<META HTTP-EQUIV="PICS-Label" CONTENT='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l comment "RSACi North America Server" by "inet@microsoft.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0))' />
<TITLE>Proving-the-Point: Interviews with Next-Generation Windows 2000 dot.coms</TITLE>
<META NAME="KEYWORDS" CONTENT="Microsoft Windows 2000; Aberdeen">
<META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="(March 1) In this report Aberdeen found and identified a major source of disconnect in the information systems marketplace that has lead to the misperception that Windows NT (soon to become Windows 2000) is not enterprise-ready.">
<TD WIDTH="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><A CLASS="NavLink" HREF="file:///D:/Documents and Settings/ericbrus/My Documents/My Webs/myweb12/server/features/choosing.asp" target="_top">Choosing the Right Server</A><!--mstheme--></font></TD>
<A HREF="mailto:?subject=An article from Microsoft&body=This article is from the Microsoft Windows 2000 Web site. http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp"><IMG SRC="/windows2000/images/icoEmail2.gif" WIDTH="20" HEIGHT="15" BORDER="0"></A>
<A CLASS="finePrint" HREF="mailto:?subject=An article from Microsoft&body=This article is from the Microsoft Windows 2000 Web site. http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp">Send this document<BR />to a colleague</A><BR />
<P>Aberdeen Group is a Boston-based computer and communications consulting and market-research organization.</P>
<P>Aberdeen Group performs specific projects for a select group of domestic and international clients. Each project requires a combination of strategic advice and pragmatic, experience-based action plans. Assignments range from corporate and product positioning and organizational planning to in-depth market segment research. Aberdeen consults on mergers and acquisitions, corporate positioning and investor relations, and transaction-processing benchmarks; in addition, it offers special expertise in software and midrange computer markets.</P>
<P>In carrying out assignments, Aberdeen uses a proprietary, comprehensive, analytical framework providing fresh insight into the complex future of computing and communications, both from technological and market-dynamics perspectives. Aberdeen also offers retainer-fee programs to a group of continuing clients.</P>
<P>Aberdeen principals and staff are recognized industry figures with hundreds of years of combined high-tech industry, research, and financial community experience among them. They are quoted extensively in industry trade and business publications. Each staff member is a frequent conference and seminar speaker.</P>
<P>In addition to client-related research and consulting, Aberdeen publishes several periodicals, Aberdeen <I>Viewpoints</I>, and <I>Profiles</I>, which summarize its analysis and research findings.</P>
<P>Information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but is not warranted by us. Opinions reflect judgment at the time of publication and are subject to change without notice.</P>
<P>The trademarks and registered trademarks of the corporations mentioned in this publication are the property of their respective holders.</P>
<P>Warning: This publication is protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen Group, Inc. and may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this publication, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent necessary to protect the rights of the publisher.</P>
<P>Over the past four years, Aberdeen has closely followed the progression of Microsoft's Windows NT operating environment within the enterprise—as it migrated from the desktop to the workgroup server level, and now into the enterprise server category. During the course of our research, Aberdeen has meticulously chronicled certain Microsoft NT operating systems shortcomings related to scalability, reliability, availability, manageability, and security—shortcomings that, in our opinion, restricted the use of Windows NT for certain mission-critical enterprise applications and limited NT system deployment in large Internet "server farm" environments.</P>
<P>But, in a recent Aberdeen report entitled <I>Is MicrosoftÆs Windows NT/Windows 2000 Enterprise-Ready?</I> (January 2000), Aberdeen modified its critical position on the use of Windows 2000 in enterprise-level computing environments. Aberdeen now believes that, under certain circumstances, both Windows NT and Windows 2000 can be successfully deployed and reliably operated in large-scale enterprise information environments.</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Provided that NT/Windows 2000 applications are properly designed so that they do not conflict with the operating system;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Provided that the NT/Windows 2000 environment is operated in a data-center-like manner ù with policies and procedures for change management, software updates, software distribution, backup/restore, and the like; and<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Provided that, in heterogeneous environments, third-party or custom code is used to enhance system manageability and security, as well as to improve cross-operating environment directory services.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Field interviews conducted by Aberdeen on-site at early adopter Win-dows 2000 dot.com beta sites (or, more precisely, sites that are using MicrosoftÆs final release-to-manufacturing version of Windows 2000) where Windows 2000 was being used in production mode. Dot.com enterprises are sites that make heavy use of Windows 2000 Internet servers to carry out core business-to-business and/or business-to-consumer initiatives ù and are explored in depth in this report.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Discussions with various systems suppliers, software architects, and systems integrators that have developed hardware, software, and solu-tions on the new Windows 2000 operating environment.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">AberdeenÆs own technical assessment of Windows 2000 from scalabil-ity, availability, reliability, security, and systems manageability per-spectives, which were explored in depth in our report, Is Windows NT/2000 Enterprise-Ready.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>Many readers of our initial report—information systems (IS) buyers as well as systems/software suppliers—observed that we had focused on "enterprise" computing environments (environments that were likely to be made up of heterogeneous systems, and were focused on running internal-facing systems such as finance, human resources, manufacturing, and sales and distribution). These readers have made Aberdeen aware that they also desire information on how NT/Windows 2000 is being used in external-facing, customer-oriented Internet environments that provide customers with access to Internet-based content and services.</P>
<P>More specifically, our readers are particularly interested in how Windows 2000 servers are being used in Internet-based dot.com enterprises. Dot.com enterprises are the new generation of businesses that rely heavily on the use of the Internet to provide application access, content, or services to their respective customer bases. Note: dot.coms are not limited to entrepreneurial Internet start-ups. Traditional enterprises frequently also operate business units, departments, or entirely in a "dot.com mode."</P>
<P>These readers have indicated that they desire to know:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">How dot.com enterprises are currently using Windows 2000 in busi-ness-to-business and business-to-consumer environments;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">How information systems (IS) managers and administrators are using the new features and characteristics of Windows 2000 to create more powerful and more scalable Web sites;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">How Windows 2000 has improved from a reliability, manageability, and security point-of-view over NT.4.0; and,<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">What the functional differences are between Windows 2000 and its predecessor, Windows NT; and how Windows 2000 compares to Unix, Linux, and other alternatives from a dot.com perspective.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>In this report, Aberdeen explores how early IS adopters are using Windows 2000 to enable dot.com enterprises to deploy Windows 2000-based servers as well as various Microsoft middleware and application products in large, scalable Internet-server environments. We examine the host of improvements that Microsoft has made to the Windows 2000 operating environment; we compare and contrast these improvements to Windows NT, Unix, and Linux systems; and we share the results of face-to-face interviews with several very large Microsoft dot.com customers. In short, we provide proof-by-example that Windows 2000 is capable of being successfully deployed and managed in large, mission-critical Web serving and business application environments.</P>
<H2>Aberdeen Research Approach</H2>
<P>To conduct our research, Aberdeen used its RAMP (Rapid Accurate Market Po-sitioning) methodology—a methodology we have used over the years to discover customer outlook, concerns, strategic and operational issues, and system/software/support requirements. In this case, Aberdeen sought to learn about issues that had served as obstacles to the deployment of NT-based systems in large Internet server farms. As we identified those issues, Aberdeen sought to learn what changes had taken place in Windows 2000 that could serve to help IS managers, systems administrators, and software developers overcome such obstacles. Furthermore, if additional information was available, we sought to learn how Windows 2000 compared to other operating environment alternatives (specifically, Unix and Linux). Finally, we sought additional commentary regarding where the product still needs improvement in the future.</P>
<P>Details about our research approach, including the actual questionnaire used and the intent of many of our probing questions, can be found in the "Research Approach" section in the Addendum of this report.</P>
<P>In this report Aberdeen found and identified a major source of disconnect in the information systems marketplace that has lead to the misperception that Windows NT (soon to become Windows 2000) is not enterprise-ready. Our research has shown that there are distinct differences in how traditional IS managers and dot.com IS managers design and manage their computing infrastructure—accordingly, there are clear differences in what these IS managers define as acceptable from a scalability, reliability, availability, manageability, and security point of view. Frequently, what is not acceptable to a traditional IS manager in terms of single system scalability may be fully acceptable to a dot.com IS manager. What may be acceptable to a dot.com IS manager from a systems reliability perspective may be wholly unacceptable to a traditional IS manager. And so on. As a result of varying definitions and varying measurement metrics between dot.com IS managers and traditional enterprise managers, IS buyers are getting mixed messages regarding the enterprise readiness of Windows NT and Windows 2000.</P>
<P>Having identified the source-of-disconnect in the Windows NT/Windows 2000 enterprise readiness debate, Aberdeen desired to learn more about how dot.com enterprises use technology to conduct business. More specifically, we wanted to learn about the impact of Windows 2000 on the information processing environment within early adopter dot.coms. What Aberdeen found—according to early adopter dot.com IS managers and administrators—is that Windows 2000 looks like a real winner in terms of enterprise readiness based upon significant improvements in reliability, performance, and manageability.</P>
<H3>Specific Windows 2000 Production Use Feedback</H3>
<P>Overall, dot.com IS managers indicated that they were very pleased with the scalability, reliability, and manageability improvements they found in Windows 2000 over Windows NT. But, Aberdeen notes, our study was inconclusive in the area of directory services (specifically the use of Active Directory)—the dot.com IS managers interviewed had not yet made extensive use of the policy/procedure and management extensions built into the new directory server.</P>
<H2>The Big News—Reliability</H2>
<P>From Aberdeen's perspective, the biggest news from a product perspective lies in Microsoft's Windows 2000 reliability figures. Initial, out-of-the-box figures at nine Microsoft Windows 2000 early-adopter production sites show that Windows 2000 servers are running at a combined 99.95 percent available rate (see Table 1). From Aberdeen's perspective, this level of availability is outstanding considering that most accounts had not: 1) fully optimized Windows 2000; 2) had used multiple versions of Windows 2000 (release candidates one and two, then the release to manufacturing version); and 3) IS managers are still building expertise in the product. Aberdeen also notes that system reliability is also affected by having the appropriate processes in place to ensure that a server can be run in a highly-available fashion (for instance: proper change management policies and procedures), and most early adopters had not fully articulated such policies and procedures.</P>
<P><B>Table 1—Early Adopter Reliability Statistics on Windows 2000</B></P>
<P><font size="1"><B>Source: Microsoft Corporation, February 2000</B></font></P>
<P>Further details on Windows 2000 reliability as well as a table that shows server year uptime and availability statistics can be found in <a href="#Chapter3">Chapter Three</a>.</P>
