IBM's Pilot Program For Internal Use of Macs

geoffrobinson writes "Roughly Drafted has obtained internal IBM documents detailing the results of a small pilot program for internal use of Macs. Positive and negative results were detailed, but overall most participants were happy with their Mac experience. The pilot will be expanded this year. One advantage cited: less reliance on Windows. So it seems a mix of Macs, PCs, and Linux boxes are in IBM's future. Given the history between IBM and Microsoft, this is quite interesting."

Comments

I thought it's a joke

[cyfer2000]

When I saw it somewhere else for the first time.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

It's really not that strange-- it's not like the old days were Microsoft's OS is talked about as running on "IBM compatible computers". These days, Apple hardware isn't that different from anyone else's, so it's just a question of which operating system they want to run. Since IBM is so tied to Linux/Unix these days, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they're considering moving away from Windows.

I think the more ironic thing is that they're probably considering the move because Macs have become more popular since moving from PowerPC architecture to Intel's chips. To spell out the irony a little bit more, IBM started considering using Apple's computers (partially) as a result of Apple ceasing to use IBM's chips.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[192939495969798999]

Another interpretation of these results is that IBM is still bitter about the dos and os/2 issues from way back, and they're finally gearing up to give the big blue finger to Microsoft.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[jimicus]

Yet another interpretation is that IBM couldn't give a fsck about religion, but is aware of how much Microsoft licensing costs (even if you're IBM I'd imagine it's non-trivial).

Combine that with the fact that they're almost certainly using Notes (rather than Exchange) for calendaring and email, and suddenly Windows is a very expensive choice for little benefit.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

If that was all there was to it, why wouldn't they have stopped using Windows already?

These days, IBM is not interested in selling a desktop OS or even selling consumer-grade computers. They're essentially in the business of selling big iron and IT services, and they're often providing Unix/Linux solutions.

Whether they hate Microsoft or love Microsoft, it still makes a lot of sense that if you're providing Unix-based services, you'd also want to be using Unix-based client-machines. It would just be a better solution for a variety of technical and non-technical reasons.

So once you assume that your client-machines are going to be running a Unix-y operating system, it seems like the natural question would be, "who's going to be using Linux and who's going to be using a Mac?" (I'm assuming that there would be a mix, naturally.)

Re:I thought it's a joke

[DogDude]

Another interpretation of these results is that IBM is still bitter about the dos and os/2 issues from way back, and they're finally gearing up to give the big blue finger to Microsoft.

That would be a valid interpretation if "IBM" were an individual with too much time on his hands. As it is, IBM is a large multi-national corporation that is incapable of holding grudges.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

...(even if you're IBM I'd imagine it's non-trivial)...

I'd say especially if you're IBM it's non-trivial; can you imagine how much IBM must pay M$ and how galling that must be.

I'd add to your point about using Notes that I'm sure that they're looking at ways of switching away from MS Office and to their own product, Lotus Symphony. Then there's really no reason to use Windows.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[cb8100]

Whether they hate Microsoft or love Microsoft, it still makes a lot of sense that if you're providing Unix-based services, you'd also want to be using Unix-based client-machines. It would just be a better solution for a variety of technical and non-technical reasons.

Until you factor in the time and cost associated with training the marketing department, various accounting departments and other departments filled with non-technical persons who have probably never even looked at a *nix-based machine on how to use the new stuff.

In a (well, my) perfect world, everyone would be running some flavor of *nix. That, however, is not a reality for a good portion of the population who still refer to their web browser as "the Internet."

Re:I thought it's a joke

[_bulbgiver_]

What you said is true only if IBM didnt have to pay for Apple's OS and also for Apple's "premium" hardware! You must be confusing Apple with Linux.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Zashi]

You have no idea how true this is.

I work at IBM in the super lab testing those Big Iron servers.

I *have* to use a windows workstation. They used to allow RHEL based workstations but stopped a short while before I started working here. I test predominantly Linux (RHEL and SLES) and occasionally Windows. We had to test Windows Server 2008 aka Longhorn (which amusingly is identified as Vista in virtually every piece of software).

Regarding the Unix vs. windows workstations: Apparently the developers here use windows workstations because when I tried to install a Linux utility all the shell scripts wouldn't run. Being the savy linux user I am I quickly realized that all the shell scripts were in windows format (with CRLF for line terminators instead of just LF). They were getting ready to SHIP this software out to enterprise level customers, but luckily we caught it.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[vux984]

As it is, IBM is a large multi-national corporation that is incapable of holding grudges.

You'd be surprised.

1) Individuals who may be in positions of power certainly can hold grudges.
2) Corporate culture is defined by the people in the company. Grudges held by old employees can infuse the corporate culture and wear off on new employees, reinforcing and propogating them.

Nothing that is blatantly unsound should get past the shareholders or its quarterly results fixated board, but when choosing between A and B when both are sound choices, the decision may come down to biases within the corporate culture.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Rob Y.]

Whether they hate Microsoft or love Microsoft, it still makes a lot of sense that if you're providing Unix-based services, you'd also want to be using Unix-based client-machines. It would just be a better solution for a variety of technical and non-technical reasons.

Even more, if you're providing (and selling) unix-based services, you want to know and demonstrate that your services work well (better than the MS equivalent) in a mixed-client environment. Likewise, you want to make sure that all of your vendors provide software that works well in such an environment.

The more variations (within reason), the better.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple's "premium" hardware! You must be confusing Apple with Linux."

If IBM is like the mega corp I work at, they won't buy from Dell's consumer line. The will buy from their business line and then a PC is just as expensive as a Mac and you get plastic instead of aluminum. The duel core Dell's work stations we have from their business line cost what a G5 does and they are not nearly as nice a box as a G5.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[abhi_beckert]

If that was all there was to it, why wouldn't they have stopped using Windows already?

The other change is that Mac OS X can now run windows in a VM almost as if there was no VM with parallels or vmware. This drastically reduces the risk to move to another platform, though it means a rise in costs until they can drop windows altogether.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[falconwolf]

What you said is true only if IBM didnt have to pay for Apple's OS and also for Apple's "premium" hardware! You must be confusing Apple with Linux.

Apple's hardware is only premium when you want an expandable computer. When comparing the specs of Macs and Windows PCs the prices are about the same. However when you want to add a second hdd and video card or when you want to upgrade the hardware then you have to go with the Mac Pro which starts at $2500, the lower cost Macs are not expandable. Oops, Apple raised them to $2800. You can save a little though if you join Apple Developer Connection. That's what I did when I switched from Windows to Macs.

As for OS upgrades, OS X upgrades are cheaper than Windows upgrades. And if you're an ADC member you get those upgrades free. While the retail price of an upgrade is US$130 as a member of ADC I got Leopard DVDs free, along with a lot of other stuff.

Falcon

Re:I thought it's a joke

[EdelFactor19]

except for the minor fact that until ibm bought pcs from you guessed it IBM... thinkpads, thinkcentres and various servers... but you may have noticed they sold off thinkpad to lenova, and if not already would likely do the same with the thinkcentre desktop.

with more and more people not using windows, it can make sense. There are people who want the linux power but still have that user coddled feel and lack of maintenence that comes with osX.

if you think with your brain for a moment all that this really has to do with is laptops issued to employees. not workstations, not servers, etc. as in we are talking about macbook pro's, macbooks, and airs. not mac pros, imacs and mac minis...

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Murrquan]

Setting up Linux for somebody else is a lot harder than actually using it. Anyone can use Linux once it's already installed, and as long as they can still use "the Internet" they're probably going to be fine with it.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

Ummm... yeah, that's exactly why it makes sense to use OSX as your desktop Unix. It's relatively easy to support and relatively intuitive for users to understand.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

Really, you could run Windows in an emulator before, and though performance wasn't fantastic, it was often adequate. The larger benefit, I think, is the fact that you can install Windows to run natively on Intel-based Macs. So even if you didn't like OSX for some reason, and you wanted to switch back to Windows, you could do that. You can run Windows at full speed, no virtualization needed, and with full hardware support.

Also, since Macs use Intel chips, you can use something like Codeweavers' Crossover to run Windows applications in OSX without a copy of Windows at all. Admittedly, it's not a perfect solution, but I've used MS Office, IE6, and even played Portal on my Mac without installing Windows.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

Yup, my father works for IBM and *has* to use a Windows workstation. It seems silly to me on a variety of levels. First, if you're making sales on the idea that Unix is generally superior, then what does it mean that you're using Windows so pervasively throughout your organization? You could argue that Unix is much better for servers but worse on the desktop, but it just doesn't seem right from a PR standpoint.

Also, as you mention, why use a platform that's going to lead to inconsistencies like the CRLF/LF issue? If you're using Linux/Unix servers, why use clients that can only use SMB file shares? Why use a client OS that lacks built-in support for such common protocols as SFTP and SSH? If you develop some little script or application for Unix/Linux servers, it seems like it might be useful if your desktop is capable of running the same application without much work.

And that's not even getting into the IT issue that, if you're well-versed in being the admin for Unix machines, dealing with Windows desktops are going to be a serious PITA.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[cayenne8]

"You can save a little though if you join Apple Developer Connection [apple.com]. That's what I did when I switched from Windows to Macs."

Or, you can just order them with the 'educational discount'. It isn't like they check up on that one very carefully....

:-D

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Ctrl V]

If that was all there was to it, why wouldn't they have stopped using Windows already?

Notes linux client wasn't released all that long ago. I'm sure that was one of the biggest roadblocks in Linux dekstop/workstation adoption.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[ciggieposeur]

Regarding the Unix vs. windows workstations: Apparently the developers here use windows workstations because when I tried to install a Linux utility all the shell scripts wouldn't run.

I used to work in the "WebSphere Applications" group in the WAS 3.5.x days. We were in the same complex as the WAS group, knew quite a few people who transferred in and out of WAS, and they were almost a pure Windows shop, to the point that WAS 3.5.x couldn't run as a non-root user and even the command-line development tools required root because they wrote temp files to the WAS install directory. WAS 5.x was the first version we saw that seemed to handle non-root correctly out of the box.

The sad thing is, it was no better on our side of the building. Only the testers and Unix installer folks spent any serious time on *nix. I remember only 2 people with Linux as their desktop in a pool of over 50 developers, and they had to quietly "go rogue" to do it (run Notes 4.x/5.x under Wine, use older versions of Linux CMVC clients).

I thought it was insane that IBM was developing almost exclusively on Windows in order to sell to customers running their shops on AIX and Solaris.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Karlt1]

"Apple's hardware is only premium when you want an expandable computer. When comparing the specs of Macs and Windows PCs the prices are about the same. However when you want to add a second hdd and video card or when you want to upgrade the hardware then you have to go with the Mac Pro which starts at $2500, the lower cost Macs are not expandable. Oops, Apple raised them to $2800. You can save a little though if you join Apple Developer Connection. That's what I did when I switched from Windows to Macs."

Straight from the Apple Store -- downgrade to the single Quad Core 2.8GHz Xeon is $2300
Straight from Macmall same computer -- $2214.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[falconwolf]

Or, you can just order them with the 'educational discount'. It isn't like they check up on that one very carefully....

Apple's educational discount hasn't been much for years, years ago it was 50%. The normal price for the Mac Pro is $2800 and with the educational discount is $2600. That's not even 10%. Through ADC the Mac Pro is $2240. Oh and when I checked the educational price I had to select a the type of school, then picking college I had to select the college. The first one I picked said the college had a store where Macs could be bought, and colleges do check for student ID. I went ahead and selected another college but didn't place an order. I didn't go through and check all the other options though.

Falcon

Re:I thought it's a joke

[falconwolf]

Really, you could run Windows in an emulator before, and though performance wasn't fantastic, it was often adequate.

I knew someone who ran Windows in Virtual PC on her Mac, before MS bought it from Connectix.

Falcon

Re:I thought it's a joke

[mstone]

It probably doesn't hurt that Leopard is a fully certified Unix.

Linux has a lot of good properties, but full Unix certification has never been a major part of the plan, for philosophical, practical, and financial reasons. But some government contracts require Posix or full-Unix certification, so occasionally the ability to tick off those checkboxes matters.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[falconwolf]

Until you factor in the time and cost associated with training the marketing department, various accounting departments and other departments filled with non-technical persons who have probably never even looked at a *nix-based machine on how to use the new stuff.

Maybe they aren't as much but you still have those costs when getting the new version of Windows. After using various versions of Windows for 10 years last year I switched of OS X and the hardest part was not having a 2 button mouse. Even that though only took about a week to become adjusted, now I have 3 buttons. Hold the Apple key while clicking and 1 context menu pops up while holding the ctrl key when clicking presents a different menu.

Falcon

Re:I thought it's a joke

[mstone]

Your idea is reasonable in theory, but you have it backwards to reality. In reality, you can assemble a plausible business case to support just about anything you want to do.

You don't tell shareholders, "we won't do business with company X because their CEO spanked our CFO on the golf course, and now anyone who suggests using company X's products risks getting their budget cut," you just talk about the uncertainty of the market with respect to company X's product (which is a gimme, because markets are always uncertain.. just look at the endless stream of iPod Killers hailed by the business press over the past N years), and express doubt that the returns from such a project would be sufficient to justify the risk. Then you puff up some other project that costs enough that you can't afford to do that and make a deal with company X.

I've seen multimillion-dollar deals decided on which director could outstare the other at the conference table. I have a friend who's a business consultant whose main line of business involves giving companies an excuse to abandon the project that everyone knows to be a waste of money, but which no one can shit-can directly for political reasons.

Business is a lot more visceral than most people would like to think. Senior executives end up where they are for having reliably good taste (Linus Torvalds once described himself as "CVS with taste") more than good business-analytical skills. That environment leaves plenty of room for pissing matches, vendettas, and feuds.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Gr8Apes]

And let's not forget the easy expandability of external drives. FW800 is nice.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[dangitman]

Wait.. A G5? WTF?

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Megane]

That's actually because at some point in the '90s they cut the fat out of their margins. People whine about Macs being "expensive" now, but that's only because they don't sell anything to compete with Dell's super-ultra-low-end stuff that barely works with Vista.

