I do have OS X Server based infrastructure. I am running both Open Directory and Active Directory. Some call me crazy, I call it accommodation. But it definately increases the workload dealing with the integration of it all. And there are much more problems for Mac users when in a hybrid environment.
I do call you crazy. Why both, exactly? Have some Windows NT4 machines still kicking around or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thevaf
USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt are peripherals/toys - I was referring to infrastructure software such as Exchange and Active Directory, which dominates the corporate IT market.
Both software packages Apple MacOSX supports fluently. I use Exchange with Apple Mail and it works perfectly - my dad has a C2D 24" iMac and his work does not allow external email clients to connect (web and local ethernet clients only) and Exchange web mail works flawlessly in Safari. Active Directory has been in the Mac for quite a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thevaf
How about some virtualization of OS X if you want to penetrate the corporate market? Apple discontinued XServe, so if a corporation wants your "OS X Server-based infrastructure" they have to buy a Mac Mini. But if Apple allowed licensing of OS X Server to be virtualized, I bet many IT depts. will at least start tinkering with the idea.
Macmini and MacPro. Big Xeon towers, I think a lot of people would be happy with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thevaf
By discontinuing Xserve, Apple is making a clear point that it does not want to go into the corporate infrastructure market. They want the end-user, which is fine, and they do it the best, but they need to play nice. They learned that lesson with iWork/MS Office - why do you think it took till 2011 until Outlook came out for Mac? Because most corporate messaging is done by Exchange.
They got rid of Xserve because it wasn't selling, not because the fruit said "screw the business users". Entourage was used before Outlook on the Mac, and before Entourage it was Outlook.
You buy 1000 mbp's and have image them for users in a corporate setting with software, etc. and get rid of garage band and other software. How do you do it?
Symantec Altiris (Deployment Server) supports Windows, OS X, and Linux clients for deployment of software, and (I believe for the Mac) imaging.
Windows user: why would I want to sync with my desktop when corporate sync through the microsoft exchange server; with little to no effort.
Well, it's not about you. I can imagine that some people can do that. For others, there may be little to no effort on their parts, but the stage has been set by a whole cadre of MS Certifieds whose sole occupation is to make it possible and maintain its possibility.
But, I can imagine that some people have a life outside the corporate office, that they might have a spouse or family member they want to synch with, and they may own more than one device privately themselves.
And, there are countless small businesses and non-profits and schools and institutions that are looking for inexpensive, easy to configure and maintain systems that don't require paying a whole department of cheery chaps with MS certifications, nor paying the onerous licensing fees to MS for every little feature or new user or added access point or whatever.
There are stories every day about how this very idea you are dismissing actually turns out to be a godsend for individuals and small operations everywhere. They had no idea what was possible with so little equipment and so little software, and for so little time, effort and money. It also helps them to compete with the big boys in their industries asymmetrically; in many areas they are able to leapfrog over different technologies despite "accepted wisdom" to the contrary.
Why? Especially in business - the iMac with the power cable and ethernet cable, or the new Mac notebooks teamed with the thunderbolt displays are awesome, clutter free workstations.
Businesses need to keep running. If need be, when a monitor dies you can go many places and buy one and be back running within an hour. Sure you can connect a second monitor to an iMac to keep running but then you have just thrown out your argument of a clutter free workstation.
To replace that dead monitor on an iMac you can't use the computer while it is being done. Are you going to keep spare iMacs lying around the office?
Businesses need to keep running. If need be, when a monitor dies you can go many places and buy one and be back running within an hour. Sure you can connect a second monitor to an iMac to keep running but then you have just thrown out your argument of a clutter free workstation.
To replace that dead monitor on an iMac you can't use the computer while it is being done. Are you going to keep spare iMacs lying around the office?
How do these organizations manage laptops? Same deal.
How often does a monitor die? The last computer monitor that's died on me was in the CRT days, and that was a refurb from a second tier brand, KDS or something like that. Even CRTs last nearly a decade. I've not owned an LCD that long, but none of those have died yet.
If you have hundreds of installations, any decent organization should have a few spare machines pre-imaged, regardless of brand. With an iMac, it's easy to transfer the user's drive data to a spare machine in half an hour using target disk mode (doesn't require a monitor), fix the old one when it's convenient and the old one is ready for the next swap-out.
How do these organizations manage laptops? Same deal.
How often does a monitor die? If you have hundreds of installations, any decent organization should have a few spare machines pre-imaged, regardless of brand.
