×

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!

Hi, I'm a Mac, and I'm Your Enterprise Computer

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the hey-there-mac dept.

Apple 469

Esther Schindler writes "Not just another 'why big companies should adopt Macs' article, CIO is running a piece assuming that Macs are already on the way in the door. Hi, I'm a Mac, and I'm Your Enterprise Computer offers advice to IT managers about how to integrate Apple systems into the existing IT infrastructure, and offers hints from leading Mac OS X experts on configuring those systems once they've arrived. '[A] key element in corporate Macintosh adoption is the importance of third-party software and custom solutions. They can help smooth the way for integrating Macs onto the network. While specialists say they wish third-party support were greater, the openness of the Mac makes correcting issues possible. Don't discount the lure of the well-worn path that draws and then traps your IT staff into familiar habits.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

469 comments

Enterprise Central Management (-1, Troll)

jeffy210 (214759) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888505)

No i didn't RTFA, but one of my biggest concerns has always been remote central management in the enterprise structure. IT can't always make "house calls" to each and every computer, there has to be ways of remotely accessing, configuring and maintaining the systems and I haven't seen much that supports OSX. Even with Linux there are tools that allow you to do that, and most all central configuration tools are Windows based.

That is going to be a big hurdle to adoption from an IT standpoint.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (5, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888553)

Remote Desktop can be configured on any OS X computer to allow connections from regular old VNC apps. I've used a free program called "Chicken of the VNC" to connect and it works great. In addition, you've got a standard POSIX layer for remote administration through the shell. I don't see what you're complaining about.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (1)

amper (33785) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889291)

Yes, but RealVNC Viewer on Windows to Apple's Remote Desktop sucks the big one over a slow connection. I still prefer OSXvnc.

Apple Remote Desktop, VNC (5, Informative)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888651)

Using Apple Remote Desktop (for OS patching, application installs, configuration) or any of several open-source VNC solutions (to help lost users by taking control of the machine) remote management of enterprise Macs is not only possible, but easy.

I manage a small cluster of Macintoshes (for video production) in a 95% Windows shop. If anything, I think I have a far easier time than the IT Service that maintains the Windows machines (they often have a lot of complex licensing issues to wade through).

Re:Apple Remote Desktop, VNC (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888941)

If it's a 95% windows shop, it's likely they WILL have more often and more complex issues. If there are 90 Fords and 2 Hondas, it is quite more likely that a Ford will break down first.

Not necessarily saying that it's not true your Macs have fewer problems, but the statistics and results from those statistics are skewed.

Re:Apple Remote Desktop, VNC (5, Funny)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889153)

Perhaps I'm biased, but if there were 9,500 Hondas and one Ford, it is quite more likely that the Ford will break down first.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888659)

Can you elaborate a little bit on what type of access you need, or fear is missing ?

Re:Enterprise Central Management (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888691)

Ya, if only they had a Remote Desktop [apple.com] application, or something that could push settings the same sort of way that the Active Directory [apple.com] does.

Even ssh [apple.com] would be a start.

Why doesn't Apple make these tools available?

Re:Enterprise Central Management (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889047)

They meant "Microsoft" based versions of those tools, rather than those that work with all sorts of computers and systems.

Remote Desktop for Mac is based on VNC, not ... RDP
OpenLDAP isn't AD
ssh? a commandline on a Mac??? Say it isn't so.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (2, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888701)

As the other guy said, you can use Apple Remote Desktop which lets you run the other computer's desktop or push apps and updates out to them all automatically. You can use free VNC programs to connect to ARD or free programs like Chicken of the VNC can do the whole thing itself (that's how I interact with the mini that acts as my media and file server). There's also ssh and any of a host of other UNIX tools.

Netboot on Macs really works very well too. You can plug a new Mac into your network, hold down a key on boot, select the image you'd like it to run and after it downloads it, you're off and running, new computer completely configured to your spec.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888743)

You can even set a computer to always netboot too. We used to do that in my fathers school labs for years. At least since the early 90's.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (1, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888771)

For all those recommending Apple remote desktop, I don't think that's what the parent was referring to. going to each and every computer over VNC or something similar is almost as difficult as making house calls. What he's looking for is something like Active Directory with group policies and automatic updates so that the configuration changes are made one place and reflected on all the machines.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (1)

Drizzt Do'Urden (226671) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889235)

The thing is, ARD let's you send a package to be installed on all clients at once. Than there's apple OpenDirectory, that let's you control the clients parameters centrally. Heck, it doesn't even have to be an Apple Server, you can get this functionnality with OpenLDAP and the proper schemas!

