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."
Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
A little off base (Score:4, Insightful)
They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise? I'm pretty sure the problem isn't prejudice against hardware, but integration issues that arise when moving from an all-MS shop to a mixed environment with OS X. The ROI needs to outweigh the obstacles, and it currently doesn't.
Disparity of Distros (Score:5, Insightful)
This will never work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A little off base (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had a business, I'd prefer to have options and I'd stick with Microsoft (while as a private user, I'm using a Mac and Linux).
This surfaces every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that Apple definitely does NOT want to enter a cut throat world of competition where it becomes just an also ran competing on price with a thousand corporate buyers, when it can design kick-ass product in the consumer market place.
This was written by a misguided (and severely deluded,) fan-boy.
The PC wars are long over. Get over it. Microsoft won. (So they're now tied to the office and that kind of ugly industrial design. [Think BROWN Zune. Yuck!])
Apple is a whole lot better positioned to compete in the vastly more profitable consumer arena.
Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little off base (Score:4, Insightful)
It is at virtually every company I've worked at. IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons (AFP over IP is too chatty...in 2003?), then when called on their crap, they just stand there, cross their arms, and say "not gonna happen".
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been written by the same scum that brought you the incredibly retarded and contentless article featured on Slashdot on Virtualization sucks [slashdot.org]
Care to specify what the basic technologies are? Oh here they do. Yes, the modern enterprise needs WiFi on fricking corporate desktops, FireWire, BlueTooth and remote control. And what if you want just 256MB RAM for the secretary who doesn't use anything but Outlook? Nope, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM! And, you get to pay for it! Uhh, it's either a full computer or not. A full computer without a keyboard and mouse is NOT a full computer. Wow, another basic feature without which the enterprise cannot function. The webcam! Yes there is no comparison, on one hand you have multiple vendors some of who will pre-install Linux, and almost infinite hardware configurability and on other hand you have limited configurations shoved down your throat whether you need them or not. Macs may be enterprise-worthy, but this article sure doesn't make a case for it. I recommend that Computer World articles be blacklisted.even if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)
The market is overcrowded, the competition is fierce, and it has rock-solid and lightning-fast support, stability, compatibility, replacement commodity parts/hardware.
Apple has nice looking hardware, OS built to target end consumers, and Steve Jobs shouting how they're best in the world. It's not enough, people.
Re:from my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm running my entire lab off OS-X, with a compute cluster and file system integrated into distributed desktops (OSX and Linux. We had a windows but I sensibly turned it off when we bought the first IntelMac), and not so much as a hiccup. The main problems you're describing are the classic, "it looks unixy, so I'm going to treat it as if it were a Linux box." No, it's a Mac, descended from NeXTs. Get the Apple docs out (dreadful though they may be), read a little of "The Mac Way", and quit fighting it. I found most of my problems at first arose from trying to treat Macs as if they were just nice-looking RedHat boxes, rather than something different.
Pardon for sounding rude, but it sounds like you've learned one system, and aren't willing to attempt to learn another. Current Macs are one of the easiest machine to integrate into a mixed environment that I've encountered, and this is after over a decade and a half of running various Unices, Linuces, Windows, and VMS systems in mixed environments.
Re:That's funny... (Score:3, Insightful)
Been a Linux admin for 10 years, running slackware as my sole OS for most of that time. The one thing people don't understand about Linux on the desktop is the nature of Linux and GNU development.
Windows and Macs offer a relatively stable development environment with a limited number of options. By stable I don't mean "doesn't crash", I mean "not changing much over time". An app that worked on the first version of XP will likely work on the last.
Linux isn't like that. Linux and the core developers have said many times they're not really interested in going out of their way to support backwards compatibility of legacy apps because doing so would hinder the nature of kernel development.
Add to that the gazillion combinations of kernel features, libs, etc. and you begin to see why it's so difficult for a company like Dell to sell pre-installed Linux to consumers who expect everything (including third party apps) to just work.
