Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Considers Mac OS X, Linux For 70,000 Desktops

Posted by timothy on from the see-what-happens dept.

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.

49 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Who knows? by tekunokurato · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how many companies are now doing this so they can get price breaks or cheap long-term contracts from MS?

    --
    Read jack phelps dot net
    1. Re:Who knows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every single one of them.

      If I want a plumber, I let each one know that someone else is also coming in for a quote.

      If I can barter MS down using such a strategy, I can cut costs in future, without going through the tremendous upheaval that other options neccesitate.

    2. Re:Who knows? by heffel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't really matter, no one would be doing it if
      it wasn't an effective strategy. The fact that
      it is an effective strategy is reason enough to celebrate.

      --
      Expert Java EE Consulting
    3. Re:Who knows? by Patoski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how many companies are now doing this so they can get price breaks or cheap long-term contracts from MS?

      Here's the little secret which is obscured in the whole, "People are only talking about Linux to get concessions from Microsoft." debate.

      Microsoft would not give concessions if the threat to switch from a MS to a Linux based desktop were't a credible one . Despite how much MS protests about how Linux is not ready for the corporate desktop their actions say something completely different. If Linux truly isn't ready for extensive corporate use then MS would tell AT&T / Corporate America to go take a flying leap when they get asked for price breaks.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    4. Re:Who knows? by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say they would. At the same time, while the threats to switch are rolling, there'll be a certain percentage of real and a certain percentage of non-real threats. If the percentage of real threats is high, that's fantastic--we'll see some real reform in the market. However, if the percentage of real threats is not high, then Microsoft will just need to temporarily become a loss leader (technically I suppose it's impossible to loss-lead against linux, but it's effectively the same thing), and then before long things will be back to normal.

      --
      Read jack phelps dot net
    5. Re:Who knows? by fafaforza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps, but a more pressing incentive would be not having the IT staff dedicating their entire working day to scheduling adware cleaning tools, downloading windows updates and service packs, and trying to clean machines that ended up getting infected.

      Licenses can be easily seen as cost of doing business. Frequent interruptions because a Windows install is hosed is not acceptable to a productive workday.

    6. Re:Who knows? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft would not give concessions if the threat to switch from a MS to a Linux based desktop were't a credible one . Despite how much MS protests about how Linux is not ready for the corporate desktop their actions say something completely different. If Linux truly isn't ready for extensive corporate use then MS would tell AT&T / Corporate America to go take a flying leap when they get asked for price breaks.

      Not necessarily.
      Linux is not ready for the desktop. The folks at AT&T know that, otherwise they would be doing it, not *considering* it. IBM knows it, Microsoft knows it, EVERYONE knows it.

      However... if Microsoft tells AT&T or any other major company with *lots* of money to take a "flying leap", what might AT&T do? They just might take a flying leap and pour money that would have gone into MS licensing towards getting Linux fully functional as a corporate desktop. Maybe they'd invest a few tens of millions into OpenOffice to get it 100% compatible with MS Office documents.

      That's why Microsoft is willing to talk. Just one big company willing to make the leap would start the "linux on the corporate desktop" ball rolling. One major company like AT&T, and then Linux has street cred and everyone else will see it's a viable alternative. Just one, and it's all downhill for Microsoft from there.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  2. small business is paradoxically where it's at by dash2 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    As the article says, it seems to be the SOHO guys who are getting most keenly into Linux. This is paradoxical, because Linux ought to be easiest to adopt in a big corporate environment - easy lockdown and centralization, natural multi-user capabilities, and there's always a tech guy on hand to deal with the lack of GUI wizards and troubleshooting tools. But maybe enough small businessmen are ideologically keen on Linux for it to make headway. If so, they'll be a valuable testbed.

  3. The CIO is smart. Nothing special by Jarnis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can squeeze extra discounts from MS by saying that you are 'looking into' Linux and/or Mac OS X, why not say it? Sure, you may have to conduct a small inquiry into the feasibility and do some cost calculations. Peanuts compared to what you can save by extorting MS like this.

    MS is getting exactly what they deserve. They went into panic mode over few big customers and gave deep discounts, and now all sizeable customers are filing for same discounts by issuing vague statements how they are 'looking into' linux.