<H2>Performance—A Giant Step Forward</H2>
<P>There has been tremendous enthusiasm generated in the press and amongst enterprise IS managers on the point of performance increases manifest in Windows 2000-based servers. A 96 CPU Windows 2000 cluster can now perform 227,079 transactions per minute, and a 48 CPU cluster can now reach 152,208 transactions per minute using tpc-C benchmarks. These figures represent the highest number of tpc-C transactions of any system measured to date.</P>
<P>Traditional IS managers, and Application Service Providers (ASPs) are probably most affected by this tremendous increase (the former NT cluster ceiling was about 100,000 transactions per minute). These benchmarks now indicate that Windows NT servers can outperform Unix servers—at a substantially lower cost. The two leading Unix servers (an IBM RS6000 model S80 cluster and Sun Enterprise 6500 cluster) perform in the 130,000 transaction per minute range—at between $50 and $100 per tpm-C, versus up to double the performance in the $19 range for Windows 2000-based servers).</P>
<P>On the other hand, dot.com IS managers tend to use smaller systems in clusters on the front-end to handle communications traffic and page views, but will most likely take advantage of the huge performance increases being reported on enterprise back-end, run-the-business systems.</P>
<H2>IS dot.com Windows 2000 Feedback</H2>
<P>Succinctly, dot.com IS managers stated the following (more detailed feedback is included in <a href="#Chapter3">Chapter Three—"Windows NT/2000: Product Perspectives"</a>):</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Reliability</I>—Most dot.com IS managers interviewed by Aberdeen for this study claimed that their NT-based server environments are already reliable. They attribute NT reliability to good applications design and steadfast operational procedures. But new data (see Table 1) indicates that out-of-the box Windows 2000 is very reliable.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Scalability</I>—Many dot.com managers intimated that they do not perceive an NT "scalability" problem in their front-end, customer-facing Internet systems. These IS managers make use of a distributed systems design that provides high availability and makes it possible to easily scale just by adding additional servers.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Overall System Manageability</I>—Aberdeen found that many dot.com managers had already augmented their NT systems environment with third-party software to address shortcomings in Windows NT system and storage management utilities. But these IS managers were pleased to see that Microsoft had introduced new functionality in Windows 2000 that enables IS administrators to more easily write management scripts as well as better manage Windows 2000 servers remotely.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Remote Management</I>—Every dot.com Windows 2000 site interviewed stressed that the inclusion of terminal services in the main Windows 2000 product offering was a great idea (previously, Windows Terminal Server had been a separate product offering).<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Security</I>—Many IS managers have stated over the past few years that NT-based security was not "industrial-strength" when compared to Unix and mainframe security technologies—especially in the areas of Kerberos and public key support. Aberdeen notes that Windows 2000 has improved overall systems security by adding support for Kerberos (a security standard) version 5, and a Public Key Certificate Server built into the operating environment.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Issues With Internet Information Server</I>—Numerous dot.coms stated that they had had issues with the previous version of MicrosoftÆs IIS (version 4.0). These same dot.com managers praised the new Windows 2000 implementation of IIS—lauding its performance and configurability improvements.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Availability Clustering</I>—Windows 2000 Advanced Server will continue to offer two-node failover (just as had Windows NT 4.0). Aberdeen notes that Windows 2000 data Center will offer four-node clustering when available in Q3 or Q4 of 2000. Regarding clustering, IS managers noted that Microsoft has made improvements in Windows 2000 (using Microsoft Cluster Services) that monitor the health of a given systems and applications environment, enabling the automatic recovery of mission-critical data and applications—and much testing was underway in the area of availability clustering at the time of these interviews. Aberdeen expects dot.com IS managers to be able to offer meaningful commentary on availability clustering when Windows 2000 DataCenter edition is made available later in 2000.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On TCP/IP Communications</I>—Several IS managers noted that Microsoft has greatly improved its TCP/IP stack to include improvements for high-bandwidth wide area networking (WAN), local area networking (LAN), and virtual private networking (VPN) environments.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Improved Installation Procedures</I>—Interviewees raved about Microsoft Windows 2000 improvements in installation procedures. The new programs installer provides a standard approach to software installation, incorporates resiliency such that products can be repaired, and supports system lockdown to prevent applications from corrupting a systems software environment.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Rebooting</I>—IS managers and administrators indicated that they are very impressed with the work Microsoft has done in this area—the improvements lead to decreased installation time as well as better systems reliability.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Directory Services Limitations</I>—IS managers were well aware of the great potential benefits and aid that Active Directory will provide in the management of systems and networks—few of the dot.com Windows 2000 early adopters had made use of advanced Active Directory functions.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>On Internet Information Server</I>—According to IS managers, IIS version 5.0 (now incorporated into Windows 2000) significantly increases performance over IIS 4.0—more specifically, performance is better in multi-processor environments in Windows 2000.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>Despite glowing initial reviews, Windows 2000 did not solve all Windows NT shortcomings. Windows 2000 early adopters stated that they would still like to see the following types of improvements:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>Better Event Logging</I>—Although Windows 2000 has greatly improved the number of tools and utilities that can be used for troubleshooting, simplified software installation, and system/network management; the product still lacks a sophisticated change management logging function that would assist IS managers in rolling out or rolling back functional changes to their systems environment.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>64-bit Addressing</I>—Some dot.com IS managers indicated that they still desire better data handling; more specifically, they want 64-bit computing in order to capitalize on captured data using decision support and OLAP tools. Aberdeen notes that the Data Center version will be available in 32-bit and later in 64-bit versions at a time that coincides with availability of Itanium (a new 64-bit processor) from Intel.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><I>An enterprise all-in-one box server</I>—A few IS managers also indicated that they desired more system expandability within a single chassis. Aberdeen notes that Microsoft's Data Center Server (when available) will support up to 32 processors.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>Taken as a whole, the early adopter feedback regarding Windows 2000 has been outstandingly positive. No major show-stopper bugs or problems were reported; customers expressed great delight with the product—particularly in the areas of reliability and manageability. Although Aberdeen would like to have had greater research depth in the areas of Active Directory and security, our overall assessment is that this version of the NT operating environment shows all signs of being a real winner in dot.com and enterprise-class computing environments.</P>
<P>From Aberdeen's perspective, the key questions to be answered regarding the use of Windows NT/2000 in large, scalable, enterprise and dot.com environments are:</P>
<OL>
<LI>Where is the disconnect between perception and reality regarding the deployment of Windows NT systems in large, scalable, Internet-based environments?</LI>
<LI>How will the impending release of Windows 2000 address the known shortcomings of Windows NT 4.0?</LI>
</OL>
<P>The remainder of this section seeks to answer the first question. The following chapter seeks to answer the second question.</P>
<H2>Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt</H2>
<P>In large enterprises there remains a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the "enterprise readiness" of Microsoft's NT operating environment. Many IS executives have heard that Windows NT servers scale poorly; are not reliable; are difficult to manage; and are hard to secure.</P>
<P>Yet, several interviews conducted by Aberdeen Group with large, Internet-driven dot.com companies paint quite a different picture: Windows NT-based systems are being used in a reliable, scalable, manageable, and secure fashion in sizable Internet server farm environments. These sites have clearly overcome perceived NT scalability and reliability issues—and can prove that NT-based servers perform extremely well, are highly reliable, and do an excellent job of handling Internet-based traffic.</P>
<P>Given that there is such a wide range of difference in opinion on NT's scalability, reliability, manageability, and security, Aberdeen chose to conduct a research study to examine the enterprise/dot.com readiness of Windows NT and Windows 2000.</P>
<H2>About Windows NT/2000 Buyers</H2>
<P>During the course of this study, Aberdeen identified two classes of Windows NT/2000 IS buyers—traditional enterprise IS buyers and dot.com buyers.</P>
<P>Traditional enterprise IS buyers focus on "running-the-business," in other words ensuring that "back-end" mission-critical business applications such as sales, distribution, manufacturing, finance, and human resources are maintained in a constantly ready state for enterprise IS users. Enterprise information systems are characterized by persistent application services, transaction-based packaged applications, vertical systems (large, centrally oriented platforms), support for thousands of users behind a firewall, and strong reliability requirements.</P>
<P>By contrast, dot.com buyers focus on "front-end" services—services oriented toward providing customers with page views and light transactions. Dot.com front-end systems are characterized by the types of applications run on the front-end (customer-oriented and often custom in nature), page serving, page caching, distributed system architecture (as opposed to hierarchically oriented systems), and support for potentially millions of viewers.</P>
<P>The primary differences between these two buyer profiles are detailed in Table 1 (next page).</P>
<H2>Traditional IS Managers vs. Dot.com Managers—These Buyer Profiles Are Not Mutually Exclusive</H2>
<P>Dot.com IS managers and traditional enterprise IS managers interviewed by Aberdeen frequently had different points of focus, different priorities, and different IT architectural philosophies. But Aberdeen also observed that although dot.com IS managers concentrated heavily on building and supporting a strong front-end, customer-facing system architecture, these dot.com IS managers also had responsibility for run-the-business systems that ran behind the firewall. And, ironically, many of these dot.com managers adopted the enterprise IS manager outlook on how to deploy and manage back-end applications and systems. For instance, many dot.com managers had packaged SAP and PeopleSoft applications running on their back-end systems; and many had a proclivity toward running vertical, all-in-one-box systems behind the firewall for easier manageability.</P>
<P><B>Table 2: Traditional vs. dot.com Computing</B></P>
<td valign="top" width="20%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Number One Priority</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Internal, persistent application manufacturing, sales, distribution, finance, and human resources.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>External focus on customer service for run-the-business customer acquisition and satisfaction (presenting page views is a major focus).</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Transactional: Frequently runs complex application using heterogeneous data sources that are presented in various report formats.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Light transactions (read/write, page display, credit card transactions). Business applications are behind the firewall and run in traditional IT mode.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Usually has a clear preference for vertical systems (scaled up, not distributed horizontally) due to the desire for an easier-to-manage single system view to manage user populations.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Frequently opts for distributed computing (scaled out, vertical). This approach allows scalability by adding servers as needed to meet increases in workload, but is more difficult to manage.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Cannot afford to lose most sessions or related data.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Can lose a page view. Cannot lose a transaction.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Must protect enterprise data at all costs.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td valign="top" width="25%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><P>Front-end page presentation requires little security. Internal run-the-business applications must be protected as in the traditional computing world.</P><!--mstheme--></font></td>
