one problem though with enterprise is a lot of companies feel that if you go to apple, that only apple provides them their hardware and equipment so there's no room for competition from other vendors as well, say if you wanted to stick with the OS and not the hardware manufacturer. Until Apple figures this out its destined to be a great consumer platform.
... (No real Exchange support other than the dreaded Outlook 2001), ... the Mac is doomed to Outlook 2001 for full Exchange compatibility...
Rhumgod, side issue, I think I have office 2001 on one of my Macs somewhere; what makes it able to use Exchange? Does it work in Classic? And why is it "dreaded"? You can email me if you want to take it offline. ([email protected])
We use Exchange at work, and thus far I have had to use OWA (web) which isn't very functional and doesn't work over our VPN.
Why not use Entourage 10.1.4? It has scheduling and Contacts support now. Still many features missing like Public Folders and server side rules but it's getting there.
If you reread my comment, you'll see my explanation. ...
Whoa! a BUILT-IN KVM... That is a very interesting concept. I wonder if it could be done as a PCI card, so it could be optional/BTO? (It could have a little cable between it and the actual video card.)
It could probably be done for around $100, as long as you don't have to mess around with the VGA signal. If you get into complexity, like the user has a digital ADC monitor but the PC is analog VGA, it could get very expensive; but as long as the design is kept simple, it could be cheap, yet very useful!
Why not use Entourage 10.1.4? It has scheduling and Contacts support now. Still many features missing like Public Folders and server side rules but it's getting there.
Uses IMAP, and I can't talk our IT people into enabling that. There's also supposed to be a version that screen-scraps the OWA... echh. Besides, we use Tasks.
Rhumgod, side issue, I think I have office 2001 on one of my Macs somewhere; what makes it able to use Exchange? Does it work in Classic? And why is it "dreaded"? You can email me if you want to take it offline. ([email protected])
We use Exchange at work, and thus far I have had to use OWA (web) which isn't very functional and doesn't work over our VPN.
Can't speak for Rhomgod, but I use Outlook 8.2.2. I can't get 2001 to run for more than five minutes without crashing (this is a known fault apparently, and requires rebuilding a mailbox or something.)
The major issues I have with either are:
1. They have to run in Classic.
2. They're clumsy and slow. You can see the list refresh. If you right mouse click after selecting something, it takes it as a double click. Urgh!
3. The major reason I need to use it is to see OLE attachments, but half the time the OLE attachments just "show" as blank boxes anyway.
The official "Exchange client for OS X" is Entourage. Unfortunately, Entourage isn't a real Exchange client, it's just able to grab things like calendar information. Rich text/OLE format isn't supported (not surprising, as it uses Exchange's IMAP port, not the native Exchange stuff), it just isn't really integrated with Microsoft's Exchange environment.
All of which, one assumes, is deliberate. Microsoft doesn't want Mac users feeling like first class citizens after all...
. . . A KVM is a critical component of a migration path from one platform to an entirely incompatable platform. If Apple includes the functionality in a bMac, they'd be guaranteeing one would be there, that it would work, that it would encourage - through defaults etc - the user is orientated to the Mac and uses the PC only when necessary.
Finally, I think I figured out what a KVM is. Making it a part of a Mac would add cost that is unnecessary for most customers. Just as anyone can buy an eMac now, likely anyone would be able to buy a business Mac. If a KVM is that critical to get business customers to switch, Apple could offer an external KVM at a very low price, with little or no profit. Why not make it a FireWire accessory, powered through the connector?
I don't see the point of a KVM as a standard, built-in part. If you're going to switch, you're going to switch. If you aren't, you aren't.
The techs and developers who'd be interested in running the two side by side could probably set up a third-party KVM easily enough.
If you're going to switch, you're going to have to change over. The notion you can just throw your old computer out the window and just start afresh is absurd.
You will need access to legacy apps, files that require older applications to read them, etc.
I don't understand why you'd think this would be limited to techs and developers. My need for both has nothing to do with development, it has to do with the fact that documentation files for the database system I use are in Microsoft Help format, that two of the critical administration programs I use are Windows Apps, that none of the Outlook clients for Macintosh properly integrate with Exchange.
In the real world, you can't throw everything away and start afresh. You need backward compatability. Either the bMac is for corporate switchers, in which case there's an immediate need to acknowledge legacy apps, or the bMac is for non-switchers.
