Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Recommend Apple, Lose Your Job?

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the fun-controversy-storytime-theater dept.

Apple 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm, is it that complicated (3, Insightful)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708553)

I don't see why he has a hard time grasping why Linux is adopted more than Macs in large organizations. Linux is far cheaper (x86 hardware, clusters and scales cheap), is more flexible, can run all of those fancy open source middleware products (without much manipulation), and most off all Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708581)

I thought it was obvious THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON ... and a retard.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708586)

The XServe, although not an x86 machine, can do everything you just said an x86 Linux box can do. Heck, if it becomes impractical to upgrade and you don't want OS X on it anymore, you can - well - install Linux on the thing.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (5, Informative)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708598)

Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.
You can do all of that with an iMac, if you wish.
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.
See, there's what the article is talking about: FUD. You can add RAM to an X-Serve. Somewhere down the road you can probably upgrade the CPU, also. There are CPU upgrades available for every single other Mac ever made, so it's quite likely that when the time comes that the original X-Serve CPU can't keep up, an upgrade will be available.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708651)

oh yes! and they are quite cheap too, cunt!

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (5, Funny)

CoyoteGuy (524946) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708653)

Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.

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? :P

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708672)

Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior?

Here you go [apple.com] . Give this one a try.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (2, Informative)

captain_craptacular (580116) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708661)

Sure you can upgrade the ram in an x-serve, or the processor. But at what price?

From Pricewatch: G4 1.2GHZ upgrade: $465
Athlon XP 2100: $61

So it's about $400 cheaper to upgrade the X86 box...

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (1)

Electrum (94638) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708686)

Sure you can upgrade the ram in an x-serve, or the processor. But at what price?

From Pricewatch: G4 1.2GHZ upgrade: $465
Athlon XP 2100: $61


People that want to keep their data center from catching on fire don't use AMD CPUs in their servers. Putting a super hot CPU in a 1U is a bad idea.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (4, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708690)

Sure you can upgrade the ram in an x-serve, or the processor. But at what price?
The RAM? Exactly the same price as an equivalent PC.

The CPU? Don't know yet. The unit is too new to need any upgrades yet.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708678)

There are CPU upgrades available for every single other Mac ever made, so it's quite likely that when the time comes that the original X-Serve CPU can't keep up, an upgrade will be available. ...and it will still cost more than commodity Wintel hardware. Beyond that, the thread earlier today about Apple's refund policy pointed out that, in several instances, Apple hardware had horrible design mistakes, too.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (2, Insightful)

RLW (662014) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708609)

No, it's not complicated at all.

This is the same reason that no software house will ever produce bug free products. If you make a perfect application that does the job then there's no incentive to upgrade. Build bugs in to products but no so severe that user won't use it. You can buy a lot more mini vans with bug laden code. Even put your kids through college.

Version 17.08.21r - Looks good!

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708652)

"Software house"?

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (1, Insightful)

nyteroot (311287) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708612)

Exactly. He makes one blatant factual error:
Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper.

They are a HELL of a lot more expensive to buy (something on the order of 30% of an x86 based solution) and since, as you pointed out, upgrading them often == buy a new one, that brings the TCO up too.If it weren't for cost, I'm sure a lot more companies would be using Apple -- hell, I know I, personally, may well be on a Mac of some sort if it didnt cost $1200 more than the PC I've got now for an equivalent Mac.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708658)

...since, as you pointed out, upgrading them often == buy a new one, that brings the TCO up too.
What is so difficult about upgrading a Mac?

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708679)

The fact that you paid $2000 for it in the first place, and its worth about $250 a year later.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708711)

The fact that you paid $2000 for it in the first place, and its worth about $250 a year later.
Maybe the fact that you don't have a friggin' clue, do you.

Go see if you can buy an operational one-year-old Mac somewhere for $250. I guarantee you can't.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708685)

A Mac is considerably more expensive than a bottom-of-the-line, no-frills PC. (Or, worse, a "kit" PC that you assemble from parts.)

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.

Mod parent down (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708626)

This is more trollish than insightful. The XServe is exatly like any other rackmountable machine. The only difference is it has a different type of CPU and can run OS X. Nothing's keeping you from upgrading anything in the XServe either.

Heck, it even runs Linux. The parent is simply spouting old anti-Apple rhetoric.

This happened to my friend. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708558)

My friend is a teacher at Cleveland Schools. He reccommended to students that they get an Apple computer, because they give discounts to students, and inner city, and employees of the government. Some company sent a cease-and-decist letter to him.

