Isn't Mac OS 10.3 Server half way there? I have a feeling Mac OS 10.4 Server will be the Server OS to really push the envelop forward as the Xserve and Xserve RAID will have had enough time to have matured with it's hardware and third party partnerships.
If something big does not happen with Mac OS 10.4 Server than games up for Apple and we might as well hand our bills to the dark side of the table.
Isn't Mac OS 10.3 Server half way there? I have a feeling Mac OS 10.4 Server will be the Server OS to really push the envelop forward as the Xserve and Xserve RAID will have had enough time to have matured with it's hardware and third party partnerships.
If something big does not happen with Mac OS 10.4 Server than games up for Apple and we might as well hand our bills to the dark side of the table.
I'd say quite a bit more than half way. It blasts Linux out of the water for administration capabilities. With all of the built-in functionality, services and monitoring capabilities, it is probably one of the best, if not the best, *nix server OS around.
Problem is, *nix inroads into the corporate server room is gaining ground on Windows it's just a slow road at this point in time.
If they want to make any reasonable run at the enterprise market, they absolutely need to have better support than they currently do. as it stands now, so long as you have Mac OS related questions, you're fine, but they do not support any questions pertaining to interoperablity. Not fine. When I asked a question about Windows XP, the response was that i needed to call Microsoft. But Microsoft is not going to answer my question about using OS X Server in a mixed environment. Apple should, more especially due to the price of support for OS X Server, but also because THEY are trying to make in-roads into the server market, and not Microsoft.
There should be no gray area on Windows/Mac mixing coming from Apple in terms of support.
There should be no gray area on Windows/Mac mixing coming from Apple in terms of support
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
It's not for nothing that IBM used to boast that they had more and better support for Windows than Microsoft did.
Steve's railed in public against the problem of punting accountability for a problem between multiple vendors, and he's offered Apple as an alternative. If he wants to extend that argument to enterprise, he is going to need people who can assist with interoperability.
After all, if you sell your product on the basis of its interoperability, you'd better be willing to support that feature or enterprise will have nothing to do with you.
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms...
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms...
$12.00 an hour in San Fran means you either live with mom and/or dad, or you have a better second job.
$12.00 an hour in San Fran means you either live with mom and/or dad, or you have a better second job.
LOL OMG 12 an hour for a Tech with cross platform knowledge. Good luck keeping that employee if someone walks in and realizes the person knows their stuff it wouldn't be hard to beat that salary. Apple is cool...but not THAT cool. Perhaps jobs should relinquish a bit of his ernormous salary and pay better wages if he wants clients saved from the "punting" process.
LOL OMG 12 an hour for a Tech with cross platform knowledge. Good luck keeping that employee if someone walks in and realizes the person knows their stuff it wouldn't be hard to beat that salary. Apple is cool...but not THAT cool. Perhaps jobs should relinquish a bit of his ernormous salary and pay better wages if he wants clients saved from the "punting" process.
This works out to a very livable 25068.68132 per hour, for every hour of every day of the year. That is more than twice what I earned in the last year. So I figure if I put in 27 minutes at Steve's rate I'll be set. Except for the fact that I couldn't live off of that even if I was single with no kids.
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms... [/B]
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
Have they reverted to this as well? When I was at Apple retail, I was full time...
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
Does Apple retail make a profit? In retail you have to have alot of part timers. You just can't afford not to. Now there are some exceptions.
Does Apple retail make a profit? In retail you have to have alot of part timers. You just can't afford not to. Now there are some exceptions.
hope they don't make the Bestbuy mistake of hireing dumbasses for PT work, apple is great, but stupid parttimers would ruin them, and they need knoledge of 2 friggen platforms, reletively deep knoledge, that doesnt come cheap, most retail PT is HS/college sstudents, many of whom have no experiance on macs, and, sadly, dont know jack about windows.
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
The amount of training it would take for Mac techs too understand basic interoperability between OS X Server and Windows 2000/XP Pro is so minimal, but so direly important that i can not believe Apple, the underdog in this market, didn't think to actually do something about it. I'm not talking massive issues here, I mean simple shit like "How do i configure my XP client to use the Server Print Queue?" "How do i set up XP to authenticate users from my OS X Server." I'm not asking that they know everything about interoperability. Simple things like this should be covered, more especially from a product that has yet to find general acceptance.
There is an absolute void out there in terms of working with OS X Server that Apple needs to fill beyond a manual. When i was configuring my first X Server a couple of years ago, the only real help I could get in interoperability was from people doing the same. Without a strong and clear cut path to X Server/Windows interoperability, people will just keep using what has been demonstrated over and over again to work. Apple does not have that "cred" yet, and needs to do all they can to get it if they plan to capture a strong enterprise position.