<P>As a result of interviews conducted by Aberdeen, dot.com IS managers shared the following observations regarding the readiness of Windows NT and Windows 2000 to serve in large, Internet-based server farm environments.</P>
<H2>On Reliability</H2>
<P>The perception has existed and still exists today that Windows NT suffers from reliability and availability problems as manifested by occasional and sporadic "blue-screen-of-death" problems. To avoid such problems, some IS managers and administrators have told Aberdeen that they have devised various practices, such as weekly reboots, to overcome memory leakage problems and thereby ensure that NT servers remain available and fully operational.</P>
<P>Yet, most dot.com IS managers interviewed in this study claimed that their NT-based server environments are very reliable. They attribute NT reliability to good applications design and steadfast operational procedures.</P>
<P>Aberdeen also observed that almost every IS manager had deployed an infrastructure that provided high availability. Dot.com IS managers had front-ended their NT/Windows 2000 servers with communications load-balancing switches) to ensure that users could reliably find access to back-end computing power. In this switching scenario, should a system fail, a communications session can be established with any of a number of available systems on the network that are able to pick-up-the-slack and continue page serving, searching, content transfer, or transaction processing applications—often with most users unaware that any failure has occurred. Furthermore, Aberdeen observed that certain new Windows 2000 technologies such as kernel mode protection, code signing, and pool tagging help to ensure greater reliability than on previous versions of NT.</P>
<P>As a result of improvements to the NT operating environment manifested in Windows 2000, as well as the above-mentioned load-balancing design features, from AberdeenÆs perspective Windows 2000 is proving to be quite reliable, as indicated in Table 2.</P>
<H2>Windows 2000 Reliability—A Closer Look</H2>
<P>Microsoft was able to provide Aberdeen Group with Windows 2000 server reliability data based upon results gathered through the use of a utility called an Event Log Analyzer (described in next section). This data was gathered from nine Windows 2000 dot.com users—and is representative of what Aberdeen expects system reliability to look like for early adopters of the official release of Windows 2000.</P>
<P>In Table 2, Microsoft has measured the number of server days that Windows 2000 servers were kept operational, then factored that measurement into a total number of server years (for instance, if a server was operational for 306 days, that would be .83 server years). Event logs were able to be used to reveal the total amount of downtime each server (or server farm) experienced, as well as the time to recover from a system or application failure. And by subtracting downtime from total run time, Microsoft was able to derive a total "up-time" percentage.</P>
<P><B>Table 3—Early Adopter Reliability Statistics on Windows 2000</B></P>
<P><font size="1"><B>Source: Microsoft Corporation, February 2000</B></font></P>
<P>Aberdeen believes that these figures are representative of what IS buyer can expect using Windows 2000 out-of-the-box—and that when organizations build greater expertise, put appropriate management procedures in place, and better tune their systems and applications for Windows 2000, these figures should improve greatly.</P>
<P>Based upon these kind of reliability figures, many IS dot.com and enterprise IS buyers who had previously been unconvinced that Windows NT was a reliable operating environment are finding cause for pause—these figures clearly show that Windows 2000 can maintain a high state of system availability and reliability.</P>
<H2>MicrosoftÆs ELA Tool</H2>
<P>To gather server reliability/availability figures reported above, Microsoft has designed a tool—an Event Log Analyzer (ELA)—that collects reliability information from NT and Windows 2000 event logs. (Note: this tool is not generally available at this time). This tool can remotely inspect the event logs of production Windows-based servers, looking for information related to any system shutdowns or system start-ups (an event log is where a server would file such information). This ELA tool measures all data related to a system shutdown such as: the cause; the amount of time down; the time required to reboot; and so on—and relevant start-up information.</P>
<P>From AberdeenÆs perspective, a tool like this has the potential to be highly useful for IS managers looking to determine the health of their Windows server environments—this kind of tool could not only help provide server reliability data, but could help IS managers isolate troublesome systems or applications. Aberdeen would like to see this tool and methodology made generally available as, in our opinion, it represents a valid means to measure server reliability as well as server and application health.</P>
<H2>On Scalability</H2>
<P>Many dot.com managers intimated that they do not perceive an NT "scalability" problem and their IS infrastructures comprise multiple, distributed two- and/or four-way servers with load-balancing hardware and software front-ending their NT and Windows 2000 servers. Their attitude: "Need more power and scalability? Just add another server ..."</P>
<P>But scalability is more than just available system headroom and expansion capability. Databases need to be scalable, as do directory services. When queried about the need for database scalability, some dot.com IS managers stated that it would be nice to have 64-bit addressing capabilities to run complex decision support applications. Still, most dot.com IS managers were pleased with the level of systems and database scalability they currently have.</P>
<H2>On Overall System Manageability</H2>
<P>NT 4.0 has long been criticized for its focus on the management of Windows-based (Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT Workstation) environments. The primary criticism has been that the NT management schema is not geared to work in a cooperative, heterogeneous, information processing environment. Further criticism indicated that NT 4.0 management was cumbersome; did not allow for easy remote administration, backup/restore, or software distribution; and was heavily focused on the management of a local domain LAN environment.</P>
<P>Aberdeen found that many dot.com managers had already augmented their NT systems environment with third-party software to address shortcomings in Windows NT system and storage management utilities. But these IS managers were pleased to see that Microsoft had introduced new functionality in Windows 2000 that enables IS administrators to better manage Windows 2000 servers remotely, thanks to the addition of Terminal Server functionality into the Windows 2000 operating environment, as well as new functionality that makes it easier to kill a process without having to reboot the system.</P>
<H2>On Remote Management</H2>
<P>Every dot.com Windows 2000 site interviewed stressed that the inclusion of terminal services in the main Windows 2000 product offering was a great idea. (Previously, Windows Terminal Server had been a separate product offering.) With Windows 2000 Terminal Services, dot.com IS managers now have the ability to better administer and manage remote servers from a single console, as well as perform load-balancing tasks from that console. This functionality provides IS administrators with the ability to better manage a distributed systems environment without having to be physically or geographically close to the systems they are managing.</P>
<H2>On Security</H2>
<P>Many IS managers have stated over the past few years that NT-based security was not "industrial-strength" when compared to Unix and mainframe security technologies—especially in the areas of Kerberos and public key support. Windows 2000 has improved overall systems security by adding support for Kerberos version 5 (a security standard) and by building a Public Key Certificate Server into the operating environment.</P>
<H2>On Issues with Internet Information Server</H2>
<P>Numerous dot.coms stated that they had had "issues" with the previous version of Microsoft IIS. According to several interviewees, MicrosoftÆs previous implementation of IIS, which ran as an adjunct to NT, had several shortcomings—especially in data handling, page serving, and communications I/O handling.</P>
<P>These same dot.com managers praised the new Windows 2000 implementation of IIS, lauding its performance and configuration improvements.</P>
<H2>On Availability Clustering</H2>
<P>Windows NT 4.0 servers offered rudimentary two-node failover clustering services, as does Windows 2000 Advanced Server. But Aberdeen notes that Windows 2000 DataCenter (when available) will provide IS managers with expandability—up to four servers in a cluster. Further, Microsoft has made improvements in Windows 2000 (using Microsoft Cluster Services) that monitor the health of a given systems and applications environment, enabling the automatic recovery of mission-critical data and applications, usually in less than one minute.</P>
<H2>On TCP/IP Communications</H2>
<P>Several IS managers noted that Microsoft has greatly improved its TCP/IP stack to include improvements for high-bandwidth wide-area, local-area, and virtual private network environments.</P>
<H2>On Improved Installation Procedures</H2>
<P>Interviewees raved about Microsoft Windows 2000 improvements in installation procedures. Windows Installer and IntelliMirror provide a standard approach to software installation, incorporate resiliency so that products can be repaired, and support system lockdown to prevent applications from corrupting a systems software environment.</P>
<H2>On Rebooting</H2>
<P>Dot.com IS managers were well aware that Microsoft had focused on isolating situations that would cause a system to be rebooted—situations ranging from the installation of new software to driver lock issues. According to Microsoft, the company has eliminated 75 situations that would cause an IS manager or administrator to reboot a system. IS managers and administrators indicated that they are very impressed with the work Microsoft has done in this area because these improvements have lead to decreased installation time, as well as better systems reliability.</P>
<H2>On Directory Services Limitations</H2>
<P>MicrosoftÆs new Active Directory allows for the clean merging of Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)—an Internet directory protocol—and Microsoft directory services, as well as providing a single point of administration for files, peripherals, host connections, databases, Web access, users, arbitrary objects, and services. Interestingly, our survey found that, although dot.com IS managers were well aware of the great potential benefits and aid that Active Directory will provide in the management of systems and networks, few of the dot.com early adopters of Windows 2000 had made use of advanced Active Directory functions. Aberdeen suggests that a possible reason for this lack of Active Directory use may be that dot.coms are not managing large user populations and do not appear to have the same emphasis on setting up interdepartmental policies and procedures as their enterprise IS counterparts seem to have.</P>
<H2>On Internet Information Server</H2>
<P>According to IS managers, IIS version 5.0, which is now incorporated into Windows 2000, significantly increases performance over IIS 4.0. Specifically, IIS 5.0 supports more concurrent connections than IIS 4.0 and works better in multiprocessor environments. In addition, IS managers noted that improvements in the Windows 2000 tool sets make it easier to isolate problems in IIS and kill troubled procedures, rather than having to reboot and make it easier to restart procedures than ever before. IS managers also indicated that IIS 5.0 helps to eliminate several restart problems that occurred in previous IIS versions. Finally, IIS 5.0 has been radically improved from a data handling and communications perspective—and has lead to dramatic increases in overall systems performance from a Web page handling perspective, which allows for more concurrent sessions and provides for greater scalability.</P>
<H2>Next Steps</H2>
<P>Despite glowing initial reviews for Windows 2000, Aberdeen notes that Windows 2000 did not solve all Windows NT shortcomings.</P>