Exactly. The iMac argument becomes moot when you realise almost everyone will most likely be running a laptop as their only machine, which in the world of portable everything (still waiting for the portable kitchen sink) is becoming increasingly more common. I'm in the head office with 5 other people, 5 of us are on laptops and the book keeping guy is on the desktop.
I'm on a MacBook Pro (developer) and the IT Manager (my boss) is using a Asus with Linux. If either of these machines goes wobbly then we'll be screwed because these are our personal machines and we'll need to get them repaired, but the windows laptops just sit in a cupboard - literally.
Broken? Get one out the cupboard.
Heck, we even have an IBM X336 in the cupboard for some reason.
Well, it's not about you. I can imagine that some people can do that. For others, there may be little to no effort on their parts, but the stage has been set by a whole cadre of MS Certifieds whose sole occupation is to make it possible and maintain its possibility.
But, I can imagine that some people have a life outside the corporate office, that they might have a spouse or family member they want to synch with, and they may own more than one device privately themselves.
And, there are countless small businesses and non-profits and schools and institutions that are looking for inexpensive, easy to configure and maintain systems that don't require paying a whole department of cheery chaps with MS certifications, nor paying the onerous licensing fees to MS for every little feature or new user or added access point or whatever.
There are stories every day about how this very idea you are dismissing actually turns out to be a godsend for individuals and small operations everywhere. They had no idea what was possible with so little equipment and so little software, and for so little time, effort and money. It also helps them to compete with the big boys in their industries asymmetrically; in many areas they are able to leapfrog over different technologies despite "accepted wisdom" to the contrary.
that's why you go to the da cloud if you're a small office. pay the fee for Office 365 and hosted exchange and don't bother to buy any of your own hardware or software. i know someone that sets up Windows servers for small businesses and i always tell him to just tell his clients to go to da cloud.
that's why you go to the cloud if you're a small office. pay the fee for Office 365 and hosted exchange and don't bother to buy any of your own hardware or software. i know someone that sets up Windows servers for small businesses and i always tell him to just tell his clients to go to the cloud.
*the
fixed
Jokes aside.
Using SAS can be a benefit to a business but it can also be a curse. Yes you don't have to maintain your own hardware, but if something goes tits up with the software provider then you're stuck loosing money every second. If you also want to expand your software's capabilities to meet your business needs, then it is very likely that you will not be able to extend your software beyond its default set your originally purchased and it will become a hindrance - you would have to use a service such as Azure that would most likely be as expensive if not more expensive than owning your own hardware due to fees associated.
With your own hardware you can expand, tweak, twiddle, chop, change and kick it around to suit your needs.
Linux for the servers and the Macintosh for the desktops. Powerful servers for cheap and capable workstations with proven long life spans.
Most enterprise IT folks are against Apple because they haven't kept up with all the changes. Many Enterprise IT folks have a strong distaste of Apple and their products stemming directly from the bad years at Apple prior to Steve Jobs return and restructuring. Mac OS X didn't ship until 2000/2001 and it's come a long way from even Jaguar days.
What they don't know staggers the mind...
1. Their view of Apple stems from Mac OS 7-9 days where the system was bizarre (AppleTalk, etc.) and locked down in ways that would make a Geek cringe
2. They don't know Mac OS X is really Unix under the hood (most enterprise IT folks are very familiar with Linux and UNIX). Show them Apache, SSH, top, ps, vim, emacs, etc.
3. They don't know that Mac OS X can talk to Exchange 2007 / 2010
4. They don't know they can join ActiveDirectory easily (10.7.2 fixed an issue in 10.7.0/1)
5. They don't know you can dual boot a Mac with Windows
6. They don't know you can run VMWare Fusion or Parallels to run Windows in a VM
7. They don't know Citrix has a Mac OS X Client
8. They don't know how much faster Mac OS X boots than even Win7 64bit. They are completely unaware of how much smoother everything is in general
9. They don't know they can enterprise manage Mac's using JAMF Casper Suite
10. They don't know they can run Casper Suite on a Linux / UNIX server that can run Java Tomcat & MySQL server. (i.e. they don't need a Mac server at all)
11. They don't know about Apple Remote Desktop
12. They might not know how good TeamViewer is on the Mac (cross platform remote control)
14. They don't know how much more secure Mac OS X is than Windows, they are polluted by the FUD being spread whenever some minor issue hits the media
Enterprise IT is somewhat familiar with iPads (only because Exec's demanded it), when iOS 5 shipped an alert went out stating that it fixes 96 vulnerabilities iniOS 4. So they made an urgent demand to upgrade all iPhones and iPads when Apples servers were overwhelmed and many users were getting bricked as a result. Later the next day, they had run some penetration testing and determined that the vulnerabilities were nowhere near as bad a risk as they first assumed.
