Why Consumer Macs Are Enterprise-Worthy 449
cyberkahn tips us to an article in Computerworld that makes the case for Apple's consumer machines moving into corporations. (The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.) With the press that Vista has been getting, is Apple moving into a perfect storm? Quoting: "There is no comparison between Apple's 'consumer' machines and the consumer lines of its competitors. All of Apple's machines are ready to move into the enterprise, depending on the job at hand. The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market — if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers."
Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been written by the same scum that brought you the incredibly retarded and contentless article featured on Slashdot on Virtualization sucks [slashdot.org]
Care to specify what the basic technologies are? Oh here they do. Yes, the modern enterprise needs WiFi on fricking corporate desktops, FireWire, BlueTooth and remote control. And what if you want just 256MB RAM for the secretary who doesn't use anything but Outlook? Nope, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM! And, you get to pay for it! Uhh, it's either a full computer or not. A full computer without a keyboard and mouse is NOT a full computer. Wow, another basic feature without which the enterprise cannot function. The webcam! Yes there is no comparison, on one hand you have multiple vendors some of who will pre-install Linux, and almost infinite hardware configurability and on other hand you have limited configurations shoved down your throat whether you need them or not. Macs may be enterprise-worthy, but this article sure doesn't make a case for it. I recommend that Computer World articles be blacklisted.Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. RAM. How the fuck can you contend that 256 megs is sufficient for anyone? Do you use outlook? Its a hog. My work box has 512 megs and i use it solely for Outlook and internet, and i want more. Also, have you tried using Vista with only 256 megs? Hardly seems worth it.
2. Definition of a full computer. The mini is a fully functional desktop computer. It happens not to be sold with keyboard, monitor, or mouse. This is problem for consumers, not for the enterprise, who's probably supplying everything to the users piecemeal anyways. I work at a large law firm, which is just a big corporate office, and I have never, *NEVER* seen anyone use a computer system that was purchased as a monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse bundle. The computers are all identical, Dell enterprise boxes, but everyone has a mishmash of Microfsoft ergonomic keyboards and optical mice, and mainly sony monitors. The mini is perfect for the corporate office box scenario where the computer should be quickly and easily swappable for repair and still run decent specs.
3. Webcam. kinda silly. I'd never want to video-chat with the people whom i IM. But given the pervasive nature of the conference call in the enterprise environment, i fail to see how increasing webcam existence wouldnt benefit business. Face-to face conference calls? what's not to like?
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Informative)
Blending things with AIX doesn't make much sense, given that Apple is now on x86 and AIX is for PowerPC. Moreover, why would you want to? If you need a serious, heavy-duty server, run AIX or Linux, OS X will inter-operate perfectly via standard UNIX technologies (NFS, LDAP, etc). If you need an easy-to-admin small server, run OS X server, and all your Linux and Windows clients will be able to use it just fine.
2) Apple also would have to actively integrate other software. Actively, Apple will support Windows and Linux integration on Macintosh computers.
It does. OS X uses standard UNIX tools extensively. Underneath the GUI, it's all GCC, Samba, NFS, Apache, CUPS, etc, etc.
5) Standardized software interfaces. Why does Apple have to use their own disk format? Why does Apple have to do all kinds of things "their own way"?
Apple supports the major standardized UNIX software interfaces. OS X 10.5 will be officially SUSv3 compliant (though at this point, trying to be Linux-compatible is probably more useful). It supports standard protocols like LDAP, NFS, SSH, etc. It does use its own disk format, but then again almost every OS uses its own disk format. Disk formats are not standardized, invariably poorly documented (or in the case of NTFS, undocumented), and usually very closely-tied to the kernel implementation. That's why Linux uses EXT3, AIX uses JFS2, Windows uses NTFS, BSD uses UFS, Solaris uses ZFS, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Interesting)
That really wasn't the point of the original post. The original poster complained, in so many words, that OS X was isolationist and did everything its own way. That's wrong. Whenever possible, OS X does things how other modern *NIXs do things. Aside from Quartz, Cocoa, and Carbon, most everything in OS X is built off open technologies. OpenGL, LDAP, CUPS, NFS, SSH, etc are all part of the core platform.
