My company has ONE old mac that we use to test websites in Shafari. The Mac is on our network, but nobody ever uses it unless an issue is reported in Shafari.
Well, get on it guacamole and tell your manager to buy some more!
I found it interesting that this study was published by Laura DiDio, an outspoken critic of open source software (especially Linux) and mouthpiece for SCO (as well as a sensationalist reporter involved in the fabrication of the Amiyville Horror story).
I wonder if she knows that a big part of the success of Mac OS X is its use of open standards and open source software (and making them accessible to mere mortals)?
While I want to believe this report, I can't help but wonder what her motivation in reporting this is.
My company has ONE old mac that we use to test websites in Shafari. The Mac is on our network, but nobody ever uses it unless an issue is reported in Shafari.
'Shafari' - does Sean Connery own a Mac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Of those who responded to the survey, nearly one-quarter said their firm had a "significant" number of Macs installed in their network, in excess of 30 or 50 units.
Must be a lot of exceptional 'Shafari' testing going on. Probably more exceptions than last year but I suspect not as much as next.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
Undoubtedly many are but only to run those legacy Windows Apps before they're replaced by browser-based ones.
Please look up the meaning of pervasive! I don't think I would call Macs an "unwelcome influence" on corporate networks. I think they are probably there for a pretty good reason and hardly "unwelcome".
From the English Police:
Pervasive means, "to become spread throughout all parts." It has no inherent negative/unwelcome connotation. Pervasive derives from the latin, "pervadere," which just means, "to pass through." It is not a cousin of "pervert."
The use of "pervasive" is 100% correct. For more info, please see, dictionary.com
I found it interesting that this study was published by Laura DiDio, an outspoken critic of open source software (especially Linux) and mouthpiece for SCO (as well as a sensationalist reporter involved in the fabrication of the Amiyville Horror story).
I wonder if she knows that a big part of the success of Mac OS X is its use of open standards and open source software (and making them accessible to mere mortals)?
While I want to believe this report, I can't help but wonder what her motivation in reporting this is.
Most people are critics of open source software. How can you not be?
The development model is all screwed up. Users are not considered to be important, only the developers. There is nowhere to go to when problems arise, etc.
When a company like Apple takes this software, puts its own people onto it, and fixes many problems, then gives that back to the community, they get criticized for not doing it the way these self styled overlords want it.
When they then spend hundreds of millions adding their own work to the software that is proprietary, the complaints pile up even more. It's insane!
The truth is that if it weren't for corporate sponsorship, many of the major open software projects wouldn't even get off the ground.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
When I worked for my university's IT department last year, I helped out on the Macs (along with our senior Mac person), but primarily only the school of education and president's office used Macs.
In the school of education. they would buy Mac Pros and MBPs, with 4-5 GB of RAM to run reading/writing apps, and in the president's office, they used iMacs, with Parallels, as most everyone needed to run Access, and the president likes Macs. It's just that in those 2 applications, Macs are overkill, as education doesn't need 4 GB workstations, but they had a big federal grant, and if you need Access, you're running Windows anyway.
The only thing that was annoying, is when our marketing department decided to upgrade to Leopard as soon as the licenses came through, and then they were mad because some apps broke. The joys of working on the edge.
Mac use in other departments was sporadic, but there was some in just about every department. (PPC and Intel). The adaption rate seemed to be increasing, especially among students, but we really didn't support students, other than help connecting to the network.
The various IT directors used MBPs, as about half the servers are running RH, and it was handy to have a terminal and run Fusion on the same laptop. I primarily used Minis and iMacs, but we also had Vista, XP, and Ubuntu desktops as well.
Indeed. I often have people asking me how I got a Mac Mini on my desk... "I went to the Apple Store and bought it myself." It sucks to spend $850 on personal equipment for the office, but it sucks less than using the Dell they gave me (which has been reformatted with Linux).
LOL... Most of my college papers were formatted using troff and nroff
True, but the sales of Mac-mini's aren't that large and I highly doubt people are dumping down the change for the iMac or the Mac Pro just to have one at the office.
I have friends at certain companies who are more than wealthy enough to get the Pro but are working through their employer to get one allocated. These are systems engineers, not graphics design artists.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
One of my BILs was responsible for about 500 Macs in his department alone, before he retired from Motorola. That was in addition to his regular duties, the Macs didn't keep him anywhere near busy. Motorola had tons of Macs, at one time.
If IT departments tell employees that they can have Macs as long as they reformat the hard drive and run Windows only, would that be ok? IT gets to standardize on pure Windows, and employees get to have a computer with an Apple logo on it.
If IT departments tell employees that they can have Macs as long as they reformat the hard drive and run Windows only, would that be ok? IT gets to standardize on pure Windows, and employees get to have a computer with an Apple logo on it.