The bMac, as described in this thread, is supposedly for people in a corporate environment switching from one platform to another. At home, legacy support is unnecessary for switchers because they're going to throw the old PC in the attic anyway and can get hold of it. At work, that's not the case. The old PC has to be around, or else somehow a technical support group has to figure out how to OVERNIGHT replace every single application used by hundreds or even thousands of users, many of which are bespoke or seriously obscure, to applications that run on a Mac.
It's not going to happen. You have to have legacy support.
The techs and developers who'd be interested in running the two side by side could probably set up a third-party KVM easily enough.
As an aside, I'm getting seriously annoyed by the presumption in most Mac forums that if a required solution is technical, only technical people could possibly need it. The above is an example. There isn't a single thing I've said, not one justification for a KVM, that could be read as only being relevent to "techs and developers". But because KVM is a TLA, presumably that means only techs and developers want it.
I'm surprised OS X is so popular in the Mac community. After all, who else but "techs and developers" would be interested in a Unix based operating system? Nobody could possibly find such a thing useful!
If you're going to switch, you're going to have to change over. The notion you can just throw your old computer out the window and just start afresh is absurd.
No, it's standard practice. Ask any former Mac user in corporate who had their Mac thrown out the window and replaced with a Windows PC.
Quote:
You will need access to legacy apps, files that require older applications to read them, etc.
This is the problem the developers solve - either the in-house developers, or third parties, or contractors. If they can't solve it, no switch.
Quote:
My need for both has nothing to do with development, it has to do with the fact that documentation files for the database system I use are in Microsoft Help format, that two of the critical administration programs I use are Windows Apps, that none of the Outlook clients for Macintosh properly integrate with Exchange.
Well, then, you're on Windows, because that's the tool for the job.
This is why Steve is apparently going around asking people what applications they need to have Mac native before they consider Apple: You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded.
If I were allowed to buy machines for my workplace tomorrow, there would be Windows machines in the order: We have people who use SAS. They have years of work invested in SAS. They like SAS. And it's not available for the Mac. So putting Macs on their desks would be pointless, KVM or no.
Quote:
The old PC has to be around, or else somehow a technical support group has to figure out how to OVERNIGHT replace every single application used by hundreds or even thousands of users, many of which are bespoke or seriously obscure, to applications that run on a Mac.
Who said anything about "overnight?" A switch like this would take a significant amount of work, which is why I imagined developers with KVM switches. I'm doing something like this right now, actually, except that I'm switching from Oracle Forms screens run over telnet to forms running on Windows. Believe me, nothing is happening overnight.
An enterprise-level deployment would have to be either totally fresh (new company or new division) or incremental, with Macs rolled out as they are able to take over, where they are able to take over.
For Apple to make inroads into the enterprise they need a compelling solution for the the enterprise to switch. A KVM switch on a Mac is about as compelling as a propeller on a jet.
For those that need the capabilities that a KVM switch offers there are dozens available for under $100. I'm amazed that this is even being discussed at such length here as a needed "innovation" for Apple to break into the enterprise.
A rack full of Apple branded blades hooked to thin clients would be an innovative corporate solution. KVM switches are something you could run down to Radio Shack for if you needed one.
A KVM switch on a Mac is about as compelling as a propeller on a jet.
True, very true.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aphelion A rack full of Apple branded blades hooked to thin clients would be an innovative corporate solution. KVM switches are something you could run down to Radio Shack for if you needed one. [/B]
Now, you're talking. How about G5 Xserves/blades with the now mythical net boot Mac. Now there's a reason to bring back the Cube. No hard drive, no optical drive. Just a 2.0 GHz 90nm G5 and a fat network connection...
VERY inexpensive, fast and the users can't screw the thing up.
For Apple to make inroads into the enterprise they need a compelling solution for the the enterprise to switch.
What Apple can uniquely provide to the enterprise is software.
It is already sitting on Enterprise Objects (both in Cocoa and WebObjects). Harking back to the NeXT days, these tools are what helped NeXT carve out a niche in the enterprise.
It is certainly the closest that Steve Jobs has ever got to the enterprise market at Apple or NeXT.
Xcode could be made a cross platform Java IDE allowing Cocoa apps to be written once and deployed on Mac OS X or Windows 2000 or XP. In particular, EO apps.
The WebObjects market has all but evaporated, but with its recent Direct to Web Services technology, it ought to be a major competitor to MS .NET framework.