Not to mention that running UNIX programs in OS X is more trouble at first as OS X doesn't natively use X11 and it will include none of the standard Qt or GTK libraries, X11, or GCC in a standard installation.
X11 and GCC are on every OS X installation CD. Yeah, it doesn't install them by default, but then again, Ubuntu doesn't install GCC by default either!
I bet that any CIO worth their Mountain Dew ration will feel the same way.
Again, we're not talking about buying OS X to get a UNIX, but buying OS X and getting a UNIX as part of the bargain. You don't need to have OS X to get a machine that uses UNIX standards, but if you do buy OS X machines, they can integrate into your environment much like any other UNIX.
Oh, and Linux does not necessarily have its own disk format like Solaris, OS X, or Windows do. Linux will install on ext2, ext3, ReiserFS 3, XFS, and JFS.
Of those, only XFS and JFS weren't especially designed for Linux. And it took several years to port XFS to Linux, reinforcing my point that filesystems are by and large closely tied to their host OS. Also, ext3 is the de-facto standard Linux filesystem. Every major distribution ships ext3 as the default, and its the first one to get improvements like the low-latency work and fine-grained locking.
And to be fair, OS X installs on UFS just fine, though some apps don't like the case-sensitivity.
And with the exception of ReiserFS and ext4, all of the Linux filesystems are fully read-write in at least one other OS. For example, Windows can read-write ext2 and ext3 via the IFS driver.
And both Linux and Windows can read-write HFS+. However, Windows won't install on ext2 or UFS, Linux won't install on NTFS, UFS, or HFS+, so why is it a surprise that OS X won't install on NTFS or ext3? The original poster asked "why does OS X use its own disk format", and the answer is: "almost every OS uses its own, preferred disk format". There are exceptions, and Linux is particularly flexible in this regard, but even on Linux there is a de-facto standard that is the most well-supported.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i.e. They suck every free technology and contribute almost nothing back to the OSS community, yet take full advantage of all the OSS work. And the stuff that makes a Mac a Mac is all closed software. Until I can download the source to Finder or iPhoto or iTunes, the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, criticising Apple on ram is silly. For what you pay for one, the typical Mac is usually underspeced on ram compared to PCs in the same price r
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
We're toying with upgrading to Vista clients down the road, and dropping Novell entirely (not my decision!). Linux workstations and Solaris VMWare servers aren't going anywhere. No one has seriously considered doing Mac anything, though... and lots of us run them at home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"(The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.)" And how is this still considered a noteworthy article?
Insightful, my eye. The bullet in question, from TFA, was:
The learning curve and disparity of Linux distributions is too high for easy general office use.
And that is different from this [hardocp.com] noteworthy article on using Linux on the desktop how? Because that is basically what I get from that article even though it is an article in which the author is actually *trying* to us
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Tell that to my parents. The learning curve was so "bad" that not only did they accept Linux nearly instantly, but it has now been almost a month, and I haven't heard a complaint, nor request for help.
Re:Who wrote this crap? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheesh! What's with you folks?
If a person said, "Gosh, OSX is a real slow beast of an OS, and that's an absolute truth, regardless of the fact that I haven't used it since the first release," it wouldn't stand for a minute. I pointed the same thing out and took flack for it. Selective moderation to match one's opinions such as that is not only moronic, but against the moderation guidelines as well.
A little off base (Score:4, Insightful)
They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise? I'm pretty sure the problem isn't prejudice against hardware, but integration issues that arise when moving from an all-MS shop to a mixed environment with OS X. The ROI needs to outweigh the obstacles, and it currently doesn't.
Re:A little off base (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had a business, I'd prefer to have options and I'd stick with Microsoft (while as a private user, I'm using a Mac and Linux).
