As does yours about understanding how the corperate environment works. Yes linux is powerful but it can by no means replace the average desktop user *YET*. Your ignorance in comprehension of this article is typical of the everyday linux zealot. You keep focusing on support costs and how easy it is for the IT department to do whatever with a lnux machine. The IT department isnt what directly makes the company money. Until you understand this very simple and juvenile principle, only then will you understand the article.
I challenge you to cite studies that actually demonstrate that OS X is any easier to learn or use than Gnome, KDE, or Windows.
Umm fuckin common sense? Dont tell me you are actually idiotic enough to try to debate that Linux has no learning curve? That OS X is not just about the easiset OS to learn. Did you play near to many powerlines when you were growing up?
In our own experience with the platform, we find that users have about the same number of problems with OS X as with other platforms.
In OUR experience? You and your mom in the basement of your house does not count as a quantifier.
In fact, the idiosyncratic design of OS X (e.g., menu bar, single button mouse, admin tools, drag-and-drop installation, different visual appearance, etc.) makes for high retraining costs of existing users in our experience, and makes the platform difficult to use for people who need to use multiple platforms.
In case you HAVENT noticed macs function just like windows machines as well. It also supports dragand drops - when and *IF* using a one button mouse hold down the coontrol key and you will access the "right click" menu...or like other slightly intelligent people have figured out you can simply buy a two button mouse you mororn. A menu bar eh
? Like a little something called a Dock? The thing that looks just like a windows toolbar? Your'e and idiot, really if you cant see the parallels you are a bonafied idiot. Lowering retraining and support costs...highly doubtful - why dont YOU post some studies done that shows having your users switching to linux lowers your retaining and support costs. Linux is the most complicated OS out onthe market - THAT is common sense. We arent taling about retraining and support costs anyway - we are talking about replacing existing desktops in a corperation with Macs bc Macs increase user productivity. No one gives a shit about the cost to the smallest department (IT support)in the entire company. The "worker bees" are what matters.
I dont think your capable of fully understanding the point of this. Large corperations dont give a shit about if their IT staff knows how to use linux - I would hope they already do. Are their applications that can be installled on linux that can fully replace WITH THE SAME OR BETTER CAPABILITY as existing software applications. The answer is NO it cannot. We are talking about uses of Mac in the corperate environment. We are talking about the secrataries, accountants, customer service, human resources, lawyers, CEO's, sales, etc...can those people switch to linux and be provided with better software than they already use to do their jobs. Let me answer for you....NOOOOOOOOOO!
No one gives a shit about how easy it is to administrate Linux machines. The point of OS X in the corperate environment is how productive the machine enables the employee to be. Productive employees make the company more money - thus the COST of compters at that point is all relevant.
Stop focusing on the structure of the operating system and START focusing on user productivity. There is a STEEEEEEEEP learning curve for the average user to comprehend much less USE linux on a day today basis. IT dept is a much smaller percentage of staff when compared to the rest of the company.
I dont think its so much understanding what Linux is...as it is that companies want to obtain technologies that get them where they need or want to be.
In other words they want to buy shit that lasts and works without having to pay a bijilion dollars for someoen to configure and constantly maintain it (ie. lots of uptime).
OK...here we go. I am not a 'veteran' of sorts but I do have a multitude of experience with DoD, and civilian employers. I am still learning as I probably will throughout my lifetime. Lets not troll on me because I do not try to personfiy myself as someone I am not. I am simply going to try to rationalize aa lot of the hatingthats going on in this thread.
OK first of all Macs last A LOT longer than Wintel machines. On average Mac consumers buy a new Mac 5-6 years before they buy new ones. Windows machines you typically buy every 3-4 years.
Lets be rational for a moment. The noted percentages of Macs in the corperate environment would be justafiable given Apples increase in sales over the past years. Business sales at the loal Apple store would definitley lead me to believe the percentages reported are in fact true.
Heres what you people are missing. For those who still think Mac uses Appletalk as its networking protocol please read slowley and carfully.
