Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Enterprise CTO Switches to Mac OS X 160

Posted by pudge from the rethink-after-you-reinstall-too dept.
louismg writes "BlueArc CTO Geoff Barrall, using a PC day in and day out, found things becoming progressively more difficult as they increased in complexity. After one final straw, he sought out an alternative, and switched to Mac OS X -- in a corporate environment. His column, titled 'Rethink Before You Reinstall' documents the challenges facing Mac OS X in enterprise, and how he has changed his views." We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Enterprise CTO Switches to Mac OS X More

Enterprise CTO Switches to Mac OS X

Comments Filter:
  • I didn't think there was a version of Outlook for OS X. I'm going to assume he meant Entourage. All in all though, a pretty solid endorsement.

  • no sense (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ok, so the guy does nto have an issue with windows per se. He's "installed this particular OS many times over the years", which means that he's not using XP, that's a mistake there. if you use windows and its not at least 2k, preferably XP, you are asking for trouble. His problem is with Office, so what is his solution, to move to a Mac and use Office. Hmm...... Sounds like a paid advertisement to me. I own machines that run 98SE, 2k pro, 2k server, OSx, XP, linux, BSD and IRIX. The 98 machine is the weakest link and will soon go XP, but every other machine on MY networks is rock solid. My linux and IRIX boxes mount NFS volumes from each other and SMB volumes from the windows boxes, and my windows boxes mount SMB volumes from each other and NFS voles remotely as well. With a quick google search for NFS clients for windows, yours can to.

    OSx is a fine OS, but its not the end all - be all. If Office is the problem use something else, like 602Suite or StarOffice or OpenOffice, but don't blame windows for it.
    • Frankly, I've tried to discuss that option (OOo or StarOffice, etc.) with people in the past. Honestly, this guy strikes me like those people do - as knowing just enough to get his job done, including installing Windows (which could be done by a trained monkey, for the most part). It's possible that he, like the people I've talked to in the past, really either (a) think there's some kind of "catch" in free software or are unwilling to adjust to something they perceive as being radically different than their comfy MS Office (which, I suppose, it is a little different, but not that bad), or (b) this guy really, really wanted to try a Mac anyway and this was just a convenient excuse. I almost want to bet on the latter. Just in case anyone cares or wonders, I'm running 10.2.4 - and using OpenOffice under X11. I love it.
      • I am far from being an MS Office admirer, yet there still are quite a few things that OOo needs to get done before it can truly compete with MS Office.

        It maybe great for many applications (and it did save me a few times), but I look at my accounting colleagues (especially in all sorts of MIS positions) -- they'd tell you that a PivotTable is the best thing since a slice of toast! They'd also tell you that they have no problem working with 15-20Mb spreadsheet that (almost) max out Excel row/col capacity.

        OOo does not have as robust pivots. It can't even import ones that were created in Excel. It has less rows (32767 vs 65535). It can't replace Excel for my friends...

        I know that you'd say that they should not be using Excel to operate such amounts of data -- agree with you totally. Yet Excel is soooo easy, and it drags you in, and you don't even want to think of any of sexy BI applications (sidenote: many of which now rely on you using office and putting stinking ActiveX code inside themselves to get a nice Office frontend)...

    • Re:no sense (Score:5, Informative)

      by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:15PM (#5442587) Homepage
      I think it much more likely that he meant he's reinstalled Windows in all its variations many times over the past years.

      There is a difference between running a complex program on Mac OS X and on Windows. Windows throws DLL files in various places along with registry entries. Apple has bundles which are double click to open the app inside directories. Apple bundles use .plist files (created in xml) instead of registry entries and the .plist files are in the bundle. What is also in the bundle is the executable code and the application strings for as many languages as you like.

      Most apps can just be dragged around between disks and continue to function just fine because all their components are moved with a single icon drag and their location stays the same relative to the base location of the bundle directory.

      All in all, it's an elegant solution and eliminates a lot of DLL hell.

      • Re:no sense (Score:2, Informative)

        by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 )
        So does this [microsoft.com].

        Windows DLL Hell is caused by STUPID installers that overwrite system DLLS with older (or broken) versions.

        As of Windows 2000, installers can not overwrite system DLLS. Windows File Protection will replace them with the original version.

        Now, DLL hell is not over. But it's a hell of a lot better than Windows 98.

        "Most apps can just be dragged around between disks and continue to function just fine because all their components are moved with a single icon drag and their location stays the same relative to the base location of the bundle directory."

        Yes, that's a nice feature. Windows apps can do this too, if the're written properly. Office, for example, can be moved, as can most other applications. Instead of dragging the executable bundle, however, you drag the program directory.

        With NTFS, in fact, any shortcuts will update themselves.

        There are also applications for Windows that are entirely self contained (installers, for example). Most, however, are not.

