Recommend Apple, Lose Your Job? 997
rocketjam writes "While examining whether outsourcing tech work to India is really cost-effective, Robert X. Cringely takes a look at the old conspiracy theory that IT doesn't recommend Apple solutions because they need less support, thus endangering IT professionals' job security." Cringely argues: "Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job."
Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
And for years to come, you can always just add more RAM or upgrade the CPU(s) in the Linux box. "Upgrade time" for the Mac means buying a whole new X-Serve. Once the hardware for the Linux box becomes too impractical to upgrade, it's flexibility will allow you to use it in some other fashion, like a thrid tier firewall or as a database server for some small intranet need, or just the box that runs your help desk ticket system.
I thought this was obvious.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Who sold you that one, Bob? Did a bridge come with it?
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
I am one of two admins where I work and we have a network of about 15 Windows servers, 2 HP N-Class systems, 275+ desktops and all the associated network equipment. We have absolutely no problems handling everything. The important thing to know, however, is that the primary reason that there are even two of us is for redundancy. My employer is willing to pay for the peace of mind that comes from not having to call the admin back from vacation early because something happened. Someone is always onsite. Neither I nor my partner have had any problems maintaining the entire network with the other gone.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
The Xserve only has one power supply... in a similar price range Compaqs and Dells come with redundent power supplies.
I realize this is a minor thing, but from the initial research we did at my company (a less then 100 person firm), we just didn't get the feeling that Apple really knew how to deal with the corporate market (e.g. redundency, dependability, interoperability, snapshots of drives, etc). More like they were counting on the 'cool' factor that makes them a good desktop machine, but not server.
Now on the flip side the group who designed thier RAID box does seem to understand...
I have 2 xserves and 500 linux boxes. (Score:5, Insightful)
my xserves have never failed. redundancy doesn't mean shit if the product isn;t good to begin with. I got lucky with super micro and in fact the latest 2000 cpu cluster at my company is super micro too. but frankly the other copanies on paper were actually better.
the only reason I dont buy more apple xserves is that as long as I can get lucjy the linux boxes are cheaper. but if I had to pay anybody the same as an apple i'd rather have an apple since I know it will work. you can have your redundant power supplies.
the key if finding a good vendor and sticky with them.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Funny)
You can do all of that with an iMac, if you wish.
Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior?
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
Here [utah.edu] you go, as requested, an iMac server. This one happens to be an older G3 iMac running OS X, so......Do your worst, but know that all IP's are logged.
This little iMac get about 30k hits/day and is rock solid. One of the best $600 I ever spent.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Funny)
I said iMac, not a convoluted version of Linux running on proprietary hardware.
iMac= small, cute microwave sized pc.. something I would feed an Opteron Cluster for breakfast..
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so.
So Apple has a "benchmarking" page:
http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
Which shows Apache Web Serving performance -- where it's faster than a Dell 1650 (not sure if it's running IIS or Apache). Point is, even allowing for a little marketing hyperbole, OS X + Xserve is a fully capable web server.
Assuming of course you think Apache is up to the job?
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I can think of no technical reasone you couldn't do the same with iMacs. Kidda a waste with that nice LCD, though.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is incredible, the way that it comes apart, and the ease with which you can change components is sooooo nice.
If I had to deal with upgrading/swapping components as part of my job, I'd LOVE to have a rack of XServes.
Not saying that other boxes aren't as easy/nice, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming the OEM even makes a model that has a faster CPU and you can stick in yours, why didnt you buy the faster one anyway? By the time you woudl get around to 'upgrading' your rackmount the net gen technology would have already rolled out the door.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a better DESKTOP than Linux (not a ton better, but better) -- but as a SERVER it's not as good. The hybrid OS it's running will run most open source stuff (thanks, fink guys!) but getting that stuff working is often a royal PITA, *harder* than it is on Linux.
A
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Open Directory on OS X server is very flexible, and you can choose to store your user lists in Password Server, Kerberos, or Active Directory [apple.com]. Then you don't have to worry about people getting your encrypted passwords.
Don't confuse OS X client capabilities with what's available in OS X Server.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
The password hashes are HASHES. Not encrypted. There's no way to get the original back, no matter how much CPU you have. Agreed that it's still not a great idea to let anyone at them, and I have to admit I was stunned that you could do it. I'll have to see if they use a different salt on each machine though, it adds a small measure of protection (if the passwords aren't simple). Download a copy of john and see how long it takes. My imac (running Linux) has been working on guessing a password to match my pw hash for more than ten days. The users on my system who used insecure p/ws were cracked in minutes.
Now you wanna talk security holes: by default, any DHCP server can send a URL of an LDAP server to OSX, and it'll authenticate users from that LDAP server. Yuck.
Second, you state that "OSX is much harder to work with," but don't explain how. Personally, I've found it much easier to learn than Linux was: I've never felt the need to compile my own OSX kernel, but I've had to do that repeatedly to Linux over the years. The distributed directory stuff in Jaguar rocks, and it integrates with LDAP, AD, whatever (and all of the above, simultaneously). See the macdevcenter at O'Reilly.
Agreed about Cringely: he's an idiot, IMHO. Can you name ANY profession that would recommend a change in their workplace that would remove themselves from being qualified to work there? Sheesh!
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
The CPU? Don't know yet. The unit is too new to need any upgrades yet.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
People are so much more expensive than hardware that the whole argument about saving money with Linux is ludicrious if you can find another system, such as Macs running OS X, that can do all of the same things as Linux and reduce head count by even one or two people.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3)
Another factor that supports your point is the ability for said employees to be able to use the machines. If they're comfortable with them, they're not going to spend time bugging IT. They can quickly fix it themselves.
In that sense, I'd
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, since you seem to be gunning for a response from a Linux/x86 person for some reason, I'll bite.