For Apple, the big enterprise push should be in software in clients & desktops. Otherwise, the enterprise market should be a small/marginal market in comparison to the graphics, publishing, media, consumer and education and music markets.
one problem though with enterprise is a lot of companies feel that if you go to apple, that only apple provides them their hardware and equipment so there's no room for competition from other vendors as well, say if you wanted to stick with the OS and not the hardware manufacturer. Until Apple figures this out its destined to be a great consumer platform.
Actually while that's true the irony is many businesses will only use Dell or Compaq, and everybody is forced to use Windows where there is no choice whatsoever.
I don't think clones are the answer, tho an IBM badged Mac might be.
... How about G5 Xserves/blades with the now mythical net boot Mac. Now there's a reason to bring back the Cube. No hard drive, no optical drive. Just a 2.0 GHz 90nm G5 and a fat network connection...
VERY inexpensive, fast and the users can't screw the thing up.
As I look at the Cube on my desk... Hmmn ~ yes! That's it, just strip out all the unneeded stuff and put a heat sink and fan from the G5 Power Mac in there with a gigabit ethernet or optional fiber channel card.
Make it modular, with an AGP and a PCX slot so that it can be built around the customers needs and specs. Plug the components together like Lego blocks. Lock the core in there with a special key (security). Use the CD slot for a (optional) smartcard for more security.
Sell these things super cheap because they need an xServer somewhere to work. KVM switch for Windows apps? Why bother, just put the odd Opteron blade in the Blade Center for those that must run "legacy" Windows apps.
Thanks Ensign Pulver, you just designed the 20th Anniversary Mac ~ The Cubicle Cube.
What Apple can uniquely provide to the enterprise is software...
... For Apple, the big enterprise push should be in software in clients & desktops. .
Yes, it's a given that the hardware is icing on what is a very big cake. OSX versus Windows with all it's security problems and onerous licensing schemes (Software Assurance Six, anyone?) is the compelling argument.
All of the software issues you mentioned (and more) will be the driving force behind getting these "Cubicle Cubes" onto desks in enterprise accounts.
Apple needs to get in gear between now and "Longhorn" to offer an appealing and cost effective enterprise solution before the Microsoft transition is complete. Those unfortunate corporations that buy into Bill Gates' vision for the future will be locked-in and lost.
This is a golden opportunity for Apple to step up to the plate and hit a home run. They need a credible partner to accomplish this, and I can't think of a better one than IBM.
IBM also has a portfolio of compelling software that could and should be fully ported to run under OSX, Lotus Notes and Domino, WebSphere, and many other enterprise applications. Even Lotus Office Suite could be a challenger to Microsoft Office, and probably needed for when Office:mac is pulled from the platform.
No, it's standard practice. Ask any former Mac user in corporate who had their Mac thrown out the window and replaced with a Windows PC.
Er, right. So this is about revenge, not switching?
Quote:
This is the problem the developers solve - either the in-house developers, or third parties, or contractors. If they can't solve it, no switch.
That's an unrealistic target. Essentially you're telling virtually every organization with more than a handful of PCs that they can't switch. So what is the point in the bMac?
Quote:
Well, then, you're on Windows, because that's the tool for the job.
That's utterly bizarre. I use a Mac at work because it's the right tool for the job and Windows isn't. However, I need Windows on occasion because of legacy and interoperability reasons. Really, if you're going to insist that anyone already stuck with Windows should remain stuck with it, and shouldn't try and find better ways of working then... well, I don't know. I guess we're not going to see eye-to-eye. The Mac is never going to be a perfect platform, neither is Windows, so how legitimate is it to pretend that "the right tool for the job" is one or the other?
Is it really sensible to argue on the one hand that Apple should come out with a box which is the "ultimate corporate switcher's box" and on the other guarantee it solves none of the problems that switching in a corporate enterprise entails?
Quote:
This is why Steve is apparently going around asking people what applications they need to have Mac native before they consider Apple: You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded.
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Quote:
Who said anything about "overnight?" A switch like this would take a significant amount of work, which is why I imagined developers with KVM switches. I'm doing something like this right now, actually, except that I'm switching from Oracle Forms screens run over telnet to forms running on Windows. Believe me, nothing is happening overnight.
