, and I love it! Plus the Terminal Services Client will prove extremely useful when traveling as I need to support about 12 servers! The Exchange Activesync with Exchange 2003 is very nice.

I use and support the Treo 650, using the Intellisync Mobile enterprise client with great success and simplicity. Manual synchronization is necessary, but I believe that keeps data usage under control for my customers who have 5 or 10 mb plans. We don't yet support the Treo 700w, but I am looking forward to testing it, hopefully with the Exchange ActiveSync client, because we don't have consistent success with Intellisync Mobile and the MS OS.

But, the winner will be the Seahawks, not by much, but nonetheless the winner. Sorry to tell you this way, but you started it...

I use the Samsung SCH-i730 Windows Mobile phone.  It's one serious little mobile computer, and I rarely carry a laptop anymore.  I previously used a Motorola MPx200, an earlier version of Windows Smartphone.  Before that I used a Palm OS based PDA, and had various Palm versions for about 8 years, back to the very beginning when it was still a US Robotics device, and caried various mobile phones.

The funniest part of the story is that I used to give another techie friend a hard time about his love of "convergence" devices. I am now a staunch convert to his idea, and have even leapfrogged him in the computing power I carry on my belt in this one device.

I wasn't so sure about Windows Mobile back in the early CE days, but MS has managed to come a long way, even if it sometimes seems like it's kicking and screaming from being dragged by competitors.

Now if I can just convince my company to park an Exchange gateway on our Lotus Notes farm.

I have the Nextel i930 which I find amazing powerful. It has two beautiful color screens, a camera capable of a respectable 640x480 picture and video, Microsoft Windows Mobile 5 (so all of the new Office mobile), syncs wirelessly to pull down email, calendar, contacts, and tasks all without an expensive enterprise server. It has built in support for Java and Shockwave in Internet Explorer so web pages look very close to how they would look on a desktop minus the smaller screen. My favorite feature is the SD Card slot. Combining a 1GB Sandisk Ultra II SD Card with "The Core Pocket Media Player" you can turn this phone into an mp3, wav, divx, mpg player... That's just scratching the surface once you get into the number of homescreens and mods you can do it the phone is very customizable.

I received an e-mail message from Information Gatekeepers Inc. shortly after posting the above message. According to IGI's data, DSL lines are set to almost match cable modem installations. If you're interested, check out IGI's report for more on the growth DSL is enjoying; the DSL numbers are skyrocketing.

I use cable because it works. When I used British Telecomm broadband they Upgraded the line which because of the distance involved to my location in fact Downgraded my access from 512 to Zero. If it worked why break it is my motto. Stan the Man

When I originally got broadband 6 years ago I would have preferred DSL. However DSL wasn't (and still isn't) available where I live. Now I'm glad that I've got cable. I did a self install--no waiting for somebody from the phone company--with no problems. My cable company has improved service to where it's very reliable. They recently upgraded their system and now speeds of up to 15 Mbs down and 2 Mbs up are available for $50 USD a month. For another $15 you can get up to 30 Mbs down and 2 Mbs up with a fixed IP. Of course in practice actual speeds are somewhat slower than that but still considerably faster than DSL.

I chose DSL from SBC, originally for $29.95/month. After a couple of years with it, they had a special offer for new customers for $14.95, so I called and asked if I, a loyal customer could get the same rate, the said yes. So I have great DSL service from them for a good rate. I initially chose DSL based on the fact that my telephone service has never gone down, unlike my cable TV, which went down every time a storm blew through town. So, while I may have sacrificed a little speed, I have better reliability. I've had DSL now for 3 years, and it has gone down briefly 3 times that I know of, and it was always restored quickly. For what I use the Internet for, I don't need 7-8 MB/s speed, 1.5 MB works fine. 

I initially started with cable, and was I ever sorry.
The speed never lived up to the company's (Cox) claims and service went out at
least bi-monthly. Getting a service tech out took days, and, they kept raising
my rates without adding services. They told me that if I bought their modem
($80.00) that they would knock $10.00 off my monthly bill. Six months later
they bumped the price up $5.00 and six months after that they raised rates
another $7.50, and without adding speed or services.
 