Your argument is well taken, and in fact I think it is an excellent point to use when debating Windows vs. Mac as a desktop machine. Apple has a beautiful UI, can run MS Word for those who need it, and is built atop BSD so I would expect it to be very stable. The extra purchase price of a suitable Mac with OSX for daily desktop use and as a network client in an office setting is more than offset by the smaller number of tech support people required to maintain it, resulting in a net savings vs. Windows. I wish Apple would make OSX available on x86 so it can run on the legacy x86 hardware that most places already have. Apple's currently exhibiting their biggest market miscalculation since they priced themselves out of the personal computer market in the '80s, by not releasing an x86 version! Heck, Longhorn and DRM and Trusted Computing and Subscription-Pricing and all that is an open invitation for someone to come in and eat MS's cake. If the option existed on existing hardware, I'd recommend migration to it as a standard desktop ASAP. I might well be running it at home right now instead of Linux; I'd at least give it a try for sure.
Where I think your argument breaks down a bit is in the server room. OSX is beautiful, and all that, but there is no reason to be running a GUI on the server. When it's loaded up with connections and is busy being a server, then you start opening windows with those flashy effects, it's going to bog the whole network down once the CPUs peak out. Your phone will start ringing off the hook with users helpfully telling you that their spreadsheets are taking forever to load. Unix GUIs have historically been so clunky and ugly to save clock cycles for more useful things, like serving up files and SQL data records to clients. When GUIs were used at all. This is part of why *NIX is eating MS for lunch in the server space (leaving security aside).
Being a BSD beneath it all, I'd expect there's a way to boot OSX into a command line and not use the GUI. If you do that, I'd expect it to be similar to running BSD on any other machine. As a server, OSX should require no more and no less of a knowledgeable maintenance staff than any other BSD implementation. Once you're underneath the GUI what's it matter whether it's Apple's BSD or OpenBSD or any other flavor BSD?
Now, given Apple is a sole-source outfit, if their stuff is well integration-tested prior to release, it might save a little bit of time, but that cuts both ways - I'm currently stuck with a used Beige G3 that I picked up (after consulting apple.com) last weekend intending to give OSX a spin, and now they've decided it's not going to be supported after all. The moral is, any savings in support staff must be weighed against the risk of getting locked into a marketing-driven, sole-source vendor for both hardware and software. So far, OSX looks very promising, but the very nature of Apple's business model presents the risk of Microsoft-style lock-in and a similar forced-upgrade treadmill without the benefit of commodity hardware pricing. Remember to take that into account. Given how much babysitting a Windows box requires, it might still pay off to switch though!
Additionally, Apple has very little of a track-record with enterprise servers. It wasn't until a few years ago that they managed to properly implement multitasking and multithreading, and to do it, they basically admitted to themselves they weren't ever going to figure it out so they copped the BSD kernel instead. I commend them for the decision, but it still leaves a seed of doubt as to their ability to follow through at the enterprise level. I've seen Apple change direction, suddenly drop product lines, and almost go bankrupt more times than I can count; you'll have to forgive me if I adopt a wait-and-see attitude for a while before I recommend bet
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3)
How to lie with facts (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this modded as informative? It's misleading at the very least.
First off, the XServe is already running at 1.33 GHz (single or dual processor) [apple.com], so what's the frelling point of putting a 1.2 GHz processor in there? The upgrade you cite is designed specifically to fit in one of the older-model G4 machines (running significantly slower than 1 GHz).
The price diff
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
[tomshardware.com]
P4 3.06 GHz; A New Record: 82 Watts Power Dissipation
These are everywhere in a 2 proc setup(xeon 3.06 x2) in a 1u configuration.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
The XServe RAID has redundant power supplies, so it's likely the next XServe will too.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
Also perfect for high-end applications by the United States Navy, ala nuclear attack submarines.
http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/defen
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I don't find it fast; I use it mostly as a music/photo server and spare computer, because it is noticeably pokey compared to my 800 MHz G4 powerbook. My point is that those of us whose income or business allows us to use reasonably current machines get very spoiled, and we forget that performance that we now find "unacceptable" only a few years ago seemed impressive.
And in fact, that old G3 is indeed perfectly adequate for web browsing, word processing, and running iTunes. And in my opinion, a big improvement over the same machine running OS9.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent down (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, it even runs Linux. The parent is simply spouting old anti-Apple rhetoric.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
And the hardware it runs on is essentially free. An IT department can take any extra PC and put it on the net as a Linux server. Let's say all the folks in Department E got shiny new computers to replace their old 300 MHz boxes. Those old 300 MHz boxes can have new life as a server.
So why is Linux also used for enterprise servers, where the XServe would work just fine? I suspect it is because most companies already have a preferred vendor. All the shiny new boxes in Department E came from Dell, and the enterprise servers did too. Unless the business is an Apple shop, already getting computers from Apple, buying an XServe means buying from multiple vendors. And maybe the desktops and the enterprise servers were all bought at once, in a package deal that saved some extra money.
All this is obvious. I moderate Cringely's latest column (-1, Troll).
steveha
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Informative)
But when you compare apples to apples (heh), you see that Macs are quite price-comparable to mid-range or high-end PC's, feature for feature. On the very high end, Macs are actually significantly cheaper than PC's, apples to apples. Or rather they will be when the G5 starts shipping.
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the cheapest Mac Apple sells and assuming it's a low-end computer. It's not. Don't make the same mistake of thinking that it is.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing is that AMD is supposed to ship it's "hammer" class of processors before Apple is supposed to ship G5 computers. I would also expect that intel will pump out some fast/power efficient processors in responce to both Apple's use of IBM's 5th generation of PowerPC chips and AMD's Optron chips. Basically, the G5 will make the high-end Mac about the same speed as the high-end PC equivalents (not saying anything about which is actually a better com
Price comparisons between Macs and PCs are a farce (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get something out of the way right up front: a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC. Sure, that's obvious, but it surprises me how little it's acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. $1500 worth of PC hardware won't give you a Mac no matter what you put on it. The same goes the other way; Mac hardware and software will never get you a PC no matter what combination you use. In the end, a PC is still a PC and a Mac is still a Mac. Play with numbers all you want, it won't change a thing. Folks who want a Mac will not be happy with anything but a Mac, not even a comparably spec'd out PC, period. The reverse is just as true.