Back in the Bad Old Days, the highest end Macs cost in the $7000-$9000 range, and even a Powerbook would set you back $3000 just to start. That was because their margins were really high, and why the developer discounts used to be 25% and the education discounts used to be 50%. The developer discount came close to what retail should have been, and the educational discount was probably selling them at cost. But a few years I got one of the first Mac Mini units, and the discount off of $600 was (I think) something like: Educational $10, Developer, $20, Corporate $25. Completely backwards from what it used to be.

In fact, as I understand it, the price of the original 128K Mac was going to be $2000, but at the last minute they changed it to $2500. Of course, that was the time when even the Apple II was selling for way too much money compared to what you got. For a long time, Apple was happy to make bigger margins on smaller quantities. Even then, there were still times when they had trouble making enough of certain models (usually new ones) of Macs to meet demand. Their current production levels are amazing in comparison.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[metamatic]

The main reason IBM hasn't stopped using Windows, in my view, is that there are a lot of internal applications that only work on Windows. There's an overall plan to make them multiplatform or replace them, but it takes a long time, partly because people are always making new Windows-only applications...

(Opinions mine, not IBM's.)

Re:I thought it's a joke

[sandstig]

I think it's actually the other way around. I've been unable to find a similarly specced workstation from other vendors that could match the Mac Pro at the same price point. I ended up having to spec a server model from Dell to even come close to Apple's price, and even then it was still at least $500 more expensive. On the other hand, it seems like Apple's notebooks are almost always at least US$200 more expensive than similarly specced business notebooks from Dell, HP and Lenovo. The cheapest 15" MacBook Pro for example comes in at $1,999 and only offers a WXGA+ (1440x900) LCD and a single year warranty on parts, compared to the HP 8510p, Dell Latitude D830 and Lenovo T61 which all offer 3-year warranties on parts and WSXGA+ (1680x1050) screens.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Nursie]

I don't know which IBM you work for, but the one I'm part of allows Linux as primary e-client (using Notes for Linux), though I still use XP myself. I also have a Windows/Debian dual boot workstation and a (slightly old) SunBlade that's my primary development platform.

Haven't got any Macs round us, but I know one or two folks who would welcome it.

IBM likes to be able to play on everyone's hardware and software.

(nothing I say is official IBM policy/viewpoint etc etc)

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Yvan256]

Or you could simply just buy a 3-button mouse with scrollwheel, Logitech still makes them.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[abhi_beckert]

I run windows almost daily in Virtual PC (Internet Explorer 6/7/8 test beds) on one of the last PPC PowerMacs apple made, which is one of the fastest PPC machines you can buy. Believe me, emulating an x86 chip on a PPC chip is dog slow no matter how fast your machine is.

It works, and it works well. But if you're going to use it more than 10 or 20 minutes a day, you're better off buying a second machine (with a KVM or Synergy) if you want to run windows and OS X but don't have an Intel mac.

Re:I thought it's a joke

[nine-times]

Ok, then why didn't they release a Linux version of Notes a long time ago?

Re:I thought it's a joke

[Scudsucker]

Yup. Back in the day, PowerPC processors were not just faster than Intel's chips mhz for mhz, but they also had more mhz. Motorola had their own line of Mac clones target towards businesses, with -5- year warranties. When Stevo killed the clones, Moto's CEO was pissed and PowerPC development went from robust to being an embarrassment as Moto put all their attention into embedded processors.

Moral of the story: kill clones if you have to, but it's probably not a good idea to do it to the people that make your CPUs.

Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Functional on the inside (Unix), functional on the outside (Mac OS).

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Gat0r30y]

Because IT decided to use MS Active Directory for all our internal servers. Otherwise I would ask for a mac (and probably be denied anyway).

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[CommandoCody]

We have a whole building of Macs here using Active Directory. I won't say it's trouble-free, but it works fairly well.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[bittmann]

We have a whole building of Macs here using Active Directory. I won't say it's trouble-free, but it works fairly well.

We have a whole building full of Windows XP machines here using Active Directory. I won't say it's trouble-free, but...never mind.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a bunch of Linux computers using Active Directory...I won't say its trouble free but never mind....

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Aram Fingal]

We use Active Directory as well. Each AD configuration is a bit different and some are more Mac friendly than others. You can get Macs to integrate with ours but it's some work. In practice, the vast majority of Macs aren't in the AD and most Mac users don't see the point. In a few cases, however, there's a specific reason related to how a Mac is used which makes it a big advantage to use AD and then we make the effort to integrate it.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Jesus_666]

We have a bunch of DOS computers and each of them has a directory called ACTIVE. Works like a charm.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Raineer]

Mod up for eventual funny and an awesome sig.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a whole building full of Vista machines. I won't say it's trouble-free.

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[tuxicle]

Surely you mean ACTIVE~1?

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Yvan256]

ACTIVE is only 6 characters. The ~1 thing only happened when filenames/directories were more than 8 characters.

Unless you meant "ACTIVE DIRECTORY", but the parent just reversed the words to say "directory called ACTIVE".

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[Raenex]

Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac? Because they don't like proprietary hardware and software and Linux meets their needs?

Re:Why wouldn't an engineer want a Mac?

[phreakhead]

I use a Mac every day at work, and boy can I say I miss my Windows XP! I really want to dual boot and say goodbye to OSX forever, but my company relies too much on Mac-only software (even though all our servers are Windows). The UI of OSX is just too sluggish and caters too much to dumb users to get any real work done. The Finder is ridiculous (everyone knows that the Windows Explorer style tree-view/filelist split is the fastest way to explore and manipulate a filesystem), and even on my "blazing fast" Quad-core, this thing is less responsive than my 2Ghz XP machine at home. You may not want to admit it, but you pay for those pretty drop shadows and useless GUI effects that plague OSX like a fat lady in an elevator. All the everyday tasks I have to do on a computer are just a tiny bit slower and a tiny bit more annoying on a Mac, which adds up to a lot when you do them hundreds of times a day. Sure UNIX is great, but that's what Cygwin is for. Everyone makes such a big fuss about Apple because of their design, but designing something to look pretty and designing something to get your work done the fastest and easiest way are two completely different things. /rant

This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Realistic_Dragon]

Can you imagine the shocked faces seen around the world if it was announced that StuffHauler Inc, a long time Ford customer, was trying out GM brand vehicles? Me too, people would find it hard to believe!

Right.

In every other market it's normal to run trials to evaluate several options when making critical capital investment choices. It is only an inexplicable level of incompetence that means that most large companies don't do regular small scale tests of alternative solutions, just to keep tabs on them. Even if all you get out of it is some knowledge and possible a price break from a worried Microsoft it is still worth the time and money.

Software investment in a 100k user company will be upwards of $10m yet the contracts are let without even a thought of competitive tender or technical justification. If I let that through for any vendor on my normal projects I would be shit canned so fast my seat would still be warm when my replacement arrived.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[truthsearch]

But unlike most large companies, IBM isn't only a software customer. They're a vendor and consulting firm. This isn't news just because they're trying it in-house. The implications down the road are more IBM apps working natively on Macs and significant influence in migrating other companies to Mac desktops.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[truthsearch]

Sorry, that should be desktops and laptops. Which is also interesting since they only left the laptop business 3 years ago.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[zappepcs]

Absolutely. I would opine that anyone that wants to position their services in opposition to MS would have to cater to all competitive products.

MS has left some holes in the application portfolio of the Mac user. Sure there are alternatives, but there are also holes to exploit there.

If you can happily get your products to work on any OS, and happily network with any OS, you will find a sweet spot. (Note: this prognostication is FOC)

I believe that as reported in some trade press articles, Windows is running out of steam. Not much reason to upgrade to Vista till XP support is denied to you. NOW is THE time to begin cobbling together the alternate answer to a windows IT environment. YearOfLinuxOnTheDesktop is here, and if IBM and Sun are trying to position themselves to catch what falls off the MS wagon in the next three years, it will be an interesting time.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be shit canned so fast my seat would still be warm when my replacement arrived. That would be an indicator of how quickly your company could hire your replacement, not how soon you were fired. Your seat will be warmed by your rear for as long as you are there sitting on it, whether that's 1 day or 1 year.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as an AC because I have direct experience with IBM Global Services (their consulting/services/outsourcing division).

What IBM decides to use internally has NO bearing on what they try to get customers to use. They will still push IBM boxes with either Linux or Windows. This is just a pilot for internal use.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Ritchie70]

Perhaps a better analogy would be a real one in the rental car business.

Until recently, Ford owned Hertz, and Hertz's fleet was entirely Ford Motor Company vehicles. Ford spun them off in 2005. Now Hertz is buying cars from GM, Hyundai and Toyota as well as Ford.

That probably started as a pilot program. It probably made the "Auto Rental Weekly News" or whatever as interesting. Everyone else yawned when it went out on the PR news wire from GM, Hyundai and Toyota.

In this case, IBM (a company that used to make laptops and desktops) sold off their laptop and desktop business. A couple years later, they started a pilot program to try laptops from another manufacturer than the one who bought their business unit. It made the news on Slashdot, and everyone else is going to yawn when Apple sends out the blurb on the PR news wire.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[wass]

100% Wrong. IBM used to make the Thinkpad.

So your analogy should be more like asking a group of long-time Ford assembly-line workers to try out a new Mazda for their own personal use. And finding that 86% of them prefer the new company's product over that which their own company made.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[maddskillz]

Actually, I think if this was a News for People who Like Trucks website, that would probably be big news.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[barzok]

True, but if IBM's consultants start showing up at client offices with MacBook Pros instead of Thinkpads, the clients will notice, and start thinking "hey, if it works for IBM, maybe we should look at using Macs too"

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[bhtooefr]

Unfortunately, you fail at making a car analogy.

Ford owns 33% of Mazda, and many Mazdas (the Mazda6, Mazda Tribute, and the B-series truck, among others) are built on Ford assembly lines, by Ford workers. And, EVERY current-production Mazda except for possibly the RX-8 has at least one Ford part in it.

No... this is different.

This would be like... Volvo (the truck company) using Saabs to shuttle executives around. A former competitor, but Volvo (the truck company) got out of the car business (selling their car manufacturing division to Ford.) But, still blasphemy.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[dick johnson]

News Flash. IBM doesn't sell PCs anymore.

They sold the Business to Lenovo. THAT company still sells computers under the IBM brand name.

But the computers are not IBM computers and therefore the company can be fairly agnostic about whether to support one platform or another.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[UnknowingFool]

What is so surprising? From my understanding, IBM Research is involved in the pilot program. And they are specifically studying issues involving Macs. IBM Research might be using Suns and Dell Linux boxes too for all we know. This is not IBM Sales using the Macs. That might bring shock. Even MS uses Macs in development and research.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it would be more like your mom leaving your dad, and trying out his brother.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[LWATCDR]

"Can you imagine the shocked faces seen around the world if it was announced that StuffHauler Inc, a long time Ford customer, was trying out GM brand vehicles? Me too, people would find it hard to believe!"

More likely if Buck was trying out Ford brand vehicles. In case you missed it IBM created the PC standard that Microsoft rode to world domination.
Throw in that IBM is a HUGE company and that they have a very large influence on the tech industry and I think you are way off base in your downplaying this.

This is a HUGE slap in the face to Microsoft.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[CowboyNealOption]

The worst part is I might end up having to call my dad "uncle" and my uncle "dad". Or maybe I could just call them both "uncle dad" and confuse everyone else.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[geekoid]

Around the world? no, but withing some parts of the industry? yes.

Slashdot is not the world.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[geekoid]

News flash, you missed the point.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly does IBM have to do with Thinkpads now?

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[PitaBred]

At least you still wouldn't be your own grandpa

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[menace3society]

Yeah, but Big Blue doesn't care about that since they got out of the PC business. At best, in the long run it means that IBM's apps will support Mac clients.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

But IBM doesn't really care about their laptops cause they sold their PC business to Lenovo.

Now they are free to do what they want.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked they are Lenovo thinkpads :)

I'm fairly sure that IBM could care less if you buy a thinkpad these days.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but if IBM's consultants start showing up at client offices with MacBook Pros instead of Thinkpads, the clients will notice, and start thinking "hey, if it works for IBM, maybe we should look at using Macs too" So? It's not like IBM owns the ThinkPad line anymore. Lenovo bough it, along with the rest of the PC assets, from IBM a few years ago.

IBM doesn't get a dime from laptop sales.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[menace3society]

Not to reply to my own post like a jerk or anything, but if what I say true, it could be part of a serious strategic deal with Apple. Everyone "knows" Macs are incompatible with most of the big server apps, but if IBM's stuff is compatible, that will help IBM with all-Mac shops like graphic designers, and help Macs crack into the corporate big-leagues.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the warmth of your seat is a function of the length of time it takes to hire your replacement, not the speed at which you were fired.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[abirdman]

Except that Ford owns a big piece of Mazda. Analogies are always a problem.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[pix]

Err....wrong...IBM owns 20% of Lenovo

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[cayenne8]

"And, EVERY current-production Mazda except for possibly the RX-8 has at least one Ford part in it."

Just curious, what Ford parts would be on the Miata? Especially the latest ones...I'd heard they were redesigned and built new from the ground up, with maybe only one part from the last model...

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[rastoboy29]

Dude...you don't have to post AC just because you like...have direct experience!

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked in Europer for IBM Global Services you could get all the software you needed for Linux, Windows or Mac to do most of your internal job functions. And I knew people who used Macs or Linux boxes exclusively using emulators or vms if needed in the client environment. I don't see this as big news as that was over 3 years ago when I left. Though I thought after the switch from Power to Intel IBM may have been a bit more cold to Apple internally.

325,000 employees servicing anything that may deal with a computer to some extent, there is internal use of any platform, and the software to work completely in that platform.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[No. 24601]

Why should IBM care? They sold off their Thinkpad line (and share in Lenovo) to Lenovo a long time ago...

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[sandstig]

Lenovo says it's more like 6.7%.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM don't care what you use on the desktop, they care about the datacentre and they care that i's packed full of their equipment and software.

Your desktop is your own concern, not big blue's.

OTOH, I'm sure that we'll see more of the front-end programs gain mac compatibility over time, or (just as likely) move to web based clients.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[bhtooefr]

Engine parts, mainly. As I understand, the MZR/Duratec engine (the 1.8L (in Europe) and 2.0L variants are used in the 2006+ Miata) is a Mazda design, but designed to use Ford's existing tooling and some parts for the Zetec motors, for the most part.

Also, Mazda tends to use a lot of Ford electronics lately. Even my 1992 Miata has a Ford airbag controller, IIRC.