Because a "switch" without KVMs, without both platforms running in parallel and without people able to access their legacy applications and data in legacy formats is an overnight switch and that is what you've been advocating. Right now you seem to be moving to "Well, the developers can run in parallel for a bit and then we'll migate everyone else overnight". That's a little more realistic but not much: I can't think of any corporation where this would work.
I know it would be unrealistic where I work. We have about 50 PCs and an enormous amount of our software is internally written and accessed via telnet sessions to DEC VAXes, or via web browsers. Many of us with some computer experience have experimented running solely with non-Windows platforms such as Linux and Mac. Despite this, the very fact we've been on Windows for so long has created inertia. We have data locked up in proprietary formats, we have our entire email system running on Exchange, and we have products based upon components that could never be ported to another platform because it involves coordinating between several vendors, and the vendors coordinating between their own suppliers.
We're pretty typical if our customers are anything to go by, if anything the relationship between our vendors is less complicated than it is for most of our clients.
The bMac is not a corporate switchers Mac if it doesn't recognize that truth, if it makes the presumption that you can just remove a PC from an organization, change it to a Mac, and as long as you have Office X installed it'll just work. It will not. In 99% of corporations of any non-trivial size, individuals - not programmers, but data processing, product support, accounting, management, etc - run applications that are currently tied to Windows. They CANNOT SWITCH overnight. You can move most of their work to Macs, but not all of it.
Quote:
An enterprise-level deployment would have to be either totally fresh (new company or new division) or incremental, with Macs rolled out as they are able to take over, where they are able to take over.
Rolled out to take over completely? Not going to happen. As long as the majority of users are using Windows, the Mac users will have problems interoperating unless they also have access to a Windows machine too. And migrating anyone entirely from one platform to another is far from painless - you do need to make sure they lose nothing in the transfer.
So let's either talk about a realistic specification for the bMac which recognizes that there's a non-trivial migration period, or let's forget about "bMacs" and corporate Macs altogether. A bMac based on the concept of throwing Windows machines out of Windows well sell as well as the shattered remains of the aforementioned Windows boxes...
Comments
Originally posted by Rhumgod
... (No real Exchange support other than the dreaded Outlook 2001), ... the Mac is doomed to Outlook 2001 for full Exchange compatibility...
Rhumgod, side issue, I think I have office 2001 on one of my Macs somewhere; what makes it able to use Exchange? Does it work in Classic? And why is it "dreaded"? You can email me if you want to take it offline. ([email protected])
We use Exchange at work, and thus far I have had to use OWA (web) which isn't very functional and doesn't work over our VPN.
Originally posted by peharri
If you reread my comment, you'll see my explanation. ...
Whoa! a BUILT-IN KVM... That is a very interesting concept. I wonder if it could be done as a PCI card, so it could be optional/BTO? (It could have a little cable between it and the actual video card.)
It could probably be done for around $100, as long as you don't have to mess around with the VGA signal. If you get into complexity, like the user has a digital ADC monitor but the PC is analog VGA, it could get very expensive; but as long as the design is kept simple, it could be cheap, yet very useful!
Great idea! I'd buy one!
Originally posted by Outsider
Why not use Entourage 10.1.4? It has scheduling and Contacts support now. Still many features missing like Public Folders and server side rules but it's getting there.
Uses IMAP, and I can't talk our IT people into enabling that. There's also supposed to be a version that screen-scraps the OWA... echh. Besides, we use Tasks.
Originally posted by cubist
Rhumgod, side issue, I think I have office 2001 on one of my Macs somewhere; what makes it able to use Exchange? Does it work in Classic? And why is it "dreaded"? You can email me if you want to take it offline. ([email protected])
We use Exchange at work, and thus far I have had to use OWA (web) which isn't very functional and doesn't work over our VPN.
Can't speak for Rhomgod, but I use Outlook 8.2.2. I can't get 2001 to run for more than five minutes without crashing (this is a known fault apparently, and requires rebuilding a mailbox or something.)
The major issues I have with either are:
1. They have to run in Classic.
2. They're clumsy and slow. You can see the list refresh. If you right mouse click after selecting something, it takes it as a double click. Urgh!
3. The major reason I need to use it is to see OLE attachments, but half the time the OLE attachments just "show" as blank boxes anyway.
The official "Exchange client for OS X" is Entourage. Unfortunately, Entourage isn't a real Exchange client, it's just able to grab things like calendar information. Rich text/OLE format isn't supported (not surprising, as it uses Exchange's IMAP port, not the native Exchange stuff), it just isn't really integrated with Microsoft's Exchange environment.
