Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Considers Mac OS X, Linux For 70,000 Desktops
hype7 writes "CNet's News.com.com is reporting that AT&T is reconsidering its corporate IT investment in Microsoft Windows - with both Mac OS X and Linux being considered. Although the article notes that AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows, there's a wonderful quote on the page from the AT&T guy - 'Any CIO would not be doing due diligence if they are not looking at their options now.'" As with previous mass-migration stories, a cynical (or realistic) viewpoint is also that by "looking into" non-Windows operating systems, they're giving themselves a bargaining chip when talking with Microsoft. Update: 10/06 17:35 GMT by T : Actually, that's 70,000 desktops, rather than 7,000 as originally stated.
quasi-monopoly
Quasi-monopoly? Come on, let's not go into Austin Powers and quasi-evil stuff. Microsoft is a monopoly. Not quasi, semi, diet or whatnot.
"What's this about usability? I thought Macs were supposed to be so usable? I can't even find a start menu. How are you supposed to run anything"
Funny. Yeah, just the other day I let a car mechanic friend borrow my brand new Bentley, and he asked "I thought this thing was a good car and drivable? Where's the stick shift?"
I almost laughted when I saw the headline for this post. "AT&T considers Mac OSX, Linux for 7,000 Desktops".
I'm not one for making arguments for analogies, but I see no comparison between OSX and Linux for the Desktop, so an analogy is as appropriate as considering these two systems. OK, here we go...
Considering between OSX and Linux for the desktop is like being hungry and wanting a good meal and debating whether to take someone's leftover takeout for free out of the trash from a good restaurant or going inside and ordering what you want. Yeah, the stuff in the trash is free, and it did come from the same restaurant, but since I have the time and the money, I might as well just go inside and enjoy the meal like it was supposed to be enjoyed.
I used Linux almost exclusively for my desktop for about 8 years. Its OK I guess, but I'm a little more technically inclined and knowledgeable of linux and computers in general than 99% or more than the population.
OSX and Mac hardware is a complete vendor supported end to end system "that just works". Aside from their wireless issues for a couple of months about a year ago, the hardware and software are stable, looks nice. I can do things like easily install software, have multiple users, run Office if I want, and my friends can use it. Its simply the finest end user computer and operating system that one can buy. Considering you can get one of the new iMacs with OSX, a G5 processor and a nice flatscreen display, a DVD/cd burner, and a desktop footprint of about the same as a flat panel monitor for $1,500. I don't see any other competition in the desktop world. Unless you simply want/need more power, and then you can shell out a little more cash for a dual G5.
Apple weren#t slothy and greedy... and they were certainly listening to people crying out for what was back then termed a 'modern OS'... this 'modern OS' crusade was at the center of almost all Apple's R&D for the vast majority of the 1990's.
There was Pink, Taligent, Maxwell, Copland, Rhapsody... all these projects cost billions of dollars... Apple just couldn't get it right... they certainly were not trying to be slothful as you suggest, and they certainly were working on a next-gen OS well before OS X turned up.
This sig has been deprecated.