Recommend Apple, Lose Your Job?

rocketjam writes "While examining whether outsourcing tech work to India is really cost-effective, Robert X. Cringely takes a look at the old conspiracy theory that IT doesn't recommend Apple solutions because they need less support, thus endangering IT professionals' job security." Cringely argues: "Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job."

Comments

Hmmm, is it that complicated

[mao che minh]

I don't see why he has a hard time grasping why Linux is adopted more than Macs in large organizations. Linux is far cheaper (x86 hardware, clusters and scales cheap), is more flexible, can run all of those fancy open source middleware products (without much manipulation), and most off all Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.

And for years to come, you can always just add more RAM or upgrade the CPU(s) in the Linux box. "Upgrade time" for the Mac means buying a whole new X-Serve. Once the hardware for the Linux box becomes too impractical to upgrade, it's flexibility will allow you to use it in some other fashion, like a thrid tier firewall or as a database server for some small intranet need, or just the box that runs your help desk ticket system.

I thought this was obvious.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[RLW]

No, it's not complicated at all.

This is the same reason that no software house will ever produce bug free products. If you make a perfect application that does the job then there's no incentive to upgrade. Build bugs in to products but no so severe that user won't use it. You can buy a lot more mini vans with bug laden code. Even put your kids through college.

Version 17.08.21r - Looks good!

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[nyteroot]

Exactly. He makes one blatant factual error:

Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper.

They are a HELL of a lot more expensive to buy (something on the order of 30% of an x86 based solution) and since, as you pointed out, upgrading them often == buy a new one, that brings the TCO up too.If it weren't for cost, I'm sure a lot more companies would be using Apple -- hell, I know I, personally, may well be on a Mac of some sort if it didnt cost $1200 more than the PC I've got now for an equivalent Mac.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Mononoke]

Sure you can upgrade the ram in an x-serve, or the processor. But at what price?

The RAM? Exactly the same price as an equivalent PC.

The CPU? Don't know yet. The unit is too new to need any upgrades yet.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Delphiki]

Apple hardware has had horrible design mistakes.. but no Wintel hardware ever has had hardware flaws that ended up biting people in the ass? And don't only look at the price of hardware. The workforce needed to run a Mac network as well as support costs are almost certain to be lower than a Linux network. If you only look at the price of hardware for purchasing decisions, then you are dumb.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[heli0]

P4's have higher themal dissipation than AMD chips:


P4 3.06 GHz; A New Record: 82 Watts Power Dissipation

These are everywhere in a 2 proc setup(xeon 3.06 x2) in a 1u configuration.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[caouchouc]

Right- there's nothing stopping you from upgrading a mac platform. Saying that you can't is just misinformation.

But then, so is saying that macs require less support than PCs. Cringly doesn't seem to have any experience with Mac support in a large organization, or he wouldn't be making these statements.

They are not without their faults and they most certainly do have their fair share of trouble. In my experience (from a mixed Win/Mac environment), the number of support calls per Mac user is about on par with those per PC user each year.

I'm not sure how the different problems each platform has compare, though. Maybe others could chime in with their experiences.

note: I do have to agree with some people that Mac hardware is much more expensive than PC hardware for comparable tasks. This isn't the point at hand, however.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[MrLint]

Let us be realistic for a moment. How often is one going to do anything to a rackmount other than add ram and perhaps add more/larger drives? Rackmounts are kidna meant to live on the rack until they outlive their usefulness. Besides that, do you really think its a good idea to upgrade the CPU in a 1U rackmount unit? Lets consider. A rackmount unit really has to worry about airflow and cooling, A hotter CPU may cause unreliable performance. And speaking of unreliable. You dont buy a rackmount system to putz around with it. Often they are mission critical units. You wanna upgrade a cpu on a mission critical mail server for fun?

Assuming the OEM even makes a model that has a faster CPU and you can stick in yours, why didnt you buy the faster one anyway? By the time you woudl get around to 'upgrading' your rackmount the net gen technology would have already rolled out the door.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[clbyjack81]

>> Show me where I can get a G4 for $100 or less.

Perhaps you should look around a bit. XLR8.com has 366Mhz G4 upgrades for $89.

http://daystar-store.com/product/msg4z366

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years of labor will cost you about $100,000 (for the sake of argument). For that you can buy 250 CPU upgrades.

People are so much more expensive than hardware that the whole argument about saving money with Linux is ludicrious if you can find another system, such as Macs running OS X, that can do all of the same things as Linux and reduce head count by even one or two people.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[alienw]

The xserve is decidedly NOT enterprise-grade hardware. It uses cheap, desktop-quality IDE hard drives and doesn't come with basic options like redundant power supplies and hot-plug PCI slots. Not to mention the sluggish G4 processors, the same ones as used in desktop machines. And the memory only goes up to 2GB. Excuse me, but that's not an enterprise server. That's a low-end server. Perfect for a small department server or maybe for hosting a small website.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that cutting one person from your staff can save you an easy $50,000 every year, your saving $1200 by buying a PC over a Mac looks pretty silly.

Linux advocates keep missing the point: the costs of hardware are incredibly minor compared to the cost of people to maintain it.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[kjd]

The answer to the second question is clearer, though. Macs are worth a lot of money in the resale market, while PCs aren't. Browsing on eBay, I see a 400 MHz iMac receiving 18 bids at $325 right now. On the PC side, a 1 GHz Pentium III is at $102. Now, I'm not saying these two are equivalent computers. I'm saying you should factor that difference into the TCO.

Yes, but the iMacs cost more to begin with. Compare the cost of the cheapest brand-new iMac with the cheapest new name-brand PC.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[letxa2000]

This is the same reason that no software house will ever produce bug free products. If you make a perfect application that does the job then there's no incentive to upgrade.

That's nonsense. I worked briefly as a network administrator/PC support for a 100-seat company in the early 90's--but I'm really a software developer and that's what I've done my entire professional career except for my 1.5-year stint as the network admin.

As a software developer I can assure you that I *always* try to make my code bug-free with as many features as possible. Like everyone, I never achieve that goal 100%. It's not because I want to milk the customers--it's because sooner or later you have to get the product out the door. Forgot sales-related deadlines and think practically: If you're developing a product you can just keep adding all the cool stuff you know you want, but you'll never sell a single copy until you get version 1.0 out there. Then you can have some income to add the rest of the stuff. A company that waits until it's product is "done" is a company that will go out of business because it will never have a single sale since it's product will be in development perpetually. Whether you should charge your customers an upgrade fee to move from 1.x to 2.0 is questionable, though.

I can also tell you, when I was in charge of that company's network and hardware I would definitely pick the most reliable hardware I could. I'm not thinking "Oh, my job is at risk if I make things so reliable they don't need me." You do the best job you can with the money available. Unfortunately, I didn't have an infinite budget so I bought the best computers I could with the budget available.