The best decision I ever made was to tell cable to take a hike and get DSL (it was finally available in my area!). I
have had (Verizon) DSL for over a year now and I haven?t gone down a single
time. They gave me a free wireless router/ switch/ modem and installation was simple and painless.
My rates haven?t gone up, but, they recently doubled my bandwidth anyway. All this
for $20.00 a month less than I was paying for cable. Now, that's what I call service. Viva DSL!

I have had DSL service for 3 years now, and am completely satisfied. The Direct Subscriber Link is wonderful because I do not have to share the download and upload speeds with anyone else in my neighborhood, I am connected directly to the server of my ISP. Currently I am using 3Mbps and will be switching to 6Mbps soon, one can never have too much speed in online gaming!!

In my area (Oregon, USA) DSL keeps kicking up speeds to match cable. I recently took advantage of a Verison FIOS (Fiber) offer and now for $39.95/mo I have 6Mbit download / 2Mbit upload speed with my DSL. I've had DSL for about four years now and love it. Remember when we all thought T1 to the house would be fast?

I am an IS Manager.  Having previously been in telephony, I am currently a cable modem user.  Cable has consistently been a better product in all my dealings. I have several users that that have access from their homes to our office VPN. I rarely have calls from the cable modem users, but constantly have calls from the DSL users. In my opinion cable, by far is the better technology. It could change, FiOS or the other technologies are becoming a threat, but time will tell. DSL users have always bought into the "shared" vs. "not shared" propoganda started by the DSL providers. The Internet "is" a shared technology. At some point everyone share it! At the ISP, you share it with all the users. If the ISP has too many users, you will suffer. The same goes for cable at the neighborhood level. DSL at the ISP level and cable at the neighborhood level, both done correctly, do not have a "shared" issue. Cable has always been out in front and I believe they will stay there. Outages? All depends on the company and how they take care of their equipment. I have seen "bad service" in both technologies. I believe cable wins out in my experience. Finally, the phone companies are seriously trying to compete. I do not trust the phone companies, once they get a monopoly; they tend to treat customers differently. Have we all forgotten that? I will continue to watch both technologies, but for right now, cable is my favorite!

For work we use DSL simply for the static addresses.  We never have any problems with it, except for the occasional time when a sales rep tells us we're out of range and can't add a new line.  We currently have 2 lines, and we're out of range?  Having done outsourced support work before, and having dealt with them on a too regular basis, I can tell you that SBC support blows.

For home I use cable.  I use it simply because I don't have a land line at home, I solely use cell.  I've never had a problem with that either, other than the occasional construction worker deciding it'd be cool to get out the ol Ditch Witch and shred everything in his path.  Even then outage is only like 20 minutes.

Prices for both are exactly the same, speed is exactly the same.  (Here, at least.)  The only things that put cable above DSL for me is that I don't have to have a land line and I don't have a contract.  Other than that, they're both the same.

When I went looking for hi-speed, DSL wasn't offered where I'm at. Just to far away at that point. The only choice I had was cable. About a year later Verizon upgraded their lines and started to bug me that they now offered DSL. I have decided eventhough it costs a lot more to remain with Cable. I live an a fairly well populated area, so DSL speed varies a lot depending on the load. I have also had to diagnose and correct a whole lot more problems with DSL users than cable. Cable seems to be quite stable in my area. Since I occasionally take on side work from home cleaning up systems, I need all the speed I can get for downloading updates.

I use DSL because it was the first to my door, but learning more about cable modem usage restrictions, I am glad that I went with them.  There have certainly been rough times.  I have Verizon (they were BellAtlantic when I started), and initially they had some serious problems, but the service has been very stable for the last few years.  My local cable provider (choice of one, of course) provides a service that at least on paper is faster, but they specify a prohibition against "excessive bandwidth use", which of course is never defined.  I used to get complaints all the time from Earthlink dialup that I was using too much bandwidth, and I would predict that I would get the same from the cable company.  In all the years I have had the DSL, I have at times use significant bandwidth for days at a time, and have never, ever gotten a nasty email that I was using too much bandwidth.  I intend to stick with DSL, until a faster, similarly unfettered service is available.

Cable!! I started with DSL and it was great! Dialup to DSL was great. But soon, it was not so fast. When it rained the DSL was slower than dialup or not accessible. Updates timed out. Costs kept rising with no services.

