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!

Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the awareness-gap dept.

Businesses 500

coondoggie sends us a NetworkWorld story on the prospects for Apple gaining market share in the corporation. A number of factors are helping to catch the eye of those responsible for upgrading desktops and servers, the article claims: "Apple's shift to the Intel architecture; the inclusion of infrastructure and interoperability hooks, such as directory services, in the Mac OS X Server; dual-boot capabilities; clustering and storage technology; third-party virtualization software; and comparison shopping, which is being fostered by migration costs and hardware overhauls associated with Microsoft's Vista." On this last point, one network admin is quoted: "The changes in Vista are significant enough that we think we can absorb the change going to Macs just as easily as going to Vista."

cancel ×

500 comments

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

why not? (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173796)

Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation?

Why not? They're already penetrating consumers.

Re:why not? (1, Funny)

Brunellus (875635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173988)

Steve's potency seems never to have been in doubt.

Re:why not? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174308)

I'd like to penetrate Brittany Spears. Baldie looks hot...

Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174486)

Did you not see her minge in those pics of her getting out of that taxi or whatever it was? It looked like two dried up, shrivelled peaches hanging down between her legs, a bit like those wierd bits that hang down under old ladies necks. It was deeply unpleasant.

Re:Are you sure? (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174724)

On this last point, one network admin is quoted: "The changes in Vista are significant enough that we think we can absorb the change going to Macs just as easily as going to Vista."
WRONG! [jt.org]

Yeah. The entire enterprise application base from Win32 to POSIX/Cocoa.

Fire this guy, before he talks to your boss. Jesus! I love Macs - but don't think for a minute that you can use them with smartcards and automatically deployed certificate infrastructures, or any form of distributed policy management, etc. Where is the corporate distribution of packaged software?

This has been my problem with big Linux deployments. If you want badly managed client end-points, go ahead.

Don't try this at home.

HOLD ON THERE, SON (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174098)

Whoa there young whippersnapper...OSX in Corporations isn't the real issue. THIS IS:

For Microsoft's new Vista operating system, is [Cancel] or [Allow] the new BSOD?
 


([Cancel] or [Allow])

happening (2, Interesting)

popisdead (594564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174414)

Vista prompted my CTO to say "We're going to buy macs for tech instead of Vista, and we'll do a linux install setup for the rest."

Re:why not? (-1, Offtopic)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174688)

Isn't someone supposed to ride in on a white horse and make a "confirm or deny" joke?

Ha-ha! Bravo! score 5! Funny!

I'd like to see (5, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173804)

Some concrete numbers on admin costs between the two platforms. Whatever reasons you proscribe to the whole Windows vs Macs vs every electronic plague on the planet, I suspect there's some serious cost-benefits to making the switch at the corporate level.

If nothing else I'd love to see a larger market-share for Apple just to cut down on the number of spam-generating zombies out there.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174306)

A local Community College I take some language courses at has just gotten an Apple Lab in January specifically to teach Apple Courses, the first ones since the early nineties in that place -- so far, the admins tell me that those machines are the least work to initially set up and keep running.

Meanwhile, while they reimage the harddrives at the rest of the terminals every night on the PC, it seems that Internet Explorer is still getting all manner of toolbars installed. And other slowdowns. And these terminals are locked down, can't even do a copy and paste without the system restricting the user against it. This is true whether the computers are public terminals or in classrooms running some type of Novell software where the student has to sign in.

The techs have long considered Linux (the Gaming Degree has Gimp as one of the art apps), but there are various problems. The art department wants to keep it's various Adobe products, and if just one computer in the school runs Windows, for legal reasons, they are better off buying a site license for MS -- so the administrations says. Then they reason that they might as well "get their money's worth" and run Windows everywhere they can.

Re:I'd like to see (1, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174390)

The problem with Apple is that they do not consider the corporation to be a target audience. They don't allow for corporate volume discounts (that alone is a massive deal breaker, making them substantially more expensive than anything else); and they don't provide customer service packages that mid-to-large corporations expect. Overall, they're looking for single users and small businesses. They have made it very clear that they don't want the corporate desktop, which is fine if that's how they want it.

They can get into schools because they specifically work with schools to make it easy for them to buy and maintain Macs. When they do this for corporations, they will have a ready audience, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there are deals behind the scenes that prevent that. Remember that Microsoft once held a chunk of Apple, and there may well have been contractual elements to the divestiture of MS's stake.

Re:I'd like to see (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174588)

They don't allow for corporate volume discounts

Yes they do. Ask any Apple sales rep about it.

-jcr

Re:I'd like to see (2, Informative)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174570)

I don't have any concrete numbers, but I used to work at a company that used run a mixed Mac/PC shop. Story goes, a couple years before I started they transitioned to being nearly 100% Mac because the cost to develop & maintain in-house sofware was much higher on Win than OS X.

Having recently switched from being a ObjC/Cocoa developer at that company to being a VB.NET developer at the new job, I'm willing to believe it.

Re:I'd like to see (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174708)

Having recently switched from being a ObjC/Cocoa developer at that company to being a VB.NET developer at the new job
Ewww, what would have you do that? VB.Net is crap for kiddies! I would rather be a homeless dude on the streets than program with VB.Net.

Paradigm-shift. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18173810)

"The changes in Vista are significant enough that we think we can absorb the change going to Macs just as easily as going to Vista."

Or the changes going to Linux.

Re:Paradigm-shift. (1, Informative)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173992)

Right. I'll just run off an get my copy of Microsoft Office for Linux. Um. Hmm. Don't see one. There's one for OSX and everything but - hang on let me check again - no... That's strange.. Ah well, I'm sure there's a copy of Photoshop for Linux. Lessie - Windows, Mac....hmm. Darn. Well SURELY there's a copy of Flash Developer for Linux. Hmmmm....gosh.

Uh - unless we're talking about receptionists stringing together redundant database systems and large-scale host arrays, I think - nay - suspect, that an application - of any kind - might be in order. Then again I haven't checked, does GIMP handle .psd files with decent layer mapping?

