Enterprise CTO Switches to Mac OS X

Great article, but one nitpicky point... by QuiGonJin · 2003-03-05 05:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I didn't think there was a version of Outlook for OS X. I'm going to assume he meant Entourage. All in all though, a pretty solid endorsement.

Re:Great article, but one nitpicky point... by Phil+Ulrich · 2003-03-05 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Either that, or he really enjoys using Outlook under Classic... which, if he has to use any calendars from an Exchange server, would be his only option. At least, until summer, when there will supposedly be a new version of Entourage with Exchange integration (I'm not holding my breath. I'm betting fall, at the earliest.)

--
Prepare to be burninated!
Re:Great article, but one nitpicky point... by tuxedobob · 2003-03-05 07:25 · Score: 1

He said it was in Classic.

no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 05:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ok, so the guy does nto have an issue with windows per se. He's "installed this particular OS many times over the years", which means that he's not using XP, that's a mistake there. if you use windows and its not at least 2k, preferably XP, you are asking for trouble. His problem is with Office, so what is his solution, to move to a Mac and use Office. Hmm...... Sounds like a paid advertisement to me. I own machines that run 98SE, 2k pro, 2k server, OSx, XP, linux, BSD and IRIX. The 98 machine is the weakest link and will soon go XP, but every other machine on MY networks is rock solid. My linux and IRIX boxes mount NFS volumes from each other and SMB volumes from the windows boxes, and my windows boxes mount SMB volumes from each other and NFS voles remotely as well. With a quick google search for NFS clients for windows, yours can to.

OSx is a fine OS, but its not the end all - be all. If Office is the problem use something else, like 602Suite or StarOffice or OpenOffice, but don't blame windows for it.

Re:no sense by Phil+Ulrich · 2003-03-05 05:52 · Score: 1

Frankly, I've tried to discuss that option (OOo or StarOffice, etc.) with people in the past. Honestly, this guy strikes me like those people do - as knowing just enough to get his job done, including installing Windows (which could be done by a trained monkey, for the most part). It's possible that he, like the people I've talked to in the past, really either (a) think there's some kind of "catch" in free software or are unwilling to adjust to something they perceive as being radically different than their comfy MS Office (which, I suppose, it is a little different, but not that bad), or (b) this guy really, really wanted to try a Mac anyway and this was just a convenient excuse. I almost want to bet on the latter. Just in case anyone cares or wonders, I'm running 10.2.4 - and using OpenOffice under X11. I love it.

--
Prepare to be burninated!
Re:no sense by dbrutus · 2003-03-05 07:15 · Score: 5, Informative

I think it much more likely that he meant he's reinstalled Windows in all its variations many times over the past years.

There is a difference between running a complex program on Mac OS X and on Windows. Windows throws DLL files in various places along with registry entries. Apple has bundles which are double click to open the app inside directories. Apple bundles use .plist files (created in xml) instead of registry entries and the .plist files are in the bundle. What is also in the bundle is the executable code and the application strings for as many languages as you like.

Most apps can just be dragged around between disks and continue to function just fine because all their components are moved with a single icon drag and their location stays the same relative to the base location of the bundle directory.

All in all, it's an elegant solution and eliminates a lot of DLL hell.
Re:no sense by AndyElf · 2003-03-05 08:35 · Score: 1

I am far from being an MS Office admirer, yet there still are quite a few things that OOo needs to get done before it can truly compete with MS Office.

It maybe great for many applications (and it did save me a few times), but I look at my accounting colleagues (especially in all sorts of MIS positions) -- they'd tell you that a PivotTable is the best thing since a slice of toast! They'd also tell you that they have no problem working with 15-20Mb spreadsheet that (almost) max out Excel row/col capacity.

OOo does not have as robust pivots. It can't even import ones that were created in Excel. It has less rows (32767 vs 65535). It can't replace Excel for my friends...

I know that you'd say that they should not be using Excel to operate such amounts of data -- agree with you totally. Yet Excel is soooo easy, and it drags you in, and you don't even want to think of any of sexy BI applications (sidenote: many of which now rely on you using office and putting stinking ActiveX code inside themselves to get a nice Office frontend)...

--

--AP
Re:no sense by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-03-05 12:54 · Score: 1, Informative

So does this.

Windows DLL Hell is caused by STUPID installers that overwrite system DLLS with older (or broken) versions.

As of Windows 2000, installers can not overwrite system DLLS. Windows File Protection will replace them with the original version.

Now, DLL hell is not over. But it's a hell of a lot better than Windows 98.

"Most apps can just be dragged around between disks and continue to function just fine because all their components are moved with a single icon drag and their location stays the same relative to the base location of the bundle directory."

Yes, that's a nice feature. Windows apps can do this too, if the're written properly. Office, for example, can be moved, as can most other applications. Instead of dragging the executable bundle, however, you drag the program directory.

With NTFS, in fact, any shortcuts will update themselves.

There are also applications for Windows that are entirely self contained (installers, for example). Most, however, are not.
Re:no sense by Pyrometer · 2003-03-05 14:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like Windows XP compared to previous versions of Windows basically because it has almost been the most stable (although Windows 2000 only blue-screened once in 2 years of use for me and didn't have the following problem ...). However there is one problem that forced me to re-install twice, and after working it out ... recover it twice be re-installing applications.
Basically the system and/or software configuration files got corrupted. I re-installed the OS twice, but later after reading through some resource documentation found that their is a 'repair' directory that has fresh copies of these files so you don't have to re-install the OS (just the applications because the settings are flaked after this). Luckliy it hasn't happened for a while, but I can' say that anything like this has ever happened with my PowerBook.
OSx is a fine OS, but its not the end all - be all. If Office is the problem use something else, like 602Suite or StarOffice or OpenOffice, but don't blame windows for it.
Windows might have caused the problem with Office that he had ... both you and him could be right though ... thats the problem with debugging those problems you just don't know what caused them most of the times. As for using something else ... how could he? His entire company and customers use office, just because he had problems you think others are going to change? With the exception of inline Word created images (which I personaly hate), Office v.X works fine with Office 2k/XP documents generated on the Windows counterpart.
As far as I can tell he made the right decision to get where we wanted to be (working wiithout constant problems not caused by himself) without affecting any other person in his environment.
Re:no sense by Smurf · 2003-03-05 14:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, that's a nice feature. Windows apps can do this too, if the're written properly. Office, for example, can be moved, as can most other applications. Instead of dragging the executable bundle, however, you drag the program directory.

I'm sorry but this is not quite true. Your commentary struck me as odd, so I decided to test it myself (as I am tied to a Win 200 machine). I moved the "Microsoft Office" folder from the "C:\Program Files\" folder to another one in drive C. This is what happens every time I launch the programs directly from the "Microsoft Office\Office" folder:
Excel: "An error occurred and this feature is not functioning properly. Would you like to repair this feature now?". If I say yes, it asks me for the Office installers. As I don't have the installers at hand, I am forced to cancel the "installation", after several error dialogs. Afterwards, (or if I say I don't want to "repair this feature"), things appear to work correctly (I haven't checked everything, though).
PowerPoint: It launches without a problem, but the first time I use a menu command the installer dialog appears. I am also unable to open templates.
Word: The dialog appears when launching, as with Excel.
Access, Outlook: I don't use them so I don't really care.
The shortcuts in the Start menu, the launch bar, and the desktop invoke the installer dialog and don't launch the application if the dialog is cancelled.
We can argue that the programs anyway appear to be operative after dismissing all the dialogs, and that everything will probably be corrected by running the installer from the CD. But this is a far cry from what MacOS X (apparently) offers: they can (apparently) simply move their directory to a CD-R or a FireWire disk (or an iPod) and the first time the programs are run they heal themselves automatically.
There is even a story of a kid pirating MS Office from a display Mac in a store by copying it to his iPod. Some tech reporter saw him, I think.
PS: I returned the directory to its location and (thank God) everything returned to normal.
Re:no sense by Smurf · 2003-03-05 14:39 · Score: 1

Just in case someone wonders, my machine is running Windows 2000 Professional, not "Win 200". I guess I should proofread my posts...
Re:no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 17:38 · Score: 0

Office for Mac is written by a completely seperate bunch of people than Office for PC.
Re:no sense by gig · 2003-03-05 18:30 · Score: 3, Informative

> Windows DLL Hell is caused by STUPID installers that
> overwrite system DLLS with older (or broken) versions.