Re:Enterprise Central Management (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888813)

For Mac OS X 4.5+, Apple offers an emulator named Boot Camp.

I stopped reading after that. The entire article was this bad.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889109)

Well it is a BIOS Emulator. Kinda. Without special tools 3rd party or by Apple (like bootcamp) you wouldn't be able to boot into windows nativly.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (2, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889141)

Wrong. There was an EFI update that added a BIOS compatibility layer. I've installed Windows on Intel Macs right out of the box, no Boot Camp required. Boot Camp is just Apple's way of making it easy on people. It's the EFI update that made it possible.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (4, Informative)

rizzo320 (911761) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888837)

No i didn't RTFA, but one of my biggest concerns has always been remote central management in the enterprise structure. IT can't always make "house calls" to each and every computer, there has to be ways of remotely accessing, configuring and maintaining the systems and I haven't seen much that supports OSX. Even with Linux there are tools that allow you to do that, and most all central configuration tools are Windows based.


There are many applications and platforms out there that do this, including:
Apple Remote Desktop [apple.com]
LANDesk Management Suite [landesk.com]
Casper Management Software [jamfsoftware.com]

LanDesk is a cross platform solution. There are also management extensions available that allows you to integrate Mac workstations into your existing Microsoft SMS 2003 environment if thats whats being used: http://www.quest.com/quest-management-xtensions-fo r-sms/ [quest.com]

I'm sure there are more out there. Just look. Most of these tools have been available for the last several years.

Re:Enterprise Central Management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888961)

Seems everyone's already mentioned Apple Remote Desktop, VNC, and OpenDirectory, but I'll also mention that RadMind

Re:Enterprise Central Management (5, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889317)

No i didn't RTFA, . . .

Didn't read the article: Check

but one of my biggest concerns has always been remote central management in the enterprise structure.

Makes a blanket, factually correct statement: Check

IT can't always make "house calls" to each and every computer . . .

Makes a righteous, indignant statement: Check

there has to be ways of remotely accessing, configuring and maintaining the systems and I haven't seen much that supports OSX.

Introduces personal, anecdotal views as fact: Check

Even with Linux there are tools that allow you to do that, and most all central configuration tools are Windows based.

Brings up a meaningless comparison: Check

That is going to be a big hurdle to adoption from an IT standpoint.

Closes with a blanket assertion without any facts: Check

Congratulations, you are on your way to becoming a real slashdotter. You must not be new here! :P

Apple computers are gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888519)

so is linux

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Not just another 'why big companies should adopt.. (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888535)

blah blah blah

Yes, it is in fact just another dopey Mac commercial.

Sure we'll all run on down to the Mac store this afternoon.

Coming through the VP ranks... (3, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888571)

At the company I'm working for, Macs are getting attention at the Vice President level where they're configured to run Windows XP in a Parallels virtual windows machine to run those must have Windows applications. Since I'm the only Mac owner on a PC-centric IT staff, I got a bit of job security as a Mac guru. I keep telling people that a Mac is PC with a better OS. :)

Re:Coming through the VP ranks... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888759)

The previous consulting company I worked for had the same upside down approach. Management wanted to switch to Mac, at least for themselves. They did very swiftly and soon the Macs started to trickle down to other levels.
 
I must say, the daily cursing and swearing at computer screens went down significantly...

Higher TCO? (4, Insightful)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888589)

Printer-friendly version of the article [cio.com].

Most of this article is pretty good, but I disagree with one of the early bits about supporting Macs in a PC-oriented office:

For Publicis Group, the Macs have higher total cost of ownership. This is because of the particular hardware configurations and the company's corporate culture, which calls for more intense support on the Mac side.
The article goes on to say that some of that may be because these particular Mac users whine a lot and need more help (my words), but also "... due to the nature of the tools we use on the Mac."

This contradicts both my experience and the experience of an awful lot of tech support people I know. In PC-oriented offices where Macs are used, the tech support folks rarely have to fiddle with the Macs. The Mac apps don't seem to cause any more problems than the PC apps, so the support costs are about the same. Maybe Publicis Group is a bit more PC-oriented than the CIO is willing to admit?