Re:Paradigm-shift. (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174136)

Re:Paradigm-shift. (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174184)

"applications that require copy protection support. This includes titles such as Photoshop CS and Dreamweaver MX 2004 and later."

Sounds like an enterprise solution for wackyness! I'm so sold.

Re:Paradigm-shift. (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174386)

Do you really want enterprise applications with copy protection support? Some day 10 years ago, you may discover that you need to update one of your old illustrations. Copy protection of your Photoshop CS probably will not take well to Windows Vista SP7 Microsoft will be selling then. You will be suddenly much more interested in just how well Gimp supports layers in PSD files.

Re:Paradigm-shift. (-1, Troll)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174624)

MS Office for Mac sucks. It is _totally_ different and still is only available for PPC. That means it runs like poop. I tried the trial version and it really sucks and is far too slow. Oh, there is also no MS Outlook for Mac, which is the big MS Office app for corps that run MS Exchange.

At the fortune 500 I work for, MS Outlook is the most used MS Office app. Period. There is no support for that on the Mac. Personally I would love for our admins to get a clue and switch to a real IMAP server that is not MS Exchange so that our email client is not forced on us. Sadly, I don't get to make that call.

Photoshop? Huh, why do Mac-boys always try to throw that around? How many of the big corps (where MS makes their money) _need_ Photoshop? Probably close to none. The majority of image editing that employees at a big corp does could be handled by the Gimp, without question. Actually where I work, a lot of the programmers like me use Gimp and the graphics dudes don't use Photshop but Macromedia suite. For those circumstances that need Photoshop, well just give those employees an XP or Mac box and be done with it.

Linux can handle the majority of desktop, development and server needs of most big corps. The only problem is that most big corps have most of their eggs in the MS-Basket, so switching to Mac or Linux is a long shot.

Re:Paradigm-shift. (0, Flamebait)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174726)

You use Macromedia suite? Good for you!

Um - you did know that's Adobe right? Pwned.

Ew. (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173828)

Does it want to?

Re:Ew. (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173932)

Well, yes and no.

Steve Jobs spent a lot of time and money trying to get the fortune 500 to use NeXT computers, and I think he just doesn't care much about that market anymore. The Xserve and Xserve RAID are fine machines, and far less work to set up and operate than any other system I can name, but Apple's just not staffed to offer the kind of enterprise-level support that HP, and Sun are. I plan to use a lot of Xserves in my current venture, but I do so knowing that I'm going to have to provide the on-site rapid response service to our customers myself.

-jcr

Re:Ew. (4, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174340)

You have some points but Xserves still aren't as capable as modern solutions from Sun, HP, and hell, even Dell. Think SAN management, it's not impossible but its quite a bit more difficult on the Mac side of the fence. Maybe in a few more years they'll gear it up but monitoring and management have always been the weak side for Apple as they generally prefer to give the power to the user. This is great for home users but very bad for corporate users.

The support you mention is probably the biggest stumbling block for Apple at the current time however.

Re:Ew. (3, Informative)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174642)

Never having worked in a "Microsoft Shop," i wonder what kind of support the actual OS vendor really supplies. I mean, sure, they've got to have a really good online knowledge base, but do Windows admins really spend much, if any, time on the phone with Microsoft? As far as I know, companies just hire consultants to give them support when inhouse staff can't handle it.. even when using Windows. Why wouldn't your clients rely on your for on-site support if they went with Microsoft? Who else would they call?

I think it is about features and options. Xserves and XRAIDs are great and easy to manage because they're relatively simple. But because they are simple, they lack at lot of flexability and options that enterprise users need. I mean, seriously, there is basically just ONE external RAID option for Apple servers. There's hundreds for PCs/Windows. If Apple products just happen to fit what you want to do, great, but Windows will continue to be the default platform of choice just because there is so much choice out there. And it isn't just Microsoft. We're talking Dell, HP, IBM, etc.

-matthew

I've always thought (2, Interesting)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173860)

the Mac Mini was perfect for enterprise desktops. Small, competively priced, easy on power, and you can just plug in your old monitor, though you may want new mice and keyboards with them. And now with dual-booting and all the other things the article mentions, it seems pretty logical.

Re:I've always thought (3, Informative)

Amiga Trombone (592952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174090)

Yes, but the challenge isn't so much the hardware, but the availability of applications that are actually used in corporations. I've tried using my Mac as a work computer, and I just couldn't do it, even with Virtual PC on it (not every application likes being virtualized).

Ironically, as a corporate desktop, Linux is probably better supported than OS X.

Re:I've always thought (2, Insightful)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174208)

But do the vast majority of enterprise users need more than MS Office (or the equivalent thereof), a calender/organizer, email, and a browser? Now, in the IT Department, I can see the need, but most business computers are little more than dumb terminals.

Re:I've always thought (3, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174320)

The sad thing is Yes they do.
Often they use many client server/database programs written in shudder VisualBasic.
Often the company completely depends on them.
For example in my office we depend on Goldmine, USP Shipping software and a number of small programs what we developed in house using Java. We chose Java to make it easy to move to Linux or the Mac but we still depend on a few Windows programs for our day to day operation.

Re:I've always thought (2, Informative)

volsung (378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174408)

Maybe you have already tried this, but I would highly, highly recommend Parallels [parallels.com] for running Windows apps if you have an Intel-based Mac. Now that they don't have to translate from x86 to PPC on the fly, virtualization on one of these new Macs is nearly as good as the real thing. Jump into fullscreen mode, and you won't notice the difference. And check out the "Coherence" feature in the latest release, which lets you have Windows windows (not stuttering there) next to Mac windows.

competitively priced with what? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174110)

For less than the price of the mini I can buy a full up business desktop, loaded with vista, 1GB of ram, 80GB of
disk and on top of that I get a keyboard, mouse and 19 inch flat panel display...and this is from a major distributor, warranty on site etc.

