Thank you for being polite, and replying with a well thought out and intelligent reply. It's refreshing here on/.
I wont even jump into security (at the end of the day, a platform that has more attacks and is slightly more secure may still net to be more vulnerable than one that has less security and less attacks.)
Very valid theory. But first, as I'm sure you know, security is a process. You must be vigilant in not clicking on random thing, ad naseum, using a firewall, permissions, etc. This is true of any OS. But now Windows has the edge in security technologies on the internet facing front. The problem now is because of permissions and both OS's are hardened, malware is now taking the approach of avoiding the attempt to get admin/root altogether. It's far more effective to infect the common software found on a system and infect/control/etc it. Witness the popularity of drive-by ad malware. And that's the thing. MS has proven that its software that comes with it has significantly less vulnerabilities than Apple's. The amount of vulnerabilities in Safari, Quicktime, and Itunes are simply staggering.
It's at the point where Apple software is becoming the new IE 6.
That's the point. But I don't blame you because the FUD over the years on both sides is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
I will say due to experience (that I posted in another point off this conversation) that macs seem to be extremely durable.
HP, Toshiba, Acer and Asus computers I have worked with have proven to be disapointingly breakable. I have not worked with a Sony laptop nor talked in person with anyone that has, so I can't comment on those. I had a Thinkpad Lenovo from work that was very durable. Overall that one was a worthwille machine, but also had a chasis that made it feel as if I was moving national secrets in the thing, it was bulky and square. Looking at it made me think the thing should had been bulletproof. But has been one of the few pc laptops that didn't overheat nor did it break by father time winking at it. Macs, so far, have been extremely durable.
I do hate the magnetic power cord in the mac-minis. It's too easy to unplug it while poping in a USB drive and unlike laptops, the thing has no battery.
Thank you for at least being open to alternatives and addressing real credible issues instead of typical fanboy FUD rhetoric.
iLife is not a thing I would buy a mac for, but it's a nice thing to have. I find Picasa has a better face recognition than iPhoto, but that's about it. iPhoto has a lot of cooler features. iWeb is amazingly easy to use, my wife has made cool looking webpages in the thing and she is the type that attempts to align text in Word by spamming spaces at the left of certain words! iMovie kicks Windows Movie Maker's ass all the way to the stratosphere. Window's offering is just an afterthought. iMovie is a blissful experience in video editing.
While it may be a useful software package, I wouldn't base my choice of an entire OS ecosystem around iLife, one mediocre software application
As for usability, well, my wife has not asked me once how to do anything on the Mac since she got it (well other than the few apps she think she can install but gets the windows version by accident, something she has slowly learned to avoid, can't wait for the Apple App Store for Mac.) Despite having used windows for much longer, she still constantly bugs me to help her with this or that when she works on a PC. So yea, I'd say Apple has managed to make Mac OS X very usable. Exception: iTunes syncing, although I find it easy she has a hard time trying to sync music into her iPod.
See my comments about useability above. But I think it's more than she knows Macs aren't Windows, so she accepts that there is a new way of doing things and learns them. Whereas with Windows, she just probably got used to a way working with it at work and at home
The beauty is I don't have to. It's available on their site to anyone who would like to see it. And it's the general consensus among security experts now.
Provide a link this isn't true, or STFU fanboy.
And wow are you a fanboy! You wrote 5 or 6 lame fanboy responses to one comment I made. Wow buddy.
So I'm waiting. Cue the Apple fanboy "But-but-but it's true because it happens only on Wednesdays under a full moon when Jupiter is aligned with Venus between 10:35 and 10:37 pm!!! See!".
Ah the whipping out of the "Macs aren't overpriced card," complete with manipulated build configs on a website to prove it. I'll bite.
Same form factor, are you high? Seriously?
Maybe not to a fanboy, but to normal person who wants an ultraportable, yes.
Is 2-7 times thicker depending where you measure. (1.5" -.8" for Lenovo,.68" to.11" for MBA).59lbs is quite a bit of weight in this class.
I don't measure the size of my e-peen by how how many microns thinner a computer is.
The Lenovo machine has Intel graphics.
Perfectly adequate for a machine in this segment. You're not running games on a MBA either.
They do not even offer an SSD in their standard builds...It would cost you 1259 to build a machine with an i3, 2GB RAM, intel graphics and 128GB SSD. So there is no price advantage.
1) Yes they do. Just add the option. 2) They don't even have i3's. They go right to Core i5. Big difference. MBA's aren't even in the same league. 3) You're arguing the price card? By comparing an awesome Thinkpad ultraportable to a $1000 Apple netbook?
If it works like every other Lenovo laptop I have seen (and I have witnessed this happen to 3 and seen the aftermath on 6 or 7 more) picking it up by one of the front corners will snap the plastic.
Anecodotal evidence does not a truth make. I've witnessed it NOT snapping. See? Mine is as just as good as yours. And are you seriously knocking a Thinkpad's build quality? There are millions who disagree with you.
You can't with this one buddy.
Cue the Apple fanboy "But-but-but it's true because it happens only on Wednesdays under a full moon when Jupiter is aligned with Venus between 10:35 and 10:37 pm!!! See!".
Forgot to add the most important part (see my other reply).
Your whole reply here is going off topic. Snap back to my original premis. This reply is just to evade the main part that you're just plain wrong and misinformed.