Macs run Windows (Score:2)
This is not true.
You can run Windows perfectly well on a Mac so if you decide to give up on OSX you can install Windows on them.
Cost of Windows licenses should you choose to go back?
You will have tons of old Windows licenses to reuse on them, in fact using Parallels, VMWare or Bootcamp you would probably still be utilising those Windows licenses
The only real cost in changing back would be changing back from Mac hardware to PC hardware
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Corprate IT VP: Ohh wonderful. Why don't you give yourself a raise and have sex with my wife. While your ate it do my 19 year old daughter too. I'm going to go give my mercded to the next homeless person I see and donate all the company bank accounts to UNICE
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, is your company hiring?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we start replacing end-of-life PCs with Macs we win all round. Its true.
The windows lovers can keep running windows, the OSX lovers can keep running OSX and whenever someone new starts we can ask them which do they prefer and sit them down at a totally generic workstation.
IT support is easier because everything runs on known hardware and systems can easily be imaged without worrying too much about drivers etc.
Now who is naive?
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument applies to Microsoft too. The difference is, once you have a mixed environment, you're not bound to Apple nor Microsoft. There's this little known thing called unix, and the future was 37 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess teletype machines and paper tape were the future too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you work and what are you doing? I suspect you work at either a design studio or higher education (the only places I've heard of large Apple installs are education and graphics shops).
In the case of the former, you're de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I work in a dual platform environment and I have DOZENS of PCs in our repair area.
I'll second that. In our company of mixed Mac/PC, we track the lifecycle of the machines. Each Mac outlasts 2.3 PCs and when the Macs are done, we sell them to the staff because they still work fine but too slow for our purposes. The PCs all went into recycling long ago.
In the last 3 years, we've introduced a lot of Macs to regular desktops in addition to the graphics areas. During that time, the simple exposure of the PC
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the author does mention some aspects of OS X that are value
More than a little off-base (Score:4, Insightful)
In a corporate network environment, the flexibility of Linux desktops is unparalleled. You can optimize your storage needs (and not pay for 300 copies of an OS sitting on 300 hard drives, for example), and you can move applications around the network seemlessly without the users even noticing (useful when one app server gets overloaded). Sure there is a learning curve for the IT department, but on the desktop side, just make sure that for the less techie people, that everything is easily accessible. In fact, I have never found the learning curve to be an obstacle ("we depend on Quickbooks and their support" is a bigger one). In short, an intelligent Athena-style deployment of Linux systems (along with a move to diskless workstations wherever possible) could save a company a bundle on IT and improve productivity. The big issue is that the migration takes time.
Mac's have actually less flexibility than Windows despite the *nix base. You can only buy the systems from Apple, and the really nice aspects of an Athena-style deployment are not possible. Add to that the more limited choices of hardware, and you have some real concerns.
I am not saying tht Macs have no place in the corporate network. THere are places where they are probably very helpful including media production and the like. However, they would not be my first or even second choice for a corporate general-purpose desktop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A very good point. Related - Apple is very dependent on Steve Jobs as a figurehead and visionary. If something should happen to him, I suspect Apple would take a massive plunge.
Re:A little off base (Score:4, Insightful)
It is at virtually every company I've worked at. IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons (AFP over IP is too chatty...in 2003?), then when called on their crap, they just stand there, cross their arms, and say "not gonna happen".
It's a prejudice. Many times, these folks can't stand the thought of empowered users - or users who might know a bit more about getting work done than tinkering around with the guts of Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a different machine, not a different dimension. Your users will be as good as you hire. The folks who couldn't set the wall paper before aren't going to miraculously learn. For most customization option or usage options, XP and OSX are similiar in difficulty. The gulf between OSX and XP is mostly in security and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Discrimination" does not equal "prejudice".
IT department "professionals" resisted efforts to bring a Mac in for various bullshit techhnical reasons
As part of a corporate IT department, I would fight against bringing Macs in tooth-and-nail, for one simple reason - I'd then have to support them. No "bullshit technical reasons" needed.
