Apple should publish its own case study detailing how their own corporate IT infrastructure is set up. They should provide details including:
Unfortunately, as svnipp alluded to in an earlier post, I seriously doubt this would make any difference. Corporations (particularly public corporations) are so fixated on short-term profit that they won't invest more money today to save money tomorrow.
I find it funny how the blame is on Apple for not playing well with Active Directory. The blame should be on Microsoft for proprietary software formats.
With my personal experiences working with small businesses and hosted exchange. Exchange on OS X on the native iCal, Address Book and Mail is not good enough. The field inputs screw up, ActiveSync goes out of wack losing contacts and calender data. Outlook 2011 is horrible for those with bad eye site, entering data in the contact fields is a joke. And then switching from OWA, to Outlook 2011 and or the native Mail, Address Book, iCal client just confuses the end user. This is not good enough for those who have used Windows Outlook and OWA. As much as I hate Outlook and dealing with corrupted .ost and .pst files, when it works, it just works.
Also I wish Apple would create a terminal server on the OS X Server platform, this would be a great feature for those out of the office can VPN with a Remote Desktop Client and access information in the office.
These 2 things are my biggest pet peeves working with Apple in a Microsoft environment.
With my personal experiences working with small businesses and hosted exchange. Exchange on OS X on the native iCal, Address Book and Mail is not good enough.
I agree - I've tried to use iCal and Mail.app but ended up going back to Outlook 2011. iCal and Mail are decent (and much cheaper), but just not quite there (I don't believe you can even set an out-of-office using Mail).
Quote:
The field inputs screw up, ActiveSync goes out of wack losing contacts and calender data. Outlook 2011 is horrible for those with bad eye site, entering data in the contact fields is a joke. And then switching from OWA, to Outlook 2011 and or the native Mail, Address Book, iCal client just confuses the end user. This is not good enough for those who have used Windows Outlook and OWA.
Okay, I haven't experienced any of these issues. In fact I find Outlook 2011 fairly capable, although I do miss the Project Center that was part of Entourage.
Quote:
As much as I hate Outlook and dealing with corrupted .ost and .pst files, when it works, it just works.
And therein lies one of my biggest complaints about Outlook 2011 - it still doesn't use a file format compatible with Outlook for the PC. Maybe that's not a bad thing since the PST format sucks and corrupts easily, but it would be nice if there was an easy way to share data between the two platforms.
Quote:
Also I wish Apple would create a terminal server on the OS X Server platform, this would be a great feature for those out of the office can VPN with a Remote Desktop Client and access information in the office.
They do. VNC server support is built-in to OSX. It's like RDP, only less proprietary...
They do. VNC server support is built-in to OSX. It's like RDP, only less proprietary...
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
Mac business users have been shown to be more productive than their PC counterparts, prompting Forrester Research to encourage companies to support Apple hardware in the workplace.
Oh snap! I guess you can't ignore the obvious forever...
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
Think about the massive outlay ( $$$ ) of licensing for Windows, Office, and of course, the requisite security package (McAfee, etc) for each machine throughout the Federal Government (from the Executive branch through nearly every department, i.e., DoD, State, Treasury, DHS, Energy, Transportation, etc, etc, etc). It seems like a no-brainer to switch to Mac.
Entitlements and the wars overseas are eating our lunch. The entire combined budgets of the executive branches are less than 1/3 of the budget. While I agree that huge amounts of money are feeding a purposely inefficient industry, you aren't going to balance the budget by beating up on the overhead of the executive branch.
Not that I think we should tolerate inefficiency either - just pointing out there is no "quick fix"
Quote:
Then again, it seems like a no-brainer that we should have a balanced budget...
Until you get all the various hands out of the cookie jar, we are never going to have a balanced budget. Heck, try to dramatically cut spending on IT and the howls from industry about how you are affecting jobs would be defining. The intrinsic attributes of government do not reward, nor encourage, efficiency (which is why I am always amused at proponents of big government or that government has the solutions).
It could be switching from Mainframes, Novell, or even from an older version of windows... it is all the same.