If you honestly believe windows is more secure then, I don't know what to tell you.
It's been accepted now by security experts (not so-called geeks spouting the same FUD since 1999) for a good year or two now. Go look it up. Also, there are a lot of new security technologies in place that OSX doesn't have.
I do a ton of photo work and iPhoto has a ton of features that no other program I have used has or has as elegantly or usable. Sorry. (and I play guitar and enjoy the simplicity of Garageband since I'm not a pro, I don't own a Mac but that is something I would dig.)
We can argue this until you're blue in the face. iPhoto is regarded as a poor application. There are a myriad of better alternatives. And millions of people don't need Garageband.
HP Envy is essentially the same price as a MBP and very close in hardware at those prices.
Not this again. Just... no.
The 13" MBP doesn't even have an OPTION for a 7200 RPM HD or a Core i3/5/7. And the other envy is a 17". Even fully decked out with a Core i7, 8GB of RAM, Blu-ray, and a 500 GB 7200 RPM HD, it's about $200-400 cheaper than a MBP 15" and $1,500 cheaper than the MBP 17"
Most of the tech you mentioned is for benchmarks or gaming on a home PC. Not average userland. The MBP and iMacs play modern games just fine and have perfectly normal GPUs. I'm not a hardcore gamer and a NV 9600GT is in my PC.
No problem. Let's expand the list. In just 5 seconds, I could name no USB 3.0. No blu-ray. No e-SATA ports. No HDMI ports. That not useful to you?
And sure they play modern games fine. At the lowest settings, lowest details, and they can only play about 10% of the games out there! Good example!
Windows 7 is a massive improvement and I love it. It is still terribly flawed in usability. OSX shines there. Sure, you have to do it their way but that is the tradeoff. I'd love to see Meego or Ubuntu Unity really take off.
You really think usability is superior? You really think that?
The incredibly small buttons used in most applications are easy to hit quickly? Itunes and Quicktime are good at useability and interface? That the inconsistant look of applications are good? That half of the time you hover over an application, there is no tool-tip, so you're left wondering what the hell you press? Only being able to resize a window from one *tiny* little corner, forcing you to take like 5 minutes to hit it and find it, is good?
I think Win 7 is excellent is usability. But I won't argue, like you, that it's superior because it's subjective. And OSX you can't say follows the HIG anymore. If anything, Gnome is more true to the HIG and is usable as an interface and more consistent. And you're making Unity the example of usability? The thing is practically alpha software and to date the most it does is a re-invented program launcher. Seriously?
"In addition, malware and viruses are prevented with the use of permissions, available on Windows since NT "
There is 0 doubt that there has been malware since Windows NT. But 90% of it has been blocked if one wasn't a moron and used XP as a user instead of admin (root). Don't forget, your beloved Apple was plagued with viruses/malware pre-OSX too. The only reason it became more secure was because, hey, you guess it! Permissions!
"My PC has "just worked", out of the box, nary a problem, since Windows 95 (save for Windows ME)."
You must not remember Win95 very well.
Actually I do remember it well. But this is/., who practically invented Windows bashing. So I realize I'll never win a Windows 95 argument. So let's jump to Windows XP.
Pull up a chair. Let's break it down. Since 2002 with WinXP, has:
Installation of a program take more than a few clicks? NO. Installation of hardware taken more than a few clicks of a driver? NO. Installation of hardware been that tough? NO. Everything has been as easy as one or two snaps/plugs. There been difficulty or incompatibilities in connecting devices? NO. Just plug it in to a USB port (available on PC *first*)
I could go on and on.
Ouch. That sucks. You wanted to shoot me down by spreading the typical FUD that has existed for years. Too bad I took the time out to debunk your FUD.
Apple has a *nix core, it has none of the Windows viruses and malware. Is it impenetrable? No. is it 90% better than Windows? Yes.
So what if it has a UNIX core? All the fixes for BSD and Linux aren't for OSX. And it doesn't have a UNIX core. It's a Mach core (kernel) with BSD userland (remember that phrase "GNU is not Linux!").
And fact: Secunia says OS X is less secure than Windows. Windows is less secure than Linux/BSD/etc., yes. OSX--no.
iLife is a suite that works and has great features that most average users want, maybe not you or I, but it is everything most everyone wants in one nice package. iPhoto is excellent and no Picasa does not "beat" it. I use both for totally different reasons.
iPhoto is NOT excellent. And it's regarded as locking you into a properiatery database that is prone to corruption. Try again.
There are a ton of freely available packages available on Windows that beat the pants off iLife. And I would argue about the one it doesn't have, Garaband. Seriously, for more than 10 minutes, how many of your average users (who have full lives) are going to use it? You're like the people who when the iPhone came out thought it was superior because you could play piano on it and it didn't have 3G or multi-tasking.
Find me one durable PC that is found at $500. Won't happen. Panasonic Toughbooks, etc. exist and they are tough, they are also at a premium, sometimes more than Apple.
Find me an Apple laptop at $500. Oh wait, they don't make ANY computer below $800, or laptops below $1100. And just one, off my head, alternative to a MBP build quality--a HP envy. Which offers more powerful options at a significantly less price.