All of which, one assumes, is deliberate. Microsoft doesn't want Mac users feeling like first class citizens after all...
Originally posted by peharri
. . . A KVM is a critical component of a migration path from one platform to an entirely incompatable platform. If Apple includes the functionality in a bMac, they'd be guaranteeing one would be there, that it would work, that it would encourage - through defaults etc - the user is orientated to the Mac and uses the PC only when necessary.
Finally, I think I figured out what a KVM is. Making it a part of a Mac would add cost that is unnecessary for most customers. Just as anyone can buy an eMac now, likely anyone would be able to buy a business Mac. If a KVM is that critical to get business customers to switch, Apple could offer an external KVM at a very low price, with little or no profit. Why not make it a FireWire accessory, powered through the connector?
The techs and developers who'd be interested in running the two side by side could probably set up a third-party KVM easily enough.
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't see the point of a KVM as a standard, built-in part. If you're going to switch, you're going to switch. If you aren't, you aren't.
The techs and developers who'd be interested in running the two side by side could probably set up a third-party KVM easily enough.
If you're going to switch, you're going to have to change over. The notion you can just throw your old computer out the window and just start afresh is absurd.
You will need access to legacy apps, files that require older applications to read them, etc.
I don't understand why you'd think this would be limited to techs and developers. My need for both has nothing to do with development, it has to do with the fact that documentation files for the database system I use are in Microsoft Help format, that two of the critical administration programs I use are Windows Apps, that none of the Outlook clients for Macintosh properly integrate with Exchange.
In the real world, you can't throw everything away and start afresh. You need backward compatability. Either the bMac is for corporate switchers, in which case there's an immediate need to acknowledge legacy apps, or the bMac is for non-switchers.
The bMac, as described in this thread, is supposedly for people in a corporate environment switching from one platform to another. At home, legacy support is unnecessary for switchers because they're going to throw the old PC in the attic anyway and can get hold of it. At work, that's not the case. The old PC has to be around, or else somehow a technical support group has to figure out how to OVERNIGHT replace every single application used by hundreds or even thousands of users, many of which are bespoke or seriously obscure, to applications that run on a Mac.
It's not going to happen. You have to have legacy support.
Originally posted by Amorph
The techs and developers who'd be interested in running the two side by side could probably set up a third-party KVM easily enough.
As an aside, I'm getting seriously annoyed by the presumption in most Mac forums that if a required solution is technical, only technical people could possibly need it. The above is an example. There isn't a single thing I've said, not one justification for a KVM, that could be read as only being relevent to "techs and developers". But because KVM is a TLA, presumably that means only techs and developers want it.
I'm surprised OS X is so popular in the Mac community. After all, who else but "techs and developers" would be interested in a Unix based operating system? Nobody could possibly find such a thing useful!
Originally posted by peharri
If you're going to switch, you're going to have to change over. The notion you can just throw your old computer out the window and just start afresh is absurd.
No, it's standard practice. Ask any former Mac user in corporate who had their Mac thrown out the window and replaced with a Windows PC.
You will need access to legacy apps, files that require older applications to read them, etc.
This is the problem the developers solve - either the in-house developers, or third parties, or contractors. If they can't solve it, no switch.
My need for both has nothing to do with development, it has to do with the fact that documentation files for the database system I use are in Microsoft Help format, that two of the critical administration programs I use are Windows Apps, that none of the Outlook clients for Macintosh properly integrate with Exchange.
Well, then, you're on Windows, because that's the tool for the job.
This is why Steve is apparently going around asking people what applications they need to have Mac native before they consider Apple: You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded.
If I were allowed to buy machines for my workplace tomorrow, there would be Windows machines in the order: We have people who use SAS. They have years of work invested in SAS. They like SAS. And it's not available for the Mac. So putting Macs on their desks would be pointless, KVM or no.
The old PC has to be around, or else somehow a technical support group has to figure out how to OVERNIGHT replace every single application used by hundreds or even thousands of users, many of which are bespoke or seriously obscure, to applications that run on a Mac.
Who said anything about "overnight?" A switch like this would take a significant amount of work, which is why I imagined developers with KVM switches. I'm doing something like this right now, actually, except that I'm switching from Oracle Forms screens run over telnet to forms running on Windows. Believe me, nothing is happening overnight.