While Mac machines may cost more in the corperate environment but after you purchase all of the software for the Wintel machines that comes *note*, COMES STANDARD with OS X you save a few hundred dollars. Office for Mac still gives traditional Wintel users the Office environment. The Free BSD based Darwin Kernel is a hell of a lot more secure than the NT Kernel.
OK now for the meat and potatoes of what I wanted to get at. You may or may not spend more or less on a Mac pending on what amount and type of software you need to purchase additionally. HOWEVER The cost savings comes in at the support level. I would just about gaurantee that a Mac OS X network would not only require less 'administration' than a Wintel network, but I would also require less money spent on security for the network as well. Therefore the SysAdmins of the network that make 40-80k a year (ballpark) on a Wintel network can probably be reduced by 1/3. That would sure as HELL make up for the +-200 bucks that buying a mac machine MIGHT (probably WONT) cost you.
I wish a study would be done on the ratio of SysAdmins per machine for a Wintel and Apple network. Then some of the ignorance of Wintel zealots may be exposed.
OS X is fully compatable with Windows servers. Hell OS X Tiger servers in my opinion can outperform and functionally replace Windows 2003 Servers without any loss to the clients. Then again it all depends on how you configure your severs.
Lets get something straight. A Unix based server should last you a hell of a lot longer than 3 years. If it doesnt you should fire your entire IT staff.
Keeping hardware and software up to date? I dont think you understand Macintosh. Apple keeps the same hardware platform for significantly longer than Wintel machines. Also Apples software is designed to work specifically with the current hardware standards. Keeping your hardware and software updated is a lame point to make. Apple software is integrated to work within itself. on Windows platforms you usually have to work within the vendors software suite, but Apple has so much built in to the OS its pretty much compatable with anything out of the box.
[quote]
Yes Macs do have problems (and I had a nightmare with an SMB to NT server today with OS 10.4), but as a desktop machine they are rock solid and generally people don't waste as much time trying to get things to work.
[/quote]
And you assume this isnt a flaw in the Windows NT Server itself? You assume it is tha Macs fault?
Slashdot Mirror
As does yours about understanding how the corperate environment works. Yes linux is powerful but it can by no means replace the average desktop user *YET*. Your ignorance in comprehension of this article is typical of the everyday linux zealot. You keep focusing on support costs and how easy it is for the IT department to do whatever with a lnux machine. The IT department isnt what directly makes the company money. Until you understand this very simple and juvenile principle, only then will you understand the article.
Umm fuckin common sense? Dont tell me you are actually idiotic enough to try to debate that Linux has no learning curve? That OS X is not just about the easiset OS to learn. Did you play near to many powerlines when you were growing up?
In our own experience with the platform, we find that users have about the same number of problems with OS X as with other platforms.
In OUR experience? You and your mom in the basement of your house does not count as a quantifier.
In fact, the idiosyncratic design of OS X (e.g., menu bar, single button mouse, admin tools, drag-and-drop installation, different visual appearance, etc.) makes for high retraining costs of existing users in our experience, and makes the platform difficult to use for people who need to use multiple platforms.
In case you HAVENT noticed macs function just like windows machines as well. It also supports dragand drops - when and *IF* using a one button mouse hold down the coontrol key and you will access the "right click" menu...or like other slightly intelligent people have figured out you can simply buy a two button mouse you mororn. A menu bar eh ? Like a little something called a Dock? The thing that looks just like a windows toolbar? Your'e and idiot, really if you cant see the parallels you are a bonafied idiot. Lowering retraining and support costs...highly doubtful - why dont YOU post some studies done that shows having your users switching to linux lowers your retaining and support costs. Linux is the most complicated OS out onthe market - THAT is common sense. We arent taling about retraining and support costs anyway - we are talking about replacing existing desktops in a corperation with Macs bc Macs increase user productivity. No one gives a shit about the cost to the smallest department (IT support)in the entire company. The "worker bees" are what matters.
Freggin n00b.