        • Re:no sense (Score:5, Informative)

          by Smurf ( 7981 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @10:36PM (#5446305)
          Yes, that's a nice feature. Windows apps can do this too, if the're written properly. Office, for example, can be moved, as can most other applications. Instead of dragging the executable bundle, however, you drag the program directory.

          I'm sorry but this is not quite true. Your commentary struck me as odd, so I decided to test it myself (as I am tied to a Win 200 machine). I moved the "Microsoft Office" folder from the "C:\Program Files\" folder to another one in drive C. This is what happens every time I launch the programs directly from the "Microsoft Office\Office" folder:

          Excel: "An error occurred and this feature is not functioning properly. Would you like to repair this feature now?". If I say yes, it asks me for the Office installers. As I don't have the installers at hand, I am forced to cancel the "installation", after several error dialogs. Afterwards, (or if I say I don't want to "repair this feature"), things appear to work correctly (I haven't checked everything, though).

          PowerPoint: It launches without a problem, but the first time I use a menu command the installer dialog appears. I am also unable to open templates.

          Word: The dialog appears when launching, as with Excel.

          Access, Outlook: I don't use them so I don't really care.

          The shortcuts in the Start menu, the launch bar, and the desktop invoke the installer dialog and don't launch the application if the dialog is cancelled.

          We can argue that the programs anyway appear to be operative after dismissing all the dialogs, and that everything will probably be corrected by running the installer from the CD. But this is a far cry from what MacOS X (apparently) offers: they can (apparently) simply move their directory to a CD-R or a FireWire disk (or an iPod) and the first time the programs are run they heal themselves automatically.

          There is even a story of a kid pirating MS Office from a display Mac in a store by copying it to his iPod. Some tech reporter saw him, I think.

          PS: I returned the directory to its location and (thank God) everything returned to normal.

          • Re:no sense (Score:5, Informative)

            by gig ( 78408 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @02:42AM (#5447338)
            It's not that Mac applications heal themselves if moved. It's that they are self-contained inside one icon.

            Imagine if every time you saved a text document it had to be in Documents/Text Documents/ and if you moved it out of there the system wouldn't open it. That's what MS Windows applications looks like to Mac users. A Mac application is as self-contained as you would expect a JPEG image to be, so it doesn't break when it's moved.

            Breaking when moved is sort of a de facto copy-restriction method on MS Windows, so no wonder they haven't fixed it yet. Less control for the user, more for Microsoft.

        • Re:no sense (Score:4, Informative)

          by gig ( 78408 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @02:30AM (#5447299)
          > Windows DLL Hell is caused by STUPID installers that
          > overwrite system DLLS with older (or broken) versions.

          No no no. You're making excuses for Microsoft again. If you go and look at how this works on Mac OS X you will understand that you look foolish defending Microsoft on this. It is night and day how it is done right on the Mac and it is completely fucked on Windows. You can't excuse it in 2003.

          Listen, all you have to do to break a Windows app is move or rename it. That is outrageous to a Mac user. It's like if I told you not to move a picture file to another disk or it won't be viewable. I rename apps that have ridiculous names, like "Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0" I change to "Photoshop" and it works just fine. There are exceptions to the Panacea I'm describing, but the vast majority of the time, if an application is somewhere that the system can discover it (local storage, network storage, anything the user can access) then it will run. That's it. End of story 99% of the time.
          • "I rename apps that have ridiculous names, like "Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0" I change to "Photoshop" and it works just fine. "

            It's the same in Windows. Windows shortcuts will update themselves if the app is renamed, and good apps will update their file associations when they are launched.

            Also, most Windows users don't directly access the app - they access the shortcut in the Start Menu. I can name and organize the start menu anyway I want. (For example, I renamed "Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0" to "Visual Basic" in my Start Menu).

            I have seen how it works on OS X. And I don't look foolish. Microsoft has COMPATIBILITY to maintain - and changing something so major requires time and effort.

            Look, the Windows system works fine. OK, so it's primitive. Big deal. My copy of Office has only broken once, and that was only because a virus decided to infect the executable (I was running as Administrator, stupidly, at the time).

            • Re:no sense (Score:2, Funny)

              by jaysones ( 138378 )
              "Microsoft has COMPATIBILITY to maintain - and changing something so major requires time and effort. "

              Yeah, if only Microsoft had the resources they'd make a reliable, flexible OS. Can I just Paypal them a donation?

            • Really? (Score:2)

              by ZxCv ( 6138 )
              It's the same in Windows. Windows shortcuts will update themselves if the app is renamed, and good apps will update their file associations when they are launched.