Actually, companies have found with large, massive systems that the Unix or Windows hype about TCO was just that - hype. Often networked systems end up costing more, with less reliability. There are reasons massive systems such as social security, the IRS, the SABRE airline reservations systems, the vast majority of financial systems, etc. are still on mainframes.
Novell was and still is a technically superior system for directory services - Active Directory still has a fraction of the functionality of NDS - and 15 years have passed! I remember well in the mid '90s when it was rumored that Novell was going to release NDS for NT that didn't require Netware. Then literally two days before it was to be launched at Comdex, Novell balked - and that made my decision on taking the CNE 4 exams easy - no need to bother. Microsoft was going to win by default. No guts, no glory (yes HP, I'm still looking at you with the touchpad!). Even if they had released NDS for NT without reliance on Netware, there is no guarantee it would have survived - but Active Directory would certainly have to be a much better product than the unstable feature-incomplete pile of crap it is today. Sigh....
As for older versions of Windows - if it still works, why replace it? MS has a real dilemma with Windows XP - its good enough for the vast majority of users - even today. Yes, if forced to use Windows I vastly prefer Windows 7 - but is it absolutely necessary? Nope. MS has threatened to end support a few times already - it will be interested to see if they are finally able to do so with their current EOL date.
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
Not exactly, but to be fair this wasn't really what you were asking. Pre-Lion, VNC allowed a single connection to remotely control the Mac's screen (using its current session). With Lion you can now have multiple concurrent connections, each with its own session. No, there are no profiles, per-se, but again your question was, basically, "can I remotely connect to my Mac and access its information..." Yes, you can.
My company's IT department just blocked iCloud access for being an "IT Security Risk". I doubt Macs will be making headway here anytime soon.
They started down that path and I challenged them back about thumb drives, dropbox and even Windows Live.
The days of trying to draw moats around things to protect are over - it's the data, stupid! Wherever it is, it should be protected. Attitudes are changing. Much faster, now that the iPad has arrived - and arrived in force! It's not an option for most IT shops - users and management are demanding it. There is a real paradigm shift underway right now, whether the traditional IT guys like it or not...
I changed the whole office over to Macs, including the server 3 years ago. I rarely have to troubleshoot anything anymore. No viruses, no DLL hell, no Windows pricing bullsh|t.
Better CAC compatibility with OSX, and CAC Card slit into an iPad model will make large-corporations and the gov go on a purchasing frenzy for Apple products. It's the only serious limitation.
Meh - we dropped internal smart card readers as a requirement on our Windows machines due to a little revelation known as bluetooth. One Bluetooth card holder will support a users desktop, laptop, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android phone, etc.... much smarter way to go. And even with the improved smart card facilities in Windows 7, it all still works better with a third party client - which also work just fine for Mac OSX, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android, etc. too.
CAC/Smart Cards are hardly the brick wall they once were - nor the clear guarantee that Windows will be the only choice.
If business adopts Mac as the primary platform, then guess what the number one target for hackers and virus writers becomes?
Apple.
Sigh. This tired meme - again.
News flash - doom has been impending since Apple was at the 2% marketshare level, and they are approaching 20%.
20% of the top % of all $$$ spent.
So either all the virus writers are really, really stupid, really really lazy or - gasp - it's not as easy to spread malware on Mac OSX as it is on Windows.
Hmmm - tough choice!
I'm not claiming macs are invulnerable or will be problem free forever - but on the other hand I'm still waiting for a reason to run AV software on my Mac. When that day comes, your concern might have some merit - but until then, it's just meaningless hand wringing. I'll risk it for increased productivity at work!
Quote:
iPad and iPhones along with iOS ARE making huge grounds in enterprise--my company just released it's first App and just a little less then a year ago you couldn't even use an iPhone with our systems. But iOS can be made to play nice with Windows and Enterprise software, so it's a different story then OSX, at least for now.
OSX plays just fine in the enterprise. No worse than different versions of Microsoft's OS's.
Quote:
In the future that will change, as it sure looks like Apple's future PC's sure look like they will run iOS like operating systems.