You might call that unreasonable, at first glance, but I can assure you I can justify that stance (thus the difference between "discrimination" and
Re: (Score:2)
It was about there that I decided that I'd best g
Re:A little off base (Score:4, Interesting)
The samba part really confuses me. I'm trying to figure out how Apple screwed up samba support so bad. I had an OS X box copying 80gigs of photos to a Windows file server. It was going to take 30 hours. After 20 minutes watching it consistently go that speed I said screw that, pulled the hard drive out, popped it into a Knoppix box and copied all the photos using Linux and it took a little over 2 hours. That's insane! Both gigabit nics into a gigabit switch. Plus there is a weird subnetting issue I run into every now and again where it won't connect to a samba box if its on a different logical subnet. Of course sometimes it works so it's even more baffling.
I think Linux and Windows are definitely better options in the corporate world. Of course our corporate Intranet is fully accessible in Firefox because I didn't want to make my Mac users have to run Windows in addition to OS X which they are more comfortable with. It's all just crazy! There is no way Apple is ready for the big time. Perhaps in a few more years they'll get a clue but I doubt it, no one wants a single supplier of goods, it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket.
Re:A little off base (Score:4, Informative)
1.) Add "large readwrite=no" to the [global] section of
2.) create a
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536
net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536
net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
net.inet.udp.recvspace=73728
The most important thing seems to be the net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0 - on UNIX systems and Macs they will hold off on sending ACKs to save Network/CPU usage and it is a good thing. Windows however seems to wait on things until it gets ACKs with SMB and so it kills performance. After making these settings changes my SMB connection speed to my Vista box is unbelievably improved - things that were taking almost an hour before are done in like 5 minutes.
Not sure why Apple would ship with so anti-MS defaults considering how many of their users would be doing Samba stuff with Windows boxes though...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming this is a troll. however...
we've budgeted months of effort to integrate Windows Vista with the current all-MS environment...
That's funny... (Score:5, Informative)
This reads like a Mac fanboy wrote it. I can't think of any compelling reasons to recommend Macs in an enterprise environment. Properly implemented (that is with proper profiles and security), Windows 'Just Works' in business, and if one wants something different then there is Linux. The latter gives the benefit of being more customizable than either Windows or OS X in fact, given that all the source is available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them. They "customize" it by picking the right distribution for their needs and they "customize" it by picking the hardware that meets their specific needs. For OS X, they get one OS distribution and four different kinds of machines to choose from, all from a single vendor, and that's not enough.
And in any corporate environment, after purchase, there are plenty of customizations related to system and network management that are necessary
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Been a Linux admin for 10 years, running slackware as my sole OS for most of that time. The one thing people don't understand about Linux on the desktop is the nature of Linux and GNU development.
Windows and Macs offer a relatively stable development environment with a limited number of options. By stable I don't mean "doesn't crash", I mean "not changing much over time". An app that worked on the first version of XP will likely work on the last.
Non-bloated link (Score:3, Informative)
The printer-friendly version [computerworld.com] is so much nicer to read on-screen.
Disparity of Distros (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well because for software with source aviable it is no problem. The distributor just recompiles it and it works. And usually software on Linux is open it works this way.
The trouble start when you have to deal with closed source software. I know there is not much of it in general use and it is usually kernel related stuff. Try installing some old nvidia drivers on recent Linux systems. Try installing Borland Kylix on any Linux system. Try installing
This will never work (Score:4, Insightful)
enterprise laptop support (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. MBP is not so bad. Try a 12" PowerBook G4.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience hard drives are the biggest cause of laptop repairs. Especially after the 3 year service plan runs out.
