"Can I easily integrate my Mac into an existing Active Directory setup yet?"
It takes about 2 minutes to join a Mac to an Active Directory domain. Users and admins authenticate against the domain properly as with a Windows box. I believe you can do custom GPO style stuff for the Mac - but I think that's bit beyond "easy".
From a commercial basis, Rogue-a-likes just evolved into games like Diablo picking up the action element from games like the arcade Gauntlet and Gateway to Apshai. The most recent commercial examples include be Titan Quest and Fate. Fate even borrows the pet concept from Nethack (I'm sure it was in other Rogue-a-likes - I'm not expert).
Thanks for mentioning that. I hate that people think WoW invented what is the now practically the defacto style of MMO UI. In fact WoW's UI without plugins is much less flexible than a lot of MMO UIs out there (such as EQ2).
I would add Elebits to the list. I know it has received mixed reviews but I've really enjoyed it. I think so far it has the best feeling FPS controls and some great gravity gun style action. The one downside is that frame rates drop pretty bad in the later levels when you start throwing cars around. That - and if kiddie graphics and story turn you off you might have a hard time enjoying it.
Lord of the Rings Online sure looks like it's aiming at the WoW player base. Very familiar interface, easy to get into, very nice graphics, that LOTR world. Nicely done stuff with instances as well.
The biggest difference between something like Dell or Gateways all-in-ones is that there is of course someone else likely to be selling what you need at a reasonable cost. Moving from a PC to a Mac can be a hard thing because you lose this freedom. Especially if you are an enthusiast that wants certain components. For more general users it isn't a problem. Apple did used to have a number of models that catered to different individuals needs. This of course peaked in the mid 90s with way too many models and serious consumer confusion. What Apple has done completely makes sense to them financially and to their main target market (basic consumer computer users). I use my home computer for gaming, coding and connecting to the office network. Sure a Mac Pro would do this ok, but it would be a worse game machine at a higher price point. I have a work MacBook Pro which is fine enough, so I guess I can just dream that Apple will someday give me a system I want, a system comparable to a mid-range standard PC desktop. On the Enterprise side the one area I have constantly run into problems with is AFP and the Apple file system. Our Production staff currently uses Linux based NAS devices which support AFP to a degree, but searching from within OSX doesn't work. Apple has made a decent effort to support SMB but really what I would like is more vendor to support AFP - especially since my designers have a habit of using odd characters in their filenames (the same goes for materials we receive from outside service bureaus). You are correct that in general OSX interoperates pretty well with other systems. I know the Enterprise isn't Apple's target market but given that OSX is pretty much the most user-friendly UNIX out there, I guess I'd like to see them make a bit more effort.
You might be right re: the anti-trust, but Apple has such good press that if there was ever a time to try it - now would be the time. Especially given the fiasco that is the Vista launch. I don't think Apple could survive just making money from the OS. They'd also run into the same problem regarding piracy as MS. As it is most Mac users I know pirate OSX upgrades (generally casually and without thought to it being bad) and I doubt Steve really cares. That isn't where they are making their money. Regarding what I'd have them do re: hardware. It's not that I mind having only a few options, what I mind is how Apple has deliberately broken down their product line. It makes perfect sense for them to do things like limit an iMac to 2 DIMM slots and no video upgrade. But it doesn't make sense to me. I want expansion, I want to be able to upgrade later to a 24" monitor without having to through out my Mac. I don't want an all in one but the Mac Pro is overkill and out of my price range. The reasons for the Mac line existing in it's current state are purely due to feeding Apple's bottom line. Great for them but no choice for me. Now in the Enterprise space where Apple barely makes a dent, if they can't give me more options, I would love to see them partner with a high end server provider like Sun or EMC or whoever to create a real set of offerings. The Xserve alone just doesn't cut it and XSAN is lacking in most features vs current SAN offerings. I'd love to give Apple more money on the corporate side, but they don't make it easy for me. (And for the record we have about 1/3 of our desktops as Macs, as well as Xserves in the data center)
"The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore."
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess you are saying that Microsoft would bury them but that might be harder than you think giving the potential for anti-trust lawsuits. The real reason OSX doesn't run on generic x86 hardware (without hacking) is:
Apple makes their money off of hardware.
The second reason is that by controlling the hardware Apple can provide an OS that only targets a small subset of x86 hardware. This means that it is much easier to create an OS which is stable and consistent versus the Windows situation where a single bad driver can cause system instability. The user who experiences the BSOD is going to blame Microsoft even though it might be the driver for their $1.50 NIC causing the crash.