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[dick johnson]

>>News flash, you missed the point.>They will still push IBM boxes with either Linux or Windows

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[pix]

hmmm...thought it was 20% still. Anyway, the point still stands...profit for Lenovo = profit for IBM

Re:This shouldn't be a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhm, IBM doesn't do desktops or laptops anymore.

1984...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does this mean that Apple is now Big Brother?

Re:1984...

[Midnight Thunder]

So, does this mean that Apple is now Big Brother?

It depends on your view point. Some people would consider Apple God. Now to move away from the RDF. ;)

Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[Gefion]

Given IBM's various and sundry Linux initiatives, I am more curious by the Mac versus Linux desktop implications here than Mac versus Windows. It seems obvious that IBM would shift off Windows as fast as they could regardless.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM hasn't rolled out Vista support internally, so it's sort of everything versus Vista at this point. The standard software installer website currently lists Windows 2000, XP, and Linux. I doubt that the Mac OS will replace 2000, and Vista inevitably will. Oh well.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[Gat0r30y]

Mac versus Linux desktop no wget, you gotta use curl instead

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[JoeCommodore]

Macs have a lot more commercial offerings than Linux.

Linux has a lot more up-to-date/less bug-ridden FOSS offerings than Macs.

Both have SSH and other unixy goodness that make them working together pretty nice. Then again OSX does not follow all the rules Linux does.

Both are easier to manage than Windows (system wise and license wise)

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[abigor]

Linux has a lot more up-to-date/less bug-ridden FOSS offerings than Macs.

Then again OSX does not follow all the rules Linux does. Could you be more specific on both of these? Thanks.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[JoeCommodore]

Linux more up to date FOSS:

Many FOSS projects I am interested in (Open Office, Scribus being two big ones) are really lagging behind in the OSX ports, either more bugs or are a version behind. I understand that is partly because of Aqua or some other binding issue with OSX. It is truly not the seamless experience you get with running a Linux version on Linux.

Macs don't always follow the Linux rules:

I've had to do some on my SAMBA server to get Macs to properly use permissions. Usually when I find a problem, I do a bunch of googleing and end up with some obscure note that SMB was mis-configured in OS X and to get it to work with Linux add: xxx into your servers conf file, etc. (I plug in the lines and usually it works, but many times it doesn't 'just work')

Other times it's a case of "Oh yeah, Apple fixed that - but only in the [insert latest version of OS] just buy upgrades" - that seems to happen a lot in Apple's support of Java Libraries.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[man_of_mr_e]

Indeed. It seems almost like this is tacit admission that their 5 year old plan to migrate from Windows to Linux has failed. They seem to think that MacOS is a more viable alternative to move to than Linux.

At least that's what I take away from it. I mean, they made a big deal out of their plans to move everyone to Linux a few years ago, and to date it still hasn't happened in any large numbers.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[abigor]

Linux more up to date FOSS:

Many FOSS projects I am interested in (Open Office, Scribus being two big ones) are really lagging behind in the OSX ports, either more bugs or are a version behind. I understand that is partly because of Aqua or some other binding issue with OSX. It is truly not the seamless experience you get with running a Linux version on Linux. I see what you mean now. Well, the X Window versions will be up to date, so you could always run those.

Macs don't always follow the Linux rules:

I've had to do some on my SAMBA server to get Macs to properly use permissions. Usually when I find a problem, I do a bunch of googleing and end up with some obscure note that SMB was mis-configured in OS X and to get it to work with Linux add: xxx into your servers conf file, etc. (I plug in the lines and usually it works, but many times it doesn't 'just work')

Other times it's a case of "Oh yeah, Apple fixed that - but only in the [insert latest version of OS] just buy upgrades" - that seems to happen a lot in Apple's support of Java Libraries. Okay, so misconfigured third-party stuff - I thought you were referring to OS-level stuff, like OS X does chmod differently or something bizarre like that.

I've never had any Java problems, and all my contracts recently have been Java-related, all developed on OS X, but it's entirely possible I'm just lucky or something. Historically, Linux has had far worse Java support because of free/non-free issues, leading to half-baked reimplementations like Blackdown.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[itsdapead]

Many FOSS projects I am interested in (Open Office, Scribus being two big ones) are really lagging behind in the OSX ports, either more bugs or are a version behind. I understand that is partly because of Aqua or some other binding issue with OSX. It is truly not the seamless experience you get with running a Linux version on Linux.

Well, IBM probably have the resources to fix that fairly quickly for the products they need. For starters, they have their own OpenOffice-based productivity suite - not currently available for OS X, but that could change if IBM became Mac fans. Eclipse seems to be pretty stable on OS X these days - and who knows how much of IBMs internal stuff is built on the Eclipse application framework?

Macs don't always follow the Linux rules:

...but now that OS X is officially UNIX it ought to follow POSIX rules. Anyway, OS X contains a lot of FOSS subsystems (Apache, Samba, Cups) which ought to be customisable/fixable - and the jolly blue giant probably has the nous to fix things like that.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[wavedeform]

no wget, you gotta use curl instead If you feel strongly enough about wget vs. curl, certainly you would just compile wget, no?

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[JoeCommodore]

Mac doesn't have the same directory layout of Linux (it is BSD, and I am not sure how it follows on BSD ). So usually a lot of those programs have to be adapted in a library or two to compensate. A popular packaging for x-windows Mac stuff is fink, while it does OK I find XWindows mac or the programs ported to xWindows Mac are a bit more flaky (maybe xwindows is still PPC code?) But it has not always been the best experience.

If you look for updated Java libraries in the wild like on Suns site, they usually point you to Apples site, go to Apples site and they tell you the latest is available for the latest OS and there is no port for OSs that are recent but not for sale.

I've had similar experiences on other apple bug fixes or improvements which are only available on the later OS version, though the older OS was originally touted as providing support for 'feature x' (case in point, SMB support, was advertised in 10.2, but only works well after 10.3).

So OS X may be way cheaper at $140 or so it also is marketed to be a periodic 'necessary upgrade' (sometimes also forcing a hardware upgrade as well).

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[falconwolf]

Many FOSS projects I am interested in (Open Office, Scribus being two big ones) are really lagging behind in the OSX ports,

However those projects that run in X on Linux also run in X on OS X. For RPM packages, there's RPM for Darwin (Mac OS X) and Macports. Debian packages dpkg and apt-get can be installed with Fink. So any, well some as I don't know if they all will, Linux packages that use either of these can be installed in OS X as well.

Falcon

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[pix]

Not true. There are a rapidly increasing number of IBM employees running Linux. There is an official, supported Linux implementation of the internal desktop running on Red Hat, and a fast-growing usage of an unofficial desktop based on Ubuntu.

I can't see it ever being made compulsory, especially as there is still some software used internally that required Windows, but it is really a very viable option now.

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Apple is just taking over this place. Not.

I am looking at the internal IBM Linux migration page right now. More people converted to Linux in 2007 inside of IBM than there are employees at Apple (almost 20,000 users). 50,000 users in about 3 years may not cover the entire IBM employee base as our CEO may have hoped, but this is FAR from a "failure".

- Anonymous Linux using IBM'er

Re:Mac vs Windows or really Mac versus Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, what the parent said.

There is a healthy amount of interest in Linux from IBM employees. In our UK location, there are a handful of people using Linux as their primary desktop machine, but a large number of people who just need to "get around to it" who are interested too.

The reason for Linux not being used is usually because potential converts fear the installation process and fear that they will brick their PCs. Also, hard disks are usually too small to fit everything on. Both points are addressed when users are given a new PC as part of the periodic hardware refresh. This is an excellent time to switch to a dual-boot system at the very least since a newly-build machine will have no user data on it, and the hard disks are often at least twice the size of the user's old machine.

Yes, Linux is very much alive and thriving at IBM!

Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for the longest time IBM was the manufacturer of Mac's processor.

Re:Okay

[BrainInAJar]

And now that they're not, they're switching over... odd, no?

Can you blame them?

[ooh456]

Windows has a well-deserved reputation of being slow Zand buggy. I'm surprised it took IBM so many years to realize that employees will be more productive on an OS that respects them.

Re:Can you blame them?

[eobanb]

Especially that bug where capital Zs are mysteriously injected in things you type.

Re:Can you blame them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I like it more when non-sentient, inanimate objects respect me.

Re:Can you blame them?

[pressman]

I miss the old Wazu macro bug in Word from way back when!

What?!!

[rrahimi]

If the problem is reliance on Windows, then Linux is the solution, not an even tighter software and hardware lock-in.

Re:What?!!

[Amiga Trombone]

If the problem is reliance on Windows, then Linux is the solution, not an even tighter software and hardware lock-in. It's got nothing to do with reliance on Windows. It's just about accommodating the preferences of individual users. Some IBMers prefer Windows, some Linux, some Mac OS. There's no move afoot in IBM for a mass movement off of Windows.

Re:What?!!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If the problem is reliance on Windows, then Linux is the solution, not an even tighter software and hardware lock-in.

The problem for IBM is being locked into Windows... or any other single solution. The answer is flexibility and making sure their software and services are cross platform so if they need to they can deploy Linux or OpenSolaris or NetBSD based appliances, or (more likely) a combination of all of the above. I seriously doubt IBM is going to become Apple's biggest customer, but it certainly makes sense for them to make sure they interoperate with OS X such that they can sell solutions to customers that include OS X systems when they make sense. It also makes sense for IBM to consider OS X for some internal uses where making Linux work might be too expensive (like running Adobe InDesign). In general IBM seems committed to moving towards Linux, but they need to keep their options open and where Linux is not appropriate, it makes sense for them to have a choice of OS X or Windows. You'll note, these were all Windows users that were comparing OS X to Windows, not to Linux.

Re:What?!!

[peragrin]

Huh? Apple machines are the only ones that can run windows, OS X, and linux on the same box. You can have all three installed easily. hardware lock-in is for the software only.

Yes OS X does have some strict software lock in then again no Apple product uses activation codes, that get lost, misused, or forgotten about by the Apple.

Would MSFt give up product activation if their software only ran on selected hardware? hardware that could run anything else anyways?

Re:What?!!

[leenks]

PCs can run all three too, and in some cases easily. And expensive Apple software does use serial numbers (I assume this what you meant as activation codes on Windows are one off use items generated when you install). The stuff that doesn't use serial numbers is given away free with new Macs anyway...

Re:What?!!

[rfunches]

Parent's point is that you can take any NIB Mac and triple boot, no questions asked, no software hacks, no checking to make sure the machine has the necessary specs. Try installing OS X on non-Apple hardware with a vanilla image (it won't work) or installing OS X on a low-end Dell (it'll cry in the corner, assuming Installer even boots). I've also yet to see a copy of OS X threaten to disable itself in 30 days if it doesn't phone home and tie itself to my hardware profile (an "activation code").

FWIW, I do have a copy of OS X working in VM to play around with, and I used to dual-boot it on my desktop. I could never get full graphics acceleration on either copy.

Re:What?!!

[Megane]

Exactly. A friend of mine has tried to get a hackintosh working, and knows someone else who did. The problem is that (just like with Linux support on a random machine), something doesn't work, usually sound, sometimes graphics accelleration.

In my friend's case, one problem was that his graphics card set the GPU to slow mode during boot (I guess during VGA BIOS initialization), and the Windows driver would set it back. However, the OS X driver didn't, because that brand of card wasn't expected to start up in slow mode on anything shipped by Apple.

For Internal Application Only

[Doc Ruby]

I know Apple makes little "nano" iPods, but is it shipping actual Macintoshes small enough to be "used internally"? Byte-sized, even?

(*rimshot* - I'm here all weekend, folks - try the veal)

Re:For Internal Application Only

[MightyYar]

Little known fact:

The goatse guy actually started his career after he tried to use one of the original Mac portables internally.

Re:For Internal Application Only

[Jesus_666]

I couldn't help imagining that scene and the guy's facial expression is comedy gold. *g*

Re:For Internal Application Only

[edwardpickman]

I know Apple makes little "nano" iPods, but is it shipping actual Macintoshes small enough to be "used internally"? Byte-sized, even? (*rimshot* - I'm here all weekend, folks - try the veal) They do but recharging them is a bit unpleasant. Let's just say it involves a really long cord.

Given IBM and Microsoft's history?

[the_humeister]

That's old news. I'd say given IBM and Apple's recent history, this is interesting.

A few things to note

[gelfling]

IBM Research Watson is an entity unto itself. It has its own IT support infrastructure and runs according to its own rules. They rarely if ever want for funding.

IBM has been non-supporting Apple for years by allowing clients to run VMWare and similar tools to host the IBM apps that don't run natively.

IBM has been attempting to roll out an 'open' client on Linux for years. It's progressed very slowly, considering. It appears to lack funding and focus.

IBM is aware of the MS software licencing costs which is why there is some effort to rollout an OO based Lotus alternative to MS Office.

It doesn't serve anyone to replace MS licencing costs with Apple hardware costs. So the probability that IBM would roll out lots of expensive Apples is nil. More likely they will offer a client CD you can use to build your IBM standard client on Mac.

The most common client rolled out today is a Thinkpad T60 or T61.

Re:A few things to note

[Anonymous Coward]

And speaking of clients, they're thinking about switching engineers from one laptop and one workstation to one laptop and bigger iron support in the form of blades. If you get your laptop running two flat-panels it's not such a bad setup, really. My workstation is a four processor 300Mhz Power3 with 16GB RAM-- 9 years old, maybe? It's more an more of a space heater and an ssh client these days. Short term, they're still rolling out Linux workstations. Longer term, I have to think the blade idea makes more sense.

Re:A few things to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that switching to Mac would mean ditching lenovo, which IBM has a large stake in. There'd have to be some really big gains in other areas to make this work financially.

Re:A few things to note

[itsdapead]

It doesn't serve anyone to replace MS licencing costs with Apple hardware costs

What "Apple hardware costs"? 1990 called - they want their argument back. Macs have been reasonably competitive with comparable PC hardware for a while now. There is a problem if Apple don't make anything at the price point/form factor you want (e.g. you want a low end mini-tower or a basic cheap-chunky-and-cheerful laptop) but if you read TFA they're talking about MacBook Pros (high-end premium brand laptops) as an alternative to ThinkPads (high-end premium brand laptops) so I'm sure Apple will be able to cut IBM a pretty competetive deal (its not like IBM will be walking into the local Apple store and buying them individually, is it?)