Cable + VOIP + Internet + less than $100 a month and ATT/SBC/Sprint was charging me $100 a month for phone and internet. Plus it is FAST!!!!!!!  My wireless B is faster than DSL wired. I have never lost cable, even with all the power outages we have here. (UPS rocks!)

Now studying for the CCNA I can see HUGE pipe and DSL has a toothpick for a pipe. And yes both are affected by the traffic either on the line or the internet. But cable can turn up the bandwidth when more traffic is in an area. DSL has no options.

Insert comment text here http://www.dslreports.com/archive/videotron.ca?1=1&p=3

My actual speed is right now at: 8248 kbs download and 631 uploads this in Canada doing the test with broadband reports.com so there are not at 10 Mbbs in my location yet but when they offer VOIP in my town they will be at that speed and faster, next they are very reliable and phone line compagny could not offer me their DSL anyway as I am too far but for the cable that wasn't a problem so it wasn't a brainer.

If I was in the Ontario side of the border I would be with Rogers and have their total package, meaning cable tv, cable internet and cellular and voip instead of the land phone line and would save a bundle if I compare to now. Here a copy paste of what they claim are coming in my area and now offer at that speed in some area.

A Vid?otron Extreme* High-Speed Internet connection also means:

• A 10 Mbps download rate
• A 900 Kbps upload rate, 16 times faster than 56 Kbps modem telephone access
• Unlimited time on-line
• A permanent connection
• Leaves your phone free
• Technical support available 24/7
• 5 MB reserved to host your own personal Web site
• And for when you're on the road, 10 hours of telephone access per month**
• Easy installation: get a free installation kit and connect it yourself!
• 6 e-mail boxes

1. For me if the calbe wasn't there I would pay more for less so it is a real plus and I am not very kind toward the phone company because they are only reacting here in Canada and not innovating and they are still very expensive when it come to phone in general including the DSL.
2. I think I could even have better if I go commercial but that for another subject.

DSL for me please.

I base my decision purely on price.  For $19.99 per month I get 1.5mps down and 384 up.  That's enough for most home users.

Comparable cable here, in Indianapolis, is about $40 per month or double DSL.  Yes, it's faster, but I don't need the extra speed.

DSL has been reliable, the support does suck but I'm IT (I don't need or use their support services), the equipment was free and easy to setup, and I have the option of getting a static IP if I so choose.

I signed up back in the days before they gave you all the goodies ie router, switch, modem.  All I got was the modem but I prefer to buy my own router anyways.  100% D-Link across the board.

I've not let the static vs. dynamic IP address issue bother me - I use No-IP's (http://www.no-ip.info) dynamic DNS client to keep my servers online and findable when they're up and they even offer full domain hosting services to give the ability to appear like you've got a static IP.

Basically you download their client software which pings their central DNS system from wherever you've connected the machine from - analogue or digital, dial-up or always on. It's a similar principal to how IMs and VoIP systems like Skype allow you to be found. It's allowed me to have a development server be Internet facing (after setting up my firewall too) so my clients can review work and go through UAT before it hit's a productin server.

I've been using them for a few years now and they've never let me down.

Yes, I got DSL from SpeakEasy a few years ago because of their ability
to support 2 static ip's. Wanted the capability of running a web server
and a mail server out of my house. I was supporting a similar mail
server at work at the time and I wanted to learn more about working
with websites. I've been very pleased with the service. But a few weeks
ago on a visit to in-laws in Baltimore, I found their cable service
downloads so fast that I have started to doubt my choice.

Since my company reimburses me for part of the DSL line because I also
use it as a VPN connection, the cost is not a big deal. But the speed
difference is enormous.

I'll be interested to hear of pros and cons in this thread.

I selected the highest speed DSL service in my area from Bellsouth. The primary reason was it was self installed and the bandwidth of my direct service would be consistant. With Cable internet service, the bandwidthe of the line would be shared with a number of users in my immediate area.

"as many cable companies don't support static IP addresses" I am not
sure what cable companies you are talking about, but the ones I know
offer business services that include static IP addresses. I use cable
by the way, simple speed and much higher reliability. I tested DSL and
Cable and found in our area (Cincinnati) cable to be the better choice
for not only speed, but also consistant service level.

