Announcing Digital Distribution of Microsoft Software Benefits

The partner community provided us with feedback to improve access and management of software benefits—we listened. We’re pleased to announce that you can now digitally access your software benefits from one, central location at any time.

The advantages of the Microsoft Partner Program digital distribution solution:
By directly downloading your internal-use software, you can gain access to software and updates the moment they’re made available—no need to wait for your Microsoft Action Pack Subscription or Microsoft Gold Certified or Certified Partner box shipment. Benefits include:
• Faster and more flexible: Access software immediately—24x7 availability.
• Greater visibility: View all of your software benefits summarized in a license statement.*
• Improved software benefits management: Add or remove users and manage their access to downloads, keys, and a license statement.
• Decreased environmental impact: Help reduce the amount of waste from manufacturing, shipping, and disposing of disk kits.
*Available August, 2009.

What you need to know about this beneficial, new change:
• At launch, you’ll be defaulted to receive Digital-Only software distribution or Digital-Plus-Physical software distribution, depending on your location.* View the frequently asked questions for details.
• If you’re defaulted to receive Digital-Only software distribution, you can always order physical media (software discs)—additional fees may apply. Visit your local Microsoft Partner Program portal for information on fees and expenses.
• If you’re defaulted to receive Digital-Plus-Physical software distribution, you must wait until re-enrollment to change to Digital-Only.
• Software benefits will always be available digitally, even when you’re receiving physical media.
• Access to software keys and license statement will only be available digitally, even when you’re receiving physical media.
• Marketing and sales resources are available online—in a few weeks, you’ll receive a communication to access these resources.
• Microsoft Gold Certified and Certified Partners will still be shipped Microsoft Partner Program plaques and certificates as appropriate.
*Certain locations will receive physical media (software discs) due to digital accessibility issues. (Hilton: This includes Australia. When you renew your MAPS, you currently have a "Digital only" or "Digital and DVD media" choice to make. The price is the same - ie, the disparity between the Australian MAPS and US MAPS pricing has not been rectified at the time of publishing this blog article.)

How to get digital access:
From this link, you can access your software benefits today. You can use a step-by-step instruction guide for assistance.

How to order physical media and when you can make changes:
If you aren’t automatically receiving physical media for your location, you can order it at any time—additional fees may apply. You’ll still have digital access to your software benefits.

For more information:
Check here for the latest details specific to your location and to review frequently asked questions. If you need support, please contact your local Regional Service Center.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Windows 7 Available October 22, 2009

As confirmation for my long-standing claims that Windows 7 will most definitely be released in time for the 2009 xmas holiday season, Microsoft has announced that Windows 7 will be released on October 22, 2009.

The retail channel was *pissed* that Microsoft released Vista in January of 2007, totally missing the retail silly season. End users were *pissed* that Vista was released both so late (XP was released on October 25, 2001 - in time for the 2001 silly season) and so early (as far as stability and usability went). In hindsight, Microsoft did the retail channel a great favor - it saved them having massive return queues from about 26 December 2006 to mid January 2007 filled with people complaining about the difference between the promised performance of that new computer they were sold and its actual performance.

Windows 7 will definitely be a different story to ther launch of Windows Vista. Windows Vista R2 (aka Windows 7) is a usable, stable, fast operating system - on my Toshiba M200 tablet (Pentium-M 1.60 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 5400 rpm PATA HDD and a lowly GeForce FX 5200Go graphics processor) it runs about the same speed as XP Tablet Edition does - without timing software, I'm hard put telling a difference. Vista was slow. Really slow. For example, I open the lid and the system is available from Hibernation in well under 10 seconds now. That was a couple of minutes under Vista. Outlook 2007 is very usable whereas under Vista, it was just bearable.

