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

[Anonymous Coward]

The XServe, although not an x86 machine, can do everything you just said an x86 Linux box can do. Heck, if it becomes impractical to upgrade and you don't want OS X on it anymore, you can - well - install Linux on the thing.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Mononoke]

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.

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.

See, there's what the article is talking about: FUD. You can add RAM to an X-Serve. Somewhere down the road you can probably upgrade the CPU, also. There are CPU upgrades available for every single other Mac ever made, so it's quite likely that when the time comes that the original X-Serve CPU can't keep up, an upgrade will be available.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[CoyoteGuy]

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.

Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior? :P

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

A Mac is considerably more expensive than a bottom-of-the-line, no-frills PC. (Or, worse, a "kit" PC that you assemble from parts.)

But when you compare apples to apples (heh), you see that Macs are quite price-comparable to mid-range or high-end PC's, feature for feature. On the very high end, Macs are actually significantly cheaper than PC's, apples to apples. Or rather they will be when the G5 starts shipping.

A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the cheapest Mac Apple sells and assuming it's a low-end computer. It's not. Don't make the same mistake of thinking that it is.

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

[nettdata]

On top of that, have you ever worked on an XServe? It's a DREAM to deal with!

The thing is incredible, the way that it comes apart, and the ease with which you can change components is sooooo nice.

If I had to deal with upgrading/swapping components as part of my job, I'd LOVE to have a rack of XServes.

Not saying that other boxes aren't as easy/nice, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[leviramsey]

Actually the reason why no software house will produce bug-free products is that, beyond trivial things that are provably correct, it's impossible.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[CoyoteGuy]

Here you go. Give this one a try.

I said iMac, not a convoluted version of Linux running on proprietary hardware.

iMac= small, cute microwave sized pc.. something I would feed an Opteron Cluster for breakfast..

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

[Mononoke]

If apple made enterprise-quality hardware, we could compare those prices, too.

They do.

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

[GlassHeart]

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.

You ignore two factors that also go into TCO. One, how long can you use each box? Hardware quality aside, at what age would you retire a PC compared to a Mac? Two, for how much can you sell the old box?

I can't answer the first question for you, because that has to do with usage patterns. Many people do claim that a Mac stays usable longer than PCs.

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.

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

[Malor]

But even if you totally omit the cost of hardware (not unreasonable, as it is maintenance that really costs), the XServe isn't any easier to maintain than Linux is. I find OSX to be much harder to work with, from an administration perspective.

It's a better DESKTOP than Linux (not a ton better, but better) -- but as a SERVER it's not as good. The hybrid OS it's running will run most open source stuff (thanks, fink guys!) but getting that stuff working is often a royal PITA, *harder* than it is on Linux.

And the marriage of the Mac's non-cap-sensitive filesystem with the fundamental case expectations of Unix is FAR from a match made in heaven. It is just awkward and annoying as hell.

OSX is really pretty, and I own a dual G4 tower myself. But I seriously question the constant adulation it gets here on Slashdot; I have often wondered if the place is being astroturfed. Yes, it's pretty; yes, it's Unix. Apparently their laptops are pretty sweet. But as a desktop, I see it as being competitive but hardly compelling. I don't think it's going to be any cheaper to maintain than a well-run network of XP machines. And as a server, it's a LOT harder to deal with. I assume part of that is the learning curve, but it's not an instant fit to most open-source stuff the way Linux is.

On top of that, I don't particularly trust it. From a security perspective, I'm not at all sure about the quality of the design. Consider: the nidump utility dumps out *encrypted passwords* to ANY user on the box, even 'nobody'. In other words, OSX doesn't even have the equivalent of shadow passwords! That is just so overwhelmingly boneheaded that I wouldn't trust it with my critical data. Sure, I could remove nidump, but it's not SUID or anything -- at some interface level, the box will happily spit out its encrypted password hashes to any user, and it's not like Joe Hacker is going to have a hard time ftping nidump back in. Their password hashes may be better than most (no idea), but even if they are, that doesn't excuse handing them out to just anyone. No matter how hard they are to crack, the advance of CPU power makes them constantly easier. This is just *so* stupid that I question the fundamental design; are they even thinking about security at Apple?

The only spot where I can see Apple being really compelling is in the Unix laptop space. If you want Unix on the road, Apple is far and away the best choice, probably years ahead of anything you can buy in the Intel space. But for the "normal OS" laptop market, I suspect that a Centrino Thinkpad will mostly run rings around a Powerbook; similar build quality, equivalently nice screen (though not in widescreen format, AFAIK), better battery life, much faster, and cheaper.