    So, either in the long run the MS software gets cheaper, or at some point MS says 'screw it, go linux if you are not happy with our prices' - obiviously assuming they'd still stick to windows. Then some big name actually goes thru with the switch... and we get some real world data on the actual costs. At which point MS will bring down it's prices and/or otherwise sweetens the deal to stay competitive.

    This ain't rocket science...

  4. Re:Can't be anything but a good thing by draggin_fly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that the article says AT&T is evaluating operating systems, not setting up an office with Linux or MacOS desktops to test productivity. On the other hand, it sounds like that's what IBM is doing -- much more real-world stuff. It's disappointing that AT&T doesn't seem to be giving Linux desktops a real evaluation. They don't mention testing application productivity.

  5. What a bunch of boloney by nharmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the Article:

    Most likely, AT&T will stick with Windows, because Microsoft is addressing many of problems associated with its desktop software, including security flaws that leave it particularly vulnerable to viruses, Dickman said.

    Just because Microsoft is addressing its problems doesn't mean they are going to solve them any time soon, nor does it mean they are going to disclose all of their vulnerabilities.

    An AT&T spokesman said in the article, "AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows". Which is quite the contradiction from the article's title, "AT&T looks into closing its Windows". Of course, since when has CNet been the pinnacle of journalism.

    1. Re:What a bunch of boloney by dJOEK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what did you expect? someone named 'Dickman' working at microsoft ;)

      no, seriously now, a company with 7000 installed windozes has probably grown quite dependant on them. Migrating to another platform is not something that is done overnight.

      'Replacing' is a very heavy word. If they choose to move away from windows, this will be a process that'll take several years, and an extended period of mixed environments.

      --
      Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
  6. oh COME on ! by InodoroPereyra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we stop posting stories of Companies and other entities considering a switch to Linux or Mac or whatever ? How about we only post actual switching stories ? They exist and thy are out there. We all know that many companies and Governments are using (especially) Linux as a negotiating argument to get a better deal from Microsoft. Let the involved parts alone. If the company is really serious and they implement it, let's see how and what they did.

  7. Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flame me if you wish, but it's true.

    Mac's always have had the lowest cost of ownership over PC's.

    When the average turnover rate for a Dell is two years and the average turnover rate for Mac's is several years it's not to hard to figure out which platform is cheaper in the long run.

    Of course Mac OS X is just plain gourgeous and very user friendly, happens to be very secure as well.

    http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/.Pictures/screensh ot.jpg

    It's time to give Apple a shot, dam that John Scully!

    1. Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use by TrollBridge · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "When the average turnover rate for a Dell is two years and the average turnover rate for Mac's is several years it's not to hard to figure out which platform is cheaper in the long run."

      The only thing that might prove is that Dell has a better marketing team that can convince people they need a new machine every two years.

      Keep in mind that with a Mac, you're still locked in to a single vendor.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    2. Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that might prove is that Dell has a better marketing team that can convince people they need a new machine every two years.

      Not when this trend has been consistent for the past decade or so. Macs tend to last longer.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use by dema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that with a Mac, you're still locked in to a single vendor.

      Define your use of the word "vendor."

      If a business buys a PC from Dell, it's tech support staff will deal mainly with Dell for hardware and support. Microsoft support only seems to become evident when MS products have issues (excluding the OS, which would be another Dell support call). This is what I experienced working at Miles Kimball anyway, where we rolled out 1500 Dell PCs last summer before I finished my internship.

      Now, with Apple, you buy a computer from Apple, and you get hardware and software support from Apple. What is so wrong with that? IMO, I would prefer to have the maker of the OS also produce and sell the hardware. I don't want to have decide who I should call for support, and get bounced around between companies (although I don't think I've ever had to call Apple's support for my machines, but that's anecdotal).

      But I do understand what your are saying. When it comes to personal modding of a machine, buying non-Apple hardware gives you an advantage in choice. Although I think in a large business setting, that is less applicable because as a business, you would want to deal primarily with the people who sold you the hardware.

  8. One of the toughest things, I think... by foxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    blocking Linux on the desktop in the workplace is internal web sites.