Eric

DSL all the way.  I did have a cable hi-speed (so called) connection for a year or two, however no static IPs were allowed and connections speeds routinely dropped very low on the shared segment I was on.  The straw that broke the camel's back was for a period of 8 weeks my connection was down for 2-3 hours every Sunday night.

I've since been with a smaller ISP that provides me with all the bandwidth I need and guaranteed static IP.  Their customer service is stellar and they support people who choose not to run a Windows operating to connect to the internet, unlike the two major providers in my area.

For more than a year, I would go to Bell Atlantic's (now Verizon's)
website, enter my telephone number and sigh as it told me that they
don't provide DSL for my phone. So I went to Comcast. Now I get
downloads at over 4 Mbps with low latencies, better performance that I
could have expected with Verizon DSL. So far, I don't regret it. And
BTW, Verizon still doesn't offer DSL for my telephone number.

I switched to cable service about 6 months ago because our DSL (Verizon) service was flaky -- lots of dropouts and spontaneous disconnects.

Although the cable service (Adelphia) initially tried to set us up with DDNS it would not maintain connectivity because of our relatively rural location, so I finally talked them into a static IP address.

Result: much better bandwidth, 99+% uptime, happier customers.

At the time (approx 5 years ago) I made the choice between Cable/DSL (partly for home/partly for work support) the cost was comparable, and we had more setup issues with DSL than cable.  That has changed now, but since work pays for the bulk of my cable connection I will be keeping it.  No hosting, and support has been good in our area.
 
Thanks, Jim R.

 I use SBC Yahoo ADSL with a dynamic address main because of price and they don't mess arounf with blocking incoming port connections like smtp 25 or port 80. Paying 29.95 for the past 2 years plus for the service 3.0 download and up to 384kbps upload speeds. I also pay about another 80.00 a year for dynamic dns and mail relaying services for 2 domains. You can get a simliar package with a static ip but the price starts at 70.00 amonth and up and for slower speeds. The only problem is once in awhile the connection drops out and dyasite does not seem to connect on the redial attemps so you have reconnect manually.

I use DSL because cable was not available.  I replaced ISDN as soon as DSL was available.

Cable, I am willing to put up with the DDNS game for the higher
transfer rates, and also at the time I subscribed, it really was the
only game in town.  Dial up or cable were my choices.  Even
still DSL is not real big in this area, too rural.

I am lucky enough to have and use Cable. The main reason is
DSL wasn't available in my area at the time but my ISP blows DSL away with 10
down and 2.5 up I find it hard to change even though it is available now. Also
my ISP offers Static IP's well 99% Static as since I ordered it over 2 years ago
it has changed 3 times due to their server resets.

 I did do some research into DSL a few months ago for a
cost comparison and found that running my 2 Cable Modems cost less than DSL
with 1 Modem. So with that I think I am going to stick with what I have. As the
old saying goes, ?Don?t fix it if it isn?t broken?!!!

My main reason for choosing DSL over Cable is security. As far as I know anyone on a cable modem can capture or SNIFF packets on their same network segment. I do not recommend this to business as it creates a serious security concern.

With DSL using PPPOE this is not an issue, hence the work Point-to-Point.

We use Cable because DSL is not available in our area

We use cable, because we could get a static IP much easier than with
verizon dsl.  Our local cable company was more than happy to give
us a static ip address.

I got DSL (from Verizon) the instant it was available.  DSL may be
a little slower than cable but is far more reliable.  I provide
network support services to a lot of small business networks and I have
far more trouble with the cable (COX) service.  It's up and down
like a yo-yo.  They also have a bad habit of changing IP addresses
(the static ones we pay for) often and sometimes without notice. 
They've also changed the DNS IP addresses before without telling
anyone.  I suppose they assume everyone is using a single home
computer connected directly to their cable modem using DHCP so they
would never notice the change.  They fail to understand that those
static IP addresses are esential to a business and can't just be
changed on a whim.  If you have a network like I do that has
multiple proxy, mail and web servers changing the IP addresses is a
real pain.  We were out of business for two days recently because
COX tried a "node move" that failed and we all lost our static IP
addresses.  I could talk about this one for a long time - but I
won't.  On the plus side I do make a lot of money off these cable
connections, checking routers and firewalls and reconfiguring them
whenever the addresses change.  If you need broadband for your
business (and who doesn't) leave the cable at home attached to your TV
where it belongs and get your data service from a company whos primary
business is communications not entertainment.