Would I move clients who are running Vista now to Windows 7 the day it is released? Bet your life, mate! Would I install the current Windows 7 Release Candidate onto a new desktop PC I was selling now that comes with Windows Vista and Software Assurance (or the upgrade assurance that will be release RSN thanks to the announcement of the Windows 7 release date)? Bet your life, mate! (Obviously, I'd explain to the client that whether I installed Vista or Windows 7 RC now, once Windows 7 was released, I'd be insisting on a full reinstall of their PC anyway, so they may as well get used to Windows 7 now and not endure the pain and suffering of Windows Vista.)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Weird Zealand

OK, most of us have by now heard of the Rotorua couple who asked Westpac for a $10,000 loan and when they went to look after it was approved, they noticed a slight clerical error - Westpac had instead deposited $10,000,000. So they skipped town and are believed to be currently enjoying a (probably) short holiday somewhere in Asia.

Sure, we can all understand that and many of us would probably do the same thing (or at least not mention it for a month or so and then insist that Westpac at least credited us with the interest even if they did withdraw the additional $9,990,000 from our account).

But that was the least weird thing that seemed to happen in New Zealand last week.

Have a read of this article for an update on our weird little neighbor. :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Swine Flu

The WHO (and similar agencies) NEVER raise the level of threat of any contaigen without having good reason - we all know of the boy who cried wolf! Sure, they don't always get it right, but who does? They are pretty good with their knowledge of pathogen spread.

And then comes along Swine Flu. The threat levels have been raised, and it seems now that this was for good reason.

(Update: 11 June, 2009:

This announcement by the WHO to raise its global pandemic alert recognises the continuing spread of the virus around the world but it also acknowledges that at this time the H1N1 Influenza 09 is a moderate disease.

WHO Phase 6 is characterised by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region (from the source country). It indicates there is sustained human to human, community level transmission.

Designation of this phase indicates that a global pandemic is underway and that it is no longer possible to contain the virus in a particular geographical area.

The WHO recognises that globally there is good reason to believe that the pandemic, at least in its early stages, will be of moderate severity but that, as we know from experience, the severity of the pandemic can vary from one country to another. The WHO will continue to monitor the situation quite closely.

)

On May 9 2009 the first case of Swine Flu was recorded in Australia. 20 days later there's now 103 confirmed cases. As far as I can tell, the growth has been like this:

