Mac OS X Gaining Ground In Corporate Environs

nonsuchworks writes "MacWorld quotes a Jupiter Research report on the increasing penetration of Mac OS X in the business world. From the article: 'The report found that in businesses with 250 employees or more, 17 percent of the employees were running Mac OS X on their desktop computer at work. In Businesses that had 10,000 or more employees, 21 percent of employees used Mac OS X on their desktop work computer.' Analyst Joe Wilcox adds, 'Companies that were considering Linux are now buying Mac OS X instead.'"

Great!

[davecrusoe (861547)]

Wow, first comment! If MacOSX overtakes Linux, well, at least a platform that adopts some open standards will overtake Windows eventually. It's better than Windows/MS dominating the market place, and might force innovation. In the end, innovation benefits the end user....

Re:Great!

[Egorn (82375)]

I gotta say, since I bought my Mac with OS X, I'm much more comfortable in Linux/Shell enviroments. I'd be more likely to run Linux now than ever.

Re:Great!

[ThinkingInBinary (899485)]

It helps you feel more comfortable because you start out with something that is completely working, and you aren't always doing system administration using it. First, it's good because you aren't depending on your shell skills to run the system. It's a comfortable way to experiment because, if something isn't working or you can't figure it out, you can always go back to the GUI. Second, it's good because system administration doesn't have to be done in the shell. I run Gentoo, and I've b0rked my system a couple times by doing something dumb like downgrading glibc. On Mac OS X, that's not really a problem because administration tasks like software updates are done in the GUI. In other words, using a shell is not essential to administrating the system. What Mac OS X provides you with is a fully-functional GUI layered on top of a Unix core that you can directly access at your own leisure. It lets you tinker without asking anything in return.

Re:Great!

[soft_guy (534437)]

Maybe because you can get use out of a Macintosh without any Unix knowledge and then learn Unixy things at your own pace.

Re:Great!

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

"Most OS X users probably don't even know they're running a flavor of Linux"

I think that would be news to everyone, including the OS X developers.

Re:+1 Informative, -1 Redundant

[plazman30 (531348)]

Actually BSD is NOT Unix. The original BSD source that was released by Berkely had everything removed from it that made it UNIX, hence the stripping and lawsuits. All BSDs prior to the release of BSD under the BSD license (such as SunOS), are UNIX. All BSD after the release (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) are all Unix-like or *nix operating systems.

These days, the only way something can be called UNIX, is if it undergoes validation testing with and certification with the Open Group, which costs a pretty penny, from what I understand.

Re:Great!

[RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557)]

You are exactly right.... so for all you out there who hate Apple you should think about this: If Mac's gain more market, Microsoft has to work harder FOR YOU to make a better operating system than it had before. Competition is a wonderful thing.

But ..

[karvind (833059)]

But you told me One Third of All Studies Are Nonsense [slashdot.org]

Why does that sound a little off?

[Oculus Habent (562837)]

Is it perhaps that in those businesses, 17% and 21% had people using Macs?

I'm a Mac user, and at my company we have about 10% Mac users.

I'm not saying it's impossible that TWENTY ONE PERCENT of the businesses out there exclusively use Macs... I think it's unlikely, and that the article is misrepresenting the data...

But then, I haven't read the Jupiter report.

I think they meant....

[Skip Head (262362)]

"in businesses with 250 employees or more, 17 percent of the companies had one or more employees who were running Mac OS X on their desktop computer at work. In Businesses that had 10,000 or more employees, 21 percent of the companies had one or more employees who used Mac OS X on their desktop work computer."

That sounds more likely.

A new world for Apple

[chia_monkey (593501)]

I've been noticing the trend for enterprise acceptance for Macs for a while now. It started with some of the industry mags (not just MacWorld and Mac Addict) writing about Macs. Perhaps it was the introduction of XServe with its UNIX power, Mac ease of use, and cheaper licensing. Or maybe it was an offshoot of the move to Linux. Whatever the case, I've seen more and more actual stories in the different magazines that weren't simply bashing the Mac as in the days of old. Rather, the writers were talking about each new Mac OS release, the performance, etc.

