Hi, I'm a Mac, and I'm Your Enterprise Computer

Esther Schindler writes "Not just another 'why big companies should adopt Macs' article, CIO is running a piece assuming that Macs are already on the way in the door. Hi, I'm a Mac, and I'm Your Enterprise Computer offers advice to IT managers about how to integrate Apple systems into the existing IT infrastructure, and offers hints from leading Mac OS X experts on configuring those systems once they've arrived. '[A] key element in corporate Macintosh adoption is the importance of third-party software and custom solutions. They can help smooth the way for integrating Macs onto the network. While specialists say they wish third-party support were greater, the openness of the Mac makes correcting issues possible. Don't discount the lure of the well-worn path that draws and then traps your IT staff into familiar habits.'"

Comments

apple lacks good Enterprise desktop hardware

[Joe The Dragon]

Enterprise Computer systems need to be easy to open up and the mini is not easy to do so and the mac pro cost is too high.
The I-macs are not easy to open as well and they can not fit in to the same space as desktop + screen on it's own can. It may fit but the side loading cd / dvd may be hard to use then also Built-in iSight camera can be big NO NO some places.

Mac: not ready for a mixed enterprise environment

[Freggy]

I have some experience with Mac OS X in a mixed enterprise environment, consisting of Linux servers and Linux and Windows desktops. Linux desktops use NFS and NIS, while Windows machines are using a Samba domain controller on the Linux servers. So far so good. Till the moment we got some Mac OS X desktops. Mac OS X is Unix, so using NFS and NIS should be easy, right? Wrong! First, Mac OS X has really crippled the Unix back-end: there's no more fstab file, no more init scripts we *nix users are used too,... To integrate Mac OS X in NIS, there's a graphical interface. But: it does not really work! Most of the time, network accounts simply won't be available when the login screen appears, if you configure it like that. Using the configuration files, already works a bit better, but even then it often does not work. Workarounds mentioned in a Mac OS X and NIS HOWTO, consist of adding ugly sleeps and killall -HUP lookupd commands in some scripts. We found out, things work most reliable, if you force lookupd to use at maximum 1 thread. It seems like lookupd is full of race conditions :-/ And even now, sometimes machines hang on a blue screen when shutting down Mac OS X. And when a user gets over quota, his whole session hangs with a "spinning beachball of death".

On the above mentioned web page, the conclusion is:
"we officially withdraw the statement that NIS features are compatible with current versions of 10.4."

I cannot agree more. Mac OS X is certainly not enterprise ready to be integrated in mixed environments.

Re:{first 6 lines of post go here}

[techmuse]

Genentech is almost entirely Mac, and is the largest biotech company in the world. Market cap: $85.34 billion

Re:Odd...

[frdmfghtr]

"The Macs require a greater density of field associates. Where we have 1-to-150 PC techs to users, we're somewhere down to 1-to-100 for Macs. I think that's due partly to the technology and partly due to the users. The creatives are more demanding and you have to be more responding, because those are the people that clearly create our revenue," says Anschuetz.

That's the direct opposite of my experience (More like one Mac guy for 700-800 Macs, one PC guy for about 100-150 PCs), but I suppose a university environment is a bit different from a creative environment (at least outside the art/music/etc departments).

Here's a thought that popped into my head...maybe the ratios are a bit off due to the low volume of Macs in the installed base?

Here's why I say that: Say you have two PC techs and two Mac techs. Your installed user base is 200 PCs and 100 Macs. The ratios of techs to computers are 1:100 and 1:50, PC and Mac respectively.

In the surface, you have twice as many Mac techs as PC techs for a given user base. Does this mean you have to provide twice the support for the Macs? No. You need two techs as a minimum because there will be times where one is sick, on vacation, etc. You could double, or maybe even triple the installed base, but not need to get more techs, because the workload is still within the capability of your current tech support.

I guess the point I'm making is that you need to have a minimum amount of support regardless of your user base. A realistic comparison can only be made when you have an equal number of PCs and Macs in the user base, or enough of an installed user base to require more than the minimum amount of support personnel.

After all, if the ratio of users to techs turns out mathematically to be 100:1, and you have 46 users, it's hard to hire half a person (unless you contract out for on-call support, but that's getting beyond the scope of my comment.)

Maybe the article points this out and I should read it, but that's the thought that comes to mind.