In Linux an app that was developed for one configuration won't necessarily compile under a different configuration. It often depends, not only what kernel version you have and how that kernel was compiled, but what libraries you have, not only what libraries but what versions, are you running gtk-1.2 or gtk-2.0?
The great thing about Linux is there are so many choices, you can make the system to almost anything. I work on a 2000+ Linux cluster and what we do with Linux is limited only by our imaginations.
But as far as the desktop goes, for folks who expect everything to be like it is in a Windows and Mac world, there remain a few challenges.
More than a little off-base (Score:4, Insightful)
In a corporate network environment, the flexibility of Linux desktops is unparalleled. You can optimize your storage needs (and not pay for 300 copies of an OS sitting on 300 hard drives, for example), and you can move applications around the network seemlessly without the users even noticing (useful when one app server gets overloaded). Sure there is a learning curve for the IT department, but on the desktop side, just make sure that for the less techie people, that everything is easily accessible. In fact, I have never found the learning curve to be an obstacle ("we depend on Quickbooks and their support" is a bigger one). In short, an intelligent Athena-style deployment of Linux systems (along with a move to diskless workstations wherever possible) could save a company a bundle on IT and improve productivity. The big issue is that the migration takes time.
Mac's have actually less flexibility than Windows despite the *nix base. You can only buy the systems from Apple, and the really nice aspects of an Athena-style deployment are not possible. Add to that the more limited choices of hardware, and you have some real concerns.
I am not saying tht Macs have no place in the corporate network. THere are places where they are probably very helpful including media production and the like. However, they would not be my first or even second choice for a corporate general-purpose desktop.
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess teletype machines and paper tape were the future too.
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a different machine, not a different dimension. Your users will be as good as you hire. The folks who couldn't set the wall paper before aren't going to miraculously learn. For most customization option or usage options, XP and OSX are similiar in difficulty. The gulf between OSX and XP is mostly in security and default settings not usability and user friendlyness.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway I guess the points I'm trying to make are 1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)
So upfront, you admit you're speaking about things quasi-authoritatively but with backdated knowledge supporting your statements. Congratulations on digging your own hole.
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
A very good point. Related - Apple is very dependent on Steve Jobs as a figurehead and visionary. If something should happen to him, I suspect Apple would take a massive plunge.
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
"Discrimination" does not equal "prejudice".
IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons
As part of a corporate IT department, I would fight against bringing Macs in tooth-and-nail, for one simple reason - I'd then have to support them. No "bullshit technical reasons" needed.
You might call that unreasonable, at first glance, but I can assure you I can justify that stance (thus the difference between "discrimination" and "prejudice").
First of all, I simply don't know Macs as well as Linux or Windows. You may call that silly, and indeed, I'd gladly lead the charge to remedy that shortcoming in my skill set. But doing so takes both time and money. Which would you suggest - That I volunteer my own time and money for the company's good; or that the company waste time and money training me to do a job at which I already excel on several other perfectly viable platforms?
Second, for at least some time, that would leave my users more skilled than me. If you don't see the problem with that (by which I don't mean anything to do with my own job security), we can end this conversation here. I consider that not just unacceptible, but outright dangerous to the company.
Third, software compatibility (not even getting into "availability")... If I have 50 users, with 10 needing Photoshop, I can recycle those licenses as needed, with no concern whatsoever about who gets a copy. If suddenly some might need the Mac version, I find myself in the position, over time, of needing twice as many copies - I might have 10 PC users who need it, or I might have 10 Mac users who need it. Interchangeability vanishes for all software.
Fourth, user management. Microsoft has its flaws, but Active Directory truly rocks for making user management almost trivial. Does Apple support AD? For that matter, can I (transparently) connect to an Exchange server using domain-level authentication from an OS X client? How about Live Communication server? Sharepoint? MS SQL? centralized backups kicked off by a 2k3 NAS? And don't tell me that users can manually authenticate against all of those, because that most certainly does not address the question.
Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users
Absolute rubbish. If I had more "empowered" users, my job would get far, far easier. I don't want Macs because it would make my job significantly harder. Sorry if that sounds too honest for you, but there you have it. I get paid to do a particular job, and part of that job includes designing the network to remain manageable with a given level of resources.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:2, Insightful)
Boy, *I* am happy that I don't work in a company with such narrow minded zealot fanbois who can't see beyond their own nose.
Re:Previous dicussion on AppleCare and businesses (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you work and what are you doing? I suspect you work at either a design studio or higher education (the only places I've heard of large Apple installs are education and graphics shops).
In the case of the former, you're dealing with a base of technically-savvy users who are attached to MacOS and who also turn up their nose at standard business tasks. I suspect it's all the designers that have the Macs. The PCs are old, battered, and being run in the "back office" for routine business tasks like HR and accounting. These users are NOT technically-savvy and they're almost certainly using outdated hardware to run a few key apps that won't run on the IT-favored Macs. As they're the red-headed stepchild of your organization, it doesn't surprise me that you have lots of problems.
It's worth noting that most organizations are the exact opposite. They're primarily Windows shops which have a handful of Macs for the graphic designers who are attached to them. The Mac users (especially in the last few years) don't complain very much because they know that IT is looking for excuses to get rid of the Macs. How many problems the Macs cause usually depends on how much the organization uses Exchange and, in my experience, how concerned the organization is with security. It is usually security that ends up pushing the Macs out the door.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. RAM. How the fuck can you contend that 256 megs is sufficient for anyone? Do you use outlook? Its a hog. My work box has 512 megs and i use it solely for Outlook and internet, and i want more. Also, have you tried using Vista with only 256 megs? Hardly seems worth it.
2. Definition of a full computer. The mini is a fully functional desktop computer. It happens not to be sold with keyboard, monitor, or mouse. This is problem for consumers, not for the enterprise, who's probably supplying everything to the users piecemeal anyways. I work at a large law firm, which is just a big corporate office, and I have never, *NEVER* seen anyone use a computer system that was purchased as a monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse bundle. The computers are all identical, Dell enterprise boxes, but everyone has a mishmash of Microfsoft ergonomic keyboards and optical mice, and mainly sony monitors. The mini is perfect for the corporate office box scenario where the computer should be quickly and easily swappable for repair and still run decent specs.
3. Webcam. kinda silly. I'd never want to video-chat with the people whom i IM. But given the pervasive nature of the conference call in the enterprise environment, i fail to see how increasing webcam existence wouldnt benefit business. Face-to face conference calls? what's not to like?
Re:Disparity of Distros (Score:3, Insightful)
Well because for software with source aviable it is no problem. The distributor just recompiles it and it works. And usually software on Linux is open it works this way.
The trouble start when you have to deal with closed source software. I know there is not much of it in general use and it is usually kernel related stuff. Try installing some old nvidia drivers on recent Linux systems. Try installing Borland Kylix on any Linux system. Try installing Oracle or Sybase on unsupported system. Try running Netscape3 on decent Linux system. Etc. Etc.
Most of these software are not typical things that user runs - but there is not much choice in typical user Linux (closed source) software anyway. Heh. Try installing some games that were specifically for Linux and are few years old - this will force you in some LD_PRELOAD magic or other shit *IF* it even still work.
Running closed software was something that Windows or OSX was *ALWAYS* designed for. Linux on the other hand has a *philosophy* that ommits closed source software - it can maybe run but nobody really (from the kernel guys) cares about it.
So yes. Here is a problem. Don't get me wrong - it is not problem with Linux. It is problem with those guys who prepare the software. But for the end user it does not matter whose fault is that - what does matter is that it doesnt work.
