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

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[DurendalMac]

Remote Desktop can be configured on any OS X computer to allow connections from regular old VNC apps. I've used a free program called "Chicken of the VNC" to connect and it works great. In addition, you've got a standard POSIX layer for remote administration through the shell. I don't see what you're complaining about.

Higher TCO?

[Lord Grey]

Printer-friendly version of the article.

Most of this article is pretty good, but I disagree with one of the early bits about supporting Macs in a PC-oriented office:

For Publicis Group, the Macs have higher total cost of ownership. This is because of the particular hardware configurations and the company's corporate culture, which calls for more intense support on the Mac side.

The article goes on to say that some of that may be because these particular Mac users whine a lot and need more help (my words), but also "... due to the nature of the tools we use on the Mac."

This contradicts both my experience and the experience of an awful lot of tech support people I know. In PC-oriented offices where Macs are used, the tech support folks rarely have to fiddle with the Macs. The Mac apps don't seem to cause any more problems than the PC apps, so the support costs are about the same. Maybe Publicis Group is a bit more PC-oriented than the CIO is willing to admit?

Re:Higher TCO?

[jimstapleton]

when I did tech support, our Windows:Mac ratio was probably 10:1

Our support call issues, excluding hardware, were about 20:1 (windows:mac), but 8:1 (est) hardware.

The time to fix a Windows problem was usually quicker though.

"Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

Re:Higher TCO?

[WrongSizeGlass]

The time to fix a Windows problem was usually quicker though. With all that practice I certainly would hope so. ;-)

Re:Higher TCO?

[Mattintosh]

"Error 3" popping up when a program crashes usually /is not/ helpful.

There are two ways to correct this.

1) Find the APPL file (the executible APPLication) and open its Get Info box. Find the Memory section and double the number.
2) Wipe the HD and install a version of the Mac OS from this millenium.

I recommend the latter.

Odd...

[DurendalMac]

"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).

Re:Odd...

[noewun]

If your average corporate user is like a drunk teenager with a loaded pistol, your average campus user is like a tantrum-throwing toddler with a bazooka.

Re:Odd...

[amper]

It's really not that odd. Creative users tend to need more and better support. They are the "exception that proves the rule", so to speak.

I've been supporting Macs as an independent consultant for seven years, and as part of a larger systems integration company for another five years before that. I have expertise in the fields of graphic design, photography, and audio production, among others

Creative users tend to replace software and hardware much more often. One reason is that creative houses tend to deal with files from many other companies, to say nothing of moving files around in house, and the upgrade cycle of each individual software package tends to introduce incompatibilities that even when minor can interrupt a workflow process to the point that a significant amount of time and money is lost in dealing with the problem, so everyone tends to upgrade at the same time. When your clients and freelancers start sending you QuarkXpress 8 files that can't be opened in QuarkXpress 7, you'll upgrade too. Of course, with every new software version, the hardware requirements go up.

Creative users, in order to be properly supported, require that their support personnel actually know something about their highly specialized field. Such people are difficult to come by, and cost a lot of money when you *do* find them [like me ;)]. It's rare that you'll find someone that's cross-trained at a high enough level to replace two or more people, so you end up consulting several different people for some issues.

We're not talking Microsoft Office here. This is some serious shit with big money involved and little time to dick around.

On the other hand, while there are less "enterprise" support tools for Macs, it's because they need them less. Ghost? Who needs it on a Mac? Sure, if you're doing a mass roll-out of hundreds of Macs, a multicast replication tool is nice to have, but it's nowhere near as necessary as when dealing with a Windows SID environment. Macs also break less often, and are easier to fix when they do. I would be nice, though, if Apple would do some better documentation of Open Directory. When I hear people talking about the lack of "enterprise support tools" for the Mac, they're usually approaching the problem with a Windows mindset rather than a Mac mindset.

Re:Odd...

[SuperBanana]

I suppose a university environment is a bit different from a creative environment (at least outside the art/music/etc departments).