Re:Higher TCO? (1, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888669)

Very true for me as well. The Macs required much less work than the Windows boxes when I was working at CWU. I'm wondering if it's because some of their "creatives" at this company are assholes who want everything just right and mess stuff up themselves.

Re:Higher TCO? (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888687)

all desktop computers are cheap compared to the cost of the staff needed to maintain a healthy highly secure network. Mac's require a LOT(!) less tech support to maintain that condition in my experience.

Re:Higher TCO? (5, Informative)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888729)

when I did tech support, our Windows:Mac ratio was probably 10:1

Our support call issues, excluding hardware, were about 20:1 (windows:mac), but 8:1 (est) hardware.

The time to fix a Windows problem was usually quicker though.

"Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

Re:Higher TCO? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888909)

"Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

Christ, you were using Mac OS 9 or earlier. How long ago was this?

Re:Higher TCO? (1, Informative)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889171)

Actually it was the apple mail program in 10.2 that did that.

Better luck next time you play "Guess That MacOS"

Re:Higher TCO? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889231)

Really? I'd never seen an Error Type 3 in OS X, much less any other cryptic error message outside the once-in-a-blue-moon KP text on the screen. Interesting. Still, things have come a long way since 10.2.

Re:Higher TCO? (1)

ernst_mulder (166761) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888951)

> "Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

A lot has changed in Mac OS ways since the dark days of Error 3 popping up. That must have been in the OS 9 days, say 1999 or so?

A lot of people seem to remember those old crashing Macs and think nothing has changed in the past 8 years.

Re:Higher TCO? (5, Funny)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889229)

"Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

There are two ways to correct this.

1) Find the APPL file (the executible APPLication) and open its Get Info box. Find the Memory section and double the number.
2) Wipe the HD and install a version of the Mac OS from this millenium.

I recommend the latter.

Re:Higher TCO? (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888823)

When they work, they work very well. When the OS or an app dies, well lets just say they whine and complain as much as their users do.

Entourage is the biggest source of headaches. Get rid of that steaming pile and you're much better off.

Re:Higher TCO? (1, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889093)

The article goes on to say that some of that may be because these particular Mac users whine a lot and need more help (my words), but also "... due to the nature of the tools we use on the Mac."
I think you meant to say "... due to the nature of the tools who use a Mac"

I keed, I keed.

Re:Higher TCO? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889095)

Me too. I worked in a lab that had around 50 macs and maybe five windows machines. Guess which machines needed the majority of the sysadmin's TLC.

Re:Higher TCO? (1)

truenoir (604083) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889137)

What I took from that is not that it's a Mac vs. PC thing, but a typical office user vs. creative user thing. Figure, their PCs are probably your normal office drone setups. AD logon, Office, probably not much more. People log on, check their Exchange accounts, write emails and word docs, edit Excel spreadsheets, and that covers their computing needs. Connect to the one network printer down the hall... "Creatives" as they call them are probably the media department type folks. They'll have Mac Office, but they'll also have a suite of Adobe stuff, maybe a few other tools too. Digital cameras, scanners, maybe a wide format printer, etc. A bit more in the way of peripherals, programs, and in turn file formats to deal with. My experience has been more that the more stuff that can go wrong, the more calls you'll wind up getting.

End Users are Monkeys... (0, Flamebait)

FozE_Bear (1093167) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888591)

But end users need to be controlled! Can anyone tell me how Mac or Linux allows central control of what the id10t holding the mouse can get to to break?

Re:End Users are Monkeys... (2, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888717)

Directory services and limited user accounts, much like any other managed environment.

Re:End Users are Monkeys... (2, Informative)

netrarc (1083207) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888761)

I'm not sure if this is random flamebait, or if you are really unfamiliar enough with Linux to ask such a question. Linux (and Unix) have comprehensive rights-management and file-permission systems in place to restrict a user from manipulating system files or other other users' files. A Linux user can edit/mangle/delete/destroy his own files, but basic (and standard) file permission settings prevent him from intentionally or unintentionally damaging other files. All permissions are manageable by the super user of the system (root), which is the "central control" you were asking for.

