One of these days Apple will release an alternative to Exchange Server at a price in line with their OS X server, and MS will really slip into obscurity. The server and mail server software are real cash cows for MS. Apple could make money on the product and still underprice them by 80%
In my organisation we tried to introduce MACs, but the users rebelled and now we have to install Windows 7. They couldn't cope with OSX said it was too hard to learn. After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD. Go figure! - It has got me really frustrated as I have to see the world change on the outside as people move to MAC but the staff still want their Windows......Hummpf!
Hold on ... which organization is that? I just want to know so I can be sure to avoid ever buying products and/or services from them.
"After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD." ... Zuh? Seriously? So after days of training they literally couldn't figure out [or remember] how to right-click a folder or file and select "Burn '<insert_item_name_here>' to Disk...". For cripes sake, after that it even automatically pops up messages and leads you by the hand (no choices or options, just tells you what to do to make it happen) with phrasing like "To begin, insert a blank disk." and tells you how big the disk needs to be.
Does your organization only employ those with severe cognitive disabilities?
Why are the users requesting the workstations? Are they supporting them? Are they paying for them? It is managment that decides what computer is purchased. As far as cost, we just buy $400 workstations that run windows perfectly. They are considered throwaways. Run it for as long as it runs, and if it breaks, throw it away and get a new one. So far we have had very little issues with them. Its not like Apple's never break. And we don't need OSX just to run office which is what most users only use anyway. I personally cannot use OSX as I am a developer and most of the software that I use (developing software and middle ware) only runs on Windows so that is a no go.
I have a MBA and love it. But what I love is the form factor, not nessessarly OSX. If it had Windows, I would be just as happy or maybe more so because then I would not have to run some VM software to run apps I have that are not on OSX.
Mac has a long way before they will be the computer of choice in business.
As far as how easy or hard things are to do in OSX, yes there are things people need to "unlearn" from years of Windows but one thing that business users do all the time is manage files and OSX just sucks just trying to copy and paste file or move them compared to Windows. Can't believe how backwards this simplest of processes is to do in OSX.
Hold on ... which organization is that? I just want to know so I can be sure to avoid ever buying products and/or services from them.
"After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD." ... Zuh? Seriously? So after days of training they literally couldn't figure out [or remember] how to right-click a folder or file and select "Burn '<insert_item_name_here>' to Disk...". For cripes sake, after that it even automatically pops up messages and leads you by the hand (no choices or options, just tells you what to do to make it happen) with phrasing like "To begin, insert a blank disk." and tells you how big the disk needs to be.
Does your organization only employ those with severe cognitive disabilities?
Maybe if they used Macs instead of MACS they could figure it out?
The organization I work for Is a government organization, staff whipped themselves into such a frenzy of doubt and fear about the Apples that people would froth at the mouth with anger or go off sick when they thought they were going to be deployed a Mac. The IT guys were seriously shocked. Staff even thought they would get burnt from using mac laptops and the network would run more slowly when Apples were put onto the network. Now every time there is a problem printing or a network outage, no matter what the cause, it's the Apples that are at fault, and most of the time this is from areas of the business who don't even have Apple machines...:)
This is especially true since Microsoft has been absent from the phone and tablet market for nearly six of those twenty-something's lives. Microsoft is not as well known to this new generation as is Apple. In addition, Microsoft has gained a tarnished image and is thought of as stodgy and behind-the-times.
Why are the users requesting the workstations? Are they supporting them? Are they paying for them? It is managment that decides what computer is purchased.
From an enterprise perspective the TCO is the important aspect. We're a mixed shop with about 30% macs (and growing) and 70% windows. We let users decide which they want to have within their $X budget because folks are happier that way. But who the hell needs happy employees?
Quote:
As far as cost, we just buy $400 workstations that run windows perfectly. They are considered throwaways. Run it for as long as it runs, and if it breaks, throw it away and get a new one. So far we have had very little issues with them. Its not like Apple's never break. And we don't need OSX just to run office which is what most users only use anyway.
We find that $400 PCs (not workstations...there are no $400 workstations that I'm aware of) run like ass with all the enterprise software we need to put on them. Saving a few hundred dollars/users (call it $1.5M CAPEX per 3 year replacement cycle) and impacting productivity across 5000+ employees is a stupid tradeoff. The labor hours cost far more and $300 is less than a day's worth of work.
