| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft: Monolithic platforms are bad for business | |
|
||
| Time: 00:04 EST/05:04 GMT | News Source: WinBeta | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft has given out some mixed guidance on whether using a single platform improves an IT department's ability to meet the needs of the wider business. Commenting on a report into lack of alignment between IT and business, released on Tuesday, Matt Dunstan, application platform group manager at Microsoft, said the use of single, legacy monolithic platforms, such as Unix, reduced the flexibility of IT departments and prevented them from being able to meet the needs of the wider business. "Bets made in the past constrain [IT departments]," said Dunstan. "We talk a lot about agility and wanting to respond in business but, when a company needs [an application], the IT department is more or less saying: "No, it doesn't fit with our strategy" or "Yes, but it will cost this much and take this long". | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:34:43 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 10:16:59 AM |
|
Yep, they're bad for business when they're UNIX, but great when they're Windows...
But Dunstan denied that Microsoft itself had sold its share of platforms that could be regarded as monolithic. "Most core business systems are running on older platforms, not necessarily Microsoft. Customers who jumped on in that time have upgraded, and are running on current versions of Microsoft," he said. When questioned on why standardising on legacy monolithic platforms, such as Unix, was bad but doing the same thing on a modern platform, such as Windows Server 2003, was a good thing, Dunstan denied Microsoft was being self-serving. "It's not entirely self-serving," said Dunstan. Yeah, not entirely self-serving, only about 97-98%... |
| #2 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/5/2007 10:42:57 AM |
|
"not entirely self-serving"
As opposed to the anti-monolithic FUDsters you shill for who embrace monolithism when it is 100% UNIX or 100% Linux. |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/5/2007 1:39:12 PM |
| "Nah... it's not monolithic... we use both RedHat AND SuSE!!" :P |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 148 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:34:43 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