Re:Enterprise-ready? Hardly. Maybe. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to write a checklist of features that would make up a dream enterprise service package. It's harder to make that package turn a profit in the market. And it's easy for companies to use checklists to justify sticking with the status quo rather than trying something new.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned 4-hour onsite service, for instance.. for desktop machines, not xServes sitting back in the machine room. Lemme tell ya: I've worked for a couple of large companies and have never seen an IT deal that involves 4-hour onsite service guarantees for any random PC sitting on an everyday worker's desktop. Mission-critical servers, yes. Buy-em-by-the-carload boxes that let users connect to the mission-critical servers? Not a chance. Keeping those running is what the IT department's job. And even then, good luck getting 4-hour turnaround on any issue that doesn't cause significant financial losses from the moment it crops up to the moment the system is fixed and running again. For problems that can be stopped by pulling the network cable out of the wall and shutting off the machine, that's exactly as much ASAP service as you'll get. Anything else will happen later, maybe, if it turns out that we really have to.
These checklists of 'things Apple has to do to compete in the enterprise market' smell to me more like excuses not to spend time exploring alternatives than things people would actually buy if Apple made them available.
Companies don't buy Macs because they don't use Macs now. Simple as that. They already have a large and complex body of hardware and software doing mission-critical things, and it all more or less works the way it is. Adding more machines that are basically the same is known to be reasonably easy. Even if there are teething problems, those tend to get identified early and worked around. Trying something new raises the spectre of potential compatability issues in any of a million undocumented places.
Apple will gain entry to the enterprise market as enterprises move away from proprietary formats and protocols, thus making it easy to fit any standards-compliant machine into the system. And even then, someone will have to lock the beancounters out of the room long enough to explain that a low cost of acquisition does not necessarily equal low TCO.
Of course, a series of negative miracles could happen to Dell (they're in a bad patch right now, but I think they can turn it around) and make Apple look like an island of stability in a PC market that's fighting to rebalance itself.
Re:Macs run Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
If we start replacing end-of-life PCs with Macs we win all round. Its true.
The windows lovers can keep running windows, the OSX lovers can keep running OSX and whenever someone new starts we can ask them which do they prefer and sit them down at a totally generic workstation.
IT support is easier because everything runs on known hardware and systems can easily be imaged without worrying too much about drivers etc.
Now who is naive?
Inhouse Win apps and .NET? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So the hardware is up to par... (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: Consider an office building with 500 people working there, a basic mid-sized office for most companies. The marketing department will make up about 25-30 people, of which only 5-10 will need to use photoshop or any other memory intensive app that is arguably better suited for the mac. Upper management will also manifest about 15-20 people, of which it's likely easier to get them macs. I'd acknowledge that there MAY be as much as another 20 people who could make an excuse for why they need the features that come on the most minimal mac rather than a PC that's slightly scaled down from that level.
At the very most, in this example, I could 70 people (out of 500), that are somehow better served by getting a mac (noting of course that I'm comparing against a completely barebones windows PC). $900 for the mac, let's say $650 for the pc (since we might as well have 512 megs of ram and make sure the monitor is 17 inch). Do I really need to write out the math, or is the point made yet? 900 x 500 = $450,000, or 650 x 500 = $325,000 + $5000 in selective upgrades = $330,000.
A difference of $120,000 will pay for an extra IT guy (if the current group wasn't already enough) and it's cover hardware replacements, and be a good chunk of money towards the next upgrade/replacement cycle (which will come no sooner than it would with the Mac). Certainly a theoretical example, and it's not precise, but it is reasonable and it shows there's a huge difference...which means even if I've got a couple of minor errors, it still proves the point.
Re:A little off base (Score:3, Insightful)
I work in a dual platform environment and I have DOZENS of PCs in our repair area.
I'll second that. In our company of mixed Mac/PC, we track the lifecycle of the machines. Each Mac outlasts 2.3 PCs and when the Macs are done, we sell them to the staff because they still work fine but too slow for our purposes. The PCs all went into recycling long ago.
In the last 3 years, we've introduced a lot of Macs to regular desktops in addition to the graphics areas. During that time, the simple exposure of the PC-centric staff to Macs completely torpedoed their prejudices. About 75% of the staff has since bought their own Macs (mostly laptops) and now prefer to work on them.