Date	No. Cases	No. Deaths	Comment
May 08, 2009	0	0	No confirmed cases
May 09, 2009	1	0	First confirmed case (via USA)
May 20, 2009	5	0
May 21, 2009	10	0	First human-human transmission in .au
May 22, 2009	11	0
May 24, 2009	16	0
26 May, 2009	31	0
27 May, 2009	66	0
28 May, 2009	103	0
28 May, 2009	147	0
29 May, 2009	168	0
30 May, 2009	254	0
31 May, 2009	297	0
01 Jun, 2009	401	0
02 Jun, 2009	501	0
03 Jun, 2009	633	0
04 Jun, 2009	876	0
05 Jun, 2009	1006	0
07 Jun, 2009	1051	0
08 Jun, 2009	1207	0
09 Jun, 2009	1211	0
10 Jun, 2009	1263	0
11 Jun, 2009	1263	0	Pandemic Alert Level raised from 5 to 6 - this is the first global Influenza pandemic in 40 years
12 Jun, 2009	1307	0
14 Jun, 2009	1542	0
15 Jun, 2009	1823	0
16 Jun, 2009	1965	0
17 Jun, 2009	2112	0
18 Jun, 2009	2199	0
19 Jun, 2009	2330	1	26yo man from WA with other pre-existing chronic diseases died in SA - first suspected H1N1 Influenza 09 death in Australia
20 Jun, 2009	2383	1
21 Jun, 2009	2436	1
22 Jun, 2009	2733	1
23 Jun, 2009	2857	2	A Victorian died of H1N1 Influenza 09, laboratory results confirming the virus after death
24 Jun, 2009	2994	3	A second Victorian died of H1N1 Influenza 09, laboratory results confirming the virus after death
25 Jun, 2009	3280	3
26 Jun, 2009	3519	4	A third Victorian has died of H1N1 Influenza 09
27 Jun, 2009	3677	5	A western Australian has been confirmed dead from H1N1 Influenza 09
28 Jun, 2009	3858	5
29 Jun, 2009	4038	7	Two more Victorians have died from H1N1 Influenza 09
30 Jun, 2009	4090	7
01 Jul, 2009	4370	7
2 Jul, 2009	4568	5	An additional 2 Victorian deaths have been attributed to H1N1 Influenza 09
3 Jul, 2009	4958	10	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 1
4 Jul, 2009	5254	10	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 1
5 Jul, 2009	5298	10	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 1
6 Jul, 2009	5733	11	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 2
7 Jul, 2009	6353	13	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 2; NT 1; Tas 1
8 Jul, 2009	6767	13	SA 1; Vic 7; WA 1; NSW 2; NT 1; Tas 1
9 Jul, 2009	7290	18	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 3; NT 1; Tas 1
10 Jul, 2009	7933	18	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 3; NT 1; Tas 1 Now known officially as "Pandemic (H1N1) 2009"
11 Jul, 2009	8006	18	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 3; NT 1; Tas 1
12 Jul, 2009	8337	18	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 3; NT 1; Tas 1
13 Jul, 2009	9050	18	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 3; NT 1; Tas 1
14 Jul, 2009	9828	19	SA 1; Vic 11; WA 1; NSW 4; NT 1; Tas 1
15 Jul, 2009	10389	21	SA 1; Vic 12; WA 1; NSW 5; NT 1; Tas 1
16 Jul, 2009	11194	24	SA 2; Vic 12; WA 1; NSW 5; NT 2; Tas 1; Qld 1 Queensland records its first H1N1 related death.
17 Jul, 2009	11962	31	SA 2; Vic 14; WA 1; NSW 10; NT 2; Tas 1; Qld 1
18 Jul, 2009	12001	31	SA 2; Vic 14; WA 1; NSW 10; NT 2; Tas 1; Qld 1
19 Jul, 2009	12048	31	SA 2; Vic 14; WA 1; NSW 10; NT 2; Tas 1; Qld 1
20 Jul, 2009	13178	32	SA 2; Vic 14; WA 1; NSW 10; NT 3; Tas 1; Qld 1
21 Jul, 2009	14037	37	SA 2; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 14; NT 3; Tas 1; Qld 1
22 Jul, 2009	14703	41	SA 3; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 1; Qld 1
23 Jul, 2009	15701	43	SA 3; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 2
24 Jul, 2009	16567	46	SA 4; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 4
25 Jul, 2009	16768	47	SA 4; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 5
26 Jul, 2009	16768	48	SA 5; Vic 15; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 5
27 Jul, 2009	17061	50	SA 5; Vic 16; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 6
28 Jul, 2009	19026	50	SA 5; Vic 16; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 2; Qld 6
29 Jul, 2009	20109	53	SA 6; Vic 16; WA 1; NSW 17; NT 3; Tas 3; Qld 7
30 Jul, 2009	20688	58	SA 6; Vic 16; WA 2; NSW 21; NT 3; Tas 3; Qld 7
31 Jul, 2009	21668	61	SA 6; Vic 17; WA 2; NSW 22; NT 3; Tas 3; Qld 8
1 Aug, 2009	21752	62	SA 6; Vic 17; WA 2; NSW 22; NT 3; Tas 3; Qld 8; ACT 1
2 Aug, 2009	21752	63	SA 6; Vic 17; WA 2; NSW 22; NT 3; Tas 4; Qld 9
3 Aug, 2009	22109	67	SA 6; Vic 17; WA 2; NSW 24; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 10
4 Aug, 2009	23692	70	SA 7; Vic 17; WA 2; NSW 24; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 12
5 Aug, 2009	24114	74	SA 7; Vic 17; WA 5; NSW 24; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 13
6 Aug, 2009	24395	77	SA 7; Vic 18; WA 5; NSW 24; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 15
7 Aug, 2009	24949	85	SA 8; Vic 18; WA 5; NSW 30; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 15; ACT 1
9 Aug, 2009	26399	88	SA 8; Vic 18; WA 5; NSW 30; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 18; ACT 1
10 Aug, 2009	26957	92	SA 9; Vic 18; WA 5; NSW 33; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 18; ACT 1
11 Aug, 2009	27663	95	SA 9; Vic 19; WA 8; NSW 32; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 18; ACT 1
12 Aug, 2009	28307	100	SA 9; Vic 21; WA 8; NSW 32; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 21; ACT 1
13 Aug, 2009	28987	102	SA 9; Vic 21; WA 10; NSW 32; NT 4; Tas 4; Qld 21; ACT 1
15 Aug, 2009	29833	108
16 Aug, 2009	29833	110
17 Aug, 2009	30111	112	SA 9; Vic 21; WA 12; NSW 33; NT 5; Tas 5; Qld 25; ACT 2
18 Aug, 2009	30993	118	SA 10; Vic 22; WA 15; NSW 33; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 25; ACT 2
19 Aug, 2009	32224	121	SA 12; Vic 22; WA 15; NSW 33; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 26; ACT 2