If your enterprise is not supporting iOS devices yet, make sure they know about Good.com's Good for Enterprise server. It is very close to BlackBerry levels of security and new features are pouring out of Good every couple of months. Good runs on iOS and Android phones and is quickly stealing business from RIM / BlackBerry.
OS X is a certified Unix, and Linux incorporates most of the strengths of Unix operating systems. Either is going to provide more security and stability for an enterprise than Windows can.
Windows is at its core a single-user system, onto which multi-user capabilities have been grafted. In contrast, Unix is inherently multi-user, and hundreds of thousands of programming decisions have been made throughout all levels of the OS to reflect that, keeping processes and files protected in ways Microsoft won't be able to match without losing backward compatibility, often resorting to bizarre workarounds like directory virtualization which has broken more than a few apps.
Moreover, Microsoft has a long history of prioritizing developer convenience over end-user security, resulting in a great proliferation of apps, but which have a dizzying scope of vulnerabilities.
Unix is the core of computing, and the core of the Internet. Microsoft is currently the last man standing with a non-Unix-flavored OS, but even they offer a modest admission: Enterprise editions of Win 7 come with a Unix shell, as though recognizing the relative lameness of DOS.
Microsoft is popular only because Microsoft has been popular. This has led to an entrenched vendor lock-in unlike anything we've seen before. But as Mac popularity grows, and as Linux continues to dominate the server space, IT staffer arguments favoring Windows become ever more self-evidently self-serving, providing little if any value to the organizations they serve.
Seeing BASH in Windows suggests a dangerous fork in the road ahead for Microsoft: they'll either stay with their inherently brittle kernel and hope that patching it can keep it alive, or they'll switch to a Unix kernel.
I'm not sure which is riskier for them. I'm just glad I don't need to make that decision. I use Mac and Linux here.
That was one of the big reasons for me heading down the Macintosh route. UNIX.
I love Linux but the desktop variants annoy me to no end, but boy how I love to rip the thing apart when setting up a new server.
The biggest issue I have with Microsoft windows is the Registry.
Linux, Unix and the Mac get lovely little package receipts, Windows gets the registry. I'm an educated man, I know my way around a Microsoft Windows environment, but the registry is so flaky that I've managed to brick a couple of computers because of it.
Then you have the abysmal user permissions - or the lack thereof. I used to hack the XP machines in college by doing a couple of exploits, and these were the machines set up by the "Microsoft Certified" IT department. I do wonder how shocked they were to find that all the computers in the upper library terrace had a nice set of tits appear on screen when you started the computer. (I was 17, sue me )
Me and a few friends hacked Quake 2 onto one of the servers to play network games as well. Fun times for all!
The reason for Microsoft's popularity is nothing short of brainwashing, as extreme as that sounds - go into a business with a clueless exec or an IT Manager who practically wears the windows flag on novelty underwear and they will not 'want', but 'need' MS Office, Windows and Exchange in order to function. I'm the only one in the office with Microsoft Office, everyone else has LibreOffice. No compatibility issues at all - I actually proffer LibreOffice calc when dealing with CSV files - at least there I can choose the damn character set.
What I don't get is why Windows has a termainal shell at all. In a *nix system its the swiss army knife of every possible command you could ever want, need and dream of. In Windows its just... there. Anything useful in the DOS Prompt has a GUI equivalent. Using a command line version, especially with DOS Syntax, just seems like such a roundabout way of completing a given task.
Standards are another issue as well, I don't need to say anymore than that - it is Microsoft, answer is obvious.
Apple should publish its own case study detailing how their own corporate IT infrastructure is set up. They should provide details including:
How many sites does Apple support?
How many end user systems does Apple support in their offices?
How many IT staff does Apple have in their offices?
Does Apple implement access controls on people's work computers, or are employees able to do whatever they want on work computers?
How much of Apple's IT infrastructure actually runs on Apple servers?
What server hardware and server operating systems are used, and for what purpose.
What directory service do they use (Active Directory, Open Directory or something else) for user authentication, contact info, etc.
Does this directory service span all of Apple's offices worldwide, or is each site operated independently?
For their corporate email, what email server do they use? Exchange Server or something else?
What server platform does Apple use for corporate file servers?
Does Apple provide VPN access to their employees, and what VPN server do they use?
Are Apple's web servers running Mac OS or LInux?
