Intel Moving to OSX?
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.
Kinda interesting.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
How many workstations in that environment need all that the iMac offers?...
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.
A lot of companies were 100% mac. Then windows won.
A lot of companies were 100% windows. Then the mac won.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.