No no no. You're making excuses for Microsoft again. If you go and look at how this works on Mac OS X you will understand that you look foolish defending Microsoft on this. It is night and day how it is done right on the Mac and it is completely fucked on Windows. You can't excuse it in 2003.

Listen, all you have to do to break a Windows app is move or rename it. That is outrageous to a Mac user. It's like if I told you not to move a picture file to another disk or it won't be viewable. I rename apps that have ridiculous names, like "Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0" I change to "Photoshop" and it works just fine. There are exceptions to the Panacea I'm describing, but the vast majority of the time, if an application is somewhere that the system can discover it (local storage, network storage, anything the user can access) then it will run. That's it. End of story 99% of the time.
Re:no sense by gig · 2003-03-05 18:42 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not that Mac applications heal themselves if moved. It's that they are self-contained inside one icon.

Imagine if every time you saved a text document it had to be in Documents/Text Documents/ and if you moved it out of there the system wouldn't open it. That's what MS Windows applications looks like to Mac users. A Mac application is as self-contained as you would expect a JPEG image to be, so it doesn't break when it's moved.

Breaking when moved is sort of a de facto copy-restriction method on MS Windows, so no wonder they haven't fixed it yet. Less control for the user, more for Microsoft.
Re:no sense by Ponty · 2003-03-06 02:20 · Score: 1

I think Apple would be pretty darned happy with 10% of the market :-)
Re:no sense by Gropo · 2003-03-06 05:35 · Score: 1

It's amusing that in early 2003 the most common anti-Mac-troll ammunition consists of anonymous sexual orientation potshots.

What's more amusing is that study after study has shown that the most vocal homophobes are more often than not projecting the supression of thier own homosexual thoughts upon 'the other party'... Which leads us to speculate about how this all pertains to the admiration of Apple products...

--
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Re:no sense by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-03-06 06:01 · Score: 1

"I rename apps that have ridiculous names, like "Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0" I change to "Photoshop" and it works just fine. "

It's the same in Windows. Windows shortcuts will update themselves if the app is renamed, and good apps will update their file associations when they are launched.

Also, most Windows users don't directly access the app - they access the shortcut in the Start Menu. I can name and organize the start menu anyway I want. (For example, I renamed "Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0" to "Visual Basic" in my Start Menu).

I have seen how it works on OS X. And I don't look foolish. Microsoft has COMPATIBILITY to maintain - and changing something so major requires time and effort.

Look, the Windows system works fine. OK, so it's primitive. Big deal. My copy of Office has only broken once, and that was only because a virus decided to infect the executable (I was running as Administrator, stupidly, at the time).
Re:no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 06:27 · Score: 1, Informative

There's actually a really useful side effect here.

When Adaptec(now Roxio) made Toast 5 Titanium, they(even in the OS9 version) made it use a separate thread(yes, OS9 is multithreaded). Once it's installed, the program itself is a single file. If you copy that file two or three times, you have several identical, individual, working copies of Toast on the same machine, each one capable of burning to one burner at a time. With the joys and wonders of FireWire, you can daisy-chain multiple burners on a single Mac and have them all burning at the same time.

In Windows, there are no common or simple ways to do that with Easy CD Creator 5. If you try to make a copy of ECDC5 in the same directory as the original, it will run as one process, no matter how many times you launch it. If you try to make a copy of ECDC5 in a new directory, it won't run. If you try to install a second time from the disc, it will install over the current installation. And it won't burn multiple discs on multiple burners by itself.

Welcome to Macintosh.
Re:no sense by banal+avenger · 2003-03-06 20:16 · Score: 1

Windows DLL Hell is caused by STUPID installers that overwrite system DLLS with older (or broken) versions.
Part of the point is that STUPID installers are fewer and farther between in the Mac world than in the PC world. Sure they exist, but they are far from a common occurance, and usualy involve a program called "Jimbob's Discount Writing Utility" (Or "GIMP First Release for Mac OS X." I would like to severly accost the person who wrote an installer that replaces my customized configuration files in order to make GIMP start automatically and puts the same documentation in four different and equally poorly chosen folders, and then starting charging for a free program and removed the info on how to build it yourself...). In other words, Apple does a very good job of offering developers incentives to write good code. Instead of being a matter of "if it's written properly" it's a matter of that it usually is written properly. That's why in the Mac world crappy programs are often soundly rejected, rather than just being accepted as "well, that's the way things work."
Re:no sense by jaysones · 2003-03-07 07:22 · Score: 2, Funny

"Microsoft has COMPATIBILITY to maintain - and changing something so major requires time and effort. "
Yeah, if only Microsoft had the resources they'd make a reliable, flexible OS. Can I just Paypal them a donation?
Re:no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-13 05:14 · Score: 0

I don't think they're set up to accept Paypal. Cash or foodstuffs are always gratefully accepted though.

I'd be more impressed... by podperson · 2003-03-05 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

...if he'd switched over his entire company or consultancy. It's not news that you can "fit in" to (and even "stand out" from) a corporate PC IT environment, I did it for years at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture).

Indeed, when I worked at AC -- an actively Mac-hostile environment that in 1998 was forcing its DTP people to give up their Macs -- I found everything worked BETTER for Macs (we could access printers and file servers far more easily and reliably than could PC users). None of this is new or OSX related (there are new buzzwords to be compliant with is all).

What really annoyed me then and continues to annoy me now is that people standardise on the wrong things: platforms instead of protocols. Indeed, often vendors instead of protocols. "You can buy any computer solution you want, as long as it's from Compaq." But, we can't use Macs because "that would lock us in to a single vendor".

MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'different' by manyoso · 2003-03-05 05:49 · Score: 1, Redundant

This was a very disappointing little article. He is basically saying that his Microsoft Office Suite kept crashing for some unknown reason so he decided to 'switch' to the same office suite only under MacOSX.

"Needless to say, following these tests, I was convinced. I went out and purchased an OS X laptop and have been using it ever since. As of this writing, I am on the road in the UK (I live in San Jose, California) and am using Microsoft Outlook to e-mail this back to corporate headquarters over our Windows VPN. Over the last two weeks I've been presenting to BlueArc customers using PowerPoint with standard corporate presentations templates, without any modifications. So far, there have been no issues and nothing that would lead anybody to think I'm using anything other than a regular PC. No blue screens either."

Yah, real original. If he truly wished to think different he should have looked at alternatives to MS Office. I don't see anything very strong about switching to another platform only to turn around and use all the same application software.

Free Alternative by Beatbyte · 2003-03-05 05:50 · Score: 0, Redundant

Is anyone else thinking that this guy could have had one of his IT people build a laptop/desktop with linux based stuff (free and open) for this? Without shelling out top dollar for an Apple laptop?

