Office 365 Update: OneDrive for Business – Too Buggy

This isn’t going to be a happy or positive post, which is too bad, because I see a lot of promise in the individual product I’m about to criticize and the overall service of which it is a part. For context, you can consider this an update to my earlier post about Office 365, and if I wished to follow that naming scheme, I might go with, “OneDrive for Business: The Bad.”

My Uh-Oh Moment

I was finally burned by OneDrive for Business (OD4B) this week. It’s been giving a couple of my coworkers fits for a few weeks, but I know each of them has thousands and thousands of files and figured that may have contributed to their issues in some way. I’ve used OD4B exclusively for almost two months without a single hiccup, until it just stopped working this week. I saved a tiny change to a tiny Excel file that I’d been working on for a few days, and noticed the dreaded red X on the OD4B blue cloud icon. I tried pausing and starting the sync, but it didn’t work. Recalling the issues my coworkers had, and especially that one of them said he’d lost data as a result of them, I made a quick copy of my entire OD4B folder structure – barely 3GB worth of data – to my desktop.

An Hour of My Work Day Gone

What followed was nearly an hour of frustrating trial and error to try to get OD4B working again. I rebooted, because you know – Windows. No luck. I uninstalled OD4B, which at first meant modifying my Office 2013 installation, as it was installed as part of Office. Rebooted. Added the feature back via Office 2013. No luck. Uninstalled again, rebooted, then install OD4B separately from Microsoft’s website. At first that didn’t even work because I run the 32-bit version of Office and tried to install the 64-bit version of OD4B. No dice, so I went with the 32-bit version. No syncing. Figured to heck with it, I’d just delete my OD4B folder and put it back, and try to sync everything back up. Windows refused to let me delete the folder. Uninstalled OD4B again and tried to delete the folder. No luck. At this point I frankly went into a bit of a red haze and forget exactly what I did to make Windows let me delete the stupid folder, but by golly, I finally deleted it. Re-installed OD4B, added my library’s (remember, OD4B is really just SharePoint) URL, and thought surely, surely, I was done. Wrong.

I was close to giving up, so I turned to Google. After crafting a couple of searches, I came across this helpful article by University of Iowa IT department. The gist of that article is:

  1. Rename OD4B folder (or make a copy as I had done)
  2. Kill OD4B processes (Groove – blast from the past)
  3. Delete OD4B-related stuff in APPDATA
  4. Let everything sync back down from the cloud

Thankfully, this worked, and since I had lost an hour of productivity to this, I put it out of my mind and focused on getting some actual work done.

We Can’t Recommend This for Our Users

Later that day, though, I got this sick feeling in my stomach. I’d lost an hour of my day to this problem. How much collective productivity might our users lose, if we deploy OneDrive for Business more widely than we already have, and these issues keep occurring? Our university has only just recently enabled OneDrive for Business, and only this past week officially announced it to the campus. The HelpDesk doesn’t have any documentation for it yet, and describes their support level for it as “best effort.” I can beat on OD4B for an hour to try to make it work, but my users can’t.

What really disappoints and confuses me about this is that this sort of utility should just work. I’ve used Dropbox since before it even launched publicly. Do you know how many hours I’ve lost having to uninstall it, or kill its processes, or wipe its preferences or whatever out of APPDATA on my PC’s or out of the Library folder on my Macs? Zero hours. Dropbox just works. I used Citrix ShareFile for quite a while on a selection of PC’s and Mac’s. It just worked. Even OneDrive (Personal) has been relatively problem free. But OneDrive for Business – in addition to all of its SharePoint oddities, seems to be half-baked.

For the time being, I’m switching back to OneDrive (Personal). For one reason or another, I have 58GB of space, and even though it looks like 40GB of that is for being an “enthusiast” and will expire in early 2015, I only have 3GB of files to sync, so I have plenty of room. My hope is that OneDrive for Business will mature and stabilize enough and remain that way so that we can recommend it to our users, but until it does, OneDrive (Personal) or even Dropbox are better, more reliable options.

Posted in Cloud Services | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

A Journey to the Cloud for Video Conferencing – Part III

This is the third part in this series. You can find Part I and Part II here.

Just as I was preparing to send out an RFP for a cloud-based video conference service, expecting to get responses from both Blue Jeans and Fuze, I was informed that the Knoxville campus had purchased a site license for a competing service, and was willing to provision accounts for us for a minimal chargeback fee. The company providing the service was Zoom. I was surprised, as I had taken a quick look at Zoom earlier, and frankly written it off as being too good to be true, or in this case, too inexpensive to be for real.