<P>Windows 2000 early adopters stated that they would still like to see the follow-ing types of improvements:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Better event logging: In enterprise-class mainframe environments, IS managers have access to greatly detailed systems logs. And these IS managers take a disciplined approach to change management, adding software, hardware, or peripherals to a production system environment. Although Windows 2000 has greatly improved the number of tools and utilities that can be used for troubleshooting, simplified software installation, and system/network management, the product still lacks a sophisticated change management logging function that would assist IS managers in rolling out or rolling back functional changes to their systems environments.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">64-bit addressing: Some dot.com IS managers indicated that they still desire better data handling. Specifically, they want 64-bit computing to capitalize on captured data using decision support and OLAP tools. Aberdeen notes that 64-bit addressing will be available in the forthcoming DataCenter version of Windows 2000.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">An enterprise all-in-one-box server: A few IS managers also indicated that they desired more system expandability within a single chassis—in other words, what they referred to as vertical growth, rather than horizontal growth. Vertical refers to large SMP; or CMP-based systems; horizontal refers to rack-mounted, clustered server stacks to accommodate systems growth. Aberdeen attributes the request for vertical growth to a matter of IS manager outlook; some IS manager like to have all of their systems resources within a single system that can easily be managed using a single systems image. Other IS managers are quite comfortable with multiple, distributed, clustered systems—and actually prefer that approach due to the additional component redundancy that the distributed systems approach offers. To better accommodate vertical scaling, IS managers will need to wait until the DataCenter version of Windows 2000 is released later in the year.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>This study focused on the usage of Windows 2000 in dot.com environments: How and what has changed in this new operating system, and how does this new technology impact dot.com operations? What Aberdeen found is that dot.com IS managers are highly enthusiastic about the productÆs new performance and scalability improvements, its improved reliability features, improved systems management, and additional security enhancements.</P>
<P>Dot.com IS managers intimated that they were most pleased with the improvements that Microsoft has delivered in the newly incorporated-into-the-operating-environment Internet Information Server (substantial performance, manageability, and data handling improvements). From a dot.com IS manager perspective, Windows 2000 goes a long way toward correcting numerous identified shortcoming of Windows NT 4.0.</P>
<P>Based upon the overwhelming positive feedback that Aberdeen received from Windows 2000 production-mode users, Aberdeen concludes that Windows 2000 is both "enterprise-ready" (the subject of a previous Aberdeen report on Windows NT/2000) as well as capable of being successfully deployed in large dot.com information processing environments.</P>
<P>In addition to telephone interviews with dot.com IS managers and briefings by software and hardware suppliers, Aberdeen conducted on-site visits at three dot.coms located in Maryland, California, and Washington. These dot.coms were:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Digex—a hosted infrastructure supplier with an intense emphasis on building and maintaining computing facilities, thereby enabling cus-tomers to focus on running their core businesses. Digex makes its money by providing reliable, scalable systems environments for its customers; managing those environments; leveraging its technical expertise across multiple hosted sites; and through other economies-of-scale related to systems acquisition, deployment, and management.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">buy.com—One of the largest Internet-based superstores. The company focuses on marketing and merchandizing, building its customer and revenue base by making its Internet shopping experience the best customer experience possible. buy.com focuses on attracting and maintaining customers and streamlining the customer experience. It relies on its supplier partners to complete the transaction and handle logistics.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">InfoSpace.com—a "community" site that offers its constituents access to rich content and services, convenient and competitive shopping, and electronic commerce. This dot.com provides a back-end hosting site and related professional services for its business clients and maintains a portal for InfoSpace.com customers.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>These sites are profiled in this chapter to provide the reader with a perspective on how dot.coms are using Windows 2000 in production Internet information processing environments.</P>
<H2>Digex: More Than Proof-of-Concept</H2>
<P>Imagine football fields of Web-based server farms and you have Digex, a very large provider of "managed, hosted solutions"—which is another way of saying that Digex provides systems hardware, software, and managed care for clients who need reliable, secure, well-managed server environments (hosts and networks) upon which to run selected application solutions.</P>
<P>Now, stretch your imagination to envision this company with a current total of 2,700 servers in operation—70 percent of which are NT-based. The remaining 30 percent are Sun Ultraservers. Within the ranks of NT servers, Digex supports over 400 Microsoft SQL Servers, as well as 300 servers running MicrosoftÆs Internet Site Server (ISS). Further, this company plans to grow its server base to over 20,000 by year-end 2002. Logic dictates that any company with such ambitious business plans would not consider moving forward on an unstable, non-scalable, insecure systems platform. Digex is strongly convinced that NT, and now Windows 2000, can be used in large, mission-critical, Web-intensive computing environments.</P>
<H3>Interview Objectives</H3>
<P>During the interview process, Aberdeen sought to learn the following:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">What was DigexÆs position on Windows NT 4.0 from an enterprise-readiness perspective? Did NT 4.0 meet Digex scalability requirements? Did NT 4.0 meet Digex requirements for reliability, manageability, security, and the like?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">What is DigexÆs opinion of Windows 2000? Where does Digex see the biggest payback? What comments can Digex provide regarding Windows 2000 improvements in scalability, availability, reliability, manageability, and security?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Where does Windows 2000 not meet DigexÆs needs?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">How does Windows 2000 compare to Unix- and Linux-based systems?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">End-user organizations that have developed custom code and need a partner capable of hosting that code in a reliable, secure, and managed fashion;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that are providing internet application deployment services to their customers and have little desire to set up, operate, and manage systems, networks, and related infrastructures;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Value-Added Resellers (VARs) that, like ISVs, desire to concentrate on building and deploying applications—but do not wish to operate systems and network environments for their customers; and<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Application Service Providers (ASPs) that are focused on consulting, application design, and deployment but do not want to manage the complexity of hosting infrastructure.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>From a competitive perspective, Digex counts among its competitors Exodus, Global Center, GTE Internetworking, IBM Global Services, and PSInet. Some of these companies operate multiple businesses, but all of them are capable of providing hosted and managed services.</P>
<H3>For the Purposes of This Report—An Ideal Test Bed</H3>
<P>Currently, Digex has deployed Windows 2000 servers in production mode. These servers run custom-developed application code written by DigexÆs customers and/or their Web application development partners.</P>
<P>From a technology background perspective, Digex has extensive knowledge of Windows NT and has worked hand-in-glove with Microsoft to architect, test, and perform quality assurance on the beta and release candidates of MicrosoftÆs Windows 2000 Advanced Server edition. After initial testing and prototyping of Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Digex was able to demonstrate clear gains in system scalability, performance, and reliability to several of its large customers—and, as a result, several of DigexÆs large accounts signed up as Windows 2000 Advanced Server users. (These accounts essentially committed to allow Digex to operate their mission-critical Web sites on Windows 2000 Advanced Server beta code in a production mode.)</P>
<P>From AberdeenÆs perspective, Digex provides an excellent test bed to evaluate the theory that Windows NT and Windows 2000 are capable of being deployed in mission-critical, large, Web-centric server farm environments. This company has:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Proven and extensive knowledge of Windows NT environments. That knowledge has helped Digex build highly available and large NT-based Web sites;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Tremendous engineering talent across systems, networks, and software, as well as regimented, strict policies and procedures that need to be observed to operate both Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based servers in a mission-critical, scalable, reliable manner;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">A very close working relationship with Microsoft, probably because Microsoft recognizes the vast potential that this company offers in terms of the number of server, database, and Internet software licenses over time. Digex consistently pushes Microsoft-based systems to their limits—and Microsoft Consulting Services and Microsoft developers are more than anxious to help Digex test and prototype large Microsoft Windows 2000 environments to establish performance and scalability thresholds for their products in real-world production environments; and<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">One of the worldÆs largest SQL Server sites running several hundred SQL Server licenses as well a huge population of Microsoft Internet Information Servers, indicating that the company has experience beyond just base-level system setup, deployment, and management. The knowledge that Digex has enables the company to understand how to integrate customer applications with back-end data and Internet services. As a result, the company can optimize both systems and applications for ultimate performance and reliability.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>With this wealth of experience, Digex is clearly in a position to provide valuable feedback regarding the readiness of Windows 2000 in dot.com environments.</P>
<H3>Interview Findings and Results</H3>
<P>Digex could readily identify several shortcomings of Windows NT in the areas of scalability, manageability, and directory services—the usual suspects. But, of interest, Digex did not identify NT systems reliability as a major issue. Consistent with findings from previous Aberdeen reports, Digex voiced the opinion that, if applications are well architected and if the systems environment is properly managed and controlled, NT systems reliability is not an issue. When asked to comment on the readiness of Windows NT 4.0 as a scalable, reliable, and manageable operating environment, Digex merely pointed to several hundred servers on-site that had been properly configured and tuned and were operating in a reliable and available fashion as a testament that Windows NT 4.0 is already capable of operating in large, Internet-based server farm environments. For Digex, the move to Windows 2000 is not as much about systems reliability as it is about easier configuration and management.</P>
<P>Digex was optimistic regarding the final release-to-manufacturing version of Windows 2000 and is anxiously anticipating the official release of Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The most significant improvements reported by Digex regarding Windows 2000 Advanced Server include:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Improvements in IIS that have resulted in clear, but not yet scientifically quantified, performance increases. Also, process management has improved; the new release of IIS that is incorporated in the operating environment enables systems administrators to more easily isolate problems or faults—and allows for easier restarts.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The new implementation of terminal server that is now included with Windows 2000 is being exploited to enable IS administrators to conduct better remote management of installed Windows 2000 servers.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Improvements in server building. In DigexÆs environment, servers are constantly being configured and installed—and any products that Microsoft can provide to streamline the system building process are greatly appreciated. Windows 2000Æs Windows Installer helps ascertain whether applications will be well behaved and also assists Digex in the software upgrade process.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>Digex was also pleased with application migration between Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000. The company reported not seeing "issues" with SAP R3, Pandesic, site-server commerce applications, or database migration.</P>
<H3>Not Tested In-Depth</H3>
<P>Digex was aware of the potential for Active Directory to manage millions of objects and was anticipating making wide scale use of Active Directory over time to provide increased granularity for systems administrators. But, at the time of this report, Digex had not extensively tested Active Directory services.</P>
