I don't think Macs are good fit for the Enterprise right now. There needs to be a more Enterprise friendly division for leasing equipment and not necessarily using AIOs or super condensed models.
However, if this is successful with IBM, it could be great history int he making to see the IBM the made MS the behemoth it is today and then also be the one to bring them down by causing a catalyst of switchers in the workplace.
Here, they're talking notebooks. A MacBook isn't necessarily much less serviceable than a Thinkpad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derev
Or is just that they are afraid to use the new Lenovo Thinkpads now that China makes them?
Thinkpads were made in China by Lenovo well before Lenovo bought the brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Terry
I have been saying this for years. Put a mac on someone's desk. Go to take it away in two weeks and watch em squirm. I bet the only guys who wanted to keep their thinkpads were the IT staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I am not a computer nerd (not by a long shot), have been a Mac user since 1984, and, believe it or not, other than for that occasional call to Applecare, I've never needed 'official' support (my employer used to have a lot of Macs, in the 1980s and 1990s).
I think the prospect of this makes support people nervous.
In the same way the manure handlers people would be nervous about a new breed of cattle that didn't need to crap so much? Are they really that enthused about maintaining a job of just doing sh!t?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Where've you been? This has already happened ever since Apple switched from being a computer company to an electronics company (A pple Computer to Apple Inc.) AppleCare particularly is a real hassle now from where it was 2 years ago. This is why we got the iPhone first when Leopard was originally promised first.
I just had my Mac Pro fixed under Apple Care. There was very little trouble for me.
Which leads to the question: If Macs can now run Windows so well, why should developers bother to make native Mac OS software? Why not just tell Mac users to run Parallels or VMware. IT departments can claim "We support Macs (as long as they run Windows)". And clueless IT staff can now claim to be knowledgeable with Macs, as long as they are running Windows.
In addition to running nothing but VMware, I have also heard of organizations setting up Macs to run only Citrix client, making the Mac nothing more than a remote Windows terminal. As for Boot Camp, let's see how many more IT departments will offer helpful "solutions" for Mac compatibility such as this:
You keep writing this. Just where are these organizations? Why would anybody who knows anything about Boot Camp run two OSs instead of just one if they need just Windows? Only a complete idiot would incur the performance and RAM penalties of running VMWare if they won't use OS X at all. Or even for that matter pay more for Macs if all they need is Windows? If you want to talk anecdotally, I know people who need to connect to Microsoft Access at work and boot directly to Windows via Boot Camp for the entire workday. But when they go home, they reboot their MBs and MBPs to OS X.
To me, the interesting thing about OSX is it's support for multiple processor architectures.
Currently OSX supports Intel & PowerPC, and with the iPhone they are adding the ARM architecture.
In future Universal could mean ARM/Intel/PowerPC.
Talk about having your bases covered!
I don't expect the PPC to hold on for much longer in terms of update cycles. There's a chance that 10.6 won't support them. If 10.6 supports PPC, I'm reasonably sure that 10.7 won't. Even 32 bit hardware support might go away with 10.7 as well.
The UI system is quite different for the touch devices. Maybe a program for the Mac and one for iPhone might share some underlying source code, the UIs are different enough that they probably should be maintained as separate programs. It sounds like they rely on different Cocoa frameworks, even if they are similar.
Where've you been? This has already happened ever since Apple switched from being a computer company to an electronics company (Apple Computer to Apple Inc.) AppleCare particularly is a real hassle now from where it was 2 years ago. This is why we got the iPhone first when Leopard was originally promised first.
Having a Mac on your desk does not necessarily mean running Mac OS. If you want a better test, give them a Mac with both Mac OS and Windows installed, and then see which OS people are booting into after a month. And people using VMware may just run VMware full screen all the time and never use Mac applications
The beauty is Apple really doesn't care that much as long as you buy their hardware.
However, there's no reason to run VMware all the time. At that point, you're better off just bootcamping.
Once a product is ported to Eclipse it can be ported very quickly to any o.s. that supports Eclipse. So Notes 8.5 due later this year will run on Win32, Win64, Linux, and Mac OS X, computers.
Well yes and no. No Java SE 6 on OSX yet right? Just the developer preview? Or is that gone again?
Meh. At this rate Apple will support SE 6 about the same time SE 7 sees release.
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
Unless the users resent using Windows and threaten to leave the company for being treated like shit by IT
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
I really don't see how that's much easier than just replacing the computer anyway. The thing that might be easier is to ride out the license of some Mac program.
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
Or
1) Buy a Windows PC to begin with. No step 2, 3 or 4.
You keep writing this over and over and proceeding from a fallacy right from the beginning, as I and others have noted. The article is about IBM trying to replace PCs with Macs, not vice versa. Answer one simple question: Why would anyone who wants to run exclusively Windows even consider buying a Mac when Windows PCs can be had for less? Give a logical answer to that one then we can talk.
Comments
I don't think Macs are good fit for the Enterprise right now. There needs to be a more Enterprise friendly division for leasing equipment and not necessarily using AIOs or super condensed models.
However, if this is successful with IBM, it could be great history int he making to see the IBM the made MS the behemoth it is today and then also be the one to bring them down by causing a catalyst of switchers in the workplace.
Here, they're talking notebooks. A MacBook isn't necessarily much less serviceable than a Thinkpad.
Or is just that they are afraid to use the new Lenovo Thinkpads now that China makes them?
Thinkpads were made in China by Lenovo well before Lenovo bought the brand.