What does Apple use for their ERP and CRM systems, and what operating systems do they use for running them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Unfortunately, as svnipp alluded to in an earlier post, I seriously doubt this would make any difference. Corporations (particularly public corporations) are so fixated on short-term profit that they won't invest more money today to save money tomorrow.
Do the people who say "Apple doesn't care about enterprise" or "Apple doesn't need enterprise" or "Enterprise is bad for Apple" also think that Apple is not an enterprise itself? Do they think that a company as large as Apple is simply run from a single Mac Mini sitting in a closet? Or their entire network consists of some Airport base stations? There is much more to a running a company's IT than simply putting a computer on everyone's desk. That's why I would like to see details of what hardware and software Apple uses in all aspects of their daily operations. Especially their back-office operations such as email server, file server, web server, accounting, HR, and logistics. These details would also help companies which are currently struggling with supporting mixed platform environments. They can just see how Apple does it. The only reason Apple would have for not providing these details is that they want to maintain this public perception of being 100 percent Mac and Mac OS when in reality they also use other platforms to a significant degree, but are unwilling to admit it.
3. They don't know that Mac OS X can talk to Exchange 2007 / 2010
Why does the OS need to talk to Exchange? Surely that is an application concern?
Quote:
5. They don't know you can dual boot a Mac with Windows
Shooting the cost right up when you have to then purchase a Windows licence
Quote:
6. They don't know you can run VMWare Fusion or Parallels to run Windows in a VM
Shooting the cost right yp when you have to then purchase a Windows licence (and VMWare or Parallels)
Quote:
7. They don't know Citrix has a Mac OS X Client
Depending on your Citrix environment it can be a pain to use.
Quote:
8. They don't know how much faster Mac OS X boots than even Win7 64bit. They are completely unaware of how much smoother everything is in general
I don't turn off my work PC, why should booting time be a concern?
Quote:
9. They don't know they can enterprise manage Mac's using JAMF Casper Suite
Doesn't that tool only support OSX and iOS clients? Does that mean you need to purchase multiple management tools for various OS's, an alternative would be to run the Symantec Altiris suite, which supports multiple platforms including OSX
Quote:
11. They don't know about Apple Remote Desktop
They don't? Or you think they don't?
Quote:
12. They might not know how good TeamViewer is on the Mac (cross platform remote control)
??? Not sure where you are going here?
Quote:
14. They don't know how much more secure Mac OS X is than Windows, they are polluted by the FUD being spread whenever some minor issue hits the media
Not sure where you are going here either? Haven't had a virus on Windows for a very long time, work or home.
How often does a monitor die? The last computer monitor that's died on me was in the CRT days, and that was a refurb from a second tier brand, KDS or something like that. Even CRTs last nearly a decade. I've not owned an LCD that long, but none of those have died yet.
I would swap out 1 to 2 dead (LCD) monitors a week, some would be over 5 years old, some would be just out of warranty
the company i work for is global, big, lots of sites, manufacturing plants, call centres, data centres, lots of people, lots of investment in core applications on windows and unix (sun)
i use my own mbp when travelling, and leave the dell laptop bolted to my desk, *most* of what i need to do day to day works on the mac, but a few things don't, so i have to resort to vmware or wait until i can use the deskbound laptop
the it dept. supports rim/android/iphone/windows smartphones, and if someone plugs a non-windows device into the network the world doesn't come to an end, the it people i know are generally positive about macs, but policy is windows
as a 10+ year mac user, i'd love more formal support, but the fact is apple has abandoned the enterprise, aside from personal computing it has nothing fit for it, and judging by the last few years' behaviour has no intention of playing anything more than this peripheral role
remember the xserve...
"Customers looking to upgrade, replace, or supplement existing Xserve systems with new Apple hardware have two options:
• Transition to Mac Pro with Snow Leopard Server
• Transition to Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server"
translation: apple doesn't want to be in the datacentre, please call hp/dell/cisco/ibm or some other company that can handle it, because apple can't
ms offers end to end capability from the edge to the datacentre, and supports it's stuff for a long time after end of sale (an awful lot longer if you are big enough!), it's a no brainer for the large enterprise customer, and business application developers will continue to give priority to windows because that's the market
most people in large companies have years of experience with windows, using it, supporting it, loathing it, in my organization the application development/replacement and user training costs of switching to mac would be horrendous - that's why it's not easy, nothing to do with obstructive it people, they're just following company policy and going with the best available option
Ah, that's getting interesting. Out of a pool of how many actively used monitors?
We are a smaller site, according to the system montoring tools we have 580 machines on the network, so around 500 of them would have montors attached, and probably 450 actively used.
