Apple's Macworld Looking To Corporate Users 287
coondoggie writes to mention a Network World article about a focus on corporate users at the upcoming MacWorld Expo. Along with the consumer announcements (iTV, iPod stuff), there will be several elements dedicated to introducing IT pros to Apple hardware. From the article: "The show has really evolved. For a long time it was a consumer-oriented show and those of us who are from the enterprise space - there weren't very many of us - would use it as a place to meet and compare notes ... Now Macintosh in the enterprise is becoming more recognized and there are tracks that are specifically for us enterprise people. We don't have to sneak off anymore."
We just need customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We just need customers (Score:5, Interesting)
You company is reducing it's potential customer base.
I work for a big biotech company and we definitely give preference to vendors that are platform agnostic. Research users are given a choice of Mac or Windows platform, so we've got 1:4 Windows Mac at the desktop with all computational chemists and biologists have an additional Linux workstation. We no longer purchase applications that require Windows servers. We no longer purchase apps that are of general interest to research unless they support at least Mac and Windows. Linux is preferred for instrumentation control. All compute-intensive, modelling, and simulation software is expected to run on Linux. All web-apps have to work with Firefox on Windows/Mac/Linux.
There's some historical reasons for those positions (UNIX and its variants is more or less the exclusive platform for modern biology and chemistry, for example), but I see similar situations appearing in other fields where Linux and Mac are dominating in academia today.
Re:We just need customers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there is. Having your code compile on another platform doesn't count as "platform independence". Apple users expect your app to integrate with their other Mac apps. If you've written your app according to MS's HIG, then it's not going to work. Now you have to maintain two user interfaces (and if you have a UNIX version, 3 or 4!). Making a crap product is easy these days, but it's still hard to make a good one.
You are confusing markets (Score:4, Insightful)
Get it on the Mac, get it running, keep rev'ing, with each Rev becoming more Mac friendly.
No, you can't ship an IM client that breaks the UI guidelines, but if you're the only player (or one of three) in the specialized market, then you ship whatever you can and keep rev'ing. Be the first to ship a Mac version, and you'll get more sales... possibly not Mac sales though. If the CEO, CIO, or anyone in a decision making capacity happens to LIKE Macs (runs one at home, whatever), then simply supporting Macs may sell your Windows software... because they hope that when all the pieces are in place, they'll migrate to a Mac network.
People are too short sited and like straw-man arguments to avoid understanding the large chunks of the software market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at all the DRMs it is pushing in iPod. Look at how they stymie interoperability. Look how cavalierly they ignore all my settings and repeatedly install iPodhelper and other junk in the start up tray. Look
Re:Great strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we all know the way to get an IT shop to shift platforms is to run ads on broadcast TV. "Hey boss, don't get Macs — their ads mocked my fiefdom of valuable spreadsheeting." *Cue sad violins*
Yes, all of us "mere humans" in IT and on Slashdot can't comprehend why Apple would target consumer Macs with consumer apps to consumers. Why aren't they advertising their exciting BUDGETING SOFTWARE on their U1 SERVERS!! THEY'RE CRAZY!!
All of which were forced on it by content providers. Of course, you can always rip your CDs into one of a few DRM-free formats and add them at will. It's not like iTunes ever, say, defaults to add DRM to CDs you rip, or tacks it onto files you *shudder* "squirt" to your friends. Either that or you misspelled Zune.
Yes, because Apple's strategy is to make using an iPod on a Windows machine difficult and pedantic. Or maybe, just maybe, this is symptomatic of the inherent byzantine shittiness of making things work with Windows. I have no relevant experience, really, as I am not a spreadsheet budgeting monkey and hence not a target of their blatantly IT-offensive advertising.
Yes, if only it were possible to, say, set all files of a given type to open by default with a different app. And if only it were as simple as using a pull-down menu in a Get Info box. And if only I could travel back in time 10+ years or so I could come up with that idea before Apple incorporated it into their OS. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!
This post seems a bit longer than my inital reaction, which was to suggest that you go FUD yourself. But as I said, slow Friday.
Re: (Score:2)
Clown.
Let's see, there's a PDF on my desktop. Right click, Properties. Looky here, says "Open With ..." and has Adobe Acrobat Reader selected. And look, there's a button m
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Run this after installing quicktime and itunes (Score:2)
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Run]
"QuickTime Task"=-
"iTunesHelper"=-
Make sure there is a blank line at the end of the file. There also shouldn't be any spaces in "CurrentVersion", so fix that (lameness filter). Save it, and double click on the file. Problem fixed.
