Archive for the 'Ergonomics' Category

Microsoft Server Products are bad for business!

Published
by
Ville Walveranta
on 12 November 2008
in Ergonomics, Rants and Technical
. 2 Comments

I have been using various Windows Server platforms for a good decade now. I’m not a MCSE, but I know my way fairly well around Windows 2000 and 2003. Yet I’ve never been able to completely shed the feeling of looking for a needle in a haystack when something goes seriously wrong and Windows gives an error message such as: “Error code 00000050, parameter1 a04bd7e8, parameter2 00000000, parameter3 8089c425, parameter4 00000000″ in the System Log as the reason for mysterious, repeated reboots. Perhaps if I were a MCSE I would know how to go about debugging such a problem in a more methodical fashion than the “shot-in-the-dark-debugging” I often have to employ in such situations, and thus reach a conclusion (and a fix) in a reasonable amount of time. But maybe it would take just as much effort, MCSE or not; the Windows Server products keep the administrator at an arm’s length when it comes to divulging their inner workings, or at least they seem to run any diagnostic information through an obsfuscator of some kind. Oftentimes having a good reference library and good web mining skills aren’t enough and the only remaining option is to contact the support - which costs money.

Microsoft also often recommends against running various functions (mail, database, directory controller to name a few) on a single server, no matter how small the environment. Domain Controller should have its own box. So should SQL Server, and (of course) Exchange. And the web server often doesn’t run well in a box with any of the above. Naturally you need an operating system license for all of the servers with dedicated functionality. A SQL Server license costs about $6,000 (per CPU). Exchange starts from about $1,100 for five users, etc. Why does anyone want to pay such high prices when better (more powerful, simpler to maintain) options exist? Support! But if you chose an open source alternative (such as, for example, FreeBSD or Linux for the operating system, MySQL for database, Apache for web server, Postfix for mail server…) you wouldn’t need support nearly as often, assuming you have an equally competent administrator for both environments.

My latest harrowing experience with Microsoft Server products was with Exchange 2003 Standard. I was faced with a server reinstall. The server is also a DC, and realizing the potential unexpected interactions between the various components I did a fair amount of research before starting the reinstall. Alas, this did not help. Exchange’s web access bombed completely even though the install was technically “clean” and the different components were carefully installed in the recommended order, and patched to the current patch levels.

I ended up blowing OWA2003 away, redirecting webmail to a FreeBSD server, and setting up Squirrelmail via IMAP to Exchange which worked right off the bat without any messy configuration issues with ASP.NET accounts. And the users have a more versatile web-mail interface than what OWA2003 would’ve offered.

As a result of this experience I’ve decided to move the LAN in question away from Exchange — into Postfix on FreeBSD. And yes, the same UNIX server will also handle intranet web, MySQL databases and external domain DNS services (for DNS there will be a secondary elsewhere) with little effort. It also says something about Exchange that the lengthy list of Postfix’s configuration parameters feels very straightforward when compared to Exchange’s configuration (having used both products now for several years). Postfix’s numerous configuration options give a very fine-grained control over how the MTA should function. If something goes wrong, Postfix (and Dovecot which I’ll use for IMAP/POP interface) tells you what’s wrong. And should I be totally stumped, Postfix’s excellent support community (mailing list) provides almost instantaneous solutions to even the most complex questions.

It is quite apparent that Microsoft is targeting Exchange primarily to large corporations considering that the production version of Exchange 2007 only runs on 64-bit Windows servers. Such organizations can also afford to throw money around for “Exchange administrators” whose whole job is to maintain the mail server. Perhaps it’s not wasted money, large organizations often have complex enough mail systems so that dedicated individuals or even teams are necessary. But when implementing Exchange in a smaller environment—except for perhaps the wizard-driven SMB-version (which keeps the admins at broomstick’s length away)—the heavier demand for Exchange management is still there even though the mail volume is lower. Small and medium-size organizations can save incredible amounts of money in license fees and in hardware investments simply by choosing Open Source software that will do the job in most cases much better than Microsoft’s Server Products. I would venture to say that Postfix, for example, offers more detailed control over how the mail is processed than Exchange while at the same time offering lower management complexity, a lot more power, and less need for ongoing maintenance.