I generally like Cringely, but this week's column is just purely ignorant. He's making absolutely wild assertions on no evidence whatsoever. IT people are under incredible cost pressure; if Apple was really cheaper and better, they'd be switching in droves.

And don't even get me started on "12 people and a bunch of contractors would run IBM's network better".... for a network supporting THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND EMPLOYEES plus god knows how many customers, directly or indirectly, dependent on that network.

Words fail me.

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]

That's a low-end server. Perfect for a small department server or maybe for hosting a small website.

Also perfect for high-end applications by the United States Navy, ala nuclear attack submarines.

http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/defens e/story/0,10801,83783,00.html

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

[gozar]

On top of that, I don't particularly trust it. From a security perspective, I'm not at all sure about the quality of the design. Consider: the nidump utility dumps out *encrypted passwords* to ANY user on the box, even 'nobody'. In other words, OSX doesn't even have the equivalent of shadow passwords! That is just so overwhelmingly boneheaded that I wouldn't trust it with my critical data.

Open Directory on OS X server is very flexible, and you can choose to store your user lists in Password Server, Kerberos, or Active Directory. Then you don't have to worry about people getting your encrypted passwords.

Don't confuse OS X client capabilities with what's available in OS X Server.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[sceptre1067]

Just to be anal...

The Xserve only has one power supply... in a similar price range Compaqs and Dells come with redundent power supplies.

I realize this is a minor thing, but from the initial research we did at my company (a less then 100 person firm), we just didn't get the feeling that Apple really knew how to deal with the corporate market (e.g. redundency, dependability, interoperability, snapshots of drives, etc). More like they were counting on the 'cool' factor that makes them a good desktop machine, but not server.

Now on the flip side the group who designed thier RAID box does seem to understand...

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question is who sold you on that BS that it takes a smaller number of admins to maintain a Linux network?

I am one of two admins where I work and we have a network of about 15 Windows servers, 2 HP N-Class systems, 275+ desktops and all the associated network equipment. We have absolutely no problems handling everything. The important thing to know, however, is that the primary reason that there are even two of us is for redundancy. My employer is willing to pay for the peace of mind that comes from not having to call the admin back from vacation early because something happened. Someone is always onsite. Neither I nor my partner have had any problems maintaining the entire network with the other gone.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[Pinky]

I would be surprised if a web site ran on an iMac because of their screens.. it takes up a bit of space for nothing in the server room. We used to run part of our website on 6 iMacs but we switched things around so the things that used to run on iMac now run on older G3/G4 towers and the iMacs are in the field. The towers are more easy to stack in a rack and have more CPU power per unit volume. Especially the dual processor macs.

That being said, I can think of no technical reasone you couldn't do the same with iMacs. Kidda a waste with that nice LCD, though.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[koehn]

Okay, first:
The password hashes are HASHES. Not encrypted. There's no way to get the original back, no matter how much CPU you have. Agreed that it's still not a great idea to let anyone at them, and I have to admit I was stunned that you could do it. I'll have to see if they use a different salt on each machine though, it adds a small measure of protection (if the passwords aren't simple). Download a copy of john and see how long it takes. My imac (running Linux) has been working on guessing a password to match my pw hash for more than ten days. The users on my system who used insecure p/ws were cracked in minutes.

Now you wanna talk security holes: by default, any DHCP server can send a URL of an LDAP server to OSX, and it'll authenticate users from that LDAP server. Yuck.

Second, you state that "OSX is much harder to work with," but don't explain how. Personally, I've found it much easier to learn than Linux was: I've never felt the need to compile my own OSX kernel, but I've had to do that repeatedly to Linux over the years. The distributed directory stuff in Jaguar rocks, and it integrates with LDAP, AD, whatever (and all of the above, simultaneously). See the macdevcenter at O'Reilly.

Agreed about Cringely: he's an idiot, IMHO. Can you name ANY profession that would recommend a change in their workplace that would remove themselves from being qualified to work there? Sheesh!

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

[BWJones]

Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior?

Here you go, as requested, an iMac server. This one happens to be an older G3 iMac running OS X, so......Do your worst, but know that all IP's are logged. :-)

This little iMac get about 30k hits/day and is rock solid. One of the best $600 I ever spent.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[defago]

Consider: the nidump utility dumps out *encrypted passwords* to ANY user on the box, even 'nobody'. In other words, OSX doesn't even have the equivalent of shadow passwords!

