December 2007 - Posts

On Conversion
Sat, Dec 29 2007 7:12

Amy Babinchak and I gave a presentation at the Trend Micro/SBSFAQ.com SMB Security Summit in Sydney (talk about alliteration) in November, and we discussed the security implications of providing remote support to clients. In the discussion, we mentioned a number of tools that can be used to provide remote support. Historically, I'd been using two different tools, primarily for my cross-platform clientele. For about two years, I've had a subscription to GoToMeeting that I've used for a significant majority of desktop support as well as for those clients who had problems with RDP and/or RWW. For about $40/month, I was able to have as many different support sessions (one at a time, as I purchased as single seat) as I wanted, and was able to resolve many problems. GoToMeeting is primarily geared at webcasts, but it's ability to allow diffferent attendees to "share" their desktops made it possible to not only view but remotely control another computer. As I mentioned, I used this quite a bit for desktop support, but also some on servers. The downside to GoToMeeting is that it requires Java on the remote device, and not all servers have Java installed, and not all users want Java installed on their servers. I'm not saying that Java is a bad thing, but for most servers who do their job sitting headless in a corner (where they should be), Java can be an extra load and tool that needs to be updated regularly for security purposes. And, the process to get the remote software loaded and configured for remote control could be a bit smoother. Still, it's a solid tool, which allowed me to record sessions as needed, and it just flat worked. But GoToMeeting does not support the Apple platform, and since a lot of my business involves those cross-platform situations, G2M didn't help.

Actually, until Adobe introduced Acrobat Connect, there really weren't any options for remotely controlling a Mac. Sure, you could walk the person through turning on the VNC services build into Mac OS X, then either configure the router to allow inbound VNC or make a VPN connection into the remote network to then access the VNC services, but it's just ugly, and when you're trying to troubleshoot a Mac problem, often times the effort to get VNC access working just wasn't worth it. But Acrobat Connect uses Flash technology as it's communications layer, and they developed the tools to be able to allow a Mac to connect into the system and be the controller or the controlled system. Given that I have a Mac PowerBook that I carry with me in the field, this was beneficial as I was able to enter into remote sessions controlling either a PC or a Mac from my PowerBook when I was out of the office. This was much more efficient for me than connecting to my terminal server to run GoToMeeting. And at about $50/month for the single user subscription, it made sense. Now I could control either Macs or PCs using Connect, and I could do it from either my Mac or my PC, whichever was more convenient.

OK, there is one other tool that did allow control of a Mac before Acrobat Connect came along. That was LiveMeeting. It had the same metholdology as G2M and Connect, in that it is a conferencing application that allows for remote control, but from a cost standpoint, it really wasn't a player in the SMB market. Microsoft did, and I think still does, use LiveMeeting to provide remote support when you call CSS for support, but hey, they own the technology, so it's easy for them.

During the presentation, Amy spoke about the tool she has been using for a couple of years, LogMeIn Rescue. Unlike G2M and Connect, LogMeIn Rescue was designed as a support tool, not a conferencing tool that could be used to take control of a remote system for support. There were a lot of great features in Rescue that aren't available in G2M or Connect, such as tools to collect hardward and software information about the remote system with the click of a button. One of the biggest "wow" factors for me was the ability to actually reboot the remote machine into safe mode and automatically reconnect with Rescue when it completed the Safe Mode boot. Holy cow, that's incredibly useful! But at around $100/month for a single technician license, I wasn't that taken as that covered the cost of both tools I was using to get me cross-platform support. Sure, the goodies that LMI provides over G2M and Connect were nice, but since I'd still have to keep Connect around for Mac support, dropping G2M in favor of LMI didn't make a lot of fiscal sense.

That is, until I saw that LogMeIn was working on providing Mac support, not only for their LogMeIn Free product, but also for Rescue. So in mid-December, I signed up for a free trial of LogMeIn Rescue to test out the Mac functionality.

And it worked. Flawlessly.

For two weeks, I used LMI for every remote call, Mac and Windows, and was just amazed by the power of the solution as well as the ease of use for the client end. The client-side experience was very straightforward, not requiring a whole lot of instruction on my part to get the user connected and me in control. LMI is not based on Java or Flash, but its own technology tools that install easily. There's also an easy option to get the tool to install as a service, so you can log out and log back in to the remote device with a different username/password without having to necessarily give that information to the remote user. But being able to have a single solution to give me Mac and Windows support as seamlessly as LMI does was the kicker.

So, as of January 1, 2008, I'm dropping G2M and Connect in favor of LogMeIn Rescue. The only drawback to Rescue is that I have to run the technician's console on a Windows system. There's not any public word about development of a teechnician's console that will run on a Mac. But given that I can connect to a terminal server and run the console from there, it's usable when I'm out on the road with only my PowerBook at my disposal. Not great, but it works. And I'm learning about so much more that Rescue does that Amy didn't have time to discuss during the presentation that I'm already considering getting a second technician license for my staff, rather than using the same license for all of us. And yes, I've already discussed this with the fine folks at LMI and that's perfectly within the scope of the license.

This is just one way I'm helping to ensure that the remote support we are providing to our customer base is as secure as possible. I'm in the process of implementing another system that I'll blog about when we get it done, as it gives me an entierly different level of control over who has acces to my client's systems, whcih helps protect them as well as us.

by eriq | with no comments
Filed under: , , ,
On Downgrading
Tue, Dec 18 2007 10:04

Well, my experiment with Leopard and Parallels has come to a close. As of this morning, I'm back running Tiger and Parallels build 4128. I was able to get Build 5582 running on Leopard and mostly had everything the way it should be, but performance was HORRIBLE! Now, I had made a number of changes all at the same time, so it could have been any one of them. I was running Leopard on an external firewire drive, so that could have caused performance issues (however, my XP hard disk image has been running on another external firewire drive for months, and that posed no problems). I also updated to OFfice 2007 SP1 because of the lingering performance issues I've seen with Office 2007 in general, and overall that seems to have done nothing. Plus, I did upgrade Parallels from 4128 to 5582, and who know.