20 Aug, 2009	32799	128	SA 13; Vic 22; WA 16; NSW 36; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 28; ACT 2
21 Aug, 2009	33179	131	SA 14; Vic 24; WA 16; NSW 36; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 28; ACT 2
22 Aug, 2009	33228	132	SA 14; Vic 24; WA 17; NSW 36; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 28; ACT 2
24 Aug, 2009	33511	132	SA 14; Vic 24; WA 17; NSW 36; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 28; ACT 2
25 Aug, 2009	33844	132	SA 14; Vic 24; WA 17; NSW 36; NT 5; Tas 6; Qld 28; ACT 2
26 Aug, 2009	34180	138	SA 15; Vic 24; WA 19; NSW 36; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 30; ACT 2
27 Aug, 2009	34332	147	SA 15; Vic 24; WA 20; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 33; ACT 2
28 Aug, 2009	34467	150	SA 16; Vic 24; WA 20; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 35; ACT 2
29 Aug, 2009	34508	150	SA 16; Vic 24; WA 20; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 35; ACT 2
30 Aug, 2009	34543	150	SA 16; Vic 24; WA 20; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 35; ACT 2
31 Aug, 2009	34593	150	SA 16; Vic 24; WA 20; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 35; ACT 2
1 Sep, 2009	34924	154	SA 16; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 36; ACT 2
2 Sep, 2009	35095	155	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 41; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 36; ACT 2
3 Sep, 2009	35225	160	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 36; ACT 2
4 Sep, 2009	35444	161	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
5 Sep, 2009	35474	161	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
6 Sep, 2009	35474	161	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
7 Sep, 2009	35579	161	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 23; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
8 Sep, 2009	35701	162	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
9 Sep, 2009	35775	162	SA 17; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 37; ACT 2
10 Sep, 2009	35897	165	SA 18; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 46; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 39; ACT 2
11 Sep, 2009	35921	169	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 39; ACT 2
12 Sep, 2009	35933	169	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 39; ACT 2
13 Sep, 2009	35933	169	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 39; ACT 2
14 Sep, 2009	35963	169	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 6; Qld 39; ACT 2
15 Sep, 2009	36138	171	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
16 Sep, 2009	36173	171	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 48; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
17 Sep, 2009	36210	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
18 Sep, 2009	36237	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
19 Sep, 2009	36237	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
20 Sep, 2009	36237	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
21 Sep, 2009	36263	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
22 Sep, 2009	36270	172	SA 20; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
23 Sep, 2009	36454	177	SA 25; Vic 24; WA 24; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
24 Sep, 2009	36487	178	SA 25; Vic 24; WA 25; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
25 Sep, 2009	36487	179	* SA 25; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2 * The reporting of current hospitalisations has been replaced by weekly reporting of new hospitalisations, as States and Territories have moved from reporting data daily to weekly as at 25 September, 2009.
26 Sep, 2009	36487	179	SA 25; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
27 Sep, 2009	36487	179	SA 25; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
28 Sep, 2009	36495	179	SA 25; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
29 Sep, 2009	36605	180	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
30 Sep, 2009	36626	180	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
1 Oct, 2009	36644	180	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 49; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 40; ACT 2
2 Oct, 2009	36670	183	* SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
3 Oct, 2009	36670	183	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
4 Oct, 2009	36670	183	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
5 Oct, 2009	36670	183	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
6 Oct, 2009	36888	183	SA 26; Vic 24; WA 26; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
7 Oct, 2009	36888	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
8 Oct, 2009	36888	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
9 Oct, 2009	36889	185	* SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
12 Oct, 2009	36889	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
13 Oct, 2009	36910	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
14 Oct, 2009	36936	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
15 Oct, 2009	36940	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
16 Oct, 2009	36942	185	* SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
19 Oct, 2009	36958	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
20 Oct, 2009	36968	185	SA 27; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2
21 Oct, 2009	36991	186	SA 28; Vic 24; WA 27; NSW 51; NT 6; Tas 7; Qld 41; ACT 2

