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
Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Boot Camp lets you boot straight into Windows without the Mac OS around it and without the performance penalty of Fusion. But these people aren't saying they prefer the build quality of the MBPs, most of them liked the Mac OS better and would use Windows apps via Fusion only when absolutely necessary.
Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Boot Camp lets you boot straight into Windows without the Mac OS around it and without the performance penalty of Fusion. But these people aren't saying they prefer the build quality of the MBPs, most of them liked the Mac OS better and would use Windows apps via Fusion only when absolutely necessary.
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:
IBM has 386k employees (source), and this was a pilot program on 24 of them. By my math, that's making a 0.0062% commitment to the idea. By the end of the year, if they add 50 more and another 50, that'll be 0.0320% of their workforce. If they add another 100 per year, they'll have everyone switched over within just under 4000 years. Glorious success!
I don't want to disparage this pilot study -- surely if it takes off, they'll switch at a rate faster than 100/year once they get going. But still, even counting the 930 people claimed to already be in the "Mac@IBM" group, this is a piffling uptake at the company. I have little doubt that even Microsoft has a larger installed base of Mac users than this, not even counting the Mac Business Unit or XBox groups.
Numbers this small at a company this huge seem pretty meaningless to me.
(The bigger news, to me, is that the MBPs were being used instead of Thinkpads. IBM may have spun off that division to Lenovo, but at the same time, to consider switching not just away from their "Own Brand" computers, but to a completely different platform, seems potentially significant to me. Or at least it would, somewhere down the road, if they take this beyond a handful of users in a pilot program...)
What's important about this trial is that is has been done at all.
What IBM is determining is whether this is feasable. If it is, and they decide to port DB2 over, it could result in very important moves by companies. Other than MS's database, DB2 is the last remaining commercial one not yet running on OS X. f it does, that will mean that IBM, which is platform agnostic, can recommend Macs to other enterprise companies that have accounts with them.
Along with the Lotus suite they are doing the finishing touches on, this, plus the other software mentioned is used widely amongst the enterprise.
Every time Apple makes one more step up the ladder, it gets them closer to the top. This will take time.
I work at IBM and im a pretty big mac user. There are actually a lot of macs at IBM. The program mentioned here is a very small number of people, but there are a lot of people in the company that either use their own mac laptop at work, or have specially requested one in place of a ThinkPad. Gettign IBM to pay for one is rare, but they sometimes do.
I think what is really happening is IBM is not very interested in VIsta and Office 2008. I would be very surprised to see IBM make any large steps towards Mac's, but I think they are already taking large steps towards Linux. I'd guess that 80-90% of the company still uses WinXP, but the internal Linux client is now mainstream and officially supported. Macs however are not officially supported.
One thing to remember about IBM is that they are in the odd position of serving your typical enterprise business, but internally IBM is a bunch of computer nerds. IBMers are more likely to have a strong preference for Mac or Linux than a standard group of employees in a non-tech business, and people that are willing to deal with things not being supported.
It is nice that IBM seems to not be holding a grudge against
Apple for discontinuing the use of processors designed by IBM.
IBM never had a grudge for Apple ditching IBM's PowerPC processors. The amount of business they had with Apple was insignificant. That played a big part for Apple going to Intel due to IBM's reluctance (and slow CPU improvements) and for IBM not believing that Apple was a big enough player to warrant changing their fabrications to accommodate them. In the end, it was all meant to be.
It is interesting thought that IBM is testing OSX for their use. More choices are always good for the consumer. I wonder if IBM would have even considered it if they were still in the desktop/notebook business before they sold Thinkpad to Lenovo.
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
Well duh.
The whole point is the ability to straddle in real-time. Of course if you make me jump through hoops to do everyday tasks I'll take the path of least resistance.
How about an even better test... run with Parallels and just have the Windows apps appear as needed, and spend the rest of your time in the OSX environment.
We have a similar small group at the large software corporation I work for, and they use Parallels. For all of them its 'from my cold dead hands'.
Macs however are not officially supported.... internally IBM is a bunch of computer nerds..... and people that are willing to deal with things not being supported.
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.
At least it will probably take many years to happen, if it happens.