So I retracted in several steps. First, I went back to my default Tiger system, keeping Office 2007 SP1 installed and Parallels build 5582. Same performance issues. So it's not Leopard itself or running the main OS from an external firewire disk that caused the problems. Then I went back and installed Parallels build 4128, and bingo, all my performance issues went away., even leaving Office 2007 SP1 on (I won't say that Office 2007 performance has improved over what I was seeing, it just went back to what it had been before the Leopard/Parallels test.

So, to keep my sanity and performance intact, I'm sticking with this for the time being. Next step will be to give that Fusion a real run for it's money and see how insane that makes me before I go back to this configuration. I must say, though, that I am getting more and more disappointed with the steps, or lack thereof, that Parallels is making with their recent builds. And I've been unable to get anyone at Parallels to follow up on the requests I've made for assistance, even after following their guidelines for requesting support. We'll see what Fusion has to say about all of this.

by eriq | with no comments
On Office (2008)
Tue, Dec 18 2007 9:38

Yep, it's official, folks. Office 2008 for Mac was released to manufacturing (RTM) on December 12, 2007, which means it will be in the general population on January 15 (or January 16 in some parts of the world). What's the hubbub about Office 2008? The biggest one is that it's a Universal Binary, meaning that it has code to operate on PowerPC Macs as well as Intel Macs natively. One of the complaints about Office 2004 was that it actually ran slower on the Intel-based Macs than on the PPC-based Macs, but I never encountered that myself.

Microsoft's web site about Office 2008 (http://www.macoffice2008.com/) has more info about the product in general, but it will likely be launch day (coinciding with Macworld, of course) before a lot of details are made known.

Having been in on the beta, I've got some familiarity with the product, but I'll be interested to see what we get on January 15. I'll have more to post as information becomes available.

by eriq | with no comments
Filed under:
On Leopard, Parallels, and Fusion
Fri, Dec 7 2007 9:51

This is a long post. You have been warned.

Today is my day to try and get caught up on Leopard. I haven't been able to fully move over to Leopard on my main work machine for several reasons, which will become clearer shortly. I have Leopard up and running on my PowerBook, and I'm really, really liking the interface, so I'm really wanting to get it going on my main work machine. Which means I have to tackle either Parallels or Fusion to get my Windows stuff working properly. Let me explain.

I've been running Parallels version 3.0 build 4128 for quite a while, mostly because I had display problems in the latest public build 5510. I'd gone back and forth with the Parallels support team, but they had not been able to replicate my display issues (Coherence mode just flat broke in 5510, making Parallels practically useless for me in a production sense), so I stuck with running 4128 until the next update was released.

When Leopard released, I cloned my disk to an external drive, ran the upgrade on that, and promptly broke Parallels. I again went round and round with the Parallels support folks, and they released a couple of beta builds that I tried, but still had problems with Coherence, making Parallels again all but useless, and since I could not get build 4128 to run AT ALL on Leopard, I went back to Tiger, where I've been since.

All that changed today, or at least that was the plan. I had received a note from VMWare that Fusion had finally gone production (and I could get $20 off by ordering now), so I decided to give Fusion a try under Leopard and see how that worked. I've previously documented my experiences with Parallels versus Fusion when it comes to their desktop integration (Coherence for Parallels, Unity for Fusion), and how I believed that Parallels was the more useful (for me) and mature product. Well, today I purchased, downloaded, and installed Fusion. While downloading Fusion, I checked back on the Parallels forum and lo and behold saw the note that they've released build 5582 to address Leopard issues, so I downloaded the latest Parallels build and got ready to start the Leopard update.

I booted from my external drive loaded with Leopard (after making sure I had installed the 10.5.1 update from Apple which addresses some of the security issues noted in the initial release) and installed Fusion. Fusion launched right away, and I opted to use the "Easy Install" method and install Vista Ultimate (I"ve been running XP under Parallels, and I really need to see if Vista is "all that and a bag of chips" or not for me) and within about 30 minutes, I had a basic Vista install running under Fusion under Leopard. I joined the Vista machine to my SBS server using the Connect Computer wizard, and then installed Office 2007. I kicked the VM into Unity mode, and other than the Windows taskbar showing underneath the Dock, it seemed to work OK. %^@&# annoying to have to either move the Dock or move the taskbar to get access to both, tho. Maybe there's a setting for that, but I didn't take the time to look.

Seeing that Fusion/Vista was behaving as expected, I started to take a look at Parallels. I uninstalled the previous build of Parallels and installed the latest update, per recommendations on the site. I was able to launch my existing Windows XP VM without problem, but I did get a report about the trial version key expiring. It took me a bit of work to track down my licensed keys, but I was able to get Parallels back running with my original keys.

The performance with Coherence is definitely improved in this build, but it's still not 100% where it had been (or where it should be). I have had to enable the "Group All Windows" setting for Coherence (which can only be modified when the VM is stopped, by the way) and even with that, I'm still not seeing exactly what I'm expecting to see with Parallels.

Bottom line, I'm back in production again with Parallels on top of Leopard. Next step will be to move the Leopard install from the external drive back to the internal drive and hopefully regain a bit of system performace. Leopard is definitely running faster on my PowerBook than Tiger was, and I'm hopeful that I'll see that same performance improvement once I get the system set up the way I want.

by eriq | with no comments
Filed under: , , ,