I find it especially funny how it contrasts the "market share" numbers published. This is certainly higher than the 3-4% you commonly see. One could say "well these numbers are business numbers so they must have higher acceptance in the enterprise than for home users", which once again goes against everything we've been taught over the years. "If you want a home machine, a Mac is ok. But for business, you need a PC".

This isn't a surprise.

[Captain Scurvy (818996)]

'Companies that were considering Linux are now buying Mac OS X instead.'

Of course they are. Why? Because there are a lot of legacy applications that write closed format documents with versions for Mac and Windows, but not Linux. This means that if a company wants to get the benefits that Mac and Linux offer over Windows, it will either have to buy Mac, or find some way to port its library of legacy documents over to an open format.

There are certaintly ways to do this in many cases, but going the Mac route would probably be easier, and maybe even cheaper or at least as expensive if you take man hours into consideration. Plus you have a strong corporate label backing your Mac setup, which you don't necessarily have with Linux, and this is very important to people.

Makes Sense

[WatertonMan (550706)]

I just converted my primary machine from Windows to Mac. I'd been using Macs again since 10.2, but with 10.4 it was finally good enough. No more virus worries, Word works if anything better on the Mac, you have all the benefits of Linux with none of the costs.

I'd tried Linux for the desktop so many times but it always was a very frustrating experience. OSX has some related problems. The fact is that SAMBA browsing of Windows networks isn't anywhere near as easy as using a Windows box. If I was on a Windows network where all the IP addresses were dynamic, I might think twice about a Mac or Linux. But once you get past the networking problems, the Mac simply is a better experience.

I wish Linux well. But configuration is simply too hard. It still feels like things are 90% done with that last 10% being too frustrating! I think many people won't mind. But for many people the effort just isn't worth it.

In other news

[glsunder (241984)]

After publishing a questionable study about macs, Jupiter Research's exposure went up dramatically.

We would in a heartbeat...

[raddan (519638)]

...if only our intranet apps would run on OSX. Isn't that ironic? Our web based applications won't run in another web browser. Hell, they won't run on Windows XP SP2! Where's the value? Whenever I use this line of reasoning with anyone around here, all I get is angry looks. This sh*t would have been more portable if it had been written in C!

But I would love to switch our regular desktop users over to OSX, especially remote users. We could get rid of that totally cruddy and barely functional POS that is is Checkpoint, and switch to the simpler and easier-to-understand SSL tunnels. Once you see the beauty that is timed startups & shutdowns + radmind, you'd never want to go back to Windows...

As for linux... Yeah, linux is fun and all, but it ain't ready for regular people. I'd much sooner roll out a BSD than linux -- and this is why I ditched linux myself -- I am sick and tired of dealing with dependency hell. Even my 'easy' Gentoo box sucked days of my life from me...

switch 1/4 of the office

[pherein (901977)]

sun solaris servers, and 1/4 of the office was switched to mac ox, 3/4 use windows xp.
Mac os x has made a huge difference in our corporation.
Techs actually learn unix.
downtime is reduced 80%
no compatibility problems
opensource resources are outstanding
job performance increased 40%
no real security worries
wireless is almost flawless
bluetooth KB, mouse, phone work as well as windows
greatly reduced cost
the list just goes on, and we have plans to switch the entire 200 person corp. in 1 year
I got to say any director of IT who is not looking into this is just negligent. Network engineering is not a preference. You have to use what works at the time.
We estimate windows longhorn will be at this lvl in 2009.
Most users are diehard windows user, but using this OS have changed everyones opinion. Going to the apple store and people actually care about helping them, at no charge, and simple stuff like finding a file written 3 years ago in 20 secs.
I personally think that the os ranting is very childish. You ask urself what companies space suit you would wear on the moon. I guaranty most would be using the apple or sun space suit right now. Those wearing the MS space suit would die at the first freeze of the OS running the space suit. I can't bet my life or my business on what I like, I use what gives it the best chance for survival. Thats my job.