Comments
I do have OS X Server based infrastructure. I am running both Open Directory and Active Directory. Some call me crazy, I call it accommodation. But it definately increases the workload dealing with the integration of it all. And there are much more problems for Mac users when in a hybrid environment.
I do call you crazy. Why both, exactly? Have some Windows NT4 machines still kicking around or something?
USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt are peripherals/toys - I was referring to infrastructure software such as Exchange and Active Directory, which dominates the corporate IT market.
Both software packages Apple MacOSX supports fluently. I use Exchange with Apple Mail and it works perfectly - my dad has a C2D 24" iMac and his work does not allow external email clients to connect (web and local ethernet clients only) and Exchange web mail works flawlessly in Safari. Active Directory has been in the Mac for quite a while.
How about some virtualization of OS X if you want to penetrate the corporate market? Apple discontinued XServe, so if a corporation wants your "OS X Server-based infrastructure" they have to buy a Mac Mini. But if Apple allowed licensing of OS X Server to be virtualized, I bet many IT depts. will at least start tinkering with the idea.
Macmini and MacPro. Big Xeon towers, I think a lot of people would be happy with that.
By discontinuing Xserve, Apple is making a clear point that it does not want to go into the corporate infrastructure market. They want the end-user, which is fine, and they do it the best, but they need to play nice. They learned that lesson with iWork/MS Office - why do you think it took till 2011 until Outlook came out for Mac? Because most corporate messaging is done by Exchange.
They got rid of Xserve because it wasn't selling, not because the fruit said "screw the business users". Entourage was used before Outlook on the Mac, and before Entourage it was Outlook.
MS just changed the name for some strange reason.
Windows user: why would I want to sync with my desktop when corporate sync through the microsoft exchange server; with little to no effort.
Its six and two threes, really. Both do the same thing.
And? I can access it natively from Mac OSX too: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/remote-desktop-client
In fact, the two applications I rely on that are Windows only work best in a remote desktop session!
The MS RDP client for OS X is missing several features, one being being the TS Gateway support.
What about clients?
You buy 1000 mbp's and have image them for users in a corporate setting with software, etc. and get rid of garage band and other software. How do you do it?
Symantec Altiris (Deployment Server) supports Windows, OS X, and Linux clients for deployment of software, and (I believe for the Mac) imaging.
Windows user: why would I want to sync with my desktop when corporate sync through the microsoft exchange server; with little to no effort.
Well, it's not about you. I can imagine that some people can do that. For others, there may be little to no effort on their parts, but the stage has been set by a whole cadre of MS Certifieds whose sole occupation is to make it possible and maintain its possibility.
But, I can imagine that some people have a life outside the corporate office, that they might have a spouse or family member they want to synch with, and they may own more than one device privately themselves.
And, there are countless small businesses and non-profits and schools and institutions that are looking for inexpensive, easy to configure and maintain systems that don't require paying a whole department of cheery chaps with MS certifications, nor paying the onerous licensing fees to MS for every little feature or new user or added access point or whatever.
There are stories every day about how this very idea you are dismissing actually turns out to be a godsend for individuals and small operations everywhere. They had no idea what was possible with so little equipment and so little software, and for so little time, effort and money. It also helps them to compete with the big boys in their industries asymmetrically; in many areas they are able to leapfrog over different technologies despite "accepted wisdom" to the contrary.
Why? Especially in business - the iMac with the power cable and ethernet cable, or the new Mac notebooks teamed with the thunderbolt displays are awesome, clutter free workstations.
Businesses need to keep running. If need be, when a monitor dies you can go many places and buy one and be back running within an hour. Sure you can connect a second monitor to an iMac to keep running but then you have just thrown out your argument of a clutter free workstation.
To replace that dead monitor on an iMac you can't use the computer while it is being done. Are you going to keep spare iMacs lying around the office?
Businesses need to keep running. If need be, when a monitor dies you can go many places and buy one and be back running within an hour. Sure you can connect a second monitor to an iMac to keep running but then you have just thrown out your argument of a clutter free workstation.
To replace that dead monitor on an iMac you can't use the computer while it is being done. Are you going to keep spare iMacs lying around the office?
How do these organizations manage laptops? Same deal.
How often does a monitor die? The last computer monitor that's died on me was in the CRT days, and that was a refurb from a second tier brand, KDS or something like that. Even CRTs last nearly a decade. I've not owned an LCD that long, but none of those have died yet.
If you have hundreds of installations, any decent organization should have a few spare machines pre-imaged, regardless of brand. With an iMac, it's easy to transfer the user's drive data to a spare machine in half an hour using target disk mode (doesn't require a monitor), fix the old one when it's convenient and the old one is ready for the next swap-out.