Having worked for an advertising company, yes. Sometimes, if stuff doesn't go out the door on time - millions of dollars are at stake. Advertising industries are highly competitive, even against each other (the vast majority of advertising firms are owned by less than a half-dozen holding companies...and yes, the same 'children' compete against each other.) So whether it is a proposal, presentation to the client, or artwork- if it doesn't leave with the CCO (Chief Creative Officer) on time for his flight, or get downstairs to the courier to arrive at the client or their printing house...shit hits the fan.

The closest comparison is probably "grant time" in the academic world.

The art department where I worked were the neediest; they got the fastest computers (and got 'em more often) and they were the only department with gigabit ethernet. When shit broke you had to got to drop everything and get it fixed ASAP. They also tended to have more problems because of more complexity...tons of fonts(and a font manager like Suitcase), old versions of Quark that required Classic...inDesign, Adobe Distiller printer drivers, half a dozen different kinds of printers. Nowhere nearly as complex an software matrix as the copywriters and paper pushers who just need email, Word, Safari, and to be able to print to the laserprinter in the hallway.

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.

Apple Remote Desktop, VNC

[CheeseburgerBrown]

Using Apple Remote Desktop (for OS patching, application installs, configuration) or any of several open-source VNC solutions (to help lost users by taking control of the machine) remote management of enterprise Macs is not only possible, but easy.

I manage a small cluster of Macintoshes (for video production) in a 95% Windows shop. If anything, I think I have a far easier time than the IT Service that maintains the Windows machines (they often have a lot of complex licensing issues to wade through).

Re:Apple Remote Desktop, VNC

[CannonballHead]

If it's a 95% windows shop, it's likely they WILL have more often and more complex issues. If there are 90 Fords and 2 Hondas, it is quite more likely that a Ford will break down first.

Not necessarily saying that it's not true your Macs have fewer problems, but the statistics and results from those statistics are skewed.

Re:Apple Remote Desktop, VNC

[Chosen Reject]

Perhaps I'm biased, but if there were 9,500 Hondas and one Ford, it is quite more likely that the Ford will break down first.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[0racle]

Ya, if only they had a Remote Desktop application, or something that could push settings the same sort of way that the Active Directory does.

Even ssh would be a start.

Why doesn't Apple make these tools available?

Openness?

[MontyApollo]

While specialists say they wish third-party support were greater, the openness of the Mac makes correcting issues possible

What do they mean by "openness" here. (Just curious - don't interpret this as troll.)

Re:Openness?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What do they mean by "openness" here.

I suspect they mean that Macs integrate with all the open standard protocols and tools that Linux does (think LDAP) instead of the MS controlled closed protocols where interoperability is always a little broken since it is achieved via reverse engineering.

Do me a favour...

[MSFanBoi2]

Someone who has an Enterprise level agreement with Apple, let us know how much an "enterprise" level iMac costs in bulk.

I know for a fact that both Dell and HP's "enterprise" desktop systems with a 19" flat screen monitor are about $650. (HP DC7700 for example) This includes an Intel Core2 Duo, 1.0 GB of ram, an 100 GB SATA hdd, integrated Intel graphics, and a SATA DVD/CD-RW combo drive. Dell's product is very similar but a little bit less ($750). Both systems as I said, come with a 19" flat screen.

The cheapest iMac is the $999 iMac, which is only 512 MB (but does have a larger hdd). I'd love to know the corporate pricing. To move to the 19"... add another 200 to that. Still, thats retail store, so someone kindly provide the corporate pricing.

Till Apple has prices that are similar, no large enterprise in their right minds would make the move, considering most of those, if not all of the fortune 500's are running Windows on the desktop....

Re:Do me a favour...

[DurendalMac]

Corporate bulk purchases can sometimes wrangle that price down to $900, maybe $850. However, despite what the article says, the experience of just about everyone else in the industry is that TCO for the Macs is much, much lower than that of a Windows box, making the purchase pay for itself after a while.

Re:Do me a favour...

[bolix]

Absolutely agree with this poster. I work in Academia in an Ivy League which purchases approx $10-15 million of Apple inventory a year. My main gripe is AppleCare. The Dell/HP/Lenovo systems bundle a 3 year warranty, Apple force you to license and purchase 3 year support separately and drive any price differential higher. On the other hand, xservers, xraid and xsan are definitely priced competitively with Dell/HP/Lenovo.