I don't get the direction you're trying to go here. You mean in terms of the survey or as something to actually use? Having the machine just to get the logo is pretty silly, I don't see how it would be an acceptable compromise, that's the worst of both worlds.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
I'm willing to bet that many of the Macs are laptops that upper management wants to carry around. They (the Macs) may not be on the network 24/7. But are capable of logging on when connected. Either in OSX or when booted with Windows.
The way I see it. An IT department has two choices when the boss wants a MacPro laptop. Either they get him the MacPro laptop and configure it to work on "his" network. Or draw straws to determine who's the unlucky stiff that has to explain to the boss why he can't have a MacPto laptop.
It is not accurate to say that 90% of all businesses uses PCs'. It's more accurate to say that 90% of all business computers are PCs'. And the vast majority of these business PCs' are $300 dummy networked computers that sits on someone desk 24/7. That gets replaced every 3 years when it's time to re-new the network service contract. There's no way that Apple will ever replace these PCs' with a $1200 iMacs'. However, it's being to make sense for businesses to replace the more expensive dedicated work stations and laptops with Macs'.
I'm willing to bet that many of the Macs are laptops that upper management wants to carry around. They (the Macs) may not be on the network 24/7. But are capable of logging on when connected. Either in OSX or when booted with Windows.
The way I see it. An IT department has two choices when the boss wants a MacPro laptop. Either they get him the MacPro laptop and configure it to work on "his" network. Or draw straws to determine who's the unlucky stiff that has to explain to the boss why he can't have a MacPto laptop.
It is not accurate to say that 90% of all businesses uses PCs'. It's more accurate to say that 90% of all business computers are PCs'. And the vast majority of these business PCs' are $300 dummy networked computers that sits on someone desk 24/7. That gets replaced every 3 years when it's time to re-new the network service contract. There's no way that Apple will ever replace these PCs' with a $1200 iMacs'. However, it's being to make sense for businesses to replace the more expensive dedicated work stations and laptops with Macs'.
The voice of experience, or maybe not.......................
The presence of Apple products in the enterprise is much more pervasive and complex than previously thought, according to new study, which reveals the Macs and the Mac OS X operating system are now gaining significant momentum among corporate users.
A survey of 750 global IT administrators and C-level executives by the Yankee Group found that nearly four out of five businesses -- or approximately 80% --have at least a few Macs and the Mac OS X operating system installed in their networks. ][/url][/c]
In related news, most families report having red head step children
Most people are critics of open source software. How can you not be?
You mean people like IBM?
Quote:
The development model is all screwed up. Users are not considered to be important, only the developers. There is nowhere to go to when problems arise, etc.
First, this is NOT open source but the more zealot "free" software movement. Second, there are many companies that provide software services for FOSS software. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun to start with.
Quote:
When a company like Apple takes this software, puts its own people onto it, and fixes many problems, then gives that back to the community, they get criticized for not doing it the way these self styled overlords want it.
The OPEN SOURCE community has rarely (and I say rarely because there are always a few jerks) done so. The FREE SOFTWARE community has always been critical of BOTH Apple and the open source projects it depends on. This is what you read about.
Folks that use permissive open source licenses (like FreeBSD) do NOT expect anything back.
Quote:
When they then spend hundreds of millions adding their own work to the software that is proprietary, the complaints pile up even more. It's insane!
There are strategic reasons for large corporations to donate technology to FOSS. IBM's Linux strategy has been very successful in clobbering Sun. By making Linux enterprise ready (which FOSS zealots would claim it already was) they vastly devalued the Sun operating system (Solaris). It was losing the Unix OS market war (AIX) and torpedoing the Unix OS market as a whole helped IBM more than hurt them since they are far better than Sun at being a service company.
Quote:
The truth is that if it weren't for corporate sponsorship, many of the major open software projects wouldn't even get off the ground.
Yes and no. Yes, many but not all significant ones. FOSS zealots like to gloss over number of corporate coders working on "free" software.
Open Source proponents don't much care. They just want their stuff to get used.
That said, there are significant advantages for corporate use of the GPL license because you can lock out competitors.
Comments
My company has ONE old mac that we use to test websites in Shafari. The Mac is on our network, but nobody ever uses it unless an issue is reported in Shafari.
Well, get on it guacamole and tell your manager to buy some more!
I wonder if she knows that a big part of the success of Mac OS X is its use of open standards and open source software (and making them accessible to mere mortals)?
While I want to believe this report, I can't help but wonder what her motivation in reporting this is.
[...] unlike their PC using coworkers who's machine are so locked down they would be lucky if they could change the color of their desktop.
You're right. The Windows PC users have DeepFreeze installed on their machines here.
