Read more on Cloud Computing
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft launches PowerShell, sets timeline for Longhorn
November 15, 2006 -
Speed test for virtualization under way
November 10, 2006 -
Microsoft: Use virtualization to try software
November 6, 2006 -
Microsoft to charge more for high-end Exchange
June 1, 2006 -
Microsoft moves deeper into virtualization
May 22, 2006 -
Microsoft makes its way to 64-bit chips
November 15, 2005 -
Microsoft launches 64-bit Windows
April 25, 2005
(continued from previous page)
Another area that has become a focus is what we call "multitenancy." Systems used to assume there was just one corporate server. Now we have to assume that many corporate servers will be served by one or more servers in a server farm. It is a major focus, and there have been some learnings.
One of the things was the complexity of desktop deployment, which we learned pretty much the hard way. That was one of the things that led us to acquire Softricity. That will do a lot to lower the cost of desktop deployment and will be a major enabler of software as a service for desktop management.
When will this be rolled out to customers?
It is actually in use with a few customers now, and will be rolled out to more customers in the next year or so--first and foremost on messaging and collaboration, which is ready to run, whereas the desktop management still needs some work.
Do you plan to outsource e-mail and services like that?
Muglia: We are certainly working on the compliance aspects of this, and some of the work here helps that.
When do you plan to go to market with that?
Muglia: We are very much in the incubation phase. So exactly when we will go to market? It is just too early to tell.
But one thing I do know is that over the next couple of years, there is no lack of customers who are interested in working with us, who would like Microsoft to take these things on. So we will take on more of these customers, and we'll learn from them.
In terms of things like privacy of data, we need to provide customers with some assurances. But that has not been a huge issue. In terms of market size, we think, over time, it is a very substantial market, but we think of it as an incremental opportunity on top of our software business.
It primarily helps customers save on their internal labor costs. Goodness knows, there is an immense amount of money spent in IT on internal labor costs.
Will Microsoft virtualizing software, like the Hypervisor, be 64-bit only?
Muglia: There are two distinct parts of the Hypervisor, the management partition and the guests, The guests can be 32-bit or 64-bit, but the software it runs on will be 64-bit, so technically it will be 64-bit.
What future Microsoft technologies are getting you excited?
Muglia: Well, one thing is the capability within Office 2007 to take and connect end users with business processes. This has been a goal of our company for many years, and what we have now is a version of Office that is very different from any previous version. You take this and show it to CIOs (chief information officers), and they really get what you mean. You talk about the interoperability and open XML, and they really get what you mean. You can really transform their businesses because end users can get much more involved.
Another exciting thing is the overall trend in management and virtualization. But the world will go virtual. It is probably true that the next time we do a major release of Windows which will be, let's say, post-2010, we are going to be assuming virtualization.
Colin Barker reported for ZDNet UK in London.
See more CNET content tagged:
managed services, Microsoft Exchange Server 2007, 64-bit, consulting service, virtualization
11 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
use. The real question is, why is it that Microsoft can't manage to
run 32-bit and 64-bit applications and drivers side by side? Apple's
doing it with OS X Leopard, what's wrong with Microsoft and
Windows?
The thing that caught me about the article was the bit about more MS product being released as 64bit only. Translation:
"We're really happy that you've baught the latest system from our hardware partners at every new version of Bloatdows and it's realy great that your pushing dual core so you can get the same performance that any other OS would show on a single core pentium but we're going to need you to go ahead and drop five bills on new multi core 64bit hardware if you haven't already."
"We're really happy that your running our Exchange server product (of course with our client application because you have too) but we're going to need you to upgrade that now because it won't interact with the new client software you'll soon be forced to buy. Unfortunately we only have a 64bit version Mr. CIO. Yes, it's unfortunate but you know, controlled innovation and all. You'll need to scrap that 32bit server farm and blow your budget on 64bit hardware now."
And the MS upgrade treadmill begins to push customers through another step.
Yeah, eventually we'll all have 32 core 128 bit hardware but that should be at the customers rate of hardware evolution not imposed by the product developer.
Enough of my rant. It would be a benifit to the tech industry as a whole if 64bit only applications means that winXP (Vista or whatever is standard by then) finally stops supporting msDos, msDos95 and msDos98 bugs at least.
They are doing exactly the same thing with Vista by removing WinHlp32. It is the cheesiest attempt that Microsoft has ever made to undermine both developers and end users, and undoubtedly it will blow up in their face.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler found out the hard way that you can't force product upgrades down people's throats, and now the mighty Microsoft has resorted to techniques employed by the dinosaurs of the industrial revolution.
Its sad and funny at the same time.
their application software at least twice in the past 5 or so years.
First with the move to OS X and then the move to Intel.
Universe to Microsoft...
Clue, get one.
Universe to Microsoft...
Clue, get one.
Must be from 200 megs to 2 gigabytes per user and not 200 gigabytes...slight difference. The email economics of total storage capactiy required for IOPs demand in most cases allows larger mailbox sizes without a substantial increase in disk transfers but I have serious doubts that a 100000% increase in mailbox storage capacity is not associated with a certain cost.
Must be from 200 megs to 2 gigabytes per user and not 200 gigabytes...slight difference. The email economics of total storage capacity required for IOPs demand in most cases allows larger mailbox sizes without a substantial increase in disk transfers but I have serious doubts that a 100000% increase in max allowed mailbox size is not associated with a certain cost.