Slashdot Mirror
Enterprise CTO Switches to Mac OS X
louismg writes "BlueArc CTO Geoff Barrall, using a PC day in and day out, found things becoming progressively more difficult as they increased in complexity. After one final straw, he sought out an alternative, and switched to Mac OS X -- in a corporate environment. His column, titled 'Rethink Before You Reinstall' documents the challenges facing Mac OS X in enterprise, and how he has changed his views." We've not had a switcher/MS-bashing/Apple rules/etc. article in a little while, so here you are.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
This is going to be horribly unpopular in this thread, but I couldn't resist. One major change in design with the new .NET languages and framework is to get away from all the grief caused by the registry and system-wide DLLs. In fact, with a pure .NET application, you no longer have to run a setup.exe installer, but can simply XCopy the folder onto the client's hard drive.
Don't get me wrong, I still prefer OS X to XP, but in this instance it would seem like MS is somewhat responding to people's frustrations and bringing things back to the simplicity of installing a DOS application.