There are applications that require windows, there is a personnel that doesn't know how to work with anything else than windows, and finally it's not easy to gradually change platforms...
... They for sure have a chance, if not for replacing, then at least for positioning themselves as a valid alternative.
In the case of an enterprise wide application (like Exchange) you are correct, that is a problem.
In the corporate sales cycle there are always objections, and the overcoming of objections is something that sales managers plan for.
This objection, like almost all others, will have a well thought out and planned response. In the case of "must have" Windows applications I think we can safely assume that if this Windows application is a "must have" then they already have it. OK so keep it.
If a 100% change over to a new and modern system is required, then just throw a x86 blade in the blade chassis to support this "must have" application for those that need it. Run Microsoft's own Remote desktop Connection Client on the Apple thin clients. ("tMac"?) [Rhumgod put this "intrenched" objection very well at the top of the page. My response is 17 posts down]
For those enterprises that adopt a more conservative and cost efficient approach (I would think the majority) of phasing in the new, improved Apple system as part of an already authorized hardware replacement program. I mean in the enterprise this is a regular line item for replacements in their yearly (and Quarterly) budgets.
Just run (or use existing cabling) from the server room to an inexpensive and small footprint smart thin Mac client. Keep using the PC box that's already sitting there for that must have Windows app. until it can be replaced by an equivalent (or superior) OSX application.
No need to buy everyone new FAT PeeCee's as a Longhorn roll-out would require. The hypothetical Apple solution makes sense when you compare costs vs. a Longhorn "up-grade". The real question is comparing costs with a Linux solution. This is where TCO will be a very heavy consideration.
I guess it all depends what these people's needs are.
Thin clients are great, but often not enough, having 2 comps at their desks is not an option IMO, as you can't expect people to work on 2 machines.
Blades are great, but again RDC, as well as Citrix are not enough to run CAD type apps.
Again, you are right, if you need your PC, keep it, same way there are macs in existence in almost any workplace now.
Most people in today's offices are using word, excell, some sort of collaboration package, etc... these guys can be shifted to macs relatively easily (easier than to Linux, IMO). What's left? Professionals with their hardware/software specialized workstations, these are there to stay, as you can't force your engineer to change his work-tools.
But you know what, apple for the first time is appealing to me as an valid alternative to network of PC boxes, and not only as professional machines here and there.
OS X is really amazing OS, and hardware is equally nice. eMacs would make excellent office machines, if people wouldn't be afraid of letting some life into their boring gray-offices.
OSX server licensing is a dream, we just need more software, and i mean enterprise class software. Imagine someone porting SAP, to OS X, or IBM porting their DB2 to OSX.... that would give apple tremendous boost.
Comments
Originally posted by piwozniak
... There's only one problem...
There are applications that require windows, there is a personnel that doesn't know how to work with anything else than windows, and finally it's not easy to gradually change platforms...
... They for sure have a chance, if not for replacing, then at least for positioning themselves as a valid alternative.
In the case of an enterprise wide application (like Exchange) you are correct, that is a problem.
In the corporate sales cycle there are always objections, and the overcoming of objections is something that sales managers plan for.
This objection, like almost all others, will have a well thought out and planned response. In the case of "must have" Windows applications I think we can safely assume that if this Windows application is a "must have" then they already have it. OK so keep it.
If a 100% change over to a new and modern system is required, then just throw a x86 blade in the blade chassis to support this "must have" application for those that need it. Run Microsoft's own Remote desktop Connection Client on the Apple thin clients. ("tMac"?) [Rhumgod put this "intrenched" objection very well at the top of the page. My response is 17 posts down]
For those enterprises that adopt a more conservative and cost efficient approach (I would think the majority) of phasing in the new, improved Apple system as part of an already authorized hardware replacement program. I mean in the enterprise this is a regular line item for replacements in their yearly (and Quarterly) budgets.
Just run (or use existing cabling) from the server room to an inexpensive and small footprint smart thin Mac client. Keep using the PC box that's already sitting there for that must have Windows app. until it can be replaced by an equivalent (or superior) OSX application.
No need to buy everyone new FAT PeeCee's as a Longhorn roll-out would require. The hypothetical Apple solution makes sense when you compare costs vs. a Longhorn "up-grade". The real question is comparing costs with a Linux solution. This is where TCO will be a very heavy consideration.
Thin clients are great, but often not enough, having 2 comps at their desks is not an option IMO, as you can't expect people to work on 2 machines.
Blades are great, but again RDC, as well as Citrix are not enough to run CAD type apps.
Again, you are right, if you need your PC, keep it, same way there are macs in existence in almost any workplace now.
Most people in today's offices are using word, excell, some sort of collaboration package, etc... these guys can be shifted to macs relatively easily (easier than to Linux, IMO). What's left? Professionals with their hardware/software specialized workstations, these are there to stay, as you can't force your engineer to change his work-tools.
But you know what, apple for the first time is appealing to me as an valid alternative to network of PC boxes, and not only as professional machines here and there.
OS X is really amazing OS, and hardware is equally nice. eMacs would make excellent office machines, if people wouldn't be afraid of letting some life into their boring gray-offices.
OSX server licensing is a dream, we just need more software, and i mean enterprise class software. Imagine someone porting SAP, to OS X, or IBM porting their DB2 to OSX.... that would give apple tremendous boost.