Yes. Because I don't give a flying fuck about synthetic benchmarks and I can game on a console. Most mainstream games play just fine on any system. I'm long past days of caring about OC'ing,liquid cooling, or any of that. No home computer "needs" most of that stuff, and the average user surely doesn't.
I wasn't talking about games. I just meant useful tech in general. Though that's a good point--Macs are poor for gaming too!
My PC's work too. But if you are trying to say it has been nothing but roses and lollipops since 95, you're a fucking idiot.
No, things weren't perfect and needed improvment, but that goes for both platforms. Gone are the days of IRQs, jumpers, etc. Adding hardware, plugging in hardware, installing hardware, and installing software has been nothing more than a few short clicks since the days of 2002 (9 years ago buddy)--Win XP. And I would argue even before that (Win 95)
It looks like if you want awesome framerates and the lowest power draw even under full load, the GTX 460 in SLI is the winner. It even is the quietest in SLI configuration. Can't remember where I found the testings, but it compared it to all the other cards for power and noise in both single and SLI.
LOL. Believe it or not though, that's another think I'm amazed about. The idle power consumption on these new cards is insanely low too. Check out HardOCP or Tom's Hardware. Pretty crazy.
Of course they would want it to be the new standard form factor. It means your HD is soldered onto the motherboard. Every time you need more capacity, a faster HD, or most importantly the HD dies, you have to buy a entire new computer!
That was my point though. Why would I want this in my PC products?
I mean take an ultraportable from Lenovo. It's so darn tiny it's ridiculous, and even *they* have SSDs that are upgradable in them.
And I'm confused. This SSD is *different* than the SSD found in the MBA's? Anand benchmarked the MBA SSD's and found them to not be sandforce and significantly slower than Intel's. Which one is it?
True, I was just very irked when reading the the post and I couldn't let it slide. But I disagree that it's misinformation.
I'd wait for benchmarks on this before auto-bashing it in favor of the Intel SSDs, which are are meeting up with decent competition these days.
Already done. Proven by Anandtech
Well, the interface isn't proprietary so there's no reason 3rd parties can't release higher capacity SSDs in the future.
Has nothing to do with being proprietary. How do you upgrade a SSD when it's soldered onto your motherboard?
TRIM has nothing to do with the lifespan of an SSD and everything to do with speed over time. And I'd like to see where people get the idea that Apple hasn't added TRIM support to OS X?
Whoops. My bad. I mean it has no support for TRIM and it will slow over time AND due to the nature of SSDs it's possible with heavy use at year 5-7 (I keep my boxes a long time) there goes my HD. And the bad part is once it happens you can't just copy it off if it hits its limit.
Also, its definitive. By Anandtech: OSX has no TRIM support.
I'm no fanboy, I own nothing Apple but my iPod Touch, but while the PC may be cheaper, you also have viruses/malware, antivirus software,
Apple has more vulnerabilities in its software than Windows now. The current trend is exploiting applications, browsers, etc. No longer the OS itself. Having said that, Apple is now more vulnerable to malware than windows now. The only reason you didn't see it in the past, and don't see AV prevalent now on Macs is because "his holiness" would lay the biggest smackdown ever on AV vendors if they pushed a big marketing campaign in promoting AV on the Mac.
In addition, malware and viruses are prevented with the use of permissions, available on Windows since NT and Wink 2k (18-11 years ago). The only reason they are rampant today is because of dumb people *still* not using UAC/permissions.
nothing close to iLife
Subjective. To me iLife is worthless. Maybe the only thing useful is iPhoto and it's generally regarded as garbage and things like Picasa have surpassed it years ago.
and it sure as hell is not as nicely made or durable.
Not true. PCs are available in all sorts of form factors and degrees of durability. Sometimes even more durable. And you have a choice of even more superior internals than Apple.
When you factor in those things the premium is worth it IMO. I've been a system builder for over 15 years so believe me it's hard for me to say it
Yikes. Really? You build systems with awesome things like hot-swappable HD's, multi-GPU systems, awesome and very original different types of PC cases, liquid cooling, SSD's, RAID 0 systems for awesome performance, SAS 15k HD's, and you still think Apple's 4 year old components (MBA and MBP 13 inch) are worth the premium?
but it's true. The tipping point is if/when your income and time become more valuable than a bunch of variety that never quite work seamlessly.
My PC has "just worked", out of the box, nary a problem, since Windows 95 (save for Windows ME).
Yawn. Why would I want this? Good for small form factor, but awful if you ever want a choice in which SSD you can buy or want to upgrade capacity.
And I know it's coming, so I'll just throw it out beforehand: - I don't want a MBA with a slower SSD when I can buy a brand new generation Intel SSD on a PC which blows it away - I want to be able to upgrade my SSD's capacity at some point - I want to not have to buy a new computer in 3 years because Apple just bricked my data because it ran out of read/writes because OSX has no support for TRIM (seriously?)
Just because Apple uses it doesn't make it useful. I would argue most of what Apple does it pretty boneheaded. See above.