CABLE - DSL TESTS COMPLETE!

I First Started With Dial-up 56k, Thought It Was Great After Rewiring My Home With Heavy Duty Wire To Speed My 56k Dialup From The Pole To The House. I Used Dialup For Several Years. When SBC DSL Came Available In My Area, I Switched To The SBC DSL High Speed Connection And It Was A Great Upgrade And Fast At 768kb Compared To The Dialup Connection. I Run DSL For 3 Years And Loved It, But Comcast Cable High Speed Internet Became Available In My Area. At The Time I Was Using DSL, I Had Two Computers Routed Through A Gateway To The PPOE DSL Connection Modem. I Decided To Do A Test And Seperate The Computers From The Gateway Router. Both My Computers Are Identicle Machines, Inside and Out. I Ordered Comcast High Speed Internet To Be Installed On One Of My Machines. So, I'm Running Both High Speed Internet Connections. SBC DSL and Comcast Highspeed, I Ran Both Services For A Month And Did Several Tests To See Which Service Was Faster And More Reliable. I'm Currently Running Comcast Cable High Speed, I Found That Cable Internet Was Faster And More Reliable Than SBC DSL. In My Area, DSL Speeds Are 768 kbps. Downloads and 128 kbps Uploads And Cable Speeds Are 8,000 kbps. Downloads and 256 kbps Uploads. So Thats My Story, Comcast Cable Highspeed Internet Out Ways and Out Runs SBC DSL Internet Connections In My Area. (Mooresville, IN.) So, For My Area, I Vote For Comcast Cable High Speed Internet Over SBC DSL Anyday. Pricing For Highspeed Internet Is No Option To Me, I Pay $42.95 / Month For My Great Internet Service Provider. I Know SBC DSL Is Cheaper At $26.95/mo. DSL Might Be Cheaper Per Month But It Is Also Slower And Not Reliable.

As long as Microsoft continues to charge exorbitant prices for its software, abetted by its near monopolistic ownership of several office tools and OS categories, I will ALWAYS be looking for lower cost alternatives.  That is why I continue to use Office 97 Pro and Windows 2000, because I'm very familiar with them, they work, and they afford me the functionality and productivity I need without having to continually fill Microsoft's bloated and greedy coffers.  If Microsoft believes that its new "Webware" will become a user favorite by still charging the same ridiculously high entry fees then it will fail.

[Has anyone noticed that the MS OS, not to mention Office, is now a greater percentage of a PCs cost than ever before?  Hell, in my case, that software would cost what I spend to build more than one entire completely outfitted PC.]

Office Live is stillborn as far as I am concerned.  Vista will be invisible to me.  Hail Google for providing an alternative --don't know what its fee structure will be, but I'm certain it will undercut MS by a significant amount.  And, I am equally sure, other competitors will offer other alternatives built around the open source office document standards.  Then we can hopefully return to a more cost competitive and user driven environment.  Also, what a burden will be lifted when the onus of outfitting for OS and application and browser protection shifts from the end user of varying PC awareness to the shoulders of the experts who can tweak to their heart's content while I , the end user, just reap those rewards of competition.  I'm certain, also, that I am not alone in this opinion.  MS, are you listening?  I bought DOS 3.12 and MSWord in 1984 and have used Windows and Office ever since.  No more.  Not until you return to delivering real value for my way stretched dollars.

I don't think the idea really has much merit. The solution only works if you have a connection to the internet. If your business relies on that software and your connection is lost for any reason then you are well and truly scuppered. Software that is installed is at least available to use even if the connection is lost for whatever reason.

We are also moving even further towards a scenario where you own nothing, despite all the money you are shelling out on an ongoing basis. I for one will not be embracing this particular offering from the bloated one. 

With a CD or DVD of a software, a re-install is simple when rebuilding a munged box.

I can just imagine the "hoop jumping" involved when trying to do a web re-install for the program.

Change a motherboard and try to get WinXP "authorized" and you'll see where I'm going with this.

Otherwise, an interesting idea.

