Slashdot Mirror
Why Consumer Macs Are Enterprise-Worthy
cyberkahn tips us to an article in Computerworld that makes the case for Apple's consumer machines moving into corporations. (The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.) With the press that Vista has been getting, is Apple moving into a perfect storm? Quoting: "There is no comparison between Apple's 'consumer' machines and the consumer lines of its competitors. All of Apple's machines are ready to move into the enterprise, depending on the job at hand. The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market — if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers."
I work in IT and do a fair it of consulting on COEs (Common Operating Environments)among other things. I see *far* more interest in Linux on the desktop than Mac OS among most of the enterprises who are entertaining anything different than Windows.
This reads like a Mac fanboy wrote it. I can't think of any compelling reasons to recommend Macs in an enterprise environment. Properly implemented (that is with proper profiles and security), Windows 'Just Works' in business, and if one wants something different then there is Linux. The latter gives the benefit of being more customizable than either Windows or OS X in fact, given that all the source is available.
You don't get 4-hour on-site service with Macs
That kind of service is available if you want it, although not directly from Apple.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Remember, Apple is an idealistic company, and likes to push its idea of future tech...
Instead of a docking station, Apple would suggest that you use
This leaves you with only a power cable and a DVI cable to hook up. When the laptop has ports on both sides (with the power and DVI on opposite sides), so you have to hook up two docks, docks won't save you any effort at all.
I know this won't work for everyone, but it's perfectly representative of how Apple tends to think.
Even if you can't use any of the wireless stuff, you still only have power, DVI, USB, and Ethernet to hook up. (Your monitor probably has a USB hub that you can use to hook up your KB, mouse, printer, mass storage, audio interface, etc., etc.) That's a long way from the old days when you might have had separate connections for your KB/mouse, monitor, printer, external hard drive, network, audio, and power.
Do we really have to have one of these trolls in every Mac-related discussion?
For the last time (until next time...)
1. Macs are NOT significantly more expensive than comparably equipped commodity machines, for the most part.
1a. On the high end, they tend to be *cheaper* than comparable commodity machines (esp. Mac Pro).
2. However, Apple does not sell barebones configurations; that is not its business.
3. Therefore, *base* prices of Macs tend to be higher.
Anyone who says Apple hardware is 2x as expensive is comparing a barebones PC to a fully loaded Mac (and there really isn't any other kind).
Of course, businesses may want those cheap barebones PCs, but if they do, they are not businesses who would ever buy Apple, even if Apple had flawless enterprise-level support. Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business.
1) Apple also would have to be a team player. Where is AIX blended with OS X running on IBM servers to make things go fast forward?
Blending things with AIX doesn't make much sense, given that Apple is now on x86 and AIX is for PowerPC. Moreover, why would you want to? If you need a serious, heavy-duty server, run AIX or Linux, OS X will inter-operate perfectly via standard UNIX technologies (NFS, LDAP, etc). If you need an easy-to-admin small server, run OS X server, and all your Linux and Windows clients will be able to use it just fine.
2) Apple also would have to actively integrate other software. Actively, Apple will support Windows and Linux integration on Macintosh computers.
It does. OS X uses standard UNIX tools extensively. Underneath the GUI, it's all GCC, Samba, NFS, Apache, CUPS, etc, etc.
5) Standardized software interfaces. Why does Apple have to use their own disk format? Why does Apple have to do all kinds of things "their own way"?
Apple supports the major standardized UNIX software interfaces. OS X 10.5 will be officially SUSv3 compliant (though at this point, trying to be Linux-compatible is probably more useful). It supports standard protocols like LDAP, NFS, SSH, etc. It does use its own disk format, but then again almost every OS uses its own disk format. Disk formats are not standardized, invariably poorly documented (or in the case of NTFS, undocumented), and usually very closely-tied to the kernel implementation. That's why Linux uses EXT3, AIX uses JFS2, Windows uses NTFS, BSD uses UFS, Solaris uses ZFS, etc.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...