In fact, the statement above is misleading. nidump dumps password that are stored in NetInfo, which is more-or-less the equivalent of NIS. When passwords are stored locally---that is, not through NetInfo---they are stored using shadow passwords. Now, if you compare with a Linux/Solaris/* environment using NIS, you can also obtain encrypted NIS passwords through ypcat. To avoid this situation, you would use Kerberos, which OS X also supports. Hence, your main complaint sounds rather biased to me.

This said, I agree with your complaint about filenames capitalization. However, the biggest complaint I would have about OS X Server is that, while its management tools are great as long as you stay on well charted roads, you need to circumvent them to get to tune more advanced settings. Then, it is not much different from setting/tuning a Linux box, except that file locations are slightly different.

Words fail me.

Hopefuly, you can recover now.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[klez23]

And some things (like postfix) absolutely WILL NOT start from SystemStarter. (I spent a LONG time on this one; I still have to log into my Mac after a reboot and issue 'postfix start' as root. It WILL NOT run from SystemStarter.)

Hmm, i simply installed "daemonic" from fink (as well as "postfix-release"), typed "sudo daemonic enable postfix", & it installed a "daemonic-postfix" item in /Library/StartupItems which starts Postfix automatically with every reboot. (Previous to daemonic's emergence, I'd rolled my own startup item, which was pretty easy as well-- I just copied the SSH one from /System/Library/StartupItems & changed a few things.) Try it out.

Re:Hmmm, is it that complicated

[tgibbs]

Oddly enough, I just had a friend visiting tonight, who asked to use my computer to read her email and browse the web. So I let her use my desktop computer, a 233 MHz G3 running OSX 10.2.She was exclaiming, "Your computer is so fast!"

Now, I don't find it fast; I use it mostly as a music/photo server and spare computer, because it is noticeably pokey compared to my 800 MHz G4 powerbook. My point is that those of us whose income or business allows us to use reasonably current machines get very spoiled, and we forget that performance that we now find "unacceptable" only a few years ago seemed impressive.

And in fact, that old G3 is indeed perfectly adequate for web browsing, word processing, and running iTunes. And in my opinion, a big improvement over the same machine running OS9.

If you buy Apple..

[Anonymous Coward]

..somebody in India starves because of lack of tech support calls.

Please. Think of the Indians. Buy PC.

Re:If you buy Apple..

[BobWeiner]

all I can say is this is how it's going to be if we keep buying overseas.

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

Makes an assumption

[Telastyn]

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!

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....

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.

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?

Re:I wouldn't suggest it

[laird]

It depends on the kind of engineering you're doing. There's a shortage of CAD packages for the Mac, for example, but with MacOS X, most of the major UNIX engineering packages have been ported to MacOS X -- the vendors see it as a dramatically easier way to get to the non-UNIX desktop market than doing an NT port. Some examples:

You can find a good catalog of Mac app's at http://guide.apple.com/. A quick search turned up ArchiCAD, CADintosh, DesignWorks (circuit design/schematics), MacSchema, PowerCADD, VectorWorks, B2Spice (circuit emulator), ... you get the idea. Probably not as wide a range as for Wintel, but they've certainly got their fans (i.e. people using them to make a living).

Re:I wouldn't suggest it

[Reverberant]

Sure, I figure that Macs might have a place in a business or accounting context but not for engineering.

Engineering!=CAD

I am an engineer. I've worked on many engineering studies over the past few years. I run a engineering company now. The number of times I've had to use a propriety CAD package I can count on my right hand.

Thanks to all of the open source packages out there, there are plenty of engineerng apps available for Mac OS X.

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.

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.

Windows in the workplace

[OmniVector]

I went absolutely nuts updating machines in my workplace for the MS Blaster worm. Take a look of one of my user's desktop for an example of why.

I have to say: updating these machines is a completely and utter waste of my time and skills but it definatly keeps me employed. My boss is so apathetic that he never wants to make changes. I've offered on several occasions of virus outbreaks in the company to switch everyone to mozilla mail so we'd stop getting those Lookout (Outlook) viruses. But no!

I swear if i ever own my own company, everyone will Linux dummy terminals or iMacs, etc -- something ease to remotely update and maintain.

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.

True enough.

[Chess_the_cat]

This is totally true. Take a look at small offices that don't have or can't afford an IT department and you'll see they normally use Macs. Why? Because if you have a company with 12 people running Macs you don't need an IT department. Look at Vice Magazine for an example of what I'm talking about. I'm moving into the realm of home business and you know I'll be making the switch. Then again, I'm in graphic arts and all the labs at my school are Mac labs.

Bad Conclusions

[Dasein]

First, I think Cringely is great. I mean who else would let us buy video tape of them having a nervous breakdown?

