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.
If large corporate entities like AT&T are prepared to do the research, then it will help everyone take the alternatives to the Micro$oft desktop quasi-monopoly seriously.
I find the #1 setback to getting Linux into schools, business and the workplace is employee/user resistance / backlash and resentment.
People don't like having to learn a new operating system, especially if it is forced upon them.
What i'd do is do it piecemeal, first you get rid of office and put in open office or what other Linux suite you'd use. And continue from there.
Anyone else have solutions, or experiences, with user resistance to installing Linux or a new operating system?
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
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.
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...
Well, our experience from switching a bioscience laboratory has been good. While we have not moved entirely to one platform, (I feel that multi-platform environments are more healthy) we have moved from an all Windows operation to a mixed Mac OS X / Windows environment with restrictions on the use of Windows machines having no outside Internet access.
The time required to manage the computers has gone down considerably through the introduction of OS X, and people using both Windows and Mac OS are saying they would rather not use the Windows machines simply from a user Interface experience. Additionally, more than one person has purchased Macintosh machines for their home use.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
MS cannot afford to ignore the threat. This will begin to drive down the cost of their software and erode their margins for any major country, not just in developing countries. If AT&T can threaten to switch and get a major price break, so could every other major corporation.
The days of unrestricted margin on prices appear to be over. MS will finally have to deliver real value for the dollar.
My rights don't need management.
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.
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.
It makes a difference.
Flame me if you wish, but it's true.
h ot.jpg
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/screens
It's time to give Apple a shot, dam that John Scully!
blocking Linux on the desktop in the workplace is internal web sites.
.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 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
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.
Not richer...they pay less money remember? Sure, this is only one contract but more companies will do the same thing and M$ lose a lot of their income.
:)
This is what competition is about...Sort of
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
About six months ago I was told by an 'engineer' for a *very* large IT consultancy in the UK (infamous for overrun government contracts) that there wasn't any point in connecting a couple of OS X machines to a proposed ADSL router installation since "Apple Macs can't be networked" and that they certainly couldn't use the Internet in any way, shape or form.
I nearly fell off my chair.
> 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.
Perhaps M$ will be getting fatter and ricer at slower rate. Even if Linux (or any other alternative) doesn't reduce market share, it could still take a bite out of profits if M$ had to "compete". The fact that a large company is using Linux as a bargaining chip still means that it's a threat to M$'s bottom line.
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.
:-) for an organisation of this size to move exclusively to OS X would be prohibitively expensive.
As much as I do love Mac's (as my 17"PB would testify
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.
This is not necessarily a troll, recent history has shown statements like this to be often quite accurate. However I do have a curious comment: If you try to "bully" a bully, can you really call that bullying?
AT&T prefering Unix to Windows? Seems appropriate to me.
I've often thought that there were not too many options with desktop OSes in the corporate environment.
:p).
In order for it to make sense, it has to not impede the business. After that, pretty much is negotiable.
Replacing Windows, while it can be about money, I think in this day and age of JPEG exploits, really should be about safety.
And lets, face it, MacOS is going to be safer than Windows. Less Users, Less Virus/Exploits. It's got an interface that kicks ass, and a real OS underneath.
Linux is fantastic, but lacks that user-intuitiveness in the desktop that Windows and MacOS have. (One word: Clipboards). That, and it tends to be a roll your own solution out of the box.
I think companies would/could switch to another platform if it were properly canned, but we've really not seen this outside of MacOS yet. I'd be afraid of doing 7000 desktops without some sort of already proven solution, that was user-ready (That didn't involve Sun or the word "java"
I guess I'm just pining for a G5 iMac, wishing apple would drop the price a bit. The Mac Tax is about the same as the Microsoft Tax, and you don't get the option of buying beige.
*sigh*
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
When MS finally says 'Screw it, go Linux if you are not happy with our prices', the customers will shift from Linux talk to Linux action. Those who remain with MS are the ones who are locked-in and therefore insenstive to price. The prices will go higher and higher as the customer base slowly dwindles.
All software companies go this way. At some point, they have sold the product to everyone who needs it, and any growth in revenue HAS to come from price increases. They have already tried to accelerate the upgrade cycle, with little success. Many users never upgraded from Office 97 or Windows 98!