Furthermore, Apple Enterprise Software Licensing and Sales are outright incompetent. I purchased ARD2.5 one month before 3.0 shipped, Sales backflipped on my eligibility for a "free" upgrade and eventually i gave up chasing down their mandarins, almost as bad as IBM. Nutty scenarios like iLife only bundled with new machines and not with OS upgrades which are stuck with inferior iPhoto etc? Arrgh!

Apple should stick to the software business and not attempt to niche hardware costs attempting to compete with the marginally profitable Asian manufacturing. Apple cannot compete on the SMB tier.

Parallels

[Chardish]

With proprietary software, much of it in a legacy stage, keeping corporations using Windows PCs, it seems like Apple's business plan should be obvious:

1. Buy Parallels, and
2. Include it free with every new Mac sold through business channels.

Congratulations. Now there's nothing stopping corporations from making the switch.

Re:Parallels

[kchrist]

How many large companies can you name that don't have Windows corporate site licenses? That's a well-known problem actually, that big companies pay for Windows twice: Once for the site license and once for the OEM copy installed on all their new Dell's that immediately wiped and replaced with the standard image.

All they have to do is replace the Ghost image they use for their PCs with a Parallels (or VMWare, when it's released later this year) image they can stick on a file server for people to copy. No license problems at all.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[0100010001010011]

For Mac OS X 4.5+, Apple offers an emulator named Boot Camp.

I stopped reading after that. The entire article was this bad.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[rizzo320]

No i didn't RTFA, but one of my biggest concerns has always been remote central management in the enterprise structure. IT can't always make "house calls" to each and every computer, there has to be ways of remotely accessing, configuring and maintaining the systems and I haven't seen much that supports OSX. Even with Linux there are tools that allow you to do that, and most all central configuration tools are Windows based.

There are many applications and platforms out there that do this, including:
Apple Remote Desktop
LANDesk Management Suite
Casper Management Software

LanDesk is a cross platform solution. There are also management extensions available that allows you to integrate Mac workstations into your existing Microsoft SMS 2003 environment if thats whats being used: http://www.quest.com/quest-management-xtensions-fo r-sms/

I'm sure there are more out there. Just look. Most of these tools have been available for the last several years.

The end of Microsoft's Golden Age...

[The Media Mechanic]

I think years from now many people will look back on the period of approximately 1985-2005 as a "Golden Age" for Microsoft, when they were able to rake in huge profits by illegally dominating huge chunks of the personal computer industry with the Wintel duopoly. Of course for many of us we will look back on this period as "The Dark Ages" of little or no competition in the PC marketplace. Really what we are seeing now, as Apple and other firms like AMD start to make inroads into the enterprise market, is a return to normalcy. Competition on price and competition on features is a healthy state for the computer hardware & software industry. Capitalism and our free economy is really founded on the notion that there is not a central power (be it a totalitarian system of government, or a monopolistic corporation) that can control an entire sector.

Also, please take a look other major industries that have healthy competition - Plenty of airlines -> lower airfares. Plenty of car manufacturers -> lower car prices. Plenty of restaurants -> reasonable cost of food.

The idea that there is only one group of people in the world smart enough to create a reliable and modern PC operating system is simply a falsehood.

Re:The end of Microsoft's Golden Age...

[fyngyrz]

there frankly isn't a whole lot of competition

Oh, that's not true at all. You just aren't familiar with the competition.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[Monokeros]

You mean something like Remote Desktop's "AutoInstall" feature?
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/newfeatures.htm l#autoinstall

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.

Re:If Macs Are For The Enterprise ...

[Quiet_Desperation]

... then what kind of computer are they using on the Klingon ships?

Clusters of old ZX Spectrums.

... then what kind of computer should I use at home?

A Meccano difference engine.

... then can I use my iPod as a PDA?

If all your contacts happen to be famous musicians, yes.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[UnknowingFool]

No i didn't RTFA, . . .

Didn't read the article: Check

but one of my biggest concerns has always been remote central management in the enterprise structure.

Makes a blanket, factually correct statement: Check

IT can't always make "house calls" to each and every computer . . .

Makes a righteous, indignant statement: Check

there has to be ways of remotely accessing, configuring and maintaining the systems and I haven't seen much that supports OSX.