Re:End Users are Monkeys... (0, Troll)

FozE_Bear (1093167) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888999)

Dude, so not flame-bait here. Nothing offensive is intended. I ask these questions because I don't have the answers. As I saw with my (limited) Linux experience, access control for files was limited to one user or group. To me that seems unworkable when compared to NTFS. With WIndows you can have an unlimeted number of users and groups in an ACL and 7 levels of permission. SO you can give Project Managers full control of a directory, and workers read access. Also, I am familure with root, but that is not central. You refered to it on the "system" and that is distributed. With Windows, I can put your user account into the Domain Admins group, and you are now "root" on over 4000 pc's. Plus we can give and take rights away at a very granular level. Does Linux or Mac have anyting like this?

Bah.. (0, Troll)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888601)

Will they portray the enterprise mac with the same heroin addict looking actor? I swear every time I watch one of those videos, it reminds me of trainspotting and I almost instantly go into withdrawl symptoms when it's over.

Odd... (5, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888603)

"The Macs require a greater density of field associates. Where we have 1-to-150 PC techs to users, we're somewhere down to 1-to-100 for Macs. I think that's due partly to the technology and partly due to the users. The creatives are more demanding and you have to be more responding, because those are the people that clearly create our revenue," says Anschuetz.

That's the direct opposite of my experience (More like one Mac guy for 700-800 Macs, one PC guy for about 100-150 PCs), but I suppose a university environment is a bit different from a creative environment (at least outside the art/music/etc departments).

Re:Odd... (3, Funny)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888703)

If your average corporate user is like a drunk teenager with a loaded pistol, your average campus user is like a tantrum-throwing toddler with a bazooka.

Re:Odd... (2, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888859)

No same thing here. I am the only trained Mac tech for about 750 machines while we have about 5 trained PC techs for 1400-1600.

I have never worked in a environment where the mac techs outweighed PC techs, even in schools where there where twice as many Macs to PCs. Part has to do I think with the fact that PC techs are a dime a dozen and Mac techs are very hard to fine (often your training Mac users up to becoming Mac Techs themselves rather than hiring out for a person who was already a Mac Tech) Likewise from a management standpoint Macs have always been easier to manage, since they where designed from as far back as OS 6 to be remotely managed. The only thing hard I have encountered is managing machines using Active Directory, to make it easier on a PC network, which you can do, but takes some setting up.

Re:Odd... (2, Interesting)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888953)

I think their statistics can be explained by PC users having much lower expectations. At my university, the helpdesk people have intel iMacs running OS X and XP under parallels. I have never seen them using OS X while helping somebody. All the support calls are for windows.

Re:Odd... (5, Insightful)

amper (33785) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889157)

It's really not that odd. Creative users tend to need more and better support. They are the "exception that proves the rule", so to speak.

I've been supporting Macs as an independent consultant for seven years, and as part of a larger systems integration company for another five years before that. I have expertise in the fields of graphic design, photography, and audio production, among others

Creative users tend to replace software and hardware much more often. One reason is that creative houses tend to deal with files from many other companies, to say nothing of moving files around in house, and the upgrade cycle of each individual software package tends to introduce incompatibilities that even when minor can interrupt a workflow process to the point that a significant amount of time and money is lost in dealing with the problem, so everyone tends to upgrade at the same time. When your clients and freelancers start sending you QuarkXpress 8 files that can't be opened in QuarkXpress 7, you'll upgrade too. Of course, with every new software version, the hardware requirements go up.

Creative users, in order to be properly supported, require that their support personnel actually know something about their highly specialized field. Such people are difficult to come by, and cost a lot of money when you *do* find them [like me ;)]. It's rare that you'll find someone that's cross-trained at a high enough level to replace two or more people, so you end up consulting several different people for some issues.

We're not talking Microsoft Office here. This is some serious shit with big money involved and little time to dick around.

On the other hand, while there are less "enterprise" support tools for Macs, it's because they need them less. Ghost? Who needs it on a Mac? Sure, if you're doing a mass roll-out of hundreds of Macs, a multicast replication tool is nice to have, but it's nowhere near as necessary as when dealing with a Windows SID environment. Macs also break less often, and are easier to fix when they do. I would be nice, though, if Apple would do some better documentation of Open Directory. When I hear people talking about the lack of "enterprise support tools" for the Mac, they're usually approaching the problem with a Windows mindset rather than a Mac mindset.

Re:Odd... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889159)

Read between the lines. He's saying that the people who actually do the work "clearly create our revenue" get faster service and so they have more techies allocated for them. They also happen to use mostly Macs.

This is opposed to the REST of the company. They don't get as fast service because it's not quite so critical that they be able to watch YouTube and create the occasional spreadsheet to keep track of just how much money the productive people are making them.