Er, no it doesn't since iOS is Mac OSX at the core. The difference are in the upper level user interfaces and UI APIs. The reasons for those differences that existed at the dawn of the iPhone and iPad are the same today as they will be in the future. What Mac OSX is, and will pick up, is unification in general look and feel as well as concepts. That's entirely different than making crazy statements that the Mac is going to "devolve" into an iPad or other such over-sensationalized nonsense.
it's not the upgrade fee it's the fact that corporations have software that costs tens of thousands of $$$ that rely on specific versions of other software.
Yeah, and because of those byzantine interdependencies application virtualization is taking off. Which means those apps can be accessed by Mac's just as easily as Windows machines.
Quote:
is there even an imaging solution for Mac's? corporate IT has a few master images. no one installs software manually on computers in a large environment
What kind of an inane question is that? Just call the Mac a toy and get it over with already
Really, Please tell me where I can get a copy of SL Server to load into my VMware box and test on my HP server and violate OS X EULA?
I really expect Apple to eventually officially support virtualization of Mac OSX server under either VMware or HyperV eventually. I'm a little disappointed with the demise of the Xserve that it hasn't happened already since it is the logical solution. Oh well - here's to hoping that one gaping hole will get plugged.
The reason we don't like to work with Macs in the enterprise is because Apple doesn't give a sh!t about enterprise compatibility. What I mean is, Apple does not integrate well with the main infrastructure that is already prevelant in all companies. I don't think Mac users will be that productive when they have to wait up to 5min to login (AD Plugin bug that didn't get fixed until 10.6.8) or when they have to wait up to 30 secs for a network folder's files to show up (bug in 10.6, still in 10.7).
Mac's will enter the enterprise when Apple decides to play nice with other company's products. Which is never.
EDIT:
Before I get cast as "anti-Apple", I run a hybrid windows/mac network with an XServe Snow leopard server, 70 macbooks, 56 ipads, 5 imacs, 70 PCs. I have apple certifications and Microsoft certifications.
I also have every iDevice, a MBP, AppleTV and will try anything else that comes out of Apple.
I am genuinely curious here, so I have an honest question.
I understood that Mac OS and iOS actually implemented things like Exchange Server really well. I was under the impression that general access therefore wasn't an issue. Secondly, Apple has contributed to open networking standards, such as CUPS/Bonjour type stuff. Therefore, where Apple does in fact make an effort -- where they license something quite common, or where they adhere very well to open standards -- they do indeed "play very nicely" (if not superlatively).
So, my question is this:
How much of the issues that you outline are really a case of Apple "not playing nice", rather than the other companies involved not playing nice?
In other words, could it be a case in many situations of the type that you outline, that the Corporation has got layer upon layer of cruft and baggage built up over years and years, that really has at its root a lot of proprietary crap (like apps that only work through IE6, for goodness sake!; or apps built in .net or something). Are you not laying some of this stuff at Apple's door unfairly?
This would be easier if Apple offered a mid range machine that was headless.
Why? Especially in business - the iMac with the power cable and ethernet cable, or the new Mac notebooks teamed with the thunderbolt displays are awesome, clutter free workstations.
Why would you want to perpetuate the morass of cables and ignored towers under desks that collect dust, dirt and much worse?
I wanted a IIci class min-tower for a long time to provide flexibility in GPU cards - but with thunderbolt, there is really no reason to not just settle on an iMac, or a portable with the thunderbolt display.
I just recently got a 15" MacBook Air with the Thunderbolt display for my docking station and the combo is simply amazing. And it will easily last twice as long as the PC/Docking station/Monitor combination it's replacing, which makes it 1/3 cheaper over it's life time.
Comments
How many sites does Apple support?
How many end user systems does Apple support in their offices?
How many IT staff does Apple have in their offices?
Does Apple implement access controls on people's work computers, or are employees able to do whatever they want on work computers?
How much of Apple's IT infrastructure actually runs on Apple servers?
What server hardware and server operating systems are used, and for what purpose.
What directory service do they use (Active Directory, Open Directory or something else) for user authentication, contact info, etc.
Does this directory service span all of Apple's offices worldwide, or is each site operated independently?
For their corporate email, what email server do they use? Exchange Server or something else?
What server platform does Apple use for corporate file servers?