The problem for me is that Apple, in controlling their hardware, has created very strict market segments for their computers. They don't want iMac sales to inch in on their Mac Pros, so they limit the RAM slots and any form of upgrading. I need the expansion of a Mac Pro but it's out of my price range and to be honest dual Xeons is over kill for me. Steve won't make a nice mid range expandable desktop Mac any more. I find that just as crappy as anything MS does.
But the version of OSX that was available 6 years ago was a lot worse than the current one. Apple has made a lot of improvements over the past 6 years.
We run Apple File Protocol over IP (originally part of AppleTalk) rather than using SMB. I HAVE run into permissions problems several times. I'm not entirely sure what causes this. I have seen some software installs cause the problem. Even so, it isn't a big deal but can throw you for a loop the first time you experience it. OSX has some of it's own quirks just as WinXP does. If you have to admin OSX boxes you will learn to deal with them. I think Windows only IT departments sometimes have a "fear of Mac" because they aren't willing to learn the details. I guess I had it easier coming from both a design background using and troubleshooting OS 6-9 and also a UNIX/Linux background which means I'm very comfortable with bash and the nuts and bolts underpinnings of OSX.
I guess you don't work in REAL business. One of the companies that I manage IT for is a large magazine publisher. For the most part editorial and art/production staff are required to use Macs due to software needs. Other departments such as sales are required to use PCs due to the CRM (customer relationship management) software. Believe it or not, they do need to communicate to each other and set meetings with each other even *shocking* setup shared calendars for projects. Oh but I guess they wouldn't be "real Mac users, anyway". You know these people only use the Mac everyday to create and *shocking again* make money.
"If anything, I could see this influence going in the opposite direction-- instead of the lack of Exchange support hurting the iPhone, I think you might see the lack of iPhone support being counted against Exchange/Windows."
Um no. Absolutely not. Exchange is a corporate messaging platform. There is no way businesses are going to give up Exchange features they use on a daily basis because of a phone. The users I've switched to Macs (because of their particular job) have a hard enough time dealing with Entourage's so-so Exchange support.
Well I work in a mixed environment. We have a lot of Macs. We have a lot of PCs. I'd love someone to come out with at corporate messaging product that worked on both properly. As it stands even MS Entourage is BAD for use with Exchange, but it's the best Mac option. I don't have the luxury of standardized smart phones at the office. We've tried but top level execs have always vetoed because they want to pick the device of their choosing and IT should be able to make it work.
Blackberries don't REQUIRE Exchange, they are just a lot more fiddly to configure without it and you lose some features. I mean they will function as well as a POP client but I don't think you get free/busy scheduling, meetings, shared folder support etc. Speaking imap is one thing - but here's exactly the nightmare that will happen to many IT folks that do HAVE to run an Exchange environment (keep in mind it's usually the top level execs that want Exchange implemented). Clueless exec will buy phone and the immediate request will to have it synchronize with Exchange ("Like my Blackberry did"). I've seen this happen so many times it isn't funny.
You are correct about the Mac Pro actually being a more flexible server platform than the Xserve. The issue is that I need the unit to be rack mountable. And you are also correct in that I need to just pay EXTRA for equipment I DON'T NEED because of Apple's inflexibility. I also needed a spare part kit because I can't get proper support turnaround from Apple in my region (never mind that I live in a major American city). Indeed this is exactly what I specced out. The problem was that when it hit the bean counters the parts kit and large drives pushed the system over budget by more than $1500. I think my point is valid and not flaming. If Apple wants to compete in the enterprise market they can't just offer one server model with very few configuration options. Sure you can go to third party vendors to get hardware RAID or properly sized drives etc. but now you have multiple parts from multiple vendors covered by multiple warranties and service contracts. Great if you have a couple of servers to manage but not if you have a couple dozen or more.
Can you point to information about RAID 5 in software? I tried the OS X RAID documentation on Apple's site and it said RAID 0 or 1. So I should have to go to a third party vendor and price separate RAID hardware and drives to put into my Xserve? You don't think Apple should be offering RAID as standard configuration in their build to order? All I'm hearing here is that I can't use Apple as a true enterprise vendor because every solution people suggest requires doing things like ripping out the drive that came with the Xserve, installing third party hardware and drives. You think this is better than single sourcing a correctly configured server and having all of the hardware be under a single support contract?
Slashdot Mirror
"Can I easily integrate my Mac into an existing Active Directory setup yet?"
It takes about 2 minutes to join a Mac to an Active Directory domain. Users and admins authenticate against the domain properly as with a Windows box.
I believe you can do custom GPO style stuff for the Mac - but I think that's bit beyond "easy".
From a commercial basis, Rogue-a-likes just evolved into games like Diablo picking up the action element from games like the arcade Gauntlet and Gateway to Apshai.