However, I think he's *WAY* off base here as to why Linux is being adopted faster than Apple. If I need a 64-way Linux machine, I can get it. If I need a cluster I can get it (off the shelf). If I want some funky hardware bit, I can get that as well.

My reason for not choosing Apple is vendor lock-in. If I can keep something that allows me to pick and choose parts from a wide variety of sources, I can build solutions that fit the need.

The one place where he might have a point is on the desktop, but I don't see a lot of Linux migration on the desktop. It's still Windows. People want Office even though they hate it.

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.

[LionMage]

Hum, this mouse is weird. Something's missing. Oh right, it has just one button. How strange. Context-sensitive menus and mousewheels nowhere to be seen.

Which is why Mac power users buy their favorite replacement mouse with multiple buttons and scroll wheels. If you can scrape together at least $15 to $30, you can buy a decent mouse.

Mac OS X has full support for multiple buttons (right mouse button works for contextual menus) and scroll wheels.

If you want to pop up a contextual menu without the right mouse button, you hold down the Control key and click with the mouse. Simple.

Pricing and Usability

[71thumper]

Cringely's close, but off the mark.

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.

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.

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

Those are my thoughts as a fairly PHB who started using OS X on a TiBook back in 2001.

Steve

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.

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:Pricing and Usability

[Whatchamacallit]

OS 10.1 & 10.2 would be considered service packs in the Microsoft world, and Apple is charging for 'em like they're a major upgrade to the OS.

That's where you are completely wrong! They are major upgrades! The jump to Jaguar (10.2.x) and the next jump to Panther (10.3.x) are paid upgrades because they include a whole bunch of new features. Jaguar included literally hundreds of updates. It would be like going from WinME to WinXP in comparision.

There's still confusion for the MS crowd about how the versioning works. 10.x.x is the brand name of the OS. It's OS Ten. The .x release is the operating system version. 10.0 was practically a beta. 10.1 was the first major release. 10.2 was Jaguar and soon there will be 10.3 which is Panther. In between you have the .x.x releases. These are completely free and for the most part don't add features per se. The .x.x releases are like Service Packs.

When was the last time you ended up with major features being added to Windows due to a Service Pack upgrade? I would venture little to none. You would get improvements like bigger disk support and bug fixes but not major changes or new features. Then why is Apple dropping the ball w/OSX on the G3?

Because it was a CLASS ACTION Lawsuit and they decided to settle it. Originally Apple stated that OS Ten would run on G3's then they back peddled a little bit and the OS exceeded the hardware abilities of these older machines. I believe it was a combination of a few factors.

1. Major advances in Video card technologies at the time. i.e. new cards every couple of months. Hey day of 3D accelerators.
2. Processor speeds were advancing very fast at the time as well.
3. Memory prices were dropping like a rock.
4. Apple engineers showed Jobs what Eye Candy was possible with newer hardware.

I have no doubt that if you strip out of the eye candy and turn off some of the other features those older G3's would actually run OS X rather well. The early 10.0.x beta was quite capable of running older systems. The same thing happened in the PC world as well. Suddenly 133Mhz / 233Mhz / 266Mhz machines were left in the dust by 500Mhz / 650Mhz /800Mhz and then the Pentium 4's! What happened to the older PC's? They are running Linux in places or being dumped on the trash pile or getting donated to schools, etc. I doubt that we could gang up on MS and sue them with a Class Action stating we want a refund because XP won't load on my Pentium II!

Re:Pricing and Usability

[cygnusx]

> It would be like going from WinME to WinXP in comparision.

WinME: no security model, no journaling, no ACLs, kernelmode and userland mixed up, no POSIX layer, irrational system limitations all over the place.

WinXP: security model, journaling FS, ACLs, cleanly separated kernel/user mode, POSIX layer, *plus* a vastly different and better kernel, plus true-blue 32-bit OS with no silly limits.

The upgrade price from ME to XP Home was $99 MSRP, available for $75-$85 at most places.

By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic between 10.0 and 10.3. There have been a slew of new iXXX apps, eye candy, plus several incremental updates to the OSX kernel (mostly Apple catching up with the BSD world) and fixes for speed and stability.

To be fair, OSX was a *spanking new* OS (like NT 3.1) and deserves some time to `settle down'. What i find disturbing is Apple's need to charge early adopters for their show of support.

Re:Pricing and Usability

[Llywelyn]

>The upgrade price from ME to XP Home was $99 MSRP,
>available for $75-$85 at most places. ...and the cost of the full version? A 5-license package?