Also, TFA is talking about supporting a Mac option, not casting the PCs into the outer darkness, so they won't be trying to sell Mac Pros to clients who want a room full of mini-towers.

Re:A few things to note

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several IBM employees all over the world that use Macs in their job. There is a load of software that runs on them. It helps that you can run half the linux apps on a mac too.
The linux community in IBM is bigger - IBM has its own internal linux openclient (based on rhel4/5) as well as many unofficial linux openclients run by IBMers in their spare time (ubuntu and debian being the largest, but gentoo, sles, mandrake and even slackware are around).

None of this news should be shocking for an IT company with 400K employees, especially when the news is coming from one of the labs...

Re:A few things to note

[gelfling]

A $1200 MacBook has a 13" screen vs a 14 or 15.4" TP R61i which costs about $720 or perhaps as much as $880 for CPU parity. Unless you have personal knowledge of Apple discounting 60% then there's no comparison in a corporate environment.

Re:A few things to note

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM has been attempting to roll out an 'open' client on Linux for years. It's progressed very slowly, considering. It appears to lack funding and focus.

This is not true. There are nearly 50,000 people inside IBM using Linux already. Show me any organization that has migrated as many people to Linux quicker than IBM has. In fact, the Linux migration is going so well that the system developed internally to handle the authorization, mirroring, installation, updating, and license management of Linux systems will likely soon be rolled out as a product offering. I think you will find that the deployment of Macs, even for such a small number of people, will be significantly more time consuming and difficult.

- Anonymous Linux Using IBM'er

Re:A few things to note

[falconwolf]

It doesn't serve anyone to replace MS licencing costs with Apple hardware costs. So the probability that IBM would roll out lots of expensive Apples is nil.

Mac hardware is no more expensive than Windows hardware, er Windows PCs with comparable specs to the specs of Macs are about the same price.

Falcon

Re:A few things to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC because it's probably better.

You're right in all counts, although I'm less pessimistic in what regards the IBM OpenClient. Funding by itself isn't what I would consider the problem (they pay for RHEL5 for each OpenClient installed, infrastructure is in place, etc)... many fundamental IBM tools have been ported to Linux, and here lies the problem: it's hard to make available to Linux all of the tools that IBM uses internally. One good thing is the refactoring of many apps as Eclipse-based apps (Notes, some Rational software, etc).

I'm not seeing IBM rolling out Macs any time soon, and honestly, I wouldn't really understand why they should, doesn't make a lot of sense. Linux in Thinkpads seems much more aligned with both IBM's strategical view and bottom-line.

Another point is the difficulty in living in a MS Office world, and IBM is no different in this regard. Although with Lotus Symphony integrated in notes 8 at least ODF documents can be read by all users, but any templates, forms, etc are in .doc or .xsl, of course.

All in all I'm modestly optimistic in what regards the OpenClient in IBM (there are several versions, and it seems that the concept of "layer" and not a specific distribution is what is being considered, even if there is a RHEL5-based official client). While difficult I have started o see Linux Desktops much more frequently, and having a clear authorisation t do so is not something to take for granted (I've worked in places were having Linux was simply "against the rules" since it wasn't "approved").

Of course, the "Linux Desktop" is something rather elusive in so many ways, so there are obstacles and difficulties. But the drive and wish is there - and it makes sense, considering that each Windows client is helping Microsoft, which isn't exactly something to b done if it can be avoided (in pure commercial terms).

I also fail to see a future filled with Apple PCs. Apple fans apply the distortion field to the real world sometimes, It doesn't make much sense to use Mac laptops instead of Thinkpads with Linux, at least in a large scale. Support them, sure, why not, I hope they do.

Re:A few things to note

[stocke2]

you obviously have never actually purchased business class laptops. Especially thinkpads. For comparable laptops the mac is at least close if not cheaper. your $600-$800 laptop will not last the 3 year upgrade cycle.

Re:A few things to note

[gelfling]

It's what we use standard in IBM, T60/61 and 1GB is a fight with management. And we're on a 4 year update cycle. I have a January T40 that will have to keep me through this year. Paid for extra RAM out of my own pocket.

Re:A few things to note

[itsdapead]

A $1200 MacBook has a 13" screen vs a 14 or 15.4" TP R61i which costs about $720 or perhaps as much as $880 for CPU parity.

So forget Apple for the moment and explain why Lenovo makes (and presumably sells) the T-series, which are knocking on twice the price of R-series for, as you put it, "CPU parity"...

What you are talking about is not the "Apple price premium": its pretty much the same price differential that separates the "economy" and "premium" ranges from Lenovo, Dell or any other PC manufacturer. Its not simply raw processor grunt that distinguishes those ranges - especially with laptops where size, weight and style are a big factor. It just so happens that Apple choses not to compete in the "economy" sector.

Just because you are happy with an R61 (or that's the best your boss will spring for) doesn't mean that there isn't a significant section of the market who will spring for a more upmarket laptop - be it a T61 or a MacBook.

Now, looking at the ThinkPad T-series list, the first thing that is clear is that its one of those perplexing lists of obscurely-numbered models with random permutations of specs that, like mobile phone tariffs, are explicitly designed to prevent like-for-like comparisons - but it looks to me like the prices are in the same ballpark as comparable MacBooks and Pros, and certainly within haggle range of one another for a large purchase of (possibly) custom specced machines.

Thinkpads still rule

[boudie2]

From the article: If the remote connection and Sametime issues are worked out, I think that Mac users can be productive in IBM. However, if I had to recommend a non-Windows setup, I would recommend Linux on a ThinkPad. I see the convenience and reliability of ThinkPad hardware as superior, and the Mac OS is still a proprietary OS that seems to require a Windows license for some tasks anyway. I do not see enough of an advantage in the Mac OS to be worth the incompatibility issues when collaborating with my colleagues. Take that macbook fanboys. Me and my T40 running Gentoo feel very smug. Very smug.

Re:Thinkpads still rule

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

However, if I had to recommend a non-Windows setup, I would recommend Linux on a ThinkPad.

Recommending Linux makes a lot of sense for IBM, since they're selling it and it is a cost savings. As for the ThinkPad hardware, well independent reviewers tend to have a different opinion.

I see the convenience and reliability of ThinkPad hardware as superior...

Consumer Reports and several other independent testing companies publish regular statistics on hardware reliability. Lenovo ThinkPads have consistently been coming in second to Apple MacBook pros for several years. Someone (from the article) should have checked their facts.

...and the Mac OS is still a proprietary OS that seems to require a Windows license for some tasks anyway.

OS X is a proprietary OS and will cost an OS licensing fee that Linux will not. For the second part, however, whether you're running WINE, Cedega, RDP, or Windows in VMWare, the cost is the same on Linux and OS X. I'd even argue that today, OS X needs Windows for fewer tasks than Linux does. If you're running MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, or any number of other commercial applications, there are native OS X versions that let you bypass the Windows license whereas Linux still has to pay to play. OS X also does better at interoperating with Windows only protocols in many cases.

I do not see enough of an advantage in the Mac OS to be worth the incompatibility issues when collaborating with my colleagues. Me and my T40 running Gentoo feel very smug. Very smug.

Of the hundred or so people I know who switched from Linux on the desktop to OS X, I know one who switched back. There is always a minority opinion though, in fact more of them from this IBM study than I've seen in my work environment. For some use cases (Linux on the desktop development, for example) Linux certainly is a better choice. That said, several parts of this smug opinion are very doubtful, or poorly researched.

Re:Thinkpads still rule

[boudie2]

The quote was from the article, not my personal opinion. I'm still smug though.

Re:Thinkpads still rule

[falconwolf]

I see the convenience and reliability of ThinkPad hardware as superior

I'm typing this on my third Mac and I haven't had any hardware problems that prevented me from using it yet. While it's new, 8 months, my first Mac I bought used and I used it 8 years before it died. The second I also bought used and it lasted 7 years.

and the Mac OS is still a proprietary OS that seems to require a Windows license for some tasks anyway.

And you don't have the same costs to run the same task in Linux? I won't say all but some programs that run in Linux will also run in OS X. For RPM packages, there's RPM for Darwin (Mac OS X) and MacPorts. To install Debian's dpkg and apt-get packages in OS X there's Fink.

Falcon

Reality not so Appley

[MSTCrow5429]

IBM 'might dump Windows for Mac'

In-depth research polls, err, 24 employees

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/17/ibm-might-dump-windows-mac/

Re:Reality not so Appley

[oahazmatt]

Actually, that was not accurate, according to IBM. IBM announced today there are no plans to switch entirely to Apple computers, and that this is for software development/testing purposes only.

This is News?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The article says IBM is running a very small program to let some employees run OS X. Is that news?

IBM is a giant corporation that has been slowly moving more and more away from Windows internally and has a large scale move to Linux underway. It is an engineering organization, in the computing field. OS X has been rapidly gaining market share in the US and undoubtedly many of IBMs customers use it to some degree.

It would be news if IBM was not running a small program to see how well OS X works internally, especially since they use their own company as a proving ground for things they sell elsewhere. This clearly helps them create better solutions for customers that have OS X in their mixed deployments.

The article says their employees have have a very positive response to OS X, the vast majority of them preferring it over Windows. Is this news?

OS X has been positively reviewed by most users for a long, long time and compared very favorably to Windows by, well, a lot of different people and members of the press. It has been gaining install share in the US (and slowly worldwide) compared to Windows. It has been gaining market share very quickly among geeks, like here on Slashdot and in scientific fields. It would be news if most IBM users did not prefer it.

In short, this article is "news" mostly in that it just confirms what we already know, but which many Mac users are still a bit insecure. Is there any article about IBM and OS X that won't make Slashdot?

GO IBM!

[davidsyes]

GO! Start the new tide of change... (But, please, see this as an opportunity to rewrite (internally, or via the Open Source Community) the IBM-owned portions of the LOTUS SMARTSUITE software from scratch and deprecate Symphony, and let them work around the patented stuff with current tools and obvious features sets not envisioned nor blocked by the previous patents.)

Alternatively, Work HARDER with Sun, and merge the best of the two so end-users can still have WordPro for it's tabs and smart palettes, and Approach apps without being forced to become programmers.

The numbers are insignificant, but..

[Tibor the Hun]

The numbers of testers may be insignificant compared to the IBMs whole workforce, but IBM is seeing the front line, and is adjusting itself.
Think about it, they have a lot of IT savvy folks, who know a thing or two about operating systems. And especially Unix/Linux. Why would those folks be pushing for their competitor's platform (Microsoft) as opposed to staying truly cross platform compatible.

The OS is becoming more irrelevant nowdays. Some folks at IBM are seeing that and adjusting accordingly.
(And saving money on CALs to boot...)

Re:The numbers are insignificant, but..

[wass]

The numbers, not included in the slashdot summary, are more interesting. 24 people took part in the pilot program, and these are new users to OS X. 22 responded to the survey, and 18 of the 22 actually prefer OS X over Windows (one felt they were equal, and 3 preferred Windows to OS X). Now when looking at these numbers, keep in mind they are new to OS X, and had to get over the learning curve.

More interestingly, the 19 of 22 requested to keep using OS X on their Macbook instead of going back to Windows on their Thinkpads. That I think speaks volumes to the overall Mac/OS X experience.

Re:The numbers are insignificant, but..

[falconwolf]

More interestingly, the 19 of 22 requested to keep using OS X on their Macbook instead of going back to Windows on their Thinkpads. That I think speaks volumes to the overall Mac/OS X experience.

As someone above suggested though I think it's important to know how those 22 people were chosen. Were they chosen at random or maybe they were self selected. If they were self selected then maybe they were already ready to switch and the test only solidified they're wanting to switch.

Falcon

Warning!

[jdc180]

In case you didn't know: RoughlyDrafted = Apple Fanboy Site.

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this warning serve? Does it mean IBM didn't have the aforementioned pilot program?

I really hate this kind of unnecessary replies. If a creationist says the sun is hot, do you need to warn everyone that the person believes in nonsense and therefore implies that the sun is not hot? You've got something to say, argue properly. There is no need to make underhanded remarks.

Re:Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this warning serve? Does it mean IBM didn't have the aforementioned pilot program? If you read any article on RoughlyDrafted, your brain will shrink. Daniel Eran Dilger (Slashdot ID DECS) is the Ann Coulter of fanboy tech bloggers.

Powerbook 2400c

[argent]

IBM has built Mac laptops before.

The Powerbook 2400c was made for Apple by IBM Japan.

I would assume that the group responsible ended up on the Lenovo side of the line, and I would love to see an Apple branded Thinkpad.

IBM and Apple, whodathunk it (PPC)

[starglider29a]

Yeah, it's not like IBM ever made processors for a Mac... oh, wait...

What is more surprising is that they do this after Apple threw them over for Intel chips. Maybe it's one of those things where you get along better with yer Ex after the divorce than before.

To appropriate "Married with Children":
Peg: Would you rather have sex with A) Your wife...
Al: B!

where "your wife" = small values of Windows.

Re:IBM and Apple, whodathunk it (PPC)

[wass]

Your analogy fails to mention that IBM used to make the Thinkpad! Ie, the laptop that the people in the study gave up for the Macbook.

Making the actual Thinkpad, is more of a draw than making the PowerPC chip that is used in Macs, as well as many other systems.

Upgrade cycle

[mveloso]

Note, though, that ignoring the hardware cost of a Windows box only is valid until the next hardware upgrade cycle.

I think IBM's hardware replacement cycle is 3 years (leases), so if the timing is right there may not be that much extra expense. They'll have to upgrade the hardware to run Vista anyway, and the extra hardware cost of a Mac would be marginal at the scale that IBM is talking about. In fact, since it's all eaten by IBM finance the actual cost really doesn't matter that much (blue dollars).

The question is if they got a productivity boost. It's unbelievably difficult to get those, so if they can show that they got a 4% or 6% boost in productivity by switching, that's more than worth the cost of the hardware/software. Scale that across IGS, and suddenly you've changed how well your whole company works.