I think as long as you can burn the programs to a CD for yourself and/or be able to work off line with it that would be great.  I am afraid it that it will morph someday into a scenario where you have to be online to do anything.  I hate pirates myself and if it helps people pony up the money to use the technology and stop expecting everything for free than I am all for it.   People want innovation but they don't want to pay for it.

As I thought...yes I do think this is the wave of the future. But I also think that...just like the PC, shrink wrapped software will always be around in one form or another.

Remember...just a few years ago, the demise of the PC as we know it was the thing. Thin Clients were the coming rage. Our Company bought into this but has since scaled way back on purchasing any new thin clients. The benefits of mass storage just can't be ignored.

So, bottom line is that I believe this is simply an -expansion- of options for Americana as a whole...not a whole-hearted replacement.

At this point, Office Live is NOT providing the actual applications, at least via the Microsoft Office Live Essentials Beta program that I am familiar with.  Both Live Collaboration and Live Essentials require:

The following system requirements apply to specific features:

• To use the Edit in Datasheet feature within the Business Applications and Shared Sites areas of Microsoft Office Live requires Microsoft Office 2003.
• To export to Business Contact Manager requires Microsoft Office 2003, Microsoft Office XP, or Microsoft Office 2000.
• To import contacts from Microsoft Office Outlook requires Microsoft Office 2003 or Microsoft Office XP.
• To link contacts to Microsoft Office Outlook requires Microsoft Office 2003.

See http://officelive.microsoft.com/OfficeLiveCollaboration.aspx and http://officelive.microsoft.com/OfficeLiveEssentials.aspx

Live Collaboration and Live Essentials could be better described as hosted email and SharePoint sites utilizing your own domain name(s).

An excellent comparison chart can be see at http://officelive.microsoft.com/WebHosting.aspx.  You will still need your own local copy of the applications, but you have the power of a Microsoft DataCenter for hosting your data and providing SharePoint like applications; they even back it up!

It would be difficult for Microsoft to provide true hosted applications as that would begin to infringe on their relationship with Citrix as well as their ASP partners.  It would be interesting to see though, how they could provide some sort of pay-as-you-go software leasing option so that you only pay for Word lets say, when you are editing a proposal template.  You could then you Office Live Mail to send the proposal and both of these could b accomplished via a web browser or some sort of shared application scenario; no local applications.

Microsoft provides interesting version 1 applications, servers and services, and they always have version 2 and 3 in the works so I think it would be fair to say we may see some sort of shared office application scenario with Office Live 3 and Office 14.

Why have two different approaches/applications? Because not everyone will adopt an on-line approach to using applications. Does anyone remember the thin-client craze of the 90?s? I remember talk of the traditional PC becoming obsolete with all applications and data residing on servers. Where is it now? Even within businesses where high-speed networks make it feasible to implement such an approach with applications like Citrix Presentation Server, you still don?t see it in the same numbers compared to the traditional PC.

I think there is a psychological barrier to having a powerful and expensive computer at your finger tips and not putting software on it so that it can do things. I think that's related to losing control of how and when you can do things. I?ve heard it said before that we make technology decisions based on how much control we gain or lose. I?ve worked at several business where data and some applications resided on central servers and, when the network went down, we all sat around trying to find something else to do - sometimes for long periods of time. When possible, I started saving and working on critical, time-sensitive documents only on my PC in case the network would go down. (Over the years, I?ve never had a PC failure causing me to lose work related data. My home hard crashed once, but I didn't lose any critical files. However, I?ve had to work around dozens and dozens of network failures where applications froze and data was lost.) I don't like losing control over the creation and manipulation of files.

Also, I don?t trust a network (Internet) only approach to application and data storage and would not rely on Internet applications and Internet data storage, exclusively. For instance, we had a wind storm a few days ago that took out our DSL for a few hours. If my applications were on a web-server, I would have been stuck. Also, my wife frequently works remotely via the Internet and sometimes loses access to her work servers for various reasons (usually the work server go down). Fortunately, she has stand-alone applications on her laptop and a local, synchronized copy of her network files.