Zoom: The Kia Option

ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS LOGO

Zoom is another startup company like Blue Jeans and Fuze. Like Fuze, they make it nice and easy to find out what their service costs. Zoom offers a Free account level with a pretty severe limitation – meetings can last only 40 minutes, but that would probably be fine for a lot of people. Zoom offers Pro accounts for $9.99 per month and Business accounts in minimum quantities of 10 for $9.99 per month each. Each of these accounts can host meetings with up to 25 participants. Zoom is unique in offering published academic pricing that is so affordable compared to its commercial pricing that I thought it was a mistake when I previously investigated it. I won’t break down all the options here, but I will link to their education pricing and note that it is very much for real.

My evaluation of the Zoom service began not as a limited trial or a series of demos brokered by an account rep, but as a user with a fully functional Pro account. I found the service to be as functional and easy to use as Fuze, and because the UTK site license included a number of H.323 “room connector” ports, I was able to verify its suitability as a replacement for our on-premises Polycom bridge, even to the point of hosting conferences that included more Polycom endpoints than we could support on our existing bridge, as well as additional participants on desktops, laptops, and mobile devices. It was pretty clear that Zoom, while inexpensive, could meet our needs from a technical perspective.

There’s Something to be Said for Affordable

Once we knew Zoom could meet our needs, we considered simply purchasing accounts as needed from the Knoxville campus, but decided that, given the pricing we knew they’d received for their site license, it would be better for everyone if we purchased our own site license if possible. So we conducted a quick bid of our own, soliciting responses from Blue Jeans, Fuze, and Zoom for a large number of named user host accounts, H.323 connections, as well as a number of add-ons that would allow some accounts to host meetings with up to 100 participants per meeting, or webinars with up to 500 viewers. Zoom won that bid and we purchased our own site license for its service. We now have enough accounts to allow every employee of the Institute of Agriculture to host their own video conferences anytime they want, from virtually any device.

I’ve had a group of beta testers and early adopters using Zoom for the last month and the response has been overwhelmingly positive. We’ve already seen classes held involving students in Knoxville, Nashville, and Jackson be held that could not have been connected, at least not this easily, before. A department head was able to host a meeting for a Masters thesis defense with no training and no help from IT. With some help from the Knoxville campus folks, last week I connected our Zoom tenant to our university’s Single Sign-On service and am now ready to deploy it to all of our users.

Our move away from our legacy on-premises H.323 bridge has already saved us a ton of money and will save us even more over time. We saved over $20,000 in hardware maintenance this year alone. Over five years, we will save anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000+ if you factor in the hardware we would have had to upgrade to keep running our own service. In addition to the cost savings, we’ve gone from being able to host a maximum of 6 concurrent endpoints across 1–3 meetings, all tied to either a conference room or a terrible buggy software client, to enabling our users to host their own meetings anytime, anywhere, using anything from an iPhone to a Polycom room unit.

Now it’s time for me to make something else better.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A Journey to the Cloud for Video Conferencing – Part II

You can find Part I of this series here.

Cloud-based Meeting Options: Everybody is in the Game

I actually thought of going with a cloud-based service as soon as I started this job. With my background, as soon as I heard how we were doing things, I thought, “why make it this hard – why not just use GoToMeeting?” Turns out there was a very simple reason why we weren’t using GoToMeeting and wouldn’t be using it to meet this need today – GoToMeeting doesn’t to my knowledge offer any facility for connecting to H.323 conferences, and maintaining compatibility with our existing investment in Polycom endpoints was a must. So while I’ve had great experiences with GoToMeeting over the years, especially when I worked for a Citrix Reseller and used it multiple times per day to meet with and support customers, it simply wouldn’t meet all of our needs.

One of our users suggested we look into Adobe Connect. I’d never used it personally, but I knew it was popular in the education space. Aside from this user, however, the opinion of Adobe among those of us in IT at the university isn’t terribly good. I spent years having to make their bloated Creative Suite work in our computer labs, and we’re still reeling from a rather injurious site license contract Adobe forced on the university after an audit a couple years back. Still, I was looking for a solution to our problem and, at the end of the day, I didn’t really care where it came from as long as it met our needs and didn’t cost a fortune. Adobe Connect may well have been capable of meeting some of our needs, but it became clear that it would also require running software on our own servers to support it – something I wanted to avoid. So I kept looking.

A Lucky Break: Stumbling Upon Several Startups

I was having a conversation with a company about a telephone conferencing service, as at the same time I was looking into cloud-based video conferencing options, I also wanted to move us away from the expensive and not terribly easy to use campus-provided phone conferencing system. While researching this reseller, I noticed they also resold video conferencing services, so I asked about them. That led me into an extended discussion with a company called BlueJeans.