    I dunno about your company, but where I work, and a number of other places I know of (friends work there, ex-employment, etc...) there's a lot of stuff on the web-- time cards, change management systems, computer-based training, employee locaterators... and it all requires MSIE. It's either ActiveX, or uses proprietary MSIE broken HTML, or what-have-you, because the webmonkeys that created it know everyone has a Windows box on their desk so they could do it the easy way instead of the right way.

    And so, sure, I could use Linux on the desktop. I could use OpenOffice to handle .xls and .doc and boy I wish it couldn't handle .ppt[0], and I bet there's even a Linux email program that interfaces with all the stuff that handles Outlook-style calendaring and that rot-- since it's going to be impossible to change out the desktop OS if you've got to roll out new infrastructure at the same time. But the problem is, I won't be able to fill out my timecard, or access the trouble ticketing system, or a half dozen other things my job requires.

    I suspect many companies are in this boat-- the apps they run on the desktop can easily be replaced, it's the broken web stuff they're stuck with.

  9. Perception is everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.

    Yes. But the fact they can do that without beeing laughed at, means that Microsoft dominance is threatened.

    And each such article, even if only used as a negotiation, further the perception that linux is a serious contender.

  10. Run Linux if you have a lot of PC's. Otherwise OSX by xirtam_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The less expensive option is Linux. Not just because it's open source, but because they can reuse existing hardware (PC's) to run it.

    As much as I do love Mac's (as my 17"PB would testify :-) for an organisation of this size to move exclusively to OS X would be prohibitively expensive.

    I suggest that they try Linux as well as OS X and ensure that all common internal applications can run on both. It's not exactly trival to port Linux apps to run on OS X but in many instances it's relatively easy. For those wo still need MS Office they can run Mac's. For those who can run OO.org get Linux.

  11. Who else but AT&T? by wayward_son · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AT&T prefering Unix to Windows? Seems appropriate to me.

  12. T-TCO? by TreeHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ;i hear the term "total cost of ownership" a lot--especially from the microsoft camp--but have any of these large corporations (or even smaller ones) considered the personnel issues that may arise from a mass migration?

    ;even migrating just the *server infrastructure* of their corporation to a GNU/Linux or OS X based architecture would mean that those network and system administrators--the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?

    ;what i have found in my experience is that those in the IT industry who know microsoft products, know *only* MS products, and most are uncomfortable with the idea of and form of UNIX--beit BSD, or Linux kernel based.

    ;but have companies such as AT&T or the like taken this into consideration: that many of their MS knowledgeable IT staff may not know Unix systems, care to, or even be *capable* of learning them?

    ; i am not attempt to bait anyone. i am a part of the aforementioned group of MS administrators. but while i know that products such as GNU/Linux and Mac OS X may be better--in may ways--am i really prepared to migrate to these products when my IT staff may not be capable enough to administer them? am i considering my "total total cost of ownership?" and if they *aren't* ready, are they prepared to pay for their training in order to get of the microsoft merry-go-round? let's hope so.

    ;treehead

    --

    "If any part Linux was stolen, then Windows was the biggest heist in history."

  13. Re:Our experience by Zemplar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...with restrictions on the use of Windows machines having no outside Internet access."

    Isn't it sad that is about the only sane way these days to keep Windows secure?

    To bad all Windows users don't use this policy!

  14. Bullshit by KZigurs · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It has nothing to do with learning a new operating system. It is - learning Linux.

    Try to force MacOS X on them. Get 20 cheap eMacs and offer them. A local company gone exactly this route a while ago and know what? After a week there already were local experts and everyone was really pleased with the transition. Of course, there were a few complains that Outlook isn't there anymore, but no general resistance whatsoever.

    Try it.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Ziak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The average user when looks at Linux is timid because it is not as "sugar-coated" as windows true that it is more secure, but many users are used to windows, however if you ween them off windows in a way by using wine for Microsoft Office and such they will adapt, but making users switch from windows directally to Linux is a bad idea because users will sit there and nit pick every little thing that windows has and linux dosne't... For example I installed linux on 4-5 of my friends computer the First three times I just installed linux and they hated it because it wans't like windows, and so I reinstalled windows for them, the other 2 users who still actually use linux and have become very well on actually using it, I set everythintg more up for there taste, I configured eveything for there taste, showed them how to do the stuff they used to do for windows and the benefits of using linux, and they actually grew to learn it.