My company has ONE old mac that we use to test websites in Shafari. The Mac is on our network, but nobody ever uses it unless an issue is reported in Shafari.
'Shafari' - does Sean Connery own a Mac?
Of those who responded to the survey, nearly one-quarter said their firm had a "significant" number of Macs installed in their network, in excess of 30 or 50 units.
Must be a lot of exceptional 'Shafari' testing going on. Probably more exceptions than last year but I suspect not as much as next.
McD
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
Undoubtedly many are but only to run those legacy Windows Apps before they're replaced by browser-based ones.
McD
Please look up the meaning of pervasive! I don't think I would call Macs an "unwelcome influence" on corporate networks. I think they are probably there for a pretty good reason and hardly "unwelcome".
From the English Police:
Pervasive means, "to become spread throughout all parts." It has no inherent negative/unwelcome connotation. Pervasive derives from the latin, "pervadere," which just means, "to pass through." It is not a cousin of "pervert."
The use of "pervasive" is 100% correct. For more info, please see, dictionary.com
You're right. The Windows PC users have DeepFreeze installed on their machines here.
This is actually a huge benefit to Apple's perception in the marketplace. So many of
us suffer on PCs all day at work -- PCs that are shackled and limited in so many ways
to "protect" us from the horrors of what could go wrong and infect the whole network . . .
Then you think about how well your iPod works, even after three years or more. Then
you play with a friend's iPhone, and end up getting one yourself. Then a mac for
your desk at home. Then perhaps a MacBook . . . That's my story, anyway.
Meahwhile, that machine you use at work that's intentionally crippled by someone
to keep you "safe" bothers you more and more each day. You just KNOW you could
do your work in less time if you could use certain software, or configure such and such
differently. But those things aren't allowed. It grates on one's nerves constantly.
***
Regarding this article (which really does read more like an advert), I have to think
that most of these "4 out of 5" companies are like mine. We're huge, and could
afford as many macs as we like, but the handful we have are in a small room
somewhere, probably not even on the network, and they are only used for
video editing. And unlike some who have posted, we are not allowed to bring
in our own equipment.
There's a long way to go yet . . .
As much as I love the mac, I don't need that sort of headache in my work day, I've got enough things going on.
Parallels isn't much of a headache...
I found it interesting that this study was published by Laura DiDio, an outspoken critic of open source software (especially Linux) and mouthpiece for SCO (as well as a sensationalist reporter involved in the fabrication of the Amiyville Horror story).
I wonder if she knows that a big part of the success of Mac OS X is its use of open standards and open source software (and making them accessible to mere mortals)?
While I want to believe this report, I can't help but wonder what her motivation in reporting this is.
Most people are critics of open source software. How can you not be?
The development model is all screwed up. Users are not considered to be important, only the developers. There is nowhere to go to when problems arise, etc.
When a company like Apple takes this software, puts its own people onto it, and fixes many problems, then gives that back to the community, they get criticized for not doing it the way these self styled overlords want it.
When they then spend hundreds of millions adding their own work to the software that is proprietary, the complaints pile up even more. It's insane!
The truth is that if it weren't for corporate sponsorship, many of the major open software projects wouldn't even get off the ground.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
When I worked for my university's IT department last year, I helped out on the Macs (along with our senior Mac person), but primarily only the school of education and president's office used Macs.
In the school of education. they would buy Mac Pros and MBPs, with 4-5 GB of RAM to run reading/writing apps, and in the president's office, they used iMacs, with Parallels, as most everyone needed to run Access, and the president likes Macs. It's just that in those 2 applications, Macs are overkill, as education doesn't need 4 GB workstations, but they had a big federal grant, and if you need Access, you're running Windows anyway.
The only thing that was annoying, is when our marketing department decided to upgrade to Leopard as soon as the licenses came through, and then they were mad because some apps broke. The joys of working on the edge.
Mac use in other departments was sporadic, but there was some in just about every department. (PPC and Intel). The adaption rate seemed to be increasing, especially among students, but we really didn't support students, other than help connecting to the network.
The various IT directors used MBPs, as about half the servers are running RH, and it was handy to have a terminal and run Fusion on the same laptop. I primarily used Minis and iMacs, but we also had Vista, XP, and Ubuntu desktops as well.
Indeed. I often have people asking me how I got a Mac Mini on my desk... "I went to the Apple Store and bought it myself." It sucks to spend $850 on personal equipment for the office, but it sucks less than using the Dell they gave me (which has been reformatted with Linux).
LOL... Most of my college papers were formatted using troff and nroff
True, but the sales of Mac-mini's aren't that large and I highly doubt people are dumping down the change for the iMac or the Mac Pro just to have one at the office.