              I can definitely see the 'good apps will update their file associations when they are launched', but I've been using Windows from 3.1 thru XP and I don't ever remember a Windows shortcut updating itself if I renamed the app it was pointing to. However, I do fondly remember the dialog stating 'Windows could not find _____.exe. Click Browse to search for it or wait will Windows searches...". Granted, XP has gotten a whole lot less use from me than 2k did, but I still don't ever remember seeing this automagical feature in any Windows OS that utilized NTFS. Care to provide a specific example?
        • This is going to be horribly unpopular in this thread, but I couldn't resist. One major change in design with the new .NET languages and framework is to get away from all the grief caused by the registry and system-wide DLLs. In fact, with a pure .NET application, you no longer have to run a setup.exe installer, but can simply XCopy [microsoft.com] the folder onto the client's hard drive. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer OS X to XP, but in this instance it would seem like MS is somewhat responding to people's frustrations and bringing things back to the simplicity of installing a DOS application.

    • XP is no silver bullet (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dragonfly ( 5975 ) <jddaigleNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:38PM (#5442838) Homepage
      XP is better than what came before, but just last week I had to spend an hour troubleshooting and finally reinstalling Outlook XP on my girlfriend's brand-new Vaio. After 6 weeks of working fine Outlook just refused to open, no matter how many times you "repaired" it. No software/hardware changes to the setup, just 6 weeks of turn it on in the AM, check email all day, and turn it off at night. If this is enough to break Outlook in a little over a month, then someone at Microsoft (still) isn't doing their job.

      For a point of comparison, my PowerBook G4 has been running OS X 10.1->10.2.4 since July '01 (across several network environments), and I haven't had to reinstall anything. Just 2 data points, but ones I find telling.

    • While you're right that blaming Windows for Office's short comings isn't fair (I haven't read the article recently, so I'm not sure what's really what's going on), you're wrong in implying Office Mac and Office Windows are the same program.

      By switching to Office Mac v. X he essentially *did* switch to an Office. One that's still a commercial product that's fully compatible with Office for Windows.

      I dislike a lot of Microsoft products, but I give credit (and cash) where it's due and use Office for Mac OS X. Now if someone replaces it with something better I'll be on it in a heartbeat, but it's pretty good as is.

    • Re:no sense (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Pyrometer ( 106089 )
      I like Windows XP compared to previous versions of Windows basically because it has almost been the most stable (although Windows 2000 only blue-screened once in 2 years of use for me and didn't have the following problem ...). However there is one problem that forced me to re-install twice, and after working it out ... recover it twice be re-installing applications.
      Basically the system and/or software configuration files got corrupted. I re-installed the OS twice, but later after reading through some resource documentation found that their is a 'repair' directory that has fresh copies of these files so you don't have to re-install the OS (just the applications because the settings are flaked after this). Luckliy it hasn't happened for a while, but I can' say that anything like this has ever happened with my PowerBook.

      OSx is a fine OS, but its not the end all - be all. If Office is the problem use something else, like 602Suite or StarOffice or OpenOffice, but don't blame windows for it.

      Windows might have caused the problem with Office that he had ... both you and him could be right though ... thats the problem with debugging those problems you just don't know what caused them most of the times. As for using something else ... how could he? His entire company and customers use office, just because he had problems you think others are going to change? With the exception of inline Word created images (which I personaly hate), Office v.X works fine with Office 2k/XP documents generated on the Windows counterpart.

      As far as I can tell he made the right decision to get where we wanted to be (working wiithout constant problems not caused by himself) without affecting any other person in his environment.

  • I'd be more impressed... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by podperson ( 592944 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @01:49PM (#5441639) Homepage
    ...if he'd switched over his entire company or consultancy. It's not news that you can "fit in" to (and even "stand out" from) a corporate PC IT environment, I did it for years at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture).

    Indeed, when I worked at AC -- an actively Mac-hostile environment that in 1998 was forcing its DTP people to give up their Macs -- I found everything worked BETTER for Macs (we could access printers and file servers far more easily and reliably than could PC users). None of this is new or OSX related (there are new buzzwords to be compliant with is all).

    What really annoyed me then and continues to annoy me now is that people standardise on the wrong things: platforms instead of protocols. Indeed, often vendors instead of protocols. "You can buy any computer solution you want, as long as it's from Compaq." But, we can't use Macs because "that would lock us in to a single vendor".
  • This was a very disappointing little article. He is basically saying that his Microsoft Office Suite kept crashing for some unknown reason so he decided to 'switch' to the same office suite only under MacOSX.
    "Needless to say, following these tests, I was convinced. I went out and purchased an OS X laptop and have been using it ever since. As of this writing, I am on the road in the UK (I live in San Jose, California) and am using Microsoft Outlook to e-mail this back to corporate headquarters over our Windows VPN. Over the last two weeks I've been presenting to BlueArc customers using PowerPoint with standard corporate presentations templates, without any modifications. So far, there have been no issues and nothing that would lead anybody to think I'm using anything other than a regular PC. No blue screens either."


    Yah, real original. If he truly wished to think different he should have looked at alternatives to MS Office. I don't see anything very strong about switching to another platform only to turn around and use all the same application software.
    • I understand your point, but I've run Office (all flavors) and Office X. Office X has had no problems (that I've had to deal with) with reliability, reinstalls, corrupt files, etc. etc.