Bear in mind as well that *every* copy of MacOS X is closer to the professional versions of windows than anything else.

>By contrast, OSX has delivered nothing quite as dramatic
>between 10.0 and 10.3.

Bullshit.

*Journaled FS
*Encrypted Home Directories
*Expose
*Quartz Extreme
*Recompiled in gcc3.1 (from 2.9--this is *very* major).
*Rendezvous
*Faster User Switching
*WebCore
*X11 Included
*Updated Web-browser (From IE 5 to Safari 1.0)
*The Darwin core (and kernel) have both been udpated.
*Inkwell
*Built-in faxing in every application
*A new finder interface and interface tweaks (with both 10.2 and 10.3--a new find function, spring-loaded folders, a whole new brushed metal interface for Panther...)
*/Enormous/ Speed Improvements
*iDisk Syncing
*Pixlet support
*Updated bundled applications (Mail, iTunes, iMove, and iPhoto, and iChat AV all come to mind)
*Serious improvements to the developers suite (Xcode, Shark, gcc3.3)
*Font Book ..and on...

Macs, Linux really are better

[FunWithHeadlines]

At my company we use a variety of boxes throughout, Windows, Linux, Mac. We do this for a variety of reasons, among with is which systems the people using them like, what our customer needs are for development purposes, and so on. So from a real-world experience here are some points:

• Macs are not that expensive. What you get with a Mac makes up for slightly higher prices. They give you what you need without having to tack on lots of "extras."
• Macs can do everything you need. We use a mixed environment transparently. There is nothing I cannot do with a Mac that I want to do, nor am I prevented from interacting with Windows boxes or Linux boxes. It just works. Transparently.
• Macs don't waste your time. Every security update from Microsoft means the Windows guys are running around updating. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. The Windows guys keep updating their virus software. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. And although some people report problems with Apple hardware, and I respect those opinions since any hardware can go wrong, our uptime has been great.

As for the Linux guys, heh, they love Linux and take care of their boxes without any questions or issues coming up. Patch needed? They do it on their own time. Uptime? Forever. Problems? Nil.

In short, don't believe those who say that you can't do things with Macs, or it causes problems interacting on the network, or the usual FUD. Although I'm sure there are specific instances where problems might occur on the edges, my real-world experience has shown that the Mac and Linux boxes are the ones that just work in my company. Any problems we have are with the Windows side. I can well believe that you need more IT staff to keep the Windows boxes going. There is very little you need to do to keep the alternatives going, and they interact just fine.

So if you love Window boxes, good for you. But if you hear the FUD about Macs not working well with others, I'm here to tell you that it's just not so.

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...

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.

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.

Cringley argues......

[Awptimus Prime]

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."

This person obviously sees only part of the bigger picture. Supporting the hardware/software is part of the total cost of ownership. If a company deems it a better deal to purchase PCs over cost of support issues, then they'll be picked. Not to mention, most users have a PC at home. Why burden them with learning a different platform at the office?

Bottom line, you can go buy a new PC motherboard, sound card, video card, etc for a few bucks. Replacing Apple parts are a bit more expensive and harder to come by.

If Apple had wanted a larger share of the office market, they should have been there to compete for it all these years. Nothing against them, but they focused almost entirely on the home user market and photoshop crowd for the past ten years, leaving PCs for the miscellanious work. You don't get your hardware stocked in offices by being innovative, you do it by being consistent and monopolistic.( :( )

This isn't a blanket assumption that PCs are the better answer for all office situations, but those are the reasons none of my shops have been Apple shops.

Please don't get all zealoty and mod happy, just an honest opinion from an honest joe who's set up more office networks than most. My karma is still recovering from the last time I posted to a Mac thread. ;)

couple of things..

[Hooya]

first, i'd have to play with mac in non-critical settings to be familiar with the platform to form my own opinion and figure out the gotchas. now that's going to cost me around $1500. lotta money for playing around. (vs. $300-$400 for a system that'll run windows or linux etc.)

second, once i did bring up using macs instead of wintel for regular users. my boss scoffed at the idea. lesson here is: it's not up to me.

the reason i was successful with linux is i got the 'throwaway machines' after the office went thru a hardware upgrade. i then proceeded to wipe those machines clean, installed linux and has since been running file servers, print servers etc. so eventually i was able to convince buying hardware specifically for running linux. can't do that with a mac (start out with throw-away machines, that is) i even got a mosix cluster of older computers that they were ready to toss out.

so maybe there's more to the CLI than just pure nerd testosterone. evolutionary adoption? vs. the disruptive adoption that a mac would require.