It doesn't have anything to do with which machines actually need the most upkeep.

Re:Odd... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889185)

Well the big problem with the logic of the article is that it's not the Macs that increase the TCO; according to the quote you provided, the higher support costs would happen whether the "creative types" used PCs or Macs. I.e. PEBKAC issues exist regardless of OS; I'd guess that Publicis Group might see an even higher support:user ratio if those creative types were using Windows.

Re:Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18889213)

I think you also need to remember that in many companies, the technicians supporting Macs are often classically trained MCSEs who often have very little experience supporting Macs and no ambition to seriously educate themselves on the platform... at least that's been my experience at two of the companies I've worked for in the past.

If Macs Are For The Enterprise ... (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888637)

... then what kind of computer are they using on the Klingon ships?

... then what kind of computer should I use at home?

... then can I use my iPod as a PDA?

Re:If Macs Are For The Enterprise ... (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888985)

Well on the NX-01 they used Mac G4 Cubes ;-)

Re:If Macs Are For The Enterprise ... (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889087)

Oh, so sorry, but the answers I was looking for were:

* Linux
* Linux
* Of course, but only if I load Linux on it.

Hopefully you'll fare better next time you play "Default Answers For /. Readers"

Re:If Macs Are For The Enterprise ... (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889079)

... then what kind of computer are they using on the Klingon ships?
Probably a nasty old SPARC machine.

... then what kind of computer should I use at home?
A Mac, of course. Why wouldn't you want to use the same kind of computer as Scotty?

... then can I use my iPod as a PDA?
Nope. But the iPhone shuffle will probably come close to the enterprise's communicators. Especially the "wearable" bit.

Re:If Macs Are For The Enterprise ... (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889189)

... then what kind of computer are they using on the Klingon ships?

Clusters of old ZX Spectrums.

... then what kind of computer should I use at home?

A Meccano difference engine.

... then can I use my iPod as a PDA?

If all your contacts happen to be famous musicians, yes.

The failing point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888675)

I love Macs. I use both Macs and PCs at work, and I run OS X, Linux, and Windows at the house. OS X is my favorite and I would love to switch everything accross the enterprise tomorrow. But it will be hard for Apple to make it in most enterprises because of the limited support. The Apple Care 3 year warrenty is the max you can get. Once that is up you are looking at parts or repair. We have a couple of Mac servers in our art departmet that are running into this wall now. Then we look over to our NOC where we have IBM servers running on a 24x7 4 hour response for 5 years support plan. When Apple can do that we can start talking.

Openness? (3, Insightful)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888695)

While specialists say they wish third-party support were greater, the openness of the Mac makes correcting issues possible

What do they mean by "openness" here. (Just curious - don't interpret this as troll.)

Re:Openness? (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889039)

What do they mean by "openness" here.

I suspect they mean that Macs integrate with all the open standard protocols and tools that Linux does (think LDAP) instead of the MS controlled closed protocols where interoperability is always a little broken since it is achieved via reverse engineering.

Do me a favour... (5, Informative)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888719)

Someone who has an Enterprise level agreement with Apple, let us know how much an "enterprise" level iMac costs in bulk.

I know for a fact that both Dell and HP's "enterprise" desktop systems with a 19" flat screen monitor are about $650. (HP DC7700 for example) This includes an Intel Core2 Duo, 1.0 GB of ram, an 100 GB SATA hdd, integrated Intel graphics, and a SATA DVD/CD-RW combo drive. Dell's product is very similar but a little bit less ($750). Both systems as I said, come with a 19" flat screen.

The cheapest iMac is the $999 iMac, which is only 512 MB (but does have a larger hdd). I'd love to know the corporate pricing. To move to the 19"... add another 200 to that. Still, thats retail store, so someone kindly provide the corporate pricing.

Till Apple has prices that are similar, no large enterprise in their right minds would make the move, considering most of those, if not all of the fortune 500's are running Windows on the desktop....

Re:Do me a favour... (4, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888799)

Corporate bulk purchases can sometimes wrangle that price down to $900, maybe $850. However, despite what the article says, the experience of just about everyone else in the industry is that TCO for the Macs is much, much lower than that of a Windows box, making the purchase pay for itself after a while.

Re:Do me a favour... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888851)

Er, did you mean that the Dell product was a little bit more? Or is one of those numbers a typo?