Comparing Apple computers to PCs is like comparing Palm devices to ring-binder planner systems (nothing should be implied by the order in which those items were listed, by the way). Both serve similar purposes, and there are folks who use each who would never think of ditching their choice for the other. So would it be safe to say that all Palm users should ditch their Palm devices for ring-binder planners purely on the basis of a price tag? I think not. Palm users love their expensive Palm devices and binder planner users love their slightly less expensive binders, and neither is going to be wrong for sticking to their preferences.
I find the whole Mac vs. PC debate silly for the reasons described above. I use both, although I prefer my Macs to my PCs. That's just me. My wife loves her PCs and despises my Macs. Life goes on.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
So buy the extra hard drive and RAM for the G5 from Crucial! Noone is forcing you to buy RAM or storage DIRECTLY from Apple. It's standard PC3200 DDR RAM, and standard Serial ATA. Geez, you people don't know how to shop for bargains.
Anyone who buys a packaged system from a brand name reseller KNOWS that you should buy the box with the least amount of RAM and HD available because you could always order those CHEAPER from a third party.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
You ignore two factors that also go into TCO. One, how long can you use each box? Hardware quality aside, at what age would you retire a PC compared to a Mac? Two, for how much can you sell the old box?
I can't answer the first question for you, because that has to do with usage patterns. Many people do claim that a Mac stays usable longer than PCs.
The answer to the second question is clearer, though. Macs are worth a lot of money in the resale market, while PCs aren't. Browsing on eBay, I see a 400 MHz iMac receiving 18 bids at $325 right now. On the PC side, a 1 GHz Pentium III is at $102. Now, I'm not saying these two are equivalent computers. I'm saying you should factor that difference into the TCO.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the iMacs cost more to begin with. Compare the cost of the cheapest brand-new iMac with the cheapest new name-brand PC.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
You might, from the fact that I quoted a line that said exactly that, conclude that I know that. I'm adding factors to the original TCO equation, not denying the factors that have already been mentioned.
Let's put a box together. The $799 eMac has an 800 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB hard disk, 32 MB video card, ethernet, firewire, modem, etc. A $599 Dell Dimension 2400 has a 2.2 GHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 80 GB hard disk, on-board video, and apparently no ethernet or firewire ports. The most important point here is that whether these two are equivalent computers depends on what you use it for. It should be clear that for a certain range of purposes, we can assume the two are equivalent.
Further assume that the eMac will be used for 3 years, and the Dell for 2 years. Finally, assume that the eMac will resell for $400, while the Dell will resell for $200. Doing the math, the Dell costs 55 cents a day over its life with you, while the eMac costs 37 cents. Therefore, the TCO of the eMac is actually less.
Now, note all the assumptions I made. The truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of the assumptions. Check the numbers out for yourself, because I just made up the usage years and resale value for this example.
Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the reason why no software house will produce bug-free products is that, beyond trivial things that are provably correct, it's impossible.
If you buy Apple.. (Score:5, Funny)
Please. Think of the Indians. Buy PC.
just like the Bible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you buy Apple.. (Score:3, Funny)
A matter of comfort (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an issue of comfort.
Everyone is comfortable with windows, even if they don't like it.
Many admins are comfortable with Linux/Unix. It's what has gotten the job done for years.
I have used lots of different operating systems, CPM/TRSDOS/OS-2/VMS/Unix/Windows but have
NEVER used a Mac, so I'm not comfortable recommending it. I expect it to be very different
from the CLI world I'm used to.
In order for me to get comfortable, I'd have to play with it. If MacOS ran on PC hardware,
I would consider setting up a partition to boot it, but that's not the case. It's expensive
to learn, and I have no incentive.
Robert
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tutorial. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why Mac power users buy their favorite replacement mouse with multiple buttons and scroll wheels. If you can scrape together at least $15 to $30, you can buy a decent mouse.
Mac OS X has full support for multiple buttons (right mouse button works for contextual menus) and scroll wheels.
If you want to pop up a contextual menu without the right mouse button, you hold down the Control key and click with the mouse. Simple.
stairwells made easy (Score:4, Funny)
Apple aggressively marketed the one button mouse concept for years to promote their own unique slant on "easy to use" and then when world+dog discovers that the human hand has more than one finger, no one stops to ask what they were smoking.
What boils my cheese is how Apple gets away with a vacuous redefinition of the word easy.
Easy is one of the most complicated human criteria in human language. For a two year old, it is easy to go down stairs on your bum. That is how I always felt using a Mac.
When a teenager I discovered that stairs (on the way down) were mostly optional. I discovered that I could make it all the way to the bottom in a single bound, two steps from the top. Then one day my forehead sailed into the overhang, dropped me on my ass halfway down, with a concussion and a damaged tailbone. That's how I feel using older versions of Windows.
One Christmas morning I spent at my girlfriend's, she had an older house where the carpet was not glued onto the steps, but pinched down with metal rods at the nook of each step. The steps underneath were the old wooden style with the rounded projection. There were shiny patches from long years of use worn into the stiff carpet bubbles folded around the stair edges. I put my bare foot onto a shiny patch as slippery as a skating rink, then smashed my leading heal on every step all the way to the bottom. That's how I feel using Unix. Ten years later, that same heal still hurts in the shower.
One time I worked in an office building with highly depressurized stairwells. Because I still had my keys in my right hand, my pinky was folded outside the handle. I pulled hard to crack the airlock, the door swung open ballisticly (which I was prepared for), I was just to pull my hand free when hard steel door handle crushed the small knuckle of my pinky finger against a decorative rockface. What I didn't realized is that the decorative rockface stuck out six inches from the plane of the door hinges so it crushed my finger well before it finished swinging to 90 degrees. This left me with a mild, permanent disfiguration of that knuckle. I'm not sure what OS that represents, but both Windows NT and VMS spring to mind.
So here Apple comes along and proclaims that their stairwell is easier to use because there design has only one handrail, so you don't get confused about which handrail to grab, nothing can go wrong, and I'm supposed to feel impressed.
I think I could fill a 500 page book on stairwell design factors: step dimensions, surface materials, footwear, footsize, materials carried, overhead clearance, emergency lighting, evacuation, firefighting, bannisters and handrails.
At the end of the day the answer would be that different designs are better for different people, different tasks, different situations.
Not even a common stairwell has a one-size fits all solution.
