MyDoom sparks talks of security's future

TalkBack 9 of 136:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

waiting

Business costs to switching far exceed the cost of software and hardware and even user and IT training, but of course, that depends on the amount of customized solutions built on top of an existing platform. It goes well beyond "proprietary file formats." Hardware, software, and support are often the smallest parts of many IT budgets, but that truly depends on the companies involved and how much they actually truly make use of technology and integrate it into their business flow, as opposed to just using it.

There needs to be a reason to make a major switch. Most businesses were not even affected by this (or any of the other) recent virus and trojan outbreaks, so this is not the reason. Wanting installs to work more like a Mac in the need to enter an admin password to complete it doesn't justify the change, either (and doesn't solve the dumb user issue entirely, either).

Many companies are set in their technology and don't have a reason to change any of it, meaning not only are they not switching to Macs or Linux, they're not upgrading their MS software, either. So, waiting a while isn't a problem. If you are not planning to make any changes and your support structure is already set up to handle (and is handling) all of the latest issues, even changing to a "free" O/S like Linux will cost you in roll-out and training costs, not to mention in reworking any custom solutions built on top of your existing infrastructure.

Now, companies that NEED to upgrade now or in the near future are in a different position. And, in a few years, many more will be in that position (of course, by then much hardware will require replacing anyway, so the costs will not be considered "upgrading" but "replacing" at that point, so it may not be a huge issue.)

This is where the real battle will be fought - in the next few years. If MS doesn't get it right by then, they will lose big time, because by then a large % of the business community WILL need to change/upgrade to SOMETHING. Those that can't afford to wait until then have to analyze their position now and make changes if they can. I know many companies that have made the change and are saving money, I know some that have and it isn't saving them any, and I know many after much analysis have not made the change because it would have cost them more. I even know one that is changing BACK (which seems odd, but I guess they have their reasons).

My point that MS isn't just going to blip off the map, though, is still valid, and for that reason we need to encourage them to FIX THINGS. Switching is actually a good way to encourage them, so your point it also valid. MS cannot afford to disappoint this next time around, because there are true alternatives (which will be even better by then) and it will cost them dearly, although probably not entirely.

Home users are a whole different issue. Cost IS a major factor there; if someone can build a Linux distro that is extremely easy to install and use (for the average grandma at home), get it to run games and the kind of things home users like (and get a selection for it), and get a major vendor to supply it, they could capture a huge section of this market (not overnight; it will take a little time). Lindows is heading down the right track here; if a bigger player got involved, it might go faster. Most home users don't care about ANY of the issues we've been discussing here; even getting a virus doesn't seem to phase many of them. They just want something simple to use that doesn't cost much to obtain or maintain, and it needs to come with just about everything, because they certainly aren't going to spend more money or time adding such exciting pieces as ANTIVIRUS or FIREWALL or EMAIL SANDBOX or whatever onto it. If Macs didn't cost so dang much, they could have captured this market long ago. Linux has a chance here, but it will take a while to reverse momentum, and much of that will depend on the software that runs on it. If I want to play game X and it only runs on Windows, guess what I buy?

Home users look at initial cost ONLY, not TCO. The only way most home users will get any kind of an upgraded OS is when they BUY A NEW COMPUTER, and even then the old one (with the old unupgraded, unpatched, un-everything OS) ends up in the kid's room.

Convincing home users to switch will be more difficult than businesses, although as businesses switch, people will be more open to change because of what they use at work. It's kind of like the government's mandate for hi-def TV broadcasting; it's better, but how do you convince all those people to buy new TVs when they really don't care about "better"?

It's going to be interesting.

Posted by: pschroeder@...   Posted on: 02/05/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now