And btw, my 3 year old Core 2 Duo with a 7200 RPM boots just as fast as a MBA. It may be faster for a MBP owner because Apple decided to (really?) put a slow 5200 RPM HD in it. Maybe launching apps on my system takes a *fraction* longer, but once it's in RAM, it's instantaneous. Standard practice now is always keep everything running in memory now anyway and only close when you need to. So no issues ever there./end rant
Am I the only one not dumbfounded by how incredible these things are? And how much progress has been made with graphics cards and PC Gaming. You can get a graphics solution running Crysis at max settings at almost 60 fps for only $300 (GTX 460 SLI). With that, you can run every other game at max settings, 1900x1200, at like 100 FPS. I don't ever remember PC gaming giving this much bang-for-your-buck or making this much available.
I'm not knocking consoles, they have their places. But it just hurts to play any game at the low resolution of a console and its low graphics settings. And I find myself thinking Steam is even easier plug-and-play than the consoles are. And all the new advanced graphics features are in the new cards. I can't imagine the consoles ever catching up. And it wouldn't be economical for the console makers to do so. I think the future of gaming really may lie in the PC.
Just my opinion. Please, no flamewars here. I have both a PC and a 360 and I appreciate them both in different ways. I'm just floored at how far PC gaming have come in only 3 years.
P.S. I know the responses are coming, so I'll just put a disclaimer that I have my computer hooked up to my HDTV in my living room and yes I run most recent and current games at max or high graphics settings on an ancient 8800 GTS 512 with a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM.
We live in reality. Not in Apple-theory-fairy-land. In reality, this exploit exists. You can't deny it. Exchange Skype with any of the thousands of VoIP programs on the App Store. It can, and WILL, even happen to a program that stores credit card numbers or secure customer information (say a CRM) on a phone that users will most definitely have set on auto-login. IT HAS HAPPENED. And it will CONTINUE to happen.
Rather than your method of closing your eyes and say "la-la-la I can't hear you," I expect that security mechanisms are a necessity and a reality. Witness the passing of personal user information in the "carefully cultivated walled garden" of ITunes App Store.
YOU misunderstand the problem and truly do not grasp what you are talking about.
This is why sandboxing, permissions, etc., were invented. Play holier-than-thou all you want, but that simple "do you want to run this program?" dialog in Windows before installing, or having to do a "chmod +x xyz" has cut down the spread of many a malware.
Very well put. I agree with your investing premise.
My point wasn't that though. My point was when rational people exposed Apple product's inferiority, fanboys lash back and give the example that the computer products must be superior because they are such a successful company. There is no correlation. And its success doesn't give you good products and *overall* doesn't actually do anything for a person (unless they invested in AAPL).
Amen. I agree with you 100%. I'm wondering where the outrage to this is, too. And shame on the topic/original story for putting the blame on Skype. This is a serious problem in which sole responsibility lies with Apple.
All Apple has to do is simply put, whoa, wait for it, permissions (available since the beginning of time!) or a simple "do you want to launch program XYZ?" dialog when you click on a punch-the-monkey ad in Mobile Safari.
But no, leave it to Apple to put the responsibility on the developers. It's their shit-brained multitasking thing all over again. And we know how that worked out. Half my damn apps on my 3GS (with iOS 4.1) still don't multi-task (I'm looking at you Engadget) or do it poorly.
P.S. To any replies, don't give me any nonsense in how this will be a repeat on Vista's constant permission bugging. YOU are the reason we still have user's PCs totally infected with malware by advocating turning off UAC/permissions. This is a serious issue. If this isn't implemented, Apple and the IPhone have the potential to be the most *IN*secure OS ever and the most dangerous because they're not just using it for botnets, but have access to your telephone and the ability to purchase things using your credit card.
You actually seem like a pretty nice person from your replies. A lot nicer than most people on here.
I'll reply to your two points, but see all the way below.
I merely pointed out that in the context of the argument that a business buying a server OS does not buy OEM licenses unless they are in the business of building servers and reselling Windows. One reason is that they get no support at all from any OEM licenses. Also support means more than just telephone or email support. Depending on the OEM agreement, the business may not get updates or patches either A company buying Windows or OS X or AIX or whatever commercial OS outright expects support. That's one reason. You were listing the wrong product.
Um so go buy a server from HP/Dell/etc which probably costs just as much or less than Windows Server itself. You get the added benefit of getting awesome hardware for the same price as the software alone. You know, I even forgot about this. This adds even another feather in my argument's cap.
So you don't get support. Do you honestly think you're getting any better support from Apple? If you want support, go buy RHEL 5.5. For a small fee you get immediate support and unlimited instance. And again, as you keep ignoring to my post, that is the point of an experienced admin, paid as a CONSULTANT.
Do you not understand that Linux is not the best solution for everyone? For some businesses, Windows is the best solution. For companies that use a lot of Macs that solution may be an OS X server. And I keep telling you that while it is ideal for a company to get an admin for everything, in reality, it may not happen. For companies under 50, they might have 1 admin total. He/she has to be the email/computer/telephony/mobile/whatever expert. If you have an environment with Macs, it's best to get an OS X server. If you have all Windows, it's best to get a Windows server.
I never said Linux was the best solution. I said it was a better solution. We're also talking a bunch about Windows server here, so how you ever thought I'm advocating Linux above all else I'm not sure. My problem is with advocating Apple solutions. And as a side note, I would even argue that Windows Server is a better server for serving Macs.