Going forward, I will be recommending a mixed solution for the SMBs: Windows desktops (XP, for now) with Windows domain to centralize logins and to facilitate file sharing. That takes two Windows servers for most SMB LAN environments (one generally suffices performance-wise, but a second system is recommended for AD backup and it also functions as a backup server in case the primary server fails. For mail, database, ftp, LDAP, external DNS, and web, however, I’m recommending UNIX servers. My personal preference is FreeBSD, but Linux will work just as well. Again, perhaps two servers which can share and mirror operations under normal circumstances and function as backup for each other in event of a hardware failure. Total of four boxes (or two if cost is a concern and an outage stemming from a system failure isn’t devastating to the business) configured as described will create a very versatile system with a high degree of stability.

I end this post with two, somewhat connected observations: First, externalizing spam filtering is a good idea. Katharion provides excellent functionality, and around the end of the year they will also include webmail access to users’ email which is cached for thirty days. This doubles as a backup mail service for internal SMB mail servers. I’ll write more about Katharion in a future post.

Second, it may be time to ditch Outlook as well. Why doesn’t Outlook 2007 provide secure IMAP connections?! If team calendaring is not needed, Thunderbird looks like a much better choice (and even if calendaring and contacts are needed, they can be implemented with other available products).

Edit: Outlook 2007 does offer TLS for IMAP connections (Tools > Account Settings > [select profile] > Change > More Settings > Advanced > Use the following type of encrypted connection: [None/SSL/TLS/Auto]).  Unfortunately, Thunderbird continues to have a number of issues, not least of which is the somewhat clumsy and aged-looking GUI which makes the program less flexible and comfortable to use than Outlook. Outlook’s superiority isn’t completely unexpected: while I maintain that Microsoft Server Products are overpriced, underperforming resource-hungry bloatware, I also recognize that their desktop software is pretty good (excluding Vista.. I really hope they get it right with Windows 7). The Office Suite is very well designed, and VisualStudio is a stellar development tool. Now if MS fixed the HTML rendering problem in Outlook 2007…

To recap: Windows for the desktop, domain controller (obviously), and for Windows LAN file sharing. UNIX for mail, database, web, DNS and other applications requiring good performance, configurability and security on the internet.

Widescreen multiple monitor desktops (or The End of 2:3@1600×1200 LCDs)

Published
by
Ville Walveranta
on 13 October 2008
in Ergonomics and Technical
. 0 Comments

I just realized that most manufacturers have discontinued 2:3 (non-widescreen) 20″ (or any size, for that matter) LCD-monitors. Everything is widescreen. But how about many existing applications that call for 2:3 format display panels?

The following was revised/rewritten on 14 October 2008, after I got some feedback from Ergotron that substantially changed the facts on what I wrote yesterday:

I’ve been using Ergotron’s LX display stand for some time now, and have really become accustomed to the large, wrap-around desktop space the LX stand equipped with three 20″ 1600×1200 pixel displays have offered. That’s 4800×1200 (or 5,760,000) pixels. The most common replacement for 1600×1200 displays seems to be the 1680×1050 widescreen format even though the actual upgrade for the 1600×1200 displays is the 1920×1200 resolution. Display for display the 1680×1200 pixel monitors offer 156,000 pixels less desktop space than 1600×1200 models.

The Ergotron LX stand I’m currently using would fit just two of either the 1680×1050 or 1920×1200 displays as they’re “widescreen”. Dual-widescreen setup using the previous displays offers 3360×1050 (3,528,000) pixels, or 3840×1200 (4,608,000) pixels respectively. Either configuration provides still less desktop space than triple 1600×1200 display.