Re:This happened to my friend. (1)

spectral (158121) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708706)

I call BS. What company unless the entire school district has a contractual obligation with them to only buy from them could possibly C&D you for recommending purchasing something? Also, you didn't even read the slashdot summary of the article, because it's talking about how they're less likely to need maintenance, so you don't need as many techs. Not that you're giong to get fired because you brought it up, but fired because you're now redundant/unneeded.

If you buy Apple.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708562)

..somebody in India starves because of lack of tech support calls.

Please. Think of the Indians. Buy PC.

Re:If you buy Apple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708584)

Sally Struthers, why don't you open up your purse of hohos and share them with those kids?

Recommending Apple (2, Funny)

HobNob (177770) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708564)

So this is kind of like "Nobody ever lost their job for buying IBM"?

Nobody ever kept their job for buying Apple.

Has a nice ring to it, I can see it on the adverts now.

Re:Recommending Apple (1)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708619)

Just recomend G5s and mention that IBM makes the CPU.

Re:Recommending Apple (1)

hobbesmaster (592205) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708654)

And now we know why nobody ever lost their job for buying IBM. ;)

Duh? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708565)

Um... duh? This is ancient, ancient "news" that has been well understood for some time.

Look at politicians. They promise to do things that will create jobs. (Like creating jobs is a good thing.) They complain about things the other guy did that made the country lose jobs. And people vote for them.

Cheap Trick said it best: "I want you to want me."

A matter of comfort (4, Insightful)

REden (174677) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708568)

as I mentioned in a response to Bob.

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

Re:A matter of comfort (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708648)

> It's expensive
to learn, and I have no incentive.


Nonsense! Life as a machead doesn't appeal to you?

Heh, well I guess:

Apple : end user :: BSD : geek

They both think they are 1337 just for using an alternative platform.

CLI? It's in there. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708665)

MacOS-X has a CLI - a C shell running in an ANSI terminal.

Re:CLI? It's in there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708696)

> MacOS-X has a CLI - a C shell running in an ANSI terminal.

But does it run fortune? ;)

Re:A matter of comfort (1)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708670)

Exactly, I know more about unix than our unix admin!

Scary thing, i don't know THAT much about unix. He is amazing when it comes to Windows, and I'm sure Solaris will be phased out at first chance because no one in the company knows anything about it. It's like a relic to them, from an old system. (They have very few unix boxes, and only for 1 real job..)

Re:A matter of comfort (2, Informative)

fugu13 (597296) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708677)

You'd be perfectly comfortable with a Mac, at least as far as the CLI goes. It's a unix (-based operating system, to please the open group). It behaves on the CLI like other unixes do (particularly FreeBSD).

And as for the rest, it's easy. Point and click isn't hard, and program interfaces are very similar across operating systems.

Tutorial. (5, Insightful)

SamTheButcher (574069) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708680)

Ok, here you go.
  1. Go to your nearest Apple store.
  2. Go to whichever computer looks the most like a PC (to assuage your discomfort level). Don't worry, few look like a PC.
  3. Use the mouse and go down to the dock, usually located at the bottom of the screen.
  4. Click on the Finder icon.
  5. Click on the Applications icon at the top of the window that opens.
  6. Open the Utilities folder within that window.
  7. Double click on Terminal.

End tutorial. Should all be familiar from there.

Sort of facetious, but, well, not really. Try it. Take a half hour out of your time. If it's not that easy, well, then you now know you're making the right decisions instead of wondering "if".

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708569)

In Soviet Russia, your job loses YOU!

apple.

On the other hand. (0, Troll)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708570)

No one evar got fired for buying Micro$oft!1

Re:On the other hand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708624)

We just fired a couple of guys.

Their sole job description was to ensure all boxes sitting on desks were up to date with the latest patches.

Come this week is was pretty obvious they missed a few (50%) boxes.

Re:On the other hand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708714)

Now that is what I call lame job performance.

Since when do companies care about IT support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708571)

Most tech companies are busy outsourcing jobs to India and other countries where labor is available for the fraction of the price. Most companies want to save money, and firing support people isn't why they don't choose Apple. They don't choose Apple because Apple has a monopoly on Apple hardware, and gets to set the firm prices. You can basically find an IBM compatible PC in any price range these days, and if you don't want to, you don't even need to put Windows on it.