Abusing the word "consumer" once again... (Score:2)
The "learning curve" (Score:4, Interesting)
I do find it very interesting that these stories are all over the place lately. "Apple is ready for the enterprise". This makes what now, 5 or six in the past month alone? They always open with "IT managers are tired of spyware", as if spyware was a problem in large corporations (the targets of these articles), they always proceed to dismiss Linux as an alternative... could it have something to do with the release of Vista? Naaaah. Now if this were articles targetting Apple then of course Microsoft would be behind them.
Maybe it's just a big coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux can emulate the Windows UI so closely that users probably have a harder time moving from XP to Vista than from XP to Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
This surfaces every now and then... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that Apple definitely does NOT want to enter a cut throat world of competition where it becomes just an also ran competing on price with a thousand corporate buyers, when it can design kick-ass product in the consumer market place.
This was written by a misguided (and severely deluded,) fan-boy.
The PC wars are long over. Get over it. Microsoft won. (So they're now tied to the office and that kind of ugly industrial design. [Think BROWN Zune. Yuck!])
Apple is a whole lot better positioned to compete in the vastly more profitable consumer arena.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'll give you an example -- I work for a very large staffing company (10K corporate employees, 100K-350K temps
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that Apple doesn't bother so mu
Hard to take seriously (Score:4, Interesting)
And just how is a Linux desktop different than a PC desktop (e.g. Dell/HP) different than an Apple desktop. While this article seems to talk about the hardware, the real answer is: THE OPERATING SYSTEM! With Apple, when you talk about the line-up you can't really separate the hardware from the software, yet Linux and Windows are run on current Macs, and OS-X is successfully (albeit illegally) ported to Dells. So what is special about Apple? The hardware, or the software, and why would Linux even be mentioned in any discussion of the hardware -- except that it runs on a lot more hardware than OS-X, and costs less. All this makes this article, and generally this whole discussion, hard to take seriously.
Ever had 250+ consumer macs in the enterprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Being an enterprise customer you definitely dont have to wait in line for consumer service, we just send the computers directly for service. Otoh, you definitely won't get 4hr onsite like all the major pc vendors offer.
As for group policy and manageability, Apple got in the game late and will definitely catch up. The question is when (and what decade).
Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, you and I know there are...but that's the response you'll get from your 'everyone'...
Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the nature of the office.
Of course in a big place with the resources and staff to centrally manage all the desktop machines this is a non-issue.
But in a small business with no dedicated IT people, or one who has worked with Windows his whole life, the investment of time and effort to figure out which distro to use and how to use it could very well be unrealistic.
These are exactly the businesses that Apple could make real inroads into, if it chose to... the unique aspect of Macs is that they
Re: (Score:2)
Both Linux and OSX have a chance now because Vista is such a major headache.. it doesn't work like Windows so it's back to square one with the training (no way I'd upgrade my mother's machine.. if even an icon goes out of place she phones me up for support - Vista would just have her putting it back in a box and forgetting about it!!).
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible example. If you've been using Windows for 5 years, presumably you're used to the idea of a folder containing icons that open when you click on them, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help you there: use Ubuntu with the default install. It will do everything you need. (So will most of the other well-known Linux distros, but you wanted a simple answer and if you want a simple answer, the differences won't matter to you).
These are exactly the businesses that Apple
Enterprise kit needs enterprise support (Score:2, Informative)
from my experience (Score:4, Interesting)
OSX server comes with apache 1.3
How do I login to an xserve with ssh -C -Y or ssh -X and run gvim or an xterm or any X app, can't have to use vnc. Then there's HFS which we have to use to support all those nasty meta files. I guess Xsan will be nice when we use it but that's after we get all the data off our huge raid array just for a couple of mac clients.
We haven't even started migrating postgres, mailman, request tracker, and sendmail yet. If it's anything like the way it has been already we're probably going to have to use fink again.
And no I don't want quicktime on my headless Xserve, thinking differently is difficulty.