BlueJeans: The Tesla Optionbluejeans-feature-380x285

Blue Jeans is an interesting company with a compelling service and an unusual name. I’m not looking to do a full review of their service, but if I did, it would be largely very positive. The one thing I would stress about the Blue Jeans video conferencing service is that it just works. In all of my testing across several cloud-based video conferencing providers, Blue Jeans was the easiest for even some of my very non-tech savvy users to work with. Its main claim to fame, in addition to ease of use, was that it could bridge calls between what might otherwise be incompatible communications platforms. It was also the first service I seriously evaluated, and I knew it could fulfill all of my requirements except one – cost.

If you visit Blue Jeans’ website and come away thinking you can’t figure out how much the service costs, you’d be correct, because you can’t. That you have to contact sales to even get a base price was the first warning that it might eventually prove too rich for our budget. The second was the sheer polish of their website, sales staff, and customer list. Everything about Blue Jeans communicates a clear message – they are a VC-backed company selling a premium service to customers with lots of money to spend, many of them VC-funded themselves. But it’s a testament both to the quality of their service and my satisfaction with it that they weren’t immediately ruled out the instant I discovered less expensive options.

The various pricing options I was presented with included a base price of $1,200 per year per named user host, with a minimum purchase of 10 host accounts. We were looking to purchase a minimum of 25 accounts, and at that level the pricing dropped to a $960 per year per host. Each Blue Jeans host account could host a meeting with up to 25 participants, and each of those could be using any compatible service or device, including H.323 endpoints. Pricing for H.323 endpoint support on competing services is typically done on a per connection basis, so in some ways this explained the high cost per account.

If I had to cite one thing about dealing with Blue Jeans that frustrated me, it would be their trial period. They offer a 14 day trial only, and while that trial is complete and allows you to use every feature of the service from a user perspective, 14 days wasn’t nearly enough for me to put it in front of all the decision makers I needed to show it to in order to propose spending tens of thousands of dollars. While my Blue Jeans rep was willing to schedule meetings for me after my trial ran out so I could demo the meeting experience, I was told in no uncertain terms that trial extensions were a no-go. I knew that was simply a matter of the right person needing to be convinced to say yes instead of no, but I didn’t care to push it at that point.

While I really liked everything else about the Blue Jeans service, the cost would have meant buying it simply to meet a subset of our existing usage – basically that of our frequent “power users”. Still, at this point in my research, without knowing just how affordable other options could be, Blue Jeans was still in the running.

Fuze: The Camry Option

gfx_fuze_logo

At some point, I came across an online discussion of Fuze, or Fuzebox as they were called at the time. One thing you will notice immediately upon checking out Fuze’s website is their pricing is right out there in the open. $8 per month for a Pro account and $20 per month for an Enterprise account, with understandable feature differences between the two. Fuze even offers a free account level that would work for many people who wanted to conduct basic computer to computer or mobile device meetings, without the H.323 compatibility we would need. For H.323 compatibility, the Enterprise account would be required, at $240 per year per named host, along with the Fuze Telepresence Connect – basically an H.323 bridge purchased at a cost of $1,000 per concurrent connection per year. Simply having the pricing for all of these items available for easy evaluation was refreshing. I’m sure having the price for things locked behind a door that only your potential account rep can open has a lot of value for the vendor selling the service, but I can tell you that it is a frustrating waste of time for me as a customer.

The Fuze service worked quite well. So well, in fact, that because we had some users chomping at the bit to try it, we recommended they sign up for free accounts while we continued to evaluate our options. We also purchased a Pro account for me so I could fully evaluate everything except the H.323 compatibility. I was nearly as impressed with the quality of Fuze as I was Blue Jeans, and while we did have a few users have issues getting their audio devices to work with the service, I’ve seen the same thing with nearly every other online meeting service. So while I considered the Blue Jeans service to be superior to the Fuze service, I knew that, for the money, Fuze would be a better fit for us.

The things I didn’t like about dealing with Fuze were twofold. One, they would not give me a real trial of their H.323 connector – claiming they simply had to schedule any use of it for me. In addition to this being simple nonsense, it also made me feel like they didn’t really want my business. Two, many of the features they listed as coming with the Enterprise account, including custom branding and a success manager to work with my users on training, came with a pretty high initial host account buy-in – 100. We didn’t anticipate needing 100 accounts right away, although we figured we would eventually far surpass that. But the minimum buy-in presented us with a chicken and egg problem – how would we properly showcase the service to our users, stakeholders, and leadership without those features, and how could we get the budget for the purchase without showcasing it?

At this point in my research, I was torn between buying relatively few Blue Jeans accounts with all of the enterprise features and “success team” support at a price that would ensure it couldn’t expand beyond a core group of users, or buying quite a few more Fuze accounts but still not enough to get us the support from the company to ever push it to critical mass among our users.

What I didn’t know is that I was about to have a curve ball thrown into my research and plans to have this completed by the end of our fiscal year in June.