To quote an old advertisement, which computer is really more powerful? It's the one people will use.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
"(The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.)" And how is this still considered a noteworthy article?
Insightful, my eye. The bullet in question, from TFA, was:
The learning curve and disparity of Linux distributions is too high for easy general office use.
And that is different from this [hardocp.com] noteworthy article on using Linux on the desktop how? Because that is basically what I get from that article even though it is an article in which the author is actually *trying* to use Linux as a desktop OS.
If we are so blinded by our religion that we cannot see what is wrong with our chosen OS for a given application we are worse than Microsoft. The fact of the matter is that the bullet is valid and more than enough said for why the choice is between Mac and Windows as it has been for aeons. What's sad for Linux is that Apple has done basically what Linux should have done ages ago, especially since this is not the first time Apple has done it, that is, take UNIX and put an Apple-cool user-friendly face upon it (A/UX being the first attempt I know of, with a System 7 style interface as well as a command line).
This time they even used Open Source tech and shared back most of what they did. The GUI is not open source, but you'd think that it would not be hard to replicate or build something similar. Tech-wise it is no more challenging than what already exists in 5000 forms on Linux. The difference here is in design. Interface design has always been the worst part of software so it is no surprise that it would be especially bad in the FOSS community. It's just that you'd think people would eventually get with the program or that some company or group would have obfuscated the ugliness by now.
What I like best about Mac OS X is that like the mythical Linux distro that does not exist everything you can do in the GUI can be done in the command line, and except for the additional step (they should use a daemon to get rid of it, too) of sucking the changes into netinfo you can even change things by using vi on the text files as God Intended. Yet grandma can just pick it right up and it Just Works so she can browse for recipes and do her taxes and make DVDs about her grandkids from videos she shot with the included camera, hook the puter up to the TV and use the included remote to watch them, etc. In other words rather than being simply a vehicle for pushing an agenda and a cudgel for punishing the user for daring to want to use their computer as Linux and Windows seem to be, Macs seem to be more about empowering the user to do more with their computer than they might have thought they could, which is what PCs are for. The main thing that worked as an obstacle in the past for Macs getting into the office space is that they're too damn much fun to use to be productive in some people's eyes and they don't have the word "business" in the title like the other guys do.
Nothing is stopping Linux from becoming every bit as cool except the will to make it so. Most of the stuff that gets in people's way could be easily fixed; it's just that what is not easily fixed is the attitude of Open Source developers that they don't care about [l]users. As long as that does not change the best we can hope for is some entity that is willing to clean up the mess and do as good a job as Apple, which does not look like it is going to happen anytime soon. Look at the long list of failures the author of the 30 days article puts out there.
I will say that it is too bad that the transgaming tech is as bad as it seems to be. Who wants to pay for something that flat does not work even on its best titles? I've been hoping for a long time that it would become something useful and decent as it is the main hope for Linux as a home system that can play games. Maybe if they were helping wine more it would be better; maybe they have run out of
Re:Enterprise-ready? Hardly. (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't get that with Windows unless you are running a Windows server to push those policies and updates. Same with Macs. OS X Server offers these things along with pretty much everything else you'd expect from a server OS. And an unlimited license costs just $1000 and comes bundled with and Apple server. Cheap!
The big shortcoming with Apple and the enterprise is their treatment of enterprise customers; no roadmap, scattered support, no roadmap, stilted access to parts, and NO ROADMAP!
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, criticising Apple on ram is silly. For what you pay for one, the typical Mac is usually underspeced on ram compared to PCs in the same price range.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheesh! What's with you folks?
If a person said, "Gosh, OSX is a real slow beast of an OS, and that's an absolute truth, regardless of the fact that I haven't used it since the first release," it wouldn't stand for a minute. I pointed the same thing out and took flack for it. Selective moderation to match one's opinions such as that is not only moronic, but against the moderation guidelines as well.
religious wars getting tired... (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again: run whatever the hell you want. I don't care.
I mean jeez - vi versus emacs, anyone? VMS versus Unix? Criminey...
sloth jr