      --
      Loading Please Wait....
  15. Bargaining Chip by RareEYE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think every company that has a significant investment in MS software says they're investigating alternatives. It's part of the corporate negotiating dance. AT&T at least gets the luxury of receiving headlines for talking about it. Yes it's a bargaining chip for AT&T and yes AT&T will probably get a small "discount" from MS the next time their contract comes due for re-signing. Will they move away from MS solutions? I doubt it. Microsquish knows what a huge pain in the butt it is to re-deploy all of the desktops in an organization of that size and they know this is all just negotiating rhetoric from AT&T.

  16. Re:Our experience by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mod as Flamebait/Troll? Seriously. But that said, I like to give everybody at least a chance to speak and I will respond to your statements out of principle.

    It is nothing more than a linux / gnome system that has no frigging software.

    You are either trolling or you really have no idea of what you are talking about. OS X is so much more. We are seriously impressed with the platform allowing both a CLI access to the *nixy goodness and having a beautiful GUI on top for those less experienced. We can run all of our *NIX code with a recompile on the same box as Office, Photoshop, IDL, ImageJ, etc...etc...etc... The machines provide the easiest plug and play compatibility I have ever seen. I could go on and on here, but you get the point.

    Not only that but the damn apps crash all the time

    This statement is completely bogus. I call shenanigans. My experience with all of our OS X systems has been one of complete stability (more so than the IRIX box I had on my desk and much more than Windows). I have played with Linux, but for us, Linux has not worked as desktop replacements. For a server, Linux is nice although not as easy to manage as OS X.

    and don't even get me started about either browser (ie and safari) both of which suck

    It's true that ie on MacOS does suck and all development for ie stopped quite a while ago. It is a dead application. Safari on the other hand is a rather nice experience that is fast and provides features needed in a modern browser.

    So save the MAC fan boy shit for someone not smart enough to know better.

    Get a life, open your eyes and save your computer elitism for your greasy friends in the basement. Out in the real world, the whole point of using computers is to accomplish work. If a platform allows us to accomplish more work with less involvement, CIOs, CTOs and end users should be encouraged to explore options.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  17. You're right by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a consultant I've found that small businesses are by far the most likely to make use of free and open source software to try to keep their costs down, but the irony is that small businesses are the ones which benefit least from license, support savings, the difference is really fairly marginal for a small company with only a few employees.

    I've also found it's better to roll out free software on their existing Windows systems before introducing them to Linux (usually as a mail/file/web server first).

    --
    Deleted
  18. Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance by gadget+junkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Excuse me, but what are the advantages that Linux has over Windows on the user desktop space?

    This, for one, and this.

    Considered together, XP and office go retail for about 450 bucks; true, big corporations pay much less, but I think that for all intent and purpose the MS guys get more than a hundred for every office PC licence sold.
    given that they want to go to a yearly fee business model, you're facing an annual bill in the region of 50 USD per PC licence. That's money to me.
    Anyway, it's not the money involved that makes these pilots important: it is the fact that all big corporations involved will be standing up for open file standards, like strict XML.
    That's the only way that the same pilot will be important five years from now.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
  19. AT&T "large corporate entity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It really doesn't matter what AT&T does. They aren't large - by Jan '05 they'll have 1/2 as many people working for them / 2169151>. Their "IT" department babysits PCs in their rapidily diminishing call centers in the US.

  20. Re:Illustration... by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My ex-roomate, was a VERY capable Novell/Linux/Windows admin. When I let him use my powerbook one day he said to me...

    "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"

    Not to mention he thought my 12" aluminum PB, the most robust and well made computer I've ever owned, looked "cheesy", compared to his 100% black plastic Dell -- complete with its ill fittings and cracks.

    I'm serious. The reality is that these people have had it shoved into their heads, for YEARS, that Macs are toys. Playthings for "ghey" graphic designers.

    --

    lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
  21. Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do you feel its appropriate to force your own software choices onto others?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  22. Wow, geeks STILL don't get it. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not your job to convince people to relearn a new operating system and the complimentary software that goes along with it. Most people have difficulty mastering Windows after years and years of exposure to it. Its really pigheaded to do that to someone and shoot their productivity straight to shit just so your favorite open source application can get one more user and make you that much less lonely in your software choices.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Wow, geeks STILL don't get it. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I actually agree with you but from entirely the opposite perspective.