Obviously the pre-built system (hard+software combo) won because its already working (and sexy, as he put it), but could you not build this with KDE/GNOME and OpenOffice + Evolution + whatever else?

I've done it myself, why couldn't this guy?

--
Get paid to code OSS

Re:Free Alternative by Phil+Ulrich · 2003-03-05 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I figure he probably knew enough to install Windows, which honestly a trained monkey could do nowadays, but not enough to try Linux - so he went with his other major alternative, a Mac. Though honestly, RH8 is probably easier to install than Windows XP. I mean, really. I figure the guy just really, really had a few grand to blow and really, really wanted an excuse to buy a Mac. ;)

--
Prepare to be burninated!
Re:Free Alternative by Mononoke · 2003-03-05 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is anyone else thinking that this guy could have had one of his IT people build a laptop/desktop with linux based stuff (free and open) for this? Without shelling out top dollar for an Apple laptop?
I'm figuring he has better things to do with his time than download ISOs and configure a machine (which apparently has to be a laptop) and hope that he'll be able to do Powerpoint presentations with it.

--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Re:Free Alternative by pressman · 2003-03-05 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Powerpoint pure and simple. Linux has absolutely nothing that works with Powerpoint simply and effectively. At least on a Mac he can use a current version of Office, or if he's really adventurous, he could use Keynote.

Also, by being on a Mac he has access to the most stable and feature rich graphics apps on the planet. (yes, I know all the same apps are available for Windows, but they tend to be flakier on that side of the fence.) Linux just doesn't cut the mustard yet when it comes to graphics.

--
Pooty tweet
Re:Free Alternative by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 06:27 · Score: 0

Maybe nobody told you this, but you can go to a store and buy CD's instead of downloading ISOs. And in case you haven't tried a Linux distribution in the last couple of years, the configuration is almost a non-issue.
Re:Free Alternative by tres · 2003-03-05 06:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

The install is one thing, but usability is quite another.

Don't get me wrong, my desktop at home is runs Debian, but anymore, when I need to get something done, I just don't have the time to spend reading a man page, a howto, googling newsgroups, buying an O'reilly book and then getting things running the way I want.

When I want to get things done, I use my Apple laptop.

I hope that Linux will someday get to the point that Mac OS X has (yes, I've used Red Hat 8 and Mandrake 9). Until then, there's no question in my mind what I'll choose.

And as my 6 year old nephew might say, "Peeka-Mac, I choose YOU!"

--
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Re:Free Alternative by jbolden · 2003-03-05 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is anyone else thinking that this guy could have had one of his IT people build a laptop/desktop with linux based stuff (free and open) for this? Without shelling out top dollar for an Apple laptop?

What do you think the fully loaded per hour cost of an IT guy is? How much time is he going to spend configuring a system that going to the CTO? That's hundreds of dollars. That besides the fact that Apple laptops aren't unreasonable expensive by Dell, Compaq... standards.
Re:Free Alternative by pastafazou · 2003-03-05 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

First off, Apple notebooks aren't much more expensive than PC notebooks, especially since most PC notebooks force you to buy the MS license anyway. In fact, Apple's high end notebooks are way cheaper than IBM/HP/Toshiba high end notebooks. Secondly, what makes you think his IT people know anything about linux, or that they have the time to do this? Third, just because the initial cost of linux is zero, doesn't mean it's free. It takes time to install/configure/learn/etc and often time is more valuable than money, especially for a CTO. Finally, KDE/GNOME and OpenOffice + Evolution are not even close to OSX and Office for X. If you put the KDE/GNOME laptop and the Apple laptop in front of a non-technical user and give them a month to play around with both, Apple would win hands down.
Re:Free Alternative by toddhisattva · 2003-03-05 15:24 · Score: 1

feature rich graphics apps on the planet. (yes, I know all the same apps are available for Windows
GraphicConverter is not available for Windows. In general, the ecosystem (system of programs) for creative work does not exist for Windows.
Re:Free Alternative by pressman · 2003-03-06 07:31 · Score: 1

True enough! A Mac only graphics application that has gained popularity because it was the first one out the door with OS X. Graphic Converter is a great little Swiss Army knife utility, but I still don't see it as a contender to the Photoshop throne... yet. I remember when all the app did was convert between different file formats for you. It's come a long way and is infinitely more friendly and useable than the GIMP.

--
Pooty tweet
Re:Free Alternative by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 10:09 · Score: 0

What do you think the fully loaded per hour cost of an IT guy is? How much time is he going to spend configuring a system that going to the CTO? That's hundreds of dollars. That besides the fact that Apple laptops aren't unreasonable expensive by Dell, Compaq... standards.
Excellent point. If I spent one eight hour workday on this for my CIO, that would account for $376.906 in earnings. It costs my employer at least double that when you add payroll taxes, benefit subsidy and marginal infrastructural expenses. Probably closer to triple. Of course that assumes I wouldn't otherwise be spending that time posting on slashdot. Hmm...

A "Certain OS" sucks by GusherJizmac · 2003-03-05 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I like how he is careful not to mention specific products or brands when he is making negative remarks, but with positive comments, he clearly indicates the application or OS. Does anyone have the balls to stand up to Microsoft?

--
http://www.naildrivin5.com/davec

Re:A "Certain OS" sucks by P.+Niss · 2003-03-05 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does anyone have the balls to stand up to Microsoft?

I didn't get the sense at all from the article that Mr. Barrall was afraid to stand up to Microsoft. I think it's more likely that he was just complaining graciously and trying to avoid being rancorous. That this kind of writing is exceedingly rare on Slashdot might make it harder to recognize.

And, actually, he does mention the problematic OS when he describes "using a popular Windows office suite."
Re:A "Certain OS" sucks by hiroko · 2003-03-05 09:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I do.

Microsoft, your Windows OS is too much of a pain to maintain, so I'm switching to Linux.

That do ya?

--
Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
Re:A "Certain OS" sucks by Sentry21 · 2003-03-05 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it's probably more along the lines of politesse - it's more polite to promote the good than insult the bad - a trend less than common here on Slashdot.

The point he's making isn't 'I Use OS X because other stuff sucks' (which also implies that OS X's only redeeming quality is that it's the least bad), it's 'Use OS X because OS X is good'. This 'positive' approach is much more 'journalistic', or 'dignified' - traits, again, not often found on slashdot.

I have the balls to stand up to Microsoft, but I'd rather focus on the good than the bad. Unfortunately, I can't find as much good to speak of as bad for most products nowadays. Macs seem to be the only exception I can find. Dommage.

--Dan

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by Beatbyte · 2003-03-05 05:54 · Score: 1

I understand your point, but I've run Office (all flavors) and Office X. Office X has had no problems (that I've had to deal with) with reliability, reinstalls, corrupt files, etc. etc.

If it was a smart "business" decision (in my POV) thought through, they would go with FREE software thats also open (won't force an upgrade).

I'm sure the BSA doesn't mind they're installing office though ;)

--
Get paid to code OSS

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by Otter · 2003-03-05 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

And yet -- it solved his problem, didn't it? He has the applications he wants without the support issues that were making him crazy. Truth is, Microsoft makes some really nice products when they're not tied to that awful OS and when they follow Apple UI guidelines.

_Your_ problem may be that he's using a Microsoft product, but that's not what _his_ problem was.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Stop the presses! by chill182 · 2003-03-05 06:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Let me get this straight, there is a person... that exists... who is using a Mac? I can see why this is such an important news item! If you'll excuse me I must go turn on my TV to see if my regularly scheduled program is being interupted as we speak!