Yes, this is an absolutely standard and to be expected trend for any pathogen. Nothing alarming, just showing there's nothing out of the ordinary as far as infection rates goes. What is interesting is that we appear to be in the area of pandemic/other infections when the maximum number of infected people in the community is about to be reached. This can be seen by the flattening out of the graph from around 26 Aug until present (20 Oct).

Now, these figures are far from official, but have been gleaned from various news sources, and we all know how accurate these can be at times. But it is probably close enough to see a trend!

(Update: I'm now getting all figures from the Health Emergency website or the WHO's Situation Updates. At least that will mean all future figures will be the official figures. I also updated the totals in the list to reflect any totals listed on that site, so these figures are all *very* close to official figures now.)

Will the H1N1 Influenza 09 strain (Swine Flu) wipe us all out? Likely not. Will it affect us all? Likely not. Will it affect us more than the H5N1 strain of Bird Flu? Quite likely.

Right now there's (updated figures) 3205 deaths worldwide and 171 in Australia attributed to Swine Flu. But as the number of affected children increases (and as Swine Flu parties continue to occur, flying in the face of logic), this number may well rise.

So why did I blog this? Purely so people get a chance to see the approximate growth figures in one place instead of needing to read 20 different articles to find them. Keep an eye out for this one and in the mean time, try not to cough in my direction, please. :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Voluntary Mandatory Internet Filtering

In a significant backstep from their election promise to enforce mandatory blocklists that are unable to be questioned or checked by anyone except the elite few in the Government who are allowed to see which sites are on the list - and why - the Australian Federal Government's Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, today told a Senate Estimates Committee that the government may be backing away from this policy, yet still hope that all ISPs choose to deploy this draconian block.

As I've said before, I thought we were a free country, unlike China which has a similar policy. OK, hang on, K Rudd speaks Mandarin, so maybe he's a Communist and is trying to turn Australia into a Communist State? (Sure, I don't believe that, that was a joke. As in humor. Get it?) I hope he does - not understand the humor, but see the silliness of this filter.

I want for all Australian parents to be able to instill in their children the values and morals that they feel comfortable with - not those that the government forces upon us. I want a parent to be able to explain to a child why they feel a particular way about something such as pornography or bomb making (after all, what else is the Internet used for, apparently?) and not have the government make our minds up for us.

Do I want us to live in a society where the government watches our every keystroke, our every move, and tells us all what to think? Not on your life. There are too many previously free countries that this is happening to these days, and I'm certainly not wanting this to happen down here in Australia. I want the right to be able to use my own intellect and morals to make decisions for myself and my kids and I want this same capability for every Australian - the ability to be able to take responsibility for our own decisions.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Vista SP2

OK, so we all know that Vista SP2/Windows Server 2008 SP2 was released on 25 May, 2009 to the general public, but I've been hearing rumors that it not only works (especially regarding Vista), but it also reduces the usage of system resources by up to around 30% (again, particularly relating to Vista, not Server 2008).