Re:Upgrade cycle

[Colonel Korn]

The cost difference between Mac and Windows PC hardware should be fairly small for IBM. While I, personal user, can equal a $2000 Mac with $500 of hardware and then load Ubuntu and/or Windows onto it, IBM buys in bulk from other vendors. I've been involved in about a half dozen bulk purchases of computers in the last seven years, and I'm always shocked that the cost per machine is always at least twice what it would cost to buy the components separately and put them together myself. Also, in the case of a recent Dell purchase of a laptop for my boss I configured a system through the large business site, or whatever it's called, and then configured an identical system through the home and home office site, and system one was $2600 while system two was $1500. That's for the same hardware prepared by the same company with the same warranty. For all the talk about thrift in the corporate world, I'm shocked at how happy giant corporations are to pay twice as much as they could if they had more flexibility (allowing reimbursement of a purchase from the home store) and less bureaucracy.

Re:Upgrade cycle

[geekoid]

"can equal a $2000 Mac with $500 of hardware "

No, you can't.

Re:Upgrade cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly can come pretty close comparing the low-end 4P MacPro with a consumer quad-core system that has functionally the same or better performance (unless you need more than 4G RAM)

also the up-level 15" and 17" macbookpros are way out of whack with pricing of similar laptops.

But I think the grandparent's point is that when you go through Dell/HP's commercial channels the prices aren't that different from Apple's.

Re:Upgrade cycle

[toddestan]

Well, a $2000 Mac nowadays is going to be an iMac, and the base 24" iMac with 2.4Ghz processor and 1GB is not very impressive for $1800. Sure, the 24" monitor will blow your $500 budget, but if care more about what's under the hood then the DIY PC is going to give you a lot more bang for the buck.

This is not really new

[Dekortage]

In 1991, I was friends with a girl whose father worked at IBM's Armonk facility. He and several other researchers had Mac systems for some kind of graphic/visual analysis research, mostly IIci and IIfx systems. He had problems with System 7, I was a Mac guy, and I had reason to impress the girl. So when I said I could fix his Mac, he invited me up to Armonk, and I fixed it.

Didn't help much with the girl, but at least I got to visit a major IBM facility.

Re:This is not really new

[db32]

"I was friends with a girl". Clearly this story is fabricated.

Re:This is not really new

[lena_10326]

"I was friends with a girl". Clearly this story is fabricated.

Actually, it's quite plausible. Nerds tend to hear "let's just be friends" quite frequently.

Conversely...

[fitten]

One advantage cited: less reliance on Windows.

Does this have a corresponding disadvangage of "more reliance on Apple"? Seriously... if an advantage of switching is less reliance on a single source, then more reliance on a different single source must be a disadvantage (regardless of who that single source is). This is one obvious place where OSS (and Linux) has an advantage.

Re:Conversely...

[QuantumRiff]

It has a huge advantage. Next time MS threatens to raise the price of your Volume subscription, you threaten to move a few thousand more machines to linux or apple. They back down. Next time apple threatens to raise the prices of their software, you threaten to move a few thousand machines to windows. Many companies bitch about the costs of licensing, but its just bitching, since they don't see themselves as having a choice. IBM will have a choice, and can shop around to get the best prices.

Target Diversity

[FurtiveGlancer]

In diversity lies strength. IBM is simply providing a target diverse environment for hackers. I've heard rumblings that DoD is interested in changing the MicroStatus quo, but couldn't see an affordable, manageable way to do it. Don't you know, there's a war on?

I'm surprised IBM hasn't been doing this already..

[MickLinux]

Even when the OS was significant, there would have been good reason to use all three.

The Mac has long excelled as a desktop publishing machine, for example. So you would expect the advertisers and some of the manual writers to use it.

On the other hand, for information that is internal, you probably would want to use TeX and LaTex a majority of the time. For that, I'd suggest Linux.

Likewise, Linux makes a good server system. It is more easily and cheaply repairable than other systems, and can be expanded as necessary (and as new hardware becomes available). It is also good for quickly testing out new ideas. So lab computers and servers should probably be Linux.

Finally, Windows is good for government compliance (yes, see, we're using a Windows system over there, right next to the desk fan. If we need to use windows, we have that too.) Basically, Microsoft gave their OS to the government and educational systems as a way of forcing others to use it. So by all means, every business should have at least one copy.

Anyhow, that's how I ran our small business back in the 90's thru 2002, and it worked fine.

Aside from that, having a windows system allowed me to complain. I find there's nothing more frustrating than hearing "how's it going", and having to say "Can't complain."

That's it! I've had it...

[Tardius Maximus]

I am sick of everyone's smarmy afterglow about their switch to Mac after all the "terrible" experiences with PCs and Windows. It's always the same one sided comparison, " I can't believe how other-worldly the Mac experience is compared to Vista." Of course, carving your name in stone with a hammer and chisel is better than Vista. But as a network admin, I have better control and flexibilty with PCs and AD than any Mac I have handled, and I started my IT career on Macs. The latest OS for Mac is very pretty and whiz-bang, but getting integration into a predominantly Windows environment requires additional software purchases, extra configuration issues and more time/money overhead. Yes... you can access an smb share on Windows from a Mac, after you turn of digital signing and reduce your domain's security level. Nice touch. Every Mac Lover I encounter has the same story, "I use it at home and it's so easy. I must use it in the office!" Douchebag! Looking at porn at home and synchronzing data from your laptop to a domain share for redundancy while having access to Group Policy management are NOT the same thing.

And the next person who shows me how awesome Time Machine is has a three word answer from me: Volume Shadow Copy. Windows Server has had this feature since 2003. And with a few mouse click and GPO push (read: automatic) of one app, all machines in my company can pull up network data from any time without use of backup tapes. And any company worth its salt has good virus protection, spam blocking and border security in place. Now here comes the Mac which can make use of none of those office level features. 5% market share does not good anti- virus make. When there are enough of them out there, and bored German teenagers get busy, then let's talk about how secure Macs are.

You win with Vista... it sucks and blows. You're not getting an argument from me there. But XP SP2, which now has support until 2014 from MS, just works. Apple knows how to make things pretty, but they always seem to do it after other OS and PC manufacturers take the hard road.

P.S.: Hey Apple, you didn't invent the MP3 player. My Creative was rockin' long before anyone said the phrase iPod.

No that's not it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no. It's only in IBM's San Francisco office. You see, it's part of their diversity program. All of the gay people there were demanding their Macs and IBM not wanting to lose their gay employees are starting this program.

P.S. Apple, you need a pink Mac! geethes!

So what?

[joeyblades]

These kinds of pilots happen all the time, always with the same results...

(1) The user experience with the Mac OS is generally high

(2) The IT department decides that more Macs means less dependence on IT

(3) Less dependence on IT means smaller empires for IT managers...

Guess who gets to decide what users are allowed to have on their desktops...

Re:So what?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

(2) The IT department decides that more Macs means less dependence on IT (3) Less dependence on IT means smaller empires for IT managers... Guess who gets to decide what users are allowed to have on their desktops...

Both of the last two companies I worked at had two interesting things. First, IT is part of the engineering group. Second, employees (including IT) get cash bonuses and stock options based upon the company's performance. At the last company, Apple is one of only two pre-approved hardware vendors and IT likes having less work to do to keep them running. The last time we hired an IT guy, OS X experience was the #1 most important criteria due to the number of employees running it.

Office 2008 and Macs?

[ErichTheRed]

Here's a good question. Microsoft released Office 2008 for Mac,and surprisingly it doesn't come with VBA. This could be _the_ major problem with interoperability.

Companies live and die on Excel macros that various pseudo-programmers have put together over the years. What was Microsoft thinking? Oh wait, I know... :)

In all seriousness, this is a cool thing. Apple has finally started down the enterprise compatibility road, with all the AD hooks and such in Mac OS. Being a Windows admin though, one of the really nice (and really limiting) things about Windows clients + Windows servers is group policy. I can change every machine's IE settings in 15 minutes as opposed to copying down a new firefox config file. I can control almost every tweakable setting on a Windows machine from one location. What's the cross-platform answer for this?

At this point, the central management piece and availability of apps are the two big questions. The other is having the IT department support another piece of hardware.

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[Anonymous Coward]

In all seriousness, if you want to know the reasoning behind the death of VBA on the Mac, avoid all of the various fanboy and Microsoft-hater conspiracy theories and look up the Microsoft Mac Office engineer blog posts that have been on the Web for a long time now, with very extensive user discussions following the posts. As I understand it, in a nutshell, it had to to with some show-stopper issues related to upgrading VBA to run on Mac OS X on the Intel processors. (Office 2004 is not Intel-native on the Mac).

It is not a good thing. Not a good thing at all. But they had their reasons, whether we believe them or not.

I'm not going to believe it was about "this will kill the Mac once and for all." If it was that, they should have just killed Office!

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[ErichTheRed]

I agree, and I've read the reports. It's just convenient timing that even made it a credible theory.

You would think they'd invest a little more effort in getting VBA working though. Full compatibility with Windows Office is one of the major things keeping people buying Office for Mac. Apple has their own alternative (iWork) and of course you can run any of the open-source office suites on Mac OS. Both ate better than Office 2008 IMO.

In fairness, they're also going to kill VBA on the Windows side too, in favor of Visual Studio Tools for Office. There's going to be a lot of contractor work available for those crazy enough to go picking through 8-year-old Excel macros with 30,000 lines of spaghetti-code goodness.

Never underestimate the power of VBA in large corporations. SAP? J.D. Edwards? PeopleSoft? They're just great big databases for departments to pull the numbers from. All the real crunching is done with some creaky VBA code running on some dude's desktop.

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[aztektum]

I am putting together puppet to manage our Debian boxes. It works with Linux and Mac OSX (according to the site, we don't have any Mac OSX machines for me to test the reality)

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[cens0r]

Hey, I'm a real programmer... It's not my fault that someone saw the excel macro's I wrote to make my life easier and decided it would be good if everyone in the company started using it.

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[Anonymous Coward]

In linux you can do that in 15 seconds.

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[Ox0065]

What's the cross-platform answer for this? $> man mount

Re:Office 2008 and Macs?

[chasd]

I can change every machine's IE settings in 15 minutes as opposed to copying down a new firefox config file. I can control almost every tweakable setting on a Windows machine from one location. What's the cross-platform answer for this?

If you think differently, maybe other platforms don't need this level of control. Only on Windows is a browser config setting so important for security.

Re:This is News? Yes it is.

[wass]

There are two things that make it newsworthy (well, newsworthy to the average tech geek).

Firstly, IBM used to make the Thinkpad, and the pro-Thinkpad loyalty that exists there is obviously disintegrating very quickly.

Secondly, and more interestingly to me, are the numbers. There were 24 people in the pilot program, 22 of which responded to the survey. Of those 22, a whopping 19 actually preferred to keep running OS X on their Macbook instead of Windows on their THinkpad! That's pretty damn huge. 86% of a group of NEW users to OS X, given a time enough to get used to it, actually prefer PS X and the Apple hardware, to the software environment they were previously accustomed to and on their company's own developed hardware system to boot.

digital research

[grumling]

Finally... Gary Kildall's strategy is starting to pay off.

Any chance to stick a shiv

[geekoid]

in MS's back is a good one for IBM.

Great!

[Blakey Rat]

Now they should start a pilot program to reduce the Lotus Notes-related suicide rate. Perhaps a bottle of vicodin gets delivered to your desk every time the app starts up...

Re:Great!

[chamont]

They might as well ship that vicodin on a freight ship from the other side of the planet.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no escape from Lotus Notes. Hell version 8 will be supported on Macs.

I dont even think vicodin would be enough, just lop off my head and put me out of my notesy misery.

Re:This is News? Yes it is.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Firstly, IBM used to make the Thinkpad, and the pro-Thinkpad loyalty that exists there is obviously disintegrating very quickly.

Okay I can see that as interesting, although it has been three years now.

Secondly, and more interestingly to me, are the numbers. There were 24 people in the pilot program, 22 of which responded to the survey. Of those 22, a whopping 19 actually preferred to keep running OS X on their Macbook instead of Windows on their THinkpad!

Why do you find that surprising? Among security professionals I know, that is below the normal switcher rate for those that try Apple machines (in my experience). In fact, that is lower than the switcher rate among engineers coming from Linux who tried it at my last company. The loyalty of people who try OS X is fairly legendary in the press and in the geek community.

86% of a group of NEW users to OS X, given a time enough to get used to it, actually prefer PS X[sic] and the Apple hardware, to the software environment they were previously accustomed to and on their company's own developed hardware system to boot.

Considering Apple's laptops are one of the few to consistently be reviewed better and do better in hardware reliability tests by independent testing companies, that just seems to fall in line with the numbers companies like Consumer Reports have been publishing for years.

Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[malevolentjelly]

Poke around the site for a few minutes and it will be come really clear that Roughly Drafted is just some moron running a Microsoft hate blog. Chances are these "documents" are either made up or exaggerated.

Let's stick to numbers and press releases when we start talking about market share and company's official positions on operating systems, not the musings of some apple-phile.

Besides, we know that IBM quite plainly supports linux and unix. They're a top linux contributor:

https://www.linux-foundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php

Chances are much greater they'll be using linux internally more and more as time goes on, not relying on yet another proprietary OS vendor they have no influence over. They probably use about as many macs internally as microsoft does- and that's not an ironic statement.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Poke around the site for a few minutes and it will be come really clear that Roughly Drafted is just some moron running a Microsoft hate blog. Chances are these "documents" are either made up or exaggerated.

Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack?

Let's stick to numbers and press releases when we start talking about market share and company's official positions on operating systems, not the musings of some apple-phile.

Lets not.

Besides, we know that IBM quite plainly supports linux and unix. They're a top linux contributor:

How does IBM running a pilot program with OS X internally have anything to do with if they contribute to or support Linux?

Chances are much greater they'll be using linux internally more and more as time goes on, not relying on yet another proprietary OS vendor they have no influence over.

Since they're plainly in the process of doing this and since this was pointed out in the roughly drafted article, I don't see that your statement has any point.

They probably use about as many macs internally as microsoft does- and that's not an ironic statement.

They probably use fewer. What does that have to do with this article? It is about IBM testing Macs on their network (very useful for compatibility especially for their clients running mixed environments and possibly a sign of benefits for users of IBM solutions). It also talks about the preference for OS X over Windows by IBM employees. It's not surprising or anything, but that was the point stated, which you seem to have missed.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[malevolentjelly]

Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack? Well, it's easy enough just to got to the root of the site, where anyone who isn't blind might find some sort of bias. But thankfully, Roughly Drafted has included a massive concentrated shrine of an almost dangerous level of Apple fanboism:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/zoon/

Why the fanatical hatred of Microsoft's ipod competitor? It's not like a technical magazine's negative review- it is a shrine of insane hatred. No one who hates anything this much can be considered sane- not unless the Zune actually killed his family or something.