Yes I understand that Apple Retail employees should be familiar with the "basics" of interoperability. However I'd venture that you would see the questions snowball into much more technical questions.
Nothing is really as easy as "Do A then B then C and you're done" if it was this easy then the question wouldn't even exist. But it does so that means to me that it a little more involved. Is a Apple Retail rep supposed to be giving information that could affect a persons network?? That's scary from a liability standpoint. In networking even the smallest things that are assumed to be easy can blow up on you. I'm not sure I want that risk at $12 per hr or less.
Apple is simply not serious about entering the Enterprise. From delays in Xserves to no clear and concise certification regiment. They are woefully unprepared for any assault on the Enteprise that would yield appreciable profits.
It's going to take much more than OSX Server and Xserves. Apple needs to have a suite of applications that are mature ...battle tested and backed by those who can support and administer these appse. Everytime I hear Apple and Enterprise in the same same sentence it sounds like an oxymoron.
Yes I understand that Apple Retail employees should be familiar with the "basics" of interoperability. However I'd venture that you would see the questions snowball into much more technical questions.
Nothing is really as easy as "Do A then B then C and you're done" if it was this easy then the question wouldn't even exist. But it does so that means to me that it a little more involved. Is a Apple Retail rep supposed to be giving information that could affect a persons network?? That's scary from a liability standpoint. In networking even the smallest things that are assumed to be easy can blow up on you. I'm not sure I want that risk at $12 per hr or less.
I'm not talking about Retail reps, I am talking about Apple techs, the guys that answer the phone for Mac OS X Server support. The Select, Premier, or Alliance techs. As to certification, Apple does have a certification path as clear as Microsoft's . Though not as complex, and rightfully so. Based on your comments, I would guess that you have never really used any version of X Server, and really don't know just how well Apple is positioning themselves to move seriously into this market over the coming years. That is of course if they can get their support house in order.
Apple Certification process sucks beyond belief. The dearth of training books and a clearly defined process is laughable.
I agree the Techs for OSX server support should know interoperability. This is premium service in comparison to standard Tech Support.
I'll give Apple credit for OSX Server. It is nice. But I also realize that companies do not live or die by the server. It's the applications that run on the server that make my job possible. Apple, currently, is not well positioned here.
Comments
If something big does not happen with Mac OS 10.4 Server than games up for Apple and we might as well hand our bills to the dark side of the table.
Originally posted by Jared
Isn't Mac OS 10.3 Server half way there? I have a feeling Mac OS 10.4 Server will be the Server OS to really push the envelop forward as the Xserve and Xserve RAID will have had enough time to have matured with it's hardware and third party partnerships.
If something big does not happen with Mac OS 10.4 Server than games up for Apple and we might as well hand our bills to the dark side of the table.
I'd say quite a bit more than half way. It blasts Linux out of the water for administration capabilities. With all of the built-in functionality, services and monitoring capabilities, it is probably one of the best, if not the best, *nix server OS around.
Problem is, *nix inroads into the corporate server room is gaining ground on Windows it's just a slow road at this point in time.
There should be no gray area on Windows/Mac mixing coming from Apple in terms of support.
There should be no gray area on Windows/Mac mixing coming from Apple in terms of support
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
It's not for nothing that IBM used to boast that they had more and better support for Windows than Microsoft did.
Steve's railed in public against the problem of punting accountability for a problem between multiple vendors, and he's offered Apple as an alternative. If he wants to extend that argument to enterprise, he is going to need people who can assist with interoperability.
After all, if you sell your product on the basis of its interoperability, you'd better be willing to support that feature or enterprise will have nothing to do with you.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms...
Originally posted by Jared
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms...
$12.00 an hour in San Fran means you either live with mom and/or dad, or you have a better second job.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
$12.00 an hour in San Fran means you either live with mom and/or dad, or you have a better second job.
LOL OMG 12 an hour for a Tech with cross platform knowledge. Good luck keeping that employee if someone walks in and realizes the person knows their stuff it wouldn't be hard to beat that salary. Apple is cool...but not THAT cool. Perhaps jobs should relinquish a bit of his ernormous salary and pay better wages if he wants clients saved from the "punting" process.
Originally posted by hmurchison
LOL OMG 12 an hour for a Tech with cross platform knowledge. Good luck keeping that employee if someone walks in and realizes the person knows their stuff it wouldn't be hard to beat that salary. Apple is cool...but not THAT cool. Perhaps jobs should relinquish a bit of his ernormous salary and pay better wages if he wants clients saved from the "punting" process.
Amen.
$ 219,000,000 a year. WOW...
Originally posted by Jubelum
Amen.
$ 219,000,000 a year. WOW...