Now, I've not installed it and tested this myself (as we run an exclusively Windows 7 shop here - ok, with a single Windows XP Pro box as well), but when I get the chance, I'll have a look. We've also got very few clients running Vista (most run XP Pro rather successfully), but will have a look at installing this as soon as we can if the performance improvements are anything like this.

I'll have a look into this on our Windows Server 2008 installations as well, though we're a little more wary deploying anything to a server as compared to a desktop/laptop.

It looks like Vista/Server 2008 SP2 has taken a few lessons from the Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 development teams. That can only be a good thing! :)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

New Australian SBSC PAL FY 09-10

I've almost completed my appointment as the SBSC Partner Area Lead for the FY 08-09 year and am glad to say that Keira McIntosh of Directions IT (no, that's not her pic on the front page) in Brisbane has been overwhelmingly chosen by the Australian SBSCs as the new SBSC PAL for Australia for the FY09-10 year.

I'm glad Keira got the nod - not only because I recommended to Sarah Theiss that she be considered, but because I believe she will do a great job.

All the best Keira - you're going to need it! ;)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Microsoft Financing - It Was Good While It Lasted

As per Karl Palachuk's blog, Microsoft Financing is no longer a viable option in the vast majority of situations anymore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - under Steve Ballmer, Microsoft looks like flotsam being tossed wildly on an uncertain sea whereas previously they looked like a ship with a captain that knew how to sail.

Microsoft Financing now requires a 35% minimum Microsoft content to the deal. I know they keep putting their prices up in a world where everyone and everything else (within reason) is getting cheaper, but this is ridiculous. It means you cannot any longer finance your installation costs and maintenance under the same contract. It means that you cannot - almost guaranteed - finance an entire network deal under Microsoft Finance on the one contract - you'll need one purely for Microsoft content plus whatever you can squeeze under the 65% limit, and then either another contract for the rest, or payment up front.

There are many other easier options available to us which have now become viable. I wonder if Steve Ballmer meant to open our eyes up to the wide world of financing that is out there? Either way, he's done that. Thanks Steve - it is a shame we won't be able to use your product from now on.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

SBS 2003 R2 + Server 2008 CALs

Due to the difference in timing of the release of SBS 2008 and Windows Server 2008, Microsoft has made an exception to the license requirements. If you have a Windows Server 2008 in the SBS 2003 R2 domain, your SBS 2003 R2 CALs are applicable until May 31, 2009, after which you will be required to either have Windows Server 2008 CALs or SBS 2008 CALs to be in compliance with your license.

Please note that date: May 31, 2009. That's later this week. Sunday to be precise.

What this means is that as of midnight Monday morning, any of your clients who were using this SBS 2003 R2 CAL right will find themselves in an unlicensed state and will need to a) remove their Server 2008 box, b) purchase Server 2008 CALs or c) upgrade their SBS 2003 R2 to either SBS 2008 or EBS 2008 (or, of course, full Server 2008) with the appropriate CALs to remain legally licensed.

So, this is a heads up!

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Tracking and Targeting Ad Cookie Opt Out

One of the things we do when we install a new PC is to install opt out cookies for as many tracking and targeting sites we can for both the local administrator and the network administrator accounts. We also encourage our clients to opt out of the advertising sites, however have not yet found a way to handle this through a method such as Group Policy (which would be ideal).

The three main sites we do this through are as follows:

DoubleClick - even though they are a member of the Network Advertising Initiative, the NAI opt-out tool doesn't include DoubleClick.

Network Advertising Initiative - a cooperative of online marketing and analytics companies, a large number of whom can be opted out from by using this tool. I use this so that I can see which sites have been successfully opted out of.

Privacy Choice - offers two different options for opt-out cookies - a comprehensive one, and a secondary one that targets only those companies with lax policies around the collection and use of data. Unfortunately, it just reports a number of successful opt-outs, not a list of the sites themselves.

