This is about our experience recently on a project to improve the performance and stability of a set of engineering applications after migration to a new datacentre. We had really excellent data produced by the application centre business analysts. These showed in detail that applications were significantly slower than previously, across a wide range of transactions. On average, transactions were taking 25% longer (let's say). Someone set the objective that we would not be satisfied until 90% of transactions were within the benchmark figure for each transaction.
We are seeing the end of an era in how we think of, and manage, the corporate desktop.
We weres recently asked to provide evidence that virtualising an application would not affect its performance.
I have been working on a large End User Computing programme for a while, and not found the time to blog, so now it is time to catch up with a few snippets.
This one is about Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) and the BIOS settings of the physical servers. Here's the summary: VDI depends on high performance hosts, but by default hosts are typically configured for a balance of performance and energy efficiency. Check your BIOS. It may not be what you think.
This article is about managing the replacement for the traditional Windows XP desktop. It may sound like a straightforward upgrade of the desktop OS, or it may already seem like a complicated upgrade because of the business applications that don't run on Windows 7. But in my view it is more than that. The old desktop paradigm that has been in place for more than twenty years is coming to an end. Without a paradigm we face a bundle of difficult choices.
Cloud is a great marketing concept. It creates an impression of something new and better. But is it really new and better, or is it for the birds, up there in Cloud Cuckoo Land?
The idea of a Cloud Desktop is appealing, but can it exist?
Cloud is a brilliant marketing concept, but it can be difficult sometimes to pin down exactly what it means. This post looks at what Microsoft is offering in Office 365.
In a previous post I said I thought that problems in IT are caused by complexity, and not by the pace of change, poor management or lack of skills (although any of those may contribute).
Here are some interesting thoughts from David Gelernter. Gelernter is Professor of Computer Science at Yale.
A friend of mine, a very experienced and senior non-executive director, asked me why, in all the organisations he knows, IT is the area that causes the most difficulty. There are several common explanations, but I am not sure they add up. This leads me to a different explanation, with interesting consequences.
Versatile Desktop is the ability to run different business desktops on the same client device. We can already do this easily through terminal services, but only if we are online, and without the full features of the client device such as enhanced graphics or audio.
Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) makes it easier than before to run different desktops locally, with the full features of the device. This post looks at how widespread and practical UEFI is as a means of achieving the Versatile Desktop.
There is a lot of industry talk about Virtual Desktops at the moment. This is the desktop OS running as a virtual machine on a server in the datacenter. It sounds like the solution to all those difficult desktop problems, but it is more like a niche within a niche. Much more interesting is the Versatile Desktop. The Versatile Desktop is a personal computing device that is able to run different desktops at different times.
Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) invented one of the world's first and best search engines, AltaVista, in 1995. Altavista was designed to use the new Alpha 64-bit RISC processor.
One of the biggest challenges when upgrading to Windows 7 is in testing and preparing applications. This blog puts together a few conclusions that might assist you in planning the work.
Intel announced on 19 Aug 2010 that it will buy McAfee for around $8bn. This has caused some surprise. Intel does not sell directly to the end-user, and it does not develop application software. It is not obvious what it achieves by acquiring a software vendor. Here's my guess as to why Intel is doing it.