One decision has made my life easier: never underestimate the complexity of the task you are facing. After beating myself senseless on dozens of different stairwell designs, that's the only kind of easy that still interests me.
I recomend macs despite not using them! (Score:3, Funny)
I havne't used a mac in years, but when someone asks what computer to buy I recomend a mac. For my own protection. I don't use windows, but I get many questions on Windows. I have no idea how to deal with a windows machine that is described over the phone as having given a dialog box that mentioned registery corruption. With a Mac I'm comfortable that I won't get a call like that. Those details are taken care of, so when something bad happens they can normally deal with the problem. (and it doesn't h
Makes an assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes an assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that was the point of the article. It's about the CIO not the staff. Headcount is king, and from what I've seen, it really is. If you need more IT to keep up all the time, you just keep getting all these people under you.
Resume-- Mangaged a 350 head IT department for bigass corporation...
is much more impressive than
Resume-- Managed a 5 person IT department for bigass corporation....
Re:Makes an assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
"Reduced IT cost by 75% by reducing the department from 250 employees to 5 and reducing TCO of all computers, while increasing productivity in other departments."
It's true. I did it for years. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then a large soda company bought them and felt that 'they all needed to be the same' even though the Microsoft Offices the platforms ran worked together.
So, we went from the two of us supporting 700 - 1000 users to 18 people.
And the user populace was not happy. The standard rebuild time of a machine went from 'when they got new ones' to once a week. We had device driver issues, and SLAs of getting machines back up and running in two hours so we ended up just ghosting machines over and over to clear up whatever went wrong.
Weird.
Re:It's true. I did it for years. (Score:5, Interesting)
Macs *finally* have a real OS (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, I used to work for a company where we had about 200 PC users and 30 Mac users. The Mac users were self-supporting (they had to be--the IT dept had no Mac support resources), yet I still found myself helping out down in the Mac area on occasion. For PC support, we had: Me. We had a help-desk, but most of the help desk was dedicated to supporting our in-house order-entry and order-fulfillment applications. We had a phone admin/sysadmin responsible for Novell, I helped out some on Novell and Unix, an
I wouldn't suggest it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I figure that Macs might have a place in a business or accounting context but not for engineering. Anyone got a counter-example?
Re:I wouldn't suggest it (Score:5, Informative)
You can find a good catalog of Mac app's at http://guide.apple.com/. A quick search turned up ArchiCAD, CADintosh, DesignWorks (circuit design/schematics), MacSchema, PowerCADD, VectorWorks, B2Spice (circuit emulator),
Re:I wouldn't suggest it (Score:3, Interesting)
Engineering!=CAD
I am an engineer [mit.edu]. I've worked [mta.info] on many [mbta.com] engineering [soundtransit.org] studies [bigdig.com] over the past few years. I run a engineering company now. The number of times I've had to use a propriety CAD package I can count on my right hand.
Thanks to all of the open source packages out there, there are plenty of engineerng apps [sourceforge.net] available for Mac OS X.
Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine how much money you could save your organization if you had the time to verify all backups and replace old, failure prone disk drives before they crash.
There is always more to do in IT.
The bad taste of Appletalk (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure things have improved tremendously, but in the previous decade, Apple computers were a severe pain in the posterior to support in a large enviroment.
There's a lot of things about Appletalk that didn't scale well at all. I wasn't a member of the Mac support team, but oh, the stories I could tell... Oh, the hacks that were needed to get them onto the regular TCP/IP network...
If sysadmins aren't installing Macs now, maybe that's why. Maybe they are just afraid.
So how easy are they to integrate into a large network these days?
Appletalk tasted good as a user (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard administrators horror stories of dealing with apple talk, but they don't seem to much worse than other horror stories. And even if they were the cause of a little more pain, isn't that the price of providing a good network solution to the users.
At my former company, when it was time to move away from appletalk, the network adminstrators jumped as fast as they could to replace it. But they didn't have horror stories of having to patch thousands of users computers, or bringing down entire networks as reasons for their JOY of seeing appletalk go away. Instead, it was that appletalk "slowed down the network".
So, we got a new network where we had to remember the IP address of any printer we wanted to use and any server we needed to access, and to share our work we had to tell everyone our IP address and hope that they wrote it down or you'd be telling them again, and again, and again... We went from a user centric network to a faster IT centric network.
Although I am a big Mac fan, I don't agree with Cringley on this issue. There are other reasons that Macs are being used in most businesses besides IT looking out for their own jobs. And most seem to be outlined here by
But whenever I think about the lose of AppleTalk, and now see it being blamed for Apple's shortcomings, I really wonder who IT thinks they work for. Always thought the user, but maybe not...
Human Nature... (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows in the workplace (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to say: updating these machines is a completely and utter waste of my time and skills but it definatly keeps me employed. My boss is so apathetic that he never wants to make changes. I've offered on several occasions of virus outbreaks in the company to switch everyone to mozilla mail so we'd stop getting those Lookout (Outlook) viruses. But no!
I swear if i ever own my own company, everyone will Linux dummy terminals or iMacs, etc -- something ease to remotely update and maintain.
Wow, this is horrible to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad Conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I think he's *WAY* off base here as to why Linux is being adopted faster than Apple. If I need a 64-way Linux machine, I can get it [hp.com]. If I need a cluster I can get it (off the shelf) [penguincomputing.com]. If I want some funky hardware bit, I can get that as well.
My reason for not choosing Apple is vendor lock-in. If I can keep something that allows me to pick and choose parts from a wide variety of sources, I can build solutions that fit the need.
The one place where he might have a point is on the desktop, but I don't see a lot of Linux migration on the desktop. It's still Windows. People want Office even though they hate it.
Real reason Linux is faster adopted. (Score:4, Funny)
And it goes like this for Apple:
Pricing and Usability (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Pricing: Mac's are significantly more money. And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.
2) Usability. While there are a lot of things that work smoothly under OS X, there are still some issues, ESPECIALLY with Windows interoperability -- and any company of size is going to have a significant overlap. So you'd have to train IT folks (or hire new ones), and still have some userland issues.
Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? Again, this is on fairly new machinery! Concerns have to be that Apple is quickly going to invalidate the G3 and G4 (over the next 24-30 months).
Those are my thoughts as a fairly PHB who started using OS X on a TiBook back in 2001.
Steve
Re:Pricing and Usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Dell Optiplex GX270: Celeron 2.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, combo drive, 17" monitor, USB WiFi adapter, v.92 modem, XP Pro: $1,352 after $50 rebate.
Apple eMac: G4 1.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, DVD-R/CD-RW, 17" flat CRT monitor, Airport Extreme, v.92 modem, OS X 10.2: $1,398.
I guess it depends on your definition of "significantly."
And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.
Windows ME and Windows 2000 were released very close together, if not at the same time, yet you were expected to pay again to go from one to the other. Every machine sold until the release of 10.2 still could run OS 9, and there are plenty of applications available there.
2) Usability. While there are a lot of things that work smoothly under OS X, there are still some issues, ESPECIALLY with Windows interoperability -- and any company of size is going to have a significant overlap. So you'd have to train IT folks (or hire new ones), and still have some userland issues.
Actually, I've found OS X to be easier to integrate into a Windows network than even Windows 95/98. People at my company who come from OS 9 and Windows alike find it very easy to log on to servers use printers. If your users don't like it, OS X can be scripted onto servers just as easily as any other workstation.
The biggest plus is that you don't have to join a domain to access its resources. I had a Powerbook on a Windows-only network for 6 months. Not only was I able to log on to all of the Windows servers, I could administer them with Microsoft's terminal services client for the Mac, and still work through Outlook. Nobody had any idea that there was a Mac on the network--it was that compatible.
Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? Again, this is on fairly new machinery!
The people in my office who are still working away at their Beige G3's would probably disagree. I seem to remember the jump from the 286 to 386 to 486 caused the same issues (and complaints.) My 2000-vintage Pismo Powerbook was the machine I mentioned above. Not only was it able to be quite productive in a Windows-only environment, it has plenty of speed for what most people need it for.
Concerns have to be that Apple is quickly going to invalidate the G3 and G4 (over the next 24-30 months).
Why's that? I seriously doubt that they would shut out machines that are selling even now so soon. In fact, with the G5 becoming the new "high end" processor, it's likely that the G4 will become the new "low end." I expect eventual phase-out of the G3's because of new Altivec-ready applications released down the road, but those who need those applications will upgrade, and those who don't can continue to work with 10.2, or even OS 9.
Re:Pricing and Usability (Score:4, Informative)
That's where you are completely wrong! They are major upgrades! The jump to Jaguar (10.2.x) and the next jump to Panther (10.3.x) are paid upgrades because they include a whole bunch of new features. Jaguar included literally hundreds of updates. It would be like going from WinME to WinXP in comparision.
There's still confusion for the MS crowd about how the versioning works. 10.x.x is the brand name of the OS. It's OS Ten. The .x release is the operating system version. 10.0 was practically a beta. 10.1 was the first major release. 10.2 was Jaguar and soon there will be 10.3 which is Panther. In between you have the .x.x releases. These are completely free and for the most part don't add features per se. The .x.x releases are like Service Packs.
When was the last time you ended up with major features being added to Windows due to a Service Pack upgrade? I would venture little to none. You would get improvements like bigger disk support and bug fixes but not major changes or new features. Then why is Apple dropping the ball w/OSX on the G3?
Because it was a CLASS ACTION Lawsuit and they decided to settle it. Originally Apple stated that OS Ten would run on G3's then they back peddled a little bit and the OS exceeded the hardware abilities of these older machines. I believe it was a combination of a few factors.
- Major advances in Video card technologies at the time. i.e. new cards every couple of months. Hey day of 3D accelerators.
- Processor speeds were advancing very fast at the time as well.
- Memory prices were dropping like a rock.
- Apple engineers showed Jobs what Eye Candy was possible with newer hardware.
I have no doubt that if you strip out of the eye candy and turn off some of the other features those older G3's would actually run OS X rather well. The early 10.0.x beta was quite capable of running older systems. The same thing happened in the PC world as well. Suddenly 133Mhz / 233Mhz / 266Mhz machines were left in the dust by 500Mhz / 650MhzRe:Pricing and Usability (Score:4, Interesting)
WinME: no security model, no journaling, no ACLs, kernelmode and userland mixed up, no POSIX layer, irrational system limitations all over the place.
WinXP: security model, journaling FS, ACLs, cleanly separated kernel/user mode, POSIX layer, *plus* a vastly different and better kernel, plus true-blue 32-bit OS with no silly limits.
The upgrade price from ME to XP Home was $99 MSRP, available for $75-$85 at most places.
By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic between 10.0 and 10.3. There have been a slew of new iXXX apps, eye candy, plus several incremental updates to the OSX kernel (mostly Apple catching up with the BSD world) and fixes for speed and stability.
To be fair, OSX was a *spanking new* OS (like NT 3.1) and deserves some time to `settle down'. What i find disturbing is Apple's need to charge early adopters for their show of support.
Re:Pricing and Usability (Score:4, Informative)
>available for $75-$85 at most places.
Bear in mind as well that *every* copy of MacOS X is closer to the professional versions of windows than anything else.
>By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic
>between 10.0 and 10.3.
Bullshit.
*Journaled FS
*Encrypted Home Directories
*Expose
*Quartz Extreme
*Recompiled in gcc3.1 (from 2.9--this is *very* major).
*Rendezvous
*Faster User Switching
*WebCore
*X11 Included
*Updated Web-browser (From IE 5 to Safari 1.0)
*The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated.
*Inkwell
*Built-in faxing in every application
*A new finder interface and interface tweaks (with both 10.2 and 10.3--a new find function, spring-loaded folders, a whole new brushed metal interface for Panther...)
*/Enormous/ Speed Improvements
*iDisk Syncing
*Pixlet support
*Updated bundled applications (Mail, iTunes, iMove, and iPhoto, and iChat AV all come to mind)
*Serious improvements to the developers suite (Xcode, Shark, gcc3.3)
*Font Book
Re:Pricing and Usability (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, your other points might be valid (though there are several companies that specialize in mac upgrades), but an unlimited license for OSX Server is what? $1000? Even at 10 times that, it pays for any hardware disparity with commodity PC parts with any significant installation.