The whole idea that software developers intentionally make their own lives harder by "installing" bugs and/or that IT departments would increase their daily support burden on purpose is both cynical and silly. I've been in both positions and have never seen anything of the sort.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[steveha]

Linux is far cheaper

And the hardware it runs on is essentially free. An IT department can take any extra PC and put it on the net as a Linux server. Let's say all the folks in Department E got shiny new computers to replace their old 300 MHz boxes. Those old 300 MHz boxes can have new life as a server.

So why is Linux also used for enterprise servers, where the XServe would work just fine? I suspect it is because most companies already have a preferred vendor. All the shiny new boxes in Department E came from Dell, and the enterprise servers did too. Unless the business is an Apple shop, already getting computers from Apple, buying an XServe means buying from multiple vendors. And maybe the desktops and the enterprise servers were all bought at once, in a package deal that saved some extra money.

All this is obvious. I moderate Cringely's latest column (-1, Troll).

steveha

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It's REALLY funny where he claims it takes as may admins to run X-number of Linux boxes, as it does the same number of Winders machines.

Who sold you that one, Bob? Did a bridge come with it?

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[TClevenger]

That's because it's a 1U rackmount server. What other 1U server packs in 4 drive bays, redundant power supplies and hot-plug PCI slots? And what brand and model are these "desktop quality" IDE drives? Or does a drive become desktop-quality just because it has an IDE board on the bottom instead of a SCSI board?

The XServe RAID has redundant power supplies, so it's likely the next XServe will too.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[GlassHeart]

Yes, but the iMacs cost more to begin with.

You might, from the fact that I quoted a line that said exactly that, conclude that I know that. I'm adding factors to the original TCO equation, not denying the factors that have already been mentioned.

Let's put a box together. The $799 eMac has an 800 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB hard disk, 32 MB video card, ethernet, firewire, modem, etc. A $599 Dell Dimension 2400 has a 2.2 GHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 80 GB hard disk, on-board video, and apparently no ethernet or firewire ports. The most important point here is that whether these two are equivalent computers depends on what you use it for. It should be clear that for a certain range of purposes, we can assume the two are equivalent.

Further assume that the eMac will be used for 3 years, and the Dell for 2 years. Finally, assume that the eMac will resell for $400, while the Dell will resell for $200. Doing the math, the Dell costs 55 cents a day over its life with you, while the eMac costs 37 cents. Therefore, the TCO of the eMac is actually less.

Now, note all the assumptions I made. The truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of the assumptions. Check the numbers out for yourself, because I just made up the usage years and resale value for this example.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[CatOne]

C'mon. Is /. run on a single 1 GHz PC?

I don't think so.

So Apple has a "benchmarking" page:

http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html

Which shows Apache Web Serving performance -- where it's faster than a Dell 1650 (not sure if it's running IIS or Apache). Point is, even allowing for a little marketing hyperbole, OS X + Xserve is a fully capable web server.

Assuming of course you think Apache is up to the job?

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[47Ronin]

The cost of memory/HD upgrades (at build time) is also staggering - HD space is merely significantly more expensive, memory is about four times as expensive as buying direct from Crucial (100UKP for 256mb, compared to 25UKP)!

So buy the extra hard drive and RAM for the G5 from Crucial! Noone is forcing you to buy RAM or storage DIRECTLY from Apple. It's standard PC3200 DDR RAM, and standard Serial ATA. Geez, you people don't know how to shop for bargains.

Anyone who buys a packaged system from a brand name reseller KNOWS that you should buy the box with the least amount of RAM and HD available because you could always order those CHEAPER from a third party.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Urthpaw]

"Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.

You can do all of that with an iMac, if you wish. "

Apple.com is not a demonstration of an iMac running a website. It's a demonstration of an Apple server running a website. The post requested a demonstration not of OSX itself, but OSX's serving capabilities on low-end hardware. This is quite probably irrelevant, but you should still answer the question directly, if at all.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[BigRedFish]

Well, since you seem to be gunning for a response from a Linux/x86 person for some reason, I'll bite.

Your argument is well taken, and in fact I think it is an excellent point to use when debating Windows vs. Mac as a desktop machine. Apple has a beautiful UI, can run MS Word for those who need it, and is built atop BSD so I would expect it to be very stable. The extra purchase price of a suitable Mac with OSX for daily desktop use and as a network client in an office setting is more than offset by the smaller number of tech support people required to maintain it, resulting in a net savings vs. Windows. I wish Apple would make OSX available on x86 so it can run on the legacy x86 hardware that most places already have. Apple's currently exhibiting their biggest market miscalculation since they priced themselves out of the personal computer market in the '80s, by not releasing an x86 version! Heck, Longhorn and DRM and Trusted Computing and Subscription-Pricing and all that is an open invitation for someone to come in and eat MS's cake. If the option existed on existing hardware, I'd recommend migration to it as a standard desktop ASAP. I might well be running it at home right now instead of Linux; I'd at least give it a try for sure.

Where I think your argument breaks down a bit is in the server room. OSX is beautiful, and all that, but there is no reason to be running a GUI on the server. When it's loaded up with connections and is busy being a server, then you start opening windows with those flashy effects, it's going to bog the whole network down once the CPUs peak out. Your phone will start ringing off the hook with users helpfully telling you that their spreadsheets are taking forever to load. Unix GUIs have historically been so clunky and ugly to save clock cycles for more useful things, like serving up files and SQL data records to clients. When GUIs were used at all. This is part of why *NIX is eating MS for lunch in the server space (leaving security aside).

Being a BSD beneath it all, I'd expect there's a way to boot OSX into a command line and not use the GUI. If you do that, I'd expect it to be similar to running BSD on any other machine. As a server, OSX should require no more and no less of a knowledgeable maintenance staff than any other BSD implementation. Once you're underneath the GUI what's it matter whether it's Apple's BSD or OpenBSD or any other flavor BSD?

Now, given Apple is a sole-source outfit, if their stuff is well integration-tested prior to release, it might save a little bit of time, but that cuts both ways - I'm currently stuck with a used Beige G3 that I picked up (after consulting apple.com) last weekend intending to give OSX a spin, and now they've decided it's not going to be supported after all. The moral is, any savings in support staff must be weighed against the risk of getting locked into a marketing-driven, sole-source vendor for both hardware and software. So far, OSX looks very promising, but the very nature of Apple's business model presents the risk of Microsoft-style lock-in and a similar forced-upgrade treadmill without the benefit of commodity hardware pricing. Remember to take that into account. Given how much babysitting a Windows box requires, it might still pay off to switch though!