Does Apple provide VPN access to their employees, and what VPN server do they use?
Are Apple's web servers running Mac OS or LInux?
What does Apple use for their ERP and CRM systems, and what operating systems do they use for running them?
Apple should publish its own case study detailing how their own corporate IT infrastructure is set up. They should provide details including:
Unfortunately, as svnipp alluded to in an earlier post, I seriously doubt this would make any difference. Corporations (particularly public corporations) are so fixated on short-term profit that they won't invest more money today to save money tomorrow.
With my personal experiences working with small businesses and hosted exchange. Exchange on OS X on the native iCal, Address Book and Mail is not good enough. The field inputs screw up, ActiveSync goes out of wack losing contacts and calender data. Outlook 2011 is horrible for those with bad eye site, entering data in the contact fields is a joke. And then switching from OWA, to Outlook 2011 and or the native Mail, Address Book, iCal client just confuses the end user. This is not good enough for those who have used Windows Outlook and OWA. As much as I hate Outlook and dealing with corrupted .ost and .pst files, when it works, it just works.
Also I wish Apple would create a terminal server on the OS X Server platform, this would be a great feature for those out of the office can VPN with a Remote Desktop Client and access information in the office.
These 2 things are my biggest pet peeves working with Apple in a Microsoft environment.
With my personal experiences working with small businesses and hosted exchange. Exchange on OS X on the native iCal, Address Book and Mail is not good enough.
I agree - I've tried to use iCal and Mail.app but ended up going back to Outlook 2011. iCal and Mail are decent (and much cheaper), but just not quite there (I don't believe you can even set an out-of-office using Mail).
The field inputs screw up, ActiveSync goes out of wack losing contacts and calender data. Outlook 2011 is horrible for those with bad eye site, entering data in the contact fields is a joke. And then switching from OWA, to Outlook 2011 and or the native Mail, Address Book, iCal client just confuses the end user. This is not good enough for those who have used Windows Outlook and OWA.
Okay, I haven't experienced any of these issues. In fact I find Outlook 2011 fairly capable, although I do miss the Project Center that was part of Entourage.
As much as I hate Outlook and dealing with corrupted .ost and .pst files, when it works, it just works.
And therein lies one of my biggest complaints about Outlook 2011 - it still doesn't use a file format compatible with Outlook for the PC. Maybe that's not a bad thing since the PST format sucks and corrupts easily, but it would be nice if there was an easy way to share data between the two platforms.
Also I wish Apple would create a terminal server on the OS X Server platform, this would be a great feature for those out of the office can VPN with a Remote Desktop Client and access information in the office.
They do. VNC server support is built-in to OSX. It's like RDP, only less proprietary...
They do. VNC server support is built-in to OSX. It's like RDP, only less proprietary...
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
Mac business users have been shown to be more productive than their PC counterparts, prompting Forrester Research to encourage companies to support Apple hardware in the workplace.
Oh snap! I guess you can't ignore the obvious forever...
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
And? I can access it natively from Mac OSX too: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/remote-desktop-client
In fact, the two applications I rely on that are Windows only work best in a remote desktop session!
I think the anti-Mac trolls in IT are an endangered species.
The iPad is blazing the trail - and the wagons are circling. It would be hilarious if it wasn't pathetically predictable
Think about the massive outlay ( $$$ ) of licensing for Windows, Office, and of course, the requisite security package (McAfee, etc) for each machine throughout the Federal Government (from the Executive branch through nearly every department, i.e., DoD, State, Treasury, DHS, Energy, Transportation, etc, etc, etc). It seems like a no-brainer to switch to Mac.
Entitlements and the wars overseas are eating our lunch. The entire combined budgets of the executive branches are less than 1/3 of the budget. While I agree that huge amounts of money are feeding a purposely inefficient industry, you aren't going to balance the budget by beating up on the overhead of the executive branch.
Not that I think we should tolerate inefficiency either - just pointing out there is no "quick fix"
Then again, it seems like a no-brainer that we should have a balanced budget...