Now, on to my message to you. I want to thank you for bring this topic up. Because it renewed the spark and passion I had for computing that I had lost. Go to the Dell servers on their webpage. What the IBM-compatible offerings offer is simply amazing. You can have racks, blades, different form factors, power management, cooling solutions, hot swappable hard drives, memory up to 2 TB. The sky is the limit. And I'm even forgetting tons of cool and useful things they can do that I'm sure someone else could mention. And you can have it all for the same price, or less, than a Mac Pro. You pay $3000 for a Mac Pro OSX server, and you get... a fancy desktop (with no useful server features).
Apple, with their basic offerings and rabid-cult-fanbase, has made you and I forget how feature, wonderful, and amazing computing has become. And you can even get killer support. How amazing is it to have servers with 24x7 instant support and a technician actually come to your business/residence guaranteed in less than 4 hours? Forget Apple--this stuff is truly "magical." And I think you (and I to a degree) have forgetten that. And the wonder that comes with it.
You do understand the difference between OEM and list price right? OEM means you are re-selling Windows as a business. Businesses buying Windows for themselves will not be getting the OEM price it specifically excludes support. OEMs get will get . In fact your $730 comes with the disclaimer:
Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows
So you don't get support. Do you honestly think you're getting any better support from Apple? If you want support, go buy RHEL 5.5. For a small fee you get immediate support and unlimited instance. And again, as you keep ignoring to my post, that is the point of an experienced admin, paid as a CONSULTANT.
And are you seriously arguing the pricing semantics? Yes you're right on price. I was mistaken. Are you forgetting the big picture here, again? That Apple is just dropping server/enterprise customers out of the blue? And if you want to engage in petty pricing BS, ok, let's play. You will now need a Mac Pro OS X server. $3000. Not exactly saving money here. And if you argue about the Mini as an alternative: seriously? Don't even give me using a non-serviceable, non-upgradable, all in one, old computer with a 5200 RPM HD and a 4 year old core 2 duo as a server? And it's still $1000!
You are a geek and an admin. You understand servers and their technologies. If you are the owner of a bakery with little computer know-how, would you expect to know that you need SBS Standard or Premium? What about the many options besides the base package? What does Active Directory do? Do you need it? What about SQL Server? Exchange? Do you need a DNS server? It takes a Windows Expert to figure these things out. Unfortunately most small businesses do not have the necessary expertise unless the owner's cousin or nephew or whatever knows something about computers.
You would if you read the clearly found and simply, well explained page on the front page of its own website. But no,that would be too tough for the poor "baker." And too much time,too! He's only entrusting his entire business to and all his important data, invoices, and accounting as such to a system he has barely any idea how to use. If you don't do this, you deserve to lose it. And it would actually be EASIER using Windows SBS. It doesn't require you to know as much as OSX server. I mean, OSX just repackages UNIX programs. So you're telling me that a baker would be better off using OS X NFS instead of Windows file server?
It's not a matter of can't use hosting. Hosting is great but what if you don't need hosting? If the company needs a small file server, would you sell them on a hosted file server somewhere on the Interweb which they don't control? Many small companies are nervous about doing so. Unfortunately they will probably get an internal file server but not hire an admin. The ideal thing for them would be a Linux file server with a competent admin. But reality does not always agree with ideal.
Did you entirely miss what I said about hiring an admin as a consultant if you DON'T need hosting? Apple users always seem to have selective memories.
And I repeat, when you are entrusting thousands to millions of dollars lost in downtime or data lost, that $1-2000 that you spent for an admin to properly set everything up and show you how to use it,, with maybe $500/yr to maintain it, really is worth it. And again, I repeat, you should not have your "baker" be admining a business critical server. Seriously?
And I'm not even including the real-life scenario that just beats your silly strawman theories and kicks the crap out of them. In the real world, say for baker, there are entire Point-of-Sale systems that do everything, and holy moly, people "PAY" fo
Well let me proceed this reply with this: at least your reply wasn't the usual fanboy drivel. But you're wrong on many accounts. Here's why:
From MS itself:MS disagrees with you. Base price for 2008 Small Business server is $1,089 with 5 users/devices. Additional users is $77 per user or you can buy them in packs. Either way, you are paying more than for OS X. I'm sure where this "No CAL required" version is but it's not listed in the pricing. The cheapest server I could find is $469 Web Server version only (no users).
Wrong. 100%. I just even found it on Newegg. Took me 10 seconds. $730. Try again. Also: Linux: FREE.
Oh and OSX server: $1000.
A main problem with true comparison is that MS has so many options that it takes a Windows Server expert just to figure which one your business may need. If you get it wrong, you'll have to pay for upgrades and go to the trouble of upgrading/re-installing Windows. With Snow Leopard Server, there is only the unlimited user version.
It took me all of 5 minutes to figure out from MS's own easily found and clearly-written webpage to determine what I needed. It even gave me the option of downloading it as a trial to see if it suited my needs. Does Apple even do that? If you can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to make a decision that will affect your entire company's network, then you are a fool and should be fired.
If anything, a business if they have to start from scratch should just move to Linux, and start off right. But that's another show.
And I'm not sure what that last sentence means. Everyone has to pay for upgrades when it comes to commercial OS. Unlike Apple, if you are a large enough company you might negotiate with MS to get a better deal than the list price. Also most SA licenses normally come with upgrade discounts. With Apple it is the same price for everyone.