They probably use fewer. What does that have to do with this article? It is about IBM testing Macs on their network (very useful for compatibility especially for their clients running mixed environments and possibly a sign of benefits for users of IBM solutions). It also talks about the preference for OS X over Windows by IBM employees. It's not surprising or anything, but that was the point stated, which you seem to have missed. Yes, "leaked internal information" using IBM's name as for credibility from a site that has an almost psychotic bent on being pro-mac and anti-windows. The article is just a collection of quotes from some unreferenced secret document citing people who are switching from Windows to Mac at IBM. At the end we get a screenshot of an internal website of mac users at IBM. A mac user group in a massive organization like IBM? 930 people? Out of 386,000 employees?

This whole article and presentation suggests that IBM is planning on adopting macs as their new enterprise workstation platform, but this just isn't indicated as being the case by anyone, much less IBM.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack?

Have you even read RD? I read it daily and laugh hard. He can't be serious but it's fun. Take a look at this one.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack? Well, it's easy enough just to got to the root of the site, where anyone who isn't blind might find some sort of bias.

I didn't ask if the site was "biased" as all sites are in some way. I asked if you had evidence that the site has posted fabricated documents in the past as you assert without proof they are doing now. The answer appears to be "no."

But thankfully, Roughly Drafted has included a massive concentrated shrine of an almost dangerous level of Apple fanboism...

I don't care if they are Mac fans or vampires. It has no bearing on whether or not the facts they presented were true or not. Lots of very biased people quote or discover real facts. You can't dismiss those claims as lies without evidence or a history of lies. The spin on the article does not undermine the facts presented, as a history of falsifying data would.

Why the fanatical hatred of Microsoft's ipod competitor?

I don't know, but I also don't know why I should care. Just because they hate MS doesn't mean the program is not happening as reported. If it is made up, well there are plenty of IBM employees here and someone will likely point that out and provide evidence.

At the end we get a screenshot of an internal website of mac users at IBM. A mac user group in a massive organization like IBM? 930 people? Out of 386,000 employees?

How many people are participating in a Website is not important. What is relevant is that the site mentions the program. So if it does not exist than the screenshot must be fabricated. You claim it is, but don't have any evidence to support that, so I don't have any more reason to believe it is fabricated than I did before you commented. I have slightly less reason to find your statements credible since you made a statement was not supported by any such behavior i the past and did not seem to understand the difference between a history of fabricating evidence and a history of being biased.

This whole article and presentation suggests that IBM is planning on adopting macs as their new enterprise workstation platform, but this just isn't indicated as being the case by anyone, much less IBM.

That is not at all what I got from the article. It seemed to me that the point of the article was that IBM has a very, very small program texting Macs on their network and that most of the participants preferred to keep the Macs over their Windows systems.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[david_thornley]

Actually, Microsoft probably has a fair number of Macintoshes. They maintain Office on it, after all.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[DECS]

There is nothing fabricated in the article you cited. You just didn't like what it said:

"Since Apple has released five times as many major updates and over fifteen times as many minor updates to Mac OS X since 2000, you might not have guessed that Windows actually costs users five times as much to keep up to date!"

Everybody knows Windows is expensive to maintain, especially for those who have to pay others to clean up their systems rather than spending their time to do it themselves.

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing fabricated in the article you cited. You just didn't like what it said "There is nothing fabricated in my article you cited. You just didn't like what I said"

Fixed that for you DECS, aka Daniel Eran Dilger. (Daniel Eran Cock Sucker?)

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[MojoStan]

Poke around the site for a few minutes and it will be come really clear that Roughly Drafted is just some moron running a Microsoft hate blog. Chances are these "documents" are either made up or exaggerated. Can you cite a specific instance of Roughly Drafted posting fabricated documents in the past, or is this just an ad hominem attack? I wouldn't go so far as saying RoughlyDrafted "made up" the "documents" like the GP did, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the GP to opine "chances are" Daniel Eran (RoughlyDrafted's writer) "exaggerated."

Daniel Eran, who comments on Slashdot (in the third person) as DECS, often submits his own RoughlyDrafted articles (in the third person) using pseudonyms like "peter deacon", "Redrum", and "rdmreader".

Daniel Eran is also somewhat infamous for being banned from Digg because he tried to game their system by using multiple accounts to "digg" his stories and get them on their front page:

• Digg - PROOF that Roughly Drafted is SPAMMING/Gaming Digg with multiple accounts
• RoughlyDraftedBUSTED
• MacUser: Is Daniel Eran gaming Digg?
• Daniel Eran at Roughly Drafted is trying to destroy Digg!

Re:Roughly Drafted is not a credible source

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing fabricated in the article you cited. Fabricated - no. Misleading - very yes. Shall we run through the list of inaccuracies for the class?

- You made 3 updates of $129 mystically equal to $300 using a "if you don't buy at retail" clause which you buried deep in the article and only connected to the release of Jaguar, not any of the other updates.

- You averaged out the cost of the non-retail and retail Mac updates for your final total, but failed to average out the difference between retail and non-retail WinXP installs, instead choosing the most expensive version at retail price.

- You added extra costs to the XP install which aren't required to be paid for. There are free antivirus and spyware packages that update automatically, scan automatically and require no upkeep whatsoever.

- You failed to factor in the higher rate of failure of Apple products compared to PCs - a MacInTouch survey showed that failure rate was as high as 31% of iMac G5s. AppleCare purchasers would be unaffected by this but you failed to include the price of that too.

Why I enjoyed reading this post.

[4g1vn]

More and more companies are starting to realize the Microsoft conundrum. 1) How do we properly license upcoming products (Server 2008, SQL 2008, etc...)? Spend an eight hour session and you MAY figure it out. 2) Let's standardize on a document format (.doc). OK, here comes Office 2007 with (.docx). WTF is that, and it's the default when saving a new document. Shame on you Microsoft. 3) Vista promotion. It's better than XP, blah, blah, blah. No, it sucks, and was rushed to market. I use it (I'm forced) and very few of my network utilities work properly. Hats off to IBM for making a bold but, intelligent decision.

Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not news.

Having worked at IBM through the .com boom I can say quite a few Macs were in use in various departments, namely graphic design, web front-end and technical writing, and I was not aware if IBM had a strict no-Mac policy at that time.

That popping sound you just heard

[UberHoser]

Was Bill Gates head exploding.

Where Have All The Tags Gone?

[aquatone282]

Where's the "haha" tag, or the "kdawsonfud" tag?

Apple isn't really helping efforts like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've tried to do the same thing at my own company (very large defense firm), but the roadblock, oddly enough, is Apple's own refusal to ship iMacs without wireless (802.11 and Bluetooth) capability. Security restrictions (and reasonable ones, this isn't a case of over-paranoia) prevent me from buying anything with an active wireless link that would be located in secure areas, and that's a damn shame. iMacs would be a damn sight better in many ways than the Dell and HP boxes we're forced to use now.

Re:Apple isn't really helping efforts like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until very recently, I worked in a very large defense firm as well. I hear you. But I think that is unique to the defense industry.

Apple tends to stay more focused and try not to get distracted from their plans. Maybe at some point they will focus more on corporate sales and include the needs of defense companies.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I am sick of everyone's smarmy afterglow about their switch to Mac after all the "terrible" experiences with PCs and Windows.

It is, however, very understandable. Users try OS X, realize some of the problems they've ben working around for years and no longer even think about are no longer problems. They get a bit crazy and try to understand why most people still use Windows and in the process can be very loquacious and annoying. It calms down after a few months or a year.

But as a network admin, I have better control and flexibilty with PCs and AD than any Mac I have handled, and I started my IT career on Macs. The latest OS for Mac is very pretty and whiz-bang, but getting integration into a predominantly Windows environment requires additional software purchases, extra configuration issues and more time/money overhead.

So you're saying your IT department standardized on solutions that locked you into one vendor, and now that users are demanding support for other vendors, your lack of foresight is biting you in the ass. Umm, maybe next time you should consider the future and flexibility as a feature so you don't have to purchase new software that handles the use case you did not consider.

Yes... you can access an smb share on Windows from a Mac, after you turn of digital signing and reduce your domain's security level.

It's called NFS. Any OS can use it. Why did you ignore the possibility of Mac or Linux or Solaris workstations when you picked a network file system?

Every Mac Lover I encounter has the same story, "I use it at home and it's so easy. I must use it in the office!" Douchebag!

Well why don't you just ask Microsoft to improve Windows. You're they're customer, surely any company you chose to do business with is responsive to your concerns as a customer, right? Oh wait, you chose to do business with an entire organization of douchbags you have repeatedly been convicted of crimes against their customers. Good choice there.

Looking at porn at home and synchronzing data from your laptop to a domain share for redundancy while having access to Group Policy management are NOT the same thing.

No they're not. Your job is to implement a solution for the latter that actually works for what your users want to do. You do realize IT is supposed to be about facilitating user needs, right?

And the next person who shows me how awesome Time Machine is has a three word answer from me: Volume Shadow Copy. Windows Server has had this feature since 2003.

Congratulations. You fundamentally misunderstood the ways in which Time Machine is innovative. I don't even use it, but I read the whitepaper. What kind of IT geek are you if you don't actually read up on new tech?

And any company worth its salt has good virus protection, spam blocking and border security in place.

What does this have to do with anything? Since when has border security stopped malware problems anyway? You seem about four to six years out of date when it comes to business security models.

Now here comes the Mac which can make use of none of those office level features.

The Mac can make use of plenty of those office level features, if you implemented a cross platform solution instead of locking yourself into one vendor. Man am I glad I haven't had to deal with vaguely incompetent IT people with Windows only skills for many years. Maybe you should take some courses at the community college or something.

5% market share does not good anti- virus make.

Maybe, maybe not. But whatever Apple has done, it works so far. Realistically, malware is not a problem for Macs at this time. In future that might change.

When there are enough of them out there, and bored German teenagers get busy, then let's talk about how secure Macs are.

Why don't they just use Linux?

[wattrlz]

Unless they're planning on developing for the mac platform this really doesn't make much sense. Why dump one closed, DRM laden, overpriced desktop solution for another? This is IBM we're talking about. They could just as easily make an internal flavor of Linux that behaves like Leopard - or a completely new OS for that matter - if they really wanted to.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[wattrlz]

Since this has become a flame thread I would like to point out two things.

1. Most viruses come from north and southeast Asia.
2. Apple did only two things well with the iPod.
   1. The first is they marketed it supernaturally well and got everybody hooked on their cockamamie interface so they didn't want to use anything else.
   2. Secondly they created the 1.5" hard drive. They weren't the first people to sick a hard drive in an mp3 player, but they were the first to use one that small.

We don't really develop on Windows...

[Brendtron 5000]

Most people I work with only use Windows for checking Notes, using Sametime and composing the occasional Word document. The development is all done on Linux, because Windows is pretty terrible for that.

I use Synergy, so my keyboard and mouse controls my Linux desktop and my ThinkPad. When I'm actually coding, I'm not using Windows at all. It might be a bigger issue for some who are using VNC to connect to the Linux box and are stuck dealing with Windows.

If they switched me over to Mac, I can't see my productivity increasing at all. It would fall while I fiddled with the system, but would come back up to about what it is now. It won't make me type email any faster, and certainly won't stop me from checking Slashdot at work.

What is the advantage then? Not sure. As long as the hardware in my laptop is working, I don't have to do much. All updates are automatic. It would probably be expensive to switch over all of the infrastructure and support.

Re:We don't really develop on Windows...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What is the advantage then?

Well for one, you don't need separate OS's to do your development and office tasks. Upgrading to new hardware is faster and better. You can use system services to make both your office tasks and dev tasks easier. Sure it won't make you type you e-mail any faster but it will let you use the same spelling checker dictionary in both your e-mail and word processor (and everything else you want) so you don't have to train each one that MPLS is not a misspelling. You can likewise seamlessly use your grammar checker in everything, language translation plug-ins etc. In short, it doesn't really let you do many fundamentally new tasks. It just makes tasks easier and often faster and makes some tasks that are inconvenient (some so inconvenient you just don't do them) easier.

I know, literally, hundreds of Linux developers that use OS X as their desktop these days, because they have a choice and tried both.

It would probably be expensive to switch over all of the infrastructure and support.

It certainly can be, depending upon what type of infrastructure and support is provided. Still, OS X is plug and play with most Windows services these days and most of the major apps have native versions. If you're already supporting a mixed environment of Linux and Windows and have picked standards that work on both instead of MS only stuff, well it is usually easier and cheaper to support than Windows.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[Tardius Maximus]

All fair points. But some less than others. Maybe NFS would have been a better choice, but I'm not going to apologize for making that decision. And there are Mac clients for various virus and spam blocking systems. But this is not Google. There is no reason to purchase Parallels and Mac/AD integration tools so someone can run email and Powerpoint on a differnt OS. Those work pretty well on a PC with Windows. Bringing a Mac or Linux flavor into the mix does not improve the situation, it only adds more administrative overhead. There are already soutions in place for the users to do the number one thing the network does in a company; provide access to and redundancy of data. Choice is a great option where users will manage their own issues. But that does not happen at most companies. IT is relied on to tie together the disparate elements of communication and reliability, and sometimes that means standardization. Is Windows the standard? Does IT change the game for the change? IS there a number one solution? What is it? Have I made all of the right choices? Maybe, maybe not. But to ask my original question/issue a little more plainly: What are you doing with your Mac that you are not able to do with your XP PC? You indicated it "didn't cut it" and I'm curious how?

Re:This is News? Yes it is.

[yomegaman]

Were those 24 people randomly-selected to receive a Mac or did they ask to participate? If it's the latter, it's hardly surprising that people who specifically asked for a Mac said they wanted to keep it at the end of the trial.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[geekoid]

Based on my experience getting MAC into are extensive AD roll out, it seems to me your just no damn good at your job.

The fact that you compare a windows server feature with a MAC desk top feature, seem to buy into the the 'virus market share' logical fallacy, indicates that yeah, you are just no damn good.

Apple never said the invented the mp3 player, they just made it stylish and accessible. And kicked ass doing so.