The most recent commercial examples include be Titan Quest and Fate. Fate even borrows the pet concept from Nethack (I'm sure it was in other Rogue-a-likes - I'm not expert).
Thanks for mentioning that. I hate that people think WoW invented what is the now practically the defacto style of MMO UI. In fact WoW's UI without plugins is much less flexible than a lot of MMO UIs out there (such as EQ2).
I would add Elebits to the list. I know it has received mixed reviews but I've really enjoyed it. I think so far it has the best feeling FPS controls and some great gravity gun style action.
The one downside is that frame rates drop pretty bad in the later levels when you start throwing cars around. That - and if kiddie graphics and story turn you off you might have a hard time enjoying it.
Lord of the Rings Online sure looks like it's aiming at the WoW player base. Very familiar interface, easy to get into, very nice graphics, that LOTR world. Nicely done stuff with instances as well.
"The first thing I noticed after switching from Windows to Mac OS X almost six years ago is its complete lack of distractions."
Vista wasn't out six years ago. He's probably talking about a popup infested 98 or ME system.
The biggest difference between something like Dell or Gateways all-in-ones is that there is of course someone else likely to be selling what you need at a reasonable cost. Moving from a PC to a Mac can be a hard thing because you lose this freedom. Especially if you are an enthusiast that wants certain components. For more general users it isn't a problem.
Apple did used to have a number of models that catered to different individuals needs. This of course peaked in the mid 90s with way too many models and serious consumer confusion. What Apple has done completely makes sense to them financially and to their main target market (basic consumer computer users).
I use my home computer for gaming, coding and connecting to the office network. Sure a Mac Pro would do this ok, but it would be a worse game machine at a higher price point. I have a work MacBook Pro which is fine enough, so I guess I can just dream that Apple will someday give me a system I want, a system comparable to a mid-range standard PC desktop.
On the Enterprise side the one area I have constantly run into problems with is AFP and the Apple file system. Our Production staff currently uses Linux based NAS devices which support AFP to a degree, but searching from within OSX doesn't work. Apple has made a decent effort to support SMB but really what I would like is more vendor to support AFP - especially since my designers have a habit of using odd characters in their filenames (the same goes for materials we receive from outside service bureaus). You are correct that in general OSX interoperates pretty well with other systems.
I know the Enterprise isn't Apple's target market but given that OSX is pretty much the most user-friendly UNIX out there, I guess I'd like to see them make a bit more effort.
You might be right re: the anti-trust, but Apple has such good press that if there was ever a time to try it - now would be the time. Especially given the fiasco that is the Vista launch.
I don't think Apple could survive just making money from the OS. They'd also run into the same problem regarding piracy as MS. As it is most Mac users I know pirate OSX upgrades (generally casually and without thought to it being bad) and I doubt Steve really cares. That isn't where they are making their money.
Regarding what I'd have them do re: hardware. It's not that I mind having only a few options, what I mind is how Apple has deliberately broken down their product line. It makes perfect sense for them to do things like limit an iMac to 2 DIMM slots and no video upgrade. But it doesn't make sense to me. I want expansion, I want to be able to upgrade later to a 24" monitor without having to through out my Mac. I don't want an all in one but the Mac Pro is overkill and out of my price range. The reasons for the Mac line existing in it's current state are purely due to feeding Apple's bottom line. Great for them but no choice for me.
Now in the Enterprise space where Apple barely makes a dent, if they can't give me more options, I would love to see them partner with a high end server provider like Sun or EMC or whoever to create a real set of offerings. The Xserve alone just doesn't cut it and XSAN is lacking in most features vs current SAN offerings. I'd love to give Apple more money on the corporate side, but they don't make it easy for me.
(And for the record we have about 1/3 of our desktops as Macs, as well as Xserves in the data center)
"The problem is Apple's main product would directly compete with an abusive monopoly, and that means it would die and we would not get to use it anymore."
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that. I guess you are saying that Microsoft would bury them but that might be harder than you think giving the potential for anti-trust lawsuits.
The real reason OSX doesn't run on generic x86 hardware (without hacking) is:
Apple makes their money off of hardware.
The second reason is that by controlling the hardware Apple can provide an OS that only targets a small subset of x86 hardware. This means that it is much easier to create an OS which is stable and consistent versus the Windows situation where a single bad driver can cause system instability. The user who experiences the BSOD is going to blame Microsoft even though it might be the driver for their $1.50 NIC causing the crash.
The problem for me is that Apple, in controlling their hardware, has created very strict market segments for their computers. They don't want iMac sales to inch in on their Mac Pros, so they limit the RAM slots and any form of upgrading. I need the expansion of a Mac Pro but it's out of my price range and to be honest dual Xeons is over kill for me. Steve won't make a nice mid range expandable desktop Mac any more. I find that just as crappy as anything MS does.