Now do not get me wrong even I would not mind having a mac, but I am not paying 4 times market value to do it.

Re:competitively priced with what? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174220)

actually no you cant.

Dimension E520 wth Intel® Dual-Core Processor = 599 and there is no monitor included. and if you want the freebees just go to Macmall and other resellers who will package in off brand monitors and stuff.

Re:competitively priced with what? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174330)

I don't know what you are looking at but they list a 520 with 17 inch monitor for 499 which is the same price as the lowest end mini.

Re:competitively priced with what? (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174698)

Looking at Dells site, I to go to the $599 version to get a dual core processor and that still didn't include a monitor. Of course I've noticed before that depending on how you enter the dell site (large biz, smal biz, etc...) prices and specials can vary widely.

Also, remember that picking the cheapest mac and the cheapest dell isn't going to get you a fair comparison most of the time. Generally the mac will have a bit better hardware, and certainly doesn't cost 4x as much.

Yes and Maybe No (4, Insightful)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173924)

Yes I can see how switching to a Mac could absord the cost of Vista and it's hardware requirments but what about the cost of training a whole enterprise of users on MacOSX.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174084)

but what about the cost of training a whole enterprise of users on MacOSX.

I would think that there is a training cost of migrating to Vista. It may not be as dramatic as from XP to OS X, but there is a cost. Also you would gain cost saving due to less maintenance of fewer viruses, malware, etc. Finally, any training cost may be offset by the loss in productivity due to Vista [slashdot.org] as well as all time users will spend clicking on prompts.

You are about to post a reply. Cancel or Allow
Allow.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174282)

I agree...however if the cost after it's all said and done is similar, most larger corporations will stick with what's familar and not go through the trouble...in the long term there may be savings like you said from maintainence, but in my short experience at a large corp you better present some dramatic cost savings if you want your project approved.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (2, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174140)

Ditto. I'm curious about those costs too because I've been multi-platform for so long I can't even relate to the idea of training people to learn how to click on a brushed metal window instead of a Microsoft one. I know that Start Button / Apple menu is going to cause wholesale panic around the company cafeteria.

Corporate riot ensues, Wall Street collapses, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!

Just explaining the lack of a BSD is going to be comedy gold baby! And the OSX wirly rainbow thingie is also sure to be a barn-burner. Start those camcorders for YouTube, and kick back and enjoy the fun.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174322)

What about it?

May be that shifting from XP to OS X is easier than from XP to Veesta.

Office apps? Done. Local admin? Done. Open/close/save/new? Trivial.

Using the trash might take a bit, but hey, no such thing as a free lunch.

I would worry more about the hapless IT staff than I would the users. The statistic I recall said for Windows, you need one admin for every 30 ~ 40 boxes/users. OS X is more along the lines of one for every +100.

Move to either minis or iMacs and run strictly LCDs...the energy savings alone can help pay to retrain some of the redundant IT gorks.

The amount of goodwill generated w/your users? Priceless.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (1)

Sam Ritchie (842532) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174620)

From my observations, the hardest change for most people is the control/command key and the lack of (forward) delete on some keyboards.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174748)

The statistic I recall said for Windows, you need one admin for every 30 ~ 40 boxes/users. OS X is more along the lines of one for every +100.

Where is that? At the organization I work in we have four guys in IT. My boss who doesn't do jack shit technically. Me (I handle the databases, Exchange, and the servers). The other guy handles the workstations plus the Mac's in the design department. The last guy handles the phones. Whatever the in house guy can't take care of on the Macs we have a third party consultant come in and take care of. Those Macs cause us more problems than all of the PCs combined. Now granted the Mac guy only has about five years of experience in IT, but he has an easier time keeping 150+ PCs up and running than five Macs that are running InDesign and all of that other Adobe nonsense. Obviously my experience is a bit antecdotal and anybody with more experience using Macs might have an easier time of it. None the less, I find that statement about one admin being able to admin 100+ OSX boxes to be wishful thinking.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (1)

jarod670 (667823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174352)

I think if you use group policy correctly, people won't know the difference between XP and Vista. So far from what I have been testing, it looks a little different, but still has the XP feel. I work in Health Care, nurses are hard enough to train on Windows let alone anything else. Of course then there are the vendors who support MacOSX or Linux. Not too many in the Health Care industry, on servers yes, on the desktop no.

Re:Yes and Maybe No (3, Interesting)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174372)

Vista is very foreign feeling compared to any windows release since Windows 95. OS X is not that hard to use. Most people can barely print documents and view websites. I think corporate users can be just as lost on OS X as they are in windows.

The real argument against a transition is software compatibility. However, its possible that even a vista deployment would require virtual pc + windows xp for some applications. Lets face it, many products just don't run on vista yet. Some will never be supported. I still know people using Lotus 123 in upper management in a hospital. IBM is not going to update smartsuite for vista compatibility. They claim it mostly works in 32 bit vista but not x64. This is one example. Since lotus is not available for the Mac, its an even transition. Of course the real problem is that corporate users think they need all the extra crap in office. There's always two or three people who just love access or infopath and can't get enough of it.

In the end, it all comes down to requirements. Its just as possible that Linux could "penetrate" the desktops.

This topic perenially arises (2, Insightful)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173930)

And people perenially point out the problems:

You can't get enterprise level support. I.e. next day overnight shipping for parts, 24-hour tech high-level support, etc. Getting a damn power supply should be easily done online a la the stuff Dell and HP offer. Speaking of that, it's also damn near impossible to get an online system apart from the basic Apple store.

No xMac. [arstechnica.com] The Mini helps in this regard, but Apple still doesn't offer a basic tower.

Exchange client/server. It's not good enough until it's perfect.

Uncertainty regarding OS X and hardware. The enterprise doesn't like not knowing what Steve Jobs is going to pull out of his hat in six weeks when you need new hardware today.