Additionally, Apple has very little of a track-record with enterprise servers. It wasn't until a few years ago that they managed to properly implement multitasking and multithreading, and to do it, they basically admitted to themselves they weren't ever going to figure it out so they copped the BSD kernel instead. I commend them for the decision, but it still leaves a seed of doubt as to their ability to follow through at the enterprise level. I've seen Apple change direction, suddenly drop product lines, and almost go bankrupt more times than I can count; you'll have to forgive me if I adopt a wait-and-see attitude for a while before I recommend bet

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[turbod]

Why should network services on a machine that is meant to be hotplugged, be sequenced perfectly? Most mac network components are mean to hang around and work right even with the net connection bouncing around, up and down, with different IP numbers everytime. My NFS server dameons on my 17" laptop work after a sleep/wake/ip change as they did before, and I don't have to kill them or restart them.... no thought involved at all, leaving my brain to more interesting stuff, like developing driver software...

Unix is afterall a multitasking OS, why not allow even the initialization process be super-multithreaded? Seems like you want to draw lines in the sand --- lines in the sand give the appearance of simplicity, but in the end, lines in the sand are "special cases" and have to be dealt with "differently" from the rest of the system. If anything a arbitrary ordering is simplicity incarnate. Make the software work in arbitrary order, and then the user can change something and not wreck the precarious balance of the rest of the system.

Given that, yes, I believe Linux is a start disaster. Dependencies can only be resolved between startup scripts by reading every friggin' one of them. This literature becomes boring at some point...

TurboD

A matter of comfort

[REden]

as I mentioned in a response to Bob.

It's an issue of comfort.

Everyone is comfortable with windows, even if they don't like it.

Many admins are comfortable with Linux/Unix. It's what has gotten the job done for years.

I have used lots of different operating systems, CPM/TRSDOS/OS-2/VMS/Unix/Windows but have
NEVER used a Mac, so I'm not comfortable recommending it. I expect it to be very different
from the CLI world I'm used to.

In order for me to get comfortable, I'd have to play with it. If MacOS ran on PC hardware,
I would consider setting up a partition to boot it, but that's not the case. It's expensive
to learn, and I have no incentive.

Robert

Re:A matter of comfort

[esome]

Right, so there there are just hardly any IT professionals who are comfortable using a Mac? I find that hard to believe.

It seems like you've over-simplified the situation a bit. The money issues I buy, but comfort? It's important to be comfortable, but at the end of the day your boss wants to hear that you have a solution that works, not that you have a solution that is comfortable for you.

Jeez, don't flatter yourself

[mr.henry]

Anyone who buys into this 'conspiracy theory' has had their brain fried by the Apple reality distortion ray gun. Here are a couple reasons why the company I work for has never, and probably will never, consider Macs:
cost
Check gotapex? or techbargains and you'll see Dell P4's for $400-500 bucks. Seriously, what Mac can compare?
software
AutoCAD? GIS apps? Engineering apps? (Canvas doesn't count. Get real.)

Those hip, trendy commercials don't help either. I want a box to crunch numbers, not to make a fashion statement.

Re:Jeez, don't flatter yourself

[haystor]

In my experience for the regular use it comes down to money.

The corporate standard is 1.7GHz machine with 256M of ram and a 17" CRT (not even flat screen).

Price out that computer and let me know which Apple I can get for that.

It's true. I did it for years.

[OS24Ever]

Used to work as a contractor for a major pizza company that used to be in Kansas. They were an entire Macintosh place, had systems for about 700 - 1000 users I think it was.

Then a large soda company bought them and felt that 'they all needed to be the same' even though the Microsoft Offices the platforms ran worked together.

So, we went from the two of us supporting 700 - 1000 users to 18 people.

And the user populace was not happy. The standard rebuild time of a machine went from 'when they got new ones' to once a week. We had device driver issues, and SLAs of getting machines back up and running in two hours so we ended up just ghosting machines over and over to clear up whatever went wrong.

Weird.

I wouldn't suggest it

[kippy]

I'm an applications admin. ClearCase and ClearQuest specifically. I also support a host of other engineering applications. Most of those apps were never and probably will never be ported to the Mac and I'm willing to bet that other engineering shops are in the same boat.

Sure, I figure that Macs might have a place in a business or accounting context but not for engineering. Anyone got a counter-example?

Doesn't make sense

[eap]

Every IT dept I've ever encountered was overburdened to start with. I can't imagine they would not want a break so they could attend to more important things than Windows crashes. Not only that, but the techs _hate_ dealing with this stuff.

Imagine how much money you could save your organization if you had the time to verify all backups and replace old, failure prone disk drives before they crash.

There is always more to do in IT.

The bad taste of Appletalk

[ansible]

I'm sure things have improved tremendously, but in the previous decade, Apple computers were a severe pain in the posterior to support in a large enviroment.

There's a lot of things about Appletalk that didn't scale well at all. I wasn't a member of the Mac support team, but oh, the stories I could tell... Oh, the hacks that were needed to get them onto the regular TCP/IP network...

If sysadmins aren't installing Macs now, maybe that's why. Maybe they are just afraid.

So how easy are they to integrate into a large network these days?

Re:The bad taste of Appletalk

[m3djack]

People seem to be missing that OSX is now based on BSD. From my understanding, it's just BSD with an attractive and functional GUI on top. I don't see why all the linux/bsd sysadmins should fear OS X, because it's pretty damn similar to what they already administer...

Human Nature...

[ewhenn]

Self Interest is human nature. Are you REALLY going campaign for a product that will possibly help you meet your own economic demise?? Chances are no, especially if they clientel (sp?) are easily swayed and lack knowledge.

Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more trollish than insightful. The XServe is exatly like any other rackmountable machine. The only difference is it has a different type of CPU and can run OS X. Nothing's keeping you from upgrading anything in the XServe either.

Heck, it even runs Linux. The parent is simply spouting old anti-Apple rhetoric.

Wow, this is horrible to say...

[notque]

But if I was looking at the exact same comperable solutions, and I knew 1 would benefit the IT department vs. hurting the IT department's job security, I go with the one that is going to secure jobs to my hardworking co-workers (and I) ... The CEO makes more than all of us combined, We lost our coffee machine.. it's fair!

Tutorial.

[SamTheButcher]

Ok, here you go.

1. Go to your nearest Apple store.
2. Go to whichever computer looks the most like a PC (to assuage your discomfort level). Don't worry, few look like a PC.
3. Use the mouse and go down to the dock, usually located at the bottom of the screen.
4. Click on the Finder icon.
5. Click on the Applications icon at the top of the window that opens.
6. Open the Utilities folder within that window.
7. Double click on Terminal.

End tutorial. Should all be familiar from there.

Sort of facetious, but, well, not really. Try it. Take a half hour out of your time. If it's not that easy, well, then you now know you're making the right decisions instead of wondering "if".

Re:Tutorial.

[BobKagy]

That is NOT how someone gets comfortable with a system. They get comfortable by trying out a number of different tasks that come up from day to day. At least that's how I got comfortable with Linux. I downloaded it one day, and played with it. I tried to surf the web. I tried to set up X. I didn't understand it right away, and so I booted into Windows and did what needed to be done. Eventually I learned more and my computer spent most of its time booted there.