There are couple of alternatives for triple-monitor setup using the widescreen displays. Firstly, Ergotron LX stand supports one 1600×1200 2:3 monitor in the middle, and two 1920×1200 widescreen monitors on the sides. That will produce a large combined 5440×1200 (6,528,000) pixel display!  Yet a better option is  Ergotron DS100 which supports three1920×1200 displays resulting in an even larger 5760×1200 desktop. That’s probably the best economical option at this time, yet it’s a far cry from Al Gore’s triple-HD-setup, which offers a gigantic desktop of 7680×1600 (or over 12 million) pixels — almost twice as much desktop space as our econo choice.

To recap, for a multi-monitor setup I would at this point recommend Ergotron DS100 stand with three Samsung 2443BWX widescreen 1920×1200 pixel displays. Or, if money is not an object, triple “HD” displays (Apple or Samsung), or perhaps 9XMedia’s insane fifteen monitor stand! :D

Pragmata is better!

Published
by
Ville Walveranta
on 21 September 2007
in Ergonomics and Technical
. 0 Comments

I’ve been using the free Microsoft Andale Mono (member of Microsoft core fonts) as my “coding font” for last couple of years. It’s been mostly fine, though at times I wished for a narrower font with a more refined zero, more standard-looking lower-case L, etc.

I’ve known of Pragmata for quite some time, but the $108 cost (e.g. at MyFonts.com) has been a deterrent since it’s not possible to test the font before buying it, and since the product is not returnable/refundable. After circling around the font for a long while I finally decided to give it a go, and I’m happy that I did, because Pragmata is better than MS Andale Mono, or Proggy, or any other coding font I’ve tried thus far. So while it’s difficult to say whether the investment is really worth $108, considering the amount of time I spend staring at code, it’d say a good font can be equated to a comfortable chair (almost, at least :) ).

Depending on how the editor treats the selected font (mainly whether the font is anti-aliased or not), it looks somewhat different in different editors, even at the same point size (while Pragmata scales, it seems to be at its best at 9pt).

I especially like the clarity of wavy brackets, digits, zero (vs. capital letter O). AND smileys don’t look stupid in it! ;)

image
     Pragmata 9pt in UltraEdit.

image
     Pragmata 9pt in Eclipse.

Ergonomics Recommendations updated

Published
by
Ville Walveranta
on 24 July 2007
in Ergonomics
. 0 Comments

I’ve updated my Ergonomics Recommendations that hadn’t been edited for couple of years.

Microsoft Trackball Explorer — The World’s Most Comfortable Trackball

Published
by
Ville Walveranta
on 03 July 2007
in Ergonomics, Rants and Technical
. 180 Comments

And, of course, it’s no longer available. This device is just one of the many items whose demand appears strong regardless of the fact that their manufacturers have inexplicably decided to discontinue making them. A quick search on eBay produces a handful of Trackball Explorers, each fetching at least $100 (often a lot more; recently even several hundred dollars!) That’s pretty good for a device that one could pick up from a local computer retailer, or from the web for $39.95 few years back!

Today the mainstream trackball alternatives include Logitech and Kensington models (plus some more industrial, or “80’s looking” trackballs by ITAC and Evergreen Systems). None of the currently available models come anywhere close to the ergonomy of Microsoft’s Trackball Explorer, and this sentiment is echoed on countless hardware review forums on the web.

Was the demand really so minimal for the trackballs that it wasn’t worth it for Microsoft to continue manufacturing it? Perhaps the sales weren’t as strong as they’re “supposed” to be for this kind of a device—perhaps when compared to the sales figures of mouses. But my guess is there are quite a few people out there who would be more than happy to pay, say, $69.95 for the (perhaps even slighly improved) device rather than scouring the dwindling sources for the trackball, or settle for another manufacturer’s best model that the “late” MS Trackball Explorer beat hands down. Today Microsoft offers just mouses for pointing devices — but a mouse won’t always do. Oftentimes the available desk-space is limited — there is no space to move the mouse around (whereas, of course, a trackball is stationary). And more importantly—especially when using 3D or CAD applications—mouse is less accurate. When you’ve placed the cursor on the exact pixel you want it to be on, with trackball you can then remove your finger from the ball before releasing the button to get a positively accurate placement. With a mouse the action of releasing the depressed button moves the mouse enough so that the cursor is moved a pixel or two before the ‘drop’ action occurs.