Re:from my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm running my entire lab off OS-X, with a compute cluster and file system integrated into distributed desktops (OSX and Linux. We had a windows but I sensibly turned it off when we bought the first IntelMac), and not so much as a hiccup. The main problems you're describing are the classic, "it looks unixy, so I'm going to treat it as if it were a Linux box." No, it's a Mac, descended from NeXTs. Get the Apple docs out (dreadful though they may be), read a little of "The Mac Way", and quit fighting it. I found most of my problems at first arose from trying to treat Macs as if they were just nice-looking RedHat boxes, rather than something different.
Pardon for sounding rude, but it sounds like you've learned one system, and aren't willing to attempt to learn another. Current Macs are one of the easiest machine to integrate into a mixed environment that I've encountered, and this is after over a decade and a half of running various Unices, Linuces, Windows, and VMS systems in mixed environments.
Re:from my experience (Score:4, Informative)
1. Install X11 (it's not installed by default).
2. Enable X11 forwarding (off by default in
http://www.osxfaq.com/DailyTips/09-2004/09-23.ws [osxfaq.com]
3. Profit!
I'd like a Mac Mini, but not with one monitor (Score:2)
There is just one little issue. I'd like to use two monitors. I do this today, with Windows and Linux. This can really increase productivity. But the mac mini has only one DVI connector. There is a hardware solution to connect two monitors, but it supports only 1280*1024 for each display. I could buy a Mac pro, but this is far to expansice. and the support for two moni
Re: (Score:2)
iMacs support a second monitor up to 1920x1200. They're not perfect for everyone, but there is a two-monitor option between the mini and the Pro.
And what do you mean "the support for two monitors in OS X is not ideal?" It works flawlessly and completely transparently. In my experience it's easier to get two monitors working with OS X than any other OS (not that it's hard anymore on those other OSes).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using an iMac with a 17" CRT I had lying around. The original iMacs had a bad rep because spanning was crippled in software, but that hasn't been true for a while.
even if... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that means what you think it means (Score:2)
Uh... this would imply that Apple is about to get annihilated. While I'm sure some people are of that opinion, that's the exact opposite of what you (Mr. Article Submitter) are trying to say.
Tinted glasses (Score:2)
The reality is Linux is already being adopted in the enterprise, at least in Europe. Linux increases the longevity of the existing hardware installation and provides cost incentives where upgrading is concerned. Learn
Definte "Enterprise" (Score:4, Interesting)
The learning curve and disparity of Linux distributions is too high for easy general office use.
As someone else noted already, dismissing Linux with a single line is a little silly. Ubunutu is starting to gather desktop momentum. But I'll ignore the Linux factor. There is also a learning curve for moving from Windows to OS X, some of which Apple refuses to deal with. Many users are very used to AND prefer keyboard shortcuts to access pulldown menus, for example. The lack of consistancy for what the green window size button does is fustrating. Even Apple's own software fails to consistantly follow their own UI guidelines. Again, for example, a few applications quit entirely when you close the window while the majorty close the window but the program continue to run.
Many corporate applications have been ported to W3-compliant Web services that are OS-agnostic
Um... yeah. Sure. Which Enterprises are these again? Most Enterprises run tons of legacy software that's connected to via local software (often written in VB) or IE only frontends. Part of being an Enterprise level business is that you have years and decades worth of IT cruft that's built up.
Because Macs work with Microsoft's directory, enterprise administrators can now more easily manage Macs alongside Windows machines.
OS X works with _some_ parts of AD. There is still no viable replacement for Outlook on OS X. Whether you like Outlook with Exchange or not (I don't), there's very little that can do everything it can, and most Enterprise scale businesses are wrapped around it. Remember, it's not just a mail client or a personal scheduler, it's a foundation that many other companies have built on top of the scheduling features.
Yes, you can add virtualization, but then you're back to the problems of running Windows, plus now you have additional administration overhead of running and managing two OSes on each system plus additional user training and problems.
I'm also unaware of a way that I can push updates and settings to OS via Group Policies without using third party software. This is a key factor to Enterprises. A huge factor in deciding whether to shift OSes is the fact that the IT staff must be trained and experienced in what they're going to move to. If they've put years into developing internal tools to manage and deal with Windows, the cost of moving to OS grows.