I dont think your capable of fully understanding the point of this. Large corperations dont give a shit about if their IT staff knows how to use linux - I would hope they already do. Are their applications that can be installled on linux that can fully replace WITH THE SAME OR BETTER CAPABILITY as existing software applications. The answer is NO it cannot. We are talking about uses of Mac in the corperate environment. We are talking about the secrataries, accountants, customer service, human resources, lawyers, CEO's, sales, etc...can those people switch to linux and be provided with better software than they already use to do their jobs. Let me answer for you....NOOOOOOOOOO!
No one gives a shit about how easy it is to administrate Linux machines. The point of OS X in the corperate environment is how productive the machine enables the employee to be. Productive employees make the company more money - thus the COST of compters at that point is all relevant.
Stop focusing on the structure of the operating system and START focusing on user productivity. There is a STEEEEEEEEP learning curve for the average user to comprehend much less USE linux on a day today basis. IT dept is a much smaller percentage of staff when compared to the rest of the company.
you n00b
I dont think its so much understanding what Linux is...as it is that companies want to obtain technologies that get them where they need or want to be. In other words they want to buy shit that lasts and works without having to pay a bijilion dollars for someoen to configure and constantly maintain it (ie. lots of uptime).
OK...here we go. I am not a 'veteran' of sorts but I do have a multitude of experience with DoD, and civilian employers. I am still learning as I probably will throughout my lifetime. Lets not troll on me because I do not try to personfiy myself as someone I am not. I am simply going to try to rationalize aa lot of the hatingthats going on in this thread.
OK first of all Macs last A LOT longer than Wintel machines. On average Mac consumers buy a new Mac 5-6 years before they buy new ones. Windows machines you typically buy every 3-4 years.
Lets be rational for a moment. The noted percentages of Macs in the corperate environment would be justafiable given Apples increase in sales over the past years. Business sales at the loal Apple store would definitley lead me to believe the percentages reported are in fact true.
Heres what you people are missing. For those who still think Mac uses Appletalk as its networking protocol please read slowley and carfully.
While Mac machines may cost more in the corperate environment but after you purchase all of the software for the Wintel machines that comes *note*, COMES STANDARD with OS X you save a few hundred dollars. Office for Mac still gives traditional Wintel users the Office environment. The Free BSD based Darwin Kernel is a hell of a lot more secure than the NT Kernel.
OK now for the meat and potatoes of what I wanted to get at. You may or may not spend more or less on a Mac pending on what amount and type of software you need to purchase additionally. HOWEVER The cost savings comes in at the support level. I would just about gaurantee that a Mac OS X network would not only require less 'administration' than a Wintel network, but I would also require less money spent on security for the network as well. Therefore the SysAdmins of the network that make 40-80k a year (ballpark) on a Wintel network can probably be reduced by 1/3. That would sure as HELL make up for the +-200 bucks that buying a mac machine MIGHT (probably WONT) cost you.
I wish a study would be done on the ratio of SysAdmins per machine for a Wintel and Apple network. Then some of the ignorance of Wintel zealots may be exposed.
OS X is fully compatable with Windows servers. Hell OS X Tiger servers in my opinion can outperform and functionally replace Windows 2003 Servers without any loss to the clients. Then again it all depends on how you configure your severs.
Lets get something straight. A Unix based server should last you a hell of a lot longer than 3 years. If it doesnt you should fire your entire IT staff. Keeping hardware and software up to date? I dont think you understand Macintosh. Apple keeps the same hardware platform for significantly longer than Wintel machines. Also Apples software is designed to work specifically with the current hardware standards. Keeping your hardware and software updated is a lame point to make. Apple software is integrated to work within itself. on Windows platforms you usually have to work within the vendors software suite, but Apple has so much built in to the OS its pretty much compatable with anything out of the box.
[quote] Yes Macs do have problems (and I had a nightmare with an SMB to NT server today with OS 10.4), but as a desktop machine they are rock solid and generally people don't waste as much time trying to get things to work. [/quote] And you assume this isnt a flaw in the Windows NT Server itself? You assume it is tha Macs fault?