Re:Stop the presses! by jaoswald · 2003-03-05 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

No, you miss the point!

There is a person who uses a computer to make presentations to customers so that his business can make money.

I've certainly never seen anything like this on Slashdot before!

The consequences are potentially enormous. It might be that this person doesn't even know Perl!
Re:Stop the presses! by cybercuzco · 2003-03-05 15:45 · Score: 1

Hey I dont know Perl, I only program in Fortran 77

--

Uh... by Watcher · 2003-03-05 06:06 · Score: 2, Funny

We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are.

Either you're being sarcastic, or you haven't been reading the replies in every Apple related article lately...

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by manyoso · 2003-03-05 06:09 · Score: 1

Well, he used a bulldozer when a screw driver would do ;) He could have just as easily switched to a more reliable version of Windows AND/OR he could have switched the Office suite. I am just saying that what he did was not very 'different' and probably much more expensive than necessary.

I don't think this is a particularly good example to tout Apple when the problem wasn't in need if such a drastic 'fix' and he is still using Microsoft software for everything. If he's happy with it fine. No need for an article though.

Apple's "top down" revolution by tres · 2003-03-05 06:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution. I can only hope, as a sysadmin, that Apple's OS X will continue to make inroads into the corporate sector. It is easy to administer, robust, stable--and best of all, works as advertised.

I don't know how many times I've been burned by Windows products that just don't work right. I don't know how many times I've had to deal with stupid Windows problems and kludge together a solution. I'm tired of wasting my time with the same non-issues over and over again. I know I'm not the only one.

Apple's mistake back in the 90's was to try winning a "bottom up" revolution. Giving their computers to school districts, in theory was a great idea; it produced people who were used to using Apple computers would go buy Apple, or use it at work. Apple made a simple product that worked well, but was stigmatized as a "toy."

It wasn't Microsoft, but rather IBM won that battle by using a "top down" revolution. Appealing to the execs/technophiles in an organization. Making the PC seem more "professional," or technically advanced. Microsoft has been riding on that IBM wave ever since. But they've shot themselves in the foot more times than I can count.

It's nice to see the tables turned: Microsoft's "Jolly Rancher" OS keeps trying to "dumb-down" bad engineering with more annoying wizards, more annoying popups, and more annoying "security" features that just make working with it impossible.

While Microsoft attempts to win a "bottom up" revolution with candy-colors and glitz, Apple has made a real, rock solid OS that can be used by anyone. While Microsoft alienates more and more corporate customers, Apple is selling comparably priced corporate systems to their PC counterparts.

More proof that Microsoft's greatest nemisis is Microsoft.

--
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us

Re:Apple's "top down" revolution by mcgroarty · 2003-03-05 11:24 · Score: 1

It's nice to see Apple winning the "top down" revolution
Bold conclusion drawn from the experiences of the CTO of a single tech company we've never heard of before.

A shame an idiot wrote the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a systems admin who recently switched to Apple, I thought that this story might be worthy of forwarding to my boss. Unfortunately the article doesn't address anything of particular interest.

For technical people, the reasons we use our computers go beyond simply writing Word documents or opening Excel spreadsheets. The average clod in a company though doesn't care what their hardware is, what their operating system is, they just want to know that Office is there.

Therefore an article that simply talks about how Office works on a non-PC platform is nothing worth getting a boner over. If he'd spoken about Keynote, addresses the advantages of an open file format, spoken about how his company had developed software to write customized presentations based on info pulled live from their database or something - hooray. Perhaps he could have mentioned how easy it is to produce PDF versions of pretty much anything - which in this cross-platform era is a good thing since your document will look the same anywhere. I think my point is understood by this stage.

Me thinks that this whole article is a way to get people to his company's website.

Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by dbrutus · 2003-03-05 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem he was having was dll hell. The fix he instituted was using Mac OS X bundles which have all the code self-contained inside a double click to launch the app directory.

Pair this article with a technical description of bundles and why they're nifty and you have a useful 1-2 punch.
Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-03-05 12:43 · Score: 1

Or he could have just installed Windows XP.

This page describes how Windows 2000 fights "DLL Hell".

Microsoft knows about DLL hell. They admit the problem. And, as of Windows 2000, it's largely fixed. Stupid installers cannot overwrite system DLLs (well, they can, but they would have to first delete the cached version in \system32\dllcache).

DLL hell has frozen over.
Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 16:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

For technical people, the reasons we use our computers go beyond simply writing Word documents or opening Excel spreadsheets. The average clod in a company though doesn't care what their hardware is, what their operating system is, they just want to know that Office is there.
Why is it that sys admins think they are like all "technical people" and that the "average clod" just needs Office.
It's true that technical people want to do more than write Word documents or open Excel; what those of you on your high horse may not realize is that, unless you work for a company in the IT industry, those average clods are more interested in getting work done that makes the company money - and IT is there to support them. When the fry guy at McDonald's treats you like shit, I would say "Great!", because that is the same thing you are doing to those getting actual work done.
No one gives a shit what OS or software is running, as long as it gets things done. If that means using Office because the majority of other people are using Office, then so be it. Your "average clod" is more worried about results than futzing around with the computer because they had to "be different."
It is unfortunate that your points, though valid, are over-shadowed by your elitist, "I work in IT and think real technical people give a shit what I think" attitude. Real technical people don't sit around bitching about people that don't use the same OS, brand of drill, or toilet paper. Real technical people (i.e. those that aren't "systems admin" anymore) are more interested in what and how people get things done.
Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by Ponty · 2003-03-06 02:38 · Score: 1

And your stupid programs break when the system spanks them down.

DLL hell is there, it just has different symptoms.

Putting a giant band-aid labeled "The Solution" over the problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes it look less odious.
Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by billDCat · 2003-03-06 13:20 · Score: 1

Microsoft knows about DLL hell. They admit the problem. And, as of Windows 2000, it's largely fixed. Stupid installers cannot overwrite system DLLs (well, they can, but they would have to first delete the cached version in \system32\dllcache).

First of all, I am not convinced that is true. The fact that the system restores particular .dlls may alleviate problems with system stability, but then what happens with the apps that are coded such that they expect a different version of a dll than what's installed. At best they work around it, at worst they crash. I know coders are supposed to deal with this, but it is still a potential point of failure in the system.

Secondly, what about the registry? This still remains in WinXP. What happens when numerous registry entries point to an app at a particular place, then you move the application? The fact that these registry entries exist and refer to paths rather than inodes provide a barrier to moving things around. Due to the registry's large size and ubiquitous use, it also constitutes one very large potential source for failure that can affect many aspects of the system. There is some feeback further up where someone tried moving the MS Office folder and got all sorts of prompts by the app to re-install. I think this is evidence of how the registry restricts movement of applications. The Mac has no registry, just a few small databases that perform small, specific tasks. Move an application, nothing needs to be updated. Double click on a file, its helper app launches. Close the helper app, move it somewhere else, then double click on the file again, the helper app still opens. No alerts, no attempted re-installs, no user maintenance.

As for my choice, I develop on W2K and XP at work, and use Mac OS 10.2.4 at home. There is no question in my mind that Mac OS X is the most reliable and easiest to maintain of the two.
Re:A shame an idiot wrote the article by Myopic · 2003-03-11 02:14 · Score: 1

uh, you might have missed something. you say that the average clod doesn't care about their OS so long as they have their Office, but the entire point of the article is that the OS was messing up this guy's Office experience, and THEREFORE switching OSs is worthwhile.

sorry to point out the obvious.