This is one thing that always annoys me with Windows apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Think different; Just Say No to Apple (Score:3, Informative)
I was working as an Apple developer for 10 years in engineering. Every WWDC I would argue (with the sci-eng evangelist; a position they found hard to staff) that incentives to VARs would not break into corporate IT. Productivity alone doesn't cut it. The world needs Apps, and Apple needed to bend over backward to support developers brave enough to try for that 1%. Suffices to say... the strategy has not changed. Incentives to VARs and pushing the illusory ease and security envelope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Think different; Just Say No to Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
That's true. Fortunately NeXT took over Apple, and NeXT was exclusively Enterprise. So they have the talent to do it. Now that they have the hardware and the software necessary to do it on a large scale, here's hoping they actually pull the trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget, NeXT (I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and there is not even ONE that will affect an out of the box Mac by the mere act of connecting it naked to the Internet. There millions of Macs, but not even ONE piece of malware that has affected more than a handful of users, if that. Macs are much more secure, but no computer can be secured against clever social engineering and careless net habits. There are bad neighborhoods, where a woman has a high probability to get raped or mugged. There are bad plac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't beat the dead horse. By that reasoning there should be 5+% of the worms available for Mac OS X. Or perhaps millions of unix machines is a useless target for spewing spam? Hardly. Not to mention the street cred of being the f
Where's the Windows AD Integration? (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't see that happening for a number of reasons, asides from having to wait for Samba-4. It's going to be really tough to convince a CFO to buy new $2,000 MacBook Pro's for its users, plus copies of Parallels/VMWare Fusion, plus a Windows OS (not sure if MVL applies to Apple-based hardware - anyone?), and any other number of pieces of software that they need.
With bulk-licensing programs, it's much cheaper to replace old PC hardware with new while not having to worry a whole lot about licensing (so long as you did your homework when you spent the money). That's because you're moving from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, per say. There are very few vendors that'll let you move a license across different OS's.
Also, you have to re-train end users on how to use a different OS with its own quirks, provide HelpDesk support for dual-OS's (unless you ditch windows entirely; good luck with that), and you can't centrally manage them like you can with 2000/XP boxes in a properly implemented Active Directory environment.
Exchange support in Entourage is crap too since it relies on WebDev (IMAP/POP are your other options, which aren't good corporate solutions). Mac Excel != PC Excel. You get the point.
I do see Apple making inroads in the SoHo (Small Office, Home Office) area. Here you don't need a Domain infrastructure, workers are their own help desk, and so long as your work doesn't rely on some PC-only software, you can get by. The problem here is these customers are very price sensitive, so a Dell $500 special is much more appealing than what Apple offers.
On the IT side of things, I use a MacBook Pro with OS X, XP, and Gentoo Linux loaded on it, running in Parallels. It's my main box, and I love it for a few reasons:
1) 3 OS's on one machine instead of 3 OS's on three machines. Wonderful!
2) I personally like OS X as my main desktop environment over XP and Gnome.
3) I need access to all 3 OS's to do my work, which is pretty rare.
On the downside:
1) No docking station support.
2) No Serial/Parallel/Modem cables - all needed by IT Pro's to hook into existing networking gear, and to provide legacy support.
3) The battery sucks relative to previous PC laptops I've had (2-3 hours use vs. 5-6 on a PC laptop).
4) No floppy drive.
Ready for Corporate IT land? It still has a long ways to go. For a power user like myself? Yeah, it fits nicely.
Re:Where's the Windows AD Integration? (Score:5, Insightful)
#2 is a no issue, you can get USB serial adapters for $10. Modems (when necessary), can be handled via USB adaptor. I'm scratching my head on why you'd need to worry about needing a Parallel connection though.
3) I'm in the 4 hour range on my laptop with moderate energy savings set up (dimm the screen a bit, no cd in the drive).
4) My office hasn't bought a laptop with a floppy drive in it in something like 5 years. There's a few USB one around if someone needs it, in the IT office near the old Zip drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as being legacy, not so much serial is pretty much the only way to deal with a malfunctioning router, switch, or
Re: (Score:2)
How is Samba involved with this? (Only a tiny amount of OS X
hahahaha! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the Windows AD Integration? (Score:4, Funny)
Damned straight!
When will Apple realize that modern offices run on eight inch floppies?
Until Apple starts supporting 9-track tape drives, they're never going to be taken seriously in the enterprise. And until I can dock my Powerbook with a paper-tape reader, I will never let one in my business -- not by the long, grey hairs of my chinny chin chin.
What's that you say? Apples can use $15 industry-standard USB 3.5 inch floppy drives?
Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
OS X client can bind to AD right now, but to manage the computer, you would need an OS X Server (10 user version is all you need if you store the home direc
Re:Where's the Windows AD Integration? (Score:5, Informative)
You can also manage the Macs via AD, if you want to lock them down. This requires a schema extension -- extensions that Apple has registered with the IANA. This historically has made some AD administrators nervous, especially back in the day when you couldn't reverse schema additions. These days, the scripts are fairly widely available -- install them on a test or staging server and see how it works.
So this provides very good management, the main limitation at this point is it's necessary to use Apple's Workgroup Manager application to do the management of the Macs, and point it to AD. Most Windows administrators are used to using GPOs for management and are reluctant to use another tool. If this is too much of a hurdle (you know, that whole "learning new things" thing which may be scary to people whose brain filled up getting their MSCE certification), then look for 3rd party tools like Centrify's Direct Control (http://www.centrify.com) which allow you managemetn of the Macs totally via GPOs.
Pretty much any way you WANT to manage Macs from AD, you can. Each option has a few caveats, and is not 100% like using AD to manage Windows machines, because they are different machines. But all solutions WORK, and in fact they WORK QUITE WELL.
As far as MVL, it does apply to copies that run in Parallels. So you're covered there -- the expense is the copy of Parallels... which is $79 list, and I'm just betting if you asked them for 500 copies that they'd negotiate a bit.
Regarding Entourage... you're right, it's not as good as Outlook. But for many folks, it's sufficient. As far as Excel... I've never personally had an interop issue between Windows and Mac versions of Excel or Word. Then again, I'll freely admit I don't get many documents that are loaded down with large numbers of VBA macros. Whenever I get a "enable Macros?" dialog I say no -- so that point is moot anyway. With the main use of VBA being to transmit viruses... it's a wonder they're really still prevalent on the Windows side. And I say this having written a few custom decision support systems based in Excel and Access, that used custom OLE controls no less, back in the day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its definitely a step in the right direction though.
Apple won't go anywhere unless (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Proper support of Active Directory integration, without third-party utilities.
3) Support for something similar to Group Policy (or having GP objects for OS X able to get added to
Re: (Score:2)
What in particular do you need? Here, we override settings based on both computerand group. Any plist can be overridden.
Re: (Score:3)
Exchange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When vendors use protocols as open as POP, IMAP and SMTP by default on their mobile devices things might change. Perhaps SyncML wil
My rather large lumbering employer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh.. what? I'm pretty sure that I'm using both.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Macworld is not Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Product support lifecycle? (Score:2)
I think one of the single most important factors holding back the Macintosh in the corporate arena is the lack of a clearly defined product lifecycle for OS X. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody outside Apple seems to know, on authority, how much longer we'll receive security updates for 10.3 or 10.4.
It's difficult to justify widely deploying any given platform, even one as nice as OS X, if you don't know when the product will be forcefully obsoleted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm guessing they were referring to the OTHER side of the corporate network (authentication, web serving, database, e-mail, etc) instead of the client boxes. Of course this ignores the argument that Macs are cheaper because of the lack of spyware/viruses/etc which you may or may not buy.
There is no dispute that most custom business apps are written to Windows, although Parallels can fix that (though not cheaply at $80 for Parallels and $75 for an OEM windows).
Re: (Score:2)
OEM Windows? That's a violation of the licensing agreement, and if you are lucky enough to receive a Microsoft audit, you will be presented with a bill for ((number of macs running OEM windows on parallels) * (current cost of a windows license of their choice)).
I like how your solution to running windows apps on the mac will ge
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably okay if you buy it all as a bundle. However, Apple doesn't sell such an option. And when you buy a Parallels bundle it doesn't come with the OEM version, either.
If you purchased from an Apple reseller who was also a Windows reseller, then ostensibly they could bundle OEM Windows. And if they sold more than a couple cop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it can. But how many places run NT PDCs still, versus W2K, W2K3? "The following functionalities are not provided by Samba-3: ... Acting as a Windows 2000 Domain Controller (i.e., Kerberos and Active Directory). In point of fact, Samba-3 does have some Active Directory Domain Control ability that is at this time purely experimental
Apple is nowhere in servers (Score:2)
In 2002, Apple made it up to 5th place in servers with a 1.5% US market share. [macobserver.com] (Outside the US, zilch.)
