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."

Comments

Who wrote this crap?

[EvilGoodGuy]

"(The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.)" And how is this still considered a noteworthy article?

Re:Who wrote this crap?

[recoiledsnake]

(The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.)" And how is this still considered a noteworthy article?

It's been written by the same scum that brought you the incredibly retarded and contentless article featured on Slashdot on Virtualization sucks

We find that most PCs that are sold as enterprise desktops are actually stripped-down, lightweight versions of the computers the same companies sell to home users. These machines lack the basic technologies needed in the modern enterprise. Apple, on the other hand, simply doesn't sell a minimalist computer whose predominant 'feature' is its price point, aimed at businesses or any other market

Care to specify what the basic technologies are? Oh here they do.

For instance, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM, Bluetooth, 802.11g Wi-Fi networking, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire and even a remote control -- and that's before you consider the included software. None of the base business models of HP or Dell even comes close to that.

Yes, the modern enterprise needs WiFi on fricking corporate desktops, FireWire, BlueTooth and remote control. And what if you want just 256MB RAM for the secretary who doesn't use anything but Outlook? Nope, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM! And, you get to pay for it!

Apple's desktop lineup has three families: the minis, the iMacs and the Mac Pros. The mini is a full computer -- sans keyboard and mouse

Uhh, it's either a full computer or not. A full computer without a keyboard and mouse is NOT a full computer.

IMacs are Apple's middle-of-the-road desktop line, but a better-looking computer doesn't exist at any price. Complete with a built-in webcam for video chats and LCD screen, it comes in 17-, 20- and gorgeous 24-in. varieties.

Wow, another basic feature without which the enterprise cannot function. The webcam!

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.

Yes there is no comparison, on one hand you have multiple vendors some of who will pre-install Linux, and almost infinite hardware configurability and on other hand you have limited configurations shoved down your throat whether you need them or not. Macs may be enterprise-worthy, but this article sure doesn't make a case for it. I recommend that Computer World articles be blacklisted.

Re:Who wrote this crap?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

I've a couple of brief points of contention, tho i certainly agree with your opinion regarding the worthiness of TFA.

1. RAM. How the fuck can you contend that 256 megs is sufficient for anyone? Do you use outlook? Its a hog. My work box has 512 megs and i use it solely for Outlook and internet, and i want more. Also, have you tried using Vista with only 256 megs? Hardly seems worth it.

2. Definition of a full computer. The mini is a fully functional desktop computer. It happens not to be sold with keyboard, monitor, or mouse. This is problem for consumers, not for the enterprise, who's probably supplying everything to the users piecemeal anyways. I work at a large law firm, which is just a big corporate office, and I have never, *NEVER* seen anyone use a computer system that was purchased as a monitor, computer, keyboard, mouse bundle. The computers are all identical, Dell enterprise boxes, but everyone has a mishmash of Microfsoft ergonomic keyboards and optical mice, and mainly sony monitors. The mini is perfect for the corporate office box scenario where the computer should be quickly and easily swappable for repair and still run decent specs.

3. Webcam. kinda silly. I'd never want to video-chat with the people whom i IM. But given the pervasive nature of the conference call in the enterprise environment, i fail to see how increasing webcam existence wouldnt benefit business. Face-to face conference calls? what's not to like?

A little off base

[bconway]

if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers.

They really think that's what's holding back Macs in the enterprise? I'm pretty sure the problem isn't prejudice against hardware, but integration issues that arise when moving from an all-MS shop to a mixed environment with OS X. The ROI needs to outweigh the obstacles, and it currently doesn't.

Re:A little off base

[weg]

Hmm.. I think it's actually the other way around: While the "all-MS shop" allows you to change the (hardware-)horse whenever you want, once you're using the "mixed environment OS X", you're bound to one supplier (Apple) once and forever. There's no way you can change that - if you find out that Apple's support isn't as good as you were expecting, you'll face the high cost of changing back your IT to the Windows world.

If I had a business, I'd prefer to have options and I'd stick with Microsoft (while as a private user, I'm using a Mac and Linux).

Disparity of Distros

[ynososiduts]

I want to know what the big deal is between not using Linux because it has too many options. Majority of the distros are either based on Debian or Red Hat. I haven't seen software that only worked on one distro, and things like apt-get, yum, synaptic, and all the other package managers can be installed on most of the distros. That just doesn't seem like a valid reason to automatically dismiss any Linux solution. Just use one distro throughout the whole comapny, problem solved.

This will never work

[st3v]

Macs are not enterprise ready. The computers, save for the Mac Pro's, are not easily serviceable by IT departments, unlike, say, Thinkpads. Ever try changing a hard drive of a Macbook Pro? You don't wanna get stuck doing that. Also, Exchange dominates the corporation fields. Mac OS X has a long way to go in the aspects of group policy, and other details that Windows offers that admins need. Sure, you might be able to make hacks in the OS to make things work the way you want it, but Linux is a better option if you want a UNIX-like OS.

This surfaces every now and then...

[crovira]

And its utter bullshit.

I suspect that Apple definitely does NOT want to enter a cut throat world of competition where it becomes just an also ran competing on price with a thousand corporate buyers, when it can design kick-ass product in the consumer market place.

This was written by a misguided (and severely deluded,) fan-boy.

The PC wars are long over. Get over it. Microsoft won. (So they're now tied to the office and that kind of ugly industrial design. [Think BROWN Zune. Yuck!])

Apple is a whole lot better positioned to compete in the vastly more profitable consumer arena.

even if...

[oohshiny]

Even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that OS X is "enterprise ready", the fact that Apple hardware comes from a single company makes Macintosh an unacceptable choice. The fact that that company also has a very limited product range makes it even less feasible.

Re:from my experience

[Frumious Wombat]

For security reasons, you should have abandoned NIS long ago, and OpenDirectory works just beautifully with OSX, Linux, and Windows clients. Turn on the ssh daemon, and your ssh -X, etc work just fine, and Macs understand NFS, as well as other file systems just fine. In other words, there is no reason to do anything to your RAID array other than tell the Macs where it is and what protocol to use to connect to it. There are also tools, of course, to enable you to make standardized disk images with configurable parameters and use those for future client installs.

I'm running my entire lab off OS-X, with a compute cluster and file system integrated into distributed desktops (OSX and Linux. We had a windows but I sensibly turned it off when we bought the first IntelMac), and not so much as a hiccup. The main problems you're describing are the classic, "it looks unixy, so I'm going to treat it as if it were a Linux box." No, it's a Mac, descended from NeXTs. Get the Apple docs out (dreadful though they may be), read a little of "The Mac Way", and quit fighting it. I found most of my problems at first arose from trying to treat Macs as if they were just nice-looking RedHat boxes, rather than something different.

Pardon for sounding rude, but it sounds like you've learned one system, and aren't willing to attempt to learn another. Current Macs are one of the easiest machine to integrate into a mixed environment that I've encountered, and this is after over a decade and a half of running various Unices, Linuces, Windows, and VMS systems in mixed environments.