Jeez, don't flatter yourself (2, Insightful)

mr.henry (618818) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708572)

Anyone who buys into this 'conspiracy theory' has had their brain fried by the Apple reality distortion ray gun. Here are a couple reasons why the company I work for has never, and probably will never, consider Macs:
cost
Check gotapex? [gotapex.com] or techbargains [techbargains.com] and you'll see Dell P4's for $400-500 bucks. Seriously, what Mac can compare?
software
AutoCAD? GIS apps? Engineering apps? (Canvas doesn't count. Get real.)

Those hip, trendy commercials don't help either. I want a box to crunch numbers, not to make a fashion statement.

Re:Jeez, don't flatter yourself (2, Funny)

Red Meanie (672769) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708603)

Come on, everybody knows its Jobs Reality Distortion field. Its a natural phenomenon, there's no gun involved.

Mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708573)

In case the site get slashdotted, or you can't get there from where you sit, here's a mirror [martin-studio.com] .

Article Moderation... (-1, Flamebait)

demonbug (309515) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708574)

-1, Flamebait, -1, Troll. Do the editors have any karma left at this point?

An Apple requires less support (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708576)

... because you are limited in what you can do with one.

Makes an assumption (4, Interesting)

Telastyn (206146) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708578)

This argument makes the assumption that IT is ever properly staffed in the first place. IT people almost universally want to lessen their workload so it falls more in line with their actual [underfunded] workload capacity!

Yes, but.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708580)

What would you rather do:

Recommend Apple?

or,

Have sex with a mare?

Re:Yes, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708601)

Thats like comparing Apples to Oranges

It's true. I did it for years. (5, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708585)

Used to work as a contractor for a major pizza company that used to be in Kansas. They were an entire Macintosh place, had systems for about 700 - 1000 users I think it was.

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708687)

sounds like something was wrong with your ghost image if your rebuild schedule was once a week :)

I wouldn't suggest it (4, Insightful)

kippy (416183) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708591)

I'm an applications admin. ClearCase and ClearQuest specifically. I also support a host of other engineering applications. Most of those apps were never and probably will never be ported to the Mac and I'm willing to bet that other engineering shops are in the same boat.

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 (4, Informative)

laird (2705) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708675)

It depends on the kind of engineering you're doing. There's a shortage of CAD packages for the Mac, for example, but with MacOS X, most of the major UNIX engineering packages have been ported to MacOS X -- the vendors see it as a dramatically easier way to get to the non-UNIX desktop market than doing an NT port. Some examples:

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), ... you get the idea. Probably not as wide a range as for Wintel, but they've certainly got their fans (i.e. people using them to make a living).

Doesn't make sense (4, Insightful)

eap (91469) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708592)

Every IT dept I've ever encountered was overburdened to start with. I can't imagine they would not want a break so they could attend to more important things than Windows crashes. Not only that, but the techs _hate_ dealing with this stuff.

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.

Fuddy Duddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708594)

What Amazing Fud, now all the Executives and Vice-Presidents are going to beleive this kind of fud and start asking why the company is still on the PC.

+1, Recommend OSS Instead (-1)

handybundler (232934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708595)



Never mind Apple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708597)

Why did Linux fail on the desktop?

Re:Never mind Apple.. (1)

m3djack (613125) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708673)

If you have to ask....

Midrange apps (2, Interesting)

sphealey (2855) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708600)

I guess the fact that 98% of the midrange apps that businesses use daily don't run on the Macintosh has nothing to do with it.

sPh

Re:Midrange apps (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708631)

I guess the fact that 98% of the midrange apps that businesses use daily don't run on the Macintosh has nothing to do with it.
Got any examples at all for us? Other than vertical-market ones?

yah. (1)

Moo_Monkey_man (698626) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708602)

That would explain why microsoft is doing so well...

If you build a computer for idiots.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708611)


only idiots will want to use it

The bad taste of Appletalk (2, Insightful)

ansible (9585) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708617)

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?

Re:The bad taste of Appletalk (2, Insightful)

m3djack (613125) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708694)

People seem to be missing that OSX is now based on BSD. From my understanding, it's just BSD with an attractive and functional GUI on top. I don't see why all the linux/bsd sysadmins should fear OS X, because it's pretty damn similar to what they already administer...

Human Nature... (2, Insightful)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708618)

Self Interest is human nature. Are you REALLY going campaign for a product that will possibly help you meet your own economic demise?? Chances are no, especially if they clientel (sp?) are easily swayed and lack knowledge.