      A technically proficient geek will tell you that operating systems and the applications that you install on them are very complex bundles of libraries and processes, all intercommunicating with each other and controlling hardware. That's the same whether you use OS X, Windows or Linux.

      A marketing person will get a pretty looking front end put onto the whole thing to give the appearance of simplicity to the end user. However, in reality, the whole thing has become a lot more complex just to hide having to manually edit configuration files behind a few mouse clicks.

      In my experience, most Linux users can fix any problems they encounter on their Linux boxes, the same cannot be said for Windows users - worse still, if the Registry corrupts and you don't have a backup, the whole Windows installation has to blown away.

      My personal feeling is that if you don't understand a bit about how a computer works, you don't use one, end of story. No different to driving a car, understanding how the controls work and how you need to change the oil and pump up the tyres occasionally.

      The fact is that NO computer is easy to use and maintain - Microsoft have chosen to use "ease of use" as marketing hype to sell more of their products which the general cattle populace has fallen for hook, line and sinker.

      And just to give you a final example, I'm Red Hat Certified, I'm UNIX certified, I've worked with both and with Windows for years. Last weekend I had a look at an XP problem on a friend's machine and I found the whole interface cluttered and totally unusable. IMHO, XP is a bloated, confusing excuse for an operating system that has proven just how off-track Microsoft are, when Windows 2000 actually started to give the impression they were finally beginning to get things right.

      I'm a Linux user and Open Source proponent but I don't want unknowledgeable people using it - the UNIX mentality is to treat all users like adults and make them responsible for their actions; Windows is like an alcoholic parent that holds the users hands some of the time but then suddenly lashes them about the head when it feels like it.

      All I need now is for the Joe Public users to be given their own virus-infested part of the Internet to run their Windows boxes on so that I don't suffer slow downs because of their stupidity and I'll be happy.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Wow, geeks STILL don't get it. by zpok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "My personal feeling is that if you don't understand a bit about how a computer works, you don't use one, end of story. No different to driving a car, understanding how the controls work and how you need to change the oil and pump up the tyres occasionally."

      Um, while I sympathise I'd like to point out that as far as analogies go, every service station will check your tyres and oil for you. Which leaves knowing "how the controls work".
      Which is what is expected from and known by most users.
      Substitute if you will service station for tech support or IT.

      What is currently expected with most Linux distro's is oh say changing air filter, battery and occasionally assembling the engine. Cool if you know how to, a waste of time if your job only needs you to, you know, drive in a profitable way...

      Depending on the skill and capacity of tech support, Linux may be great for the work place. I'm not sure if it'd be that much cheaper than mac's, hardware being such a small factor and all that, and I presume companies of that size already have the IT in place for good servicing, and I bet IT would be happier to support Linux than Windows already.

      But given the fact that lots of technical people still think training is the solution to bad design and some even loath solving users' problems, I think that Linux could be a strain on relationships inside the company.

      Gut feeling tells me OS X would still be a lot easier to service, with a lot less to explain and train (as if that has solved anything ever) and would get more um mileage as it were.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  23. Re:Corporate Acceptance by miffo.swe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dont know what you have been using but my perception has been that meddling with the OS is not a thing the user has to do on a low level anymore. Most modern distros does everything for the user and leaves almost nothing to fiddle with.

    Granted there are a mile ahead but not in any way as bad as you put it. Dont forget that on a corporate desktop the USER shall NOT have any access to the machine at all. There should be competent admins running the circus, not MCSE's.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  24. Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First off, it's the back-end that really needs to be migrated, and that's what I think AT&T is looking at mainly. Secondly, I work for AT&T Wireless division as 3G Customer Care, and all of our tools are web-based. So the switch from Win2K workstation w/ IE to Linux w/ Firefox would be totally un-noticable for most people who work here.

    The REAL problem is the software that we use to do most of the account maintainance looks like one of those packages that was written EXCLUSIVELY for IE. (As in, if you move to Firefox, it'll just break completely. No ActiveXey, no workey.) So maybe the backends can migrate. MAYBE. But the liklihood of migrating the workstations is pretty slim so far as I can see.