The first point is probably the most important, and the article doesn't really address how things have changed. Ever since 10.1 people have speculated Apple is finally pushing into the enterprise... maybe this time it will be. I'm skeptical given Apple's past intransigence. And I'm posting from a PowerBook.

Re:This topic perenially arises (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173982)

I wouldn't say that Apple's pushing into the enterprise so much as the enterprise is pulling Apple in.

-jcr

Re:This topic perenially arises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174558)


I wouldn't say that Apple's pushing into the enterprise so much as the enterprise is pulling Apple in.

That's a good point. One of our research groups is pretty much Mac based now with a smattering of other Macs around the place. In the meantime we've been telling users to buy their new PCs with XP whenever possible.

Re:This topic perenially arises (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174560)

Wow, that was a dumb comment. I hear the sound of thousands and thousands of corporate IT managers laughing...

Re:This topic perenially arises (4, Informative)

sakusha (441986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174216)

You're missing some basic information here.
Apple does have an Enterprise sales division and they are quite different from the consumer division, you get dedicated Apple representatives for your account. Onsite service contracts are available for server systems. Apple has always had self-servicing programs for enterprises, although the investment in spares can be a bit high.

Another factor is your allegations that uncertainty over future products hampers enterprise planning. The switch to Intel changed this picture considerably. Apple's future products track rather closely to Intel's.

Re:This topic perenially arises (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174514)

Short term Apple history shows you they aren't afraid to switch platforms even on platforms that are relatively new. I don't believe Apple will switch again as I think they finally realized its better to be with the pack than trying to support your own but this is a fear as Apple often releases products which break previous products. Look at the drivers for printers between OS 10.1 - 10.4 for evidence of this.

There is also all the false advertising Apple has been doing. It may not necessarily be false but its too over the top to be taken seriously. I don't know how many iPod owners I've come across in the last couple weeks which are ready to change computers but are concerned about what will happen with iTunes and their music collection. Not an enterprise issue but these little issues influence what corporate entities will see when they think of Apple.

The picture will change as things progress, Apple has a product they can actually expand so I don't see a need for them to throw the whole thing out again so perhaps the picture will change in another couple of years.

Re:This topic perenially arises (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174268)

And people perenially point out the problems:

You can't get enterprise level support. I.e. next day overnight shipping for parts, 24-hour tech high-level support, etc. Getting a damn power supply should be easily done online a la the stuff Dell and HP offer. Speaking of that, it's also damn near impossible to get an online system apart from the basic Apple store.


I think you're not exactly correct in your assertions.

While there may be some geographic limitations for the first, I would like to point out the following URL's for your further reading and enlightenment:

http://www.apple.com/support/products/premium.html [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/support/products/macosxserver _sw_supt.html [apple.com]

While they're not on par with some traditional enterprise companies (Sun) these meet the needs of many in the Fortune 500.

Re:This topic perenially arises (2, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174618)

The "Technology Road Map" issue is a red herring. The question is do you want to play with Jobs, who plays his cards close to his vest or do you want to play with Bill Gates, who's bluffing wildly and never shows the hand he says he has? Microsoft's technology "Road Map" is essentially the same strategy IBM perfected back in the day -- announce a blue sky set of features for the next product to keep the customers waiting on that nifty new technology and then deliver a quarter of the announced features a couple of years past the initial announced release date. Planning an IT strategy is no easier with Microsoft than it is with Apple.

Besides, most IT departments aren't riding that bleeding edge. They buy or lease their machines, use 'em for a few years and then do a new round of buying. They don't have to upgrade their hardware for that shiny new thing Jobs announced yesterday. The old systems will still be viable for some time no matter what new geegaws are coming out on the newest hardware. And you have a clear upgrade path to any other UNIX if Darwin takes a turn you don't like.

Probably not without... (0, Flamebait)

dave562 (969951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173934)

...changing their pricing structure. The big push for Linux is the lower TCO. Apple can't tout that. Their hardware is still more expensive than PC hardware and I don't think that the OS itself is that much less expensive than Windows.

Re:Probably not without... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174678)

..changing their pricing structure. The big push for Linux is the lower TCO. Apple can't tout that. Their hardware is still more expensive than PC hardware and I don't think that the OS itself is that much less expensive than Windows.

Pricing is always a factor but these days you have to qualify the generalism that Macs are more expensive. Feature for feature, Macs are competitive even beating PCs in some categories. The question becomes what kind of computer are you looking to buy. Apple does not have any machines that at are the low end of the market; however, many companies generally tend to buy a little bit higher as the lowest price machines do not offer the configurations that they want. If you are talking about rack servers, Apple is very competitive. If you are talking about high end laptops, Apple is very competitive. Also bear in mind that I don't think dell or hp offers the equivalent of the iMac. Apple does not offer companies a wide choice of configurations either so that is negative.

Also the argument for TCO includes not just hardware and software costs but also maintenance costs. There is the old addage that you get what you pay for. Many companies I worked for regretted buying the cheapest hardware as they were maintenance costs later. The reputed average uptime of Linux, Unix, Windows, or OS X mean little if the cheap hard drives keep failing. In the long run, I don't see much difference in the TCO of Linux vs OS X.

Our Business (5, Insightful)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173954)

While our workstations are still Windows only, I've managed to make to make our office's server environment 100% OS X Server. Ironically, our MS Access database application is now served by a mySQL backend on an XServe.

However, corporations and businesses in general are prone to using a lot of custom-designed software built by Windows-only outfits. Until that changes, Apple will have a hard time penetrating the corporation.

Re:Our Business (2, Insightful)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174364)

However, corporations and businesses in general are prone to using a lot of custom-designed software built by Windows-only outfits. Until that changes, Apple will have a hard time penetrating the corporation.
Bingo. And a lot of us are also stuck with Dell contracts because they're the cheapest "name brand" Windows PCs (or some such).