I think there are several reasons to not using web-based applications alone. There are several points of failure with the Internet connection (your computer?s hardware, your home network, your home network, you local power company, your local telephone or cable company (ISP), etc...), so Internet connections are not 100% reliable. Broadand is not always fast when everyone is using it at once. If you travel, you won?t always have a high-speed connection. Tens of millions of computers will probably never be connected to a high-speed Internet connection. Web servers go down. (I recently saved something for work on an Internet server, walked away for a few minutes, and came back to find the server down. Another example - I started writing THIS on this blog?s website form, but for some reason, after a few paragraphs, the web page went partially blank and then my text disappeared. I opened my local word processor, restarted typing this and completed it there. I then pasted it back into this blog?s form. I rarely lose data due to a problem with local applications.) Some data is so sensitive or critical (legal, financial, medical, etc...) that I would never trust sending it via the Internet and then only having it reside on someone else?s servers. Finally, some of these web applications are free and supported by ad banners, which may be annoying to some.

On the other hand, I think the potential for collaboration and remote access to applications and data from any point on the globe offers great potential for those who need it. My in-laws are retired and travel frequently. They often check their Yahoo! accounts remotely. They could easily make use of web-based applications, assuming they find some place with broadband and a computer that would allow those applications to run. (My understanding is that even though these applications are web based, some require a client application that needs to download and install to speed things up.) Small business could save money, make file sharing easier, and have automatic off-site backup of files.

Overall, I think the potential is there, but so are disadvantages, which is why I don?t think a dual approach is a bad idea. No one solution fits everyone's needs.

Excellent.  I'm constantly seeking materials like this to share
the message with my staff.  I've not met too many IT folk that
didn't love exotic cars.  Thanks for the post - I'll get my copy
now.  

That would be a good thing to expose millions on consumers to the experience of owning a Macintosh computer. I love my Imac and only wish I had one at work instead of having the use XP. I think only those of use to use both platforms can appreciate how great Apple products are versus the competition. Yesterday I had to search for a document on my work computer that took me almost 30 minutes. On my IMAC, it would be taken about 5 seconds. Unloading digital photos to IPhoto is so seamless compared to the steps necessary on an XP machine. Plus all of the Apple machines look great compared to the ugly boxes we use at the office.

Great post and comments... all good points. My only caveat is that those who are looking only to pay "bottom dollar" are the least likely to convert to Apple. For those, I say "you get what you pay for."

As for security, I just hope that Apple folks don't fall into complacency, or they will eventually find their fate the same as on the PC platform. One thing that Apple can sell effectively is if they become increasingly proactive to virus and security threats, and do a better job than Microsoft. If they do at least "a little better than Microsoft", that offers a competitive advantage. (I sure do enjoy not having to be constantly updating my virus definitions on my IBook!!!!)

Bootable CDs.

Anti-virus solution scan disk.

Malware scan disk.

Password cracker for when the client can't figure out what they were using.

Small flashlight for seeing into those horribly lit areas.

Electric screwdriver with multi-position feature.

Vacuum for those computers that are members of the empire of the dust leviathans.

Rubber hammer for the ol' tap the hard disk to get it started when the bearing goes out trick.

Bigger hammer for when the client needs ot make sure no data is remaining on drive.

Lots of points to use on TR Technical Question area since the rest of the peers are planning on scoring points on the questions. :)

Best of luck in your new business.

An Amen on Bootable CD  -Ultimate Boot CD or Bart's PE will do just fine. I generally keep a copy of the newer OSs with me - the customer might have a valid key but lost or corrupted media.

James

Apart for ultimate boot CD,
I use a copy of Knoppix with optcrack,(password cracker)
I use Knoppix to recover data via the CD-re/dvd writer, or a uSB HD.
Powered USB hub Lidls ?8.99, External HD ?99 Lidls TEVION make, never have had problems with that make, even bulk Cds 50 on a spindle.
A set of Frisk's f-prot (windows) floppies for "ethnic cleansing" of Hds especially boot sector viruses.
A:\F.prot / disinfect /hard
This sorts out boot problems.
A:\f-prot/loaddef feed in the floppies as required.
Run set options as RENAME, never disinfect or delete, enable heuristics.
then run to further "ethnically cleanse." {Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Viruses!)
Then if it makes a mistake you just search for ".vxe, .voms etc" on the HD with Knoppix and rename each one back if you have made a mistake.
You need an extra Linux prog to write to NTFS.

And a CD full of windows programs, mainly non MS.
A copy of Magic Jelly beans to get the product key.
A copy of XP, Win 98se, WinME installation CD.