<P>Further, Digex had not intensively tested MicrosoftÆs IntelliMirror, a product feature that helps provide software replication and distribution services. From DigexÆs perspective, the IntelliMirror features may be able to be exploited to assist in the companyÆs automated system building process, but the company already has a heavily automated system building process that is capable of per-forming automatic discovery and obviates the need for most IntelliMirror services at Digex.</P>
<H3>Room for Improvement</H3>
<P>The company is also looking forward to future Microsoft products such as MicrosoftÆs AppCenter Server, a product that is being designed to help ASPs streamline systems design and deployment. Digex wants more tools and utilities to streamline systems builds—and, considering DigexÆs aggressive growth plan to 20,000 servers by year-end 2002, it is easy to see the driving force behind that desire.</P>
<H3>Summary Observations</H3>
<P>Digex operates a highly standardized environment. Systems are either NT/Windows 2000-based, Compaq, or Sun Solaris (Unix)—with the rate of growth strongly favoring Windows-based systems. Communications subsystems are Cisco. And other standards are in place for storage, uninterrupted powers supplies, and other crucial systems components.</P>
<P>To add to systems standardization, the company has highly standardized its installation and management procedures.</P>
<P>To venture outside the use of standards requires strong justification—the venture must involve either a means to gain competitive advantage or streamline a process to make it more profitable.</P>
<P>This company has tremendous technical experience with Windows NT and is very familiar with the productÆs strengths and weaknesses. To overcome weaknesses in systems and network load balancing, Digex created a highly redundant communications and networking front-end that can both recover from failure and assist in server workload balancing. (Aberdeen notes that this architecture was designed and employed before Microsoft had introduced Windows 2000 with Network Load Balancing to better handle communications I/O.)</P>
<P>But overall, Digex is highly complimentary of the work Microsoft has done to improve Windows NT. And its strong testimonial indicates that Windows 2000 is capable of being deployed, managed, and operated in a reliable and secure manner in a very, very large Internet server farm environment.</P>
<H2>buy.com: The Quest to Become #1</H2>
<P>Amazon.com currently gets all the "Internet innovator" press, but buy.com hopes to change that scenario as it continues to build its customer base, recruit new product suppliers, and use technology to create a unique competitive edge.</P>
<P>buy.com is an Internet superstore and is the second largest retail site on the Web. The companyÆs foremost concerns are finding new customers, establishing a successful and mutually rewarding shopping experience for those customers, and maintaining an ongoing service relationship with its loyal customer base. buy.com is rich in talented marketing, merchandizing, and customer relationship management personnel. The company relies heavily on its suppliers to handle product logistics, distribution, and fulfillment.</P>
<H3>Information Processing at buy.com</H3>
<P>The information processing job at buy.com is immense. This company experiences heavy traffic on a daily basis, provides 2 million page views daily, and tracks over 850,000 SKUs (stock-keeping units) numbers that identify a product and its components or subassemblies. In addition to handling tremendous volumes of Internet traffic and a very large catalog, buy.com has also established links to all major Internet search engines and "bots" (automated comparison shopping sites).</P>
<P>From a systems perspective, buy.com boasts almost 100 Windows-based servers, several are currently running Windows 2000. Additionally, the company uses two Sun Solaris (Unix) servers—one for running Oracle Financials and the other as an Internet caching server using Inktomi, a caching product that runs on Unix but not NT. The decisions to use both Windows-based and Sun Solaris servers were made well before the availability of Windows 2000. The company also has over 200 desktops and mobile computers, and nearly all are currently running Windows 2000 in production mode.</P>
<P>From an IT architecture perspective, buy.com employs a distributed systems design that is logically oriented into front-end systems that handle Internet communications and shopping, and back-end (behind the firewall) systems that provide secure transaction handling and manage the companyÆs run-the-business applications.</P>
<P>On the front-end, buy.com operates Web servers, product servers, its shopping basket applications, various agent servers, domain name system (DNS) or directory servers, search engines, and domain controllers. Like the other dot.coms interviewed for this report, buy.com also uses a hardware approach that provides for load-balancing services to attached Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based servers to the Internet.</P>
<P>On the back-end, NT-based servers run the companyÆs e-mail system—buy.com uses MicrosoftÆs Exchange internally; supply chain applications; electronic data interchange (EDI) applications; customer relationship management applications; and decision support systems. It is noteworthy that buy.com architected its own external e-mail/EDI system for dealing with its supplier partners. This code is written in Visual Basic, and is used to streamline order processing and invoicing between buy.com and its business partners. This specialized mail/EDI system is strategic in nature and is seen as a means to gain and maintain a competitive advantage over other Internet stores.</P>
<H3>The NT 4.0 Scalability Issue </H3>
<P>For those who think Windows NT cannot scale—think again. buy.com operates numerous Windows-based servers, most of which are two-way, two CPU (central processing unit) systems that are loosely or tightly coupled. Most of these servers handle the companyÆs front-end interface to the customer, while the remaining servers handle back-end, run-the-business catalog, transaction, and ERP/supply chain/CRM applications.</P>
<P>buy.coms current architectural philosophy has been to scale its NT systems base horizontally, meaning across multiple two-way or four-way servers organized into high-availability and workload-balanced clusters, rather than vertically, meaning up multiple CPUs. buy.com sees several benefits to scaling horizontally. For instance, the company points to the low cost of acquisition for two-way systems versus four- or eight-way systems, and buy.comÆs IS managers also observed that multiple two-way systems provide for greater system component redundancy: each system has its own power supply, network interface card (NIC) or cards, and its own storage subsystem, as opposed to large vertical systems that may share power, network, or storage facilities.</P>
<P>buy.com expects to someday adopt more vertically scalable systems, but that someday will be governed by greatly reduced pricing in eight-way, sixteen-way, and thirty-two-way servers. IS buyers currently pay a steep premium for vertically scalable NT-based systems.</P>
<P>One final point regarding the NT scalability issue: In 1999, buy.com purchased Speedserve, which ran a mainframe-based environment, to broaden its market reach. buy.com IS managers were able to prove to the executive management that the workload run on the mainframe could be handled by a distributed, NT-based environment, so the mainframe was replaced. This event forms strong testimony regarding the scalability of Windows NT at buy.com.</P>
<H3>The Reliability Issue</h3>
<P>buy.com did have reliability issues in the past with Windows 4.0-based servers but attributes several of these issues to non-operating system problems. Specifically, buy.com, like other dot.coms, experienced data handling and performance issues that it tied directly to SQL Server 6.5. (The company says Microsoft should have given SQL Server 7.0 a different name because it is radically improved over SQL Server 6.5.) According to buy.com, Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based servers running SQL Server 7.0 are now highly reliable—and, as an example, the company points to the SQL Server that it installed 10 months ago, which has not encountered any unplanned downtime since its original deployment.</P>
<P>Also, buy.com reinforced a position held by every enterprise-level account as well as every dot.com account that Aberdeen interviewed, which is that Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based servers can operate reliably provided that applications are written to conform to MicrosoftÆs rules for building reliable applications and that the IS environment is run in a data-center-like manner. If these two criteria are met, buy.com believes that Windows NT- and Windows 2000-based servers can operate in the 99.9% or greater availability range—and, therefore, can be very reliable.</P>
<P>But also note that buy.comÆs attitude, like that of other dot.com enterprises interviewed by Aberdeen, is far more tolerant of a system failure than a traditional run-the-business enterprise would be. For instance, numerous servers are used in buy.comÆs front-end processing environment to provide page views of products and related information. If one of these (generally two-way) servers fail, other servers pick up the information display role virtually unnoticed by a buy.com shopper. buy.comÆs goal is to have 100 percent up-time, but its architecture tolerates failures.</P>
<P>By contrast, many enterprise-level business processing environments run applications that are more complex and intertwined with other applications, data-bases, and systems environments—and may require more complex failure services. In most enterprises, these back-end applications must be up 100 percent of the time—and buy.comÆs back-end environment is no exception. High availability is achieved using Microsoft Clustering, which is available with Windows 2000 Advanced Server and DataCenter Server.</P>
<H3>Desktop Migration</H3>
<P>buy.com was one of the few sites that Aberdeen visited that had actually made heavy use of Windows 2000 Professional, the desktop/workstation version of Windows 2000. Before the arrival of Windows 2000, buy.com had already standardized on Windows NT as its desktop and mobile standard. According to the IS managers, the transition from Windows NT to Windows 2000 was "almost effortless"—it was straightforward to create a new Windows 2000 systems image, and all custom and packaged applications made the transition easily to Windows 2000. At the time of this interview, the company was in the midst of gathering data related to the actual cost of the migration of its more than 200 desktops and mobile computers, but the IS department expected the total labor costs for the transition to be low. On the other hand, the company did need to purchase a great deal of extra memory to accommodate Windows 2000 Professional, which may have represented the lionÆs share of the upgrade expenses.</P>
<H3>Interview Findings and Results</H3>
<P>The results of the interviews conducted with buy.com were similar to those conducted at Digex.</P>
<P>Like Digex, buy.com spoke highly about the reliability, scalability, and improved systems management capabilities of Windows 2000. The company believes that both the Windows NT and the Windows 2000 operating environments can scale and can be run reliably, depending on application design and data center operational practices. buy.com also recognizes the potential for operational improvements and the resultant reduction in operational costs offered by new features in Windows 2000, such as Terminal Server for remote systems management and Active Directory for policy and procedure management as well as better peripheral management.</P>
<P>Both buy.com and Digex had a similar attitude toward system reliability: each companyÆs architecture was distributed in nature and adapted easily to a failed server merely by failing over workload to another server.</P>
<P>buy.com had turned elsewhere for workload balancing, using switches on the front-end instead of making the CPU handle communications overhead; it had not done much with Active Directory; it was actively engaged in finding ways to streamline server design and automate the server image/server build and de-ployment process; it had a larger mix of custom, Web-enabled applications that it supported—and a lesser mix of packaged applications that it used to run its respective businesses.</P>
<H3>Summary Observations</H3>
<P>The most interesting feature of buy.com Windows 2000 implementation is its deployment of Windows 2000 across the companyÆs desktop and mobile computers. This deployment was described as "almost effortless." The companyÆs packaged and custom applications came across operating environment versions cleanly, and buy.com stressed that this task was made easier by Microsoft improvements in operating environment and application installation procedures. The only real issue faced by buy.com was related to the need to upgrade all of its desktop systems to the 64 KB of memory necessary to achieve the system performance levels desired.</P>
<P>Another point-of-interest was buy.comÆs usage of SQL Server. The company is one of the worldÆs largest SQL Server sites—and had positive reviews of how SQL Server operates on Windows 2000. This company is anxiously anticipating the release of a 64-bit version of Windows 2000 and SQL Server to help with decision support related activities on its immense user database—and needs the extra power that 64-bit computing offers.</P>