Quote:
I personally cannot use OSX as I am a developer and most of the software that I use (developing software and middle ware) only runs on Windows so that is a no go.
I have a MBA and love it. But what I love is the form factor, not nessessarly OSX. If it had Windows, I would be just as happy or maybe more so because then I would not have to run some VM software to run apps I have that are not on OSX.
Mac has a long way before they will be the computer of choice in business.
As far as how easy or hard things are to do in OSX, yes there are things people need to "unlearn" from years of Windows but one thing that business users do all the time is manage files and OSX just sucks just trying to copy and paste file or move them compared to Windows. Can't believe how backwards this simplest of processes is to do in OSX.
I do windows development on my MBP and VMs work just fine as long as you have enough RAM. I'm also not impressed by a dev that can't set up Bootcamp on his MBA if he wants to predominantly run Windows. There were months on my old MBP that I never booted into OSX.
From an enterprise perspective the TCO is the important aspect. We're a mixed shop with about 30% macs (and growing) and 70% windows. We let users decide which they want to have within their $X budget because folks are happier that way. But who the hell needs happy employees?
We find that $400 PCs (not workstations...there are no $400 workstations that I'm aware of) run like ass with all the enterprise software we need to put on them. Saving a few hundred dollars/users (call it $1.5M CAPEX per 3 year replacement cycle) and impacting productivity across 5000+ employees is a stupid tradeoff. The labor hours cost far more and $300 is less than a day's worth of work.
I do windows development on my MBP and VMs work just fine as long as you have enough RAM. I'm also not impressed by a dev that can't set up Bootcamp on his MBA if he wants to predominantly run Windows. There were months on my old MBP that I never booted into OSX.
Unfortunately that has never actually been true on a wise-spread basis. Macs have always had a lower TCO that Windows boxes, up to 50% lower TCO given a 4 year lifespan. And that didn't sway CIOs who were more interested in status quo and having a larger personnel footprint.
I wouldn't give MS a whole lot of credit there. With all the red ring of death and major pains with the XBox Live brand, the line lives on more because of a couple exclusive game franchises (and pure impotence by Sony) than anything Microsoft has done. That's not the kind of long term generational experience that buys you benefit of the doubt with a potential lifelong user base.
Whilst AD and Exchange are likely to be the main players for a while, BYOD (and HTML5) are likely to see a weakening of client-OS choice by IT departments, and the introduction of a wide mix of mobile computing running iOS, OSX, Linux and Windows flavours, Android, etc.
IT depts caught out by execs currently demanding network access from their iPhones need to get prepared for more than Windows, and based on consumer love for Apple it is likely users will be soon bringing their Macs to work!
OS X client is quite respectable in a business setting. Any IT worker with any talent at all should be able to support it just fine.
OS X server is another story, and is quite a mess. It has been losing functionality since Snow Leopard. Open Directory is a complex, fragile, beast. I keep hoping that one of these iterations it will finally be solid and stable, as so many other services depend on it. About the only nice thing Apple has done recently to server is to create the Profile server. I think it will be a much better solution for managing client settings, as opposed to MCX. Especially in Active Directory situations, where you won't need to bind OS X clients to both the Active Directory and to Open Directory. Its a shame with a little more effort, OS X server could be a really nice solution. I hope it gets there someday.
OS X client is quite respectable in a business setting. Any IT worker with any talent at all should be able to support it just fine.
OS X server is another story, and is quite a mess. It has been losing functionality since Snow Leopard. Open Directory is a complex, fragile, beast. I keep hoping that one of these iterations it will finally be solid and stable, as so many other services depend on it. About the only nice thing Apple has done recently to server is to create the Profile server. I think it will be a much better solution for managing client settings, as opposed to MCX. Especially in Active Directory situations, where you won't need to bind OS X clients to both the Active Directory and to Open Directory. Its a shame with a little more effort, OS X server could be a really nice solution. I hope it gets there someday.
That seems like a reasonable approach for Apple. As long as it integrates well into AD, Exchange, etc OSX and iOS can do well on the client side.