More on that in part III of this series, which will be published tomorrow.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

A Journey to the Cloud for Video Conferencing – Part I

One of the things I inherited when I took on the current role I’m in at the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture was management of our video conferencing infrastructure. We’re a state-wide organization in every sense of the word – we have employees in all 95 counties in TN, in 10 Research and Education Centers, three regional offices, as well as a large presence on the Knoxville campus. Remote meetings of one kind or another, be they video conferences or conference calls, are critical to getting the business of the Institute done, and I appreciate that more today, a little over a year after taking this position, than I did on day one.

The Situation: Aging Legacy H.323 Infrastructure

What I was handed when I walked through the door was a legacy H.323 infrastructure comprised of all Polycom equipment, including a bridge, a gatekeeper, a “video firewall”, and about a dozen room units in various locations on the Knoxville campus and around the state. While there was a software client available for use with this infrastructure, it was a version behind Polycom’s current product last year, and two versions behind this year, with end-of-life approaching fast. It was also a terrible product, buggy and dependent on Adobe Air, and required separate manually created accounts for use.

The Problem: Increasing Demand, Disappointed Users

To top it off, our H.323 infrastructure was only capable of supporting six simultaneous connections of good video quality. So at any time, a total of six connections could be made to our bridge, be they room units or software clients, across any number of meetings. If there was a need for more, our users had two options – reschedule their meeting for a different time or pay $40 per hour per connection to Knoxville campus IT to bridge the call. On more than one occasion, we simply had to tell our users we couldn’t meet their needs, and that really bothered me.

One of the first projects our CIO tapped me for was overhauling out video conferencing infrastructure to meet the needs of the Institute. So I put together a plan to address our growing needs, which included more than just bridging meetings between a dozen room units. We needed this new infrastructure to do the following:

  • Allow our users to join meetings from anywhere in a reliable way.
  • Allow our users to join meetings from more than just their PC’s or Macs – tablets and smart phone clients were a must.
  • Integrate with our Active Directory.
  • Allow for unauthenticated guest access to the external folks our employees work with every day. Given our Institute includes UT Extension, Ag Research, and 4-H, that potentially includes interfacing with every citizen in the state.
  • Allow for more simultaneous connections and meetings.
  • Be as self-service as possible. My goal was to remove IT from this process and make hosting and participating in video conferences as easy as making a phone call.

Running On-Premises H.323 Infrastructure: Hope You Have Deep Pocketspolycom-logo

I took a good hard look at what we had and researched what it would take to build it out and make it better. I located the purchase orders for our Polycom servers, just the equipment needed to provide the backbone to which all of the other Polycom room units and software clients would connect. It was staggeringly expensive, six figures, and with a maintenance cost of five figures every year – not including the cost of the endpoints and their maintenance. I knew I wouldn’t have that much money to spend on this project, but I also had been told Polycom was good about preserving the capital value of its equipment over time, making it possible for customers to upgrade or replace blades or cards without ripping out the entire system.

Polycom’s current generation of hardware and software could meet all of the needs I’d detailed for our overhauled infrastructure. In fact, the Knoxville campus central IT organization (the folks our users had to pay to host video conferences when our system was full) was in the process of deploying a new Polycom system to replace its own aging Tandberg system. I sat in on the implementation of that system and it was capable of meeting the technical requirements I’d established.

So I began working with our Polycom reseller to determine what it would cost to either bring that functionality to our infrastructure, or to combine our systems with that of the main campus. My hope was to get out of the video conferencing business to the extent possible. UTK has an entire team of people dedicated to the service, and it was just one of the hats I wear in my position. It was clear that the UTK system could provide a front end to our bridge, and if I could demonstrate that we would not only improve functionality, but also reduce the workload on our side, I knew I’d get more support for whatever capital expenditure might be required.

Only it didn’t work out that way. While it was true that we would be able to re-use some of our existing server equipment, essentially by adding new cards to them, the cards and licensing for them would have cost nearly as much as the original equipment itself. Even simply buying the cards to add to UTK’s infrastructure would have cost six figures, and upgrading our own would have cost tens of thousands of dollars more. And here’s the kicker – that pricing was based on absolutely no increase in capacity whatsoever. Six figures to continue to support 6 simultaneous connections (not meetings).

This was so completely outside the realm of possibility, both from a budget standpoint and a logic standpoint, that I ran the numbers on what it would cost to simply host all of our meetings at the $40 per hour per connection rate, and for the cost of upgrading our system we would have been able to fund the entire thing “as a service” for 5 years. That got me to thinking – if we would consider simply converting to “video conferencing as a service” – what were my other options?