According to the HP site:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/1245 4-12454-64287-321860-3328898-3232028.html [hp.com]

the bottom-configuration DC7700 is $959 on sale, but that's not the bulk-purchase price.

Re:Do me a favour... (1)

Dextrously (1086289) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889233)

There is a cheaper desktop model that most users could easily use. A workstation like that isn't needed for someone who only uses office, outlook, sometimes a browser. Which is the typical usage by the average Joe/Jane (Jone? Jae? Jae sounds more hip.) in the work place. These are all non-corporate prices though. Not really worth mentioning them when talking about larger businesses. http://www.hp.com/sbso/buyguides/pg_desktops.html? jumpid=re_R2515_product/solutions/computing/deskto p_buy_guide [hp.com]

Re:Do me a favour... (2, Insightful)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889197)

Hmmm.... Okay.....

$650 for the dell.
$34.98 for a McAfee license (Enterprise)
$84.00 for a Windows XP cal to connect to a Windows 2003 server. (in Windows 2000 the cal was included)
$29.00 for a SpySweeper license

We're at $797.98 right now and we haven't done anything. Lets add a little more for the Ghost license etc if you want to image the machine.

Windows might be cheaper at it's most basic, the problem is that windows isn't much cheaper when one considers the additional stuff you need to purchase for it to be safe and functional.

To be fair, you would still need to purchase a cal for the Mac if you are going to connect to a Windows server.

Re:Do me a favour... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889311)

"To be fair, you would still need to purchase a cal for the Mac if you are going to connect to a Windows server."

Or not, if you can get away without the Windows server. Such as using Google, Mozilla or iCal.

You forgot the extra techs you need and the downtime when a virus slips past your firewall on somebody's notebook computer and takes down not only your lab but the entire tertiary care medical centre your lab is attached to. Well, the Windows machines and the network. Yeah. True story.

Fixed... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888749)

Should read:

'[A] key element in corporate Macintosh adoption is the importance of a 100% homosexual workforce.'

Good. (2, Insightful)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888757)

I'm not a Mac user or anything, but if they're right about this trend, I say more power to 'em. I say anyone stepping up and taking a swing at Microsoft's market share is a good thing since it will drive innovation and value rather than good ol' incumbency.

Parallels (4, Insightful)

Chardish (529780) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888767)

With proprietary software, much of it in a legacy stage, keeping corporations using Windows PCs, it seems like Apple's business plan should be obvious:

  1. Buy Parallels, and
  2. Include it free with every new Mac sold through business channels.


Congratulations. Now there's nothing stopping corporations from making the switch.

Re:Parallels (2, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888935)

Except they'd need a Windows license to install inside of Parallels, and there's no fucking way Apple is going to bundle THAT with a new Mac.

Re:Parallels (1)

Chardish (529780) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889133)

I would imagine that most companies using Windows PCs already have enough Windows licenses sitting around.

Re:Parallels (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889261)

Just use the XP license from the computer you're replacing.

It's not like anybody seems to want Vista anyway. What was it the last Slashdot article compared it to? A Persian rug shop with a permanent closing out sale?

I smell a rat (0)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888795)

What exactly is open about a mac?

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/13/ 1120215 [slashdot.org]

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/08/ 2145206 [slashdot.org]

Wait, maybe OpenDirectory is all-powerful?
"lookupd had some limitations, though. Designed in a time when libc calls expected to return full user records -- including crypt() passwords -- it has no specific authentication support. It is, additionally, a read-only architecture. While this is the norm for libc interfaces, it makes sense that in a world of evolving directory services to support write operations. Finally, lookupd is relatively difficult to extend. While third party lookupd agents were written, they were the exception rather than the rule." http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/08/05/a ctive_directory.html [macdevcenter.com]

Openldap works good for me.

Re:I smell a rat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888933)

Open? How about nearly all its protocols and file formats?
 
Get fed up with OS X? It's very easy to migrate to another platform...

Another BS replace the desktop article (-1, Redundant)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888841)

When you can run my tool suite on the MAC, for real, with the performance I am getting, I'll listen. My major tool won't run right on Vista yet, and they expect it to run on the MAC? Yeah right. When you have $2500 software tools, THEY drive the selection of the desktop.

Support? The last time I called support was because I needed a new mouse. The one I had been nursing along for 7 years, thru a couple of processors finally broke down. I support my own machines.