[0]: There seems to be a "hierarchy of Dumb" when it comes to email attachments. The Dumb Rules of Thumb:
.DOC, it's more Dumb.
.XLS, it's probably even more useless and Dumb.
.PPT, chances are it's insanely Dumb.
If the information comes in the body of an email, chances are it's least Dumb.
If it's HTML encoded into the email, it's usually a bit more Dumb.
If it comes as a word
If it comes as a
If it comes as a
Next time you're at the office going through your email, think about it. The most insanely stupid stuff you get is probably powerpoint slides (and chances are, could have been done just as well in plain-text email and gotten the point across...) and the few useful pieces of email you get are probably unhindered by any sort of encoding...
-JDF
Well... Even if these investigations in the feasability of a migration to Linux serves no more purpose to the organisation than to threat Microsoft into giving better prices, Linux/FOSS do get a benefit from it. First of all, some of these "fake" considerations actually could succeed once they see the clear advantages over Microsofts products. Also, this is clearly good press since a large corporation is considering migrating. This might atleast make some smaller companies look in on this Linux-thing...
But I would say that trying to convince companies to start using Linux instead of Windows is the wrong approach. First introduce some FOSS on the existing desktops, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc. Install FOSS as default. If someone whines about not having Word & co, make them motivate their need of that, then buy a license if really needed. Break the Microsoft monopoly. Then slowly stop deploying Windows...
It's really a shame that Evolution and KMail doesn't have serious porting efforts to Windows. KMail really kicks ass! It's the best mailreader I have used.
And anybody that is developing intranet applications targeting IE only... You are crazy! Consider that the future probably will most likely contain some portion of Linux and MacOS X, and that IE is Windows only. What do you do the day your boss ask why the new graphic department can't use the electronic booking and invoice system?
;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."
I believe they've already paid for upgrades that will never come with that software assurance thing MS rolled out a few years ago.
So lets drop the Linux to get cheaper windows track please.
They invented Unix, use it heavily on their systems and Linux would better intergrate. Were not talking about licenses for just Windows, you also have part of the company using Citrix to access windows when needed. They also have to pay hummingbird licenses to access their Unix machines which for servers and switches is probably 99% of the OS's that run on that equipment. Linux would save them money.
Sorta ironic that the creator of UNIX (ok.. it was really their subsidiary Bell Labs now spun off as Lucent) would have to "evaluate" whether to use a unix-type system. Maybe Ma Bell's children will be welcome back home. Think of what the alternate history of computing could have been like had AT&T recognized UNIX for what it could/would/should have been and not sold off USL as a red-headed step-child. There would have never been a SCO and x86 Unix might actually have been able to overtake the much inferior MS-DOS.
From what I can remember about my time with AT&T, every single desktop was running Windows NT. Its not like they were actually using it. Every single desktop was running Reflection so they can access the unix server that maintains their switches.
Granted this was 4 years ago, and I only dealt with two call centers, but there really was no reason for them to be using Windows NT for any of the PC's in the office, whether it be the desktops for the supervisors/managers or the dummy terminals running the ascii based clients that did the backend work for the operators and the directory assistant workers.
Maybe they would be better off just popping in some unix based OS.
The other thing I can remember is all 300+ dummy terminals (from our one office; 1000+ if you counted the sister office) were maintained by one system admin. He would be able to broadcast out a new OS on those bad boys overnight without blinking an eye. One thing AT&T knows is how to network. Those bastards were tight, and the SA knew how to get the job done right the first time, on time.
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.
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
I recently switched my workstation to Linux (my company is fairly, but not totally infested with MS products.) .doc, .xls and .ppt produced by MS Office 2000 here. Ximian Evolution 1.4 works almost flawlessly with Exchange server, including calendaring. My one problem was some MS Sharepoint websites, but a free installation of Opera 7.54 took care of that.
OpenOffice works great on all
To work with Siebel ERP i still have to fire up a Citrix session to get IE, though...
I still don't get why Linux development leaders aren't understanding why Windows is so popular, regardless of appplication prevalence. Linux is still asking questions that aren't dumb, but still frighten anyone who isn't very familiar with computers. Modeline and resolution? Swap space? What are ext2, ext3, and reiser!? Does my keyboard have 104 keys or 105?