The guy is a corporate officer, not by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 06:33 · Score: 0

a hobbyist with hours to tinker with Linux and to learn whatever free apps that might or might not work for what he needs.

People have invested in MS products and, provided they have the necessary features and are stable enough, have no incentive to switch.

Contradiction... by ElGanzoLoco · 2003-03-05 06:37 · Score: 5, Funny

[...]nothing that would lead anybody to think I'm using anything other than a regular PC. No blue screens [...]

Isn't that a contradiction? :)

--
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!

well aren't you limited in grey matter by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 06:37 · Score: 0

" We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are."

Since this is in the Apple section why not present some links to articles which show someone being pleased with one who gives a good explanation of why.

Running VPC on a Mac adds the (blech) utility of adding your (least) favorite version of Windows to MacOSX, OS9, FreeBSD, X11 on Mac, or all the dozens (hundreds) of other choices.

While Windows is obviously one of the poorer ones (reboot into KDE on Yellow Dog if you're bored) it's another option via Connectix/Microsoft's VPC. Running Access, Outlook or Exchange is then no problem.

What exactly is wrong, anyway, with bashing Windows, easily one of the most nauseating GUI's any user must face in a world with so many good options (OSX being one of the better ones)???

Just because we haven't had one... by eht · 2003-03-05 06:40 · Score: 0, Offtopic

doesn't mean we want or need one.

Use Office on XP then use it on OS X. by BoomerSooner · 2003-03-05 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Your missing the point that it is a different product. They don't even really resemble each other. I recently switched to the Mac platform and to my surprise and dismay Office v.X is an excellent product. If they can ever get OpenOffice a Quartz GUI I'll switch. Till then it's Office v.X.

The Mac Business Unit at MS is like a complete different company too, not the status quo.

Re:Use Office on XP then use it on OS X. by SAN1701 · 2003-03-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Meanwhile, in the deeps of Microsoft Mac Business Unit...

-Hi. I just want to see what you guys are doing here.
-Hi, Bill! We are doing many improvements in Office, Outlook...
-Calm down! No need to hurry! You guys seem to work too much!
-Indeed! Now we're porting SQL-Server to Mac OS X Server...
-I see. But as I said, there's no rush. Drink less coffee, work less daily hours, enjoy life more... Buy a videogame to your employees!
-Actually, we're very busy because we want to start to port the whole .NET...
-That's it! 6 months of vacation to everybody. On me! You guys deserve it!

Switching is not for everyone. by nycroft · 2003-03-05 06:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think it's great that somebody is keeping an open mind about another OS besides Windows. It took me months to get my company to let me use a Mac. Then again, I'm a graphic designer. You know, right tools for the job, and so on...I'm the only guy in a nationwide company of 45,000 employees who is on a Mac, and our IT people don't seem to have a problem with it. I do have to use Outlook in Classic for email, and that bites.

I'm glad this guy thought about OS X, but I'm not sure he really needs it. I'm glad he's trying it, but some of us Mac folk don't want EVERYONE to make the switch. If they did, OS X would no longer be the cool, esoteric, artsy operating system that it is.

--
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.

Re:Switching is not for everyone. by autojive · 2003-03-05 08:51 · Score: 1

but some of us Mac folk don't want EVERYONE to make the switch. If they did, OS X would no longer be the cool, esoteric, artsy operating system that it is.

And what exactly would change in your "cool, esoteric, artsy operating system" if more people decided to use it? It's your kind of thinking that turns more people away from Macs than you know.

Did I have to buy a Mac for the work that I do? Yes. Did my friend have to buy one for his type of work? No, but he did anyways. Why? Because he found that he enjoyed OS X more than 2000/XP. He still gets his work done and has a more pleasurable working experience for himself at the same time.

It's snobbery from people like you that give all of us a bad name.

--
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
Re:Switching is not for everyone. by zymurgyboy · 2003-03-09 17:34 · Score: 1

Some of the switchers in my corporate LAN haven't been "identified." 1200 other people can obscure one or two OSX laptops if your admins don't care/don't monitor properly

--
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.

Outlook 2001 running under classic ... by nether · 2003-03-05 07:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

No problems with it in a corporate env. I use it daily.
__joel

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by dbrutus · 2003-03-05 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Pray tell, what Windows OS offers the equivalent to Mac OS X bundles?

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by tuxedobob · 2003-03-05 07:22 · Score: 1

Well, maybe he couldn't have switched his Office suite? Some of the file formats work with the alternatives, to be sure, but I imagine there has to be something that only Office apps can read. Even if there isn't, are the people he's sending his files to going to know what to do with an AppleWorks or OpenOffice document?

(If OpenOffice uses the exact same file formats, don't shoot me. I haven't used it because I haven't needed to.)

Re:Affordability by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 07:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple's high end is a bad deal, but their laptops and low-end stuff isn't too bad. Get an eMac or an iBook.

Trying to get noticed by Apple? by JimCricket · 2003-03-05 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is this guy trying to get Apple to notice him and include him in "CEO Switcher" ads?

If you're going to use a Mac, why use all Microsoft software on it? Heck, I don't even use MS Office on my Windows box!

And what's with the "blue screen" comments? Like most Slashdotters, I don't like Microsoft - but to suggest that Windows has problems with "blue screens" is, like, so 1999.

One other observation: Apple uses the "blue screen" thing as part of their FUD on Windows. But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Dragonfly · 2003-03-05 07:52 · Score: 1

And what's with the "blue screen" comments? Like most Slashdotters, I don't like Microsoft - but to suggest that Windows has problems with "blue screens" is, like, so 1999.

Well, in my case, it's like, so, 2002. Trying to configure some Dells running W2k for a computer lab and getting lovely spontaneous reboots because the computers had shipped with buggy display drivers. I mean, c'mon, I can understand it if a bad display driver can garble the screen image, but why oh why should the computer reboot if I drag a window the wrong way?!?

But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

It's true that some installations of WinXP are more stable than some installations of Mac OS 9, but Apple's switch ads aren't trying to get people to buy a Mac and run OS 9 on it. That's impossible to do anyway on their latest hardware. They want people to buy a Mac with OS X on it. OS 9 is out of the equation for new users.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by wazzzup · 2003-03-05 08:11 · Score: 1

At work, I'm running Windows 2000 on a Dell P4 workstation. I can get it to bluescreen with regularity.

In fact, if I use Mozilla to access my web-based email and try to resize the window - BAM! Bluescreen.

Is Windows 2000 the spawn of demons that were the 9x series of OSes? No. Not even close. But Windows still bluescreens. I've never had a kernel panic ever in OS X. Of course, YMMV.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Alex+Thorpe · 2003-03-05 08:26 · Score: 1

Actually, MacOS 9.22 is more stable for me than OS X, unfortunately. Perhaps it's how you maintain it, but I can't think offhand of the last crash I had in 9.22. It's less feature rich than X, and doesn't multitask anywhere near as well, and doesn't manage memory as well, but it was rock solid for me, and better for 3D gaming.

I've only seen one actual Kernal Panic in X, running Escape Velociy: Nova, of all things. But I do get hard freezes, when everything stops and there's nothing to do but reach for the reset button. Most occur when I try and run a 3D game, pretty much any 3D game besides Quake III. I've also had one or 2 a day lately when playing Diablo II:LoD, using software rendering; I actually reinstalled the game this week, to see if it would fix some problems, but no, it's acting exactly the same. But I *AM* using a Fall '99 model of iMac, not exactly cutting edge technology, so hopefully people with newer hardware won't encounter them.