How much is a 5000 seat WinXP contract? How many IT to support that, and how much do they make?
Macs, Linux really are better (Score:5, Informative)
- Macs are not that expensive. What you get with a Mac makes up for slightly higher prices. They give you what you need without having to tack on lots of "extras."
- Macs can do everything you need. We use a mixed environment transparently. There is nothing I cannot do with a Mac that I want to do, nor am I prevented from interacting with Windows boxes or Linux boxes. It just works. Transparently.
- Macs don't waste your time. Every security update from Microsoft means the Windows guys are running around updating. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. The Windows guys keep updating their virus software. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. And although some people report problems with Apple hardware, and I respect those opinions since any hardware can go wrong, our uptime has been great.
As for the Linux guys, heh, they love Linux and take care of their boxes without any questions or issues coming up. Patch needed? They do it on their own time. Uptime? Forever. Problems? Nil.In short, don't believe those who say that you can't do things with Macs, or it causes problems interacting on the network, or the usual FUD. Although I'm sure there are specific instances where problems might occur on the edges, my real-world experience has shown that the Mac and Linux boxes are the ones that just work in my company. Any problems we have are with the Windows side. I can well believe that you need more IT staff to keep the Windows boxes going. There is very little you need to do to keep the alternatives going, and they interact just fine.
So if you love Window boxes, good for you. But if you hear the FUD about Macs not working well with others, I'm here to tell you that it's just not so.
Group reply (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Macs, Linux really are better (Score:5, Insightful)
Cringely accuracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
A very good friend of mine (one of Microsoft's major customers at the time) recommended to Redmond precisely the e-mail safeguards that would have made this week's problem impossible.
Unless I'm mistaken, msblast (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't spread by e-mail. Is he confusing 'e-mail' with 'the Internet', or did he not do his homework.
Most tech support suggest the right machine (Score:3, Informative)
Some people in college where I worked as tech support did ask about buying a mac. I told them its very robust and they'll love its working, but they'll have issues with software and had better go with IBM or Dell. They took my advice. I similarly have a few Dells at home and no Mac yet.
Decisions are ALWAYS done this way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, the technology chosen is one of two choices:
1) What people are comfortable with. A lot of people want an easy, safe, predictable decision.
2) Resume fodder. What do the decision-makers want to add to their resumes? What's missing?
Analyse the average IT department's choices and one of those two is almost always the cause. Let's face it, most of us would also be guilty of these; picking what we're used to and what we think would be fun or useful to learn.
Mouse Buttons (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cringley argues...... (Score:3, Informative)
This person obviously sees only part of the bigger picture. Supporting the hardware/software is part of the total cost of ownership. If a company deems it a better deal to purchase PCs over cost of support issues, then they'll be picked. Not to mention, most users have a PC at home. Why burden them with learning a different platform at the office?
Bottom line, you can go buy a new PC motherboard, sound card, video card, etc for a few bucks. Replacing Apple parts are a bit more expensive and harder to come by.
If Apple had wanted a larger share of the office market, they should have been there to compete for it all these years. Nothing against them, but they focused almost entirely on the home user market and photoshop crowd for the past ten years, leaving PCs for the miscellanious work. You don't get your hardware stocked in offices by being innovative, you do it by being consistent and monopolistic.(
This isn't a blanket assumption that PCs are the better answer for all office situations, but those are the reasons none of my shops have been Apple shops.
Please don't get all zealoty and mod happy, just an honest opinion from an honest joe who's set up more office networks than most. My karma is still recovering from the last time I posted to a Mac thread.
couple of things.. (Score:5, Interesting)
second, once i did bring up using macs instead of wintel for regular users. my boss scoffed at the idea. lesson here is: it's not up to me.
the reason i was successful with linux is i got the 'throwaway machines' after the office went thru a hardware upgrade. i then proceeded to wipe those machines clean, installed linux and has since been running file servers, print servers etc. so eventually i was able to convince buying hardware specifically for running linux. can't do that with a mac (start out with throw-away machines, that is) i even got a mosix cluster of older computers that they were ready to toss out.
so maybe there's more to the CLI than just pure nerd testosterone. evolutionary adoption? vs. the disruptive adoption that a mac would require.
From the article.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool! Where are the numbers to support that? Probably isn't going to cut it.
Then a little later....
I am not claiming that every organization should throw out its PCs and replace them with Macs, but the numbers are pretty clear
You mean, those numbers that you didn't include? How are they clear? Once again, Probably isn't cutting it here.
Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that.
AS PROBABLY SIMPLE AS THAT!!
There's that probably word again! Ok, so it's obvious he's a Mac user. I'd probably take him a lot more seriously if there were a lot less probablies and a lot more proof and information. I'm PROBABLY going to stick with Linux for my IT needs for now.
Re:From the article.... (Score:5, Informative)
Hard to believe the parent was modded as "insightful".
Sad, people never learned to search the internet before pressing the flame button. There [applelinks.com] are [apple.com] a [hubster.com] lot [hubster.com] of [apple.com] studies [xephon.com] that [apple.com] support [apple.com.au] Cringley's [216.239.57.104] statement [macworld.co.uk] etc. [macrules.com], and you'd be hard pressed to find a single study in the reverse!
BTW, I've seen studies supporting Linux as having a good TCO vs. Windows NT. I've never seen a study comparing Linux vs Mac TCO on desktop, and there are only a few studies comparing Linux vs Mac TCO in servers (the Mac usually comes out on top, but the studies are recent and may have bias).
Oh, that's DEFINITELY it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Know the whole world knows! All of us IT types are really all sitting around in a room filled with exotic dancers, pool tables, video games, and food. We don't really do anything. And it all gets so boring that we go LOOKING for systems to give us more work to do!
In reality, 99% of the IT people that I know would practically sell their left arm to have systems which required less of their time.
steve
Absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
So, yeah, IT people like Windows because it keeps them in a job. And Microsoft feeds right into this. Ever noticed how there's ALWAYS a workaround in Windows/Office/whatever? There's almost always some way to get the software to do what you want, even if it means hours of registry hacking or whatever. Microsoft probably makes sure that every bug in their database is resolved to at least "Workaround exists" status and then they ship it.