Finally?

[denzacar]

Could this finally be the year of Macs having a double digit market share?

There...

Now, lets wait and see if Apple fanboys have a sense of humor.

Re:Finally?

[DECS]

Double digit share of what market?

The IDG/Gartner numbers (currently at 6.6% in the US, somewhere under 4% worldwide) include all PC, handheld and servers shipped (but only x86 servers). If you're waiting for Apple to take over those gerrymandered statistics, you'll be waiting for some time.

However, if you're looking at the markets Apple sells to, the company already has double digit market penetration in retail laptops (~20%), in home/SOHO (~16%) and education (very high across the US/EU, where Apple is #1 or close to being).

Market share isn't really that critical of a number, expecially when the market isn't defined to do anything but make Microsoft look good. Apple had ~5% OS market share in PCs throughout 2007, but made roughly half as much revenue as MS did with its 95% share of PC OS market. Those statistics also indicate that Linux has zero "market share," when we know some people are using Linux on the desktop.

Conversely, Apple had ~80% market share in music and MP3 players, but rivals, including MS, mostly only lost money. Market share doesn't tell you much about a products quality, suitability, desirability, or anything else. It's like a straight guy measuring his dick. It really doesn't matter.

IBMâ(TM)s Strategic Interest in Macs Goes Beyond Pilot Program

Re:Finally?

[16K Ram Pack]

how are those statistics "gerrymandered"? If anyone's gerrymandering, it's you, quoting retail laptop numbers (where Apple are strong). Why don't the sales by Dell or those from large mail order companies count?

Re:Finally?

[DECS]

The numbers provided by Gartner/IDG aren't PCs as in Personal Computers, as one might reasonably think. They aren't representing a single market either. They reflect the kind of licenses Microsoft sells, and the range of business conducted by Dell and HP.

They are gerrymandered in the sense that they are carefully cut out to exaggerate the representation of specific companies Gartner and IDG want to promote.

Why else would PC figures include handheld PDA (and apparently some smartphones)? Why would the numbers include server shipments, but only x86 servers, not anything with a different processor?

No other industry hides sales behind such a worthless definition of a market. Imagine comparing car companies together based on all vehicles sold worldwide, when the definition of "vehicle" was expanded to include motorcycles and dump trucks. Those numbers wouldn't tell you much about the passenger car market.

How many people who read about "Apple's market share" know they're being intentionally mislead by figures that have nothing to do with the PC market a reasonable person would envision?

I cited retail sales numbers to illustrate Apple's position in the consumer segment. I did not suggest that Dell makes or ships fewer computers. It's common knowledge that NPD's retail numbers don't count direct sales.

I don't think any reasonable person would have trouble getting that Apple's rapidly increasing retail share is an interesting data point and a valid argument against the idea that Apple isn't relevant because it doesn't have a certain percentage of a gerrymandered market definition concocted by Microsoft-enraptured number companies.

Applescript and OSX Server is the answer

[theolein]

I'm an admin for a smallish company with four XServes that replaced our Linux/Irix combination and some 45 clients, most Mac, some Windows. We are in the middle of a cmopany wide upgrade to OSX 10.5 and Office 2008. I am a bit worried about Office 2008, as I've only heard really bad things about it, not only the VBA story, which is bad enough, but also that it is terribly slow and buggy.

Some of the VBA shortcomings can be overcome with Applescript (the whole object model in VBA is represented as an Applescript dictionary), and I've had some success converting some VBA macros to Applescript, but of course, this isn't realistic in large corporations.

If you run OSX Server with Open Directory, which is compatible with LDAP and AD, with network mounted home folders, you can do much of what you can do with AD in centrally setting clients' settings, doing centrally managed software upgrades, etc. In this case, if you have no tied in AD, it's the Windows clients that come up short in terms of management, ironically.

Re:Applescript and OSX Server is the answer

[norkakn]

Why go with Office2008? It isn't the friendliest with network homes and it is dog slow. Neooffice or OO 3 might work far better for you.

it's ironic

[falconwolf]

To spell out the irony a little bit more, IBM started considering using Apple's computers (partially) as a result of Apple ceasing to use IBM's chips.

Yea, I thought it ironic that IBM is migrating at least some computers to Macs too seeing as how IBM used to supply Power PC CPUs, along with Motorola now Freescale, to Apple.

Falcon

Re:it's ironic

[leenks]

Too bad IBM don't think to support their version and configuration management tools on OSX.

Someone forgot to take their Ritulin this morning.

[jocknerd]

go tell Mommy you forgot it. Because no one in their right mind would seriously put XP SP2 against OS X. My five year old even knows that OS X is superior.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[BlackSnake112]

Apple didn't create the small hard drive. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives ) Hp had more to do with it along with other hard drive companies. No one really used the small disk drive in 1992 also it was marketed to the PDA companies. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Kitty_Hawk_microdrive ) Too early to be of any use back then.

So... who gets fired?

[Anonymous Coward]

So,

no one gets fired for buying macs at IBM? How did that go again? No one gets fired for buying IBM computers at Apple?
One sec, I'll get there...

Another big name is also piloting Macs

[Anonymous Coward]

Please forgive the Anonymous Coward post, but I'm not supposed to know this information.

There is a big-name, national bank within the United States that is also engaged in a pilot program for the internal use of Macs. Thus far the results are rather positive, owing to primarily to reduced management overhead and secondarily to the ease of integration (Macs work well against their big-iron UNIX back-end).

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[drsmithy]

And the next person who shows me how awesome Time Machine is has a three word answer from me: Volume Shadow Copy. Windows Server has had this feature since 2003. And with a few mouse click and GPO push (read: automatic) of one app, all machines in my company can pull up network data from any time without use of backup tapes.

I think you've missed the point of Time Machine, which is solving a completely different problem to VSS.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[repetty]

> Apple knows how to make things pretty, but they always seem to
> do it after other OS and PC manufacturers take the hard road.

Place the drugs down on the table and back slowly away with your hands where they can be seen...

Too late

[HangingChad]

"hey, if it works for IBM, maybe we should look at using Macs too"

Too late. A lot of places, I'd say most, already have a few Macs in the mix. Though it will validate the choice.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Most viruses come from north and southeast Asia.

I'm not sure that this is relevant. Worms come from many sources and a great many are obviously not being deployed and exploited by people in Asia. The point is, if you have a Mac you have basically have a negligible chance of being compromised and claims that this is entirely due to market share is, well irrelevant to all the points I made, even if true.

Apple did only two things well with the iPod. The first is they marketed it supernaturally well and got everybody hooked on their cockamamie interface so they didn't want to use anything else.

iPods were the first portable players of this sort that were easily usable one handed. That was a pretty nice innovation. As for marketing, sure they're pretty decent at that, but so is Sony and numerous other market entrants.

Secondly they created the 1.5" hard drive. They weren't the first people to sick a hard drive in an mp3 player, but they were the first to use one that small.

I don't think Apple did make that.

What Apple did was to address the entire user experience with significant usability testing. They addressed having hardware and software and a service that worked together smoothly. I remember very intelligent people installing iTunes just to rip their CD collections because the software that came with the player they had purchased was too hard to use. They were the first manufacturer to offer an integrated music service with DRM that did not get in the average person's way and which allowed them to burn a CD of music purchased online. The main thing they did was concentrate on a subset of features, but polish those usability cases. It worked, even if you don't recognize the work that is involved in that. Go ahead an assume it is all Apple's ability to trick everyone into using a horrible interface with their brilliant marketing.

Use a Mac in Cisco

[mattsday]

So I work for Cisco and own a Cisco Mac. There are about 2,000+ of us using Macs without any IT support or official recognition. You could say we're 'tolerated' and have built up a grassroots community. We're an Exchange house and have a lot of Microsoft out there. Nevertheless, we all get on just fine with that. Everything interoperates fantastically (and sometimes better). IT is moving away from the proprietary web pages we have internally that need IE (not for Mac users, but more because it makes sense to support Firefox on all platforms. As supporting Firefox means supported web standards, we get the benefits on our Macs). Every time I open my Mac in a new customer meeting, people wanna see it like it's a toy. I show them (I'm pretty scripted with it all now) and normally they're impressed. IT are flexible enough to let us work, which is nice and they will make Mac-supportive changes where they can (normally out of the kindness of their hearts). However, just imagine if we had true IT support for our applications? The 2,000+ Mac users (that grows by about 2-3 a week) who have no support whatsoever and often have to self-fund their Mac would skyrocket. The obvious productivity gains given to those who WANT a Mac would be far more accessible within the organisation and pretty much all of the 'Macs aren't enterprise ready' crap I'm reading here would be toast. So give it a go IBM. I'll bet they'll have a very hard time getting those users on the pilot to revert back... (PS, if they even wanted to revert back they could just put bootcamp on the Mac hardware anyway and have a very decent Windows laptop).

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[vijayiyer]

You sound like the typical network admin with every MS certification known to man, but no computer science degree. He never learned how computers actually work, so the concepts of interfaces and systems engineering are lost upon him. Add to that a lack of interest in learning, and you havee the typical control-freak admin who forgets that the users are the customer, and his job is to enable theirs.
Hint...UNIX has worked in very large, complex networks for decades, and the Mac is UNIX. If you can't figure that out, maybe you're in the wrong field.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Maybe NFS would have been a better choice, but I'm not going to apologize for making that decision.

You're the one complaining about the limitations of that choice.

And there are Mac clients for various virus and spam blocking systems.

Who claimed otherwise?

There is no reason to purchase Parallels and Mac/AD integration tools so someone can run email and Powerpoint on a differnt OS.

The AD issue would be your poor choice of MS's closed and intentionally incompatible clone of LDAP instead of, well LDAP. As for Powerpoint, you know MS makes MS Office for OS X right? Or you could use any one of a dozen alternative presentation packages.

Those work pretty well on a PC with Windows.

So you're claiming a broken version of LDAP designed to ony work with Windows, only works with Windows? And you're complaining that you don't know how to install MS Office on a Mac?

Bringing a Mac or Linux flavor into the mix does not improve the situation, it only adds more administrative overhead.

It only adds overhead if you chose to build your infrastructure exclusively with products from one vendor, designed to lock you into that vendor. Don't blame others that your poor choice is now making more work for you.

There are already soutions in place for the users to do the number one thing the network does in a company; provide access to and redundancy of data.

And you again ignored everything but Windows when you chose those and now wish that had been a good choice. This seems somewhat familiar.

Choice is a great option where users will manage their own issues. But that does not happen at most companies. IT is relied on to tie together the disparate elements of communication and reliability, and sometimes that means standardization.

I believe you problem is you don't understand the difference between a standard, and just buying everything from one vendor. A standard is LDAP, which can be and is implemented by many different vendors. Building your directory service on top of it means you can be fairly sure no matter who you buy other components from, they'll be able to work with it. Choosing a proprietary alternative that is an intentionally broken version of LDAP designed to only work with Windows. You ignored the fact that you were being locked in and assumed that would never come back to bite you.

Does IT change the game for the change? IS there a number one solution? What is it? Have I made all of the right choices? Maybe, maybe not.

You know I've worked with IT departments where they did build everything on real standards. Adding some Mac clients for the PR department was not any harder than anything else. The same goes for any other type of client. Some new type of smartphone is a good buy, but isn't made by Microsoft, gee it works just fine too. It's called building a flexible and robust set of services.

But to ask my original question/issue a little more plainly: What are you doing with your Mac that you are not able to do with your XP PC? You indicated it "didn't cut it" and I'm curious how?

Well, having a functional command line that actually integrates with the end user applications is a big plus. Being able to install system services that let me use the same spellchecker, grammar checker, and text manipulation scripts in all my applications is pretty critical to my workflows. Being able to run Adobe Indesign without rebooting twice a day saves time and money, Using OmniGraffle to interoperate with one of our development departments and one of our customers is required. Testing HTML on alternative OS's is required (in fact Safari is more critical than IE to our customers), actually allowing me to smoothly use multiple monitors is pretty critical and actually getting it right when I take a laptop out of hibernate no m

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[Smurf]

There is no reason to purchase Parallels and Mac/AD integration tools so someone can run email and Powerpoint on a differnt OS. Those work pretty well on a PC with Windows. Hmmm, I'll have to agree with you on that one. There is no reason to purchase Parallels for those reasons since any competent IT administrator should know that Entourage and PowerPoint work pretty well on a Mac with MS Office for Mac. In fact Apple Mail will also work without a hitch if your Outlook server is half-decently configured.

Now that I think about it, you can simply turn on the IMAP service in the Outlook server and allow the people to use any mail client they want.

Anyway, the fact that you overlooked the existence of PowerPoint for the Mac (newsflash: PowePoint was originally developed for Macs) suggests that you have quite a knowledge gap to be a decent IT administrator, specially since you "started your IT career on Macs". I'm sorry for making a personal attack, but that comment was just outrageous.

IBM != Lenovo

[fm6]

Given the history between IBM and Microsoft, this is quite interesting. It would be "interesting" if IBM still made PCs. But since they sold their PC business to Lenovo, the word you want is "irrelevant".

Doubly so, since the IBM that partnered and feuded with Microsoft (and accidentally made Bill Gates the richest man on the planet) is long gone. That company never understood the paradigm shift that PCs represented, and possessed management that never learned how to use e-mail. (Ironically, the first IBM CEO to do so was Lou Gerstner, who was hired from outside the computer industry.) Now they're as much a services company as a hardware vendor, and that leaves them free to try new stuff.

Sicko Roughly Has No News

[Anonymous Coward]

Roughly is a full blown schizophrenic. Besides: people inside IBM have told this to their friends for years. No news here, folks - go to your homes.

No it's about breaking OS dependencies

[Dutchmang]

Late to thread, no energy to write it all again. It's about fixing the critical path dependency where the OS decision happens on the left and everything flows from there. Decouple OS from applications and things get groovy fast.

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=221968&cid=17986866

Like many of my IBM peers I use Open Client for Linux and for Windows XP. (We used to turn in our old PCs but now we just load the IBM RHEL or SUSE image.) My next machine will be a Mac. It's possible because all the IBM software I use works natively on all three platforms: Notes, Sametime, Symphony, Firefox Web conferencing, expense reporting and travel reservation apps (used to require IE).

That a come on line in iWorld?

[denzacar]

It's like a straight guy measuring his dick. It really doesn't matter. Sorry, but I'm kind of... you know... not gay.