  25. Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The other day the computer admin reinstalled my entire computer and changed the entire thing. Gawd, what a pain.

    He put on this new thing which totally messed up my work. Not only did I have to hand-hold the director to get his voice mail AGAIN today, I had to suffer learning a entirely new system. Where the hell do I change the fonts in this thing? Why isn't it the same place as before? And the phone was going off like crazy today. Took me a half a day before I realized I was falling behind in my real work. I tried to explain that I was missing the task-list from Outlook (I wanted to put in "learn new system that turned my world upside-down") and he just mummbled something about finding an extension then wandered off. Uh, yeah whatever, what does his hair have to do with anything?

    In the end I made him put the stuff back. He was whiny about giving it a chance. God-forbid that I should spend more than half a day of productivity for his pet-project/hobby.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  26. Re:Illustration... by NtroP · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What if they don't necessarily want to dump all their old PC hardware? What if they are also looking at the option of just "not upgrading to the next Windows release". Dumping SuSe or RedHat on their existing hardware would be a huge cost savings over shelling out $1,200 per seat for a new iMac (says the dad who just ordered his son a G5 iMac ;-). Throw in OpenOffice and a few Windows Terminal Servers and using rdesktop would make the transition from windows even easier.

    As someone who's typing this on an old Dual G4 500, I'd love to see AT&T go with new Macs. As a SysAdmin, I'd say that booting all my existing PCs with linux and Adding a Terminal Server farm to the network would make the transition much easier for the end users and much cheaper (we can still use our same software everyone is used to for the most part) for the company.

    Granted, you can remote desktop to the Terminal Servers with OS X too, but you are still springing for new hardware. Either way, I have a feeling most of this is going to actually result in them getting a great "deal" from MS and them Microsoft will use this to publicly announce "See! AT&T took a serious look at Linux and Macs and decided Microsoft is the best deal".

    And hey, if AT&T decided that, who am I to disagree when my lowly institution is faced with the same choice?

    --
    "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
  27. Excellent point that most people miss by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not that it'll make any difference, but just for the record: Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons and scroll wheels. It just doesn't get supplied with them, or need them.

    This is a point that seems quite lost on most people, but is really important. Can you imagine using a PC with a one-button mouse? I don't think so. Yet the APple is designed around the concept of being able to use one or more buttons, and as a result most programs and the OS fundamentially respect the number of mouse buttons you have to a far greater degree than Windows.

    This is exactly why I find Powerbooks so much more useful than any Windows laptop, because for laptops it makes a lot more sense to have one "button" that you chord for the desired results. I have never met a PC laptop with a good solution for two buttons, but they have no choice because Windows is essentially unusable with less.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance by White+Roses · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The same feeling that tells the SysAdmins at the company I currently work for that I have to use Outlook/IE on a company provided system?

    --
    Do not touch -Willie
  29. Pure Bargining by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this was not barginging with MS, we would NOT hear about it. Since they are playing this in the press, they are just trying to put pressure on MS.

    Don't get me wrong. I think that they are making a mistake by not switching to eith OSx/Linux. But this is not about switching.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Re:Illustration... by sandyb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    Over the past 10 years I have matured much more than Linux has.

    [quote]

    The above (And the rest of the post) does rather tend to reinforce the stereotype:

    Linux is for Nerds, and Macs are toys for Nerds with too much money.

    The fact that another Heavyweight U.S. M/S user is even considering options semi realistically has to be positive.

    The snooty we are superior attitude of too many Mac user's sells an afful lot of M/S packages anually.

    What is the shareholding of M/S in Apple at the moment?

    S.

  31. Re:Illustration... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Mostly MacOS had some wonderful application despite itself.

    If you actually watched those graphic designers work, you'd see them do things like only run 1 application at a time, walk away from their computers while copying large files, and develop custom "extention" sets for each application. They lived with this *tangible* shit because they belived that the Mac was superior in some "intangible" way.

    Most Graphic Design users have never worked on an equivilant $3000 PC and therefore can't make a fair comparison between the two systems. (In their minds, Mac=fancy PMac and PC=4 year old barginbox running Win98.)