But the version of OSX that was available 6 years ago was a lot worse than the current one. Apple has made a lot of improvements over the past 6 years.
Does System 7 support AFP over IP? I thought that came in OS 8...
We run Apple File Protocol over IP (originally part of AppleTalk) rather than using SMB.
I HAVE run into permissions problems several times. I'm not entirely sure what causes this. I have seen some software installs cause the problem. Even so, it isn't a big deal but can throw you for a loop the first time you experience it.
OSX has some of it's own quirks just as WinXP does. If you have to admin OSX boxes you will learn to deal with them. I think Windows only IT departments sometimes have a "fear of Mac" because they aren't willing to learn the details.
I guess I had it easier coming from both a design background using and troubleshooting OS 6-9 and also a UNIX/Linux background which means I'm very comfortable with bash and the nuts and bolts underpinnings of OSX.
Just make sure you provide a .nzb file.
Which I've had extremely good help from. And they speak English.
I guess you don't work in REAL business. One of the companies that I manage IT for is a large magazine publisher. For the most part editorial and art/production staff are required to use Macs due to software needs. Other departments such as sales are required to use PCs due to the CRM (customer relationship management) software. Believe it or not, they do need to communicate to each other and set meetings with each other even *shocking* setup shared calendars for projects.
Oh but I guess they wouldn't be "real Mac users, anyway". You know these people only use the Mac everyday to create and *shocking again* make money.
Uh the submitter that reposted the whole article inserted the text about CmrTaco into the story copy. And I'm the troll for noticing it?
"If anything, I could see this influence going in the opposite direction-- instead of the lack of Exchange support hurting the iPhone, I think you might see the lack of iPhone support being counted against Exchange/Windows."
Um no. Absolutely not. Exchange is a corporate messaging platform. There is no way businesses are going to give up Exchange features they use on a daily basis because of a phone. The users I've switched to Macs (because of their particular job) have a hard enough time dealing with Entourage's so-so Exchange support.
"But I think most people realize that CmdrTaco is a homosexual. I mean, let's be honest."
Nice one.
Well I work in a mixed environment. We have a lot of Macs. We have a lot of PCs. I'd love someone to come out with at corporate messaging product that worked on both properly. As it stands even MS Entourage is BAD for use with Exchange, but it's the best Mac option.
I don't have the luxury of standardized smart phones at the office. We've tried but top level execs have always vetoed because they want to pick the device of their choosing and IT should be able to make it work.
Opinion. Wheeeee. I'd be willing to bet it syncs to Exchange better than the iPhone will.
Blackberries don't REQUIRE Exchange, they are just a lot more fiddly to configure without it and you lose some features. I mean they will function as well as a POP client but I don't think you get free/busy scheduling, meetings, shared folder support etc.
Speaking imap is one thing - but here's exactly the nightmare that will happen to many IT folks that do HAVE to run an Exchange environment (keep in mind it's usually the top level execs that want Exchange implemented). Clueless exec will buy phone and the immediate request will to have it synchronize with Exchange ("Like my Blackberry did"). I've seen this happen so many times it isn't funny.
Windows Mobile phones will do movies and full featured browser as well (Opera for example).
How to remove data in Active Directory after an unsuccessful domain controller demotion.
I believe this will work if you have a DC die on you and you are not planning on recovering it.
You are correct about the Mac Pro actually being a more flexible server platform than the Xserve. The issue is that I need the unit to be rack mountable.
And you are also correct in that I need to just pay EXTRA for equipment I DON'T NEED because of Apple's inflexibility. I also needed a spare part kit because I can't get proper support turnaround from Apple in my region (never mind that I live in a major American city).
Indeed this is exactly what I specced out. The problem was that when it hit the bean counters the parts kit and large drives pushed the system over budget by more than $1500.
I think my point is valid and not flaming. If Apple wants to compete in the enterprise market they can't just offer one server model with very few configuration options. Sure you can go to third party vendors to get hardware RAID or properly sized drives etc. but now you have multiple parts from multiple vendors covered by multiple warranties and service contracts. Great if you have a couple of servers to manage but not if you have a couple dozen or more.
Can you point to information about RAID 5 in software? I tried the OS X RAID documentation on Apple's site and it said RAID 0 or 1.
So I should have to go to a third party vendor and price separate RAID hardware and drives to put into my Xserve? You don't think Apple should be offering RAID as standard configuration in their build to order?
All I'm hearing here is that I can't use Apple as a true enterprise vendor because every solution people suggest requires doing things like ripping out the drive that came with the Xserve, installing third party hardware and drives. You think this is better than single sourcing a correctly configured server and having all of the hardware be under a single support contract?