Comments
One of these days Apple will release an alternative to Exchange Server at a price in line with their OS X server, and MS will really slip into obscurity. The server and mail server software are real cash cows for MS. Apple could make money on the product and still underprice them by 80%
Quote:
Originally Posted by K0rmoran1066
In my organisation we tried to introduce MACs, but the users rebelled and now we have to install Windows 7. They couldn't cope with OSX said it was too hard to learn. After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD. Go figure! - It has got me really frustrated as I have to see the world change on the outside as people move to MAC but the staff still want their Windows......Hummpf!
Hold on ... which organization is that? I just want to know so I can be sure to avoid ever buying products and/or services from them.
"After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD." ... Zuh? Seriously? So after days of training they literally couldn't figure out [or remember] how to right-click a folder or file and select "Burn '<insert_item_name_here>' to Disk...". For cripes sake, after that it even automatically pops up messages and leads you by the hand (no choices or options, just tells you what to do to make it happen) with phrasing like "To begin, insert a blank disk." and tells you how big the disk needs to be.
Does your organization only employ those with severe cognitive disabilities?
Why are the users requesting the workstations? Are they supporting them? Are they paying for them? It is managment that decides what computer is purchased. As far as cost, we just buy $400 workstations that run windows perfectly. They are considered throwaways. Run it for as long as it runs, and if it breaks, throw it away and get a new one. So far we have had very little issues with them. Its not like Apple's never break. And we don't need OSX just to run office which is what most users only use anyway. I personally cannot use OSX as I am a developer and most of the software that I use (developing software and middle ware) only runs on Windows so that is a no go.
I have a MBA and love it. But what I love is the form factor, not nessessarly OSX. If it had Windows, I would be just as happy or maybe more so because then I would not have to run some VM software to run apps I have that are not on OSX.
Mac has a long way before they will be the computer of choice in business.
As far as how easy or hard things are to do in OSX, yes there are things people need to "unlearn" from years of Windows but one thing that business users do all the time is manage files and OSX just sucks just trying to copy and paste file or move them compared to Windows. Can't believe how backwards this simplest of processes is to do in OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
Hold on ... which organization is that? I just want to know so I can be sure to avoid ever buying products and/or services from them.
"After days of training they still couldn't work out how to burn a CD." ... Zuh? Seriously? So after days of training they literally couldn't figure out [or remember] how to right-click a folder or file and select "Burn '<insert_item_name_here>' to Disk...". For cripes sake, after that it even automatically pops up messages and leads you by the hand (no choices or options, just tells you what to do to make it happen) with phrasing like "To begin, insert a blank disk." and tells you how big the disk needs to be.
Does your organization only employ those with severe cognitive disabilities?
Maybe if they used Macs instead of MACS they could figure it out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
More high-tech jobs destroyed. Great.
If you think office tech support is a high tech job you are a bit behind the times. It's about as high tech as the Maytag man is.
"Mac workplace penetration loosens Window's stranglehold on enterprise"
What is this "Window" that is strangling the enterprise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X
"Mac workplace penetration loosens Window's stranglehold on enterprise"
What is this "Window" that is strangling the enterprise?
Have you not ever read the enterprise licensing terms for Microsoft products?
I cry in despair !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
This is especially true since Microsoft has been absent from the phone and tablet market for nearly six of those twenty-something's lives. Microsoft is not as well known to this new generation as is Apple. In addition, Microsoft has gained a tarnished image and is thought of as stodgy and behind-the-times.
Really? Never played XBox?
Quote:
Originally Posted by midmichman105
Why are the users requesting the workstations? Are they supporting them? Are they paying for them? It is managment that decides what computer is purchased.
From an enterprise perspective the TCO is the important aspect. We're a mixed shop with about 30% macs (and growing) and 70% windows. We let users decide which they want to have within their $X budget because folks are happier that way. But who the hell needs happy employees?
Quote:
As far as cost, we just buy $400 workstations that run windows perfectly. They are considered throwaways. Run it for as long as it runs, and if it breaks, throw it away and get a new one. So far we have had very little issues with them. Its not like Apple's never break. And we don't need OSX just to run office which is what most users only use anyway.
We find that $400 PCs (not workstations...there are no $400 workstations that I'm aware of) run like ass with all the enterprise software we need to put on them. Saving a few hundred dollars/users (call it $1.5M CAPEX per 3 year replacement cycle) and impacting productivity across 5000+ employees is a stupid tradeoff. The labor hours cost far more and $300 is less than a day's worth of work.
