Apple updates OS X snow leopard – what’s next?

We have one mac at home, and we got the upgrade DVD today. Haven’t installed the update but we will do it. My father-in-law told me that his mac got 10 GB more space on the hard drive after the upgrade. So what have apple done? They say the new OS X is more efficient, stronger and more compact. The comments I have read is that the changes are on the inside. So this is “just” a service pack. But Apple makes a brilliant PR-stunt – and sells this as an upgrade. That is just the perfect business model.

The biggest change as far as I can see is the integrated support for Microsoft Exchange. I guess this has to do with support for business users. You don’t buy a mac because of the OS – you buy a mac because it is a mac. The Apple feeling is just the perfect blend of hardware and software.

Microsoft has finished developing Windows 7. I have used the beta for several weeks, and this is the best OS created by Bill’s team.

But compared to Mac… one guy’s Windows is another guy’s OS/2.

Not sure if there will be a OS was between OS X and Win 7. I think OS X will always be a bit cutting edge, but Windows 7 will hopefully kill of all the older versions (including win2000, XP and Vista).

Overload – what do you drop?

I am back at work after several weeks home. My break should have been longer, because my body wasn’t ready for “normal work”. The stress level has been the same at work for the people who have work all summer, and some just started their vacation. My current assignment is to be project manager in a group where the task at hand is to keep a government system running. I am not going into details, but if we fail – we’ll be in the news in Norway (and that isn’t an option for us).

Anyway, returning to work after several weeks off gives you an overload. You probably have several hundred unread emails. Your forums, rss-feeds and other social media feeds have been down prioritized. You need to get back on the horse – but you also need to decide what you would like to keep doing.

I have a strong dedication to my work mail. In addition I have my private mail, a customer mail account, and my team’s mailbox (and probably half a million other accounts including MobileMe, gmail etc.etc). 90% of my work is probably handling information. I collect and I share information. Status-, time-, financials-, risks-, bugs-… the list goes on. I get input from several people on what my agenda should be. On the customer site there are probably 5 or 6 people who can give me business direction, and that is before I start counting on the IBM side.

So when you get overloaded – you need to get your prioritizations in order. You need to select the items you really need both in terms of work, but also in terms of being you. What is important for you to do each and every day; what can you do weekly – and what isn’t really that important?

I have a list of tasks I should do as an IBM project manager. It includes reporting, forecasting, approving time-sheets (we call it claim), approving expenses (World-Wide-Expense-Reimbursement), the lists go on. I also have a list of tasks my customer wants me to do; but there is also the ad hoc activities that normally becomes more than just a small task.

I consider my work done when my reoccurring tasks have been done, and when I have some level of control of the content in my work mailbox. But when should the overload make you say stop. Sometimes you need to delegate, or just make the one giving you the task to prioritize. You can’t handle everything, and you shouldn’t. Knowing when you have the right load is important – and you should have that level as a goal.

100% off work during vacation

Tomorrow is my first day at work after 6 weeks at home. A combined vacation and paternity leave has given me some great weeks together with my family. We have spent some time in Oslo, some at my wife’s family’s cabin, a trip to Denmark and some small adventures around Oslo. As a project manager you keep an eye on your project even when you’re on vacation. But luckily my cell phone played a trick on me this summer. I have VPN and mail sync on my Nokia (N82 & E75). But after I changed my password one of my phones tried to connect 3 times with the wrong password. This blocked my account, and as software on my Nokia is a pilot (IBM TAP) that isn’t supported by the helpdesk, my only option was a trip to an IBM location to get my VPN account unblocked. Checking my mail during my vacation is okay – but going to work to reset my password is a bit on the heavy side – so I have been 100% offline from work for several weeks; and the feeling is great!

Removing system files from a disk (#windows)

I currently run a beta version of windows 7 (build 7229). It works like a charm, and I yesterday decided I didn’t need my Vista backup. So I decided to convert the disk into a backup drive. I have two disks in my laptop (replaced dvd-player with a disk holder). So I mount the drive as an extra drive with access to my files, music and images without coping them over to Windows 7 for this test. The disk is 250 GB and was almost full. Normally I would copy the files I needed over to a new disk and then format the drive and copy the files back. But I wanted to keep about 80% of the content, only removing the Windows Vista files (and program files). Deleting these folders was rejected by windows as these folders were protected. These simple commands solved it.

Taking ownership:

takeown /f "C:\Windows" /R

Getting permisions to change/delete the files:

cacls "C:\Windows" /G username:F /C /T

And then deleting the files:

rd "C:\Windows" /S

It worked. I removed about 30GB of system files and program files not needed on my backup. I'll keep "my" files on this disk, so that when I reinstall windows 7 to a later build, I'll only have to install OS and software - not copy files. And... one important trick is to start the command prompt by typing "cmd" and then ctrl-shift-enter to start it in admin-mode.

Why we shouldn’t save banks like DnB Nor or Washington Mutual

Survival of the fittest is the golden rule in nature. This is because we want the strongest to survive. During the financial crisis as governments around the world created initiatives to save business in trouble – including banks. Banks are important to provide funding in real-estate exchange and day to day financing of businesses; but the banks needs ensure healthy risk taking. If they over invest in some types of loans or if they are taking unnecessary high risks the governments shouldn’t use our taxes to subsidize these banks. The owners of the banks shouldn’t be saved; only the money deposited to savings accounts should be saved by the governments.

In a short term perspective could attractive loans to banks from the national banks be a good way to stimulate economy. But as we have seen in Norway, the major banks (like DnB Nor) have had very good results the first half year with this type of loans. The loans have therefor been very attractive to the owners of the banks who have made money on loans given with a discount to the banks. If we continue to save banks in this way will the strategy from the owners of the banks become even riskier, and we’ll end up saving them over-and-over again providing them with discounted loans – our tax money.

Not saving the banks have consequences. First of all the employees of the banks will lose their jobs, and the owners of the banks will lose their investments. But on a macroeconomic level this isn’t important. The number of people in a healthy bank industry will over time be about the same – so one company going out of business will make room for another company with a better strategy. This will create new jobs, and the net level of employees will stay the same. One could argue that a new bank would operate with fewer employees because of more “state-of-the-art” technology. But that isn’t an argument for job security; jobs would be lost due to technology or offshoring of jobs. The owners would learn that they need to have smart strategies when they run banks, and not risk the bank to get subsidizes from the government.

The government should not keep these stocks, but sell them directly in the market.

So what is a better strategy to get the economy going when the banks don’t give loans? Don’t give the loans to the banks; give them directly to the people who need the fresh capital. Create official bonds with a fixed (5-10 years) payment time. If you can’t wait for this setup to materialize, give the banks loans, but regulate the add-on they can charge the end consumer. If the bank increases their risk with these subsidized loans - then convert the loans to stocks. The government should not keep these stocks, but sell them directly in the market. This will ensure that the current owners will stay within the agreed strategy


So what is different between the banking industry and any other industry? Why should the government not save banks if they save the automobile industry? This is a political issue, but nevertheless it is important to ensure that the finance system is working efficiently without unhealthy government actions. Saving manufacturing industries is about saving jobs, but also for governments to keep industries in their countries. There is a limit to where governments should intervene; they shouldn’t save the “old” company just because of traditions if new companies can replace the jobs with more efficient use of technology. Starting over is not a bad thing; saving companies just to keep them isn’t an investment – it is just governments paying for fake jobs. The Belgium Sabena had in over 50 years not one year with a positive financial result. This shows that a government is willing to invest in non-economic values - and that is politics and not healthy economics.


(image: sabena.com)