Re:Our Business (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174770)

However, corporations and businesses in general are prone to using a lot of custom-designed software built by Windows-only outfits. Until that changes, Apple will have a hard time penetrating the corporation.
There are also quite a few shops that operate Unix/Linux only, at least on the server side. My current employer has used various flavors of Unix servers more or less exclusively for decades and has been supplementing them with Linux for about 10 years. They still use Windows on desktops though and that includes the developers which interestingly enough has caused problems. The number of Windows workstations has, however, been changing over the last couple of years or so. Both Linux and OS.X laptops have been trickling into the development department with about 30% of the developers now running *nix desktops/laptops and 70% Windows, mostly for C/C++, Java and Perl development. If you are working with *nix based servers almost exclusively, the fact that your developers are not using Windows desktops/laptops actually has advantages in terms of development and administration. For example, the code you write and compile on and OS.X/Linux desktop/laptop will compile with few problems on AIX/HPUX/Solaris and even with cross platform tools like Java you bypass a number of problems. The trouble with OS.X/Linux workstations start with the Windows only Office and collaboration apps, things like Visio, Visual Basic enabled Excel files, Lotus Notes (yuk) .... even Entourage does not replicate all the features of Outlook. I would not recommend OS.X or Linux machines as a replacements for regular Office worker's workstations unless you make the conscious decision to go all OSS throughout your company or organization regardless of the interoperability problems vis-a-vi the Windows world, as well as the retraining costs such a move will bring. However even if you do decide to keep Windows as the primary workstation for the office drones switching some of your *nix development teams OS.X or Linux desktops can actually make more sense than issuing them WinDells. That's my experience anyway.... of course other people's milage may vary.

Nope - Companies/Groups Have Innate Cultures (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18173960)

For Microsoft it is an inability to grasp and implement computer security concepts.

For Open Source it is an inability to make hard and reasonable choice in UI design.

For Apple, it is a complete lack of understanding of the corporate computing mindset. Also game development, but that's a whole other subject.

Re:Nope - Companies/Groups Have Innate Cultures (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174170)

Understanding a customer and choosing to pursue that customer are two separate things. Apple's a Fortune-500 company themselves, and they use their own products not only on desktops, but in massive IT projects like the iTunes music store and the Apple Online Store. The fact of the matter is, Apple has to decide what to spend their time and money pursuing, and they can do a lot better selling iPods, iPhones, and iMacs than they can if they were to completely take over Sun's entire market.

-jcr

Admins maybe, large enterprise I am not so sure (4, Insightful)

ernest.cunningham (972490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18173976)

As a developer and inhouse tech I use my MacBook Pro as my dailey machine, as I can run Mac OS X (Native OS), Windows XP, Vista etc, in virtualised environments where I can test each environment before deploying anything. So for the techs the new MacBook Pro laptops are especially in range for migrating to. However, the major hurdle I see in enterprise adopting Mac OS as their main OS and replacing workplace pc's with Macs is that there is no current Mac OS "Terminal Services" style server implementation. So no thin clients, no centralised licensing control etc. I will be the first to admit (as a huge Mac fan) that windows terminal services in enterprise where most users use solely MS Office, and the likes of FileMaker or Oricle etc works a treat. Unfortunately Apple does not have an answer to this yet on the market. Replacing laptops in enterprise with Macs is another thing altogether, as it can connect Windows Terminal Services (Via RDC Application) and be a great reliable work horse on the road. That is just my thoughts

That's what NetBoot is for.... (1)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174446)

NetBoot [apple.com] is Apple's centralized application system. Not the same as terminal services, but it neatly solves the administration and licensing issues. (Warning: PDF)

Not the network admins call (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18173996)

If it was the decision of the network administrator - maybe. If it was only the question of hardware and money, maybe.

But no one from mid or upper management will put his/her corporate future on the line for the Mac. The fact is, that the corporate higher crust is literally in love with Bill and Microsoft, the poster boy of the Wall Street crowd.

Besides, the corporate upper crust always goes for the safer bet. No one was fired for using Microsoft.

Re:Not the network admins call (3, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174234)

The fact is, that the corporate higher crust is literally in love with Bill and Microsoft, the poster boy of the Wall Street crowd.

More like, they're the battered wives of a megalomaniacal polygamist. It's not so much love as fear that keeps them where they are.

-jcr

IT Funding Vista or OSX? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174028)

"The changes in Vista are significant enough that we think we can absorb the change going to Macs just as easily as going to Vista."

I doubt IT is going to suddenly fund the changeover of all your current machines to OSX or Vista without a damn good reason. I can see keeping your existing systems until such a time that they no longer fit your needs and you need to upgrade, then switching to Macs.

Changing from Windows to Mac incurs other costs, such as having to purchase new copies of Office suites. If you were going to do this anyway, then that's OK. Windows Domain servers may be a problem. Theoretically, with Samba, you don't need to change these over, but as long as you're dumping Windows, why not go whole hog?

I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert, but I've seen at least one Mac user say that they keep a virtualized copy of Windows around solely because MS Outlook has features that MS Entourage doesn't.

Not a chance. (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174036)

Honestly the osX product is far better in a corperation than windows but it's the apps that rule.

All the little expensive sales,marketing and billing apps are windows based. These companies that make this vertical market crap cant program for windows properly, porting to osx would be impossible for them

I am ignoring things like outlook and the other staples, Most businesses live for the vertical apps for their industry. Engineering needs Autocad, Marketing needs their apps, CableTv needs their special CableTv apps. etc...

Until you port all that, you cant get the "apple penetration".

Re:Not a chance. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174512)

Uh, the new Intel-based Macs can run XP... with which they can support all those legacy applications much better than a new PC running Vista!

Are you dense? (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174766)

1. Intel Based PCs can dual boot XP and Vista, too
2. Why the hell would you buy a Mac--from a business POV--only to have users spend 1/2 their time in XP, which you're ALREADY RUNNING?