<P>buy.com provided a solid proof-point that Windows NT Professional and Windows NT Server can be reliably deployed with relative ease in a well-managed environment wherein applications meet Microsoft application design standards.</P>
<H2>InfoSpace.com: A leading provider of Infrastructure Services</H2>
<P>A provider of information and commerce infrastructure services for wireless devices, merchants, and Web sites, InfoSpace.com offers a substantial number of Internet and wireless data users critical, behind-the-scenes, Web-based support. InfoSpace.com, in turn, relies on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server for its scalability, reliability, and performance.</P>
<P>InfoSpace.com provides infrastructure services such secure commerce, unified communication, information, and other merchant and consumer services for more than 24 wireless carriers and over 2,500 Web sites. Partner Web sites farm portions of their services to InfoSpace.com in an operation so seamless that users never recognize it. The company also provides Internet services for wireless devices such as cellular phones and pagers.</P>
<P>The InfoSpace.com platform must perform smoothly in this intensive, large, Web-based business environment. The company is pleased with its choice of Windows 2000 Advanced Server and is migrating all of its 210 servers.</P>
<H3>The Information Processing Environment at InfoSpace.com</H3>
<P>InfoSpace.com is located in Redmond, WA—a stoneÆs throw from MicrosoftÆs world headquarters—and has ready access to a talented group of Microsoft Professional Services consultants, as well as a rather large measure of Microsoft engineering expertise. Further, the company was founded by former Microsoft employees—technical experts who know and understand Microsoft technology and understand how to exploit it for competitive advantage. Hence, it is no small wonder that this companyÆs Information Technology (IT) infrastructure is based on Windows NT and now Windows 2000 servers; these people know Microsoft technologies and have plenty of access to local Windows authorities. No other systems platforms were evaluated when InfoSpace.com broke ground in March 1996.</P>
<P>In 1998, InfoSpace.com operated numerous T-based servers. By 1999, that number grew dramatically as the demand for Internet portal access increased and as InfoSpace.com added more and more merchants to its stable of product suppliers. At publication date, over half of all servers had already been converted to Windows 2000—and were being run in a reliable fashion.</P>
<P>Given InfoSpace.comÆs current growth trajectory, it is reasonable to expect that the number of servers will continue to grow at a rapid rate as InfoSpace.comÆs client access demand increases, and the company adds additional merchants to its existing numbers. Aberdeen also expects that, based on current growth rates, the number of Windows 2000 servers will easily exceed 500 by the end of 2001.</P>
<H3>Interview Findings and Results</H3>
<P>Findings from the InfoSpace.com interviews were similar to findings at other dot.coms. The company had the same attitude toward NT reliability and scal-ability as other dot.coms, and had the same issues with NT 4.0 remote management and IIS 4.0 as its dot.com compatriots.</P>
<H3>Reliability</H3>
<P>The InfoSpace.com interviews started in much the same way as almost all of the other dot.com interviews conducted for this study—with a question regarding InfoSpace.comÆs perspective on Windows NT reliability. And, like the other interviewees, InfoSpace.com IS managers insisted that Windows NT is a reliable operating environment, provided that applications are constructed properly and that the information systems environment is operated in accordance with data-center-like practices. To quote one IS manager, "Systems only perform as well as the people that manage them. Anyone who does not have the proper skill set can pollute an NT environment." This theme of proper applications design along with proper management practices was echoed in every interview conducted during this study.</P>
<P>But this dot.com interview took an interesting twist when IS managers admitted that IS managers sometimes do take risks with application design—and very often there is a trade-off between rushing an application to market and performing the stringent testing necessary to ensure that the applications conform to Microsoft guidelines for reliability. In other words, InfoSpace.com is bringing home the point that expediency in delivering applications may sometimes take precedence over complete and thorough testing—a practice that works fine in the dot.com world but would rarely be the case in an enterprise environment.</P>
<P>Still, the fact that InfoSpace.com experiences few reliability and availability problems indicates that the expediency versus testing trade-off often makes good business sense from a risk perspective.</P>
<H3>Availability</H3>
<P>When queried about overall systems availability, InfoSpace.com IS managers were as confident about their NT-based environment as other dot.com managers had been. Said one IS manager, "If a system fails, it is not a big concern. We use a third-party hardware-based load balancing package that enables systems to fail over automatically." With this statement, InfoSpace.com represents yet another dot.com that has indicated that systems failure is no big deal, and that workload can be easily failed over to other systems in a transparent fashion. In each case, IS managers indicated that systems failure was not a regular occurrence.</P>
<H3>Scalability </H3>
<P>Scalability was not identified as a major issue. InfoSpace.com currently takes a horizontal, distributed systems approach to systems scalability, preferring to use low-cost, two-way servers to add processing power. In the current InfoSpace.com IT environment, the company can see little justification or advantage for using vertical, eight-way processors to scale up its server environments. In fact, the company indicated that eight-ways are currently cost-prohibitive when compared to multiple-way systems. When the cost of eight-ways comes down to a competitive, low-end level, InfoSpace.com will be a likely adopter of that kind of technology to increase overall systems scalability while improving overall systems manageability.</P>
<H3>Directories</H3>
<P>Like other dot.coms, InfoSpace.com had not extensively tested the Windows 2000 Active Directory, but was well aware of its potential benefits.</P>
<P>When asked why Active Directory had not been highly tested, one InfoSpace.com IS manager offered this explanation: Windows 4.0 Name Directory Service did not lend itself to large-scale system management and, therefore, Network Domain Services (NDS) made it difficult to track and log user activity. But in dot.com companies, the name of the game is not necessarily tracking user activity, but rather tracking system activity. Hence, the need to rapidly deploy Active Directory may not be as acute in dot.com environments.</P>
<P>From AberdeenÆs perspective, this is a very plausible observation.</P>
<P>InfoSpace.com spoke highly of the reliability, scalability, and improved systems management capabilities of Windows 2000. The company had a positive attitude regarding system reliability: Its architecture is distributed in nature and adapted easily to a failed server merely by failing over workload to another server. It had turned elsewhere for workload balancing, using switches on the front-end instead of making the CPU handle communications overhead, and it had not utilized Active Directory.</P>
<P>But InfoSpace.com also indicated the following:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">It had tested Microsoft Windows 2000Æs security environment (from AberdeenÆs perspective, more than the other companies interviewed) and indicated that it was very pleased with the level of granularity that an administrator can set to build a properly managed security environment under Windows 2000.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The installation process had greatly improved, as exemplified by the Windows NT 4.0 build process wherein, if an administrator could not authenticate a domain in the midst of an install process, the process would have to be discontinued and the administrator would have to re-start the process from ground-zero. Claimed one IS manager, "Windows 2000Æs upgrade process just works. ItÆs not a Franken-OS, like Windows NT 4.0 could be at times."<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Remote server management had also been improved thanks to the inclusion of Terminal Services in the base Windows 2000 operating system—a fact that InfoSpace.com expects will greatly simplify some of its Windows 2000 system management tasks.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>InfoSpace.comÆs approach is distinctly different from many of its competitorsÆ approaches; at its heart, it is really a "techie" infrastructure company that provides a reliable service-based environment for its customers.</P>
<P>What stands out most about InfoSpace.com is its utter confidence in its own knowledge of Microsoft NT and its evolving knowledge of Windows 2000. The company wholly understands Microsoft product environments—the operating systems, the databases, and the application development environments—and InfoSpace.com believes that if it canÆt get what it needs from Microsoft, it can architect a solution that meets its (and its customersÆ) needs. The company believes that its Internet server implementation provides it, and its customers with a distinct competitive edge—and this implementation is proof positive that Windows NT/2000 is flexible enough to allow IS developers to craft custom code that makes great use of the Windows NT/2000 operating environment.</P>
<P>Another point that stands out about InfoSpace.com is its desire for better tools and utilities that enable a more rapid deployment of Windows 2000-based systems. The company readily recognizes that Microsoft has done much in Windows 2000 to streamline the deployment of Windows-based workstations and servers—but it still uses many of its own homegrown utilities and procedures to simplify the server deployment process.</P>
<P>If surprises are good, mixed, or bad—the feedback on production-mode Windows 2000 has been overwhelmingly good, but our interviewees also provided suggestions regarding areas in which Windows 2000 "needs improvement."</P>
<H3>Good Surprises</H3>
<P>Overall, Windows 2000 early adopter, dot.com, production users have indicated that they have been delighted with the improvements in scalability, performance, reliability, manageability, security, and installation as compared with Windows NT. Some of the high notes include ease-of-installation and IIS, as well as overall performance improvements.</P>
<H3>Ease-of-Installation</H3>
<P>The ability to rapidly build a server and rapidly deploy that server as part of a distributed Windows 2000 system environment ranks high on the priority lists of all of the dot.coms interviewed. According to interviewees, Windows 2000 offers substantial improvements over Windows NT from an installation point of view, including the following:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Windows 2000 Installer: A well-architected installer program that provides streamlined installation and maintenance services that help to reduce Data Link Library (DLL) conflicts and enable better management of desktop applications. This utility provides standard package format and installation services, resiliency so products can be repaired, and support for system lockdown. What Aberdeen really liked about this utility was its ability to identify "bad boy" programs, make IS administrators aware during the installation process that certain programs or drivers may cause installation headaches, and enable the administrator to make the appropriate installation decision rather than wait and see what surprise awaits. Aberdeen notes that some 32-bit applications will not easily make the transition to Windows 2000—and readers are advised to visit <a href="http://www.microsoft.com">MicrosoftÆs Web site</a> to obtain a list of applications that have been certified to work with Windows 2000.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Service Pack slipstreaming: It is now possible for Windows 2000 administrators to easily mesh Microsoft Service Packs with the base operating system—eliminating the need for administrators to re-install Service Packs after installing new devices and components.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>But we also noted that dot.com IS managers whom we interviewed wanted far more than these types of automated services. They strongly desire the ability to rapidly deploy a Windows 2000 image and rapidly deploy Windows 2000 servers. The issue at hand is the need for dot.com companies to quickly add more Windows computing power as needed—and these companies want more tools and more automated services to simplify the deployment of Windows 2000-based servers within an existing distributed systems environment.</P>
<H3>Internet Information Server</H3>
<P>Dot.coms are highly interested in the operational aspects of MicrosoftÆs IIS—it is a core product that is now incorporated into Windows 2000 that in the past had certain architectural and performance-related issues.</P>
<H3>Mixed Surprises</H3>
<P>The scalability issue took several forms. Discussions ensued around:</P>
<OL>
<LI>System/workstation scalability;</LI>
<LI>Load balancing;</LI>
<LI>64-bit computing; and</LI>
<LI>Directory Services.</LI>
</OL>
<P>Each of these points is examined more closely in the subsequent sections.</P>
<H3>System/Workstation Scalability</H3>