I should note that my reinstall of Diablo II was my first time in recent memory that I've tried to reinstall anything to improve performance, and it didn't change anything, because that wasn't the problem. Reinstalling isn't the Mac way.

--
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Dixie_Flatline · 2003-03-05 09:10 · Score: 1

My WinXP box bluescreens at least once every couple of weeks. It bluescreened just this lunch hour, actually. This may be Microsoft's most stable OS yet, but it's got a long way to go before it's UNIX-stable.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-03-05 09:42 · Score: 1

One other observation: Apple uses the "blue screen" thing as part of their FUD on Windows. But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?

Well. If we're going to argue about what most users run, then you'll have to compare Mac OS 9.x to Win9x. What they're advertising is that OS X is better than Win9x. Easy target, I know. Still, that's the point of the advertisement.

It's hard to argue that either MacOS 9 or Win9x are less stable than the other, since their stability is 100% determined by the amount of crap installed on the system. Win2K and Mac OS X are the first OSs from either vendor that change the "Stability vs. Amount of crap installed" ratio.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by apple-marc · 2003-03-05 10:10 · Score: 1

" But isn't it funny how most of their users are still using Mac OS 9.x, which is far less stable than WinXP?"

The only real reason that many mac users are still using OS 9.x is that certain important apps arn't ported to OS X yet (Quark Express, Outlook etc) but that will all change within a couple of months, (or everyone will switch to InDesign and Entourage)

I disagree about the stability problems - I've had a million problems with XP - a friend of mine installed AOL on his XP machine (He was thourouly duped by their advertising, he wouldn't listen to me...) Basically it crashed everytime he connected to the internet. On another occasion he installed two different virus checker/scanning type programs that conflicted resulting in the machine refusing to boot at all.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Unregistered · 2003-03-05 10:39 · Score: 1

Umm... A lot of people aer still using win 95/98/ME and still get a shitload of bluescreens. Plus i've had a lot of my (formerly) win2k boxes get all messed up and start bluescrening. It's just less common.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by NaDrew · 2003-03-05 12:31 · Score: 1

Curious, what kind of applications are you using? Is your machine up to the realistic hardware requirements for XP?
I ask because my decidedly non-techie wife uses XP on her home machine and has never, in about fourteen months since we bought it, had a bluescreen.
I use 2K server on my Frankenstein box and rarely (not "never", but rarely enough that it's a surprise and not a "oh no, not again" reaction) see bluescreens either, and I ride the system pretty hard. MS may not be everyone's favorite company but their main product has come a long way since the bad old days of 95/98/ME (98SE was actually better than ME!).

--
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by drsmithy · 2003-03-05 12:41 · Score: 1

At work, I'm running Windows 2000 on a Dell P4 workstation. I can get it to bluescreen with regularity. In fact, if I use Mozilla to access my web-based email and try to resize the window - BAM! Bluescreen.
This is not normal behaviour. Have you tried to get it fixed ?
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by PhoenixK7 · 2003-03-05 17:40 · Score: 1

XP/2k still bluescreen plenty. The main reason for these is not so much the kernel/OS as poor drivers or bad hardware. These are legitimate issues as well!

Even WHQL drivers aren't always perfectly stable on all hardware, and some drivers necessary to use hardware aren't available in certified form (example: recent HPT37x drivers beyond the original ones that shipped with XP).

Its not just FUD because the platform as a whole isn't completely stable! (not that Apple hardware and drivers are perfect, but they're of pretty damn good quality).
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 02:08 · Score: 0

I have an audiovox mp3 player with win2k support [or at least it says that on the box]. If I install SP3 my computer won't boot anymore. I've narrowed it down to the mp3 transfer program/driver.... all is fine until the first time I try to link up the mp3 player after the upgrade.

There is no need for that.... why should a little USB device stop my computer from booting?
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by mbbac · 2003-03-06 02:09 · Score: 1

Did Microsoft change the color of the blue screen of death?

--
mbbac
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Dixie_Flatline · 2003-03-06 03:12 · Score: 1

This is the developer machine I use at work. It's a dual 1800MP with 512MB of memory. I'm fairly sure it should be up to the task.

I never had problems when I used XP at home, but as a developer platform, it seems lacking. You really start to notice the problems it has with things like pre-emptive multitasking and such when you're running Visual Studio. Developing is harder than home use, though.

2K, actually, was much more stable for me.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 09:15 · Score: 0

Your friend is an idiot. It has nothing to do with XP. How about giving us a couple of examples from the million problems you have had with XP? Or are you as big an idiot as your friend is?
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 11:27 · Score: 0

Well whether you like it or not the majority of people that use computers are idiots.
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 13:05 · Score: 0

They probably aren't idiots, they just don't need to know every little thing about computers.
Someone that thinks people are idiots, just because they don't know everything about computers, is truly an idiot
Re:Trying to get noticed by Apple? by billDCat · 2003-03-06 14:03 · Score: 1

And what's with the "blue screen" comments? Like most Slashdotters, I don't like Microsoft - but to suggest that Windows has problems with "blue screens" is, like, so 1999.

I dunno, I still get them from time to time. Got one an hour ago on my W2K laptop, in fact. System must have been protesting that I was reading this article.

The part he left out by briancnorton · 2003-03-05 07:29 · Score: 1

It truly amazes me that a NAS producer dosent have a tremendous quantity of custom software for windows. Actually, it amazes me that ANY business could switch platforms corporate wide without having to rewrite everything. I'm sure a Lot more people would switch to ANYTHING but windows if they could.

--

People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

Everything he can think of? by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2003-03-05 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

He says: "Over the next week I threw everything at it I could think of", and then mentions Office and a VPN connection.

Well, maybe I have more imagination, but here's three that I am having trouble with, right now, today:

Video conferencing software that will interop with what everyone else uses, since not everyone else uses a Mac, much as I'd like that to be;
wireless "cell" modem connectivity--there's stuff out there that has "unsupport", but if Verizon works with Macs, why don't they just say so?
Gigabit ethernet pci cards for older G4s. Lots of options as lokng as you like Asante--which I personally do, but my manager wants more price and performance choices, and I can only offer one solution.

Now, I'm the biggest fan-boy of Macs that you'll find--but I sure wish they had better third party hardware, and software, support. This last week, as a new Mac IT guy in a mostly PC office, I have learned alot about why Macs only have a fraction of the market. To pay more, per machine, but to have it capable of less, is inexcusable--and will need to be fixed before Apple sees too many more CTOs like Geoff Barrall.

(Although certainly, the more CTOs like Geoff, the more likely third-party support is going to happen. He is the guy talking to vendors, and they'll take his request for Mac support more seriously than they'll take mine. Hey, Geoff, how about asking Verzion to support Macs!)

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar

Re:Everything he can think of? by benwaggoner · 2003-03-05 15:07 · Score: 1

Video conferencing is a sore spot for the Mac, certainly.

However, your Gigabit ethernet objection seems rather besides the point. G4's have been shipping with Gigabit installed for over two years now - my old G4 Dual 450 has Gigabit. Upgrading a machine more ancient than doesn't seem so critical that a single, good, vendor isn't enough.

--

My video compression blog
Re:Everything he can think of? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 23:00 · Score: 0

uhmm,

VRVS 3.0 ?