I have been saying this for years. Put a mac on someone's desk. Go to take it away in two weeks and watch em squirm. I bet the only guys who wanted to keep their thinkpads were the IT staff.
I am not a computer nerd (not by a long shot), have been a Mac user since 1984, and, believe it or not, other than for that occasional call to Applecare, I've never needed 'official' support (my employer used to have a lot of Macs, in the 1980s and 1990s).
I think the prospect of this makes support people nervous.
In the same way the manure handlers people would be nervous about a new breed of cattle that didn't need to crap so much? Are they really that enthused about maintaining a job of just doing sh!t?
Where've you been? This has already happened ever since Apple switched from being a computer company to an electronics company (A pple Computer to Apple Inc.) AppleCare particularly is a real hassle now from where it was 2 years ago. This is why we got the iPhone first when Leopard was originally promised first.
I just had my Mac Pro fixed under Apple Care. There was very little trouble for me.
Which leads to the question: If Macs can now run Windows so well, why should developers bother to make native Mac OS software? Why not just tell Mac users to run Parallels or VMware. IT departments can claim "We support Macs (as long as they run Windows)". And clueless IT staff can now claim to be knowledgeable with Macs, as long as they are running Windows.
Getting ahead of ourselves here.
Step 1, get them to switch
Step 2, see the advantage
Step 3, market share drives applications
Step 4, no need to waste $$$ on Windows.
No on said it would be easy.
Among these were Microsoft's Visio diagraming software,
Omnigraffle Pro works for me perfectly as a Visio replacement. But it might depend on your specific needs whether it can fully replace Visio.
Was that a rhetorical question?
In addition to running nothing but VMware, I have also heard of organizations setting up Macs to run only Citrix client, making the Mac nothing more than a remote Windows terminal. As for Boot Camp, let's see how many more IT departments will offer helpful "solutions" for Mac compatibility such as this:
http://www.cstv.com/ot/apple-help.html
You keep writing this. Just where are these organizations? Why would anybody who knows anything about Boot Camp run two OSs instead of just one if they need just Windows? Only a complete idiot would incur the performance and RAM penalties of running VMWare if they won't use OS X at all. Or even for that matter pay more for Macs if all they need is Windows? If you want to talk anecdotally, I know people who need to connect to Microsoft Access at work and boot directly to Windows via Boot Camp for the entire workday. But when they go home, they reboot their MBs and MBPs to OS X.
Currently OSX supports Intel & PowerPC, and with the iPhone they are adding the ARM architecture.
In future Universal could mean ARM/Intel/PowerPC.
Talk about having your bases covered!
To me, the interesting thing about OSX is it's support for multiple processor architectures.
Currently OSX supports Intel & PowerPC, and with the iPhone they are adding the ARM architecture.
In future Universal could mean ARM/Intel/PowerPC.
Talk about having your bases covered!
I don't expect the PPC to hold on for much longer in terms of update cycles. There's a chance that 10.6 won't support them. If 10.6 supports PPC, I'm reasonably sure that 10.7 won't. Even 32 bit hardware support might go away with 10.7 as well.
The UI system is quite different for the touch devices. Maybe a program for the Mac and one for iPhone might share some underlying source code, the UIs are different enough that they probably should be maintained as separate programs. It sounds like they rely on different Cocoa frameworks, even if they are similar.
Where've you been? This has already happened ever since Apple switched from being a computer company to an electronics company (Apple Computer to Apple Inc.) AppleCare particularly is a real hassle now from where it was 2 years ago. This is why we got the iPhone first when Leopard was originally promised first.
This is English, right? I recognise the words!
Having a Mac on your desk does not necessarily mean running Mac OS. If you want a better test, give them a Mac with both Mac OS and Windows installed, and then see which OS people are booting into after a month. And people using VMware may just run VMware full screen all the time and never use Mac applications
The beauty is Apple really doesn't care that much as long as you buy their hardware.
However, there's no reason to run VMware all the time. At that point, you're better off just bootcamping.
Once a product is ported to Eclipse it can be ported very quickly to any o.s. that supports Eclipse. So Notes 8.5 due later this year will run on Win32, Win64, Linux, and Mac OS X, computers.
Well yes and no. No Java SE 6 on OSX yet right? Just the developer preview? Or is that gone again?
Meh. At this rate Apple will support SE 6 about the same time SE 7 sees release.
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
Unless the users resent using Windows and threaten to leave the company for being treated like shit by IT
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
I really don't see how that's much easier than just replacing the computer anyway. The thing that might be easier is to ride out the license of some Mac program.
Unless the users resent using Windows and threaten to leave the company for being treated like shit by IT
Anyone who leaves a company because of the computer they use is better off somewhere else, both for them, and the company.
How many Mac support people really want to get dragged into supporting Windows on Macs? Even Apple states "Apple does not provide technical phone support for installing, using, or recovering Microsoft Windows."
As for the people wearing rose colored glasses, couldn't it just as easily go the other way? Doesn't running Windows on Macs also make it easier for IT departments to replace Macs with PCs?
1) Provide only Windows versions of applications
2) Make Mac users run Windows on their Macs in order to use those applications
3) After a while, Mac users get accustomed to doing all their work in Windows.
4) Replace Macs with PCs
Or
1) Buy a Windows PC to begin with. No step 2, 3 or 4.
You keep writing this over and over and proceeding from a fallacy right from the beginning, as I and others have noted. The article is about IBM trying to replace PCs with Macs, not vice versa. Answer one simple question: Why would anyone who wants to run exclusively Windows even consider buying a Mac when Windows PCs can be had for less? Give a logical answer to that one then we can talk.