This ended up being pretty long, so I’m breaking it into separate posts. You can find part II here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Why the Windows Tablet Concept Doesn’t Work For Me

I keep trying Windows tablets, both small and large, convertible and not, and I keep being disappointed in some way, even if, at the time, it’s hard to put my finger on why. After spending a few months trying to like yet another new Windows tablet, I’ve decided they just aren’t for me. I’m giving up on Windows tablets for now. I’m leaving that qualifier there because I am willing to admit nothing is forever, including (possibly) my intense dissatisfaction with the implementation, if not the entire concept, of a Windows-based tablet.

What a tablet is to me

So we’re all on the same page, I need to make it clear I am a fan of the tablet concept. Except I should clarify further and say I am a fan of the tablet concept done well. After nearly 4 years of regular use of one iPad after another, I have no problem saying “tablet concept done well” means “works as well as and in the way I use an iPad.” I don’t view a tablet as a primary computing device – not when i bought my first iPad and 2010, and not today after using every iPad since, as well as two Kindle Fires and six different Windows tablets. I’m OK with a tablet as companion device, which is one reason why I’m planning on buying the next version of the Retina iPad Mini when it is (I hope) announced soon.

What a tablet is not to me

A tablet is not a device on which I want to do everything all the time. I’m not typing this blog post on a tablet, although I suppose I could if I wanted to. I don’t manage my photos on a tablet. A tablet is not my daily driver or even my primary off-hours machine. I use a Dell Latitude E7440 at the office and a 13″ Retina MacBook Pro at home. I’m sure the fact that I’m OK with all of the things a tablet isn’t contributes to my dissatisfaction with Windows tablets, as one of their largest failings seems to be that they try to be all things to all people, or perhaps most things to many people.

The right tool for the job

Here’s a couple of harsh opinions.

  1. Windows’ desktop interface works just fine with a keyboard and mouse but continues to be terrible with a touch interface.
  2. While the Modern / Metro / Tile interface is actually quite good with a touch interface, the selection of apps for it, and especially apps that I want and need, is severely lacking.

You can disagree with the second a lot easier than the first. Maybe all of the apps you need are available as touch apps for Windows. Good for you! That can’t be said for most people, if for no other reason than we’re still waiting for the next version of Office to be touch-native. I’m thrilled that the iPad version of Office is out, and even moreso that it rocks, but how sad is it that I have touch-native Office on my personally-bought iPad and not on any of the Windows tablets I have access to at work?

By the way, if you disagree with the first point above, I question the amount of time you’ve spent using the actual Windows desktop UI with touch. I use it every day, on either a 23“ touch monitor or my 14” touch screen on my laptop. Is it usable? Sure. But is it a good experience for more than the occasional tap? Nope. It’s also maddening how much of Windows 8.1 still has to be taken care of inside the desktop interface. Even if I had all of my app needs covered, I’d find myself having to go to the “real” Control Panel or elsewhere within the desktop interface.

The Windows tablets I’ve tried

Here’s a rundown of most of the Windows tablets I’ve used:

  1. Dell Latitude 10. Dell’s first crack at a Windows tablet. Atom-powered, and shipped (to us anyway) with a terrible Kensington folio keyboard case. Nearly universally hated among our users and generally a huge disappointment. To Dell’s credit, they did right by us and replaced the Latitude 10’s with Venue 11 Pro’s.
  2. Microsoft Surface Pro (the original). Way too bulky as a tablet, and again, everybody I know uses it as a laptop. Except it has to be one of the worst laptop experiences imagianable, as its keyboard simply cannot be used on a lap. Terrible battery life.
  3. Lenovo ThinkPad Yoga. I called this a “joy to use” in my review, and I stand by that. It’s a pretty good laptop the converts into a tablet I would almost certainly never use. It’s made well enough that it left me wanting to use a real Lenovo Ultrabook, just to see how good a device they could make without the compromises they had to make to support the tablet side.
  4. Dell XPS 12. I used this as my daily laptop for a few months and didn’t give it as much credit as it was due, primarily since I was still in my early days of coming to grips with using a PC at work all day. I kept expecting this it to live up to the Retina MacBook Pro I bought for home use (for hundreds less than the XPS 12, btw – myth busted) and that wasn’t fair. As an Ultrabook goes, the XPS 12 is fine, although not quite as well-made as the ThinkPad Yoga. As a tablet? It’s huge and I never used it as one for more than demonstration purposes.
  5. Dell Venue 11 Pro. Plagued by firmware issues and a keyboard with a terrible trackpad. I used one every day at TechEd and the best thing I can say about it is that, when combined with the keyboard battery, the battery life is pretty impressive. But for that battery life you get a combination that weighs more than a 13″ laptop and is arguably a pretty terrible laptop in comparison.
  6. Microsoft Surface Pro 2. Faster and better battery life than the original, but the type keyboard cover is still basically unusuable without a solid flat surface.

I don’t include the Dell Venue 8 in this list, which I also reviewed, because it’s too tiny to be used as a laptop replacement and I only know of one person who has one and really likes it. Everybody else I know has tried it then put it down, never to pick it up again.