Now I know why... (1)

Caduceus1 (178942) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708625)

...I see a lot more jobs for NT/2000 positions...

Windows in the workplace (5, Interesting)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708633)

I went absolutely nuts updating machines in my workplace for the MS Blaster worm. Take a look of one of my user's desktop [otierney.net] for an example of why.

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... (2, Insightful)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708636)

But if I was looking at the exact same comperable solutions, and I knew 1 would benefit the IT department vs. hurting the IT department's job security, I go with the one that is going to secure jobs to my hardworking co-workers (and I) ... The CEO makes more than all of us combined, We lost our coffee machine.. it's fair!

yep (0)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708637)

Lol, that's about the truest thing I've read in a while.

Dear Apple, I need a new job :( (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708638)

Dear Apple,
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.

True enough. (4, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708642)

This is totally true. Take a look at small offices that don't have or can't afford an IT department and you'll see they normally use Macs. Why? Because if you have a company with 12 people running Macs you don't need an IT department. Look at Vice Magazine for an example of what I'm talking about. I'm moving into the realm of home business and you know I'll be making the switch. Then again, I'm in graphic arts and all the labs at my school are Mac labs.

Bravo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708644)

I think that any IT person foolish enough to buy the gaudy, over-the-top overpriced shit that Apple pushes needs to be fired. Recommending BeOS on an AtariST would be more worthwhile.

You need a good reason why IT avoids Mac? (1)

Not_Wiggins (686627) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708645)

One word: AppleTalk ;)

You don't know networking fear until you've seen: A Mac talking over an AirPort, connecting through an OpenBSD firewall to a samba mount on a linux server, then having your boss (who's doing all this) ask, "Why aren't the permissions set properly when I save this document? Can you fix that?"

TRUE story...
*shudder!*
;)

Bad Conclusions (4, Interesting)

Dasein (6110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708646)

First, I think Cringely is great. I mean who else would let us buy video tape of them having a nervous breakdown?

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.

Dear Father O'Day: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708657)

Dear Father O'Day:
Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.
Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.

Application Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708662)

Linux is better documented and better supported by the user community for server applications than OS/X. I also prefer it to OS/X as an administrative workstation. Who wants to do administrative chores from a machine that only lets you open 1 terminal window at a time?

Re:Application Support (1)

anthonyrcalgary (622205) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708703)

What?

The default terminal application that comes with OS X allows an arbitrary number of terminal windows.

Apples requiring less support? (1, Troll)

Trogre (513942) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708664)

Sure, if you don't do anything with them.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the variety of Apple computers kept where I work cause proportionally far more trouble than other platforms.

Grain of truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708668)

There is something to this. Our competition in a service type business have the strategy of making sure they get a call every month or so for equipment repair. And they do. Then if we go in, they don't need repairs for maybe a year or so. We are more expensive at one time, but less over time.

People recommend what they understand. Apple, although easy to use, is different. There is a perverse pleasure in knowing Windows. You have "Administrator" manuals that describe the hidden secrets. With Unix, you just read the configuration files.

Derek

Always liked Cringely ... (1)

Mitch Murray (680637) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708671)

His "Triumph of the Nerds" (now on DVD!)and "Nerds 2.0.1" are just fabulous. However, after watching his most recent effort ("Plane Crazy") I think he described himself with the title of that last production. This latest bit about Apple and IT pretty much ices it for me.

stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708674)

"I want a box to crunch numbers, not to make a fashion statement. "

Man are you stupid. Let me guess they're "too easy" too? Have you heard of FreeBSD? or MacOS X?

Macs are better than Linux and Windows.

G5s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708699)

Don't forget G5s with 8 gigs RAM. What Linux box can do what G5s can for under 3k? Macs are cheaper too.

Linux doesn't require more geeks. (1)

Nizzt (45461) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708681)

Linux only requires more geeks when the geeks don't know Linux.

IT doesn't switch because they don't know anything other then what they are running.

I don't recommend macs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708682)

'cuz I'm not gay.

Fucking mac faggots.

It's not just that... (1)

anthonyrcalgary (622205) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708683)

MacOS beats Windows handily in a lot of areas, but there are some things where it's not all there yet. Since not everything many businesses need is available for MacOS, they'd need to support two OSes, which would be much worse.

As an OS X user, I can say that I need my experience to keep the system running smoothly. A novice would still need help, I think. It's only a little better than Windows in that respect.