  32. Baby steps by SunPin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FireFox would have won if you didn't team it up with Thunderbird. Thunderbird is not anywhere near as useful or user friendly as Outbreak. I'm not sure what kind of drugs the Mozilla foundation is smoking but, without a PIM, Thunderbird is useless for your average office computer user.

    Sunbird is going nowhere and hasn't advanced for awhile. Until somebody cares about that project, I suggest people refrain from promoting Thunderbird for the masses.

    Everyone that gets introduced to Firefox likes it. Bringing Thunderbird is like hanging out with a stinky person: a guaranteed way to not make friends and not influence anybody.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  33. What's the real toy? by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big irony about the "Mac is a toy" myth is that the one field where Macs really do have a shortage of apps is games.

    So the one thing the Macintosh is really not suitable for is as a toy.

  34. Re: Illustration... by gidds · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To take your points in order...

    Macs are... a) expensive

    Yes and no. Yes, you can't get cheap Macs, but for what you get, they seem to be fairly competitive with similarly-specced PCs. (I haven't done the analysis myself, but whenever I've seen it done, the Macs come out not much more expensive, and sometimes cheaper.)

    b) they're pretty much closed systems

    Again, this depends on your criteria. The hardware is closed, but most of the components are standard off-the-shelf ones. And the core OS is open source -- I should know, I've made a couple of fixes myself (one is apparently in OS X 10.3).

    I'd not like to assist one monopoly by running from another.

    This is a genuine concern. Give Apple a 95% market share, and who knows whether their current drive for compatibility, open standards, and quality would continue? OTOH, MS never had those in mind, even when it was tiny -- it's used predatory and unfair business practices from the word 'Go'.

    However, the choice isn't just between one monopoly and another. The chances of OS X gaining 95% market share are tiny, and even a huge Mac purchase won't make that happen. What it will do is help to level the playing field a bit; once people are freer to choose a platform on merit rather than on MS's marketing and legal spend, then everyone benefits. I look for a day when many different platforms each have a reasonable market share.

    I only wish I could get OS X for PC hardware.

    You and millions of others... But it won't happen, for two reasons. First, economic: unlike MS, Apple is basically a hardware company; their software is often wonderful, but financed from hardware sales, and ultimately drives hardware purchases. To make economic sense, OS X on x86 would have to cost enough to make up for loss of hardware sales, as well as covering the development cost. Which would make it prohibitively expensive.

    And second, technical. One of Apple's main selling points is that stuff Just Works(tm). And that's partly because they control the hardware. They know just what hardware they need to support and test against, and integrate the two quite strongly. (For example, look at how long Macs have been able to 'sleep' -- shutting down almost all the hardware, and yet able to wake within a second or two, with all software carrying on perfectly.) Supporting any old x86 hardware -- just like supporting any old PPC hardware -- would either take an unfeasibly large compatibility, testing and drive development department, or leave lots of OS X installations that were a bit flaky, not supporting some hardware and working badly with other. Or, more likely, both.

    Why not start wishing for something more realistic? Why do we never hear Windows users saying "MS should port Windows to PPC"...?

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  35. Re:Can't be anything but a good thing by JamieF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > If MS prevents critical mass and even kills Linux

    Please explain how exactly Microsoft would kill Linux.

    Open source software doesn't go bankrupt.

  36. Re:Can't be anything but a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Please explain how exactly Microsoft would kill Linux.

    1. Work with other companies that have the same interest in stopping the progress of a freely-available competitor to their products. Said work would include making critical pieces illegal/unavailable via legislation such as DMCA.

    2. Patents, patents, patents! Can't have too many patents when it comes to stopping competitors who can't afford the 'business as usual' cross-licensing agreements.

    3. #2 would force IBM, Novell, and others to become much more involved in Linux development than they currently are - they're the ones who would have to execute those cross-licensing agreements on behalf of the Linux distributions. Such agreements would have to be carefully drawn to avoid giving Microsoft a centralized target to attack.

    4. Agreed, 'killing Linux' is an exaggeration. How about "marginalizing Linux back to its hobbyist days, where it ceases to threaten commercial software interests"? Linux doesn't have to die to make Microsoft, Sun et al happy - just stop being commercially viable as an alternate business OS.