Re:It's true. I did it for years.

[Hungus]

I used to work for that same company .. but in a restaurant I have a similar story to that myself right down the road from where the company you used to work for is now, there lies a building of unspeakable evil wherein I worked with my current roomate for several years. The two of us did teh entire Mac phone in support for the nation within the first 90 days of sale and the paid support afterwards we had one mac to work off of between us and had to enter our calls in on the PCs. Well there were 2 of us and about 80 PC techs but here is the really interesting thing He and I averages 70-80 calls a day each the other side was lucky to handle 1/3 of that each. Nationally there were about the same number of trouble calls per machine ... but our calls to much less time.

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....

[tychay]

Hard to believe the parent was modded as "insightful".

Cool! Where are the numbers to support [Mac Total Cost of Ownership lower than Windows]? Probably isn't going to cut it. [More uncontrolled ranting...]

Sad, people never learned to search the internet before pressing the flame button. There are a lot of studies that support Cringley's statement etc., and you'd be hard pressed to find a single study in the reverse!

BTW, I've seen studies supporting Linux as having a good TCO vs. Windows NT. I've never seen a study comparing Linux vs Mac TCO on desktop, and there are only a few studies comparing Linux vs Mac TCO in servers (the Mac usually comes out on top, but the studies are recent and may have bias).

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.

just like the Bible!

[QEDog]

Recommend apple, lose paradise!

Real reason Linux is faster adopted.

[etymxris]

It goes like this for Linux:

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: "Sure, knock yourself out."

And it goes like this for Apple:

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

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

Me to boss: "Nevermind then."

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...

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.

B.S.

[gleam_mn]

From the article:

Now, I think differently. Now, I think Macs threaten the livelihood of IT staffs. If you recommend purchasing a computer that requires only half the support of the machine it is replacing, aren't you putting your job in danger? Exactly.

Normally I agree with Cringely but this time I'm just going to have to call B.S.

I'm a sysadmin for a small bank (about 175 workstations spread out of 17 rural locations) and the reason our IT Staff here doesn't look at MAC (or linux for that matter) is that virtually none of the necessary banking software is put out for mac (or linux). And it's not like we're running some obscure banking core software... we're an ITI/Unisys mainframe shop.

Furthermore, no other sysadmin that I've ever talked to has had the attitude of "lets choose something that's difficult to use for job security"... that's just crap. Most of the IT shops I know are, if anything, understaffed and have plenty of job security because of it. We're not about to go looking for more work for ourselves... if anything it's just the opposite.

I use what the industry allows me to use, not what makes my job more secure...

Apple sneaking in to our company

[Nice2Cats]

Apple laptops are sneaking into our company the hard way. We are a Microsoft-only shop (by contract, I think) and so we don't get to even install Mozilla Firebird, even though we seem to spend half of our time online getting rid of popups.

However, among the about 20 people in my sub-department, there are three with an Apple laptop for home use. One was always a Mac fan, the other took a good look on what as on the market, and the third talked to a bunch of people (including me) which laptop would be the least hassle. We all said: You don't want to have to fool around? Go get an Apple. Note that I've been a Linux person for ten years know, but I like my friends and intend to keep them. Linux on the laptop sucks, not because of Linux, but becaue of the laptop makers.

Anyway, we now have a small but critical mass of people who are getting everybody else interested, and keep bugging our tech people if they can get their Macs linked up to the rest of the system so they can do work from home on a real computer (company policy seems to say "no"). Also, they flash their iBooks around as Apple users are wont to do, and yes, those things are seriously cool. The design makes other laptops look like they were designed in the Soviet Union.

Buy an Apple desktop machine? Hell, no. I can get a far better deal with off-the-shelf x86 parts and SuSE. Buy a laptop from Apple? Yes, I'd switch, and I think most people in our department would, too. But official use? I don't see the inertia being broken. There is truth in the statement that nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft.

That's the way it is at my workplace

[Yort]

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

I had this case just today. I was talking to my Administrative Assistant friend, and he was just getting off the phone with IS with regard to the Blaster worm. Seems the auto-update thing didn't work for his computer. That turned out to be because he was running NT with service pack 4, and you need SP6 to be able to install the patch.

No biggie, right? But get this - IS's first recommendation was to upgrade to Windows2000. Why? Because "Windows 2000 already comes with SP6". Which is crap, they just meant that the Windows2000 that they would have installed would have already had the correct service pack needed to install the patch - but they still would have had to install the patch!