This works out to a very livable 25068.68132 per hour, for every hour of every day of the year. That is more than twice what I earned in the last year. So I figure if I put in 27 minutes at Steve's rate I'll be set. Except for the fact that I couldn't live off of that even if I was single with no kids.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
$12.00 an hour in San Fran means you either live with mom and/or dad, or you have a better second job.
Or anyone else in the Bay Area for that matter.
Originally posted by Jared
Well acording to the press release for the Apple Store in San Francisco, they all "talk Windows" and the going rate for the retail stores salary as a Sales Associate 9.00-12.00 an hour...hardly enough to bark but they know both platforms... [/B]
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
Originally posted by FormerLurker
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
Have they reverted to this as well? When I was at Apple retail, I was full time...
Originally posted by FormerLurker
In fact, nearly all the Sales Associates are part-time employees, which saves a bundle on things like fulltime benefits. Straight out of the Wallmart playbook!
Does Apple retail make a profit? In retail you have to have alot of part timers. You just can't afford not to. Now there are some exceptions.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Does Apple retail make a profit? In retail you have to have alot of part timers. You just can't afford not to. Now there are some exceptions.
hope they don't make the Bestbuy mistake of hireing dumbasses for PT work, apple is great, but stupid parttimers would ruin them, and they need knoledge of 2 friggen platforms, reletively deep knoledge, that doesnt come cheap, most retail PT is HS/college sstudents, many of whom have no experiance on macs, and, sadly, dont know jack about windows.
Originally posted by hmurchison
That's just not going to happen in a basic Support Package. You are asking Apple Tech reps to be fluent in Windows as well and I just don't know too many that can straddle to NOS like that without commanding a premium salary. Cross Platform networking inquiries are best served by other means of support unless someone is willing to pay a premium.
The amount of training it would take for Mac techs too understand basic interoperability between OS X Server and Windows 2000/XP Pro is so minimal, but so direly important that i can not believe Apple, the underdog in this market, didn't think to actually do something about it. I'm not talking massive issues here, I mean simple shit like "How do i configure my XP client to use the Server Print Queue?" "How do i set up XP to authenticate users from my OS X Server." I'm not asking that they know everything about interoperability. Simple things like this should be covered, more especially from a product that has yet to find general acceptance.
There is an absolute void out there in terms of working with OS X Server that Apple needs to fill beyond a manual. When i was configuring my first X Server a couple of years ago, the only real help I could get in interoperability was from people doing the same. Without a strong and clear cut path to X Server/Windows interoperability, people will just keep using what has been demonstrated over and over again to work. Apple does not have that "cred" yet, and needs to do all they can to get it if they plan to capture a strong enterprise position.
Nothing is really as easy as "Do A then B then C and you're done" if it was this easy then the question wouldn't even exist. But it does so that means to me that it a little more involved. Is a Apple Retail rep supposed to be giving information that could affect a persons network?? That's scary from a liability standpoint. In networking even the smallest things that are assumed to be easy can blow up on you. I'm not sure I want that risk at $12 per hr or less.
Apple is simply not serious about entering the Enterprise. From delays in Xserves to no clear and concise certification regiment. They are woefully unprepared for any assault on the Enteprise that would yield appreciable profits.
It's going to take much more than OSX Server and Xserves. Apple needs to have a suite of applications that are mature ...battle tested and backed by those who can support and administer these appse. Everytime I hear Apple and Enterprise in the same same sentence it sounds like an oxymoron.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes I understand that Apple Retail employees should be familiar with the "basics" of interoperability. However I'd venture that you would see the questions snowball into much more technical questions.
Nothing is really as easy as "Do A then B then C and you're done" if it was this easy then the question wouldn't even exist. But it does so that means to me that it a little more involved. Is a Apple Retail rep supposed to be giving information that could affect a persons network?? That's scary from a liability standpoint. In networking even the smallest things that are assumed to be easy can blow up on you. I'm not sure I want that risk at $12 per hr or less.
I'm not talking about Retail reps, I am talking about Apple techs, the guys that answer the phone for Mac OS X Server support. The Select, Premier, or Alliance techs. As to certification, Apple does have a certification path as clear as Microsoft's . Though not as complex, and rightfully so. Based on your comments, I would guess that you have never really used any version of X Server, and really don't know just how well Apple is positioning themselves to move seriously into this market over the coming years. That is of course if they can get their support house in order.
Apple Certification process sucks beyond belief. The dearth of training books and a clearly defined process is laughable.
I agree the Techs for OSX server support should know interoperability. This is premium service in comparison to standard Tech Support.
I'll give Apple credit for OSX Server. It is nice. But I also realize that companies do not live or die by the server. It's the applications that run on the server that make my job possible. Apple, currently, is not well positioned here.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple Certification process sucks beyond belief. The dearth of training books and a clearly defined process is laughable.
Amen to that. I would love to self study. But all the available material on the subject is monopolized and that sucks.