Intel Moving to OSX?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
CNBC is reporting that a rumor (kinda an oxymoron, I know) that Intel is considering moving to OSX and Apple computers for their employees. That would be 80,000 machines, BTW. They are apparently *not* ready to migrate to Vista and are not denying a switch to Apple.



Kinda interesting.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,583moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    CNBC is reporting that a rumor (kinda an oxymoron, I know) that Intel is considering moving to OSX and Apple computers for their employees. That would be 80,000 machines, BTW. They are apparently *not* ready to migrate to Vista and are not denying a switch to Apple.



    Kinda interesting.



    Only problem is that Apple don't really sell a business-capable desktop other than the pricey Mac Pro. It certainly would be interesting to see what comes about but it would take such a long time to roll out that number of machines and change a company to a new OS that it probably won't happen for years and by then maybe Microsoft will have their junk sorted out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 18
    dogcowdogcow Posts: 713member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Only problem is that Apple don't really sell a business-capable desktop other than the pricey Mac Pro. It certainly would be interesting to see what comes about but it would take such a long time to roll out that number of machines and change a company to a new OS that it probably won't happen for years and by then maybe Microsoft will have their junk sorted out.



    Why is the iMac not considered a "business-capable" desktop? These are users who will not need PCI slots and extra hard drives. Plus they are easy to setup, move, and maintain. There is no reason a company could not use low end iMacs as business machines.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 18
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Mac mini? It's better than the desktop I got just 1 year ago.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 18
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dogcow View Post


    Why is the iMac not considered a "business-capable" desktop? These are users who will not need PCI slots and extra hard drives. Plus they are easy to setup, move, and maintain. There is no reason a company could not use low end iMacs as business machines.



    Indeed. "But businesses need to swap out bad components!" Wrong. They need to get their users back up and running in the least time possible. Replacing the entire machine is easier, if you keep a stock of spares. (And most major corporations do - you should see the stacks of waiting hardware around here.) Doubly so in an environment with portable user accounts.



    However - I'll believe Intel switching to MacOS X when I see it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 18
    bbwibbwi Posts: 812member
    There have been several stories about companies "switching" to Apple (Salesforce.com, Federal Gov). I think the appeal right now is to simply diversify computing environments to help guard against catastrophic Windows viruses, worms, etc.



    I don't feel that Apple hardware is to blame for the lack of these large mass deployments but rather OS X and supporting software is simply not as advanced as some of the software available for Windows.



    Microsoft is generations beyond where Apple is when it comes to deployments as large as Intel. Remember, Windows has tight integration with SO many other products that assist in these insanely large environments i.e. Exchange, SMS, virtualization farms, Terminal Server farms, SQL and Oracle, Active Directory, Group Policy, Network Access Control/Protection... the list goes on. Not to mention all the third party apps that simply don't run on OS X. I'm obviously not saying that Apple doesn't support these products but the quality of support is much better for Windows than it is for Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 18
    And an iMac is a pretty expensive machine and OVER-capable for most "large corporate" type workstation computers.

    How many workstations in that environment need all that the iMac offers?...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 18
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Minis ftw.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 18
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 877member
    Just reminder. Motorola was nearly 100% Mac, prior to Apple deciding that they didn't want clones around anymore. Motorola had an entire Starmax division to eat because of Apple's decision.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 18
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    A lot of companies were 100% mac. Then windows won.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 18
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member
    I think Mac Mini are more then capable for business type machine. It is only a matter of Intel investing in Software made for Mac.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 18
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 877member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mydo View Post


    A lot of companies were 100% mac. Then windows won.



    Won? I think that if you look, you'll see that Macs are gaining ground on the corporate scene. That comes at the expense of Windoze based PCs.



    Motorola's case was a one of a kind situation with regard to relations with Apple. They were manufacturing chips for Apple, and they had invested a LOT of money in their Starmax computer division. Then Apple pulled the plug on clones, which left Motorola with a huge stock of pretty much worthless inventory, not to mention other associated costs that came from ramping that division up.



    It wasn't the Mac itself that turned Motorola off, they loved them.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 18
    hfuhfu Posts: 55member
    iMac is quite capable for business class machine. Big company is moving away from swapping bad components on existing machine. They will simply replace new unit for their staff. Not to mention a lot of corporates are offering laptops as work machine, and they have IT department to take care of system level support.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 18
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mydo View Post


    A lot of companies were 100% mac. Then windows won.



    A lot of companies were 100% windows. Then the mac won.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 18
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Minis ftw.



    They would very easy steal and would require a separate vendor for displays. Apple's best bet would be to reintroduce a GMA iMac.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 18
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Only problem is that Apple don't really sell a business-capable desktop other than the pricey Mac Pro. . . .



    Most businesses these days seem to issue laptops. Even so, out here iMacs are common sights visible behind office windows.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    And an iMac is a pretty expensive machine and OVER-capable for most "large corporate" type workstation computers.

    How many workstations in that environment need all that the iMac offers?...



    My company gets a big enterprise discount from Dell on account that it's a subsidiary of a very large company. I've seen the price list. The prices aren't that far off from the low-end MBP, which is a lot more capable of a machine than what I have. My Dell is a piece of crap with even worse specs than the lowest-end macbook, aside from a 15" screen.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mydo View Post


    A lot of companies were 100% mac. Then Macs lost.



    Fixed.



    Windows really didn't win, Apple just made too many strategic mistakes in the 1990s.



    -t
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 18
    wircwirc Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bbwi View Post


    There have been several stories about companies "switching" to Apple (Salesforce.com, Federal Gov). I think the appeal right now is to simply diversify computing environments to help guard against catastrophic Windows viruses, worms, etc.



    Indeed. The Feds were/are looking into Red Hat for a lot of deployments, but I believe there were some contract problems, and it was all just to keep the systems from being taken down entirely by some small problem snowballing through thousands of machines.



    Autodesk is also encouraging employees to switch over and use parallels... for their own software?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 18
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


    Fixed.



    Windows really didn't win, Apple just made too many strategic mistakes in the 1990s.



    -t



    That's like saying a football team did win the superbowl so much as the other team threw too many interceptions.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.