/system ("don't touch anything in the system folder!") /users/joecubicle ("Just backup the /users folder, and all your data and prefs are okay"), and /trash? ("you can delete anything in there")
You have to give big, shiny, easy options because computing shouldn't require that kind of knowledge when people are trying to look at websites and use their e-mail. You've got to sell them the OS first, and then allow them to customize to their heart's content after they can see the utility in what you're offering.
Comparatively I'm dumb to a lot of the slashdot crowd, but I imagine there must be some way to provide full binaries that are LIBRARY INDEPENDENT. Bandwidth is cheap. Hard drive space is cheap. Trying to train everyone how to use symlinks and sort through thousands of libraries using arbitrary command line options is stupid at best. But the first time someone says, "I want to do X and Y is broken!" You can tell them how to do both, and explain to them how Open Source makes it possible.
And I know POSIX compliance is important to everyone, but the directory scheme will have to go someday. What is wrong with
Sad thing is, if OS X were released for the x86 platform, half of the Linux users I know would switch the next day.
Just shows that in-house solutions never get the "go". All because of insiders who say, "Hey, I know that clown Kernigan", or, "Are you kidding? Mission critical tools by the likes of Ritchie?" Then there's the fact that the documentation is hardly PC, with all those "man" pages.
Naturally, it makes sense to outsource whenever possible. Perhaps that's the angle that could get OS/X or Linux back into AT&T, since there would be no need to show an in-house cost center in the form of a Unix development team.
Geesh.
"AT&T is evaluating different operating systems, including Mac OS X and Linux, as alternatives to Microsoft Windows for internal use. "The company's chief information officer, Hossein Eslambolchi, has set up a team in AT&T's research labs to assess the appropriateness of desktop operating systems for the company," reports CNET News.com. "The company currently uses Windows on its desktop PCs, which number in the tens of thousands. The engineers are testing and measuring how Windows, Linux and Mac OS X stack up on security, reliability and total cost of ownership, Dickman said. AT&T expects to make a decision on the merits of the desktop operating systems by the end of next year or early 2006." ~ better description from MacMinute
Is it just me or would you take a 4% profit per machine instead of a 23% profit per machine on a deal like this if you were Apple? Which actually points out a small fact. Apple still makes an average of 12% on educational sales (even more if you factor in Applecare and service plans) I think if they are serious about enterprise and education, they'd take 3-4% profit. I also think that they don't realize how many of these workers would love them and buy them for home use.
If Apple could just do this and be successful in ONE corporate entity, it would make a huge impact on other enterprise deals. The fedex deal fell through - they were only able to sell them 20% of their total computer purchase. (Which replaced about 30% of all the computers at fedex worldwide)
I imagine that AT&T will go with Linux though.
Boy, isn't this a good reason to have a headless iMac?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
For one contract job I had, I single handly managed about 1,200 sun stations in a call center... and I was bored to tears. Of course, it was also setup well -- all unix. I basically made the rounds twice a day mainly taking care of random hardware problems. At worst case, I would tell the person to work at a differnt desk for today (their files are on the network) and I would drop off new hardware and type in "boot net - install" and walk away and their system would be as good as new tomorrow. A good percentage of the systems were ye old sparc 5s that had been working fine (but slow) for over seven years. The call center workers used netscape, and web mail and special apps written for the company using small talk and pdf. Documents looked exactly the same on screen as the customer had in their hand. It was even running on openwindows! I never had any problems with viruses, spy ware, extra software being installed, backups, ... nothing. Ya, it's not something any geek would like, but this was for a large call center, not techs. It was a great tool to aid them in getting their job done and nothing else.
They moved to wintel pc computers. I'm not really sure the real reasons behind it. The backend stuff was getting redone at the time, and so the front end stuff was redone to work only through msie and in some rare cases, VB. Computer techs skyrocketed and are constantly stressed out. They have to deal with the ms/outlook exploit of the hour and must maintain constant vigilence on everything else. Their new systems are only expected to live two or three years before mandatory replacement. The systems are contantly breaking. It takes longer, on the new apps, to service customers. It takes a day to install a new system and requires hand-on work. Plus, there is now the issue of personal files being saved on the local hard drives; employees can't easily sit any anyones desk anymore, and now the techs have to worry about recovering imporant business files. They also have to worry about company information walking about of the building. Yes, there are better ways to address some of these things, but in such a large installation, small problems and exceptions really add up, and there isn't the time to properly address problems -- always in firefighting mode. They no longer see the same documents as the customer. Even with so much security and limited permissions, things like viruses, personal software and trojans and so many other problems plague the site.