By 2005, they were in 10th place with an 0.5% worldwide market share. [macsimumnews.com] (Article title: "Apple gaining momentum in server market". Maybe 2004 was worse.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's hopeless (Score:5, Insightful)
By far the largest cost in IT is man hours. If you drop those by a little, you can save more than an apple will cost you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if it takes 6 IT people to support 300 people/computers, then none of the IT people are worth $150K/year, even with benefits and payroll taxes included in that number.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It doesn't matter at all because the vast majority of business applications are not available for the mac. Period. If macs fill your needs, well, that's great; if not then you either have to choose windows or have a mix of machines which complicates your environment and raises the c
bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Most new application development in the Enterprise market seems to be web based and can work fine with Macintosh clients. This nonsense about "most business apps are Windows-only" is based on the erroneous assumption that just because there are lots of tiny little companies pooping out their custom apps (which nobody else uses) in visual basic that the Macintosh can't play in the Enterprise market. That's definitely wrong in both the server and the client desktop/mobile markets. There is a Macintosh in the Enterprise future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fairly? That's one way to look at it I guess. Another way is that the majority of business users will be served just fine by a $500 PC, and that apple's only offering in that price range is expensive and comparatively difficult to expand. In business, it simply doesn't matter that your computer looks sexier than the next guy.
Or put another way, pretty much any business whose needs are suited by OSX... they'd a
Re: (Score:2)
Hers's how it works. You buy a zillion Windows machines. You create a "standard" image of Windows for these machines, and keep the image on the network, and use Ghost (or equivalent) to push images onto the client PCs. This image has everything locked down. Users can't tweak or install anything. Their "My Documents" folder is redirected to a share o
Re:It's hopeless (Score:5, Informative)
Now for the details:
For the AD/GPO side you have MacOS X Server's OpenDirectory and Workgroup Management. The later product stared out in the MacOS 7 days as "Macintosh Manager" and was available as part of AppleShare IP product. You can do an awful lot of locking down on the computer with the point-and-click components, including setting the users to use network home directories (pretty much the same avrients as are available on Windows). A good begining point for this would be Apple's page on MacOS X Server: http://www.apple.com/server/desktop_management.ht
For imaging you have a number of choices: You can make up a computer as you would like it imaged, then use the free imaging tools that are included with the OS (Disk Utility has absorbed this capability, it used to be part of ASR). Then you can either push it back onto the computer using Disk Utility again, or use the image to NetBoot computers from a MacOS X Server (technically you don't need server, but it makes it easier), use the free NetBoot/NetRestore [bombich.com] system to allow you to cause network-based imaging to happen, use the free tool Radmind [umich.edu] to keep the image in sync (complex settings possible, and you can update one computer then let the rest follow it automatically), or use any of the other techniques that are out there (LANRev, NetOctopus, etc).
Oh... and an image you make of one computer will boot all computers that that OS supports (computers much older, or newer than the OS won't work), there are a few tricks and traps to that, but not many that matter. And there is currently the caveat that you need 2 images: one for PPC and one for Intel.
And on the remote software install party, Apple Remote Desktop does this wonderfully. It even allows for broadcast installing and leaving a package on a server so that disconnected users will get it the next time they connect.
Oh, and then you can also use AD servers to do all of this management if you would like, either through schema modification or adding a MacOS X Server on the side.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And big networks NEED this kind of functionality
You mean NON-functionality. You just said they can't do anything but the narrow tasks you specifically allow them to do. That's what a Windows network needs to function. I don't get how most techs today strip the office machines down to slightly more functional than the terminals we had 15 years ago and then act like they've built something special. You think the majority of the users show up for work wanting to break things? Anyway, you guarantee that office drones will never rise to the level of power us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Almost everything you just described can be done with a Mac OS X Server box and Apple Remote Desktop [apple.com]. Macs support Active Directory [apple.com]. They also support remote installation of software [informit.com], NetBoot and Network Install [apple.com], and Network Home Directories [apple.com].
About the only thing on your list that's missing is Exchange/Outlook. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's hopeless (Score:5, Informative)
Hun, I hate to break this to you, but as a Mac admin watching over hundreds of heavily abused workstations, the tools for OSX are far better.
I gloat to our windows admin every day about how much better my tools are.
Re: (Score:2)
Man-hour reductions are even harder to realize since unlike dollar savings, it's often impossible to accrue the savings in a way that makes eliminating a FTE realistic -- employees who save 5 minutes here, 5 minutes there can't always have that time savings turned into either less w
Wrong, or that can be wrong (Score:2)
Re:It's hopeless (Score:5, Insightful)
My last job, I admin'd a network and supported over 100 users at an all-Mac shop, by myself. This was in the late 90s, so it was pre-OS X. Most of my day was spent reading and surfing the web in my office. I dealt with the occasional hardware failure. Once in a while a Mac would get cranky and I'd have to go run Norton Utilities on it to fix it up, which it very seldom failed to do. Most of my support calls were to help people deal with Office documents sent from Windows-based clients/vendors/etc, because this was before the antitrust stuff really kicked into gear and Microsoft was merrily using their ever-changing Office file formats to force upgrades and keep competitors at bay.
