Slashdot Mirror
New Apple IT Pro Section
aqsalter writes "Apple has finally created a new section for information from an IT Professionals viewpoint, with articles about all the good stuff. Previously Apple shied away from having any obvious IT focus, but it seems Apple are acknowledging their influence in the IT sphere, with two high-profile HPC clusters and enterprise class tools for managing open source technologies."
Look, shiny iHome pictures.
Most of the IT guys I know, who are calling the shots, are Windows only. Mention a Mac and they cringe.
At one school I teach at the IT admin has to put up with Macs, because we have a recording studio. Me (ESL teacher) and the music teacher also bring in our Mac laptops from time to time, which he hates. I find it strange that the music computer lab only has PCs, when it would be better for the students to have some Macs. However, with the current IT admin, there will not be any Macs there soon.
I actually keep hoping that a student will infest the network with a virsus or worm. Then I and the music teacher can say, "You know, if the server and lab boxes were Macs. You wouldn't have this problem."
I always wonder why Apple seems to be so popular for HPC? I mean, Apple makes good hardware and a very nice OS an all, but each compute node is so expensive that it doesn't seem worth it. To buy an compute node with roughly the same power costs half as much if you use Xeon or Athlon processors with support contracts with a large company. I had to design several clusters with a price limit of of $120,000. We could get 45-60 Apple boxes, or 240 Intel boxes. Yes the Xeon boxes where slower, but with almost 5 times as many boxes you get 5 times the memory, 5 times the disk space per node, and such. If your program is that processor dependant (or can't scale beyond a few nodes) you can run several copies at once. The power consumption of an Apple was almost the same as an Intel last I heard and the heat produced is almost exactly the same. Granted over several dozen/hundred nodes this can be a difference but it doesn't seem like nearly enough to make it worth $2k a node.
So my question is this. What makes Apple worth the money as a compute node? (I am not asking for desktops and such, only compute nodes) Anybody out there have a chance to do the purchasing for an Apple cluster? We always come back to Intel because of the cost so it would be nice to see the other side of the coin.
See:
Mac SE Server
Webserver Mac SE
Another Mac SE Server
( The SE is a 68000 Motorola running at 8mhz on 4MB of ram. So if you can *avoid* clicking the last link directly *today* I'm sure the owner would appricate it. )
As for short life cycles - oh please. I've was using a G4 single CPU then a G4 dual CPU for 3 yrs before the G5 came out. The G4 was a VERY long life cycle for a CPU.
As for getting parts, in my 20+ yrs with Apple hardware I have NEVER replaced anything other than hard drives which have ALWAYS been stock (and NOT made by Apple). OMG this is a pointless argument. Where do you misinformed twats come from anyway? It's a never ending story with you WinTel people is it?
Flamebait or troll? Not sure, but just in case you are SERIOUS about this, here goes.
Vendor Lock in: When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it.
And this is different than Windows exactly... how? Actually, it's not even true. Since the MacOS X Server is essentially a UNIX-alike, it will run most OSS that can also be run on... oh, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, blah blah blah. That's a lot of choices. Sure there will be some non-OSS software, but if Apple is serious about the IT deal then I suspect some famous vendors will start porting their applications, which again means more choice and less lock-in. (The lock-in would involve the vendor's package, not the OS.)
And switching to an other platform is expensive. Sure right now Apple is making good quality products but down the line some other platform may exceed the quality in a large scale.
I hate to break the news to you, but migrating from Windows NT to Win2K, and so on, is just as costly, unless the application you're running is built in-house and can be easily ported. If not, you're looking at package upgrades too, usually hardware upgrades, and the perks of sticking to the same OS manufacturer is marginal in many cases. It is, however, probably faster and easier than migrating to an entirely different platform, but not cheaper.
so in the future when Apple sucks again you will be faced with a daunting upgrade task.
And again, the same can be said for any non-OSS system. This is not some weirdly unique issue that only affects Apple.
This is the reason why Microsoft is so big,
Whaaaaa...!? What universe do YOU live in!?
Only Apple knows what the future holds:Apple loves to make the big press release and get all the people drooling at their new product. Companies want to be able to plan for things usually a year in advance.
While Apple certainly is secretive of what they're doing, I don't see the chip or hardware manufacturers being any better. Or Microsoft for that matter. "The Pentium XXX YYYGhz version will be ready for shipping in Q4 of..." is usually never true. It's always late. Of course, I guess you could calculate the "always late" part into your purchase plans, but still... Same goes for Windows 2134.
Short life cycles: Wow those G4 Powermacs didn't last long. And when their supplies run out that is the end of them other then buying them used on ebay.