So, rather than upgrade a perfectly functional NT box (my friend only needs Outlook and Netscape, really) to SP6, they wanted to spend $250 to upgrade to 2000.

Which wouldn't be a big deal if we had money to burn, but we don't. And the best part is, we're a friggin' *nix company!

Wow! Something made me post.

[DAQ42]

To all those who denegrate Apple.

Feel free to express your opinions about Sun, SGI, or any other System V Unix. Wait, let's throw in BeOS, OS/2, OS/2 Warp, xBSD, or GNU HURD. Oh, wait, you've never used those platforms? Oh, well I guess you are an expert then.

As for those that have used the current Mac platform and like to spew vitriol for it, whooptie freakin doo, you are apparently clueless enough not to be able to learn something _different_. It's called adapting, humans are supposed to be one of the best of breed in that realm, but it's not happening for you. I guess Darwin didn't think about you with his theory of evolution. Oh, wait, he did, it's called WEAK!

Yes, Apple has issues. The OS has some things that work really well, others that need work. I can say the same thing for Solaris, Windows, HURD, xBSD, and most definitely Linux. Got any other nuggets of wisdom to drop on us?

Crigley is meerly making a statement about things that he notices. He notices that there are companies using Macs successfully and asks the question, "Why can't other companies do the same and be successful? Maybe because they don't want to be."

You know why Apple has such poor support, or fewer applications, or any of the things that Windows or other platforms has that Apple does not? Because of a smaller user base, smaller funding, and smaller demand. It's that simple. If they had even double the userbase, they'd have twice as many applications, twice as many features, and maybe even quadruple the support options. The reason they suck is that they _are_ small. Deal with it. Sun, in all it's glory, is small. Everything is small compared to Microsoft. Linux is tiny. HURD doesn't even show up on the map.

Feel free to correct me with conjecture and commentary about how you _know_ Windows is better because the majority uses it. The majority thought the world was flat in 1400. Does that mean the majority was right? Oh. Sorry, you didn't pay attention in geography because you were too busy being cool. Well, in that case, feel free to walk off the edge of the world...

The piracy factor

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line: Cost of PC: just hardware. Cost of Mac: hardware + software. You can't "share" a single user license between a PC and a Mac the same way you can share a single user license between two PCs. Macs look expensive at any place where people tend to cut corners with licensing. A new platform forces people to fork over the bucks for a valid license for the new computer.

I was working at a university a while back. I found myself in a PC dominated research group. One of my co-workers was talking about how he was going to replace his old Mac with a PC. I asked him why and he said that "there's no software for the Mac". I immediately shot back with all the standard answers--Office, many Adobe products, several scientific and engineering packages, etc.

His response was that purchasing Office and all the other software that he wanted would be too expensive; he would save a bundle of money by copying the software from the university.

This attitude isn't limited to the academic world. Many small businesses play fast and loose with software licensing, and the extra cost of buying legit Mac licenses drives up the cost.

I wonder if Microsoft is really shooting itself in the foot with Palladium.

Hiding under that rock again, I see...

[Mulletproof]

"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."

Kinda like McDonalds recommends their own food, EB Games pushes their special magazines and BestBuy recommend a warrenty/the items that give them the most profit and kickbacks.

I guess this is another one of those WELCOME TO CAPITALISM!!! WHERE YA BEEN!?!? moments...

Apple as a viable option...

[asecurityjunkie]

Ok, I have tried to read as may of the moderately rated posts as possible. What I have found was (sorry about the length):

-Many of the negative comments are based on issues / biases that have been resolved for several years. (Pre Mac OS 10.2 at least, most pre Mac OS 10.1)

-There was a post that complained about the difficulty of using Mac OS 10.2 Server. I personally find it extremely easy to use and manage. Mac OS 10.3 Server is making advances on that including adding the ability to act as a primary domain controller thanks to the inclusion of Samba 3. For the poster that did not like the management apps they have been completely rewritten as well as being able to be managed via the command line. On the documentation side yes it is a little light. That too is supposed to change in 10.3 Server. For more information on 10.3 Server go to for information on the currently shipping 10.2 server Oh and one more thing. Mac OS 10.2 Server received Product of the year from NetworkMagazine.com () that has to be worth something right?

-Cost. While Linux and BSD systems cannot be beat for cost. The amount of dedicated support and liability that they have can be. Microsoft on the other hand can be beaten in the per user license realm. Both in desktop OS and server OS Apple's Macintosh licensing fees are reasonable and flexible. The general single user licenses are free with purchase of a machine and $129 standalone. Apple can be flexible on this with large or educational purchases. The server version of their OS is even better priced $499 for a 10-user license and $999 for and unlimited user license. They also provide a plethora (sorry you never get to use that word enough) of support options all reasonably priced.