Not all advertising and data collection sites offer opt-out cookies. For a decent, but likely only partial list of such sites, have a a look at the Privacy Choice Hall Of Shame.

Remember that these opt-out cookies will not stop you from receiving advertisements, but they will stop the collection of personal information by these advertisers and its use to target advertisements to you by tracking you through multiple sites.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

SBS Migration White Paper Update

Microsoft has released Version 2 (according to their website) or Version 3 (according to the document itself) of their Migrate to Windows Small Business Server 2008 from Windows Small Business Server 2003 White Paper.

Whichever version it actually is, it is dated March 2009.

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Is This Microsoft's Biggest Security Blunder?

It truly is a sad day. Steve Riley, one of Microsoft's best public speakers/presenters/security people has been laid off in Steve Ballmer's run at trimming off the "fat". Honestly, I don't know how this thought could have even crossed Steve Ballmer's mind, let alone have progressed to the point of being enacted upon.

Microsoft lost Dr Jesper Johansson a while back when he moved to Amazon. As Dr J made a personal choice to have a career change, that's fine. He was definitely a loss to Microsoft (as well as a gain for Amazon), however that was Jesper's choice. Giving Steve Riley the arse makes no sense whatsoever.

Do you want a truly disturbing look into what's happening in at Microsoft post Bill Gates? Well, you got it!

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

SBS 2008 Disable MAPI Clients Warning

According to TechNet, "if the Exchange Server Analyzer finds that the Disable MAPI Clients key does not exist, a warning is displayed. However it fails to mention that in SBS 2008 (at least) if this key exists, a warning is also displayed.

Basically, a warning is displayed whether this key exists or not. That's not a bad thing - the warning message lists the versions that must be enabled for proper Exchange functionality and links to the aforementioned TechNet article which lists all the MAPI Client versions from Outlook 97 SR1 through to Outlook 2007 RTM. The article fails to list Outlook 2007 SP1 (12.6315.5000) and Outlook 2007 SP2 (12.6423.1000).

If you wish to allow proper Exchange functionality and block all access to your SBS 2008 box by any version of Outlook prior to Outlook 2007, then the following information is what's needed in this key (HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeIS\ParametersSystem and the string value is called "Disable MAPI Clients") is:

0.0.0-5.3164.0;7.0.0-7.9999.9999;9.0.0-11.6568.6568

If you want to also allow Outlook 2003 clients, then the key should read as follows:

0.0.0-5.3164.0;7.0.0-7.9999.9999;9.0.0-10.6515.6626


Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Yet Another Adobe Reader Vulnerability

I wonder if Adobe will ever learn how to write and test and bugcheck code before they release it? Without a complete rewrite of Adobe Reader (and its associated friends) I don't think so...

US-CERT lists yet another in a long line of Adobe Reader vulnerabilities, this one *also* targeting their poor implementation of Javascript, that you may want to have a read of.

(Thanks to Don Murphy for the heads up on this one this morning.)

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie

Post SBS 2003-2008 Migration DACL Fix

For some reason, the Microsoft SBS 2008 Migration documentation fails to cover the removal of a DACL that's covered in the Exchange 2007 migration documentation.

Basically, after migrating from SBS 2003 to SBS 2008 and removing the Exchange 2003 server from the Exchange organization, you'll need to make one DACL change to remove, as the Exchange 2007 BPA will report, "the Write DACL inherit (group) right for the Exchange Enterprise Servers group... from the root of the domain".

Now, if you were to follow the steps listed in the link inside the Exchange 2007 BPA, you'd never be able to complete this job as it refers to a different group. So what you need to type into Exchange Management Shell, assuming your domain is "example.local", is the following (all on the one line):

Remove-ADPermission "dc=example,dc=local" -user "example.local\Exchange Enterprise Servers" -AccessRights WriteDACL -InheritedObjectType Group

and then confirm the removal when prompted. Unless you receive an error message, the removal has been successful (ie, there is no "successful" message).

Regards,

The Outspoken Wookie