upvote

points

by markus_zhang6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby dietr1ch6 hours ago|
next
[-]
> You just have to stick with it for a few years.

So, you have to be a paying tester? Incredible that MS can keep enough businesses as hostage to be able to operate like that.

reply
upvoteby markus_zhang6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Most of the time it's just part of the bundle. If you are heavy into SQL Server, Office 365 and Power BI then there is a BIG chance you are going to use Azure for whatever the reason.

People who take Azure up without previous MS product experience...not sure about those.

reply
upvoteby thewebguyd2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's a few, mostly retailers who don't want to give money to Amazon as a direct competitor, for them Microsoft/Azure is more of a neutral party, and most businesses already use Microsoft in at least some fashion so already have staff internally familiar with MS products (as opposed to say, going to GCP instead).

For everyone else, it's like you said. "Eh, we are already knee deep in the Microsoft stack, why would we pick anything else?"

reply
upvoteby 5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby calvinmorrison6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
a LOT of stuff comes for free or marginal (10-100$ a month) so yes, you do pay but it's already 'baked into' the contracts people generally carry with microsoft, or something for IT to worry about when the yearly renewals show up
reply
upvoteby snapetom5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I worked at a hospital in that timeframe and they rolled out Teams. Up until they, shadow IT teams were running Slack just fine.

Man, what a horrendous pile of crap Teams was back then. The Slack teams were griping that they should just buy Slack, but Teams was the "enterprise solution." The problems were amplified during remote COVID work. Teams is fine now, but how many corporations went through years of frustration just because some IT decision maker said "Teams. Because it's enterprise."

reply
upvoteby markus_zhang5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah that's the thing. Management who made the deals are never put into that frustration, or very rarely, and I always wonder, at least for the big corporations, if there is any greasy palms...
reply
upvoteby DANmode3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Manager humans will sell out your workflow,

and indeed your entire workplace,

for as little as a steak dinner.

reply
upvoteby markus_zhang2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Man, at least make a few dinners…
reply
upvoteby bigbuppo5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Teams is still a horrendous pile of crap. It's just that you've gotten used to the stench. It has few redeeming qualities other than, "we don't have to pay for another subscription" and that's not even the case in the EU.
reply
upvoteby benterix4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah but today you can at least have a video call more or less normally. Back then it was a hiccup after a hiccup, it was impossible to work normally, and yet orgs pushed it down everybody's throats as it was bundled.
reply
upvoteby snapetom3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Definitely. Besides the performance issues, back then, Teams barely had any features. One example was that it wouldn't show you who was talking. First time we had a call was with 30 people and I remember a manager calling out a director responsible for this decision jokingly saying, "and you don't know who I am because Team doesn't show you who's talking."

The UI is an overengineered mess and I'd rather use literally anything else, but to say it's still unusable is disingenuous.

reply
upvoteby TYPE_FASTER5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> You just have to stick with it for a few years.

Also see: SharePoint

reply