Oh... and..

those gerrymandered statistics

Market share isn't really that critical of a number, expecially when the market isn't defined to do anything but make Microsoft look good.

Market share doesn't tell you much about a products quality, suitability, desirability, or anything else. For a fan of apples you do spend much time eating sour grapes as it seems.

Re:That a come on line in iWorld?

[DECS]

Nice job skirting the facts to remain irrelevant to reality.

BTW, any Apple fan needn't be complaining of sour grapes, because the company is hotter today that it ever has been.

Also, the idiom of sour grapes relates to those who, like the fabled fox, complain that the out of reach grapes they wanted but can't have are sour, only because they can't have them.

Therefore, you can't really "eat sour grapes" in any sensible fashion.

Apple has a special model

[kpainter]

Just need the big Steve Jobs presentation: Introducing the "iBM"

RTFA. Mac experts prefer Macs

[Wesley Felter]

There were 24 people in the pilot program, 22 of which responded to the survey. Of those 22, a whopping 19 actually preferred to keep running OS X on their Macbook instead of Windows on their THinkpad! That's pretty damn huge. 86% of a group of NEW users to OS X, given a time enough to get used to it, actually prefer OS X and the Apple hardware... From the article: "15 [out of 22 people] reported having moderate or expert knowledge of the [Mac] platform". Let's assume all those people kept the Mac. So out of 7 Mac newbies, 4 chose to keep the Mac (57%) and 3 chose to keep Windows (42%).

One word: Taligent

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM and apple have worked together before, for those with longer memories.

Apple prices

[falconwolf]

Straight from the Apple Store -- downgrade to the single Quad Core 2.8GHz Xeon is $2300

Ok, I see it. For what I'd use it for though 2 Quad Cores would be better, image editing and design.

Straight from Macmall same computer -- $2214.

I can get a 2 Quad Core 2.8GHz Mac Pro for $2240.

Falcon

Re:Apple prices

[sandstig]

Before ordering my MacBook Pro I compared it's price to laptops from Dell, HP, and a couple of other OEMs. A Dell configured as close to the MBP as I could get cost $200 more and the HP was about the same price

Your price must have been after the ADC discount, because an HP 8710p (KR888UT) comes in at $2,349. It comes with an Nvidia Quadro NVS 320M (based on the 8700M GT) instead of the 8600 GT in the MBP, a BluRay burner, and 3-year warranty on parts. Otherwise, everything else is the same in both the default 17" MBP ($2,799) and this 8710p ($2,349) configuration.

My 17" MBP is 1680 X 1050, and some text looks small, however 1920 X 1200 is available. The only need for high resolution is graphics and photography but if you're doing that then you really should have an external monitor at least 21", I'm looking for one at least 24".

My wife works daily on a 15.4" HP nw8240 with a WUXGA (1920x1200) display. DPI settings were adjusted to make text not look too small. The higher resolution gives her a lot of screen real-estate making it possible to have multiple documents open simultaneously without having to be tied to a desk. I work on an 8510p with a WSXGA+ (1680x1050) screen, and although I do usually work with an LCD hooked up to a docking station when at the office, I can tell you that it wouldn't be much fun if when I undocked I automatically had a much lower resolution making Eclipse look all cramped. Both of us disagree that "the only need for a high resolution is graphics and photography" and I'm pretty sure a number of developers would take issue with that as well. Sure, multiple screens are preferable, but when you want to work untethered to a desk, then a high resolution's practically a must.

Re:Apple prices

[Megane]

Which is why I didn't understand why they'd cut the educational discount

Two things. First of all, the current discount is a reflection of lower margins overall on Macs. But in the era after Jobs got kicked out? "Beleaguered" Apple had no direction, and I guess you could say that its top ranks really didn't care about computers, or else why would they put a soft drinks guy in charge? If they did away with the educational discounts then, it was because they simply didn't care. Or maybe it was corporate hubris that they didn't think they needed to give educational discounts any more. At which point, commodity computers running Windows took over almost overnight. Also, I seem to remember that Apple was trying to cut third-party vendors out of the pie to sell direct to education exclusively, and that helped erode their educational presence.

It also didn't help that Apple's attempts to make "low-end" Macs, with the aptly mis-named "Performa" series (the 4400 being the worst of the lot), gave them a bad reputation in those markets where they ended up. (particularly education, who couldn't afford to either buy new Macs or get rid of the old ones before they were amortized) So five-plus-year-old Macs that were crap when new got compared to brand new computers running Windows, because those were what many users had access to at the time.

Re:Apple prices

[falconwolf]

Your price must have been after the ADC discount,

No, they were both retail prices.

t comes with an Nvidia Quadro NVS 320M (based on the 8700M GT) instead of the 8600 GT in the MBP, a BluRay burner

I didn't see configurations with BluRays. Either I missed it or it wasn't available.

when I undocked I automatically had a much lower resolution making Eclipse look all cramped. Both of us disagree that "the only need for a high resolution is graphics and photography" and I'm pretty sure a number of developers would take issue with that as well.

It's not really the high resolution so much as it's what seems like more real estate. However not everyone will be able to see smaller objects and text but that's what the higher resolution does. My MBP LCD is 1680 x 1050. Though I missed it Apple also offer an LCD with 1900 x 1200 or whatever. I'm glad I didn't see it because if I had I would have gotten the higher resolution yet some of what I look at on it I can't make out very well without squinting at the screen. If I had gotten the higher res it'd be worse. Also what I've been reading on /. from others recently virtual desktops can help somewhat.

Falcon

Re:Apple prices

[falconwolf]

Two things. First of all, the current discount is a reflection of lower margins overall on Macs.

Margins are tight now but they weren't bad in the '90s and that's when Apple lowered the educational discount.

Also, I seem to remember that Apple was trying to cut third-party vendors out of the pie to sell direct to education exclusively, and that helped erode their educational presence.

Almost everyone I knew bought their computer, whether a Mac or a PC, through the campus bookstore and the college dealt directly with the OEMs including Apple.

It also didn't help that Apple's attempts to make "low-end" Macs, with the aptly mis-named "Performa" series (the 4400 being the worst of the lot), gave them a bad reputation in those markets where they ended up.

Despite what people think and say, especially his reality distortion field on /., about Steve Jobs he's pretty good with business and the market. So Apple really messed up when they got rid of him and replaced him with Scully. Scully virtually ran the company into the ground. Then when Jobs was brought back he was able to turn it around.

Falcon

Re:Apple prices

[Scudsucker]

Speaking of discounts, students now pay full price for iPods. You used to be able to save $20-$30 on them.

Scully virtually ran the company into the ground. Then when Jobs was brought back he was able to turn it around.

One good thing Scully did was push the Newton, which was spun off into a (profitable) subsidiary before Jobs came back and killed it.

Re:Apple prices

[falconwolf]

Speaking of discounts, students now pay full price for iPods. You used to be able to save $20-$30 on them.

I don't care if the discount on iPods were $100, I still wouldn't get one. I last got a portable player, a cd player, several years ago for Roller Blading.

One good thing Scully did was push the Newton, which was spun off into a (profitable) subsidiary before Jobs came back and killed it.

According to Wiki the Apple Newton wasn't successful. "Wired" magazine says "Early models were bulky, expensive and bug-ridden. Apple marketed the Newton poorly, and it was widely ridiculed; a memorable Doonesbury strip by Garry Trudeau effectively doomed the device." In "Apple scraps Newton" C|Net News says the Newton was not historically profitable (dated 27 February 1998).

Falcon

Thomas J. Watson's (updated ) motto: THINK...

[A New Normalcy]

...DIFFERENT

Linux + Windows -- Linux + Mac

[Ox0065]

I don't think you get it. IBM does 'big' computers. These 'big' computers run linux. They run linux for lots of very good reasons.
Some silly desktop software makers think it's impossible to make cross-platform software from a single source tree, so they make software for Microsoft, because Microsoft have the biggest desktop market share.

Normally you'd need a Microsoft box to run these silly software maker's desktop software. Some of these silly software makers are smart enough to maintain a Mac version though.
so sometimes (if you need a silly software maker's software) you can avoid Microsoft (and all the associated trouble) by getting a Mac to run silly but essential desktop software.

Mac OS isn't going to replace Linux at IBM any time soon, for lots of very good reasons.
It might replace some Microsoft boxes at IBM, for lots of very good reasons.

It's IBM Sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes, it's IBM Sales running a pilot program deploying Macs. I work in the IBM Software Group sales division.

It's not like it's a big secret at this point, as there are sales people out there carrying Macs... but I'm not sure I should be commenting, so posting anonymously.

Apple prices

[falconwolf]

Apple was happy to make bigger margins on smaller quantities.

Way back when, up until Windows 3.x came out, Apple had half of the market where I lived. More stores had Macs than any other system. Even the bookstores on the college campuses in the area sold more Macs than PCs and other systems.

Apple basically owned the educational market. Which is why I didn't understand why they'd cut the educational discount, when students used Macs for school they'd expect Macs at work too. I've to say though Apple did better than Commodore with the Amiga. Which was a real shame. The Amiga was the real multimedia workhorse but it could also run the Mac OS and Mac software as well as DOS and Windows 3.x.

Even then, there were still times when they had trouble making enough of certain models (usually new ones) of Macs to meet demand. Their current production levels are amazing in comparison.

Production now is in China. A Chinese company actually assembles them, outside of Shanghai if I recall right.

Falcon

Apple prices

[falconwolf]

it seems like Apple's notebooks are almost always at least US$200 more expensive than similarly specced business notebooks from Dell, HP and Lenovo.

Before ordering my MacBook Pro I compared it's price to laptops from Dell, HP, and a couple of other OEMs. A Dell configured as close to the MBP as I could get cost $200 more and the HP was about the same price. There weren't many who had 17". However about a month before I ordered it I saw a 21" laptop running Windows in a Best Buy. What I would of given for a 21" MBP.

The cheapest 15" MacBook Pro for example comes in at $1,999 and only offers a WXGA+ (1440x900) LCD and a single year warranty on parts, compared to the HP 8510p, Dell Latitude D830 and Lenovo T61 which all offer 3-year warranties on parts and WSXGA+ (1680x1050) screens.

My 17" MBP is 1680 X 1050, and some text looks small, however 1920 X 1200 is available. The only need for high resolution is graphics and photography but if you're doing that then you really should have an external monitor at least 21", I'm looking for one at least 24". I'll then use the big display for the main window, the photos I'm working on, while the built in LCD will have the tools palettes I need.

Falcon

buttons

[falconwolf]

Or you could simply just buy a 3-button mouse with scrollwheel, Logitech still makes them.

Nah, I've got a 2 button Logitech trackball with scrollwheel though I don't use it right now. When I start graphics work I'll need it but for now the pad works fine.

Falcon

mod parent +1 informative, pls

[wattrlz]

I learned something today. Thank you. It turns out the used an off the shelf hard drive from toshiba, that was a second or third gen HD, and their advertising was phrased in such a way as to make it sound like they invented it.

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[wattrlz]

Most viruses come from north and southeast Asia.

I'm not sure that this is relevant. Worms come from many sources and a great many are obviously not being deployed and exploited by people in Asia. The point is, if you have a Mac you have basically have a negligible chance of being compromised and claims that this is entirely due to market share is, well irrelevant to all the points I made, even if true.

Security through obscurity is supposedly one of the great fallacies of IT.

Apple did only two things well with the iPod. The first is they marketed it supernaturally well and got everybody hooked on their cockamamie interface so they didn't want to use anything else.

iPods were the first portable players of this sort that were easily usable one handed. That was a pretty nice innovation. As for marketing, sure they're pretty decent at that, but so is Sony and numerous other market entrants.

Sony has their own legions of hardcore obsessive fans. If you look at the mp3 players Sony was developing at the time I think you will see that they were more focussed on their mini-disk technology than penetrating the mp3 market. I'm guessing the one-handed operation criteria is more of an opinion thing than anything else. I don't recall having any trouble operating any mp3 player I've owned with one hand, but that's just my opinion.

Secondly they created the 1.5" hard drive. They weren't the first people to sick a hard drive in an mp3 player, but they were the first to use one that small.

I don't think Apple did make that.

You're right, they didn't. I was mistaken. I was basing my observation off some advertising material I read six or seven years ago. They were the first company I know of to stick a drive that size into an mp3 player, discounting the cf ones that could support an ibm microdrive. That was probably just their media blitz, though.

What Apple did was to address the entire user experience with significant usability testing. They addressed having hardware and software and a service that worked together smoothly. I remember very intelligent people installing iTunes just to rip their CD collections because the software that came with the player they had purchased was too hard to use. They were the first manufacturer to offer an integrated music service with DRM that did not get in the average person's way and which allowed them to burn a CD of music purchased online. The main thing they did was concentrate on a subset of features, but polish those usability cases. It worked, even if you don't recognize the work that is involved in that. Go ahead an assume it is all Apple's ability to trick everyone into using a horrible interface with their brilliant marketing.

I never said the interface was horrible, just cockamamie (which means ridiculous or nonsensical). That's my opinion. Perhaps I should have called it, " whimsical" or, "unique". The iPod is the only mp3 player I ever picked up and had to ask for help playing a song. That's an example. From my experience I conclude the interface is just unintuitive for me. I don't know what your experience is with other players, but I think we can agree that it is more complex than most. I think if the average person was aware that there were other players out there more people might agree with me.

I believe one should be able to plug an mp3 player into one's computer, drag and drop a song on it, and be ready to go. Maybe it's my age showing, but I remember back when I could use the same program to rip or burn CDs that I used before I got my current mp3 player. I remember there was a time everybody could download an mp3 and upload it to my mp3 player without having to burn a CD of it. I remember there was a time when a dollar a song was considered expensive, but I digress. Compared to the other players I've used the iPod is overpriced and needlessly complex and I believe that its success mostly due to marketing, and, often cult-like; brand loyalty

Re:That's it! I've had it...

[Scudsucker]

Apple did only two things well with the iPod.

      1. The first is they marketed it supernaturally well and got everybody hooked on their cockamamie interface so they didn't want to use anything else.

Aside from the 1.8" hard drive, they also used 400 Mbps Firewire when everyone else was using 11 Mpbs USB. And they had a good hardware/software interface, as opposed to other products like MusicMatch which was pretty much a big pile of shit.