DarkMonkey

Today I was at Microsoft Reading attending a Technet Event about virtualisation. I wasn’t convincied that it would be benifitial for the company as we don’t really use virtualisation, but I was curious and I like to learn from other people when possible. Again, being a one man show I am fairly isolated and I find I can learn so much more, much more quickly from other people than I can trawling through books and web pages.

As it turns out I was right. To get hold of the technologies offered by MS I would need to spend a considerable amount of my non existant IT budget on desktop licences with software assurance (no seriously, I don’t have a budget. I have to build a business case for anything more than a replacement desktop, and even then most ‘non essential’ purchases are left for ‘later consideration’).

Buying new licences to replace our perfectly good OEM licences isn’t something I can justify. I inherited the practice of purchasing cheap and cheerful Fujitsu Siemens business PC’s with bundled OEM OS licences. I can’t fault it as it is very cost effective and the PC’s are fairly reliable.

Some of the things we are mssing out include application virtualisation (which is very cool and would save a lot of messing around when reinstalling desktop apps) and an add on for Active Directory that allows you to apply AD changes ‘off-line’ to see if they work as expected and to roll back any undesireable changes. Something that you can’t currently do with AD. I’ve long thought that AD is a bit basic. Not in what it can do, because the policys are updated with each new release and you can do pretty much most things you would want to, but in the way the AD is administered. Its just a bit basic. It probably doesn’t help that our main server is still running Server 2000 (2003 is much nicer). But the add on I saw today allows you to do proper change control over AD modifications. Even to the extent of having changes made by minor admins, approved by the main administrator before they are applied to the AD for real.

When I asked (with genuine surprise I might add) why it was an add on, I was told it was a commercial decision. Perhaps the commercial guys at Microsoft should be made to serve as system admins with older, standard versions of windows before they are allowed to dictate what essential features are released as add ons to those lucky enough to have software assurance with OS products…

Were I work the lines between IT support and a users own job are flexible. Not by my choice, but by virture of the fact that a lot of users here are constantly trying to palm their work off on others. The problem is getting worse and my boss is one of the worst offenders.

There is a problem with a GPS tracking device not reporting back to the web interface. The person in charge of the Vehicles is dealing directly with the company responsible for installing the GPS tracking device and who also host the web interface. That same person has been dealing with the issue for some time now, its just that the company concerned are not very responsive.

So I get an email from my boss this am telling me that I should work with this person to resolve the issue. So Both myself and my college find ourselves having a chat about this issue and we end up wondering why we are talking about it and what I am supposed to bring to the table. We both came to the conclusion that because a computer is involved somewhere along the line (web interface, GPS tracking unit) that it must be an IT issue. So we both agree that my collegue will continue to deal with the issue un-aided as he is competent enough to manage it.

Another example would be the ‘Could you look at so and a so’s spread sheet for them, they are having problems’, ends up with me spending hours (sometimes days) trying to understand what it is they are trying to achieve, where the data comes from, how it gets there etc, and ultimately fixing a spread sheet that should be rewritten because I don’t want to be known as ‘the guy who will write your spreadsheets for you’ as that would be like a red rag to a Bull.

Is it just me or should the users who created these speadsheets not be responsble for maintaining them and ensuring data integrity? I mean its not like I know what data should be in there in the first place…

I have a user who keeps their contacts organised by sub folder. (I should explain that we don’t have exchange or sendmail locally, we let our ISP host our email). I don’t have a problem with that, infact it makes perfect sense to me.

The problem comes everytime I install a new machine for them or upgrade Office in this case. All their sub folders disappear. Well that is what they tell me, so I have a look and find all their contacts and sub folders just as I would expect. And this is where it gets me everytime. Thats not how they use their contacts. They fire up a new email and hit the to: button and up pops Outlook Address Book which has the look and feel of an after thought bolt on application. And in here there are no sub folders, just the main contacts folder.

I know I have fixed this before, and I know it is screamingly obvious but I can’t for the life of me remember how to fix it. After a bit of fruitless Googling I start clicking things and suddenly it all comes back to me.

Go to contacts directly in Outlook right click a sub folder and view it properties and in the Outlook Address Book tab, check the box that says “Show this folder as an e-mail Address Book” and hey presto they appear when the user clicks the To: button.

I guess I have a blind spot for this one and its probably screamingly obvious to most people, but it trips me up every time!

Is it just me or are things in general way more complicated than they really need to be?

I’ve been lugging an XDA Exec (HTC Universal) smart phone/pda around for ages now and was getting quite excited about the Sony Ericsson Experia X1 as its an HTC device with a qwerty keyboard. Its a bit smaller and lighter than the Universal with built in GPS etc etc so sounded like an ideal replacement.

That is until I found out that it uses a proprietary connector. To connect anything to it you need an adaptor or the supplied lead/head phones. I hate adaptors because I always mislay or loose them. To compound the problem you can’t even plug in standard 3.5mm stereo headphones without an adaptor. Worst of all is that I can’t charge it via mini usb. I would need an adaptor. I don’t want to use adaptors. I want to use all the mini usb chargers scattered around the house/cars and mini usb leads connected to almost every PC I use. Perhaps Sony think I am happy to throw away all my chargers and buy new leads but they are wrong. I don’t mind if they want to use a new connector for new features. The X1 has video out so it would make sense to include a lead for that feature but don’t throw away standards and conventional wisdom chasing a few extra pounds.

So what now?

Fingers crossed that the HTC Dream (also known as the G1) that runs Google Android uses a normal, everyday, average, ho-hum, hum-drum, common or garden 3.5mm stereo head phone socket for connecting headphones preferably and mini usb for charging and data comms. Other wise the search will continue.

I’ve worked in IT in one guise or another for 10 years and before that in the Electronics industy, but always seem to end up working for small companies where I am the ‘IT expert’ and end up supporting everything that has a more than an on/off switch and a temperature setting.

What does all that mean in the real world? Thats the question I am trying to answer with musings from my perspective.

To give you an example, I am currently working for a non IT company supporting the entire infrastructure, more or less on my own. The only support I have is a few support numbers for a few apps and some HP care packs.

Today I deployed Office 2007. Nothing too problematic there, it was only on 20 odd desktops. The problem came from a technophobe kicking off about training. I had sent round an email with links to on-line training and posted the same links to the company intranet (which is set as the default page in active directory). When reminded of this the user asked if I thought he ’sat on his ass all day’ as he ‘didn’t have the time’ to complete, at worst, 2 hours worth of training in a month.

Aparently he is worried about not being able to use the new version and is lashing out as a result. If only users put as much energy into embracing new technology as they do decrying it.

At least one user has praised the new version as being better than the old one!

Fingers crossed that it is universally accepted.