You don’t know what you want

I work with folks all the time who already have or say they want a Windows tablet. Except that’s not what they want. With the possible exception of my Dell account exec, I have never seen a real human being use one of the Windows tablets we buy as a tablet for any real length of time. They may hand it to someone and demonstrate sliding through the start screen, or closing an app by grabbing it and swiping it down. But when it comes to actually using the “tablet” they all do the same thing. They use it with a semi-permanently attached keyboard, mostly in meetings, sometimes for extended note-taking at conferences, and anywhere else they may take it. But do you know what a tablet that is only ever used with a keyboard attached really is? It’s a laptop. And in nearly every case, it’s a crummy laptop.

Near as I can tell, whether you’re talking about someone in IT or not, when they say they want a Windows tablet, what they’re picturing is someting as inexpensive and light as an iPad, but running Windows (so they can get “real work” done – whatever that means today since Office is now on the iPad), and with a keyboard so they can type, since most of the work they need to do actually requires typing. It reminds me of the project management joke – “Fast, Cheap, Good – pick two.” None of the pure Windows tablets I’ve used deliver all three of “Inexpensive & Light, runs Windows, works well as laptop” in my opinion. Most of them only deliver on the running Windows part, and in that case, I keep repeating myself to people who ask me about them:

If you’re going to use it full-time with a keyboard, what you want is a laptop, so get a laptop. It may cost a bit more, but you’ll get a good single purpose (or convertible) device, not a (possibly) cheaper hybrid that you will likely never use as a tablet.

But what about the Surface Pro 3 (or any future device)?

I’ll admit I have not tried a Surface Pro 3. Unlike Dell and our vendor who supplies us with HP and Lenovo products, I can’t just ask for a loaner from Microsoft, and none of my coworkers or friends who would let me borrow one for a day or two have an SP3 either. What I do have are numerous reviews, both from major tech blogs and websites, and more importantly, comments from folks I know and respect. Here’s a collection of both:

  • Engadget Surface Pro 3 Review
    “It’s tough to say who should buy the Surface Pro 3 as a laptop alternative when the very thing that makes it a notebook replacement – its optional keyboard – offers a subpar typing experience and a frustrating trackpad. Adding insult to injury, it’s not even included in the box; it’s an optional $130 accessory that helps drive up the cost compared to similar PCs.”

    “If Microsoft could just figure out the keyboard thing (and start throwing it in for free), I’d be more inclined to recommend this as a laptop replacement. For now, unless you want a tablet and laptop in equal measure, and sincerely enjoy using Windows Store apps, a touchscreen Ultrabook is still your best bet.”

  • Anandtech Surface Pro 3 Review
    “Surface Pro 3 is much easier to position properly on my lap compared to any previous Surface device. While the latter were all ultimately a pain to use on my lap, Surface Pro 3 is passable. I still prefer a laptop, but the gap has been narrowed considerably.”

    “The downsides for Surface Pro 3 are obvious. Windows 8.1 remains a better desktop/notebook OS than a tablet OS. Yet in a device like Surface Pro 3 where you’re forced to rely on touch more thanks to a cramped trackpad, I’m often in a situation where I’m interacting with the Windows desktop using the touchscreen – a situation that rarely ends well.”

  • Microsoft Created a Spork – by Dan Brinkmann
    “As a laptop the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is fast, (especially compared to a 3 year old MacBook Air) light, compact, with a beautiful screen. However I’d still prefer a traditional laptop over the magnetically attached keyboard, small trackpad, and novelty kickstand.”

    “As a tablet this thing sucks. It is too large, too heavy, the app ecosystem lacks most of the applications I use on my other tablets, and I keep ending up on a desktop when I want to use it as a tablet. Even Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser never seems to understand how I want to use it, popping into tablet mode when I’m using it as a laptop and vice versa. Looking back I’d rather have purchased a laptop like the Lenovo X1 or Yoga, great laptops first.”

  • A series of tweets from Shaun Ritchie
    Think I am going to return SP 3, nice build but too heavy to chuck in my bag every day, lack of tablet apps, & confusing tablet interface

    @Easi123 Think I will get MacBook Pro & iPad mini.

    @mikestanley If I could only have 1 device and some1 else was buying it I would want SP. But at mo there is no 1 device fits all I think.

So I take all that, combine it with my previous experience, and think I have a pretty good idea of how the Surface Pro 3 would work for me, and it’s not good. It might be a great device for some people. But it sure sounds to me like most agree the “lapability” issue still hasn’t been solved, not to mention the fact that the pricing on the SP3 continues to be fairly deceptive, since in order to use the device as it is marketed, you really have to tack $129 onto the price. Nobody I trust is satisfied with the availability of Windows tablet/modern apps.