Which corporations? (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174044)

They are already all over publishing or sound/video production. Will they penetrate companies that run a dozen of visual basic apps and care enough about costs to not want slick glossy finish or a webcam on their computers? Not likely, but Linux with Wine just might. IT might find that they can understand, customize and remotely manage a Linux distro better than the mind boggling complexity of Vista.

oh ghod (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174060)

Maybe it's the keyword context, but that page is festooned with links to "Vista sucks and Apple roxx" articles... If this had been pointing on the other direction it would be dismissed offhand as "FUD", the author accused of "shilling" and the site's funding connected to Microsoft with vague references.

I mean, "no, it's really not ready for the enterprise but these three people say they're excited about it"? And the "elegance of the platform"? WTF?

Well, in any case I wouldn't hold my breath... the day Apple comes out with a viable alternative to domain/desktop policy and the tools to deploy it and control out across 15,000 desktops maybe Microsoft will start to worry. In the meantime Apple is certainly better for small companies that are just establishing their infrastructure, not converting large ones.

There's nothing wrong with Apple if you have the apps you need - the problem is the toolset. Most people don't understand the scale at which many companies operate. That's what "enterprise" is - and for better or worse Windows will continue to do well there for a long time.

Apple isn't appealing to Corporations (2, Interesting)

Grail (18233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174080)

The executives who control the decisions are addicted to their Exchange-powered Blackberries (even if it does mean that all their corporate messaging goes through a company in Canada). At two companies that I've worked for, we used to be Linux/Mac based, but then one exec got a Blackberry. Within weeks we'd switched over to Windows XP/Exchange.

Until Apple offers a Mail/Calendaring system that's as functional as Exchange, I don't see Apple being adopted by corporations any time soon. Though perhaps the iPhone offers just enough functionality in a sexy enough package that the executives will be tripping over themselves to get the latest expensive status symbol.

Re:Apple isn't appealing to Corporations (1)

Octorian (14086) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174524)

Yeah, Apple's Mail/Calendaring apps are a joke. They work very well for the features Apple chose to provide, but seem to ignore anything beyond that subset. If it wasn't for integration issues, I'd have dumped Mail.app for Thunderbird ages ago (and actually did for a while, until MacOS 10.4 came out). I'm still looking for a good iCal alternative, but the best ones I can find are either commercial, or too immature to be usable yet.

The main thing I like about MacOSX is that it offers a very good compromise. However, a number of important open-source projects still don't sufficiently care about the Mac market. (as such, the only *good* office suite for OSX is MS Office, OO being a joke on the platform, etc.)

It's already happening (5, Interesting)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174106)

But not the way you'd expect, top down from the IT department. Nope, it's happening from the ground up, as people start buying Macs on their own, bringing them into work (or working from home), and the IT guys are scrambling to integrate them. Then the IT guys start to like the hardware, they buy it for home use, they push it for work use. It creeps in. I've seen this happen at my own employer, as well as with some of my friends' employers.

Especially at small companies. The company I work at was 100% Windows just 2 years ago. Now we are 90% Mac (only holdouts being our servers, and the dev machines that work on the servers). The impetus was security -- get everyone using Macs since they're safer for browsing/email -- but in the end, people just liked them better, and they require less maintenance. I know, because I'm the guy maintaining them.

A friend today (new Mac convert) was groaning about getting help from his office IT guy for his MacBook, on a printing issue, because that IT worker was openly hostile to Macs. Only months ago, that IT worker was laughing when he heard my friend was considering a Mac, don't get it, it's not compatible with our stuff, you won't be able to do what you need to on there, etc. I just received an email, literally 10 minutes ago -- this same IT guy heard about his printing issue today and WANTS to help. Why? Because more of his other customers are moving to Macs, and now that he's had to use them, he actually PREFERS THEM! He's thinking about getting one for himself!

The vista people are looking at is increasingly filled with Macs... the Wow starts now for sure, but perhaps it wasn't what Microsoft was expecting... as in Wow, there are a lot of Macs in this office.

Re:It's already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174452)

Maybe its just me, but why the hell would you support your employees home machines. An exec here and there maybe, but you have supported hardware and software for a reason.

Re:It's already happening (1)

Divebus (860563) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174556)

...the IT guys are scrambling to integrate them

Your instincts are correct that the movement is from the bottom up. Unfortunately, I've mostly seen IT guys scrambling to block Macs but they come in anyway - and eventually even they turn to the Mac side.

I've made the Mac jump for about half of my little enterprise and it works just fine. Support time went way down - same users, same functions, different platform. Training was a little rough for the [forced] early adopters (3.5 years ago) but these days not a week goes by when someone else from the company asks about buying their own Mac to replace their home Windows machine. It would be helpful to have a better integrated Mail/Calendar/Contact system but everyone does fine with the built-in versions. No problems getting most of the apps we need although there are a few we keep on a Windows 2003 server and access with Remote Desktop. Our sales people make their clients' jaws drop with Keynote presentations and video demos on their laptops.

All it takes is exposure and you don't have to say another word. Once the "aha" moment hits the Mac newbie, they can't stand their Windows machine anymore. MTBAHA: ~5 weeks.

Re:It's already happening (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174654)

Because more of his other customers are moving to Macs, and now that he's had to use them, he actually PREFERS THEM! He's thinking about getting one for himself!

That story is becoming more and more common. I became a Mac person after having worked at a job where I had to provide tech support for PC's running Windows and Linux and Macs running OS9 and OS X. OS9 has never impressed me, but I quickly moved over to the Mac camp because I found them so much easier to work with, especially when it came to fixing broken ones. Same thing happened for a number of other people I worked with at the same job.

One show stopper (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174130)

Microsoft pulling MSO ( and native exchange ) support for Apple.

Pretend as much as you want that there are 'alternatives and i dont need it', but MSO *is* the de-facto standard out there. Without it, Apple will continue to be a niche player in the business world for a long time to come ( if not forever, unless things radically change someday ).

But is being a ( rather large ) niche player really all that bad? They still make great products and make gobs of money. Do they *need* to attack Microsoft's stranglehold on the corporate market?

Re:One show stopper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174538)

Booth was an anarchist.

