Slashdot Mirror
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."
Functional on the inside (Unix), functional on the outside (Mac OS).
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.
Beep beep.
So, does this mean that Apple is now Big Brother?
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.
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)
--
make install -not war
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.
That's old news. I'd say given IBM and Apple's recent history, this is interesting.
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.
In-depth research polls, err, 24 employees
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/17/ibm-might-dump-windows-mac/
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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! 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.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
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...)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Especially that bug where capital Zs are mysteriously injected in things you type.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
In case you didn't know: RoughlyDrafted = Apple Fanboy Site.
And now that they're not, they're switching over... odd, no?
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.
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.
stuff |
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.
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.
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.
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.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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.
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?
Invenio via vel creo
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."
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
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?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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...
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.
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.
make world, not war
Finally... Gary Kildall's strategy is starting to pay off.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
in MS's back is a good one for IBM.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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...
Comment of the year
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.
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.phpChances 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.
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.
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.)
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
I miss the old Wazu macro bug in Word from way back when!
Pooty tweet
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.
Was Bill Gates head exploding.
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
Where's the "haha" tag, or the "kdawsonfud" tag?
What?
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.
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.
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."
My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
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.
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.
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.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
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.
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?
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.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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...
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
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.
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.
> 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...
"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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
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.
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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).
Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
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.
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.
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
Or, you can just order them with the 'educational discount'. It isn't like they check up on that one very carefully....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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...
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.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.
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.
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).
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
"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.
Just need the big Steve Jobs presentation: Introducing the "iBM"
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
...DIFFERENT
...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
And let's not forget the easy expandability of external drives. FW800 is nice.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Wait.. A G5? WTF?
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
thx e
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.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
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)
Or you could simply just buy a 3-button mouse with scrollwheel, Logitech still makes them.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
Ok, then why didn't they release a Linux version of Notes a long time ago?
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.
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
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.
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.