So, what, you're telling me that you have absolutely no trouble finding new AMD K6 processors? Or old model mobos? I suspect Apple will have more backup stock ready if they're really gonna enter the IT market (read: replacement hardware, not new-sales of old-model hardware) and that won't be a whole lot different than most manufacturers. I can still have parts replaced on my Sun Enterprise420R, but I'll be damned if Sun is willing to sell me a new machine!
Some companies may not need to have the best of the best. They often want to extend there system life to 4-10 years between upgrades. We need to be able to get parts for these system when they break, and not just extra harddrive spare Processors, motherboards, video cards. Basically all the stuff to make a Mac by itself.
And in all reality, you probably will be able to get all "reasonable" parts, just like any other serious pro-hardware manufacturer. You know, I almost forgot to mention that Apple DOES have stock for broken old machines. Maybe not for a full 10 years, but neither do others. Sun sure doesn't!
So if an Apple's video card dies, just buy a new one. It won't be identical, but it'll probably work. Failed hard drive? ATA/S-ATA drives will still be around, you may be limited to ATA-133 bus while the drive is ATA-1330 or something, but it'll probably still work. SCSI will probably still be around 20 years from now, considering we still don't have a truly acceptable replacement for it yet at this moment. Your CPU and mobo
1. Windows isn't a vendor lock in? And with the exception of some binary-only ODBC drivers I really haven't run into much that dosenot compile on PPC for linux and OpenBSD/NetBSD (not to mention Darwin). The problems are comparable to the myrid of problems when you start to look over the different linux distro's out there.
Apple has always made it a point to be interoperable with as much as they can, so you are not really "locked in" to a single platform like Windows tries to do. Apple computers have read PC disks for well over a decade, and PC's still don't read Mac disks. Who is locking you in?
Apple's major software has always been cross-platform: AppleWorks, QuickTime, WebObjects, iTunes (ok, a subset of QuickTime). And they tend to use standards far more than Microsoft (thus mitigating lock-in).
2. Care to tell me what will be coming out from Dell in 6 months? Can you give me their price-list? Or are you talking about the features of Longhorn... or it's ship date? How useful is that information when you know it is not going to be remotely close to true.
People expect things out of Apple that they don't expect out of other companies (or fool themselves into thinking they are getting).
3. The G4's were out for a while... Apple just moved the marketing name to G5 now. There were several different versions of the G4 processor in there. Just like there is a long list of very different processors that bear the Pentium 4 name... that too is simply a marketing name (and also don't fit in the same [processor sockets/slots).
If you are talking about service hardware, Apple has a service department that keeps on-hand hardware for a long time. While working for a repair shop I was always amazed at the old stuff that we could get. It cost a lot... but if you need it it is there.
And lets be honest. Do you think that a 4 year old Dell motherboard is more easily replaced than an Apple board? It is just as specific. The hard drives, memory, and processors (look at the Mac upgrade market) and all just as available (since they are mostly the same parts). And the graphics cards may have a smaller selection, but they are readily available.
The 4-10 years between upgrades is going to make Mac's much more valuable... they tend to last better than PC's (both from a usability and a durability standpoint). Just look at schools for that, they are using ancient Apple hardware next to brand new PC hardware... guess which gets more maintenance calls?
The real reason that IT has not made the switch is inertia. The people in IT have their certifications from Microsoft... that is why they got the job. They don't know anything about maintain an Apple computer, and it would be work to educate themselves. So even if the results would be better, they don't feel the need to do so, and have some incentive to try and prevent it.
I wouldn't suggest running Solaris on it, but I've got a SparcStation 5 that has run both NetBSD and Debian Linux during various times of its life. It's held up like a champ with both OSes as a simple fileserver/gateway.
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
With OS X Server, all you have to do is create a user account with the nice GUI that they provide and all of the setup is done behind the scenes. If you don't want the user folder in the default place, there is an easy way to change that in the GUI. I admin a Win2k Server and an XServe and I have to say, the XServe is worlds better imo. Setup is easy and fast. Changes are simple. Plus if you run into anything that you can't accomplish with the GUI, you can bring up the Terminal or ssh into it and make the changes from there. Plus, it's in a 1U case. My Win2k server is about 3/4 as powerful and it takes up 5Us.
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
Looks like Apple is trying to capitalize on IT departments' relative unhappiness with Windows. I actually have a Mac at home, and I think it's a great desktop machine. From an admin point of view, you can lock down anything you want, and it's stable. Of course, any advantage regarding spyware and viruses will go away once enough people start using MacOS...right now most hackers can't be bothered. One of the biggest problems we deal with is Windows patch management and virus/spyware control.