In the process (3, Informative)

spindizzy (34680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174146)

We're actually going through this currently at work. I work at a large government department which traditionally has locked down the environment very tightly. As we're a multimedia design/web development area outside IT we've been mandated to use Windows PCs up to now but recently we've been trialling a Macbook Pro to see how well it integrates with the standard environment.

It's been a surprisingly trouble free experience, even though the IT department are loath to become involved in an official capacity (though unofficially individuals are interested and have provided invaluable help). All the major applications are supported and with more of the departmental apps being web based and standards based (especially determined by accessibility requirements) looks to become easier over time.

With rumours of moving away from a common environment things could become easier still.

What problems we have encountered have been sorted by brief research on the net and we're currently establishing a business case to transition to Mac Pros in the near future for our business unit.

"The corporation"? (0, Redundant)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174152)

"...the prospects for Apple gaining market share in the corporation."

There's only one corporation now? Geez, all t his merger mania's been worse than I thought.

On the other hand, all Apple has to do is convince one CIO, and their in!

jf

and One Ring to Bind Them All... (1)

microcars (708223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174154)

ActiveX

Not ready for "enterprise." (3, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174230)

I like using OS X on the desktop and all, but I'll be the first to admit that OS X is not ready for the "enterprise." Things one might take for granted on Windows such as ODBC are very poorly implemented on OS X. Other examples where Apple is lagging behind is their supposed "directory services." Yeah, it is LDAP, so technically it is a directory (hierarchial), but for the most part it still acts like an NT domains. That is, it is basically a flat user/group space. Workgroup Manager does not work well with large user sets. It is not at all suited for larger corp environments where you might have a large directory with partitions and such that span WAN links. Although I have not personally used Active Directory much personally (I'm an old Netware/NDS/eDirectory guy), I get the feeling that is much more mature and featureful than OpenDirectory.

Heck, Apple has only just very recently adopted ACLs for filesystem permissions... and they are still pretty clunky to manage. Like you can't just go to a folder on a server and "Get Info" and check permissions inheritance and such. You have to go through Workgroup Manager or figure out how to use long chmod strings.

The list goes on and on. I think Apple is going to remain the "odd man out" in corporate environments. At least until Leopard. We'll see what Apple comes up with then, but Apple still seems to be focused on home/niche professional users. I don't see it becoming a general office platform for some time.

-matthew

Re:Not ready for "enterprise." (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174316)

Other examples where Apple is lagging behind is their supposed "directory services."

Actually, this is an area where Apple regressed from what NeXT had. Using NetInfo, it really was possible for five full-time sysops to handle four thousand users' workstations. LDAP is a very poor substitute.

-jcr

Might be a smart move for businesses (0, Troll)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174262)

I can see Corporations more inclined to switch than consumers. The added security alone could save a lot. People talk about the learning curve in a migration but there's a minimal learning curve with Mac. The migration from PC is pretty smooth. It's more jarring going from Mac to PC. I can see the added headaches of Vista being a reason to switch. The constant prompts has me considering a Mac shift again. Given the power of the new servers I can see Mac being very attractive to businesses. Also something that is rarely mentioned is low maintainence on Macs. I push a lot of files around and find myself doing regular maintainence like Defragging. Generally it takes a while to settle in a PC. I found with Mac it involved plugging it in and allowing it to update the software. After that once a month it prompts me for updates. Pretty painless. Consumers may feel married to their software and PCs but businesses are interested in efficency. It may be a big reason for Microsoft backing off from Mac support, they see a real threat in the business world.

what a joke (2, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174298)

I can't believe people are celebrating the onslaught of the only software giant with more proprietary vendor lock-in and questionable business practices than Microsoft. And then there's the practical application- it's like people forgot MS Office and Visual Studio existed...

How is this remotely cost effective or practical? This is like recommending that UPS start using Lexus SUV's to deliver packages...

Vista desktops fall right into microsoft-powered corporate networks the same way XP does... it's not the "same thing" to "upgrade" to OSX... you're talking about scrapping ALL hardware rather than simply upgrading or replacing your weakest workstations. Businesses can move up to Vista gradually or sequentially- especially since all the Office and Productivity suite runs on either- switching to Apple or Linux would be NIGHT and DAY.

This post is clearly FUD, feeding off of the wild anti-microsoft hysteria on this site.

Say what? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174410)

I can't believe people are celebrating the onslaught of the only software giant with more proprietary vendor lock-in and questionable business practices than Microsoft.

I didn't see anything about SCO in that article.

Not so sure (1)

Weasel5053 (910174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174358)

I really like the Mac and I would love to see it get more traction in the corporate world, but I fail to understand how Boot Camp or Parallels helps with corporate adoption under the banner of "ease of administration."

Both of these solutions require the admin to maintain a 2nd full desktop environment for each user. How does a full Mac desktop environment + a full Windows environment require less administration than one Windows machine? In the case of Boot Camp are we really going to tell users to reboot during the workday to run some application? That does not sound like good use of employee time and requires training on two different desktop environments.

Obviously there are companies that don't require a Windows desktop per user (using in-house apps that can be ported or those companies that are able to deploy their apps via Citrix for example) but I would think that these shops would already be seriously considering Linux with the ability to run on commodity hardware and an OS cost of zero.

Also I wonder how committed Apple is to the enterprise. They appear to me to have become a very consumer-oriented company. How is Apple at enterprise-level tech support? (I'm asking - I don't know.)

Apple needs better head less systems (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174380)

the mini is weak and is not that easy to service.
the mac pro cost is too high for most office use.
There needs to be mid-tower that is easy to open up to add ram, and pci-e cards, change out bad parts, and so on.
The i-macs with there build in screen don't work that well as they take up more space then a monitor + desk top on the ground.

Wouldn't even need a "mid tower". (1)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174508)

Even an "mini-ITX" box would be great.

1 media drive bay.
1-2 3.5" internal drive bays.
2-4 RAM slots.
1-2 PCI-E slots.
Socketed processor.