Re:Another BS replace the desktop article (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889101)

Okay, now let's take that anecdote and compare it to the average corporate environment. You know, the kind where most people don't need to run specialized tools beyond MS Office, maybe Photoshop and other creative apps, and the company doesn't want the user supporting their own machines because most users know jack shit and would wind up messing things up further. You're not a standard corporate user. Sorry.

Re:Another BS replace the desktop article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18889135)

I'll assume that you didn't even read the first paragraph of the article. You know, the one where they state painfully clearly that they're not advocating switching to the Mac.

Well (-1, Troll)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888877)

A key element of me picking up a new macbook pro as my main development machine was all the hardware working. The wireless card can't see any networks on channel 13! do they really think that people who buy expensive hardware never visit Europe? The wireless performance is worse than my old powerbook.

To add to the fun if you look at the Ubuntu Linux forums you will see that people with the exact same model are having very different problems installing. Ranging from processor timing issues to hangs to non-responsive keyboards. It's not enough that it's a piece of shit, it's a NON STANDARD piece of shit which is totally unacceptable for a corporate environment.

Up to this point I have had really good experiences with Apple gear (running Linux) and I don't intend to give up because of one bad machine which could be an exception, but right now I am not feeling like my money was well spent.

Re:Well (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889043)

That's one of the things you have to accept when putting Linux on a machine, Mac or no: Not everything will be properly supported right out of the gate. The Ubuntu installer not working properly all the time makes it a nonstandard piece of shit? Maybe, but it could also be that Ubuntu just doesn't like working with every single computer you can put it on.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18889161)

I think it's more like using channel 13 is forbidden by US law. Apple can't sell hardware in the US (at least, not legally) that doesn't pass FCC guidelines, and FCC guidelines forbid wireless devices operating on anything besides channels 1-11.

In Europe, channels 1-13 are allowed, but wireless devices are required to operate on a reduced transmitting power to avoid interference. In Japan, 14 channels are available.

Please don't buy a computer in the US and then complain that it doesn't conform to European law.

What!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888889)

The reasons for people to switch from heroin to liquor are as personal, or unique, as is any shift in religion. For some, the motivation is to move away from needles. Others are influenced by mates desire for the style and functionality of alcoholism. But whatever the reason for the migration, the attraction must be backed by frivolous intoxication and gratious nudity.

Thank you.

The end of Microsoft's Golden Age... (5, Insightful)

The Media Mechanic (1084283) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888891)

I think years from now many people will look back on the period of approximately 1985-2005 as a "Golden Age" for Microsoft, when they were able to rake in huge profits by illegally dominating huge chunks of the personal computer industry with the Wintel duopoly. Of course for many of us we will look back on this period as "The Dark Ages" of little or no competition in the PC marketplace. Really what we are seeing now, as Apple and other firms like AMD start to make inroads into the enterprise market, is a return to normalcy. Competition on price and competition on features is a healthy state for the computer hardware & software industry. Capitalism and our free economy is really founded on the notion that there is not a central power (be it a totalitarian system of government, or a monopolistic corporation) that can control an entire sector.

Also, please take a look other major industries that have healthy competition - Plenty of airlines -> lower airfares. Plenty of car manufacturers -> lower car prices. Plenty of restaurants -> reasonable cost of food.

The idea that there is only one group of people in the world smart enough to create a reliable and modern PC operating system is simply a falsehood.

Re:The end of Microsoft's Golden Age... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889177)

Does Photoshop (or Adobe, may as well mention the company) illegally dominate huge chunks of the personal computer industry?

Just making a comment that low or high price does not necessarily imply good or bad competition. Photoshop is not cheap, but a ton of people use it, and there frankly isn't a whole lot of competition (yes, I know GIMP exists and I actually use it).

The idea that there is only one group of people in the world smart enough to create a reliable and modern PC operating system is simply a falsehood.
This includes Apple.

Re:The end of Microsoft's Golden Age... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889223)

I should have finished my thought.

This includes Apple... Microsoft and Linux and IBM and Dell and ... etc ... all those companies are necessary for competition. If the world was only Apple, some people would seem to think that'd be great. No, you'd just replace the supposed Microsoft monopoly with an Apple monopoly. Yes, monetary gain drives Apple as it drives Microsoft. Steve Jobs wants to eat dinner, too.