I have written Microsoft a few times regarding this issue, and it’s likely few other people have done so, too. There has never been a response, probably because their trackballs are gone, period. If Microsoft is not going to bring it back, it would be a great business idea for someone to revive a truely ergonomic trackball… there would be many users who would be glad to pay, say, the aforementioned $69.95 for a well designed, professional trackball, the “Trackball Explorer 2.0″.


Update 23 September 2008:

To get an update on TBE I contacted Edelman | Seattle yesterday.  The original contact, Kerry Gentes, was no longer with the company and I spoke with Brittany Turner instead.  According to her Microsoft’s stance on the issue has not changed; they are still not listening to what their customers want (she didn’t use those words exactly, but that’s basically what it boils down to).

Microsoft is also not willing to license the device at this time.

This puzzles me.  Microsoft bases their decision not to continue manufacturing and marketing the device on a “strategic decision” to concentrate on mouse devices because the market share trackballs hold is “insignificant”.   I’m sure the sales figures for mouses are greater than for trackballs, but it’s the same situation between any consumer and “pro” product.  Most people who go to buy a computer at Fry’s or Best Buy automatically buy a mouse as the computer comes with one.  In many cases it’s a Microsoft mouse, so naturally Microsoft sells a lot of them.  However, unlike many other devices, there is no viable alternative for the Trackball Explorer, and the “strategic decision” to not sell them makes a significant number of users rather unhappy.  If you go to a computer or office supply store they may carry a Logitech or Kensington model or two whose ergonomics simply have nothing on the TBE.  Microsoft could easily hold that shelf-space instead simply by resuming the manufacture of the already existing product which even has up-to-date drivers (Vista compatible, etc.)

If Microsoft doesn’t feel like investing more R&D funds to the TBE at this point, they could use the exact same design as TBE 1.0.  They might change its colors slightly to match the current product line and slap on a price tag equivalent to that of Kensington Expert Mouse ($99.99, or perhaps a little more competitively at $74.95) and it would sell like hot cakes.  It would still sell fairly strongly even if the price tag was $149.99, just as long as it would be available (recent prices for functional units sold on eBay have fetched $400+).  Surely the sales figures would not reach those of mouses, but then Microsoft also sells many more of the consumer licenses than professional licenses to its operating systems for the same exact reason – most computers sold come readily with “Windows Vista Home” installed.  Yet lower sales figures for the “Pro” versions of the operating system products, for example, don’t result in pulling a product from the market.

Microsoft’s unreachability and inertness regarding this issue is very frustrating.  You’d have to look hard for a product that so many users feel so strongly about (just read the comments in this blog for a small sampling of TBE users who have searched the web, come across this blog, and decided to post!) If Microsoft discontinued a particular mouse, nobody would think twice of it - they’d just pick up a newer (or, perhaps, a competitor’s) model.  Same goes for most anything I can think of – there’re always alternatives.  In most cases a new, improved versions of the older products are made available by the same manufacturer.  Unfortunately the situation with the TBE serves to illustrate the way Microsoft is going: business decisions are made internally without paying too much (or any) attention to the customer feedback.  This, also, is why the agile younger companies like Google are gradually eating away Microsoft’s market share in many areas of business.  When the time comes to make a choice between a Microsoft product that does have competitive alternatives – and most do – users who were shorted by Microsoft previously are more likely to choose a competitor’s product, especially if the competitor appears more responsive to customer feedback.

Microsoft Trackball Explorer

Microsoft Trackball Explorer