True. Unlike just about any other company, I am invested in both the stock and the product (usually not a good idea). If I had to choose, I would prefer to hold on to the product longer than I'd prefer to hold to the stock!
How about an even better test... run with Parallels and just have the Windows apps appear as needed, and spend the rest of your time in the OSX environment.
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.
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
An obvious but irrelevant supposition. What rational human being would do that?
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.
Percentage-wise, from my not-so-limited experience, IT staff isn't as clueless as IT management.
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.
Maybe, but they can then spend their time developing application expertise, instead of troubleshooting system issues ad nauseum.
An obvious but irrelevant supposition. What rational human being would do that?
Is every human being rational? Do only rational people use computers?
Every time there is some good news about Macs, people start predicting the Microsoft's doom and Apple taking over the world. Meanwhile, I see PC nerds proclaiming "MAC's look nice, so I'm going to buy a MAC and run Windows only", IT departments telling Mac users to run Windows on their Macs, and everyone I know is asking me "Is it true MAC's can run Windows now?". So please forgive me if I seem a bit cynical.
The Lotus brand of software has been providing Mac's to some of the field technical sales people to allow them to demo the new Lotus software solutions for Mac. These include Lotus Notes 8.5 Beta which is publicly available, Lotus Sametime Connect 8 client, Quickr 8.1 via browser, Domino Web Access 8.01 via iPhone/iTouch or any browser, Lotus Symphony Alpha (not public yet but soon), Lotus Connections via browser and Websphere Portal via browser. Lotus Forms is being developed for Mac and Lotus Mobile Connect is used as a VPN solution for the Mac since AT&T does not have a Mac client at this date. Lotus Sametime Unyte Web Conferencing is being updated to allow full Mac support as is Lotus Sametime Meeting Center this summer. We are using these Lotus applications natively and not via VMWare Fusion. We use Fusion to demo our Lotus server based products that require a server OS like Red Hat Linux or Windows Server, etc.. We support Windows, Mac and Linux as many of our enterprise customers have all three installed and desire our solutions on each to be fully supported. More customers are adding the Mac as a platform for employees and we're seeing it more and more. IBM does not own the Thinkpad offering any longer and so we're not tied to that hardware as we were before. There are various groups optionally allowing employees to chose the Mac as an option when their PC comes up for replacement. We have various internal systems that require access and all of those can be accessed via browser applications.
My main concern: I hope Apple can handle the increased volume from becoming 'corporate' without affecting its innovation or product/service quality.
The larger they get, the more bureaucratized and microsoftized a lot of companies seem to become.
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.
Comments
Or is just that they are afraid to use the new Lenovo Thinkpads now that China makes them?
Yeah, because your Mac is made in California, right?
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
Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Boot Camp lets you boot straight into Windows without the Mac OS around it and without the performance penalty of Fusion. But these people aren't saying they prefer the build quality of the MBPs, most of them liked the Mac OS better and would use Windows apps via Fusion only when absolutely necessary.
I just hope it is not so successful that we all have to argue some more about whether Apple
has a monopoly or not
Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Boot Camp lets you boot straight into Windows without the Mac OS around it and without the performance penalty of Fusion. But these people aren't saying they prefer the build quality of the MBPs, most of them liked the Mac OS better and would use Windows apps via Fusion only when absolutely necessary.
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
Bold, or timid?
IBM has 386k employees (source), and this was a pilot program on 24 of them. By my math, that's making a 0.0062% commitment to the idea. By the end of the year, if they add 50 more and another 50, that'll be 0.0320% of their workforce. If they add another 100 per year, they'll have everyone switched over within just under 4000 years. Glorious success!
I don't want to disparage this pilot study -- surely if it takes off, they'll switch at a rate faster than 100/year once they get going. But still, even counting the 930 people claimed to already be in the "Mac@IBM" group, this is a piffling uptake at the company. I have little doubt that even Microsoft has a larger installed base of Mac users than this, not even counting the Mac Business Unit or XBox groups.
Numbers this small at a company this huge seem pretty meaningless to me.