We find that most PCs that are sold as enterprise desktops are actually stripped-down, lightweight versions of the computers the same companies sell to home users. These machines lack the basic technologies needed in the modern enterprise. Apple, on the other hand, simply doesn't sell a minimalist computer whose predominant 'feature' is its price point, aimed at businesses or any other market."
For instance, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM, Bluetooth, 802.11g Wi-Fi networking, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire and even a remote control..."
My last big batch of Windows desktops were purchased nearly 3 years ago and have 1GB RAM, gigabit ethernet, and have been just fine.
Firewire? Why do enterprise desktop users need firewire? The only reason you need it is for digital video and audio or extremely fast file transfers. Not desktop use.
WiFi? I don't want desktop users using WiFi. That's why we have millions of dollars of copper and fiber infrastructure with security features and VLANs. Wireless is great for some things, but it does not scale and it is inherently less secure than hardwire. Even just having 802.11 means that every single desktop is a potential rogue WiFi station letting people inside the firewall. Great.
Bluetooth? Sort of neat, but again, desktop users don't need it and it opens up security issues.
And I can't believe they even tried to cite having a remote control
Slashdot does not agree (Score:2)
MS has made a lot of changes over the years to make their OS enterprise friendlier, it continues with Vista, and I don't think Apple has really even started down that road. I think that for a big enterprise there is not other choice than Windows, or maybe a custo
Poor fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)
The market is overcrowded, the competition is fierce, and it has rock-solid and lightning-fast support, stability, compatibility, replacement commodity parts/hardware.
Apple has nice looking hardware, OS built to target end consumers, and Steve Jobs shouting how they're best in the world. It's not enough, people.
Triple (Score:2)
Why I advised against a Mac (Score:2)
The Mac + the Quark license would have cost around $3-
His points.. (Score:2)
-linux isn't actually that bad for common offic
Macs are the perfect inroad... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate MS and Adobe as much as the next geek, and will gleefully point out F/OSS solutions like OpenOffice.Org, Kino and The GIMP, but let's face it, what will someone completely unhip to F/OSS rather have in front of them: the F/OSS workalike or the reassuring name-brand? Will MS and Adobe ever port to Linux? When pigs fly.
With Mac OS X, you have an xNIX under the hood, and a friendly face out in front. Give the office folks Macs, and use Linux or FreeBSD on those servers that used to run Windows Server. Heck, basically Mac OS X Server is Mac OS X plus ports of stuff like Samba and CUPS. Save your money you would have spent on an XServe and repurpose some PCs with Linux or FreeBSD.
religious wars getting tired... (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again: run whatever the hell you want. I don't care.
I mean jeez - vi versus emacs, anyone? VMS versus Unix? Criminey...
sloth jr
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Previous dicussion on AppleCare and businesses (Score:2)
That said, I'm personally thinking of bringing my old Mac Mini from home to work (and buying a new one for home
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.apple.com/support/products/premium.html [apple.com]
The AppleCare Premium Service and Support Plan delivers up to three years of 24/7 telephone and email support -- with 30-minute response. For Xserve, the plan covers server administration and network management issues using the graphical user interface of Mac OS X Server. For Xserve RAID, the plan covers RAID Admin software, as well a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enterprise-ready? Hardly. Maybe. (Score:3, Interesting)
While Apple has a ways to go, I wouldn't call it a long way. You are completely correct in you listing of their corporate-important deficiencies, however these are fixable, if Apple wishes to fix them, in relatively short order. Apple has to want to fix them, and that's the real battle.