Until you get all the various hands out of the cookie jar, we are never going to have a balanced budget. Heck, try to dramatically cut spending on IT and the howls from industry about how you are affecting jobs would be defining. The intrinsic attributes of government do not reward, nor encourage, efficiency (which is why I am always amused at proponents of big government or that government has the solutions).
And? I can access it natively from Mac OSX too: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/remote-desktop-client
In fact, the two applications I rely on that are Windows only work best in a remote desktop session!
And that's how my current setup is to access the Windows only applications on Mac notebooks/desktops in the office or outside the office.
It could be switching from Mainframes, Novell, or even from an older version of windows... it is all the same.
Actually, companies have found with large, massive systems that the Unix or Windows hype about TCO was just that - hype. Often networked systems end up costing more, with less reliability. There are reasons massive systems such as social security, the IRS, the SABRE airline reservations systems, the vast majority of financial systems, etc. are still on mainframes.
Novell was and still is a technically superior system for directory services - Active Directory still has a fraction of the functionality of NDS - and 15 years have passed! I remember well in the mid '90s when it was rumored that Novell was going to release NDS for NT that didn't require Netware. Then literally two days before it was to be launched at Comdex, Novell balked - and that made my decision on taking the CNE 4 exams easy - no need to bother. Microsoft was going to win by default. No guts, no glory (yes HP, I'm still looking at you with the touchpad!). Even if they had released NDS for NT without reliance on Netware, there is no guarantee it would have survived - but Active Directory would certainly have to be a much better product than the unstable feature-incomplete pile of crap it is today. Sigh....
As for older versions of Windows - if it still works, why replace it? MS has a real dilemma with Windows XP - its good enough for the vast majority of users - even today. Yes, if forced to use Windows I vastly prefer Windows 7 - but is it absolutely necessary? Nope. MS has threatened to end support a few times already - it will be interested to see if they are finally able to do so with their current EOL date.
Can this run multiple sessions within the server on a remote desktop profile?. On Windows Server 2003/2008 I can easily create profiles and have remote users run in the RDC "thin client" on the VPN server. Simple and easy to access and affordable.
Not exactly, but to be fair this wasn't really what you were asking. Pre-Lion, VNC allowed a single connection to remotely control the Mac's screen (using its current session). With Lion you can now have multiple concurrent connections, each with its own session. No, there are no profiles, per-se, but again your question was, basically, "can I remotely connect to my Mac and access its information..." Yes, you can.
My company's IT department just blocked iCloud access for being an "IT Security Risk". I doubt Macs will be making headway here anytime soon.
They started down that path and I challenged them back about thumb drives, dropbox and even Windows Live.
The days of trying to draw moats around things to protect are over - it's the data, stupid! Wherever it is, it should be protected. Attitudes are changing. Much faster, now that the iPad has arrived - and arrived in force! It's not an option for most IT shops - users and management are demanding it. There is a real paradigm shift underway right now, whether the traditional IT guys like it or not...
Better CAC compatibility with OSX, and CAC Card slit into an iPad model will make large-corporations and the gov go on a purchasing frenzy for Apple products. It's the only serious limitation.
Meh - we dropped internal smart card readers as a requirement on our Windows machines due to a little revelation known as bluetooth. One Bluetooth card holder will support a users desktop, laptop, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android phone, etc.... much smarter way to go. And even with the improved smart card facilities in Windows 7, it all still works better with a third party client - which also work just fine for Mac OSX, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android, etc. too.
CAC/Smart Cards are hardly the brick wall they once were - nor the clear guarantee that Windows will be the only choice.
If business adopts Mac as the primary platform, then guess what the number one target for hackers and virus writers becomes?
Apple.
Sigh. This tired meme - again.
News flash - doom has been impending since Apple was at the 2% marketshare level, and they are approaching 20%.
20% of the top % of all $$$ spent.
So either all the virus writers are really, really stupid, really really lazy or - gasp - it's not as easy to spread malware on Mac OSX as it is on Windows.
Hmmm - tough choice!
I'm not claiming macs are invulnerable or will be problem free forever - but on the other hand I'm still waiting for a reason to run AV software on my Mac. When that day comes, your concern might have some merit - but until then, it's just meaningless hand wringing. I'll risk it for increased productivity at work!
iPad and iPhones along with iOS ARE making huge grounds in enterprise--my company just released it's first App and just a little less then a year ago you couldn't even use an iPhone with our systems. But iOS can be made to play nice with Windows and Enterprise software, so it's a different story then OSX, at least for now.