This wouldn't need a tower system, you could fit this in the volume of the NeXT slab or the Performa 4xx slabs, or a "lunchbox" the size of a "short stack" of minis.

Yes, already Considering this move! (3, Interesting)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174396)

Because of the shift to Intel processors, Apple has been suggesting the possibility to our University (~ 12,000 users so on par with a medium-sized corporation) of pitching Apple as a "hardware" solution NOT an operating system. The idea being to put Imacs and Macbooks in the hands of everyone and just have them boot to Windows by default. Throw in a windows style mouse and keyboard and voila, there is no difference except you are running on nicer looking hardware.

Many will say "Apple is more expensive". Totally not true. Based on educational pricing we have been comparing what we can get to get a 20" or 24" iMac with 2GB ram and 3-year APP etc. vs equivalent machines/warranty/features from Gateway and Dell and guess what, Apple is CHEAPER. The same holds true for laptops as well. We can't see any reason why not to move to a dual-boot or Parallels based platform (and no the new EULAs dont affect those of us using Vista enterprise - virtualization is allowed). Why not view a high-end Apple machine as your Vista upgrade path? We are seriously thinking of doing this as a method to not only get new machines that can run Vista well (have been running Vista on my Macbook Pro with full Aero support since last summer!), but also allows us to more easily support a mixed platform environment so whoever needs/wants to run Mac or Windows applications can. This helps us out tremendously with applications such as R-25 and Banner for compatibility issues we've had with our Mac users and lets everyone use Final Cut Pro to do their video editing etc for the departments that need it. I see this is as a win-win situation, so please enlighten me as to the downside i'm not seeing.

Also, we have an Apple-certified service center (as well as Gateway certified) so we do on-site hardware support already so the support isn't an issue in our organization.

Not a chance (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174460)

Does Mail talk to an Exchange server yet? Does Calander talk to an Exchange server? Does Lepoard even manage to do talk to a DFS share? Can I easily integrate my Mac into an existing Active Directory setup yet?

Can Apple Penetrate the Corporation? (1)

Ophion (58479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174484)

Has the corporation had three Cosmopolitans?

PHBs (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174520)

As long as the PHB has a windos machine at home, and doesn't understand anything else, nothing else will exist in the corporate domain. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Linux or *BSD.

Most corporate users don't need a whole computer (4, Insightful)

Logic Bomb (122875) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174548)

I'm a former Apple employee, my current job is primarily about supporting Macs, and I do independent Mac-related consulting on the side. And even I think most of the time, for most employees, it's dumb for large companies to shell out $$$ for individual computers. Remote terminals based on something like a Citrix server are so completely the way to go. The vast majority of corporate users do email, web, spreadsheets, and text documents. Most organizations already give users a network home for their documents rather than running backup software on every single desktop computer. It makes no sense to go through the headaches of software management, hardware maintenance, etc on hundreds/thousands of computers when you can do it all with a few servers.

I love it when Apple moves into a new space. But until you can do something like a Citrix session to a Mac OS server, I don't think their stuff has any role as a standard workstation in large businesses.

Not going to happen -- Apple == prison time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174554)

With regulations on the books in the US like SOX, HIPAA, and others, not having software and hardware that meets certifications can mean jail time and expensive fines for businesses. This has nothing to do with actual security, but who gets the blame in a breach.

On platforms which have FIPS compliance and have other documentation, if there is a security issue, companies can blame the vendor, vendor puts out a patch, and the bad press and liability will go to the vendor. This is why companies pay big bucks for MS licenses. Without these certificates, companies, and their IT staff will face likely prison time because of failure to keep "do diligence" if a breach does occur.

I am not attempting to demean MacOS. However, until Apple gets the proper security tests done and certifications, I won't risk having my company shut down and myself personally facing Federal time because I used something that wasn't qualified and vetted.

At this hour, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174566)

Can't get Software Update to get out past our firewall/Webwasher.

fir5t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18174576)

They penetrated once (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174604)

And withdrew(pulled out) prematurely. It turns out that Microsoft is a much better lay. They penetrate real deep. ...And until Autocad for the Mac comes around...Well, let's just say that I know some people who would love to switch, but simply can't.

I've had this discussion (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174660)

not with Corporations, but with attorneys. They're concerned about Vista's compatibility issues with legacy apps (and believe me, attorneys can hang onto some legacy apps!). I've urged them that they really should consider using Vista as an opportunity to ditch Microsoft. And they are thinking about it. They don't like microsoft. Many of them have been going through repetitions of the same process since the late 1980's. I've told them that they could in fact switch to linux or OS X platforms and then utilize VMware or Parallels to retain backwards compatibility with their old apps.

They need to break into some new markets ... (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174732)

By way of example, I understand that the Vatican is evaluating the X-Serve group's latest content filtering product, the X-Communicator, as well as the ODBC (Open Deity-Base Converter) standard, used in a supernaturally-high-availability cloistering add-on. Also, to help fulfill the proselytizing requirements of most modern organized religions, a new bulk-email package code-named "Ad-Minister" is currently under development.

Sure! I'm game. (5, Interesting)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18174738)

Absolutely yes. I'd buy Apple desktops - and cheerfully pay the premium to run Parallels/XP on some of 'em - if Apple made the right hardware product. I would buy seven next week. But right now, they don't make what I need.

The Mac Pro is grossly overpowered for what we need, which makes it much too expensive for us to consider. The Mac Mini's laptop-class hard drive is probably too unreliable (and not user-serviceable enough) for our 5-year desktop replacement cycle. And while the iMac is about right in many ways, I already have LCDs throughout so buying an all-in-one makes no sense for us.

What I'd need to buy Macs for the office is a headless machine that delivers a single Core 2 Duo, a gig of RAM, integrated graphics, and a basic desktop-class SATA drive in a user-serviceable chassis for around $1100.

But Apple does not seem to be interested in the low-end desktop market, so it's back to Dell for me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>