Eventually the company decided to migrate to Windows "to be compatible with the rest of the world." Fantastic choice. The IT staff quickly tripled, and we really needed a fourth because of all the shit that went wrong with Windows and the crappy Dells the company settled on. I very quickly got tired of it and left.
Apple has made great strides since then with OS X, and would already be a force to be reckoned with in the enterprise if it weren't for empire-building PHBs who must preserve their big budgets and staff of minions to tend to temperamental Windows boxes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, in my own experience (cue ancedotal music), I have had less problems with Macs.
Re:It's hopeless (Score:4, Interesting)
The vast majority of "business apps", especially custom stuff, don't run on MacOS.
Macs don't have anything to really compare with Active Directory, and especially GPOs.
So...why would a business run on Macs? Unless they are a pre-press or video-production house, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I own several semi recent macs, so lets get that out of the way. I can do "most" of my business needs, you're right. Here are a few apps I can't use...anything to open a 1-2-3 spreadsheet (it might exist, hadn't looked to hard), avaya IP phone software, lucent phone monitoring software. These are not every business applications but they are ones I am forced to use. That means no ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few month
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I ran a mac lab I could limit access and remotely force settings (often with the choice to allow local overrides if desired) to:
Any or all system preference panes
Network and Removable disks
Printers
Program execution (i.e. allow only certain programs)
The Dock
Finder.app
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you can check facts first.
Check Leopard MacOSX Server:
Apache, Samba, OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Postfix, Cyrus, SpamAssasin, Jabber, CUPS, POSIX, Wiki, Xgrid, QT Streaming... all 64-bit, not mentioning DTrace and ZFS
Dude! That makes is coolest server on the block!!
MacOSX 10.5 Leopard Server [apple.com]
Apple's new motto (Score:2)
One thing Apple could do is sell business Mac's running Windows (either through Bootcamp or just Windows). Why? Because they have such a tight grip on what does and does not work on their machines they can eliminate many of the issues that plague windows PCs.
or they could just try to get into the backend servers... but thats even more locked up than the PCs themselves at most places
Re:It's hopeless (Score:4, Informative)
$499 for 10 users, $999 for unlimited.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ [apple.com]
Very competitive pricing.
I don't have experience in running it in the Enterprise, but it's a very solid choice for running a SME off of - at a far lower cost than Microsoft. We had around 200 users running on OSX and Windows with roaming profiles, centralised user management, 5TB of network shares, network printing all on a couple of Tiger servers.
Yes, the hardware costs are greater - but the software costs are much much lower.
Actually no, apple has lower software costs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The article discussed mainly enterprise applications like file and print servers. Quietly Apple has been positioning itself in this area with hardware like XServe and XRAID. Software is slowly developing, but remember OS X is Unix based so many Unix applications will require porting and not full re-writes. At least one application, XSan is i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the big news. I know it's not exactly "news" as in "new," but this is the only thing that will make many Windows shops even seriously consider Macs.
Outlook, web apps that need the Windows version of IE and IT ignorance about OSX were killers for bringing Macs into the enterprise in any large numbers. With Windows on Mac hardware, at least it looks possible.
TW
Re:I for one.... (Score:4, Interesting)
-matthew
Re:I for one.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.aviinc.com/projectors-displays/wijet.as p [aviinc.com]
There are wireless monitors.
I don't see the difference between plugging in to a dock or connecting two cables to use a real monitor and keyboard. (the mouse plugs into the keyboard) Three cables if you require wired networking. You could even get a wireless KVM switch if you didn't want as much clutter right on your desk or didn't want the cables to pull as much.
Are you really that lazy? Often dockin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agree here. OSX, FreeBSD, linux, and OpenVMS are for "n00bs".
Everyone know that the real "l33t h4ck3r admiz" chose Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple also got out of discounting hardware to developers... but that's another story.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you get more than a hardware discount for your membership fee. The program is quite popular. Apparently it's not for you though.
You know, from your posts you seem to just plain hate Apple... so why do you bother reading stories about it on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple needs to offer more flexibility for busin (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHAH.
Nice one, troll. I guess I'd better through away my XServe with a megaraid card running raid5.
Raid5 is in software too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We run all of our low I/O file servers on a Raid 5 (with a hot spare) array. You can't beat the price/utilization ratio there. Yeah, you don't get the same performance as Raid 1, but if space is a priority it's the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
-