Quote:
I personally cannot use OSX as I am a developer and most of the software that I use (developing software and middle ware) only runs on Windows so that is a no go.
I have a MBA and love it. But what I love is the form factor, not nessessarly OSX. If it had Windows, I would be just as happy or maybe more so because then I would not have to run some VM software to run apps I have that are not on OSX.
Mac has a long way before they will be the computer of choice in business.
As far as how easy or hard things are to do in OSX, yes there are things people need to "unlearn" from years of Windows but one thing that business users do all the time is manage files and OSX just sucks just trying to copy and paste file or move them compared to Windows. Can't believe how backwards this simplest of processes is to do in OSX.
I do windows development on my MBP and VMs work just fine as long as you have enough RAM. I'm also not impressed by a dev that can't set up Bootcamp on his MBA if he wants to predominantly run Windows. There were months on my old MBP that I never booted into OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
From an enterprise perspective the TCO is the important aspect. We're a mixed shop with about 30% macs (and growing) and 70% windows. We let users decide which they want to have within their $X budget because folks are happier that way. But who the hell needs happy employees?
We find that $400 PCs (not workstations...there are no $400 workstations that I'm aware of) run like ass with all the enterprise software we need to put on them. Saving a few hundred dollars/users (call it $1.5M CAPEX per 3 year replacement cycle) and impacting productivity across 5000+ employees is a stupid tradeoff. The labor hours cost far more and $300 is less than a day's worth of work.
I do windows development on my MBP and VMs work just fine as long as you have enough RAM. I'm also not impressed by a dev that can't set up Bootcamp on his MBA if he wants to predominantly run Windows. There were months on my old MBP that I never booted into OSX.
Unfortunately that has never actually been true on a wise-spread basis. Macs have always had a lower TCO that Windows boxes, up to 50% lower TCO given a 4 year lifespan. And that didn't sway CIOs who were more interested in status quo and having a larger personnel footprint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Really? Never played XBox?
I wouldn't give MS a whole lot of credit there. With all the red ring of death and major pains with the XBox Live brand, the line lives on more because of a couple exclusive game franchises (and pure impotence by Sony) than anything Microsoft has done. That's not the kind of long term generational experience that buys you benefit of the doubt with a potential lifelong user base.
Whilst AD and Exchange are likely to be the main players for a while, BYOD (and HTML5) are likely to see a weakening of client-OS choice by IT departments, and the introduction of a wide mix of mobile computing running iOS, OSX, Linux and Windows flavours, Android, etc.
IT depts caught out by execs currently demanding network access from their iPhones need to get prepared for more than Windows, and based on consumer love for Apple it is likely users will be soon bringing their Macs to work!
OS X client is quite respectable in a business setting. Any IT worker with any talent at all should be able to support it just fine.
OS X server is another story, and is quite a mess. It has been losing functionality since Snow Leopard. Open Directory is a complex, fragile, beast. I keep hoping that one of these iterations it will finally be solid and stable, as so many other services depend on it. About the only nice thing Apple has done recently to server is to create the Profile server. I think it will be a much better solution for managing client settings, as opposed to MCX. Especially in Active Directory situations, where you won't need to bind OS X clients to both the Active Directory and to Open Directory. Its a shame with a little more effort, OS X server could be a really nice solution. I hope it gets there someday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Beardsley
OS X client is quite respectable in a business setting. Any IT worker with any talent at all should be able to support it just fine.
OS X server is another story, and is quite a mess. It has been losing functionality since Snow Leopard. Open Directory is a complex, fragile, beast. I keep hoping that one of these iterations it will finally be solid and stable, as so many other services depend on it. About the only nice thing Apple has done recently to server is to create the Profile server. I think it will be a much better solution for managing client settings, as opposed to MCX. Especially in Active Directory situations, where you won't need to bind OS X clients to both the Active Directory and to Open Directory. Its a shame with a little more effort, OS X server could be a really nice solution. I hope it gets there someday.
That seems like a reasonable approach for Apple. As long as it integrates well into AD, Exchange, etc OSX and iOS can do well on the client side.