Plus, the good thing about MacOS is that the desktop/window manager is fully mature. Recent advances in the Linux kernel really help the whole plug-and-play thing, but it seems like a unified set of desktop apps or an accepted One True Window Manager is a ways off. It's going to take a Red Hat or an IBM clamping down on feature creep and version control to make that happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple managed to sneak a few XServes in as departmental file/print servers or other low-end tasks. MacOS is very cool under the hood as well as on the surface.
...so in the future when Apple sucks again you will be faced with a daunting upgrade task. This is the reason why Microsoft is so big...
Apple sucks in cycles. Microsoft is consistently sucky. Just like when Microsoft released Windows 95, all companies were faced with a daunting upgrade task. Come on. Every 9x release of Windows has pretty much been a catastrophe. Have corporations jumped ship in droves just because MS released a low-quality OS? Of course not.
This is the reason why Microsoft is so big, and the reason why Linux is so strong.
Apple is a big company. Their revenue is in the billions and their customer base is in the high double-digit millions (if not more, if you count iPod owners). Mac OS X is just as "strong" as Linux. It has roughly the same number of users and offers nearly identical functionality. Why is Linux so great? Some people don't want to spend the weekend rebuilding their kernel just so they can get feature XYZ to work.
Apple loves to make the big press release and get all the people drooling at their new product...
How is that different from any other company? "Sony loves to make the big press release and get all the people drooling at their new product..." "General Motors loves to make the press release and get all the people drooling at their new product..."
And when their supplies run out that is the end of them other then buying them used on ebay
That's what service warranties are for. Most companies purchase service contracts with their hardware. Apple supports their products, including all associated hardware, for about 6 to 7 years after they stop selling them. Hmmm...yep 6 and 7 are both between 4 and 10.
I find very few points in your argument that are either well thought out or accurate. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
I've seen this comment a lot with regard to apple. Me personally, I don't get it. You aren't ever "stuck" with something. You choose what you choose. If you're going to regret it before you even try it, then you'll never be happy, because no product/solution/etc. is ever perfect. It's pretty simple, really. You weigh the pros and cons, and if apple seems like the best solution, then you choose apple. If you're feeling that apple isn't for you, then just don't buy. Simple.
And switching to an other platform is expensive.
So? Life is expensive. You know why? Because nobody has all the answers when they first start out. You have to spend some money, try stuff, and see what happens. In fact, the only way ANYONE ever makes any progress in any area of life is to try and fail a few times, so they can figure out what works. There is no way to fore-know that something is going to work absolutely, 100% for you, until you get out there and actually try it. Does that cost money? Yes. But money spent figuring out what works is money well spent. Worse case scenario- if the damn thing doesn't work, ship it back! Or sell it to someone else. You always have options.
Sure right now Apple is making good quality products but down the line some other platform may exceed the quality in a large scale.
Yup. And the sky might fall tomorrow. Look, you can imagine any sort of doomsday scenario you want. I guarantee to you that 99% of the time, your worst fear is never going to happen. It just doesn't. So stop spending your energy wondering what sort of nightmare could possibly happen 20 years down the road, because you're wasting your time. If you wait and see if something will be better, if that killer app will come out or that magic product that will solve all your problems, then you'll be spending the rest of your life waiting. The smart people grab what is useful NOW, so they can USE IT NOW.
I'm not saying it isn't useful to plan for the future. But to quote Dumbledore from Harry Potter: "It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live."
Companies want to be able to plan for things usually a year in advance. So if there is going to be a 5 ghz G5 coming out within a year or so they want to know that so they can budget the upgrade or wait an other year.
So I guess every other hardware company pre-announces their products a year in advance so that the people who rely on those products can plan appropriately? Um, sorry, but it doesn't work that way. EVERY company is secretive about their products, mostly because they don't want a competitor to beat them to market. Apple is not unique in this regard. All any business can do is look at the trends and make an educated guess as to what will most likely happen. I don't know about you, but for me it's obvious that, for the foreseeable future (1) Apple will be making macs and (2) Processors will get faster. If anything else, one can assume that if something has been happening for a while, then it will continue to happen. Once again, assuming that apple might suddenly go under tomorrow and you'll lose all your support is irrational. People have been predicting apple's death for years, and it's never happened. In all likelyhood, even if something bad does happen, apple will support you for a time while you transition to another platform. And since OS X is so good at working with windows, you can even use a mixed Mac/PC environment while you transition your Macs out of the company.
Some companies may not need to have the best of the best.
Correction: MOST companies. Companies are the slowest entities to upgrade their hardware and software. Why? Because they want something proven and stable, so they can be sure of their investment. Therefore, most companies hardly ever run the latest and greatest technology. If apple doesn't come out with a super-fast G5 tomorrow, most companies aren't really going to care. Heck, I knew a c