Now, if these semi-anual superworms don't stop, then I think it'll be more cost effective in the long run, but it's going to take a long time for that to get noticed.

Speaking of which... Is this a Software Update window that's just popped up? It is. Wow. A remote root exploit in OS X. I think I'll install that. Excuse me, this will require a reboot.

Wheres the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708689)

"Recommend Apple, Lose Your Job?" This statement is perfectly logic.

Pricing and Usability (3, Interesting)

71thumper (107491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708691)

Cringely's close, but off the mark.

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

Are you kidding? (1)

goat_of_wisdom (555727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708692)

Until OSX came out, Windows *was* better.

linux... (1)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708693)

From the article: Adopting Linux allows organizations to increase their IT efficiency without requiring the IT department to increase ITS efficiency.

I don't buy that. In fact, I think adopting linux would lead to an increase in needed support, because the average computer user knows nothing about linux. In fact, this has been one of the mantras of people trying to convince companies to jump on the open source bandwagon: give away your product for free, and make money on support.

Linux may be more stable (but on the other hand: my win2k never crashes either), but that doesn't really matter all that much. To most people the occasional crash is a fact of life. They press the reset button and continue working. You don't need support for that. Support is needed when your computer is completely messed up and/or needs (re)configuration. There, Windows and MacOS have linux beat hands down. Most average computer users can do minor tweaks of their Windows or MacOS box without requiring any help. Put them in front of a linux box, and they're completely lost.

Variety, Not Uniformity: No "Windows Is Standard" (1)

Killer Eye (3711) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708695)

IT organizations tend to mistakenly shoot for "standardization". This should *not* be the goal, because it is a fact that every job has a platform on which it is done best. Unfortunately, because IT departments want to pick one, they "standardize on Windows" because of the hype, the apparent low cost and its proliferation throughout the computing world.

I would recommend a mixture: buy Macs, buy Linux, buy Solaris and, indeed, buy Windows: *for the people whose jobs demand each type of machine*. Any IT organization that wants to standardize on a single platform, even one as versatile as the Mac, is guaranteeing that they will hinder someone's ability to get work done.

Examples: Mac for local networks and graphics artists, Linux for corporate mail and web and global server structure, Solaris/SPARC for Java developers and CAD, Windows for office types and...gamers? You get the idea.

Flameesssss (1)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708697)

I love the articles that start out as flamebait.

Anything else other than flamebait should be modded off-topic.

IT is organized crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708698)

I worked in IT on a co-op term and their internal policy was to always recommend the most expensive solution. Not only in initial cost, but also in total cost going forward.

That is why they replaced their Solaris file servers with NT: it would cost $40K up front and would mean that they would have to hire at least one more person to maintain them since the Solaris boxes pretty well ran themselves while NT isn't anywhere near that bullet-proof and constantly would require maintenance.

Tin-foil hat (1)

tehdely (690619) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708700)

I think the article is exaggerating the extent both to which Mac solutions are easier to deploy and to which they would result in fewer hours being spent on IT.

There is no doubt that an XServe comes with many graphical administration tools that make certain jobs easier, as well as the stability of a UNIX-like system (in this case, a BSD system). I can attest to this, having run OS X Server on my desktop (!) for almost a year now.

However, your average corporation's need for IT solutions extends beyond "run Apache and a file server"; when it comes down to the custom solutions most enterprises demand, there will have to be a good deal of command-line tinkering and hard work no matter what platform you deploy it on. OS X Server certainly makes the more basic of server tasks simpler, but most companies will be doing more than just those.

In any case, I think the familiarity issue deserves highlighting, too. Macs have not traditionally existed in the server space; for years they were strictly either home machines or workstations; what servers Apple offerred were generally for synchronizing/managing small all-Mac networks. It takes any company time to move into a market space which they have normally kept far away from, and it's my guess ( and hope ) that as more IT administrators become familiar with OS X (the preexisting familiarity with UNIX systems will certainly aid this) Apple's server solutions will become more commonplace.

Yes and No. (1)

gnuforpresident2004 (698618) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708702)

Why not Macs? You now have a stable Unix Environment that supports MS Office but what about the accounting applications? What about this app and that app. Just uprooting your computer infrastructure is a very expensive proposition. Also there is the issue of training your IT Staff to support an Apple network environment. Macs may be great platform but you still need some to support it. Remember MSCE are everywhere. It is harder to find someone to even touch a Mac. This should not stop people from investing in getting a Mac but it should you should do because it make sense for your company period.