Until Apple pulls the plug on your entire operation, without warning, unexpectedly. See the whole reason for this thread.
Not everyone who needs a server requires hosting. You need hosting if you require external web services. If you only need an internal database server, a file server, basically anything that needs to be kept internal. Yes if your company is large enough, you should hire an admin. But most small businesses are typically less than 50 employees and only a handful of them may use a computer. These businesses need server expertise but don't have the money to hire and maintain a server infrastructure.
I would argue you should have other companies host that too. You said it yourself, it could be a small company. How many small companies can afford 99.9% uptime with dedicated data centers and superior bandwidth and powerful servers, when due to competition and economies of scale nowadays, they could simply hire an outside firm to do it seriously for so cheap it's ridiculous. And if for whatever reason you must do a local hosted network, and you don't have the cash for a full time hire, HIRE A QUALIFIED ADMIN AS A CONSULTANT TO SET IT UP AND MAINTAIN IT! I don't want Joe down the hall who thinks he's an ubergeek because he set up a OSX server by buying a Mac Mini to think he's qualified to run a complex PostgreSQL database, properly maintained and uncrackable mail server, etc.
There are many, many businesses that use OS X server. Some co-location businesses like Cybermill and Server Logisitics use both X-Serves and Mac Minis as servers. Some businesses may use OS X server if they have a large number of Macs as it integrates well with them. Your statement would be the same as if you said: "Friends don't let friends use Windows as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Linux as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Unix as a server." All of these different OS's have a place.
I would argue they're pretty dumb. Again, see the point of this thread. Now they're SOL. The entire company.
So yes, to reiterate, in this case, it really IS true:
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for being polite, and replying with a well thought out and intelligent reply. It's refreshing here on /.
I wont even jump into security (at the end of the day, a platform that has more attacks and is slightly more secure may still net to be more vulnerable than one that has less security and less attacks.)
Very valid theory. But first, as I'm sure you know, security is a process. You must be vigilant in not clicking on random thing, ad naseum, using a firewall, permissions, etc. This is true of any OS. But now Windows has the edge in security technologies on the internet facing front. The problem now is because of permissions and both OS's are hardened, malware is now taking the approach of avoiding the attempt to get admin/root altogether. It's far more effective to infect the common software found on a system and infect/control/etc it. Witness the popularity of drive-by ad malware. And that's the thing. MS has proven that its software that comes with it has significantly less vulnerabilities than Apple's. The amount of vulnerabilities in Safari, Quicktime, and Itunes are simply staggering.
It's at the point where Apple software is becoming the new IE 6.
That's the point. But I don't blame you because the FUD over the years on both sides is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
I will say due to experience (that I posted in another point off this conversation) that macs seem to be extremely durable.
HP, Toshiba, Acer and Asus computers I have worked with have proven to be disapointingly breakable. I have not worked with a Sony laptop nor talked in person with anyone that has, so I can't comment on those. I had a Thinkpad Lenovo from work that was very durable. Overall that one was a worthwille machine, but also had a chasis that made it feel as if I was moving national secrets in the thing, it was bulky and square. Looking at it made me think the thing should had been bulletproof. But has been one of the few pc laptops that didn't overheat nor did it break by father time winking at it. Macs, so far, have been extremely durable.
I do hate the magnetic power cord in the mac-minis. It's too easy to unplug it while poping in a USB drive and unlike laptops, the thing has no battery.
Thank you for at least being open to alternatives and addressing real credible issues instead of typical fanboy FUD rhetoric.
iLife is not a thing I would buy a mac for, but it's a nice thing to have. I find Picasa has a better face recognition than iPhoto, but that's about it. iPhoto has a lot of cooler features. iWeb is amazingly easy to use, my wife has made cool looking webpages in the thing and she is the type that attempts to align text in Word by spamming spaces at the left of certain words! iMovie kicks Windows Movie Maker's ass all the way to the stratosphere. Window's offering is just an afterthought. iMovie is a blissful experience in video editing.
While it may be a useful software package, I wouldn't base my choice of an entire OS ecosystem around iLife, one mediocre software application
As for usability, well, my wife has not asked me once how to do anything on the Mac since she got it (well other than the few apps she think she can install but gets the windows version by accident, something she has slowly learned to avoid, can't wait for the Apple App Store for Mac.) Despite having used windows for much longer, she still constantly bugs me to help her with this or that when she works on a PC. So yea, I'd say Apple has managed to make Mac OS X very usable. Exception: iTunes syncing, although I find it easy she has a hard time trying to sync music into her iPod.
See my comments about useability above. But I think it's more than she knows Macs aren't Windows, so she accepts that there is a new way of doing things and learns them. Whereas with Windows, she just probably got used to a way working with it at work and at home
The beauty is I don't have to. It's available on their site to anyone who would like to see it. And it's the general consensus among security experts now.
Provide a link this isn't true, or STFU fanboy.
And wow are you a fanboy! You wrote 5 or 6 lame fanboy responses to one comment I made. Wow buddy.
So I'm waiting. Cue the Apple fanboy "But-but-but it's true because it happens only on Wednesdays under a full moon when Jupiter is aligned with Venus between 10:35 and 10:37 pm!!! See!".
Ah the whipping out of the "Macs aren't overpriced card," complete with manipulated build configs on a website to prove it. I'll bite.