The worst Pcs are the ones without an installation CD, just a hidden recovery partition.
A bootable CD with Nortons DD and Utils.
A bootable CD partition Magic-8
I have a bag of Pc bits cat 5, screwdrivers, IDE cables, earthing strip, and a loose leaf file with print outs of Carolyn Meinel's hacking guides and "how 2 files" from various sources.
I also carry a spare, slow, cost all of ?3 from recycling centre, cd-rw if there isn't one on the PC. A spare floppy.(I have a stock of them at home)
An adaptor for fitting laptop Hds to a PC.
If all else fails, I remove the HD, bring it home, stick it in the Hd caddy on my dual boot XP/SuSe data recovery PC.
This has every "naughty" tool and utils that I have ever found as well as Nortons Utils, Pm-8. IF it works--its legal, thats my only criteria for software!

I can then usually burn all the saved work on to DVDs/CDs, and then recover /reinstall system.
A multi-meter.
Magnetic phillips head screwdriver.
Tweezers.
A head band magnifier 3.0 dioptres.
A LED tourch.
AIDA-32, Motherboard Monitor, and a copy of OpenOffice 2.0, after I was called to a PC that wouldn't open an Excel Attachment..,its wasn't installed!
A dust mask!

These items might be overkill, but if you drive a long distance to do on site repairs these items can sure help:

An extra keyboard, an extra mouse, small LCD display or monitor,  a power cord, extra power strip, extra power supplies (Different types), AND

One small portable alter with appropriate sacrifice for those difficult to solve problems. ;-)

I do a similar thing, and I found that having spare SCSI & SATA
cards and cables can be extremely useful when coming up against data
transfers from either old or new PCs... You never expect the ancient
machine with 16MB of ram and 4GB HDD to be SCSI, so when you take out
the disk to copy it to a new machine, you're best off with a SCSI card
with you too...
Vetch_101

A small cable clamp, about a buck at your local hardware store.  When you have to remove a box and replace, or repair off-site this clamp keeps all the users cables together and they are not as likely to slip down behind the workstation.

Also, some velcro cable ties.  Straightening the mess of cables and shortening them to the right length goes a long ways in cleaning up a work space.

My problem with Microsoft's selling of it's own subscription-based
security software is the inherent conflict of interest that it
presents. If a company is going to make on-going revenue to fix
problems that occur in a product, where's the incentive to create a
solid product in the first place?  Now that Microsoft is selling
subscriptions to it's anti-virus software, there's no reason for it to
pay anything other than lip-service to building stronger security into
Windows in the first place.

After all of this time creating Vista, I'm sure it will be more secure
than XP - otherwise what was the point of all of the delays - but with
Microsoft selling subscriptions to software that fix security problems,
how are we supposed to trust them? And with Microsoft's security track
record in general, how are we supposed to believe that OneCare will
actually be worth the money?

That said, I've become less confident of both Symantec and McAfee's
solutions. Over time, they both have seemed to have become less and
less reliable while becoming more burdensome to performance. So, maybe
Microsoft does have an opening after all...

I have installed this on my home "test" pc.  I was impressed and think this is a great tool for Small business and home users.  Finally a all in one "solution" which addresses the need to stay on top of all the MS security patches, a easy to use maintenance facility to remove garbage files and anti-virus/spyware  scanning.  What is really great, a easy to use backup to DVD utility, IMO, this is great.

Next test, install this on my 67 year old mothers computer to see if she can use it, the ultimate test in my opinion.

Will this spell the demise of <insert vendor here>, no I hope this wakes everyone up to the fact people need a easy interface without stumbling through the competition?s existing and hard to understand user interface. 

If this is successful, look for the competition to add this soon.  This would be a great tool for the E-machine (big fix anyone) Dell dimension/inspirion and others to replicate.

I can also see a market for the bundling of this with external Hard drives as a method to spur sales.

I don't even use Windows XP firewall at home. I use Symantec Norton products for firewall, security & anti-virus which so far have me feeling as safe as possible on a home network on a DSL connection.

Will OEM products kill that? Not for me. As easy as Window is now to hack into without proper precautions there's no logical reason to trust my network security to an easily defeatable generic product. I will continue to turn off the M$ security products in favor of products from designers/manufacuters that are really concerned about my security.