An enterprise-level deployment would have to be either totally fresh (new company or new division) or incremental, with Macs rolled out as they are able to take over, where they are able to take over.
For those that need the capabilities that a KVM switch offers there are dozens available for under $100. I'm amazed that this is even being discussed at such length here as a needed "innovation" for Apple to break into the enterprise.
A rack full of Apple branded blades hooked to thin clients would be an innovative corporate solution. KVM switches are something you could run down to Radio Shack for if you needed one.
Originally posted by Aphelion
A KVM switch on a Mac is about as compelling as a propeller on a jet.
Originally posted by Aphelion A rack full of Apple branded blades hooked to thin clients would be an innovative corporate solution. KVM switches are something you could run down to Radio Shack for if you needed one. [/B]
Now, you're talking. How about G5 Xserves/blades with the now mythical net boot Mac. Now there's a reason to bring back the Cube. No hard drive, no optical drive. Just a 2.0 GHz 90nm G5 and a fat network connection...
VERY inexpensive, fast and the users can't screw the thing up.
Originally posted by Aphelion
For Apple to make inroads into the enterprise they need a compelling solution for the the enterprise to switch.
What Apple can uniquely provide to the enterprise is software.
It is already sitting on Enterprise Objects (both in Cocoa and WebObjects). Harking back to the NeXT days, these tools are what helped NeXT carve out a niche in the enterprise.
It is certainly the closest that Steve Jobs has ever got to the enterprise market at Apple or NeXT.
Xcode could be made a cross platform Java IDE allowing Cocoa apps to be written once and deployed on Mac OS X or Windows 2000 or XP. In particular, EO apps.
The WebObjects market has all but evaporated, but with its recent Direct to Web Services technology, it ought to be a major competitor to MS .NET framework.
For Apple, the big enterprise push should be in software in clients & desktops. Otherwise, the enterprise market should be a small/marginal market in comparison to the graphics, publishing, media, consumer and education and music markets.
Originally posted by kraig911
one problem though with enterprise is a lot of companies feel that if you go to apple, that only apple provides them their hardware and equipment so there's no room for competition from other vendors as well, say if you wanted to stick with the OS and not the hardware manufacturer. Until Apple figures this out its destined to be a great consumer platform.
Actually while that's true the irony is many businesses will only use Dell or Compaq, and everybody is forced to use Windows where there is no choice whatsoever.
I don't think clones are the answer, tho an IBM badged Mac might be.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
... How about G5 Xserves/blades with the now mythical net boot Mac. Now there's a reason to bring back the Cube. No hard drive, no optical drive. Just a 2.0 GHz 90nm G5 and a fat network connection...
VERY inexpensive, fast and the users can't screw the thing up.
As I look at the Cube on my desk... Hmmn ~ yes! That's it, just strip out all the unneeded stuff and put a heat sink and fan from the G5 Power Mac in there with a gigabit ethernet or optional fiber channel card.
Make it modular, with an AGP and a PCX slot so that it can be built around the customers needs and specs. Plug the components together like Lego blocks. Lock the core in there with a special key (security). Use the CD slot for a (optional) smartcard for more security.
Sell these things super cheap because they need an xServer somewhere to work. KVM switch for Windows apps? Why bother, just put the odd Opteron blade in the Blade Center for those that must run "legacy" Windows apps.
Thanks Ensign Pulver, you just designed the 20th Anniversary Mac ~ The Cubicle Cube.
Originally posted by Blackcat
I don't think clones are the answer, tho an IBM badged Mac might be.
How about Apple badged IBM's in the server room? With support and service contracts from IBM or Apple, your choice.
Originally posted by Aphelion
How about Apple badged IBM's in the server room? With support and service contracts from IBM or Apple, your choice.
Absolutely.
A no cash deal - IBM gets OS X and Apple gets IBM branding. Everybody wins.
Originally posted by rmendis:
What Apple can uniquely provide to the enterprise is software...
... For Apple, the big enterprise push should be in software in clients & desktops. .
Yes, it's a given that the hardware is icing on what is a very big cake. OSX versus Windows with all it's security problems and onerous licensing schemes (Software Assurance Six, anyone?) is the compelling argument.
All of the software issues you mentioned (and more) will be the driving force behind getting these "Cubicle Cubes" onto desks in enterprise accounts.