Compare that to the Mac. I have spend $2-$3k just to get my foot in the door. If I don't do that, all I know is its supposed to be great, but when my boss asks, "Well Bob, in your experience is the Mac the best choice?" I can't say yes because I've don't have any experience with it.

Everything else has either been cheap enough to play with, or sold as "Just like" something cheap enough to play with.

Cringely accuracy?

[guanxi]

Hopefully this was a one time slip, and not representative of his overall performance:

A very good friend of mine (one of Microsoft's major customers at the time) recommended to Redmond precisely the e-mail safeguards that would have made this week's problem impossible.

Unless I'm mistaken, msblast (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't spread by e-mail. Is he confusing 'e-mail' with 'the Internet', or did he not do his homework.

More about history than Job Security

[nicholas.]

i think bob is missing something, until Mac OS Server 10.2 macs really weren't capable of doing everything a normal IT admin would need it to do. their AIX servers were great, but very un-mac like, their ASIP servers were great for serving Macs but nothing else. until OS X you couldn't run Apache on a mac server. this is the first time they've had a REAL serving OS.

sure, NOW an Xserve with OS X Server is price and performance competive and it's easier to maintain. but Apple has a decade of either lame performance, lame sever OS or too high pricing to erase from the minds of IT professionals. despite all of Apple's consumer "Mind Share" convincing an IT person to all of a sudden adopt a new product that used to suck isn't going to be easy.

that being said. OS X and an Xserve really is all that. people complaining that they're too expensive need to take a closer look.

Decisions are ALWAYS done this way.

[morven2]

Don't kid yourself. Technology choice is rarely, in any organisation, done for purely altruistic 'what's good for the company?' reasons.

Instead, the technology chosen is one of two choices:

1) What people are comfortable with. A lot of people want an easy, safe, predictable decision.

2) Resume fodder. What do the decision-makers want to add to their resumes? What's missing?

Analyse the average IT department's choices and one of those two is almost always the cause. Let's face it, most of us would also be guilty of these; picking what we're used to and what we think would be fun or useful to learn.

And this is different?

[thepler]

Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job.

If this is in fact true, how would it be different than any other department? The Legal department recommending the strategy that best behooves the Legal department; the Marketing department making recommendations that behoove the Marketing department... It's made to sound like this is bad for IT departments to do when there might otherwise be no IT department. Why would an organization recommend their own demise?

You can apply it to entire industries as well. The Music industry making recommendations that behoove the Music industry; the Finance industry recommending things that benefit the Finance industry...

I think it's called 'enlightened self interest', or something like that.

Why is this even a discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted a toilet seat cover I would have bought a Mac notebook.

If I wanted to pay twice as much and go half as fast I would have bought a G5.

If I wanted a "tv advertisement supercomputer" I would have bought a G4.

If I wanted to belong to a club where other fools who spent more, and who buy applications with silly names (usually include the word "MAC") meet I would buy a Mac.

But if I wanted a REAL machine to monitor network traffic, act as stateful packet inpection systems, hookup to a realworld business network, run many different versions of Linux real quick. then I definetly would NOT buy a Mac.

The reason that Apple only has a 5% penetration into the market place CANNOT all be blamed on IT managers fearing for their jobs!

Macs and SATs

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of low verbal scores on SATs around here.

This article was about outsourcing IT overseas and unnecessary cost layers. The conclusion was all about local talent using open source vs. proprietary tools being more efficient than outsourcing in general and particularly overseas -- a particularly strong argument to be made in the current economy. Obviously it is not just the CEOs and CIOs that cannot see the forest for the trees when even /.'ers only see the brand of computer on their desk while it is packed up on a container ship along with the job they used to have.

Re:You need a good reason why IT avoids Mac?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Oh, bullshit. Unclick the "AppleTalk" button in the Network System Preference, then; no more AppleTalk. Now it's just talking tcp/ip, so no excuses.

So that's the case for OS X--and you can turn off AppleTalk in OS 9 also, one click. Since, I think 8.5 (about 5 years ago) it would then be able to talk tcp/ip as well.

You may have issues getting your Macs on the network, but AT ain't it.

From the article....

[Sevn]

Whatever the conventional wisdom or the Microsoft marketing message, Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper.

Cool! Where are the numbers to support that? Probably isn't going to cut it.

Then a little later....

I am not claiming that every organization should throw out its PCs and replace them with Macs, but the numbers are pretty clear

You mean, those numbers that you didn't include? How are they clear? Once again, Probably isn't cutting it here.

Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that.

AS PROBABLY SIMPLE AS THAT!!

There's that probably word again! Ok, so it's obvious he's a Mac user. I'd probably take him a lot more seriously if there were a lot less probablies and a lot more proof and information. I'm PROBABLY going to stick with Linux for my IT needs for now.

Re:From the article....

[Darth_Burrito]

There [applelinks.com] are [apple.com] a [hubster.com] lot [hubster.com] of [apple.com] studies [xephon.com] that [apple.com] support [apple.com.au] Cringley's [216.239.57.104] statement [macworld.co.uk] etc. [macrules.com], and you'd be hard pressed to find a single study in the reverse!

No offense, but that was probably the funniest thing I've read all day. Next time you try convince an agnostic, try to get more sites without apple or mac in the domain name. Let me just cruise over to Microsoft.com to see their latest review on Windows Server 2003, nah let's see what RedHat.com has to say about Linux enterprise servers first.

Oh, that's DEFINITELY it!

[NerveGas]

Know the whole world knows! All of us IT types are really all sitting around in a room filled with exotic dancers, pool tables, video games, and food. We don't really do anything. And it all gets so boring that we go LOOKING for systems to give us more work to do!

In reality, 99% of the IT people that I know would practically sell their left arm to have systems which required less of their time.

steve

Absolutely

[sbwoodside]

IT is like a priesthood. Only the priests understand the computers, so they have this absolute control over the decisions that upper managements makes. You think that the president has any clue what to do about IT? Hah.

So, yeah, IT people like Windows because it keeps them in a job. And Microsoft feeds right into this. Ever noticed how there's ALWAYS a workaround in Windows/Office/whatever? There's almost always some way to get the software to do what you want, even if it means hours of registry hacking or whatever. Microsoft probably makes sure that every bug in their database is resolved to at least "Workaround exists" status and then they ship it.

Linux is also happy for IT depts because it's infinitely configurable.

Apple, on the other hand, makes systems that are designed to NOT NEED ADMINSTRATORS. Thus, it follows that no system administrator will ever buy one.

THat's why apple doesn't have much chance of breaking into the corporate market, frankly.

simon

I'm breaking /. protocol here, but...

[JRHelgeson]

I know, this goes against everything /. stands for but I read the article and now I'm posting.

Is it me or is Cringely a bloomin idiot? He starts off talking about outsourcing then Apple, then back to India. He states that using more Macs in the office would decrease TCO without giving any numbers or any statements to back up that opinion. And it isn't even his opinion! He got the idea from a reader, no less!

Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that.
I didn't come up with this very smart idea, it came from a reader.

Whomever gave this guy a pulpit needs to be shot. This guy obviously uses a Mac.

Amazing! Common sense in the mainstream press.

[jabber01]

Cringely just discovered the problem with outsourcing your IT competence. Someone pat that genius on the back.

Of course IT seeks to remain relevant, just like any other department. Most internal money is spent on make-work that just reminds everyone of everyone else's role. Hell, half the feature creep and spec shifting is just management's way of reminding everyone that the middle-managers exist. After all, their sole purpose is making life easier for the workers, but if they did that successfully, like security experts, they would appear completely redundant.

It's a wise CE/IO who keeps IT in-house, thereby tieing their livelihood to the success and well-being of the company. Outsourced IT is like paying a pharmacological company for drugs for a terminal patient. They'll help keep you alive to profit from your problems, but they won't want to make you better since then you might not need them.

Techs don't want to learn it

[Anonymous Coward]

IT doesn't recommend Mac because It doesn't know Mac. The techs don't know how to work on Macs and haven't wanted to touch Macs because they saw Macs as just more stuff they'd have to learn and more items on their plate. They've spent all their time leanring Windows and taking MSCE courses and don't want to have to take any other course to support their job. Thus they don't recommend Macs. The tech geek elite learned Linux in their spare time and it slowly infiltrated the business space. First it showed up as the IT guys personal computer. Then the spare server to do IT related issues. Then the intranet web server. Then the enterprise computers. (I admit, that history was all specualation from what I have observed which is a limited viewpoint.) Linux has been a grassroots solution that has finally caught on. With OS X, I have started seeing more of the same with Macs lately. With job I just entered into I went to the desk of the guy I replaced and there was an old faculty G4, installed with OS X set up as a departmental ssh, ftp, and web server. We unplugged it to use the IP and quickly got a call from him asking if we had turned it off. Seems he was still using the files on it and asked to let him get it off. We're still using it for the same stuff he did because Mac OS X is less than Win2k server and we have the spare boxes to install it on* and are not afraid of them failing like the spare clones we have around.

* Our radiology department used to be 100% Mac (the entire hosptial was about 50%). Over the years it has slowly gone towards PC. Because the faculty wanted PCs, no. They are the last hold outs of Macs (except for the bank of GE image brokers). For two reasons. One IT services has refused to support Macs at the hospital even when 50% of their customers has Macs, and two, because GE made a web application that we have to use that only runs on IE 6 for Win2k/XP (in breech of contract might I add).

Re:Pricing and Usability

[TClevenger]

1) Pricing: Mac's are significantly more money.

Dell Optiplex GX270: Celeron 2.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, combo drive, 17" monitor, USB WiFi adapter, v.92 modem, XP Pro: $1,352 after $50 rebate.

Apple eMac: G4 1.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, DVD-R/CD-RW, 17" flat CRT monitor, Airport Extreme, v.92 modem, OS X 10.2: $1,398.

I guess it depends on your definition of "significantly."

And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.

Windows ME and Windows 2000 were released very close together, if not at the same time, yet you were expected to pay again to go from one to the other. Every machine sold until the release of 10.2 still could run OS 9, and there are plenty of applications available there.

2) Usability. While there are a lot of things that work smoothly under OS X, there are still some issues, ESPECIALLY with Windows interoperability -- and any company of size is going to have a significant overlap. So you'd have to train IT folks (or hire new ones), and still have some userland issues.

Actually, I've found OS X to be easier to integrate into a Windows network than even Windows 95/98. People at my company who come from OS 9 and Windows alike find it very easy to log on to servers use printers. If your users don't like it, OS X can be scripted onto servers just as easily as any other workstation.

The biggest plus is that you don't have to join a domain to access its resources. I had a Powerbook on a Windows-only network for 6 months. Not only was I able to log on to all of the Windows servers, I could administer them with Microsoft's terminal services client for the Mac, and still work through Outlook. Nobody had any idea that there was a Mac on the network--it was that compatible.

Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? Again, this is on fairly new machinery!

The people in my office who are still working away at their Beige G3's would probably disagree. I seem to remember the jump from the 286 to 386 to 486 caused the same issues (and complaints.) My 2000-vintage Pismo Powerbook was the machine I mentioned above. Not only was it able to be quite productive in a Windows-only environment, it has plenty of speed for what most people need it for.

Concerns have to be that Apple is quickly going to invalidate the G3 and G4 (over the next 24-30 months).

Why's that? I seriously doubt that they would shut out machines that are selling even now so soon. In fact, with the G5 becoming the new "high end" processor, it's likely that the G4 will become the new "low end." I expect eventual phase-out of the G3's because of new Altivec-ready applications released down the road, but those who need those applications will upgrade, and those who don't can continue to work with 10.2, or even OS 9.

Same Reason I don't have a mac

[Alan]

Cost I'm willing to bet is more the case than some grand conspiracy by the IT world. Sure they cost less to support, and increase productivity, but when the initial outlay is more than a compatible x86 box, the people in charge of budgets start screaming. No one thinks about the saved cost in the future, it's all about now.

IE: Should I spend $3k (CND) to buy a swanky new apple powerbook (or more for a new g5?), or should I spend $1000 and upgrade my current x86 system to be a pretty kick ass gaming box, which can also act as a high powered linux server? Pretty easy choice if you see my bank account.

Sure in a year or so I'll want to upgrade again, or I'll have a MB or DIMM or hard drive go and will have to buy a new part, but that's ok. Because the cost is down the road, and therefor, doesn't exist.

Note: the last sentance was intended to be sarcasic or ironic, depending on your view.

Appletalk tasted good as a user

[macrealist]

Ten years ago, nothing beat appletalk from a user's prespective. Finding printers was easy and straight forward, as was finding servers. It was easy to share your work with others. And at the time, there was (and still really is no) equivilent in the Windows or Unix worlds.

I've heard administrators horror stories of dealing with apple talk, but they don't seem to much worse than other horror stories. And even if they were the cause of a little more pain, isn't that the price of providing a good network solution to the users.

At my former company, when it was time to move away from appletalk, the network adminstrators jumped as fast as they could to replace it. But they didn't have horror stories of having to patch thousands of users computers, or bringing down entire networks as reasons for their JOY of seeing appletalk go away. Instead, it was that appletalk "slowed down the network".

So, we got a new network where we had to remember the IP address of any printer we wanted to use and any server we needed to access, and to share our work we had to tell everyone our IP address and hope that they wrote it down or you'd be telling them again, and again, and again... We went from a user centric network to a faster IT centric network.

Although I am a big Mac fan, I don't agree with Cringley on this issue. There are other reasons that Macs are being used in most businesses besides IT looking out for their own jobs. And most seem to be outlined here by /. users (preceived costs, lack of apps, unfamilarity, high cost of experiment, vendor lock, ...).