Same form factor, are you high? Seriously?
Maybe not to a fanboy, but to normal person who wants an ultraportable, yes.
Is 2-7 times thicker depending where you measure. (1.5" - .8" for Lenovo, .68" to .11" for MBA) .59lbs is quite a bit of weight in this class.
I don't measure the size of my e-peen by how how many microns thinner a computer is.
The Lenovo machine has Intel graphics.
Perfectly adequate for a machine in this segment. You're not running games on a MBA either.
They do not even offer an SSD in their standard builds...It would cost you 1259 to build a machine with an i3, 2GB RAM, intel graphics and 128GB SSD. So there is no price advantage.
1) Yes they do. Just add the option.
2) They don't even have i3's. They go right to Core i5. Big difference. MBA's aren't even in the same league.
3) You're arguing the price card? By comparing an awesome Thinkpad ultraportable to a $1000 Apple netbook?
If it works like every other Lenovo laptop I have seen (and I have witnessed this happen to 3 and seen the aftermath on 6 or 7 more) picking it up by one of the front corners will snap the plastic.
Anecodotal evidence does not a truth make. I've witnessed it NOT snapping. See? Mine is as just as good as yours. And are you seriously knocking a Thinkpad's build quality? There are millions who disagree with you.
You can't with this one buddy.
Cue the Apple fanboy "But-but-but it's true because it happens only on Wednesdays under a full moon when Jupiter is aligned with Venus between 10:35 and 10:37 pm!!! See!".
I'm waiting.
Same form factor. MBA 11" is thinner. MBA is 2.3 lbs. Thinkpad is 2.89 lbs. When you're both in the same 2 lbs. ballpark, it really doesn't matter.
Forgot to add the most important part (see my other reply).
Your whole reply here is going off topic. Snap back to my original premis. This reply is just to evade the main part that you're just plain wrong and misinformed.
If you honestly believe windows is more secure then, I don't know what to tell you.
It's been accepted now by security experts (not so-called geeks spouting the same FUD since 1999) for a good year or two now. Go look it up. Also, there are a lot of new security technologies in place that OSX doesn't have.
I do a ton of photo work and iPhoto has a ton of features that no other program I have used has or has as elegantly or usable. Sorry. (and I play guitar and enjoy the simplicity of Garageband since I'm not a pro, I don't own a Mac but that is something I would dig.)
We can argue this until you're blue in the face. iPhoto is regarded as a poor application. There are a myriad of better alternatives. And millions of people don't need Garageband.
HP Envy is essentially the same price as a MBP and very close in hardware at those prices.
Not this again. Just... no.
The 13" MBP doesn't even have an OPTION for a 7200 RPM HD or a Core i3/5/7. And the other envy is a 17". Even fully decked out with a Core i7, 8GB of RAM, Blu-ray, and a 500 GB 7200 RPM HD, it's about $200-400 cheaper than a MBP 15" and $1,500 cheaper than the MBP 17"
Most of the tech you mentioned is for benchmarks or gaming on a home PC. Not average userland. The MBP and iMacs play modern games just fine and have perfectly normal GPUs. I'm not a hardcore gamer and a NV 9600GT is in my PC.
No problem. Let's expand the list. In just 5 seconds, I could name no USB 3.0. No blu-ray. No e-SATA ports. No HDMI ports. That not useful to you?
And sure they play modern games fine. At the lowest settings, lowest details, and they can only play about 10% of the games out there! Good example!
Windows 7 is a massive improvement and I love it. It is still terribly flawed in usability. OSX shines there. Sure, you have to do it their way but that is the tradeoff. I'd love to see Meego or Ubuntu Unity really take off.
You really think usability is superior? You really think that?
The incredibly small buttons used in most applications are easy to hit quickly?
Itunes and Quicktime are good at useability and interface?
That the inconsistant look of applications are good?
That half of the time you hover over an application, there is no tool-tip, so you're left wondering what the hell you press?
Only being able to resize a window from one *tiny* little corner, forcing you to take like 5 minutes to hit it and find it, is good?
I think Win 7 is excellent is usability. But I won't argue, like you, that it's superior because it's subjective. And OSX you can't say follows the HIG anymore. If anything, Gnome is more true to the HIG and is usable as an interface and more consistent. And you're making Unity the example of usability? The thing is practically alpha software and to date the most it does is a re-invented program launcher. Seriously?
I'm a fanboy? Oh boy. Here we go. Ok, I'll play.
"In addition, malware and viruses are prevented with the use of permissions, available on Windows since NT "
There is 0 doubt that there has been malware since Windows NT. But 90% of it has been blocked if one wasn't a moron and used XP as a user instead of admin (root). Don't forget, your beloved Apple was plagued with viruses/malware pre-OSX too. The only reason it became more secure was because, hey, you guess it! Permissions!
"My PC has "just worked", out of the box, nary a problem, since Windows 95 (save for Windows ME)."
You must not remember Win95 very well.
Actually I do remember it well. But this is /., who practically invented Windows bashing. So I realize I'll never win a Windows 95 argument. So let's jump to Windows XP.
Pull up a chair. Let's break it down. Since 2002 with WinXP, has:
Installation of a program take more than a few clicks? NO.
Installation of hardware taken more than a few clicks of a driver? NO.