Apple needs to get in gear between now and "Longhorn" to offer an appealing and cost effective enterprise solution before the Microsoft transition is complete. Those unfortunate corporations that buy into Bill Gates' vision for the future will be locked-in and lost.
This is a golden opportunity for Apple to step up to the plate and hit a home run. They need a credible partner to accomplish this, and I can't think of a better one than IBM.
IBM also has a portfolio of compelling software that could and should be fully ported to run under OSX, Lotus Notes and Domino, WebSphere, and many other enterprise applications. Even Lotus Office Suite could be a challenger to Microsoft Office, and probably needed for when Office:mac is pulled from the platform.
Originally posted by Amorph
No, it's standard practice. Ask any former Mac user in corporate who had their Mac thrown out the window and replaced with a Windows PC.
Er, right. So this is about revenge, not switching?
This is the problem the developers solve - either the in-house developers, or third parties, or contractors. If they can't solve it, no switch.
That's an unrealistic target. Essentially you're telling virtually every organization with more than a handful of PCs that they can't switch. So what is the point in the bMac?
Well, then, you're on Windows, because that's the tool for the job.
That's utterly bizarre. I use a Mac at work because it's the right tool for the job and Windows isn't. However, I need Windows on occasion because of legacy and interoperability reasons. Really, if you're going to insist that anyone already stuck with Windows should remain stuck with it, and shouldn't try and find better ways of working then... well, I don't know. I guess we're not going to see eye-to-eye. The Mac is never going to be a perfect platform, neither is Windows, so how legitimate is it to pretend that "the right tool for the job" is one or the other?
Is it really sensible to argue on the one hand that Apple should come out with a box which is the "ultimate corporate switcher's box" and on the other guarantee it solves none of the problems that switching in a corporate enterprise entails?
This is why Steve is apparently going around asking people what applications they need to have Mac native before they consider Apple: You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded.
EXACTLY. You can't throw the switch if you'd end up stranded. And for Apple or Mac zealots to assume otherwise is insane. Realistically, you have ONE choice which is to phase in the new platform. You cannot do that unless you ensure that both platforms are running in parallel.
Who said anything about "overnight?" A switch like this would take a significant amount of work, which is why I imagined developers with KVM switches. I'm doing something like this right now, actually, except that I'm switching from Oracle Forms screens run over telnet to forms running on Windows. Believe me, nothing is happening overnight.
Because a "switch" without KVMs, without both platforms running in parallel and without people able to access their legacy applications and data in legacy formats is an overnight switch and that is what you've been advocating. Right now you seem to be moving to "Well, the developers can run in parallel for a bit and then we'll migate everyone else overnight". That's a little more realistic but not much: I can't think of any corporation where this would work.
I know it would be unrealistic where I work. We have about 50 PCs and an enormous amount of our software is internally written and accessed via telnet sessions to DEC VAXes, or via web browsers. Many of us with some computer experience have experimented running solely with non-Windows platforms such as Linux and Mac. Despite this, the very fact we've been on Windows for so long has created inertia. We have data locked up in proprietary formats, we have our entire email system running on Exchange, and we have products based upon components that could never be ported to another platform because it involves coordinating between several vendors, and the vendors coordinating between their own suppliers.
We're pretty typical if our customers are anything to go by, if anything the relationship between our vendors is less complicated than it is for most of our clients.
The bMac is not a corporate switchers Mac if it doesn't recognize that truth, if it makes the presumption that you can just remove a PC from an organization, change it to a Mac, and as long as you have Office X installed it'll just work. It will not. In 99% of corporations of any non-trivial size, individuals - not programmers, but data processing, product support, accounting, management, etc - run applications that are currently tied to Windows. They CANNOT SWITCH overnight. You can move most of their work to Macs, but not all of it.
An enterprise-level deployment would have to be either totally fresh (new company or new division) or incremental, with Macs rolled out as they are able to take over, where they are able to take over.
Rolled out to take over completely? Not going to happen. As long as the majority of users are using Windows, the Mac users will have problems interoperating unless they also have access to a Windows machine too. And migrating anyone entirely from one platform to another is far from painless - you do need to make sure they lose nothing in the transfer.
So let's either talk about a realistic specification for the bMac which recognizes that there's a non-trivial migration period, or let's forget about "bMacs" and corporate Macs altogether. A bMac based on the concept of throwing Windows machines out of Windows well sell as well as the shattered remains of the aforementioned Windows boxes...