      If it was a smart "business" decision (in my POV) thought through, they would go with FREE software thats also open (won't force an upgrade).

      I'm sure the BSA doesn't mind they're installing office though ;) [slashdot.org]

    • Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @01:55PM (#5441697) Journal
      And yet -- it solved his problem, didn't it? He has the applications he wants without the support issues that were making him crazy. Truth is, Microsoft makes some really nice products when they're not tied to that awful OS and when they follow Apple UI guidelines.

      _Your_ problem may be that he's using a Microsoft product, but that's not what _his_ problem was.

      • Well, he used a bulldozer when a screw driver would do ;) He could have just as easily switched to a more reliable version of Windows AND/OR he could have switched the Office suite. I am just saying that what he did was not very 'different' and probably much more expensive than necessary.

        I don't think this is a particularly good example to tout Apple when the problem wasn't in need if such a drastic 'fix' and he is still using Microsoft software for everything. If he's happy with it fine. No need for an article though.

        • Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe (Score:5, Informative)

          by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:17PM (#5442607) Homepage
          Pray tell, what Windows OS offers the equivalent to Mac OS X bundles?

          • None, but as of Windows 2000, DLL hell has officially frozen over [microsoft.com].
            • ...Microsoft's solution for "DLL Hell" is nothing compared to Mac OS X bundles. Bundles offer a simple, intuitive approach, whereas Windows takes multiple routes in trying to solve "DLL Hell". While Windows 2000/XP are much much better than previous version of Windows with respect to "DLL Hell", they still do not approach the simplicity and power of Mac OS X bundles. This particular thing is one of the many reasons that make coding for OS X nearly enjoyable, whereas coding for Windows usually gives me a few more gray hairs than I had when I started.
        • Well, maybe he couldn't have switched his Office suite? Some of the file formats work with the alternatives, to be sure, but I imagine there has to be something that only Office apps can read. Even if there isn't, are the people he's sending his files to going to know what to do with an AppleWorks or OpenOffice document?

          (If OpenOffice uses the exact same file formats, don't shoot me. I haven't used it because I haven't needed to.)
        • I've seen an issue similar to the one he described when upgrading off-license copies of Office 2000 -- I think SP 2 is what blows everything up -- the not recognizing the disks rang a few bells.

          In any event, that's not a link I'd send to any corporate IT people I know (especially M$ monkeys) to demonstrate corporate usage of OS X: there are a number of feature compatibility issues with the Mac exchange clients, whether Outlook (classic) or Entourage (OS X) that make them unacceptable in our environment -- I either use a Citrix client or Virtual PC, depending on which computer I'm connecting from and what mood I'm in.

        • The point is that his $2500 ThinkPad didn't work and his $2500 PowerBook does. It's not that he's enjoyed reliable Microsoft-based computing for years and suddenly something's gone wrong and he should just get a newer version of MS Windows. He mentions that he doesn't want to do that again. Your answer is "more Microsoft" and that's the answer he specificially didn't trust because they've failed him too many times.

          The reason he's writing an article is obviously because he himself was somewhat surprised at how easy it was to do all the things he wanted to do with an Apple system. He just moved from DOS to Mac+UNIX almost overnight and it was easy and he is better off in every way. Even the Microsoft software is better on the Mac, and you can admin it, because it's not soup.

          I've used MS Windows, Mac OS 9, and Mac OS X extensively, and the standards are just higher on the Mac. The software is backed up by the hardware guarantee. You get no guarantees at all with MS Windows so no wonder it doesn't work, and all your other software runs on that and is made less valuable.

    • Use Office on XP then use it on OS X. (Score:5, Informative)

      by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @02:42PM (#5442190) Homepage Journal
      Your missing the point that it is a different product. They don't even really resemble each other. I recently switched to the Mac platform and to my surprise and dismay Office v.X is an excellent product. If they can ever get OpenOffice a Quartz GUI I'll switch. Till then it's Office v.X.

      The Mac Business Unit at MS is like a complete different company too, not the status quo.

      • Re:Use Office on XP then use it on OS X. (Score:5, Funny)

        by SAN1701 ( 537455 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @04:08PM (#5443179)
        Meanwhile, in the deeps of Microsoft Mac Business Unit...

        -Hi. I just want to see what you guys are doing here.
        -Hi, Bill! We are doing many improvements in Office, Outlook...
        -Calm down! No need to hurry! You guys seem to work too much!
        -Indeed! Now we're porting SQL-Server to Mac OS X Server...
        -I see. But as I said, there's no rush. Drink less coffee, work less daily hours, enjoy life more... Buy a videogame to your employees!
        -Actually, we're very busy because we want to start to port the whole .NET...
        -That's it! 6 months of vacation to everybody. On me! You guys deserve it!