Re:Enterprise-ready? Hardly. Maybe. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to write a checklist of features that would make up a dream enterprise service package. It's harder to make that package turn a profit in the market. And it's easy for companies to use checklists to justify sticking with the status quo rather than trying something new.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned 4-hour onsite service, for instance.. for desktop machines, not xServes sitting back in the machine room. Lemme tell ya: I've worked for a couple of large companies and have never seen an IT deal that involves 4-hour onsite service guarantees for any random PC sitting on an everyday worker's desktop. Mission-critical servers, yes. Buy-em-by-the-carload boxes that let users connect to the mission-critical servers? Not a chance. Keeping those running is what the IT department's job. And even then, good luck getting 4-hour turnaround on any issue that doesn't cause significant financial losses from the moment it crops up to the moment the system is fixed and running again. For problems that can be stopped by pulling the network cable out of the wall and shutting off the machine, that's exactly as much ASAP service as you'll get. Anything else will happen later, maybe, if it turns out that we really have to.
These checklists of 'things Apple has to do to compete in the enterprise market' smell to me more like excuses not to spend time exploring alternatives than things people would actually buy if Apple made them available.
Companies don't buy Macs because they don't use Macs now. Simple as that. They already have a large and complex body of hardware and software doing mission-critical things, and it all more or less works the way it is. Adding more machines that are basically the same is known to be reasonably easy. Even if there are teething problems, those tend to get identified early and worked around. Trying something new raises the spectre of potential compatability issues in any of a million undocumented places.
Apple will gain entry to the enterprise market as enterprises move away from proprietary formats and protocols, thus making it easy to fit any standards-compliant machine into the system. And even then, someone will have to lock the beancounters out of the room long enough to explain that a low cost of acquisition does not necessarily equal low TCO.
Of course, a series of negative miracles could happen to Dell (they're in a bad patch right now, but I think they can turn it around) and make Apple look like an island of stability in a PC market that's fighting to rebalance itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But where's the MacBook Pro docking station? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
-Wireless networks do not scale well. Even at small scale performance isn't that great but at large scale the shared medium takes its toll beyond that.
-Third point taken (network printers are more logical generally, centralized storage for data management also makes sense), but the mass storage on the other end runs into the above-mentioned performance aggravations.
A docking station shouldn't have to plug into the
Re: (Score:2)
So if you don't want to use a wireless network, don't. There's a nice little Giga Ethernet port right there ready to plug into your network. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
As an IT consultant (Score:2)
If a company wants to go wireless, then Macs are not a bad option in this regard. If they don't then *don't get one.* Remove wireless cards from laptops, and the like.
I also highly recommend that companies audit their premises for
No, but (Score:2)
Re:So the hardware is up to par... (Score:5, Informative)
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Apple's choice, but the fact is that many customers do buy cheaper configurations of PCs and that means that Apples are more expensive overall regardless of how you want to spin it.
Re:So the hardware is up to par... (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: Consider an office building with 500 people working there, a basic mid-sized office for most companies. The marketing department will make up about 25-30 people, of which only 5-10 will need to use photoshop or any other memory intensive app that is arguably better suited for the mac. Upper management will also manifest about 15-20 people, of which it's likely easier to get them macs. I'd acknowledge that there MAY be as much as another 20 people who could make an excuse for why they need the features that come on the most minimal mac rather than a PC that's slightly scaled down from that level.
At the very most, in this example, I could 70 people (out of 500), that are somehow better served by getting a mac (noting of course that I'm comparing against a completely barebones windows PC). $900 for the mac, let's say $650 for the pc (since we might as well have 512 megs of ram and make sure the monitor is 17 inch). Do I really need to write out the math, or is the point made yet? 900 x 500 = $450,000, or 650 x 500 = $325,000 + $5000 in selective upgrades = $330,000.
A difference of $120,000 will pay for an extra IT guy (if the current group wasn't already enough) and it's cover hardware replacements, and be a good chunk of money towards the next upgrade/replacement cycle (which will come no sooner than it would with the Mac). Certainly a theoretical example, and it's not precise, but it is reasonable and it shows there's a huge difference...which means even if I've got a couple of minor errors, it still proves the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)