But whenever I think about the lose of AppleTalk, and now see it being blamed for Apple's shortcomings, I really wonder who IT thinks they work for. Always thought the user, but maybe not...

Re:Mouse Buttons

[finkployd]

Which is great for desktops (I'm typing on a Mac desktop now) but I will not but an Apple laptop until they fix this one button insanity. I should not have to carry an external mouse around with me wherever I go.

And it is not like the space isn't there, the mouse button on an iBook is larger than the two/three buttons on most PC laptops combined.

Finkployd

Re:Windows in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

If the admins kept things in line, perhaps things wouldn't be so bad. I don't mean that in a smart ass, synical way either.

Admins don't go nuts updating windows machines when things are implemented the right way. If you run a microsoft update server on your own, you can approve updates, and the workstations will auto update nightly. Easy. No fuss. No RPC worms either. You can even make it automatic if you're brave.

If it's a windows shop, the admins could implement group policies to prevent users from installing all that IE toolbar crap that shows in the screenshot. I do notice that Symantec/Norton anti-virus is loaded, and if it's updating from a central company server nightly, you probably wouldn't have those virus/worm outbreaks.

Don't necessarily switch to mozilla, just switch to better admin policies.
</rant>

Re:Macs, Linux really are better

[truenoir]

Think for a second about how much the person using the computer makes. Multiply that by the company's personnel roster count. You really think an extra $1000 every two or three years matters if it keeps a $40k a year employee happily working during that time? A business trip costs more, or a weekend retreat. Heck, if it means that one or more IT people aren't needed, the cost could be absorbed. Or if 200 people lose 2 hours of work (virus or whatever) and make $20 an hour, that's $8000 right there...what happens if you lose a day or people make more? Fact is, hardware and software are *not* the most expensive thing with an organization. Labor is. So in perspective, $2500 isn't that much more than $1100. Not to mention that I see Macs stay in service longer than most PCs...

Dump the Macs and PCs for Lower TCO

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to lighten IT's workload, get rid of the Macs and PCs, whether Linux or Windows, and go with Winterms or Xterms. Think about all the time wasted ghosting new PCs, installing patches, etc., etc. With Winterms or Xterms you just plug it in and it works. All the application installs, security patches, etc. happen once, on the server.

Price comparisons between Macs and PCs are a farce

[erat]

To all those who insist on putting the price of a PC up against the price of a "comparable" Mac...

Let's get something out of the way right up front: a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC. Sure, that's obvious, but it surprises me how little it's acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. $1500 worth of PC hardware won't give you a Mac no matter what you put on it. The same goes the other way; Mac hardware and software will never get you a PC no matter what combination you use. In the end, a PC is still a PC and a Mac is still a Mac. Play with numbers all you want, it won't change a thing. Folks who want a Mac will not be happy with anything but a Mac, not even a comparably spec'd out PC, period. The reverse is just as true.

Comparing Apple computers to PCs is like comparing Palm devices to ring-binder planner systems (nothing should be implied by the order in which those items were listed, by the way). Both serve similar purposes, and there are folks who use each who would never think of ditching their choice for the other. So would it be safe to say that all Palm users should ditch their Palm devices for ring-binder planners purely on the basis of a price tag? I think not. Palm users love their expensive Palm devices and binder planner users love their slightly less expensive binders, and neither is going to be wrong for sticking to their preferences.

I find the whole Mac vs. PC debate silly for the reasons described above. I use both, although I prefer my Macs to my PCs. That's just me. My wife loves her PCs and despises my Macs. Life goes on.

Re:Pricing and Usability

[MasonMcD]

1) Pricing: Mac's are significantly more money. And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.

Now, your other points might be valid (though there are several companies that specialize in mac upgrades), but an unlimited license for OSX Server is what? $1000? Even at 10 times that, it pays for any hardware disparity with commodity PC parts with any significant installation.

How much is a 5000 seat WinXP contract? How many IT to support that, and how much do they make?

Re:Midrange apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought about this on many occasions. I use terminal servers for anything that I can't run well on a Mac. On top of this, most of the mission critical apps have been published on Citrix servers as well as stand alone PC apps so they can be accessed from any platform and also work well over low speed links. Joy of this is central management of a desktop via MS RDC, and central management of a client app via a farm of Citrix servers that get updated instead of updating client software when needed as well. I guess taking advantage of things that make your proprietary or platform centric apps useable by anyone on any platform is horrible!!!!! Why would you do that!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Makes an assumption

[rmarll]

This argument makes the assumption that IT is ever properly staffed in the first place. IT people almost universally want to lessen their workload so it falls more in line with their actual [underfunded] workload capacity!

I think that was the point of the article. It's about the CIO not the staff. Headcount is king, and from what I've seen, it really is. If you need more IT to keep up all the time, you just keep getting all these people under you.

Resume-- Mangaged a 350 head IT department for bigass corporation...

is much more impressive than

Resume-- Managed a 5 person IT department for bigass corporation....

FUD

[briancnorton]

This is all BS. Tech people recommend what they know. What most of them know is what they learned in the six weeks it took them to get their MCSE. QED.

Technical professionals won't recommend Apple or linux because they recognize that the best tool for the job is one that employees understand.

Macs win in TCO, according to Anderson

[garyebickford]

The numbers are out there if you take the time to look. I only have old ones, 'cause I don't do this stuff any more. But Anderson Consulting (now Accenture) used to do periodic TCO analyses of Windows vs. MacOS in Fortune 500 environments. IIRC the difference was about $5000/yr/desk for Windows, $2000/yr/desk for MacOS.

Mac user productivity was higher (the machines just worked, were easier to use with more consistent UI, and didn't go 'blue') but mainly support was much cheaper (less upkeep, much less helpdesk, much less reloading of OS, much less backend work on the server & network infrastructure to keep the workstations going.

I haven't kept up so I don't know if they still do the analysis. I was unable to find an old reference on their website, sorry. You'll just have to take my word, or look it up at ZDNet or something. But as several people here have noted, a typical large mac installation seems to require about 1/5 as many people as a large MS installation.

I personally know at least one consultant who shifted from Macs to Windows for exactly the reason Cringely stated. He found that his Windows clients needed him a lot more => he made more money, and was glad to do it.

In my one stint at a $n billion company they spent over $5 million in support, plus unknown lost time, dealing with one virus event (Nimda?). With about 20,000 PCs that works out to $250/pc just for the one event. If you add 2 hours of lost time per person (over 1/2 professionals), that's another $200 in loaded costs. They banned Outlook Express from the company after that incident.

I also note that a couple of years ago when some big virus/worm came round, all of the Big Five (or however many they are now) accounting firms used Unix servers except KPMG. KPMG was down - the entire company as I recall - for a couple of days, while the others continued operating with a few limps here and there. That probably cost almost as much in lost time as their entire hardware infrastructure's capital cost.