Introduces personal, anecdotal views as fact: Check

Even with Linux there are tools that allow you to do that, and most all central configuration tools are Windows based.

Brings up a meaningless comparison: Check

That is going to be a big hurdle to adoption from an IT standpoint.

Closes with a blanket assertion without any facts: Check

Congratulations, you are on your way to becoming a real slashdotter. You must not be new here! :P

Stereotyping of "Creatives"?

[ErikInterlude]

"The Mac itself, the nature of the Mac, how it works and how it looks, is actually more conducive to the creative mindset. But those same things have also created a religious factor where the typical 'creative'--they can't even touch a PC keyboard. I'm being actually serious," says Christian Anschuetz, executive vice president and CIO of Publicis Groupe, which is based in Paris.

I haven't finished the article yet, but while I can believe this mindset being prevalent in years past, but I don't think I've met any designer in the past 5 years or so with such an anti-PC attitude. I've worked on a mac since my freshman year in college, but still had no problem sitting down and doing design work on a PC. And this was over a 2 year period. Using CorelDraw because my employer was Canadian and apparently Corel is a Canadian company.

Likewise, I've met plenty of PC users who are willing to sit down with a Mac if that's what the job requires. I just don't think this idea of "He's creative so he HAS to use a Mac" is valid anymore. You do the job with the tools you have. At my current job, once the IT dept. found out that I was going to be hired they immediately went out and bought a Mac. If I had been asked I would have said I could work in either platform. It doesn't matter as long as I have the tools to get the job done.

Sure, PC and Mac users like to make jabs at each other every now and again, but the few times I've met hard core Mac/PC users, they've been jackasses who weren't nearly as productive as they'd like to believe.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

{first 6 lines of post go here}

[TinBromide]

Well, {obligatory statement about my computer background and/or preference}, but i {explanation of what is used at home and in office}.

With that said, {obligatory statement to stave off mac cult mods}, but really {please don't hurt me}.

In my experience,{statement involving one of the following: tech-staff experience, home experience, or work environment}.

Although, {subtle jab at microsoft indicating preference for neither windows nor mac}

{statement that anything to jab at big guys is good}

But really, my take on this? Businesses will use what businesses will buy. Sometimes you keep using a law firm because it works, and as long as they don't cause mistrials or fail due-dilligence, they stay on retainer. Until windows fails miserably, businesses will continue to use what they've used. The small, independent companies are the ones that get all the mac-related press.

{begins waiting for examples of "big" companies that use macs in numbers greater than 90%}

Re:{first 6 lines of post go here}

[e4g4]

{begins waiting for examples of "big" companies that use macs in numbers greater than 90%} How about Apple?

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:Enterprise Central Management

[Goaway]

ssh? a commandline on a Mac??? Say it isn't so.

Man, welcome to THE YEAR 2000 already.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[nine-times]

Apple Remote Desktop is not a comparable product to VNC. It's not like Terminal Services, either. ARD does provide that sort of remote desktop viewing, but it also provides a bevy of other remote-management features, such as being able to install the same package on several machines or running the same script on several machines, using only a few clicks.

Macs can also connect to Windows AD servers for authentication, and Apple provides their own directory services through their own directory server. Many of the same things can be accomplished, though not always through the same methods.

Re:Enterprise Central Management

[amper]

Yes, the Mac does that, too. You just need Mac OS X Server and Open Directory, just as with Windows, you would need Windows Server 2003 and Active Directory.

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.

PARENT IS BULLSHIT

[aristotle-dude]

One problem we ran into was network printer drivers.

For network printing, Mac OS X uses CUPS[1]. And the printer drivers that you download from the manufacturers which are labeled "for Mac" are not CUPS drivers. They're local drivers only (ie. for printers physically connected to the computer with a USB cable). These local drivers can't be used for network printers.
Look here, here or just f*cking google it yourself.

From http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/windows/

Share Printers Macs and PCs can also share printers. Shared Windows printers automatically appear in the Mac OS X Printer Setup Utility so they can be added to the Macintosh as a local printer queue. You can create a queue for as many shared Windows (and Macintosh) printers as you like, and any application that can print on the Macintosh can print to the shared printer.