<P>Many dot.com IS managers linked the scalability discussion with price/performance. Aberdeen observes that several industry benchmarks indicate that Windows 2000 outperforms Windows NT in certain test environments. Windows 2000 SPECWeb 96 results show that Windows 2000 outperforms Windows NT by 80% running the same benchmark tests. Audited Transaction Processing Council tpc-H results show that Windows 2000 Advanced Server provides comparable performance to a Sun Solaris 12-way SPARC server for approximately 30 percent of the cost.</P>
<P>On the PC/workstation side, independent tests by Ziff-Davis Labs and IT Week established that Windows 2000 runs up to 39 percent faster than Windows 95, up to 30% faster than Windows 98, and up to 24 percent faster than Windows NT 4.0 Workstation running a comparable battery of tests.</P>
<H3>Load Balancing</H3>
<P>Some dot.com IS managers related scalability to load-balancing technology. IS managers generally adopted third-party products to perform load-balancing tasks.</P>
<P>By enabling systems to automatically find available processing power, IS managers are able to get more work done with fewer well optimized systems. Additionally, with sophisticated load-balancing software, IS managers are better able to more quickly add systems to a given clustered systems environment and accommodate ad hoc, as needed, for system growth.</P>
<P>Windows 2000 does a better job of load balancing than Windows NT—largely due to code that was introduced into Windows 2000 resulting from MicrosoftÆs purchase of Valence for its load-balancing software. Aberdeen expects to see strong advances in load balancing from Microsoft when the Windows 2000 DataCenter edition is introduced later this year. Aberdeen also expects strong support for both load balancing and partitioning in that DataCenter release.</P>
<H3>64-Bit Computing</H3>
<P>Another issue related to scalability is related to 64-bit addressing: IS managers and Microsoft competitors observe that NT is a 32-bit operating system, while other operating systems can handle 64-bit addressing—meaning that NT-based systems cannot handle as much data in memory or process as much data as other systems, such as the AS/400; Unix systems from Compaq, HP, IBM, and others; and mainframes.</P>
<H3>Directory Services</H3>
<P>Directory services fit into our "mixed results" category only because few IS managers interviewed had taken advantage of many of the new Active Directory services introduced by Windows 2000.</P>
<P>Windows 2000 early adopters expressed great hopes regarding the use of Active Directories as a means to improve Windows 2000 systems management. Several interviewees indicated that they had not tested Active Directory in depth, but they were initially finding payback in the use of directory services to better manage objects and peripherals. One IS manager indicated that his organization had simply migrated its single domain NT directory schema to a single domain Active Directory, and had not run into any obstacles. From AberdeenÆs perspec-tive, our interviews indicated that IS managers are not yet testing the whole potential of MicrosoftÆs Active Directory, and this new feature of Windows 2000 will require further research to ascertain how well IS managers are capitalizing on its new procedure, object management, and manageability functions.</P>
<H3>Wish List</H3>
<P>Although Windows 2000 users were overwhelmingly pleased with the improvements they saw in production mode use of the product, they did mention some areas in which the product potential could be improved; for instance, they would like to see more installation tools to further streamline the rapid deployment of Windows 2000-based servers, and some desired 64-bit computing support. But overall, interviewees were highly positive and provided very little in the way of improvement feedback.</P>
<P>AberdeenÆs own wish list, based upon our experience in enterprise-level computing environments, includes a need for more enterprise-level management tools. Dot.com IS managers all stated that Windows 2000 has improved substantially over Windows NT from a manageability perspective. But, from AberdeenÆs perspective, although Windows 2000 has greatly improved the number of tools and utilities that can be used for troubleshooting, simplified software in-stallation, and system/network management, the product still lacks a sophisticated change management logging function that would assist IS managers in rolling out or rolling back functional changes to their systems environments.</P>
<H3>More Enterprise-Class Management Tools</H3>
<P>Specifically, Aberdeen is looking for enterprise-class tools that improve the following functions:</P>
<P>From AberdeenÆs perspective, for Windows 2000 to become a truly enterprise-class operating environment, the operating system will also need to allow for better change tracking and management. And IS managers will need to take a more disciplined approach to change management (adding software, hardware, or peripherals to a production system environment).</P>
<H3>Availability of Professional Services Expertise</H3>
<P>AberdeenÆs final concern with respect to Windows 2000 has to do with the availability of professional service expertise—at least in the initial phases of Windows 2000 deployment. Aberdeen notes that:</P>
<OL>
<LI>The rapid growth in Windows-based platforms on a worldwide basis means that the number of trained Windows 2000 experts will have to increase substantially to keep up with demand; and</LI>
<LI>There will be a shortage of Windows 2000 expertise due to increased complexity related to Windows 2000 maturation. Trained, certified professional services personnel will be needed to assist in the deployment of more complex technologies as NT matures (especially when NT performance clusters arrive, and when MicrosoftÆs Distributed Network Architecture—DNA—takes off).</LI>
</OL>
<P>These limiting factors could mean that service prices for initial deployment of Windows 2000 and related products such as Active Directory will remain high (in the 8:1 range for services versus platform costs).</P>
<P>After weighing both the negative elements that limit Windows 2000 growth versus the positive aspects of a common operating environment and massive support from the Independent Software Vendor (ISV) community؏AberdeenÆs perspective is that IS managers will need to rely heavily on professional services providers as they seek to complete new business initiatives. And we observe that, initially, trained Windows 2000 experts will be hard to find and costly.</P>
<P>The aim of this paper has been to substantiate or negate AberdeenÆs claim that Windows 2000 can be used in large, Internet-intensive, enterprise-class information systems environments. To prove-the-case, Aberdeen conducted telephone and face-to-face, on-site interviews with users of Windows 2000 and conferred with systems and software suppliers that build products and offer services related to Windows 2000 server design, deployment, and management.</P>
<P>During the course of our Microsoft customer interviews, Aberdeen was met with overwhelmingly positive comments about Windows 2000. The product showed substantial improvement over Windows NT in scalability, performance, reliabil-ity, ease-of-installation, security (for Microsoft environments), and manageability. Our research clearly indicated that a large number of product and operational issues germane to Windows NT 4.0 environments have been overcome in Windows 2000. Every interviewee exuded enthusiasm over Windows 2000—and all interviewees were confident that the changes Microsoft has introduced in Windows 2000 will help them address long-standing functional and operational issues that have, over the years, complicated the design and administration of their enterprisesÆ NT operating environments.</P>
<H2>The Positive Effects</H2>
<P>On the positive side, Aberdeen research indicates that Windows 2000 will be a great success in the enterprise. Scalability has improved (though 64-bit scalability is still desirable); network performance, stability and reliability, and overall manageability have also improved. Interviewees using Windows 2000 in real-world production environments are now telling of improvements in performance; better Internet paging, transaction, and data handling; and better tools for creating systems images that are replicable, enabling IS to decrease the time needed to deploy a Windows 2000 solution to a minimum.</P>
<P>From a product perspective, probably the biggest advance for Windows 2000 is related to the huge strides Microsoft has made in conquering one of the biggest barriers to Windows NTÆs success in the Internet marketplace: reliability. The work done by Microsoft and its partners to isolate reasons for application and systems failure—and the level of internal quality assurance testing, as well as field beta testing—is exemplary and should result in greatly improved customer satisfaction.</P>
<P>The second major product advance that Microsoft has addressed is headroom—both from a scalability and performance perspective. The fact that in 1999 a Windows NT-based server could only do about one-third the number of transactions that a high-end Unix server could process had been a clear obstacle to the growth of NT in large enterprise Internet-serving environments. User feedback, corroborated by numerous Internet and raw transaction processing benchmarks (included in the performance section of this report) indicates that Windows 2000 Advanced Server can now compete very favorably from a performance perspective with midrange platforms such as Sun Solaris-based (Unix) UE 6500 systems, and IBM AIX-based (Unix) platforms such as the RS/6000 model S70.</P>
<P>But the newly reported Transaction Processing Council tpm-C benchmarks show that Windows 2000-based clustered systems can now dramatically outperform Unix-based clustered systems. Windows 2000 tpm-C benchmarks now weigh in at 227,079 at almost $19 per transaction minute versus a comparably configured 96 CPU Sun Solaris-based (Unix) server at $97 per transaction minute. After many long years of competing for tpm-C leadership, Windows NT/2000 has finally surpassed Unix—at a sharply lower price point.</P>
<P>And when the DataCenter release of Windows 2000 is brought to market, Aberdeen expects single box Windows 2000 servers to be capable of competing with the high-end Unix servers (now capable of close to 100,000 tpm-C). In 2000, Aberdeen expects to see Windows 2000-based single system servers capable of 125,000 to 150,000 transactions per minute.</P>
<P>A third major advance for NT users transitioning to Windows 2000 is in systems and storage manageability. To make a move into high-end Internet transaction processing and Web-serving environments, Microsoft has had to prove that it is capable of providing software that makes the management of multiple, distributed systems straightforward—as if a large community of distributed servers and storage devices was capable of being viewed and managed under a single systems image. Many IS managers expressed "reserved satisfaction" with the improvements that Microsoft has made to its overall Windows 2000 manageability. These IS managers were somewhat reserved because they understood Windows 2000 manageability from a technical perspective, but had not deployed and used Windows 2000 manageability features to a great extent.</P>
<P>Finally, IS managers indicated that they were satisfied with the security enhancements delivered by Microsoft with Windows 2000. Many IS managers commented that for pure Microsoft Windows environments, MicrosoftÆs Windows 2000 security extensions were more than adequate. But these IS managers and their administrators also observed that building a secure Windows 2000 environment was complex, especially because security improvements had to be made to legacy NT servers and Windows 9x and NT desktops/workstations to secure the entire information infrastructure. Still, Aberdeen suggests that securing a mainframe or Unix environment may be equally complex.</P>
<H2>Mixed Impressions</H2>
<P>To properly assess the impact of Microsoft Directory Services and Security improvements, Aberdeen needed more feedback from Windows 2000 users. To us, the book was still out on how these technologies will impact enterprises and dot.com users.</P>
<H2>Needs Improvement</H2>
<P>Perhaps the initial adopters were more focused on the critical areas of installability, reliability, and scalability—but Aberdeen believes that the early adopterÆs usage of important enterprise-level manageability functions had not yet been exercised to a full extent. To play in the enterprise as an enterprise-class system, IS managers will need more automated tools for change and configuration management. And these IS managers will need a better handle on the assets they have at their disposal—from desktop, server, and peripheral per-spectives.</P>
<P>Aberdeen also believes that may IS managers in dot.com and enterprise computing environments will have a somewhat difficult time finding the professional services expertise they need to efficiently and effectively deploy new directory, security, and manageability features offered in Windows 2000. As a result, Aberdeen expects initial costs for professional services expertise to be high—but these high prices should dwindle to more reasonable rates during the course of 2000 and 2001.</P>
<H2>Overall</H2>
<P>In general, Aberdeen found great acceptance of Windows 2000 as a production-ready operating system—and extensive proof that this operating environment can be successfully deployed and managed in large Internet server farms to run paging, transaction, and data feeding applications for large user populations. IS buyers need to understand that Windows 2000 has helped Microsoft dot.com customers overcome some significant limitations that existed in Windows 2000Æs predecessor, Windows NT. Significant improvements in scalability, availability, reliability, systems management, security, and development tools have lead several early adopters to conclude that Windows 2000 is now capable of being deployed in large server farm and Web page serving environments.</P>