Linux for server/special projects - OS X for desk

[Listen Up (107011)]

I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator. I have developed or administered almost every kind of UNIX out there (including NeXtStep and OpenStep) and every edition of Windows. While the Macintosh was not the greatest in the 1990's, Mac OS X changed everything. I have used Linux as both a desktop and a server since Redhat's Mother's Day release in the early 1990's.

Linux is perfect for background servers and special cost sensitive, in-house specially developed projects where licensing fees are important. Mac OS X is the perfect UNIX for the desktop and is beginning to make in-roads into enterprise rack servers.

The Linux community brings it on themselves. Linux will always be a niche in the desktop computing world. And while it is sometimes fun and interesting to try Linux on the desktop, Mac OS X is what Linux will always wish it could be.

Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.

If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks. All of the Linux zeolots I have listened to over the years all live in their own little world. And if they never realize it and never change their views, and if they don't get their act together and all work towards a common unified platform for desktop computing, Linux on the desktop will always suck. And they will continue to live in their own little world. End of the story.

Re:Linux for server/special projects - OS X for de

[Listen Up (107011)]

And for most people, Linux is only a hobby OS and nothing more. Something to play with when you have spare time to tinker around with it.

Re:Less is not more?

[Colonel Panic (15235)]

The only thing that surprises me about this statement is that companies are willing to spend 2x as much on the hardware and the additional money on the OS.

The perception is that the extra money up-front is worth it in the long term especially when compared to the Virus maintenance required for Windows boxen.

Also, the perception in businesses is that it's worthwhile to pay extra as compared to running Linux on cheap PCs because they don't believe that Linux will be cost effective to maintain when compared to OS X (this may or may not be true, like I said it's a perception). While Linux has made huge strides toward the desktop in recent years, it's still got a ways to go to be as usable as OS X.

Re:Less is not more?

[tolkienfan (892463)]

Please!

The collective term for Unix systems is boxen.

The collective term for Windows is "crap"

Re:Less is not more?

[technomancerX (86975)]

Yeah, in corporate environments it's probably not as big of a deal but when you are talking 25+ of 10k+ machines that's a lot of cash you could have saved by going w/cheaper hardware and a free OS.

10k+? A loaded dual G5 with dual 30" displays doesn't even come out to 10k. Apples are a bit more expensive than Wintel machines, but they're not THAT expensive.

2X where do you get that number?

[MushMouth (5650)]

You have to look at what companies are buying for machines. Something like a Dell Laptop (extremely popular) is comperable in price to an Apple Laptop

Dell Precision M70 1.6GHz/80Gig/256Mb/15.4" lcd $2,400 + (Tax everywhere)

Apple G4 1.5GHz/80Gig/512Mb/15.2" lcd $2,000 + (tax in california only)

Re:Less is not more?

[the_rev_matt (239420)]

Clearly you don't do purchasing for large enterprises. I'm in an organization known for being cheap and the 'low end' machines they buy are in the $900-$1200 range (though with bulk discounts I'm sure it's less than that). A high end machine will be $1800-$2500. Gee, that's what a G5 tower costs.

Fortune 1000 companies don't build their own boxes from parts they find on pricewatch, and they don't buy eMachines boxes. They buy mid range and high end Dell/HP/Gateway boxes and pay the same price they'd pay for an Apple box.

Re:Less is not more?

[BoomerSooner (308737)]

Exactly. 90%+ of the cost of running my business is employees. Hardware and software, while not cheap are significantly less expensive over time.

For example:
12K Server estimated lifespan = 3 years = 4K/year
36K Support Person 1 year at 3 years runs you 108K. Not to mention the extra 6K/year in Payroll Taxes & FICA Matching or the 6K/year in insurance coverage by the company bringing the 3 year total to 144K.

Keeping hardware and software up to date to make certain your *expensive* employees can do their job is the best investment a company can make.

Important research!

[jfengel (409917)]

You should definitely publish your results in J. Anecdotal Evidence.