How do these organizations manage laptops? Same deal.
How often does a monitor die? If you have hundreds of installations, any decent organization should have a few spare machines pre-imaged, regardless of brand.
Exactly. The iMac argument becomes moot when you realise almost everyone will most likely be running a laptop as their only machine, which in the world of portable everything (still waiting for the portable kitchen sink) is becoming increasingly more common. I'm in the head office with 5 other people, 5 of us are on laptops and the book keeping guy is on the desktop.
I'm on a MacBook Pro (developer) and the IT Manager (my boss) is using a Asus with Linux. If either of these machines goes wobbly then we'll be screwed because these are our personal machines and we'll need to get them repaired, but the windows laptops just sit in a cupboard - literally.
Broken? Get one out the cupboard.
Heck, we even have an IBM X336 in the cupboard for some reason.
Well, it's not about you. I can imagine that some people can do that. For others, there may be little to no effort on their parts, but the stage has been set by a whole cadre of MS Certifieds whose sole occupation is to make it possible and maintain its possibility.
But, I can imagine that some people have a life outside the corporate office, that they might have a spouse or family member they want to synch with, and they may own more than one device privately themselves.
And, there are countless small businesses and non-profits and schools and institutions that are looking for inexpensive, easy to configure and maintain systems that don't require paying a whole department of cheery chaps with MS certifications, nor paying the onerous licensing fees to MS for every little feature or new user or added access point or whatever.
There are stories every day about how this very idea you are dismissing actually turns out to be a godsend for individuals and small operations everywhere. They had no idea what was possible with so little equipment and so little software, and for so little time, effort and money. It also helps them to compete with the big boys in their industries asymmetrically; in many areas they are able to leapfrog over different technologies despite "accepted wisdom" to the contrary.
that's why you go to the da cloud if you're a small office. pay the fee for Office 365 and hosted exchange and don't bother to buy any of your own hardware or software. i know someone that sets up Windows servers for small businesses and i always tell him to just tell his clients to go to da cloud.
that's why you go to the cloud if you're a small office. pay the fee for Office 365 and hosted exchange and don't bother to buy any of your own hardware or software. i know someone that sets up Windows servers for small businesses and i always tell him to just tell his clients to go to the cloud.
*the
fixed
Jokes aside.
Using SAS can be a benefit to a business but it can also be a curse. Yes you don't have to maintain your own hardware, but if something goes tits up with the software provider then you're stuck loosing money every second. If you also want to expand your software's capabilities to meet your business needs, then it is very likely that you will not be able to extend your software beyond its default set your originally purchased and it will become a hindrance - you would have to use a service such as Azure that would most likely be as expensive if not more expensive than owning your own hardware due to fees associated.
With your own hardware you can expand, tweak, twiddle, chop, change and kick it around to suit your needs.
Linux for the servers and the Macintosh for the desktops. Powerful servers for cheap and capable workstations with proven long life spans.
What they don't know staggers the mind...
1. Their view of Apple stems from Mac OS 7-9 days where the system was bizarre (AppleTalk, etc.) and locked down in ways that would make a Geek cringe
2. They don't know Mac OS X is really Unix under the hood (most enterprise IT folks are very familiar with Linux and UNIX). Show them Apache, SSH, top, ps, vim, emacs, etc.
3. They don't know that Mac OS X can talk to Exchange 2007 / 2010
4. They don't know they can join ActiveDirectory easily (10.7.2 fixed an issue in 10.7.0/1)
5. They don't know you can dual boot a Mac with Windows
6. They don't know you can run VMWare Fusion or Parallels to run Windows in a VM
7. They don't know Citrix has a Mac OS X Client
8. They don't know how much faster Mac OS X boots than even Win7 64bit. They are completely unaware of how much smoother everything is in general
9. They don't know they can enterprise manage Mac's using JAMF Casper Suite
10. They don't know they can run Casper Suite on a Linux / UNIX server that can run Java Tomcat & MySQL server. (i.e. they don't need a Mac server at all)
11. They don't know about Apple Remote Desktop
12. They might not know how good TeamViewer is on the Mac (cross platform remote control)
14. They don't know how much more secure Mac OS X is than Windows, they are polluted by the FUD being spread whenever some minor issue hits the media
Enterprise IT is somewhat familiar with iPads (only because Exec's demanded it), when iOS 5 shipped an alert went out stating that it fixes 96 vulnerabilities iniOS 4. So they made an urgent demand to upgrade all iPhones and iPads when Apples servers were overwhelmed and many users were getting bricked as a result. Later the next day, they had run some penetration testing and determined that the vulnerabilities were nowhere near as bad a risk as they first assumed.