OSX plays just fine in the enterprise. No worse than different versions of Microsoft's OS's.
In the future that will change, as it sure looks like Apple's future PC's sure look like they will run iOS like operating systems.
Er, no it doesn't since iOS is Mac OSX at the core. The difference are in the upper level user interfaces and UI APIs. The reasons for those differences that existed at the dawn of the iPhone and iPad are the same today as they will be in the future. What Mac OSX is, and will pick up, is unification in general look and feel as well as concepts. That's entirely different than making crazy statements that the Mac is going to "devolve" into an iPad or other such over-sensationalized nonsense.
it's not the upgrade fee it's the fact that corporations have software that costs tens of thousands of $$$ that rely on specific versions of other software.
Yeah, and because of those byzantine interdependencies application virtualization is taking off. Which means those apps can be accessed by Mac's just as easily as Windows machines.
is there even an imaging solution for Mac's? corporate IT has a few master images. no one installs software manually on computers in a large environment
What kind of an inane question is that? Just call the Mac a toy and get it over with already
Really, Please tell me where I can get a copy of SL Server to load into my VMware box and test on my HP server and violate OS X EULA?
I really expect Apple to eventually officially support virtualization of Mac OSX server under either VMware or HyperV eventually. I'm a little disappointed with the demise of the Xserve that it hasn't happened already since it is the logical solution. Oh well - here's to hoping that one gaping hole will get plugged.
IT Guy here...
The reason we don't like to work with Macs in the enterprise is because Apple doesn't give a sh!t about enterprise compatibility. What I mean is, Apple does not integrate well with the main infrastructure that is already prevelant in all companies. I don't think Mac users will be that productive when they have to wait up to 5min to login (AD Plugin bug that didn't get fixed until 10.6.8) or when they have to wait up to 30 secs for a network folder's files to show up (bug in 10.6, still in 10.7).
Mac's will enter the enterprise when Apple decides to play nice with other company's products. Which is never.
EDIT:
Before I get cast as "anti-Apple", I run a hybrid windows/mac network with an XServe Snow leopard server, 70 macbooks, 56 ipads, 5 imacs, 70 PCs. I have apple certifications and Microsoft certifications.
I also have every iDevice, a MBP, AppleTV and will try anything else that comes out of Apple.
I am genuinely curious here, so I have an honest question.
I understood that Mac OS and iOS actually implemented things like Exchange Server really well. I was under the impression that general access therefore wasn't an issue. Secondly, Apple has contributed to open networking standards, such as CUPS/Bonjour type stuff. Therefore, where Apple does in fact make an effort -- where they license something quite common, or where they adhere very well to open standards -- they do indeed "play very nicely" (if not superlatively).
So, my question is this:
How much of the issues that you outline are really a case of Apple "not playing nice", rather than the other companies involved not playing nice?
In other words, could it be a case in many situations of the type that you outline, that the Corporation has got layer upon layer of cruft and baggage built up over years and years, that really has at its root a lot of proprietary crap (like apps that only work through IE6, for goodness sake!; or apps built in .net or something). Are you not laying some of this stuff at Apple's door unfairly?
This would be easier if Apple offered a mid range machine that was headless.
Why? Especially in business - the iMac with the power cable and ethernet cable, or the new Mac notebooks teamed with the thunderbolt displays are awesome, clutter free workstations.
Why would you want to perpetuate the morass of cables and ignored towers under desks that collect dust, dirt and much worse?
I wanted a IIci class min-tower for a long time to provide flexibility in GPU cards - but with thunderbolt, there is really no reason to not just settle on an iMac, or a portable with the thunderbolt display.
I just recently got a 15" MacBook Air with the Thunderbolt display for my docking station and the combo is simply amazing. And it will easily last twice as long as the PC/Docking station/Monitor combination it's replacing, which makes it 1/3 cheaper over it's life time.
And it looks and works a heck of a lot better too