-Reliability and Stability. The one thing I absolutely love about Mac OS X is the stability it offers. This is part due to the OS and part hardware. The key thing here is that Apple controls them both. I don't have to worry about the hardware I'm running being compatible with the OS and vice versa. Apple has already done that for me. The result uptime. Which at the end of the day is worth the extra dollar for me. For instance the PowerBook, which I am writing this on, has had uptimes on the order of 80 days (I just put it to sleep when traveling.) The only time I have to reboot is when an update requires it.

-Major OS releases. When Apple releases a new version of its OS for example the to-be-released before the end of the year Mac OS 10.3 and Mac OS 10.3 Server add several new features and improvements not just "bug fixes." And the nice thing about the releases is that Apple takes feedback about its products and if the demand is high enough put it into its next release () for the client version and () for server. I want to see that from a major commercial OS.

-Open Source. Mac OS X is built on open standards, and open source. You can download and tweak Darwin, upload changes. The same features that you get with all open source projects. The exception to this is the GUI interface. Most other commercial operating systems do not give you this ability. Also check out Fink a package manager (based on the Debian package manager) for ported open source projects.

-Security. Mac OS X abandoned telnet in favor of the more secure SSH in 10.1. Apple has a quick response time to up coming security threats and releases an update to fix them (). Apple provides easy and efficient methods of applying the updates via "Software Update". The OS ships in a secure fashion with all incoming ports closed. There is a good paper on securing Mac OS X available at () There are A/V solutions from all of the main companies (Symantec, Sophos, Virex.) Tripwire has been ported for host based IDS. You can run snort, nmap, nessus, etc.

-Expandability and performance. The Power Mac G5 can handle up to 8GB of Ram. Show me a desktop PC that can handle that much memory. The G5 processor has a half speed front side bus so the Dual 2Ghz has two 1Ghz FS

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.

stairwells made easy

[epine]

How is pushing a button on a keyboard *and* the mouse at the same time "easier" than having a mouse with two buttons in the first place?

Apple aggressively marketed the one button mouse concept for years to promote their own unique slant on "easy to use" and then when world+dog discovers that the human hand has more than one finger, no one stops to ask what they were smoking.

What boils my cheese is how Apple gets away with a vacuous redefinition of the word easy.

Easy is one of the most complicated human criteria in human language. For a two year old, it is easy to go down stairs on your bum. That is how I always felt using a Mac.

When a teenager I discovered that stairs (on the way down) were mostly optional. I discovered that I could make it all the way to the bottom in a single bound, two steps from the top. Then one day my forehead sailed into the overhang, dropped me on my ass halfway down, with a concussion and a damaged tailbone. That's how I feel using older versions of Windows.

One Christmas morning I spent at my girlfriend's, she had an older house where the carpet was not glued onto the steps, but pinched down with metal rods at the nook of each step. The steps underneath were the old wooden style with the rounded projection. There were shiny patches from long years of use worn into the stiff carpet bubbles folded around the stair edges. I put my bare foot onto a shiny patch as slippery as a skating rink, then smashed my leading heal on every step all the way to the bottom. That's how I feel using Unix. Ten years later, that same heal still hurts in the shower.

One time I worked in an office building with highly depressurized stairwells. Because I still had my keys in my right hand, my pinky was folded outside the handle. I pulled hard to crack the airlock, the door swung open ballisticly (which I was prepared for), I was just to pull my hand free when hard steel door handle crushed the small knuckle of my pinky finger against a decorative rockface. What I didn't realized is that the decorative rockface stuck out six inches from the plane of the door hinges so it crushed my finger well before it finished swinging to 90 degrees. This left me with a mild, permanent disfiguration of that knuckle. I'm not sure what OS that represents, but both Windows NT and VMS spring to mind.

So here Apple comes along and proclaims that their stairwell is easier to use because there design has only one handrail, so you don't get confused about which handrail to grab, nothing can go wrong, and I'm supposed to feel impressed.

I think I could fill a 500 page book on stairwell design factors: step dimensions, surface materials, footwear, footsize, materials carried, overhead clearance, emergency lighting, evacuation, firefighting, bannisters and handrails.

At the end of the day the answer would be that different designs are better for different people, different tasks, different situations.

Not even a common stairwell has a one-size fits all solution.

One decision has made my life easier: never underestimate the complexity of the task you are facing. After beating myself senseless on dozens of different stairwell designs, that's the only kind of easy that still interests me.