The problem with Apple is that they do not consider the corporation to be a target audience. They don't allow for corporate volume discounts (that alone is a massive deal breaker, making them substantially more expensive than anything else); and they don't provide customer service packages that mid-to-large corporations expect.
This is not accruate. I am an Apple Authorized Business Agent, and Apple Enterprise sales group absolutely can and does offer corporate dicounts. Check your facts. Call Apple, ask for entrprise sales, and talk turkey. Evidently, you'll be surprised.
"I think there needs to be a much stronger effort by these alternatives to effectively replace Microsoft."
And one way to do this is to offer - and I mean offer not demand, that each person you know use Linux or Mac OS. Find an old Mac, or old PC for them if they can't afford the cost. Find older software, Mac or PC.
This is something that can be done.
The same applies to business...... show them how they can save the cost of MS.
The Update at this url is *not* new, in and of itself.
It was posted 11/18/02 and only revised 3/2/04.
I, for one, have no idea what exactly was revised, nor do I know, yet, whether or not to install it. It doesn't show up in S/ware update. We'll figure it out.;-)
There's lots of counter examples to 'horrible customer support'.
I've had excellent support, usually, and when there have been exceptions to that, polite persistence on my part resolved the issue.
See this article today: Apple Customer Service Report
But then, I know, I'm posting to/.;-)
Saying 'When you're on top, you make a tempting target.' does not, logically, imply that the only reason MS is targeted is because it's popular. It's also targeted because it's easy, and makes a big splash.
Given that Mac OS X is clearly more secure that MS - and yes, you could say that doesn't take much - it does become a more attractive target for those that want to denigrate a good OS. Is it perfect? No, but neither is Linux, or AUX, or Solaris, or.....
Source: CNET: http://news.com.com/2100-1002-5109969.html
Apple has come under fire from some in the security community who feared that it was not planning to patch the Jaguar flaws and that it would instead force people to upgrade. However, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company said it would patch the holes in earlier Mac OS X versions, as it had done in the past.
Whether the results of this "audit" are credible or not depend on how it is done, and what other data is available. If OSS advocates, or better businesses and governments themselves collected and published data as to the costs of running MS software - including installing patches, and generally dealing with viruses, worms et. al...
What would that show about costs? How would it compare to the costs of transitioning to OSS??
Unfortunately, at least your evaluation of Apple is out of date. Cost is often less that an equivelent wintel box these days, and Macs really do last longer, and cost less to support - very few patches to install. In addition, because they are easier to use for 'dumb people', of which, by geek standards, there are lots, the people become more efficient at their work. Your value rating also should be raised, to be accurate to today's facts.
Don't get me wrong, there was a time when what you say was accurate. But that time has past.
From your comments here, though, it sounds as if the original set up would be what was most challenging. I'm far from experienced in this arena, and so really am just wanting to learn from others experience.
Still, given the recent report distributed by CCIA suggesting that diversity of platforms would increase security, this may become more of an issue. And, given that some cite costs of $300,000 a year per 100 boxes just to do MS patches, it would seem that Mac OS X and Linux boxes would cut down on the workload.
How frustrating that folks are arguing Macs vs Linux, when government agencies are shutting down, including Edwards Air Force Base http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm (scroll down), and Msft itself has fallen - already, way before predicted, to an DOS attack http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/08/15/dos/.
You guys are geeks, you're supposed to be smart. How about looking at each individual circumstance and evaluating: what's better *here* Macs or Linux?
Slashdot Mirror
This is not accruate. I am an Apple Authorized Business Agent, and Apple Enterprise sales group absolutely can and does offer corporate dicounts. Check your facts. Call Apple, ask for entrprise sales, and talk turkey. Evidently, you'll be surprised.
Accuracy lacking on this one:
Options that went to the CEO were cancelled, never used.
Get your facts straight, dude.
Not sure whether or not this makes your case, but take a look:M icrosoft_Chronology.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_EU_
"Key dates in EU Action vs. Microsoft"
"Name a viable alternative...."
There are, though, for many of these, viable alternatives on Mac OS X. Not all, granted.
But many. It's an education process.
Surprisingly often, a full comparison of prices will show that Mac OS X will actually be the cheaper option.
"I think there needs to be a much stronger effort by these alternatives to effectively replace Microsoft."
And one way to do this is to offer - and I mean offer not demand, that each person you know use Linux or Mac OS. Find an old Mac, or old PC for them if they can't afford the cost. Find older software, Mac or PC.
This is something that can be done.
The same applies to business...... show them how they can save the cost of MS.
The Update at this url is *not* new, in and of itself. ;-)
It was posted 11/18/02 and only revised 3/2/04.
I, for one, have no idea what exactly was revised, nor do I know, yet, whether or not to install it. It doesn't show up in S/ware update. We'll figure it out.
There's lots of counter examples to 'horrible customer support'. I've had excellent support, usually, and when there have been exceptions to that, polite persistence on my part resolved the issue. See this article today: Apple Customer Service Report But then, I know, I'm posting to /. ;-)
I can both "disappear the cursor" and "use HotKeys" on my Mac OS X machine. Mac OS 10.3.2 Not quite sure why you'd have a problem with them....?
Saying 'When you're on top, you make a tempting target.' does not, logically, imply that the only reason MS is targeted is because it's popular. It's also targeted because it's easy, and makes a big splash. Given that Mac OS X is clearly more secure that MS - and yes, you could say that doesn't take much - it does become a more attractive target for those that want to denigrate a good OS. Is it perfect? No, but neither is Linux, or AUX, or Solaris, or.....
Mod this UP!!! It answers the issue.... 'On topic'
Source: CNET: http://news.com.com/2100-1002-5109969.html Apple has come under fire from some in the security community who feared that it was not planning to patch the Jaguar flaws and that it would instead force people to upgrade. However, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company said it would patch the holes in earlier Mac OS X versions, as it had done in the past.
Apple is on record saying they will provide security fixes for all versions of OS X. In some cases, the press has not caught up with this fact.
Whether the results of this "audit" are credible or not depend on how it is done, and what other data is available. ...
If OSS advocates, or better businesses and governments themselves collected and published data as to the costs of running MS software - including installing patches, and generally dealing with viruses, worms et. al
What would that show about costs? How would it compare to the costs of transitioning to OSS??
Unfortunately, at least your evaluation of Apple is out of date. Cost is often less that an equivelent wintel box these days, and Macs really do last longer, and cost less to support - very few patches to install. In addition, because they are easier to use for 'dumb people', of which, by geek standards, there are lots, the people become more efficient at their work. Your value rating also should be raised, to be accurate to today's facts. Don't get me wrong, there was a time when what you say was accurate. But that time has past.
From your comments here, though, it sounds as if the original set up would be what was most challenging. I'm far from experienced in this arena, and so really am just wanting to learn from others experience. Still, given the recent report distributed by CCIA suggesting that diversity of platforms would increase security, this may become more of an issue. And, given that some cite costs of $300,000 a year per 100 boxes just to do MS patches, it would seem that Mac OS X and Linux boxes would cut down on the workload.
How frustrating that folks are arguing Macs vs Linux, when government agencies are shutting down, including Edwards Air Force Base http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm (scroll down), and Msft itself has fallen - already, way before predicted, to an DOS attack http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/08/15/dos /.
You guys are geeks, you're supposed to be smart. How about looking at each individual circumstance and evaluating: what's better *here* Macs or Linux?