    • Office for OS X == different (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dragonfly ( 5975 ) <jddaigleNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:42PM (#5442894) Homepage
      Office v.X uses a different codebase and is developed by a different team than Office for Windows. They share a common file format, basic interface aspects, and featureset, but they are very different beasts.

      For example, installation of Office X means dragging its application folder from the install CD to your hard drive. The first time you launch an office app, it installs the few support files it needs. If any of these support files get broken or lost, they will be automatically reinstalled the next time an office app is run.

      You do need to run an installer to install "extras" like Equation Editor, Clip Art, and extra Office Assistants (ooh! ooh! hurt me more!), but for most users installation is literally drag-and-drop.
    • "Reinstall" is front and center in this article. I think the guy's problems are with Windows more than MS Office.

      Running MS software on a Mac is like the first stage of detox. His standards will just go up from here and next time they bring in a number of desktop systems I'm sure he'll look at the Apple solution and share the support savings and productivity improvements with more people in his company.

      Apple is expected to compete directly with Microsoft on every front from now on. Their non-compete agreement is up and Safari and Keynote have replaced IE and PowerPoint with everyone I know. The new Apple software is really next generation in design and operation. It sells itself if you're just willing to look at it and this CTO will have that wider perspective in their future technology roll-outs.

  • A "Certain OS" sucks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GusherJizmac ( 80976 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @01:51PM (#5441661) Homepage
    I like how he is careful not to mention specific products or brands when he is making negative remarks, but with positive comments, he clearly indicates the application or OS. Does anyone have the balls to stand up to Microsoft?

    • Does anyone have the balls to stand up to Microsoft?

      I didn't get the sense at all from the article that Mr. Barrall was afraid to stand up to Microsoft. I think it's more likely that he was just complaining graciously and trying to avoid being rancorous. That this kind of writing is exceedingly rare on Slashdot might make it harder to recognize.

      And, actually, he does mention the problematic OS when he describes "using a popular Windows office suite."

    • I do.

      Microsoft, your Windows OS is too much of a pain to maintain, so I'm switching to Linux.

      That do ya?
    • I think it's probably more along the lines of politesse - it's more polite to promote the good than insult the bad - a trend less than common here on Slashdot.

      The point he's making isn't 'I Use OS X because other stuff sucks' (which also implies that OS X's only redeeming quality is that it's the least bad), it's 'Use OS X because OS X is good'. This 'positive' approach is much more 'journalistic', or 'dignified' - traits, again, not often found on slashdot.

      I have the balls to stand up to Microsoft, but I'd rather focus on the good than the bad. Unfortunately, I can't find as much good to speak of as bad for most products nowadays. Macs seem to be the only exception I can find. Dommage.

      --Dan
  • Let me get this straight, there is a person... that exists... who is using a Mac? I can see why this is such an important news item! If you'll excuse me I must go turn on my TV to see if my regularly scheduled program is being interupted as we speak!

  • Uh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Watcher ( 15643 )

    We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are.

    Either you're being sarcastic, or you haven't been reading the replies in every Apple related article lately...

  • Apple's "top down" revolution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tres ( 151637 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @02:20PM (#5441977) Homepage
    It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution. I can only hope, as a sysadmin, that Apple's OS X will continue to make inroads into the corporate sector. It is easy to administer, robust, stable--and best of all, works as advertised.

    I don't know how many times I've been burned by Windows products that just don't work right. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with stupid Windows problems and kludge together a solution. I'm tired of wasting my time with the same non-issues over and over again. I know I'm not the only one.

    Apple's mistake back in the 90's was to try winning a "bottom up" revolution. Giving their computers to school districts, in theory was a great idea; it produced people who were used to using Apple computers would go buy Apple, or use it at work. Apple made a simple product that worked well, but was stigmatized as a "toy."

    It wasn't Microsoft, but rather IBM won that battle by using a "top down" revolution. Appealing to the execs/technophiles in an organization. Making the PC seem more "professional," or technically advanced. Microsoft has been riding on that IBM wave ever since. But they've shot themselves in the foot more times than I can count.

    It's nice to see the tables turned: Microsoft's "Jolly Rancher" OS keeps trying to "dumb-down" bad engineering with more annoying wizards, more annoying popups, and more annoying "security" features that just make working with it impossible.

    While Microsoft attempts to win a "bottom up" revolution with candy-colors and glitz, Apple has made a real, rock solid OS that can be used by anyone. While Microsoft alienates more and more corporate customers, Apple is selling comparably priced corporate systems to their PC counterparts.

    More proof that Microsoft's greatest nemisis is Microsoft.
    • It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution
      Bold conclusion drawn from the experiences of the CTO of a single tech company we've never heard of before.
    • A decade ago I worked at a now-defunct minicomputer company that shall remain nameless. They were constantly struggling with the issue of how much effort to devote to supporting the Macintosh. This company had been very successful in marketing to law firms in particular. One day I saw a memo circulating among management that said something like this.