If your enterprise is not supporting iOS devices yet, make sure they know about Good.com's Good for Enterprise server. It is very close to BlackBerry levels of security and new features are pouring out of Good every couple of months. Good runs on iOS and Android phones and is quickly stealing business from RIM / BlackBerry.
That's probably the best place for them.
OS X is a certified Unix, and Linux incorporates most of the strengths of Unix operating systems. Either is going to provide more security and stability for an enterprise than Windows can.
Windows is at its core a single-user system, onto which multi-user capabilities have been grafted. In contrast, Unix is inherently multi-user, and hundreds of thousands of programming decisions have been made throughout all levels of the OS to reflect that, keeping processes and files protected in ways Microsoft won't be able to match without losing backward compatibility, often resorting to bizarre workarounds like directory virtualization which has broken more than a few apps.
Moreover, Microsoft has a long history of prioritizing developer convenience over end-user security, resulting in a great proliferation of apps, but which have a dizzying scope of vulnerabilities.
Unix is the core of computing, and the core of the Internet. Microsoft is currently the last man standing with a non-Unix-flavored OS, but even they offer a modest admission: Enterprise editions of Win 7 come with a Unix shell, as though recognizing the relative lameness of DOS.
Microsoft is popular only because Microsoft has been popular. This has led to an entrenched vendor lock-in unlike anything we've seen before. But as Mac popularity grows, and as Linux continues to dominate the server space, IT staffer arguments favoring Windows become ever more self-evidently self-serving, providing little if any value to the organizations they serve.
Seeing BASH in Windows suggests a dangerous fork in the road ahead for Microsoft: they'll either stay with their inherently brittle kernel and hope that patching it can keep it alive, or they'll switch to a Unix kernel.
I'm not sure which is riskier for them. I'm just glad I don't need to make that decision. I use Mac and Linux here.
That was one of the big reasons for me heading down the Macintosh route. UNIX.
I love Linux but the desktop variants annoy me to no end, but boy how I love to rip the thing apart when setting up a new server.
The biggest issue I have with Microsoft windows is the Registry.
Linux, Unix and the Mac get lovely little package receipts, Windows gets the registry. I'm an educated man, I know my way around a Microsoft Windows environment, but the registry is so flaky that I've managed to brick a couple of computers because of it.
Then you have the abysmal user permissions - or the lack thereof. I used to hack the XP machines in college by doing a couple of exploits, and these were the machines set up by the "Microsoft Certified" IT department. I do wonder how shocked they were to find that all the computers in the upper library terrace had a nice set of tits appear on screen when you started the computer.
Me and a few friends hacked Quake 2 onto one of the servers to play network games as well. Fun times for all!
The reason for Microsoft's popularity is nothing short of brainwashing, as extreme as that sounds - go into a business with a clueless exec or an IT Manager who practically wears the windows flag on novelty underwear and they will not 'want', but 'need' MS Office, Windows and Exchange in order to function. I'm the only one in the office with Microsoft Office, everyone else has LibreOffice. No compatibility issues at all - I actually proffer LibreOffice calc when dealing with CSV files - at least there I can choose the damn character set.
What I don't get is why Windows has a termainal shell at all. In a *nix system its the swiss army knife of every possible command you could ever want, need and dream of. In Windows its just... there. Anything useful in the DOS Prompt has a GUI equivalent. Using a command line version, especially with DOS Syntax, just seems like such a roundabout way of completing a given task.
Standards are another issue as well, I don't need to say anymore than that - it is Microsoft, answer is obvious.
Apple should publish its own case study detailing how their own corporate IT infrastructure is set up. They should provide details including:
How many sites does Apple support?
How many end user systems does Apple support in their offices?
How many IT staff does Apple have in their offices?
Does Apple implement access controls on people's work computers, or are employees able to do whatever they want on work computers?
How much of Apple's IT infrastructure actually runs on Apple servers?
What server hardware and server operating systems are used, and for what purpose.
What directory service do they use (Active Directory, Open Directory or something else) for user authentication, contact info, etc.
Does this directory service span all of Apple's offices worldwide, or is each site operated independently?
For their corporate email, what email server do they use? Exchange Server or something else?
What server platform does Apple use for corporate file servers?
Does Apple provide VPN access to their employees, and what VPN server do they use?
Are Apple's web servers running Mac OS or LInux?