(The bigger news, to me, is that the MBPs were being used instead of Thinkpads. IBM may have spun off that division to Lenovo, but at the same time, to consider switching not just away from their "Own Brand" computers, but to a completely different platform, seems potentially significant to me. Or at least it would, somewhere down the road, if they take this beyond a handful of users in a pilot program...)
What's important about this trial is that is has been done at all.
What IBM is determining is whether this is feasable. If it is, and they decide to port DB2 over, it could result in very important moves by companies. Other than MS's database, DB2 is the last remaining commercial one not yet running on OS X. f it does, that will mean that IBM, which is platform agnostic, can recommend Macs to other enterprise companies that have accounts with them.
Along with the Lotus suite they are doing the finishing touches on, this, plus the other software mentioned is used widely amongst the enterprise.
Every time Apple makes one more step up the ladder, it gets them closer to the top. This will take time.
But at least IBM is working on it.
I think what is really happening is IBM is not very interested in VIsta and Office 2008. I would be very surprised to see IBM make any large steps towards Mac's, but I think they are already taking large steps towards Linux. I'd guess that 80-90% of the company still uses WinXP, but the internal Linux client is now mainstream and officially supported. Macs however are not officially supported.
One thing to remember about IBM is that they are in the odd position of serving your typical enterprise business, but internally IBM is a bunch of computer nerds. IBMers are more likely to have a strong preference for Mac or Linux than a standard group of employees in a non-tech business, and people that are willing to deal with things not being supported.
woohoo! now that's a juicy rumor.
It is nice that IBM seems to not be holding a grudge against
Apple for discontinuing the use of processors designed by IBM.
IBM never had a grudge for Apple ditching IBM's PowerPC processors. The amount of business they had with Apple was insignificant. That played a big part for Apple going to Intel due to IBM's reluctance (and slow CPU improvements) and for IBM not believing that Apple was a big enough player to warrant changing their fabrications to accommodate them. In the end, it was all meant to be.
It is interesting thought that IBM is testing OSX for their use. More choices are always good for the consumer. I wonder if IBM would have even considered it if they were still in the desktop/notebook business before they sold Thinkpad to Lenovo.
This is good news.
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
Well duh.
The whole point is the ability to straddle in real-time. Of course if you make me jump through hoops to do everyday tasks I'll take the path of least resistance.
How about an even better test... run with Parallels and just have the Windows apps appear as needed, and spend the rest of your time in the OSX environment.
We have a similar small group at the large software corporation I work for, and they use Parallels. For all of them its 'from my cold dead hands'.
Macs however are not officially supported.... internally IBM is a bunch of computer nerds..... and people that are willing to deal with things not being supported.
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.
I hear you. It's a worry.
At least it will probably take many years to happen, if it happens.
True. Unlike just about any other company, I am invested in both the stock and the product (usually not a good idea). If I had to choose, I would prefer to hold on to the product longer than I'd prefer to hold to the stock!
How about an even better test... run with Parallels and just have the Windows apps appear as needed, and spend the rest of your time in the OSX environment.
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.
and three said the Mac offered a "worse experience."
What a biased experiment. This is completely false. Who in their right mind would rate the Mac experience worse than the Windows experience?!
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
An obvious but irrelevant supposition. What rational human being would do that?
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.
Percentage-wise, from my not-so-limited experience, IT staff isn't as clueless as IT management.
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.
Maybe, but they can then spend their time developing application expertise, instead of troubleshooting system issues ad nauseum.
An obvious but irrelevant supposition. What rational human being would do that?
Is every human being rational? Do only rational people use computers?
Every time there is some good news about Macs, people start predicting the Microsoft's doom and Apple taking over the world. Meanwhile, I see PC nerds proclaiming "MAC's look nice, so I'm going to buy a MAC and run Windows only", IT departments telling Mac users to run Windows on their Macs, and everyone I know is asking me "Is it true MAC's can run Windows now?". So please forgive me if I seem a bit cynical.
My main concern: I hope Apple can handle the increased volume from becoming 'corporate' without affecting its innovation or product/service quality.
The larger they get, the more bureaucratized and microsoftized a lot of companies seem to become.
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.
Where've you been?
Oh, right here (and happily so), including when Apple Computer became Apple Inc. and the iPhone came before Leopard.