People tend to forget that a single onsite support visit of two hours will cost as much as the entire PC, and a single helpdesk call costs from $20-30 minimum, up to hundreds of $. (I used to worry about the cost of my time setting up open source software, but found that it took just as long, usually longer setting up Oracle & iPlanet.)

Re:Midrange apps

[CatOne]

Sorry, but it's fairly obvious you're not familiar with the middleware market.

Tuxedo is a TP monitor application -- it is ONLY necessary when you have multiple data sources (i.e. two simultaneous database logins) and you want to coordinate them where the database itself cannot. In my experience, TP monitors like Tuxedo or Encina are necessary in about 5% of database application.

And then you mention WebLogic, and have the gall to mention WebLogic Enterprise! What percentage of BEA's sales do you think that product is? I'll give you a hint: It's far less than 2%. WebLogic Enterprise is a shell game application masquerading as an upgrade path for WebLogic customers who need "Enterprise" support. NONE of their customers have ever ported from WebLogic to WebLogic enterprise. Well, unless you're talking about people who would accept a SINGLE THREADED EJB container, which when coupled with the fact that the EJB spec says you can't have threads *in* a bean, basically means you have more containers running concurrently than a rabbit makes bunnies.

And DB2? Why the hell would anyone run DB2 on an Xserve? Note I said "middle tier" -- again this is why I wonder whether you understand what I'm talking about. I want you to find me a bunch of people (besides IBM consultants) who think DB2 is a "middle tier" app. If you want to run a database on an Xserve, you have a few choices: Sybase, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL can do some fairly heavy lifting, and then you have things like Filemaker for departmental databases.

As for your "platform for themselves" comment I am again confounded. Xserve supports X11, first and foremost. Then, you can have your Xserve running JBoss connecting via JDBC to Oracle, DB2 (on the database tier), or whatever you want. Really. It plays well and it works with databases on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or a mainframe if you have the JDBC drivers.

When you consider the price of 8 clustered Xserves running JBoss+MySQL compared to an 8 way Solaris box running WebLogic and Oracle, what you see is something that costs about 5% to 10% as much for hardware and licensing costs, and performs equally well. Is it as stable? Depends more on how well the app was written. Is there more risk? Certiainly, today, there is. Is it worth it? Depends on how risk averse you are. When compared to shipping half of the IT staff overseas, it certainly may be worth taking the risk.

I get the feeling you haven't looked at an Xserve or OS X, ever. Which means you should throw up half-assed arguments when you don't know what you're talking about.

OSX is buggy as all getout.

[Dan Ferguson]

I have to help a company that was running a bunch of workstations for graphics design. They were a design/pre-press outfit. OSX ran terrible and always had problems.. It crashed all the time... Even after rebuilding a machine you would have problems not too much later. You just had to push it. Let's not even talk about Mac fonts... Geez the old Mac's were worry free.. Now XP runs circles around OSX.. IMO! Maybe if you just play with the Mac it still holds it's own, but in a business environment like the one above, they are a real pain. Nice little hex dumps when an applications fails.. Come on apple... At least they didn't leave a stupid hole in the OS like the Windows and RPC... Support free they are not...

I have 2 xserves and 500 linux boxes.

[goombah99]

every single one of my athalons (18) has had the power supply replaced twice. half of my p3 blades (150) have had their disk replaced. my 90 supermicor xeons are doing quite well thank you. my desk top linux Pcs have ahd various disk failures.

my xserves have never failed. redundancy doesn't mean shit if the product isn;t good to begin with. I got lucky with super micro and in fact the latest 2000 cpu cluster at my company is super micro too. but frankly the other copanies on paper were actually better.

the only reason I dont buy more apple xserves is that as long as I can get lucjy the linux boxes are cheaper. but if I had to pay anybody the same as an apple i'd rather have an apple since I know it will work. you can have your redundant power supplies.

the key if finding a good vendor and sticky with them.

Re:I have 2 xserves and 500 linux boxes.

[DeadScreenSky]

No offense, but I really don't think a lowly two xserves makes up a good sample to base any predictions on their reliability!

Re:Makes an assumption

[iphayd]

Right, but saying...

"Reduced IT cost by 75% by reducing the department from 250 employees to 5 and reducing TCO of all computers, while increasing productivity in other departments." ... will get some brownie points from the board of directors when it comes to your stock options.

I love those boxes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to do Mac support. They do break. There ARE support issues. I didn't spend a year of my life restoring AppleTalk access to printers for nothing, you know!

Talking out of his ass

[16K Ram Pack]

Trouble with computer journalists is that they have some strange ideas.

I wonder when the last time was that this guy actually worked in a computer department? In the early 80s when departments were well staffed?

I'll ask my work tech admin if he's happy dealing with the fall out from Windows Viruses or if my boss is? I know what the answer is "we have better/more enjoyable things to do than patch windows".

There are more simple reasons why companies don't use macs.

There is a perception that you are 'bound' to Apple in terms of hardware, rather than the vendor independence afforded by Microsoft

There is less business software. We use a call centre package at work. Is there a Mac version? Nope. What about something like Coda? Nope.

You can't so easily get developers to write software for Macs. I know that's a vicious circle, but that's the way it is.

They are perceived as being "for graphic designers".

I'm sure many people just running Word and browsing the net can manage fine with a Mac. Personally, I'd rather stick with Microsoft or bank on Linux.

Re:Windows in the workplace

[BostonPilot]

Actually, I gotta agree with the previous poster. In lots of companies, the IT department dictates policy because that is a way to gain power and control, build an empire, and try to make themselves indispensible. They say they have a mandate from management to make the IT system work, but then they go around acting like a bunch of Nazis. They often seem a lot more concerned for their own empire than for making sure the employees are productive.

I'm sure there are lots of enlightened places, and it sounds like yours probably is one, but the last place I was at was a nightmare. I'll give you an example: you could not connect ANYTHING to the network that IT didn't bless (I mean, not even a Laser Printer). We wanted a file server in my group. It didn't need to be fast. I recommended a Snap server because we had used one at a previous job. For $4,000 we could get like? 100GB of space. The IT department wanted us to spend $40,000 for a Network Appliance with maybe 18GB?. Cool box, but we didn't need that level of server, and really wanted to save the company $36,000. The IT department claimed we couldn't plug it into the net until they "certified it" which would take six months. My boss asked them how they would "certify it". Answer: They'd plug it into the corportate net for 6 months and play with it! LOL.

I finally got so pissed off at their inability to keep my Windoze NT system running that I brought in a Mac running OS-X. They silently blocked my MAC address in all their switches/routers to prevent me from connecting to the net - and didn't even send an email / leave me a voice mail. I wasted a half day figuring out what they did because they were trying to be sneaky bastards instead of being in the business they should have been - keeping developers like myself productive.