As for other devices, I can see some minor utility in a device like the Lenovo ThinkPad Yoga or the Dell XPS 12. But for me, I’d rather have a great laptop and a separate great tablet.

Pricing of “tablet” vs Ultrabook

Here’s a quick comparison between what I’ve seen folks buy and use and what I would recommend as a better device based on how they actually use the tablet.

Dell Venue 11 Pro – $1,025.99
i5 CPU, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 11″ touch screen, keyboard. Weight – 3.32lbs.

Dell XPS 13 with Touch Screen – $1,149
i5 CPU, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 13″ touch screen. Weight – 2.95lbs.

The Venue 11 Pro is cheaper by $123. It’s also got half the RAM and a 2″ smaller screen. For the $123 extra, the XPS 13 would give me double the RAM, a larger screen, and less weight.

The choice for me would be clear. I would argue that if you’re going to keep that 1.75lbs battery+keyboard connected to the 1.57lbs Venue 11 Pro, you’d be better off spending a little more money and getting not only a better machine, but a machine that is designed to do one thing well, not two things decently (if that).

Conclusion

I don’t claim my opinion on this topic is gospel or that it should be accepted as such by anyone else. I just know that I see people using Windows tablets as not very inexpensive, mediocre laptops. I have no interest in doing that, and when it comes to my own money, for now I’m going to continue to use a laptop that is an awesome laptop and a tablet that is an awesome tablet. That might make me the butt of a joke in a Surface Pro 3 add, but it’ll also make me somebody using devices that each do exactly what he wants them to do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Office 365: The Good, The Bad, The Confusing

The University of Tennessee recently deployed new functionality within Office 365 for the various campuses and institutes, including the one I work for now, the Institute of Agriculture. Activate might be a more accurate word, as all of the new functionality we have right now actually lives and operates within Microsoft’s O365 cloud offering. We don’t have the entire suite of online service available to us just yet, most notably not Exchange Online or Lync Online, but the former is coming once we get a solution for all of our Public Folders users and the latter is coming in October. Nothing will make me happier than being able to say goodbye to OCS 2007R2 and hello to Lync on my iPhone and iPad.

The Good: Office Online, A3 Upgrade, OneDrive for Business

So if we don’t have Exchange and Lync yet, what do we have? Good quesiton. All faculty and staff at UT now have Office Online, which is similar to Google Docs and contains browser-based version of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, as well as OneDrive for Business. You can access these by going to the Microsoft Cloud Services Login Portal and signing in with your email address (most likely netid@utk.edu) and NetID password.

Office Online is pretty good. I’ve only ever dablled with Google Docs, and the online versions of the Office apps look a lot better and are very easy to use. So easy, in fact, that I asked my wife to sign into to her O365 account, create a sample Word document, and share it with me. That took about 2 minutes and you can see it worked just fine.

OfficeOnline-1

Another really good thing about O365 is the available A3 upgrade for faculty and staff. For $29 per year, upgrading to the A3 Office 365 license allows a user to download and install Office on up to 5 personally owned computers. That’s a pretty good deal. In addition to providing Office for use on personally owned computers, the A3 upgrade activates Office for iPad (and presumably other mobile platforms) as well, enabling full editing capabilities on the excellent Office for iPad applications.

I recently purchased the A3 upgrade for my O365 account and I’m glad I did. I think $29 per year provides a lot of value in making sure I can work with Office documents wherever I am, on whichever device I choose. I also believe there will be other benefits of the A3 upgrade once we move to Exchange Online.

Another feature of O365 that catches the interest of our users is OneDrive for Business. We’re early adopters of Windows 8, and have recommended OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive – the personal service) for our users since it integrates so well into Windows 8 and Office. But OneDrive (personal) was only recently upgraded to 15GB of free space, and while extra space was available for a fee, it wasn’t as price-competitive as Google’s similar Google Drive offering in the past. OneDrive for Business now offers 1 terabyte of space for each user. That sounds awesome, and in some ways it is awesome. That’s the Good from my post title above. To the extent that a user can actually use 1TB of space, it is awesome.

The Bad and Confusing: OneDrive for Business

But can a user really use 1TB of space on OneDrive for Business? Maybe. And this is where the Bad and the Confusing come in.

It is possible in many ways to use OneDrive for Business as a drop-in replacement for OneDrive (personal), and if all you’re doing is working on your own Office documents, it works quite well for that. But if you want to actively share files and folders with others, or work with a great many files, or make use of OneDrive for Business on anything other than Windows – that’s where things get complicated, confusing, and in some cases, very frustrating.