Re:The end of Microsoft's Golden Age... (1)

rhavenn (97211) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889271)

The one problem here is that, barring allergies, I can eat in any of those restaurants and still digest the food. The airlines all interface about the same with the user and most of the planes are made by either Boeing or Airbus these days. The cars all work the same and interface the same and just have different skins.

The same can't be said about Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Be, etc.... Windows has the market share and it doesn't play nice even with it's own versions. It's impossible to purchase X software for Windows and then have it work across the other platforms. They are not interchangeable and as much as Wine wants to pretend it's Windows it doesn't cut it for the majority of apps. In addition, now you're pretending to be Windows and what incentive does that give for a developer to release native versions?

Personally, I think custom apps are fine and they stay platform specific that's great, but documents (think Word, PST and Flash) should be made more open. However, it's difficult to justify for a corp that they should do this.

Re:The end of Microsoft's Golden Age... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18889309)

As someone who was alive during the period of 1985-2005 we will not look at this a dark age. We have had plenty of competition. From sinclair to TI/994a to commodore to Amiga, to Mac and the PC, we've had plenty of choices. And we continue to get more and more for less and less.

When I think about the Macintosh and Amiga and my HP workstation running openview in the 80's, and compare it to the windows for workgroups, I laugh. MS was so far behind everyone. Now I run windows 2003 as a reliable desktop, and it is superior to all comers. It finally has everything that MS needed to deliver. Apple just doesn't have the apps to make me switch.

A far as I am concerned, MS has made the MOST progress of the bunch, with the exception of Vista/Office 2k7 which are unneeded disasters. MS can get replaced at anytime when someone comes along with something better.

This is the beginning of a golden age that won't end soon, with or without MS.

If the enterprise is design, graphics or media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18888905)

Then it is an easy fit. If it is accounting or manufacturing, less so.

In any case, there is no such thing as "the" enterprise computer in companies of any significant size.

Are we talking the server room of the enterprise which has a polyglot of systems, many dating from before the PC?

The desktop of the enterprise? The desktop of the ad department? The desktop in accounting? The mac isn't a universal solution anymore than the PC. Many enterprises are completely agnostic in the hardware area. They care about things that help them deliver value to customers and things that can be supported internally and by 3rd-parties.

The real reason... (0, Troll)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#18888995)

...that corporate America continues to suck Microsoft dick is that when the executives get together for their cocaine and whore parties, the executives from companies that have Macs get picked on.

It's simple peer pressure amongst pampered MBA types that that never mentally matured past the sixth grade.

Mod me down, but you can feel it deep in your bowels that I am right.

IT staff (2, Insightful)

ruffles321 (1023357) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889115)

"Don't discount the lure of the well-worn path that draws and then traps your IT staff into familiar habits" Don't mess with your IT staff and it's paths.

apple lacks good Enterprise desktop hardware (3, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889151)

Enterprise Computer systems need to be easy to open up and the mini is not easy to do so and the mac pro cost is too high.
The I-macs are not easy to open as well and they can not fit in to the same space as desktop + screen on it's own can. It may fit but the side loading cd / dvd may be hard to use then also Built-in iSight camera can be big NO NO some places.

Why should a company go (-1, Troll)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889205)

Why should a company buy macs when they can cost $1000 dollars more then a regular pc. Also there is more expense then just the computers alone. There is the expense of buying all new liscences for the programs that have mac counter parts. Then the cost of getting custom programs redone for the mac os.

support for mac (1, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#18889295)

Although i am a mac user, I often wonder why a company would intentionally want to introduce a Mac into the enterprise. The MS PC can be a relative inexpensive, interchangeable cog for the worker bees. It is a tool, and for the most part one supplies the cheapest tool that will do the job. For some applications that is the Mac, and for others it is Unix, but for many applications it is a PC. In most cases, a firm will not shell out for Snap-On or Rigid hand tools for every worker bee.

What I find frustrating is that in many cases a Mac cannot be used, and there is really no legitimate reason. To continue the above analogy, while their may not be Snap-On tools for all, certain persons might use such tools, and some persons might wish to buy such tools. There is nothing that says "only Stanley tools can be used in this shop". And I am not talking about application or support issues. Those have been dealt with for a very long time through end user experience and emulation. What I am talking about are decisions made to reduce short term costs that prevent long term flexibility. These decisions prevent the use of Macs much more than support or applications issues. In fact the I bet the custom development is most likely due to previous ill fated short term development decisions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...