Linux is also happy for IT depts because it's infinitely configurable.
Apple, on the other hand, makes systems that are designed to NOT NEED ADMINSTRATORS. Thus, it follows that no system administrator will ever buy one.
THat's why apple doesn't have much chance of breaking into the corporate market, frankly.
simon
Another take on it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think regarding OS X it is too soon to call. From what I see it is a very nice OS and those boxes are sweet to (albeit more expensive). In my opinion you should give at least 3 years for any changes to happen. And again like with Linux those changes will happen from ground up. Offer any CIO right now the option to switch to OS X and he will tell you that you are nutts. And he will tell you a lot of reasons. And I bet that half of those reasons will be bogus. But this is how things are in the real world. If on another hand you will tell you your sysadmin that you would like to have Mac in your office (and if he is reasonable guy, which is almost always true ;) ) I don't think he will object as long as your boss is Ok with it.
In my opinion Apple still feels a backlash from the years of MacOS 7.x. Which was a dog. I know that for sure because at my graduate school for some reason a lot of people liked Macs and for some strange reason I became a "support guy". Those were the days when your Mac crashed several times a day. And that was also a time when major fallout happen on a sofware vendors side. A lot of companies droped their support for Macs.
Another "perception"/legacy problem that came from those days (and I think that might still affect IT guys) was that Mac OS for a guy with unix or Windows background looked like a debilitating mess. Those days Apple was clearly behind in design and features (just remember TCP/IP implementation) plus they always targeted "creative" people. So for those "creative" people to be able to manage thier computer Apple came up with set of "metahpors" that were, to say the least, very unnatural for IT guys. So you had system extentions, control panels, prefernces and God knows what else. Every other program you install always would add something in your system folder. Then you had to get a programm that would hunt down conflicts between those extentions. Then you had to install "crush" analyzer that would freez your box even more often. And so on ad nauseum. So if you follow the logic of the article Mac OS was suppposed to be IT's bread and butter. In reality IT guys were running away from it like from leper.
Personally I am not Mac fanatic. But I think Apple has a good chance with it's current line of software and hardware if they combine that with more aggressive pricing they'll do great.
I'm breaking /. protocol here, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it me or is Cringely a bloomin idiot? He starts off talking about outsourcing then Apple, then back to India. He states that using more Macs in the office would decrease TCO without giving any numbers or any statements to back up that opinion. And it isn't even his opinion! He got the idea from a reader, no less!
Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that.
I didn't come up with this very smart idea, it came from a reader.
Whomever gave this guy a pulpit needs to be shot. This guy obviously uses a Mac.
Amazing! Common sense in the mainstream press. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course IT seeks to remain relevant, just like any other department. Most internal money is spent on make-work that just reminds everyone of everyone else's role. Hell, half the feature creep and spec shifting is just management's way of reminding everyone that the middle-managers exist. After all, their sole purpose is making life easier for the workers, but if they did that successfully, like security experts, they would appear completely redundant.
It's a wise CE/IO who keeps IT in-house, thereby tieing their livelihood to the success and well-being of the company. Outsourced IT is like paying a pharmacological company for drugs for a terminal patient. They'll help keep you alive to profit from your problems, but they won't want to make you better since then you might not need them.
Same Reason I don't have a mac (Score:5, Insightful)
IE: Should I spend $3k (CND) to buy a swanky new apple powerbook (or more for a new g5?), or should I spend $1000 and upgrade my current x86 system to be a pretty kick ass gaming box, which can also act as a high powered linux server? Pretty easy choice if you see my bank account.
Sure in a year or so I'll want to upgrade again, or I'll have a MB or DIMM or hard drive go and will have to buy a new part, but that's ok. Because the cost is down the road, and therefor, doesn't exist.
Note: the last sentance was intended to be sarcasic or ironic, depending on your view.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Technical professionals won't recommend Apple or linux because they recognize that the best tool for the job is one that employees understand.
B.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I think differently. Now, I think Macs threaten the livelihood of IT staffs. If you recommend purchasing a computer that requires only half the support of the machine it is replacing, aren't you putting your job in danger? Exactly.
Normally I agree with Cringely but this time I'm just going to have to call B.S.
I'm a sysadmin for a small bank (about 175 workstations spread out of 17 rural locations) and the reason our IT Staff here doesn't look at MAC (or linux for that matter) is that virtually none of the necessary banking software is put out for mac (or linux). And it's not like we're running some obscure banking core software... we're an ITI/Unisys mainframe shop.
Furthermore, no other sysadmin that I've ever talked to has had the attitude of "lets choose something that's difficult to use for job security"... that's just crap. Most of the IT shops I know are, if anything, understaffed and have plenty of job security because of it. We're not about to go looking for more work for ourselves... if anything it's just the opposite.
I use what the industry allows me to use, not what makes my job more secure...
Apple sneaking in to our company (Score:4, Interesting)
However, among the about 20 people in my sub-department, there are three with an Apple laptop for home use. One was always a Mac fan, the other took a good look on what as on the market, and the third talked to a bunch of people (including me) which laptop would be the least hassle. We all said: You don't want to have to fool around? Go get an Apple. Note that I've been a Linux person for ten years know, but I like my friends and intend to keep them. Linux on the laptop sucks, not because of Linux, but becaue of the laptop makers.
Anyway, we now have a small but critical mass of people who are getting everybody else interested, and keep bugging our tech people if they can get their Macs linked up to the rest of the system so they can do work from home on a real computer (company policy seems to say "no"). Also, they flash their iBooks around as Apple users are wont to do, and yes, those things are seriously cool. The design makes other laptops look like they were designed in the Soviet Union.
Buy an Apple desktop machine? Hell, no. I can get a far better deal with off-the-shelf x86 parts and SuSE. Buy a laptop from Apple? Yes, I'd switch, and I think most people in our department would, too. But official use? I don't see the inertia being broken. There is truth in the statement that nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft.