Why is this? Why are some of my users who love OneDrive frustrated with OneDrive for Business? Without being privy to any inside information about either product, I think the main reason is that while OneDrive has some sort of unknown secret sauce backend in the cloud that makes it operate identically to Dropbox or Google Drive, OneDrive for Business is really just SharePoint with some OneDrive-like frontend slapped on it. Now SharePoint isn’t bad, although it also isn’t something that I wake up in the morning longing to work with. But what SharePoint is, is a product/service with limitations that probably make a ton of sense when you’re using SharePoint as a web platform to share documents and all the other things SharePoint does. But those limitations can slap you in the face when you’re told your shiny new OneDrive for Business account can hold 1TB of files and you think, “Oh goodie, let’s just make it my everything bucket.” One of those limitations is the number of files it can handle, which I believe is 20,000. That’s a large number of files, and I haven’t hit that limit and likely never will with my work files. But I have two coworkers, both web developers or designers, who have. They literally cannot put everything into OneDrive for Business that they formerly had in OneDrive. So what are they to do? We currently don’t know, other than to suggest they keep folders with gigantic numbers of files elsewhere.

Another confusing thing we’ve noticed about OneDrive for Business is how sharing files with it is very different from doing so in OneDrive or Dropbox. Nearly all of our users are familiar with Dropbox, and a great many of them use it or OneDrive, so they’re used to sharing files or folders with others and having those files and folders be accessible where? Right there in their Dropbox or OneDrive folders. It simply doesn’t work that way with OneDrive for Business, and while it is possible to easily access items shared with you via the web interface, accessing them via File Explorer as a file system object is a pain in the neck. I had to create a 2 page document with screenshots to explain the completely unintuitive process. The instructions help, and I’ve had normal users successfully follow them, but the process is way too complicated, makes no sense (unless you keep in mind this is really SharePoint), and needs to be streamlined by Microsoft.

In addition to those issues, the main thing bugging me about OneDrive for Business right now is that there is no client for OS X, so while I can use OneDrive all day long on my Macs at home, my only way to interface with the 1TB of space I have on OneDrive for Business is either via the web, or via the old Microsoft Document Connection utility from Office 2011. The MDC is fine for dealing with Office documents, but if Microsoft is providing me with 1TB of space, I want to use it for a lot more than just Office documents.

The iOS app for OneDrive for Business is oddly lacking in features as well. While the OneDrive app for OneDrive (personal) can automatically backup my camera roll to OneDrive, the OneDrive for Business app cannot. I can also not use it to even add a file or picture to OneDrive for Business – it’s strictly a view-only interface.

Closing Thoughts

As we make more use of Office 365, and especially as we move to Exchange and Lync Online, I plan to write more about it, and especially how well it works for our higher education users. Right now, I am quite happy with Office Online and the extra features afforded me by the A3 upgrade, particularly Office for iPad. I am dissatisfied with the ongoing lack of a Mac client for it, but Microsoft says they’re working on it. I hope Microsoft is also working on making OneDrive for Business an easier to use, more intuitive service, to deliver on the potential of that terabyte of cloud storage.

Posted in Cloud Services | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

My Windows Phone Experiment Begins: Nokia Lumia 520 – Initial Impressions

Amazon had a Daily Deal last week on the Nokia Lumia 520 tied to AT&T’s pre-paid GoPhone service.  I confirmed I could forego activating the 520 as a phone and simply use it as iPod Touch-like device over WiFi, so I picked it up for $39.99.  I didn’t expect much for 40 bucks, and I haven’t yet been really impressed, but neither have I been disappointed.

The Lumia 520 seems small, which is strange considering it has the same 4” screen as my iPhone 5S.  It definitely feels like an inexpensive phone, being made more of plastic than anything else.  But I keep reminding myself – this isn’t a phone that cost me $200 with a 2 year commitment, or $600 without one – this is a phone that cost me $40.  And for $40, it isn’t bad.

I reviewed a Windows Phone last year, the Nokia Lumia 920.  So I’m somewhat familiar with Windows Phone, and I’d say, especially having spent the last year adjusting to Windows 8 at work, I have to say it appeals to me on the phone just like it does on a tablet at the office.  While I am not a fan of the multiple tile sizes, especially on a screen this small, I find the tile paradigm itself appealing.

One thing that impressed me about this low cost device is that I was able to upgrade it to the latest version of Windows Phone, 8.1, immediately.  I wonder if I could buy a decently-equipped Android phone to use over WiFi for just $40 that would also run the latest and greatest version of Android?

I’ve played with Cortana, Microsoft’s answer to Siri, for just a short while so far.  While I am impressed with its ability to recognize my voice, its ability to respond to my queries seems fairly limited.  I’ll have more to say on that in another week or so, I would imagine.

I’ll keep repeating this – for $40 I like this little device just fine.  Can’t say I’d want to carry it or use it as my real phone, but as a tool to use to learn more about Windows Phone, why not?

Lumia520

Posted in Hardware, Reviews