I have friends at certain companies who are more than wealthy enough to get the Pro but are working through their employer to get one allocated. These are systems engineers, not graphics design artists.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
One of my BILs was responsible for about 500 Macs in his department alone, before he retired from Motorola. That was in addition to his regular duties, the Macs didn't keep him anywhere near busy. Motorola had tons of Macs, at one time.
I'd like to know how many of these are financial institutions- I mean does anybody know of one that uses Number 08 instead of Excel?
And why can't you run Excel on a Mac? Either the Mac Office version or in Windows (on an Intel Mac.)
If IT departments tell employees that they can have Macs as long as they reformat the hard drive and run Windows only, would that be ok? IT gets to standardize on pure Windows, and employees get to have a computer with an Apple logo on it.
I don't get the direction you're trying to go here. You mean in terms of the survey or as something to actually use? Having the machine just to get the logo is pretty silly, I don't see how it would be an acceptable compromise, that's the worst of both worlds.
How many of those Macs are properly supported by those organizations? How many of those Macs are running Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware and simply being used as Windows machines?
I'm willing to bet that many of the Macs are laptops that upper management wants to carry around. They (the Macs) may not be on the network 24/7. But are capable of logging on when connected. Either in OSX or when booted with Windows.
The way I see it. An IT department has two choices when the boss wants a MacPro laptop. Either they get him the MacPro laptop and configure it to work on "his" network. Or draw straws to determine who's the unlucky stiff that has to explain to the boss why he can't have a MacPto laptop.
It is not accurate to say that 90% of all businesses uses PCs'. It's more accurate to say that 90% of all business computers are PCs'. And the vast majority of these business PCs' are $300 dummy networked computers that sits on someone desk 24/7. That gets replaced every 3 years when it's time to re-new the network service contract. There's no way that Apple will ever replace these PCs' with a $1200 iMacs'. However, it's being to make sense for businesses to replace the more expensive dedicated work stations and laptops with Macs'.
I'm willing to bet that many of the Macs are laptops that upper management wants to carry around. They (the Macs) may not be on the network 24/7. But are capable of logging on when connected. Either in OSX or when booted with Windows.
The way I see it. An IT department has two choices when the boss wants a MacPro laptop. Either they get him the MacPro laptop and configure it to work on "his" network. Or draw straws to determine who's the unlucky stiff that has to explain to the boss why he can't have a MacPto laptop.
It is not accurate to say that 90% of all businesses uses PCs'. It's more accurate to say that 90% of all business computers are PCs'. And the vast majority of these business PCs' are $300 dummy networked computers that sits on someone desk 24/7. That gets replaced every 3 years when it's time to re-new the network service contract. There's no way that Apple will ever replace these PCs' with a $1200 iMacs'. However, it's being to make sense for businesses to replace the more expensive dedicated work stations and laptops with Macs'.
The voice of experience, or maybe not.......................
The presence of Apple products in the enterprise is much more pervasive and complex than previously thought, according to new study, which reveals the Macs and the Mac OS X operating system are now gaining significant momentum among corporate users.
A survey of 750 global IT administrators and C-level executives by the Yankee Group found that nearly four out of five businesses -- or approximately 80% --have at least a few Macs and the Mac OS X operating system installed in their networks. ][/url][/c]
In related news, most families report having red head step children
Most people are critics of open source software. How can you not be?
You mean people like IBM?
The development model is all screwed up. Users are not considered to be important, only the developers. There is nowhere to go to when problems arise, etc.
First, this is NOT open source but the more zealot "free" software movement. Second, there are many companies that provide software services for FOSS software. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun to start with.
When a company like Apple takes this software, puts its own people onto it, and fixes many problems, then gives that back to the community, they get criticized for not doing it the way these self styled overlords want it.
The OPEN SOURCE community has rarely (and I say rarely because there are always a few jerks) done so. The FREE SOFTWARE community has always been critical of BOTH Apple and the open source projects it depends on. This is what you read about.
Folks that use permissive open source licenses (like FreeBSD) do NOT expect anything back.
When they then spend hundreds of millions adding their own work to the software that is proprietary, the complaints pile up even more. It's insane!
There are strategic reasons for large corporations to donate technology to FOSS. IBM's Linux strategy has been very successful in clobbering Sun. By making Linux enterprise ready (which FOSS zealots would claim it already was) they vastly devalued the Sun operating system (Solaris). It was losing the Unix OS market war (AIX) and torpedoing the Unix OS market as a whole helped IBM more than hurt them since they are far better than Sun at being a service company.
The truth is that if it weren't for corporate sponsorship, many of the major open software projects wouldn't even get off the ground.
Yes and no. Yes, many but not all significant ones. FOSS zealots like to gloss over number of corporate coders working on "free" software.
Open Source proponents don't much care. They just want their stuff to get used.
That said, there are significant advantages for corporate use of the GPL license because you can lock out competitors.