Why Consumer Macs Are Enterprise-Worthy 449
cyberkahn tips us to an article in Computerworld that makes the case for Apple's consumer machines moving into corporations. (The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.) With the press that Vista has been getting, is Apple moving into a perfect storm? Quoting: "There is no comparison between Apple's 'consumer' machines and the consumer lines of its competitors. All of Apple's machines are ready to move into the enterprise, depending on the job at hand. The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market — if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers."
Enterprise-ready? Hardly. (Score:1, Informative)
Apple has a long way to go before Macs will be ready for widespread enterprise use.
dom
That's funny... (Score:5, Informative)
This reads like a Mac fanboy wrote it. I can't think of any compelling reasons to recommend Macs in an enterprise environment. Properly implemented (that is with proper profiles and security), Windows 'Just Works' in business, and if one wants something different then there is Linux. The latter gives the benefit of being more customizable than either Windows or OS X in fact, given that all the source is available.
Non-bloated link (Score:3, Informative)
The printer-friendly version [computerworld.com] is so much nicer to read on-screen.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But where's the MacBook Pro docking station? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
Enterprise kit needs enterprise support (Score:2, Informative)
We love using Apple laptops, they are UNIX and they just work, for sysadmin and programmer staff - but we have to take account of the fact that their laptop might break and keep a spare or make sure they have other ways to work. Our web design team of 4 all work on Macs. We have to carry a spare G5 for them because Apple take so long to repair them. We can't roll macs out to everyone without the same level of service that Dell give us at the moment, which Apple Just Doesn't Do.
Re:So the hardware is up to par... (Score:5, Informative)
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:from my experience (Score:4, Informative)
1. Install X11 (it's not installed by default).
2. Enable X11 forwarding (off by default in
http://www.osxfaq.com/DailyTips/09-2004/09-23.ws [osxfaq.com]
3. Profit!
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Informative)
Blending things with AIX doesn't make much sense, given that Apple is now on x86 and AIX is for PowerPC. Moreover, why would you want to? If you need a serious, heavy-duty server, run AIX or Linux, OS X will inter-operate perfectly via standard UNIX technologies (NFS, LDAP, etc). If you need an easy-to-admin small server, run OS X server, and all your Linux and Windows clients will be able to use it just fine.
2) Apple also would have to actively integrate other software. Actively, Apple will support Windows and Linux integration on Macintosh computers.
It does. OS X uses standard UNIX tools extensively. Underneath the GUI, it's all GCC, Samba, NFS, Apache, CUPS, etc, etc.
5) Standardized software interfaces. Why does Apple have to use their own disk format? Why does Apple have to do all kinds of things "their own way"?
Apple supports the major standardized UNIX software interfaces. OS X 10.5 will be officially SUSv3 compliant (though at this point, trying to be Linux-compatible is probably more useful). It supports standard protocols like LDAP, NFS, SSH, etc. It does use its own disk format, but then again almost every OS uses its own disk format. Disk formats are not standardized, invariably poorly documented (or in the case of NTFS, undocumented), and usually very closely-tied to the kernel implementation. That's why Linux uses EXT3, AIX uses JFS2, Windows uses NTFS, BSD uses UFS, Solaris uses ZFS, etc.
I was going to moderate this, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Now I will give you that the article (if you even took the time to read it) was very much one sided and dismissing Linux in one line not "fair and balanced". I don't believe the intention of the article was to provide a balanced commentary. It was my take that the article was trying to express how far Macs have come in the enterprise without Apple really trying that hard.
That said let me qualify myself a bit. I currently manage 18 servers, 13 of which are running OS X Server as well as ~900 mainly OS X clients (there are a few PC clients less than 10) in addition to running the network. This over four physically separated locations.
Now a large percentage of the tasks my users work 100% on the Mac. The typical office apps, creative apps etc. There are two fairly large and important tasks that are Windows only. One of our main record tracking systems and our purchase order system. These are hosted on Windows servers and are accessed with Citrix and Microsoft Remote Desktop Connection respectively. My users have not had any difficulty with this.
I use Apples Open Directory to manage users, groups, "group policies", 10.4 Server has an included software update server that will enable you to push out locally hosted Apple software updates. This combined with Apple Remote Desktop to remotely manage, run reports, push out software or run commands on any number of systems.
My users all have network home directories or portable home directories for the laptops. This enables me to have a more reasonable backup strategy as well as gives the ability to users to login to ANY computer and have the environment that they are familiar with appear. I know you can do this with any platform.
One of the advantages that Mac OS X has over Linux is the commercial development of software for the platform. Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office are just not available for Linux. While I am sure people are going to say what about Open Office and GIMP?! Yes they work and I like them a lot. I don't know if I would deploy them in a enterprise environment... yet. Well maybe Open Office (I'm actually testing this out for my environment). So I get professional software AND open source software in one system. Wait... with Crossover for the Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/) I can run Windows apps native as well. This isn't mentioning Parallels and VMware where I can run pretty much any other OS I need to all on the same system. So now I can replace my Linux box, my Windows box, my Solaris box and my OS X box with... ONE BOX! Talk about ROI.
Speaking of ROI. I replace my systems every 5 years. I have had them go for as long as 8 years. My mission critical systems hardly ever go down.
Onto support. Apple does have enterprise support (http://www.apple.com/support/products/macosxserve r_sw_supt.html) in addition to the typical AppleCare
So stop complaining that you can get support for mission critical systems already! You obviously didn't even look at their w
I take my mac to work (Score:2, Informative)
I've had very few reasons to call the IT helpdesk since I started doing this. I recently had to speak to them for a password-related problem and the fellow I spoke to commented that I havent opened a ticket up with them In quite some time. I felt sorely tempted to tell him that I've had very few problems ever since I started bringing my mac into work and using that instead of the three windows boxes under my desk.
I work at a large company and have a demanding, and somewhat technical job (since we are talking about macs in the enterirpse). From my experience, anyone denying macs are not enterprise-worthy is in denial.
Re:A little off base (Score:4, Informative)
1.) Add "large readwrite=no" to the [global] section of
2.) create a
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728
The most important thing seems to be the net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0 - on UNIX systems and Macs they will hold off on sending ACKs to save Network/CPU usage and it is a good thing. Windows however seems to wait on things until it gets ACKs with SMB and so it kills performance. After making these settings changes my SMB connection speed to my Vista box is unbelievably improved - things that were taking almost an hour before are done in like 5 minutes.
Not sure why Apple would ship with so anti-MS defaults considering how many of their users would be doing Samba stuff with Windows boxes though...