Full support of OS X. We are using it: no troubles at all.
Re:Everything he can think of? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-08 18:11 · Score: 0

To pay more, per machine, but to have it capable of less, is inexcusable

Here's my story: I've been using macs since the summer of '84. I've been using PCs as well since the late 80s when they were really lagging compared to macs, but games were hot.
In my office environment (medium sized company) I used to use Macs when it was a startup, but then I switched to PCs running windows and Linux for development.
About 6 months ago I noticed that I was doing more work on Linux than on my Windows box that I was only using for Office, Netscape Calendar and DBArtisan. That's when I decided to go back to the Macs. I've been using a dual-G4 ever since, with amazing results.
Yeah, it cost me maybe $500 over a PC, but what I can do with it is nothing short of amazing. I can use all the apps except for DBArtisan (which I replaced with a web-based DB interfacing system that I wrote), and I can code on an incredibly reliable platform.
I continuously max out the 2 gigs of RAM on the box, I run hundreds of simultaneous Perl processes, I run a sickeningly fast in-memory storage engine written in C by one of my developers on Linux and ported by me in a matter of minutes, while still running a very nice GUI with all the bells and whistles (and of course X11 and GNOME and KDE apps).

So yeah, paying more per machine is one thing, but it's capable of so much more that by now even the die-hards around me are reconsidering their desktops.
Re:Everything he can think of? by Myopic · 2003-03-11 02:19 · Score: 1

i'm not sure exactly what kind of Verizon support you're after (are you talking about plugging a laptop into a cell phone?), but i use Verizon DSL on my OS X machine at home. i couldn't find any howtos on their website but i called them and they told me that OS X was supported natively (no Verizon software needed) and stepped me thru setting up PPPoE (very simple). it was clear that the service tech was just reading off of a piece of paper; i suggested they post that howto online but clearly it's not up to that guy.

XP is no silver bullet by Dragonfly · 2003-03-05 07:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

XP is better than what came before, but just last week I had to spend an hour troubleshooting and finally reinstalling Outlook XP on my girlfriend's brand-new Vaio. After 6 weeks of working fine Outlook just refused to open, no matter how many times you "repaired" it. No software/hardware changes to the setup, just 6 weeks of turn it on in the AM, check email all day, and turn it off at night. If this is enough to break Outlook in a little over a month, then someone at Microsoft (still) isn't doing their job.

For a point of comparison, my PowerBook G4 has been running OS X 10.1->10.2.4 since July '01 (across several network environments), and I haven't had to reinstall anything. Just 2 data points, but ones I find telling.

Re:XP is no silver bullet by Jon+Abbott · 2003-03-06 02:02 · Score: 1

Just 2 data points, but ones I find telling.
Make that three. I haven't had to reinstall OS X on my Powerbook G4 either, and I've also gone from 10.1 to 10.2.4...

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re:XP is no silver bullet by superdan2k · 2003-03-06 02:16 · Score: 1

Four. I've been running since 10.0.1 on my dual-USB iBook, and never had to re-install.

--
blog |
Re:XP is no silver bullet by jericho4.0 · 2003-03-06 17:10 · Score: 1

With joy in my heart;
Five, six and seven.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:XP is no silver bullet by araemo · 2003-03-07 06:36 · Score: 1

One problem with that: The 1.2 updater(Not sure about the others) overwrites some system config files and does a bit of cleanup. So it is quite a bit like a 'reinstall'.
Re:XP is no silver bullet by Dragonfly · 2003-03-07 07:23 · Score: 1

You could make that argument, but I wasn't forced to install 10.2 because my 10.1.5 install suddenly stopped working. Point is, on my PowerBook, I'm in control of the OS, not the other way 'round.

Office for OS X == different by Dragonfly · 2003-03-05 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Office v.X uses a different codebase and is developed by a different team than Office for Windows. They share a common file format, basic interface aspects, and featureset, but they are very different beasts.

For example, installation of Office X means dragging its application folder from the install CD to your hard drive. The first time you launch an office app, it installs the few support files it needs. If any of these support files get broken or lost, they will be automatically reinstalled the next time an office app is run.

You do need to run an installer to install "extras" like Equation Editor, Clip Art, and extra Office Assistants (ooh! ooh! hurt me more!), but for most users installation is literally drag-and-drop.

Re:Office for OS X == different by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 15:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

I know this argument, I've heard it before. I use Office v.X and I think it's great, although it has bugs (what doesn't). What I have found odd about this is that Office 2000 and Office v.X have some of the *same* bugs (outlining and the document map). I would think if they didn't have common codebases it would be pretty hard to replicate bugs.
Of course, I wouldn't be suprised if large portions of the Office suite are actually shared code. Hell *I'd* do it if I could.
Then of course, there was Word 6 for the mac, which lots of folks are convinced was the actual Windows version running through a sneaky p-code emulation layer. Including a few circumstances where you could bring up dialog boxes that said "Windows cannot print because of _____"
Re:Office for OS X == different by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 18:02 · Score: 0

Yeah, but the cat (assistant) on Office v.X sucks.

Office/Mac OS X isn't the same as Office/Windows by Trillan · 2003-03-05 07:45 · Score: 1

While you're right that blaming Windows for Office's short comings isn't fair (I haven't read the article recently, so I'm not sure what's really what's going on), you're wrong in implying Office Mac and Office Windows are the same program.

By switching to Office Mac v. X he essentially *did* switch to an Office. One that's still a commercial product that's fully compatible with Office for Windows.

I dislike a lot of Microsoft products, but I give credit (and cash) where it's due and use Office for Mac OS X. Now if someone replaces it with something better I'll be on it in a heartbeat, but it's pretty good as is.

Outlook?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 08:01 · Score: 0

I went out and purchased an OS X laptop and have been using it ever since. As of this writing, I am on the road in the UK (I live in San Jose, California) and am using Microsoft Outlook to e-mail

Huh? There is no Outlook for Mac OS X (other than running an old one under Classic, which I doubt he's doing). He may be using Entourage, but either way, that pegs the crap-o-meter.

Re:Outlook?!? by Erik+K.+Veland · 2003-03-05 20:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why do you doubt that? I'm using Outlook 2001 in Classic right now. In a corporate enviroment, and so is everyone around me in this very room. We are looking forward to an Exchange-enabled Entourage though.

--
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
Re:Outlook?!? by Erik+K.+Veland · 2003-03-05 20:18 · Score: 1

Two grammatical errors in one sentence. Just a lesson in why you never should post to Slashdot before breakfast. :-P

--
"I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java

Re:Affordability by Alex+Thorpe · 2003-03-05 08:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I pay no attention to PC prices, but everything I've heard recently says that current PowerBooks beat the PC laptops in both features and price. Perhaps the iBooks, too, but I'm not certain.

In any case, your 2 cheap PC's would probably be light on extra features, like high speed Ethernet, wireless networking, FireWire ports, and so forth.

--
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown

Not a bad switching article. by RalphBNumbers · 2003-03-05 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

One thing I really liked about this article was that, possibly for the first time out of the many switcher articles I recall, the writer doesn't confuse his ignorance of a platform's abilities with limitations of that platform's abilities.

I was shocked that he actually bothered to learn how to set up NFS on a mac without spending at least a paragraph or two whining about how long it took him, or that he had to download some 3rd party software if he wanted to configure it with a GUI. Most 'switchers' probably wouldn't have even figured it out before they wrote their article, and instead would have complained "macs can't do NFS", propagating FUD, just because they don't know how.

As for the rest, yes, it isn't really all that radical. For the most part he just uses the same Microsoft apps on a different platform. However if you look at it realistically, that's what alot of businesspeople have to do to get by.

Sure, he could have tried Keynote and/or OpenOffice, perhaps some time in the future he will. Berating him for using basically the same software package he's allways used isn't very realistic.

--
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge

Exchange support coming... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 08:18 · Score: 0

...supposedly in Summer 2003. Here is Micro$ofter's press release on it.