      "We are finding that there is significant penetration by Apple into the legal marketplace. Many of the law firms we deal with now have Macintoshes in use within their business. The actual number of people using Macintoshes in these firms is not large. Unfortunately, they tend to be the senior partners."

  • A shame an idiot wrote the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @02:22PM (#5442000)
    As a systems admin who recently switched to Apple, I thought that this story might be worthy of forwarding to my boss. Unfortunately the article doesn't address anything of particular interest.

    For technical people, the reasons we use our computers go beyond simply writing Word documents or opening Excel spreadsheets. The average clod in a company though doesn't care what their hardware is, what their operating system is, they just want to know that Office is there.

    Therefore an article that simply talks about how Office works on a non-PC platform is nothing worth getting a boner over. If he'd spoken about Keynote, addresses the advantages of an open file format, spoken about how his company had developed software to write customized presentations based on info pulled live from their database or something - hooray. Perhaps he could have mentioned how easy it is to produce PDF versions of pretty much anything - which in this cross-platform era is a good thing since your document will look the same anywhere. I think my point is understood by this stage.

    Me thinks that this whole article is a way to get people to his company's website.

    • Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:21PM (#5442660) Homepage
      The problem he was having was dll hell. The fix he instituted was using Mac OS X bundles which have all the code self-contained inside a double click to launch the app directory.

      Pair this article with a technical description of bundles and why they're nifty and you have a useful 1-2 punch.
      • Or he could have just installed Windows XP.

        This page describes how Windows 2000 fights "DLL Hell".

        Microsoft knows about DLL hell. They admit the problem. And, as of Windows 2000, it's largely fixed. Stupid installers cannot overwrite system DLLs (well, they can, but they would have to first delete the cached version in \system32\dllcache).

        DLL hell has frozen over.
        • And your stupid programs break when the system spanks them down.

          DLL hell is there, it just has different symptoms.

          Putting a giant band-aid labeled "The Solution" over the problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes it look less odious.

  • Contradiction... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ElGanzoLoco ( 642888 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @02:37PM (#5442144) Homepage
    [...]nothing that would lead anybody to think I'm using anything other than a regular PC. No blue screens [...]

    Isn't that a contradiction? :)

  • I think it's great that somebody is keeping an open mind about another OS besides Windows. It took me months to get my company to let me use a Mac. Then again, I'm a graphic designer. You know, right tools for the job, and so on...I'm the only guy in a nationwide company of 45,000 employees who is on a Mac, and our IT people don't seem to have a problem with it. I do have to use Outlook in Classic for email, and that bites.

    I'm glad this guy thought about OS X, but I'm not sure he really needs it. I'm glad he's trying it, but some of us Mac folk don't want EVERYONE to make the switch. If they did, OS X would no longer be the cool, esoteric, artsy operating system that it is.
    • but some of us Mac folk don't want EVERYONE to make the switch. If they did, OS X would no longer be the cool, esoteric, artsy operating system that it is.

      And what exactly would change in your "cool, esoteric, artsy operating system" if more people decided to use it? It's your kind of thinking that turns more people away from Macs than you know.

      Did I have to buy a Mac for the work that I do? Yes. Did my friend have to buy one for his type of work? No, but he did anyways. Why? Because he found that he enjoyed OS X more than 2000/XP. He still gets his work done and has a more pleasurable working experience for himself at the same time.

      It's snobbery from people like you that give all of us a bad name.

  • Trying to get noticed by Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JimCricket ( 595111 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:23PM (#5442674)

    Is this guy trying to get Apple to notice him and include him in "CEO Switcher" ads?

    If you're going to use a Mac, why use all Microsoft software on it? Heck, I don't even use MS Office on my Windows box!

    And what's with the "blue screen" comments? Like most Slashdotters, I don't like Microsoft - but to suggest that Windows has problems with "blue screens" is, like, so 1999.

    One other observation: Apple uses the "blue screen" thing as part of their FUD on Windows. But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

    • And what's with the "blue screen" comments? Like most Slashdotters, I don't like Microsoft - but to suggest that Windows has problems with "blue screens" is, like, so 1999.

      Well, in my case, it's like, so, 2002. Trying to configure some Dells running W2k for a computer lab and getting lovely spontaneous reboots because the computers had shipped with buggy display drivers. I mean, c'mon, I can understand it if a bad display driver can garble the screen image, but why oh why should the computer reboot if I drag a window the wrong way?!?

      But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

      It's true that some installations of WinXP are more stable than some installations of Mac OS 9, but Apple's switch ads aren't trying to get people to buy a Mac and run OS 9 on it. That's impossible to do anyway on their latest hardware. They want people to buy a Mac with OS X on it. OS 9 is out of the equation for new users.
    • At work, I'm running Windows 2000 on a Dell P4 workstation. I can get it to bluescreen with regularity.