Would I have mandated that ever desktop in the company be a sun? No. Nor do I think it's such a good idea to mandate that every desktop should be a wintel. Don't let popularity get in the way of making decisions. Sometimes it's popular for a good reason, but that doesn't mean it's good for your situation.
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....
why are they publizing it. all they are doing is using this as a bargaining chip with microsoft. the next story is that micorosft is now the tco winner because they are basically giving them the os at some extra low rate and that it is now cheaper than if we switched and had to train everybody. people just don't get it that have to pay the bills. linux forces open standards and this is where the real cost savings comes. your company can't be tied to proprietary standards that make it cost prohibitive to ever switch. no one knows where computers will be in the future but I bet the data you have in linux will be a hell of lot easier to switch to the next new technology than your data in microsoft. no one ever does long range planning any more - the more you stick to open standards the better off your company will be - it will also be more flexible to be able to change with technology - this is where the cost savings comes. but apparently not a cio in the fricken country U.S. realizes this - I don't know maybe it is the accountants but when will the head of all these companies realize what they are doing is costing the company in the long run - both technically and financially.
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.
An interesting thing was said to me while talking with our PC support manager. "We can't switch to Linux or anything else, our customers wouldn't allow it.".
I noticed a trend 10 years ago when the company I was working for first started to do business with Walmart. Customer Audits. The practice seems to have caught on especially after Y2K. As part of many business-to-business contracts are stipulations that certain known business practices are in place and adhered to.
When we enter into a contract we will sometimes state that they use XYZ software for EDI transfers. We know it, have tested it, trust it and have established our systems around it. It goes both ways. Customers will stipulate to us that we encrypt data transfers using 123 packaged software because that's what they use.
This is a common practice if the business you're in requires substantial IT interconnectivity between your business partners. We deal with some health care information as well. As a result of HIPPA and other regulations we have been audited by some of our clients who insist that we change this or that. Even down to passwords. One client contract required a password timeout of 90 days on all our desktops.
10 years ago with Walmart people were incredulous that another company could come in and dictate that in order to do business with us, you must first change this or that. Money talked and we wanted to listen. Ten years later it seems to have caught on and is now very common.
Switching to another OS sometimes is not always an option.
You must understand a corporate IT environment:
My guess is AT&T's license is due to expire in around 2006-2008.
as someone who has used linux and freebsd for a good, painfully long while now, I have to say that I've been very pleased with Mac OS X as my "unix desktop". I don't have to keep a windows box around to do any of my actual work tasks (you know, those things that PHBs want you to do, and what you get paid for) that used to involve windows apps.
:)
I also have the pleasure of an integrated unix desktop system which makes managing my unix servers much, much more pleasant.
once Jordan Hubbard made the jump to apple, that really caused me to look into them- after my first powerbook, I ordered the dual G5 a week later. it was just that spiffy.
I understand people getting mad and being biased because apples ARE very expensive, compared to a similar windows box. and they really aren't easy to compare, because things just don't work the same. I love my athlon64 system for playing games, but that's about it- the windows refresh, thumbnailing, etc is still as crappy on that system as on a P3/500. conversely, I really like the way all that works on a mac, it just feels more cohesive in general.
I never did drink the kool-aid, and the mac is definitely not the fastest box around (dual opterons smoke it dead) but it's very functional in a unixy way, especially if you're trying to get work DONE and not spend your time twiddling with system settings. that, and it's pretty, and it's high time we geeks learned to like pretty things
EOM
Microsoft's revenue comes almost completely from Windows and Office. For the most part all of their other products are sold at a loss to add value to Windows and thus generate more Windows profits. It seems to me that MS would not mind a switch to Max OS all that much as Office is still $499/seat on the mac, and they don't have to sell you things like SQL server because you will get it from someone like oracle or mysql instead. I have always thought that if MS just dropped out of the OS market, and started focusing on porting MS office to every OS they would be able to continue their revenue stream. Honestly how many of you would buy MS Office to replace your OO.o suite on linux? Let the flaming begin!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
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
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.