Re:Affordability by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm so tired of hearing that PC's are cheaper. THEY ARE! but who cares. You get what you pay for. Give me a break. You nerds afraid to pay a little more for a computer that you sit in front of for 14 hours per day. Who cares is a Mac is $1500 while a PC is $600. You buy one every year, spend the extra money and get something cool. You guys act like you have no money... live a little!!!

Outlook? by WatertonMan · 2003-03-05 08:35 · Score: 3, Informative

The one thing I don't understand is when he says he is using Outlook over a VPN. Is he speaking of the old Outlook Express that comes with OSX as part of the Classic mode? I suppose it works, but it is rather dated and doesn't use Aqua. Entourage is better but has its own set of problems - including so-so XP Outlook compatibility. (i.e. full compatibility with the version of Outlook that comes with OfficeXP)

I'd also second that overall the article wasn't that informative. It also is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is true that many switchers switch because of problems with Windows that isn't really Window's fault. (i.e. comparing Window98 with OSX and ignoring XP) By the same measure you can find on many forums people who have a bad Mac experience which isn't typical of the platform. No problem except when they then judge the whole platform in terms of one bad behaving application, bad memory, or a bad motherboard. It often seems most comparisons are emotional ones based upon one bad experience. Fair comparisons are all too rare.

I should also add that, even as a OSX lover, there are crossplatform problems. I find the browser in OSX for browsing Windows shares rather weak. It misses many servers. Yes many of those problems are Microsoft's fault and not Apple's or Samba's. But they are there. Work arounds are needed. (And yes I know that some of those problems even appear in mixed Windows networks) Many programs, such as Illustrator, often have problem saving to Windows shares for reasons no one is quite sure of. Further compatibility between file formats isn't 100%. Exporting presentations from Keynote to Powerpoint doesn't always work, for instance, and often screws up PDFs and the like.

It is much better now than it was in the past. However there is also a lot more work to do. Hopefully better Outlook compatibility is coming (either from Microsoft or Apple). Most people expect Apple to come out with an Office killer this year as well. We'll see.

Re:Outlook? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 19:41 · Score: 2, Informative

For the curious...
Outlook for Macintosh Note: Classic MacOS only.
Outlook Express for Macintosh Note: Classic MacOS only.
Entourage for Mac OS X is part of Office X.
- Anonymous Coward
Re:Outlook? by good+soldier+svejk · 2003-03-06 10:28 · Score: 1

I should also add that, even as a OSX lover, there are crossplatform problems. I find the browser in OSX for browsing Windows shares rather weak. It misses many servers.
I find it is incapable of browsing a routed network. When I add a WINS server to the config only the WINS server is browseable. When I remove it I can browse my own subnet normally. I have repeatedly berated my Apple rep over this, but they don't want to fix it.

--
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

-James Baldwin

Why? by theWrkncacnter · 2003-03-05 08:58 · Score: 1

Isn't this thing on the main page? This has been happening a lot lately.

--
-1 (Troll) is antihammer

Re:Why? by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 12:01 · Score: 1

It's slashdot! LOL! I mean... no duh...! LOL! I'll bet if Apple signed a $500,000,000 deal with Sun to directly compete with Microsoft it would get 2 lines. "Apple signs big deal. Steve Jobs very happy."

Re:If I switch.. by shylock0 · 2003-03-05 09:48 · Score: 1

I completely disagree. If the CTO of a decent sized company switched to Linux on his desktop, then wrote about it, he'd DEFINATELY get coverage on /. Just hasn't happened yet. As a guy who has had a few Enterprise CTOs for clients, none of them believe that Linux is ready for the desktop.

--
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by Feral+Bueller · 2003-03-05 10:19 · Score: 1

I've seen an issue similar to the one he described when upgrading off-license copies of Office 2000 -- I think SP 2 is what blows everything up -- the not recognizing the disks rang a few bells.

In any event, that's not a link I'd send to any corporate IT people I know (especially M$ monkeys) to demonstrate corporate usage of OS X: there are a number of feature compatibility issues with the Mac exchange clients, whether Outlook (classic) or Entourage (OS X) that make them unacceptable in our environment -- I either use a Citrix client or Virtual PC, depending on which computer I'm connecting from and what mood I'm in.

--
- learn to swim.

Speillingk by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 11:52 · Score: 1

"Not only did it access the network, but I could (assess) both our Windows and UNIX servers with NFS and CIFS from the same laptop. Could this be too good to be true? " Nice to see he puts as much effort into checking his documents for quality as he does his presintashunz. *sigh* It's really sad to see so many painfully obvious spelling and grammar errors on the web. Especially from management... just proves that talent and education is NOT how they got there. Not exactly inspiring.

Outlook under Classic by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 11:56 · Score: 1

What's the big deal? Works >fine on my 450 G4. Have been using it for years and it's great. As for other PC software - anything that won't run ON my machine, I use Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection - just like Term Services session. I routinely work from home and connect via VPN to my PC at work - no one even knows it's a Mac on my end. Oh, by the way, don't buy Macs, PLEASE, whatever you do.

Lynux by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 11:58 · Score: 1

Yup. LOL!!! I'll bet if someone came out with a Linex-powered -toaster- it'd be on the front page.

So, Don't. by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 12:03 · Score: 0, Troll

Please, don't buy Mac. Ever. You'd probably have a major belief-structure crisis... God forfend any hard-core PC user EVER ADMITTED PC's aren't the BEST AT EVERYTHING. LOL.

Re:Affordability by Steve+Cowan · 2003-03-05 12:30 · Score: 3, Funny

I traditionally have hated Mac, but I would be willing to try one if the prices weren't so insanely high.

To summarize: although you have not tried one, you traditionally have "hated Mac".

Please do me a favour and don't get a Mac, because you might like it, and we Mac zealots rely on the fact that Mac-haters are weenies like you.

Now that's classic PC user humor! by macguiguru · 2003-03-05 12:30 · Score: 1

Heh heh. Be funnier if it weren't YOUR life story... LOL!!!

Re:MacOSX with all Microsoft Software ... 'differe by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-03-05 12:45 · Score: 1

None, but as of Windows 2000, DLL hell has officially frozen over.

Re:Affordability by Whatchamacallit · 2003-03-05 12:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually that's been changing. Prices are dropping frequently across all Apple lines as the economy sags. They even released a single CPU PowerMac again to lower the price a bit. Most users would be happy with an iMac. The desktops are really intended for professionals who can afford it and also want to be able to upgrade it. You can't upgrade the video card or use a SCSI drive in an iMac.

I actually bought a PowerMac G4 Dual 1Ghz MDD a few months ago. Why would I want to spend that much? I had bought a PowerBookG4 550Mhz a few more months before it. I fell in love with the platform and I wanted a highend desktop with DVD burner and dual 17" flat screens. It's been an absolute joy! Worth every damn penny too! Plenty fast enough. In fact, I would say it feels faster than any PC I've used and I've used the top of the line Pentium and even a Dual AMD. Speed to me is not how fast the CPU clock runs or how quick a Window draws it's pixels but how fast I get my work done. Reliability and satisfaction are much more important then if it's a couple seconds faster!

Oh, now, come on... by FredFnord · 2003-03-05 13:25 · Score: 1

...I'm as big a Mac fan as anybody, but who the hell modded this as flamebait? It's a perfectly fair question.

Mind you, I think the answer is no... I still think using Linux for the desktop is basically farcical, unless you're an experienced IT professional or programmer or suchlike.

But it's a perfectly reasonable point to make.

-fred