      In fact, if I use Mozilla to access my web-based email and try to resize the window - BAM! Bluescreen.

      Is Windows 2000 the spawn of demons that were the 9x series of OSes? No. Not even close. But Windows still bluescreens. I've never had a kernel panic ever in OS X. Of course, YMMV.
    • Actually, MacOS 9.22 is more stable for me than OS X, unfortunately. Perhaps it's how you maintain it, but I can't think offhand of the last crash I had in 9.22. It's less feature rich than X, and doesn't multitask anywhere near as well, and doesn't manage memory as well, but it was rock solid for me, and better for 3D gaming.

      I've only seen one actual Kernal Panic in X, running Escape Velociy: Nova, of all things. But I do get hard freezes, when everything stops and there's nothing to do but reach for the reset button. Most occur when I try and run a 3D game, pretty much any 3D game besides Quake III. I've also had one or 2 a day lately when playing Diablo II:LoD, using software rendering; I actually reinstalled the game this week, to see if it would fix some problems, but no, it's acting exactly the same. But I *AM* using a Fall '99 model of iMac, not exactly cutting edge technology, so hopefully people with newer hardware won't encounter them.

      I should note that my reinstall of Diablo II was my first time in recent memory that I've tried to reinstall anything to improve performance, and it didn't change anything, because that wasn't the problem. Reinstalling isn't the Mac way.

    • My WinXP box bluescreens at least once every couple of weeks. It bluescreened just this lunch hour, actually. This may be Microsoft's most stable OS yet, but it's got a long way to go before it's UNIX-stable.

    • One other observation: Apple uses the "blue screen" thing as part of their FUD on Windows. But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

      Well. If we're going to argue about what most users run, then you'll have to compare Mac OS 9.x to Win9x. What they're advertising is that OS X is better than Win9x. Easy target, I know. Still, that's the point of the advertisement.

      It's hard to argue that either MacOS 9 or Win9x are less stable than the other, since their stability is 100% determined by the amount of crap installed on the system. Win2K and Mac OS X are the first OSs from either vendor that change the "Stability vs. Amount of crap installed" ratio.
    • " But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?"

      The only real reason that many mac users are still using OS 9.x is that certain important apps arn't ported to OS X yet (Quark Express, Outlook etc) but that will all change within a couple of months, (or everyone will switch to InDesign and Entourage)

      I disagree about the stability problems - I've had a million problems with XP - a friend of mine installed AOL on his XP machine (He was thourouly duped by their advertising, he wouldn't listen to me...) Basically it crashed everytime he connected to the internet. On another occasion he installed two different virus checker/scanning type programs that conflicted resulting in the machine refusing to boot at all.

    • Umm... A lot of people aer still using win 95/98/ME and still get a shitload of bluescreens. Plus i've had a lot of my (formerly) win2k boxes get all messed up and start bluescrening. It's just less common.
    • Did Microsoft change the color of the blue screen of death?
  • It truly amazes me that a NAS producer dosent have a tremendous quantity of custom software for windows. Actually, it amazes me that ANY business could switch platforms corporate wide without having to rewrite everything. I'm sure a Lot more people would switch to ANYTHING but windows if they could.

  • Everything he can think of? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore&gmail,com> on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @03:29PM (#5442738) Homepage Journal

    He says: "Over the next week I threw everything at it I could think of", and then mentions Office and a VPN connection.

    Well, maybe I have more imagination, but here's three that I am having trouble with, right now, today:
    • Video conferencing software that will interop with what everyone else uses, since not everyone else uses a Mac, much as I'd like that to be;
    • wireless "cell" modem connectivity--there's stuff out there that has "unsupport", but if Verizon works with Macs, why don't they just say so?
    • Gigabit ethernet pci cards for older G4s. Lots of options as lokng as you like Asante--which I personally do, but my manager wants more price and performance choices, and I can only offer one solution.
    Now, I'm the biggest fan-boy of Macs that you'll find--but I sure wish they had better third party hardware, and software, support. This last week, as a new Mac IT guy in a mostly PC office, I have learned alot about why Macs only have a fraction of the market. To pay more, per machine, but to have it capable of less, is inexcusable--and will need to be fixed before Apple sees too many more CTOs like Geoff Barrall.

    (Although certainly, the more CTOs like Geoff, the more likely third-party support is going to happen. He is the guy talking to vendors, and they'll take his request for Mac support more seriously than they'll take mine. Hey, Geoff, how about asking Verzion to support Macs!)
    • Video conferencing is a sore spot for the Mac, certainly.

      However, your Gigabit ethernet objection seems rather besides the point. G4's have been shipping with Gigabit installed for over two years now - my old G4 Dual 450 has Gigabit. Upgrading a machine more ancient than doesn't seem so critical that a single, good, vendor isn't enough.

  • Not a bad switching article. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @04:12PM (#5443222)
    One thing I really liked about this article was that, possibly for the first time out of the many switcher articles I recall, the writer doesn't confuse his ignorance of a platform's abilities with limitations of that platform's abilities.