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.
Many Mac people buy a new laptop every year. They sell their old one, and get the vast majority of its cost back out of it. PC laptops that are the same age, however, have depreciated MUCH more in the same span.
My 12" PowerBook, which is well over a year old, still sells for ~$1100. The PC laptops I looked at buying now sell for much less. So later this year, when I sell the 12" PBook and buy a new laptop, I'll have spent LESS than if I had bought a PC laptop, sold it, and bought a new PC laptop.
Macs are only expensive initially. They're CHEAPER in the long run.
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.
In any job I've had, anyone on a win workstation liked the microsoft apps for word processing, spreadsheets, email and corporate intranet stuff. To talk to and use remote UNIX boxes on the network, some flips and twists (like using ReflectionX or NTSFU) were necessary.
The generic quality of the MS Office app suite is universally recognized. With a little adjustment, wordperfect users can get used to using Word, for example. Some of the ways that each of those 2 products handled things like page layout and headers & footers are a little different, but usually people learn how to do what they need to do and don't stray (or explore, depending on how you look at it) into application functionalities that they don't need.
Word is Soooo feature rich that half the toolbars and palettes are turned off in the default installation. It's just too much for an all-new word user (are there still any of these, btw?) to take in, but that collection of tools makes the app extremely powerful. When you buy an office app suite for your enterprise, you want something that's going to cover all of your various groups of users, who will have needs that vary. OpenOffice is similarly powerful, but the preponderance of CIOs (particularly in large enterprises like AT&T) still have the justifiably skeptical view of free applications. "How could anything free be as good as what you pay for?", they wonder.
(I ran into this a couple weeks ago at my new job when I was deprived of ReflectionX for doing xterms to UNIX boxes on the network. I installed cygwin and when I had to ask a couple questions about host configuration, the greybeard head systems engr said, "No wonder you're having problems, that's free software. When you install that buggy crap, you're on your own." (a direct quote))
Most enterprise users are not really using the OS -- they're using the apps that ride on the OS. The greatest drawback I've encountered with the OpenOffice suite is that in order to work in a world that is dominated by MS office apps, you have to be able to read and write in MS document file formats. Parts of those formats have been reverse-engineered, but other parts are obscure binary mishmash that's apparently been designed to conceal what the MS app in question is doing with the data in the file. OpenOffice gets pretty close, but it can only go so far. As a CIO, I'd be inclined, in the best interest of my customers, employees and shareholders, to make the offfice app suite choice that doesn't just get me CLOSE, but actually gets me ALL THE WAY to interoperability with the rest of the MS dominated office application world.
A very old friend of mine was a PC guy (for all his general purpose computing needs) for 15 years and then, when MS finally ported the whole office suite over to the mac, he switched to the mac. Why? It was because he liked OSX for the kernel (which he used) and the interface and the stability, but he needed the apps that linked him to the rest of the MS world.
So, I think the talk of "We're considering Linux for our 70,000 desktops..." may not be solely about getting cheaper prices, but also to encourage Redmond to consider porting MS office to Linux. Truthfully, if there was such a port, I would definetly consider buying it. I won't pay for the OS, but the apps do have value, even if OpenOffice proves that the price of the apps is inflated.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
In this article, (sorry in German), they describe the process and the reasoning. Some highlights:
Now, I know one could do a Wintel environment with Citrix MetaFrame, in order to reduce clientside upgrade problems, but Citrix would require a larger backend.
Every article I read mentions that advancements in Linux and OSX are the reason. While I think this has something to do with it, I think there has been a profound change in computer use in the past ten years.
Ten years ago, all that mattered in computer choice was software. I didn't care about alternatives to Windows because Windows had all the software I cared about.
Move forward to today. Much of the computer use today is as a terminal to the Internet. For many, it doesn't matter what OS you have as long as you can surf the web and read your email. Even reading email can simply mean logging on to the Web (Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo Mail). A dumb terminal with a nice display, a high quality web browser, and nothing else would probably make a useful computer today for much of the population.
Even at the corporate level many companies have moved all or much of their applications into web-based applications. Enterprise vendors are selling products to every large company in the world, and all of them are completely web-centric.
The viability of OSX and Linux have something to do with their advancement. But, it also has much to do with the changing computing landscape.