TechEd 2007: The WS2K8 Upgrade, and Two Universes Cohabiting One World

I said it was a welcome change, and on Monday, I emphasized that point once again with some words of approval of the abbreviated keynote event (down from an often three-day affair to 90 minutes), giving more time for attendees to attend sessions and hands-on labs.

But one of the things I do at conferences is listen to the attendees, not just the presenters. And some of what I've heard from a few IT managers this week has been the rebuttal to my case, and is making me reconsider my opinion in a new light.

I don't want to reveal too many details, because otherwise regular attendees won't feel free to talk to me. But I had an intriguing conversation yesterday with an IT manager, who was sent here by his company to investigate whether it's finally time for it to make the "quantum leap" to Windows Server 2008. As he described it, back in 1998, the firm finally made the "quantum leap" to NT 4.0. In the world which he has to deal with every day, that decision may as well have been made yesterday. While he helped make the decision that his company should make the next leap to Windows 2000...in 2002, he told me that that particular migration is still under way, and may not be 50% complete yet.

What's the holdup? There's typically only one major candidate for the cause, and this time, it's probably the one: application compatibility, or the lack of it...or the fear of the lack of it.

As I understand the story, as the migration to Windows 2000 was proceeding, an executive read an article on Windows Server 2003, and thought, perhaps we're now upgrading to the wrong system. So the program was put on hold while the company re-evaluated.

Admirably, the company actively considered SUSE Enterprise Linux as an alternative, and some of its smaller divisions have actually deployed it already. But the problem with that operating system appears to be that there isn't really a company behind it, with all due respect to Novell. Linux charts its own course; sometimes Novell supports it, and sometimes serves as its apologist.

Anyway, the Windows Server migration re-evaluation had been going rather swimmingly, into its third big year, when gosh darn it, Microsoft goes and does another product upgrade, which this fellow had been sent here to investigate. From his company's perspective, these updates just keep happening, decade after decade, and it can't seem to keep up.

His assignment once he leaves here: He will be producing a PowerPoint presentation for the folks back home making the case that the company should not only start preparing to make the investment in Windows Server 2008, but (and this is the tricky part), upgrade the hardware to accommodate it. Keep in mind we're talking about NT 4.0 file servers (some of which could actually be 3.5). He wants to create a message that explains the benefits in terms the executives will understand. So he has come here seeking terms...that they will understand. His fear is that no such message really exists.

And that's the problem. Whenever Microsoft explains why companies should do their upgrade, they're talking from the perspective of businesses that already have Windows Server 2003, and whose admins are already certified for it. Meanwhile, this particular company may be two or more evolutionary generations behind Microsoft. So all these technical discussions of, say, Address Space Load Randomization and Desktop Optimization Pack and PowerShell would be way, way, way over this company's executives' heads.

His simple request: Why can't Microsoft just sell us on Server 2008, maybe do a TV commercial? Isn't there a way to sell a CIO on it in 30 seconds or less? If that CIO were to turn on the TV during the Masters tournament one day, and see the perfect 30-second spot for Windows Server 2008, that might do the trick. If only Microsoft could find out how do some clever marketing...

And it is here where I realized this gentleman had led me to the antithesis of my argument from last week. Here I had been praising the great character actor Christopher Lloyd for having drawn a clear underscore around "MS-BS" during the shorter Monday keynote, effectively conveying the message from Microsoft that this is what TechEd would not do this year...and thus far, they've held to that promise surprisingly well.

But we live and work in an industry where successive generations of technologies not only outpace one another in mere years, but they co-exist with one another, like folds in an accordion squashed together by the pressure to improve and to correct past mistakes.

Some of us behave as though the technology universe is a plane of existence that pushes us along like a force unto itself, and whose laws of physics and existence bend and change to suit our new realizations.

Meanwhile, our neighbors seated next to us in the hallways, conference rooms, and busses live and work where technologically seems like a different universe, whose context is based on file servers and boot sectors and floppy diskettes and 56K modems.

The laws of physics are all different there, but it's only because we who make the technology and who report about what's being made are the ones who change the context of our own universe to suit where we live and work.

But that doesn't change the world. It's a different universe, but it's the same world. We all need to recognize that. I need to recognize that.