Sorry your feelings are hurt by people like the previous poster and myself, but it sux to be told the jackboots are for our own protection. A much better environment, one which corporations will eventually move to I hope, is one where people are allowed to pick the hardware and software tools that make them most productive, do 95% of their own support, and only need help from IT when network & extra-ordinary issues rear their ugly head.

People who can't imagine a computer system that doesn't need constant babying from "IT professionals" just aren't seeing what the future needs to be. The old "Imagine if cars were like computers" thread is right on the money.

Reality Check

[salesgeek]

Having sold wintel to companies ranging from mom&pop to SBC, Coke and FedEx I think I'm qualified to point a few things out:

Software is god. Usually software requirements drive hardware requirements. Perception is more enterprise stuff runs on wintel. Reality: many enterprise apps are bad ports of stuff writen for other platforms. Also: vendors typically appear to charge a little less for their wintel software and make up the difference in gold and platinum support contracts that are just a part of the deal on their AS/400 or Unix versions.

Strategic IT Purchases are Political. With the exception of very small companies, IT platform decisions are not usually made by the CIO. The CIO and IT managers act as advisors as the CFO or Controller, CEO and other executives make a committee decision. The result is that decisions are made based on sizle, perception and consultant's advice more that anything. Believe me - you aren't hearing Gartner, Bearing Point, Accenture whispering "Buy Apple" in anyone's ear.

Most Wintel v. Apple (or Unix) decisions are about should we switch to Wintel. That's right. Most of the time it works like this: CEO and CFO tell IT to get rid of Apple (except for the marketing VP's staff) and Unix. The IT team has to then decide to 1) fight for keeping Unix and possibly loose job and 401K vesting or 2) Manage a glorious rollout project that will result in more $$$ at the next place.

Perception v. Reality is not in Apple or Linux favor in the board room. Right now, MS has done an amazing job of teaching their vendors to sell "low total cost of ownership (TCO)." TCO basically says when you buy take into account all the costs associated with the purchase over the life of the product. While reality is that Apple and Linux systems require lower headcount and generate less downtime, most TCO models assume that the IT department will remain the same size and require more educated errrr expensive people. They also don't factor in software upgrades.

Future Development is to be on wintel. Many companies claim that they are moving future development to Wintel for their package. Buyers see this as validation that the world is changing to their point of view.

Salesmanship. Disclaimer: there are some really smart, dedicated and professional salespeople in the Apple and Linux world. The brutal facts of reality are that most Apple and Linux reps are good geeks but not good salespeople. This statement does not apply to IBM.

Re:Real reason Linux is faster adopted.

[11223]

Nah, you got that all wrong.

Me to boss: "There's this thing I want to do that will make me work more efficiently if I had a Linux box around."

Boss to me: "We don't have a budget for any new equipment or software."

Me to boss: "No problem, I'll download a distro for free, burn a few CDs, and install it on that old beige box that we don't use anymore."

Boss to me: "You're not hooking that up to our network. And that's a leased PC. You can't install lie-nux on it."

Or have you not worked at a big company recently?

counter rant

[theolein]

OS X is BSD based. You have most of the things you have in Linux, such as a Terminal with bash or tcsh (you can also drop the GUI altogether if you edit the startup file), where you can edit your scripts to your heart's content. A lot of stuff is different but available (ipfw instead of iptables, netinfo for users, groups, network config etc etc) and you should find your way around quickly.

I get irritated by so many people who used Macs back in the OS 6-9 days making authoritive statements about the OS of today. It seems similar to someone here making authoritive statements about Linux based on knowledge of setting up slackware in 1998, or of Windows based on experiences with Win95 or WinNT.

Time moves on, things change.

IT guys push Windows?

[echo8]

In my professional opinion, Cringley is full of it. I've been a unix sysadmin for the last ten years. I've run big shops and small ones, I've been a grunt and a manager. There is exactly one reason that Apple doesn't have MS's mindshare in industry: marketing. Period.

I have recommended Macs as desktop machines to all kinds of customers just about forever. Believe me, it won't put me out of a job. Configuration management, software distribution and system administration tasks that are not the end-user's reason for being employed will have to be taken care of by someone no matter what platform is used. No business wants to have its accountants, programmers, scientists, photographers, etc, etc, etc spending their time messing with their computers. There will always be a role for professional IT people.

My experience has been that when I argue in favor of Apple, the pointy-hairs essentially come back with all kinds of marketing rhetoric. MS wines and dines them. MS gives them slick presentations with lots of big numbers. MS gives them free stuff. MS whispers FUD in their ears. Apple does none of this, they just sell a better product. Apple doesn't give those slick presentations. They don't offer to help port your legacy code for free or to send legions of droids to the customer's site to hold their hands during the conversion. They do not fight Microsoft's mass-market juggernaught.

The only conspiracy is the one in Redmond. Technical IT people aren't stupid and they aren't gullable. Having better tools would mean being able to get more done, not less work to do. If everyone used Macs instead of Windows, productivity would improve, but so would demand. Users would expect to get more and higher quality work done. Demand for IT support wouldn't go away, by a longshot. Cringley: try actually working in an IT shop sometime.

Not fsckin' likely

[Chelloveck]

I like reading Cringely, even if he's a bit whacky at times. At least he's a good kind of whacky. But this is the biggest load of paranoid crap I've seen in a long time. (Not counting some real tinfoil-hat ravings from other sources. Those are really in an entirely different league of whacky.)

I've worked at half a dozen shops in the past 15 years, from a huge mega-corp to a couple of dinky start-ups and various sizes in-between. In every case the IT department, if it existed at all, was overworked. They may want all-PC shops for various reasons, but it's not because of some vast protectiveness of their own jobs.

There are several reasons for wanting an all-PC shop. The first is that PC techs tend to be more readily available than anything more esoteric. This actually works out fairly well, because most office workers tend to equate "computer == Windows". So the office workers get Windows PCs and the IT staff hires a bunch of Windows monkeys to support them. The problem is that this creates two classes of techs, the Windows techs and the non-Windows techs. The non-Windows techs can generally service Windows machines, but not necessarily the other way around. There's a natural tendancy to buy equipment that most of your people know how to service.

Of course, there are actually some very talented IT people who honestly believe that Windows is the One True Way. I've worked with a number of them. They're not stupid or incompetent by any means. They know Windows inside and out and can force it to do darned near anything. These people may have dabbled with other OSs, but (not knowing them well) couldn't make them work as efficiently as they could make Windows work. This only reinforces the idea that Windows is superior for everything. Whenever a new system is needed, naturally they'll install a Windows system.

And even with all that, everywhere I've been has had one or two token Mac or Unix machines around. Even the staunchest PC supporters have to admit that there are a few niches better served by another OS. Generally these black-sheep machines are unsupported by the IT department simply because there's no one around who knows anything about them other than the people who use them every day.

There's no need to invoke conspiracy or paranoia to explain why other OSs aren't as popular. Face it, for the most part Windows is "good enough" for the job. Unless there's a killer app that demands something else, Windows is going to be the popular choice.