    I was shocked that he actually bothered to learn how to set up NFS on a mac without spending at least a paragraph or two whining about how long it took him, or that he had to download some 3rd party software if he wanted to configure it with a GUI. Most 'switchers' probably wouldn't have even figured it out before they wrote their article, and instead would have complained "macs can't do NFS", propagating FUD, just because they don't know how.

    As for the rest, yes, it isn't really all that radical. For the most part he just uses the same Microsoft apps on a different platform. However if you look at it realistically, that's what alot of businesspeople have to do to get by.

    Sure, he could have tried Keynote and/or OpenOffice, perhaps some time in the future he will. Berating him for using basically the same software package he's allways used isn't very realistic.

  • Outlook? (Score:4, Informative)

    by WatertonMan ( 550706 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2003 @04:35PM (#5443438)
    The one thing I don't understand is when he says he is using Outlook over a VPN. Is he speaking of the old Outlook Express that comes with OSX as part of the Classic mode? I suppose it works, but it is rather dated and doesn't use Aqua. Entourage is better but has its own set of problems - including so-so XP Outlook compatibility. (i.e. full compatibility with the version of Outlook that comes with OfficeXP)

    I'd also second that overall the article wasn't that informative. It also is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is true that many switchers switch because of problems with Windows that isn't really Window's fault. (i.e. comparing Window98 with OSX and ignoring XP) By the same measure you can find on many forums people who have a bad Mac experience which isn't typical of the platform. No problem except when they then judge the whole platform in terms of one bad behaving application, bad memory, or a bad motherboard. It often seems most comparisons are emotional ones based upon one bad experience. Fair comparisons are all too rare.

    I should also add that, even as a OSX lover, there are crossplatform problems. I find the browser in OSX for browsing Windows shares rather weak. It misses many servers. Yes many of those problems are Microsoft's fault and not Apple's or Samba's. But they are there. Work arounds are needed. (And yes I know that some of those problems even appear in mixed Windows networks) Many programs, such as Illustrator, often have problem saving to Windows shares for reasons no one is quite sure of. Further compatibility between file formats isn't 100%. Exporting presentations from Keynote to Powerpoint doesn't always work, for instance, and often screws up PDFs and the like.

    It is much better now than it was in the past. However there is also a lot more work to do. Hopefully better Outlook compatibility is coming (either from Microsoft or Apple). Most people expect Apple to come out with an Office killer this year as well. We'll see.

    • Re:Outlook? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For the curious...

      Outlook for Macintosh [microsoft.com] Note: Classic MacOS only.

      Outlook Express for Macintosh [microsoft.com] Note: Classic MacOS only.

      Entourage for Mac OS X [microsoft.com] is part of Office X.

      - Anonymous Coward

    • I should also add that, even as a OSX lover, there are crossplatform problems. I find the browser in OSX for browsing Windows shares rather weak. It misses many servers.
      I find it is incapable of browsing a routed network. When I add a WINS server to the config only the WINS server is browseable. When I remove it I can browse my own subnet normally. I have repeatedly berated my Apple rep over this, but they don't want to fix it.
  • Isn't this thing on the main page? This has been happening a lot lately.
    • It's slashdot! LOL! I mean... no duh...! LOL! I'll bet if Apple signed a $500,000,000 deal with Sun to directly compete with Microsoft it would get 2 lines. "Apple signs big deal. Steve Jobs very happy."
  • "Not only did it access the network, but I could (assess) both our Windows and UNIX servers with NFS and CIFS from the same laptop. Could this be too good to be true? " Nice to see he puts as much effort into checking his documents for quality as he does his presintashunz. *sigh* It's really sad to see so many painfully obvious spelling and grammar errors on the web. Especially from management... just proves that talent and education is NOT how they got there. Not exactly inspiring.

  • I went to a friend who had an Apple Macintosh PowerBook and asked if I could borrow it

    Does Apple have his friend on commission? Or is he just incredibly wealthy and lends out laptops like a cup of sugar?

    • Actualy, most macintosh users will gladly lend their computer to a friend (key word here being friend) for use, espesialy if the potential to convert a person to Mac OS X is there. I lent my old iBook (granted not $300, but $1,600 is still a chunk of change) to a die hard linux friend of mine to see if I could get him to convert. He now owns a G4.
      • I loaned my little old Pismo to a friend for a month while I went on a trip.

        He's a hard-core programmer who has been with Windows since the beginning.

        He's started browing store.apple.com a lot more as of late. ;-)

        -Brett
  • Who's turn is it to post about the megahertz myth? :)
  • "If this article sounds somewhat like a paid advertisement, it's not intended to be so..."

    "...because I just spent the last 2 and half fargin' hours sitting here typing and retyping it with Apple's PR people on the phone with me! I want a bigger check!"

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close