<P>The combination of technology research conducted during the latter half of 1999 and the results of numerous interviews conducted both in person and on the telephone in 2000 with dot.com Internet sites leads Aberdeen to corroborate exactly what the early adopter community is saying: Windows 2000 is now an enterprise-class operating environment and is capable of being deployed in large, Internet-centric enterprise computing environments.</P>
<P>Finally, Aberdeen asks, "Where is the separation between perception and reality regarding the deployment of Windows NT systems in large, scalable, Internet-based environments?" The answer is in the way one defines reliability, scalability, manageability, and security—and for most dot.com managers, Windows 2000 has what it takes to meet their immediate needs for large-scale, Internet-based computing.</P>
<P>When all is said and done, after weighing feedback from the user, IS, and supplier communities, the overwhelmingly positive feedback that Aberdeen has received regarding Windows 2000 leads us to conclude that Windows 2000 will be a real winner in both enterprise and dot.com IS environments.</P>
<P>In our original report, Is Windows NT/Windows 2000 Enterprise-Ready, Aberdeen sought to learn whether the Windows NT and early Windows 2000 operat-ing environments had matured to a level that would enable these products to be used in mission-critical computing environments. We explored the scalability, reliability, management, security, and directory services characteristics of each environment and concluded that, under certain circumstances, both environments qualified for use in enterprise-class, mission-critical computing environments.</P>
<P>But our readers observed, and we believe correctly, that Windows NT and Windows 2000 are used differently in dot.com environments than in traditional enterprise computing environments, and those readers have sought to learn more about the deployment of Windows NT and Windows 2000 in these environments. Hence, Aberdeen initiated this study.</P>
<H2>Research Methodology</H2>
<P>To conduct our research, Aberdeen used the RAMP methodology—a methodology that we have used over the years to discover customer outlook, concerns, strategic and operational issues, and system/software/support requirements. In this case, Aberdeen sought to learn about issues that had served as obstacles to the deployment of NT-based systems in large Internet server farms. As we identified those issues, Aberdeen sought to learn what changes had taken place in Windows 2000 that could serve to help IS managers, systems administrators, and software developers overcome such obstacles. Furthermore, if additional information was available, we sought to learn how Windows 2000 compared to other operating environment alternatives (specifically, Unix and Linux). Finally, we sought additional commentary regarding where the product still needs improvement in the future.</P>
<H2>Questionnaire/Interview Form</H2>
<P>Aberdeen RAMPs start with an analyst setting objectives and expectations, then gathering background information on the company being examined and the individuals being interviewed.</P>
<H2>Gathering Background Information</H2>
<P>Typically in our RAMP process, AberdeenÆs interview approach starts by stating our goals and objectives for the research project—in this case to learn how dot.com enterprises are utilizing Windows NT and Windows 2000 to drive their businesses.</P>
<P>Next, Aberdeen turns its attention to learning about the enterprise being evaluated—its purpose, its strategic goals and objectives, and how it uses information technology to support its business plan. This information is useful in helping to determine how and why a given enterprise got to its current point in deployed information systems and provides insights into how these enterprises intend to grow their systems over time.</P>
<P>Aberdeen then establishes who the interviewee is and attempts to learn as much as possible about the intervieweeÆs business and technical background, experience, and particular business and/or technical biases.</P>
<P>Finally, Aberdeen seeks to learn as much as possible about the state of the enterpriseÆs information systems based on the following criteria:</P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The number and types of systems or servers being used;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The number of servers and their scalability or performance characteristics.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The operating environment: which ones were in use—Windows NT, Unix, Windows 2000, or other—and what percentage of the information infrastructure each operating environment represented. Versioning information was also sought.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Network characteristics, such as physical layout, redundancy, which other protocols were supported, and the average number of hits that were supported. Whether Internet, intranet, and extranets were established is also important.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Which applications were in use and whether they were packaged or custom—for example, SAP, PeopleSoft, Microsoft Exchange, or Lotus.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Which database(s) was in use and what version.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Which systems or network packages were in use.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>In this phase, Aberdeen sought to isolate the strengths and weaknesses of the pre-Windows 2000 Internet computing environment, seeking commentary on Windows NT 4.0 limitations to compare and contrast improvements found in Windows 2000. Specifically, Aberdeen sought information on how the enterprise was using Windows NT 4.0 to achieve scalability, reliability, and availability—and how the enterprise established manageability and security. Finally, Aberdeen sought to learn about the enterpriseÆs application development practices and directory services deployment.</P>
<P>After establishing a baseline for comparison, Aberdeen asked each enterprise to comment on its findings regarding Windows 2000 from the same perspectives: scalability, reliability, availability, manageability, security, development environments, and directory services.</P>
<H2>Typical Questions Asked in the Drill-Down </H2>
<P>In our interviews, Aberdeen sought to learn which issues enterprises had previously experienced with past versions of their operating systems, as well as the extent to which each enterprise had explored Windows 2000. Typical questions in this phase included the following:</P>
What were the previous scalability limitations?<br>
How has your company approached increasing system scalability—horizontally, vertically, or both? Larger SMP systems—for instance a move to eight-way architecture, multiple two-way or four-way systems running NLB in a distributed systems architecture, or both? This question attempts to ascertain account knowledge of operating systems scalability extensions and processor extensions that have improved Windows NT/2000 headroom.<br>
What scalability improvements have resulted from the installation of Windows 2000?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
Do you believe that MicrosoftÆs quality assurance testing of various drivers and software packages has resulted in a more stable computing environment?<br>
Do you still reboot systems on a regular basis to correct memory leakage or other problems?<br>
Have you observed more reliable restart scenarios? Have you taken advantage of the ability to kill a process rather than completely reboot to correct application failures?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
Which Windows 2000 security enhancements has your enterprise utilized: 128-bit encryption, Kerberos version 5 authentication, Fortessa (cryptographic services), or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) accelerators?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
Have you installed Active Directory? If so, do you take advantage of new features such as directory-enabled networking, directory enabled applications, better control of user and network resources, new security policy features, and IntelliMirror?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
Has Windows 2000 improved the manageability of multiple distributed systems (single systems image)?<br>
What new functionality do you take advantage of with respect to the new Microsoft Management Console and remote, browser-based management improvements?<br>
Have you optimized Active Directory for LDAP (Internet directory usage)? For instance, do you allow a single-system log-on using Active Directory LDAP features?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
Microsoft has made a myriad of improvements related to the integration of many of its middleware and object-oriented environments to simplify Web application development. Have you noticed any significant improvements in terms of ease-of-use Web-based development? (Note: Microsoft has integrated IIS 5.0; Active Server Pages; COM+; Microsoft Transaction Server (MTS); Microsoft Message Queue Server (MSMQ); role-based security; NLB; and Active X/Data Objects.)<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<H2>The Final Phase: Competitive Data Gathering</H2>
<P>If an enterprise had multiple operating systems or Internet server environments, Aberdeen sought to learn about the experiences of IS managers with those environments. Our questions included the following: </P>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The Internet marketplace has shown clear preferences for Apache-based Internet services running on Unix or Linux, Sun Microsystems Unix server platforms, and Windows NT-based servers. Can you comment on the competitive differences between these three architec-tures?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Can you comment on Apache?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Can you comment on Sun Microsystems (Solaris Unix on UltraSparc or Intel Architecture)?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Can you comment on Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 (or Windows 2000) as compared to other operating environments?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42"><img src="../../_themes/copy-of-tilt/atlbull1.gif" width="15" height="15" hspace="13"></td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Do you have any comments on other alternative Internet server architectures?<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--></td></tr>
<P>The results of three case studies resulting from the use of the above RAMP methodology and questionnaire are included in the "dot.com Case Studies" section of this report.</P>
<H2>Additional Aberdeen Windows NT and Windows 2000 Publications</H2>
<P>For additional reading, Aberdeen offers numerous company and product Profiles, Viewpoints, Impacts, and White Papers relevant to Microsoft Windows NT and Windows 2000 environments. Readers should note that many of these documents and research reports are available on Aberdeen GroupÆs <a href="http://www.aberdeen.com">Web site</a>.</P>
<P>For further reading, Aberdeen suggests the following reports:</P>
<P><B>January 1999</B><br>
Customer Perceptions of Intel Server Reliability and Performance Benchmarks<br>
SAP R/3 on Windows NT and Intel Servers: Pumping Iron in 1998 and Bulking Up in 1999<br>
Unisys Aquanta ES5000 Solutions: Value Added for NT Scaling and Server Consolidation<br>
Windows NT Server for Billing and Customer Care: Emerging Telecommunications<br></P>
<P><B>February 1999</B><br>
NCR: Adding Value to Multi-User NT Enterprise Solutions<br>
<P>At age 45, Joe Clabby has been in the computer industry for 23 years, more than half his life—so far ... His experience includes seven years in computer sales; ten years in product marketing and program management; and six years as a research analyst, director, and vice president at Aberdeen Group. His technical background includes extensive knowledge of networking, program-to-program communications, mainframe, AS/400, Unix, and NT environments.</P>
<P>At Aberdeen, Mr. Clabby has closely followed the advance of NT as an operating environment into the midrange and, now, the high-end of the computing market. In August 1995, Joe was one of the first industry analysts in the world to declare that NT had crossed the threshold from a desktop operating environment to that of a low-end file/print and application server. Joe subsequently published a critical review regarding NovellÆs inability to compete with Windows NT due to NovellÆs failure to compete in the applications server market. That was shortly before Novell went through major lay-offs and reductions in force. He also correctly predicted the product roadmap for Intel platform per-formance increases. In 1998, Joe published a critical review of the leading providers of NT-based professional services, including a review of IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, NCR, and other original equipment manufacturer professional services organizations.</P>
<P>In 1999, Joe focused heavily on helping IS managers understand the dynamics involved in migrating from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, and much of his practice has been geared toward speaking engagements and private consulting—much to his chagrin (Joe loves to write but is considered an excellent speaker).</P>
<P>At this time, Joe can be contacted at <a href="mailto:clabby@aberdeen.com">clabby@aberdeen.com</a>. He enjoys answering e-mail from readers of his reports.</P>