What does Apple use for their ERP and CRM systems, and what operating systems do they use for running them?
Unfortunately, as svnipp alluded to in an earlier post, I seriously doubt this would make any difference. Corporations (particularly public corporations) are so fixated on short-term profit that they won't invest more money today to save money tomorrow.
Do the people who say "Apple doesn't care about enterprise" or "Apple doesn't need enterprise" or "Enterprise is bad for Apple" also think that Apple is not an enterprise itself? Do they think that a company as large as Apple is simply run from a single Mac Mini sitting in a closet? Or their entire network consists of some Airport base stations? There is much more to a running a company's IT than simply putting a computer on everyone's desk. That's why I would like to see details of what hardware and software Apple uses in all aspects of their daily operations. Especially their back-office operations such as email server, file server, web server, accounting, HR, and logistics. These details would also help companies which are currently struggling with supporting mixed platform environments. They can just see how Apple does it. The only reason Apple would have for not providing these details is that they want to maintain this public perception of being 100 percent Mac and Mac OS when in reality they also use other platforms to a significant degree, but are unwilling to admit it.
3. They don't know that Mac OS X can talk to Exchange 2007 / 2010
Why does the OS need to talk to Exchange? Surely that is an application concern?
5. They don't know you can dual boot a Mac with Windows
Shooting the cost right up when you have to then purchase a Windows licence
6. They don't know you can run VMWare Fusion or Parallels to run Windows in a VM
Shooting the cost right yp when you have to then purchase a Windows licence (and VMWare or Parallels)
7. They don't know Citrix has a Mac OS X Client
Depending on your Citrix environment it can be a pain to use.
8. They don't know how much faster Mac OS X boots than even Win7 64bit. They are completely unaware of how much smoother everything is in general
I don't turn off my work PC, why should booting time be a concern?
9. They don't know they can enterprise manage Mac's using JAMF Casper Suite
Doesn't that tool only support OSX and iOS clients? Does that mean you need to purchase multiple management tools for various OS's, an alternative would be to run the Symantec Altiris suite, which supports multiple platforms including OSX
11. They don't know about Apple Remote Desktop
They don't? Or you think they don't?
12. They might not know how good TeamViewer is on the Mac (cross platform remote control)
??? Not sure where you are going here?
14. They don't know how much more secure Mac OS X is than Windows, they are polluted by the FUD being spread whenever some minor issue hits the media
Not sure where you are going here either? Haven't had a virus on Windows for a very long time, work or home.
How often does a monitor die? The last computer monitor that's died on me was in the CRT days, and that was a refurb from a second tier brand, KDS or something like that. Even CRTs last nearly a decade. I've not owned an LCD that long, but none of those have died yet.
I would swap out 1 to 2 dead (LCD) monitors a week, some would be over 5 years old, some would be just out of warranty
I would swap out 1 to 2 dead (LCD) monitors a week, some would be over 5 years old, some would be just out of warranty
Ah, that's getting interesting. Out of a pool of how many actively used monitors?
i use my own mbp when travelling, and leave the dell laptop bolted to my desk, *most* of what i need to do day to day works on the mac, but a few things don't, so i have to resort to vmware or wait until i can use the deskbound laptop
the it dept. supports rim/android/iphone/windows smartphones, and if someone plugs a non-windows device into the network the world doesn't come to an end, the it people i know are generally positive about macs, but policy is windows
as a 10+ year mac user, i'd love more formal support, but the fact is apple has abandoned the enterprise, aside from personal computing it has nothing fit for it, and judging by the last few years' behaviour has no intention of playing anything more than this peripheral role
remember the xserve...
"Customers looking to upgrade, replace, or supplement existing Xserve systems with new Apple hardware have two options:
• Transition to Mac Pro with Snow Leopard Server
• Transition to Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server"
translation: apple doesn't want to be in the datacentre, please call hp/dell/cisco/ibm or some other company that can handle it, because apple can't
ms offers end to end capability from the edge to the datacentre, and supports it's stuff for a long time after end of sale (an awful lot longer if you are big enough!), it's a no brainer for the large enterprise customer, and business application developers will continue to give priority to windows because that's the market
most people in large companies have years of experience with windows, using it, supporting it, loathing it, in my organization the application development/replacement and user training costs of switching to mac would be horrendous - that's why it's not easy, nothing to do with obstructive it people, they're just following company policy and going with the best available option
Ah, that's getting interesting. Out of a pool of how many actively used monitors?
We are a smaller site, according to the system montoring tools we have 580 machines on the network, so around 500 of them would have montors attached, and probably 450 actively used.