Wow! Something made me post. (Score:5, Interesting)
Feel free to express your opinions about Sun, SGI, or any other System V Unix. Wait, let's throw in BeOS, OS/2, OS/2 Warp, xBSD, or GNU HURD. Oh, wait, you've never used those platforms? Oh, well I guess you are an expert then.
As for those that have used the current Mac platform and like to spew vitriol for it, whooptie freakin doo, you are apparently clueless enough not to be able to learn something _different_. It's called adapting, humans are supposed to be one of the best of breed in that realm, but it's not happening for you. I guess Darwin didn't think about you with his theory of evolution. Oh, wait, he did, it's called WEAK!
Yes, Apple has issues. The OS has some things that work really well, others that need work. I can say the same thing for Solaris, Windows, HURD, xBSD, and most definitely Linux. Got any other nuggets of wisdom to drop on us?
Crigley is meerly making a statement about things that he notices. He notices that there are companies using Macs successfully and asks the question, "Why can't other companies do the same and be successful? Maybe because they don't want to be."
You know why Apple has such poor support, or fewer applications, or any of the things that Windows or other platforms has that Apple does not? Because of a smaller user base, smaller funding, and smaller demand. It's that simple. If they had even double the userbase, they'd have twice as many applications, twice as many features, and maybe even quadruple the support options. The reason they suck is that they _are_ small. Deal with it. Sun, in all it's glory, is small. Everything is small compared to Microsoft. Linux is tiny. HURD doesn't even show up on the map.
Feel free to correct me with conjecture and commentary about how you _know_ Windows is better because the majority uses it. The majority thought the world was flat in 1400. Does that mean the majority was right? Oh. Sorry, you didn't pay attention in geography because you were too busy being cool. Well, in that case, feel free to walk off the edge of the world...
Hiding under that rock again, I see... (Score:4, Flamebait)
Kinda like McDonalds recommends their own food, EB Games pushes their special magazines and BestBuy recommend a warrenty/the items that give them the most profit and kickbacks.
I guess this is another one of those WELCOME TO CAPITALISM!!! WHERE YA BEEN!?!? moments...
Apple as a viable option... (Score:4, Informative)
-Many of the negative comments are based on issues / biases that have been resolved for several years. (Pre Mac OS 10.2 at least, most pre Mac OS 10.1)
-There was a post that complained about the difficulty of using Mac OS 10.2 Server. I personally find it extremely easy to use and manage. Mac OS 10.3 Server is making advances on that including adding the ability to act as a primary domain controller thanks to the inclusion of Samba 3. For the poster that did not like the management apps they have been completely rewritten as well as being able to be managed via the command line. On the documentation side yes it is a little light. That too is supposed to change in 10.3 Server. For more information on 10.3 Server go to for information on the currently shipping 10.2 server Oh and one more thing. Mac OS 10.2 Server received Product of the year from NetworkMagazine.com () that has to be worth something right?
-Cost. While Linux and BSD systems cannot be beat for cost. The amount of dedicated support and liability that they have can be. Microsoft on the other hand can be beaten in the per user license realm. Both in desktop OS and server OS Apple's Macintosh licensing fees are reasonable and flexible. The general single user licenses are free with purchase of a machine and $129 standalone. Apple can be flexible on this with large or educational purchases. The server version of their OS is even better priced $499 for a 10-user license and $999 for and unlimited user license. They also provide a plethora (sorry you never get to use that word enough) of support options all reasonably priced.
-Reliability and Stability. The one thing I absolutely love about Mac OS X is the stability it offers. This is part due to the OS and part hardware. The key thing here is that Apple controls them both. I don't have to worry about the hardware I'm running being compatible with the OS and vice versa. Apple has already done that for me. The result uptime. Which at the end of the day is worth the extra dollar for me. For instance the PowerBook, which I am writing this on, has had uptimes on the order of 80 days (I just put it to sleep when traveling.) The only time I have to reboot is when an update requires it.
-Major OS releases. When Apple releases a new version of its OS for example the to-be-released before the end of the year Mac OS 10.3 and Mac OS 10.3 Server add several new features and improvements not just "bug fixes." And the nice thing about the releases is that Apple takes feedback about its products and if the demand is high enough put it into its next release () for the client version and () for server. I want to see that from a major commercial OS.
-Open Source. Mac OS X is built on open standards, and open source. You can download and tweak Darwin, upload changes. The same features that you get with all open source projects. The exception to this is the GUI interface. Most other commercial operating systems do not give you this ability. Also check out Fink a package manager (based on the Debian package manager) for ported open source projects.
-Security. Mac OS X abandoned telnet in favor of the more secure SSH in 10.1. Apple has a quick response time to up coming security threats and releases an update to fix them (). Apple provides easy and efficient methods of applying the updates via "Software Update". The OS ships in a secure fashion with all incoming ports closed. There is a good paper on securing Mac OS X available at () There are A/V solutions from all of the main companies (Symantec, Sophos, Virex.) Tripwire has been ported for host based IDS. You can run snort, nmap, nessus, etc.
-Expandability and performance. The Power Mac G5 can handle up to 8GB of Ram. Show me a desktop PC that can handle that much memory. The G5 processor has a half speed front side bus so the Dual 2Ghz has two 1Ghz FS
Re:You need a good reason why IT avoids Mac? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. Unclick the "AppleTalk" button in the Network System Preference, then; no more AppleTalk. Now it's just talking tcp/ip, so no excuses.
So that's the case for OS X--and you can turn off AppleTalk in OS 9 also, one click. Since, I think 8.5 (about 5 years ago) it would then be able to talk tcp/ip as well.
You may have issues getting your Macs on the network, but AT ain't it.
Re:Wow, that's a pretty clueless article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jeez, don't flatter yourself (Score:3, Informative)
The corporate standard is 1.7GHz machine with 256M of ram and a 17" CRT (not even flat screen).
Price out that computer and let me know which Apple I can get for that.
Well, pricing out a Dell system with roughly the same specs as a $1799 iMac was a $2673 PC. I don't think that supports your argument. Perhaps if you gave some exact requirements I could find you a PC that doesn't cost about $1000 more than a Mac.
Of course, I'd also like to point out just how screwed up a corporate environment is wh