Apple eye for the PC guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708704)

Five Apple zealots teach a PC tech guy how to accessorize. Software? If it's name doesn't start with i, you don't need it. Processor speed? Oh puhleeze! As long as the box is a fabulous color, who cares?

The dentist effect! (1)

k4hg (443029) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708705)

For year, dentists went on an anti-tooth decay crusade...fluoride in the water, brush twice a day, floss daily, and so on. Their income plummeted, ask your dentist how he's doing these days!

I'm an Emergency Doctor...I never tell my patients to stop drinking, stop smoking, exercise, or get a checkup...I'm not going to mess with my income stream!

I'd expect nothing less from IT workers....

ease of administration (1)

penguin7of9 (697383) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708707)

Macintosh systems are pretty easy to administer for individuals. It's also fairly easy to set up ad-hoc workgroups with Macintosh.

But that does not translate into easy administration of a large network of machines. The tools and support needed for administering large numbers of machines are completely different from those needed for individual machines or small workgroups.

Microsoft customers make the same mistake: they think that because XP Home Edition sort-of works out of the box, that networks of XP machines must be pretty easy to set up and administer, too.

Your best bet for reducing administration costs for large sites is still UNIX and Linux systems. It isn't perfect, and you require a skilled IT staff to be able to deal with it, but in the end, it's more effective than having to hire dozens of people fiddling with OS X or Windows machines like they were home computers.

And, no, Mac OS X does not qualify as a UNIX or Linux system for the purposes of administration because its administrative tools and configuration system is quite different from that found on UNIX machines and because many software packages on OS X require GUI interaction and even reboots for their installations.

That Article was the biggest...... (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708708)

piece of flame-bait bull-shit I have ever read. The fact that pc's have somewhat of a domination in the corporate-office-user world is that when you have to buy 10,000 machines at a time you want the most cost efficient systems available, and currently, Apple makes some of the most expensive personal computers on the market currently.

The other thing is that although Apples are great for design, they lack a lot of the inhouse-homebrewn software that a lot of companies use.

Lets look at a real-world situation. I work for a Realestate firm with about 100 employees. Everyone in the sales dept. uses a windows machine. Why? because we got a really good pricing from Dell (below $500 a System+Monitor, you cannot get a new G4-G5 with monitor for that). The sales staff, although not the most technically savy, require (read: use) a program called PhotoMapper which is a great yet simple program for aerial mapping and copying pasting into MS Word. Photomapper is NOT available for Apple, and without going into it, there is not another simple program that does what this one does as cleanly on a mac. sorry.

Now our Graphics and Marketing dept. uses macs. Why? Because we work with apps like photoshop, illustrator, quark, etc... we have a printer. However we also have a couple pc's for when we need to work with the CAD files we recieve for different buildings. for some reason the CAD programs just seem to run better on the pc's we have so we just kept it that way.

Maybe our IT dept. is just on the ball, but they don't care whether you have a PC or a MAC - they support and maintain both. Each system has its place and people always go with what they are comfortable with (sorry linux no one in the business world wants you for word processing or graphic design).

Use BSD (1)

EnigmaticSource (649695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708709)

Really, the Apple Experience is nothing more than BSD on overrated, overpriced hardware with a Spiffy 'Not Really an X', X Server.

Why dont's this 'mac-o-files' just accept the fact that the x86, Itanium, and Opteron guys just don't like having proprietary hardware in our racks... and leave it at that.

Hmmm.. (1)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708712)

It strikes me as very funny to ask this question to a bunch of people at work who do nothing but read Slashdot all day (me included!).

I see a definite trend towards moving internal applications away from DOS terminals and towards web-based applications. To that effect, Macs are a great choice because they *do* require less maintenance than Windows, and you don't have to be afraid of viruses. Where I work the hardware guys are either crying from over-work, or they sit there and browse the web all day. It's very random. I'm not sure how a Mac fits into this equation.

Oh and show me Websphere running on an Xserve and we'll seriously consider one. Its half the price of our IBM servers that are slow as shit.

Macs, Linux really are better (5, Informative)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6708713)

At my company we use a variety of boxes throughout, Windows, Linux, Mac. We do this for a variety of reasons, among with is which systems the people using them like, what our customer needs are for development purposes, and so on. So from a real-world experience here are some points:
  • 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.

it's the single button mouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6708715)

can't stand it
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?