Installation of hardware been that tough? NO. Everything has been as easy as one or two snaps/plugs.
There been difficulty or incompatibilities in connecting devices? NO. Just plug it in to a USB port (available on PC *first*)
I could go on and on.
Ouch. That sucks. You wanted to shoot me down by spreading the typical FUD that has existed for years. Too bad I took the time out to debunk your FUD.
Apple has a *nix core, it has none of the Windows viruses and malware. Is it impenetrable? No. is it 90% better than Windows? Yes.
So what if it has a UNIX core? All the fixes for BSD and Linux aren't for OSX. And it doesn't have a UNIX core. It's a Mach core (kernel) with BSD userland (remember that phrase "GNU is not Linux!").
And fact: Secunia says OS X is less secure than Windows. Windows is less secure than Linux/BSD/etc., yes. OSX--no.
iLife is a suite that works and has great features that most average users want, maybe not you or I, but it is everything most everyone wants in one nice package. iPhoto is excellent and no Picasa does not "beat" it. I use both for totally different reasons.
iPhoto is NOT excellent. And it's regarded as locking you into a properiatery database that is prone to corruption. Try again.
There are a ton of freely available packages available on Windows that beat the pants off iLife. And I would argue about the one it doesn't have, Garaband. Seriously, for more than 10 minutes, how many of your average users (who have full lives) are going to use it? You're like the people who when the iPhone came out thought it was superior because you could play piano on it and it didn't have 3G or multi-tasking.
Find me one durable PC that is found at $500. Won't happen. Panasonic Toughbooks, etc. exist and they are tough, they are also at a premium, sometimes more than Apple.
Find me an Apple laptop at $500. Oh wait, they don't make ANY computer below $800, or laptops below $1100. And just one, off my head, alternative to a MBP build quality--a HP envy. Which offers more powerful options at a significantly less price.
Yes. Because I don't give a flying fuck about synthetic benchmarks and I can game on a console. Most mainstream games play just fine on any system. I'm long past days of caring about OC'ing,liquid cooling, or any of that. No home computer "needs" most of that stuff, and the average user surely doesn't.
I wasn't talking about games. I just meant useful tech in general. Though that's a good point--Macs are poor for gaming too!
My PC's work too. But if you are trying to say it has been nothing but roses and lollipops since 95, you're a fucking idiot.
No, things weren't perfect and needed improvment, but that goes for both platforms. Gone are the days of IRQs, jumpers, etc. Adding hardware, plugging in hardware, installing hardware, and installing software has been nothing more than a few short clicks since the days of 2002 (9 years ago buddy)--Win XP. And I would argue even before that (Win 95)
Why is this modded down and as a troll? I was simply stating how in awe I am at the pace and what's offered today.
Think back. Think of how far we've progressed since the "badass" 9800 GX2, which was only what, 2 years ago? Or even before that.
An interesting tidbit you might find helpful:
It looks like if you want awesome framerates and the lowest power draw even under full load, the GTX 460 in SLI is the winner. It even is the quietest in SLI configuration. Can't remember where I found the testings, but it compared it to all the other cards for power and noise in both single and SLI.
LOL. Believe it or not though, that's another think I'm amazed about. The idle power consumption on these new cards is insanely low too. Check out HardOCP or Tom's Hardware. Pretty crazy.
Ever use a Thinkpad X201? It's a true competitor for the MBA.
It has a normal, upgradable SSD in it. And the thing even has a freakin Core i7 in it for goodness sake!
If Lenovo can do it, why can't Apple?
Of course they would want it to be the new standard form factor. It means your HD is soldered onto the motherboard. Every time you need more capacity, a faster HD, or most importantly the HD dies, you have to buy a entire new computer!
Hooray for consumers!
LOL. I got a kick out of your post.
That was my point though. Why would I want this in my PC products?
I mean take an ultraportable from Lenovo. It's so darn tiny it's ridiculous, and even *they* have SSDs that are upgradable in them.
And I'm confused. This SSD is *different* than the SSD found in the MBA's? Anand benchmarked the MBA SSD's and found them to not be sandforce and significantly slower than Intel's. Which one is it?
True, I was just very irked when reading the the post and I couldn't let it slide. But I disagree that it's misinformation.
I'd wait for benchmarks on this before auto-bashing it in favor of the Intel SSDs, which are are meeting up with decent competition these days.
Already done. Proven by Anandtech
Well, the interface isn't proprietary so there's no reason 3rd parties can't release higher capacity SSDs in the future.
Has nothing to do with being proprietary. How do you upgrade a SSD when it's soldered onto your motherboard?
TRIM has nothing to do with the lifespan of an SSD and everything to do with speed over time. And I'd like to see where people get the idea that Apple hasn't added TRIM support to OS X?
Whoops. My bad. I mean it has no support for TRIM and it will slow over time AND due to the nature of SSDs it's possible with heavy use at year 5-7 (I keep my boxes a long time) there goes my HD. And the bad part is once it happens you can't just copy it off if it hits its limit.
Also, its definitive. By Anandtech: OSX has no TRIM support.
Please keep in mind a few things:
I'm no fanboy, I own nothing Apple but my iPod Touch, but while the PC may be cheaper, you also have viruses/malware, antivirus software,
Apple has more vulnerabilities in its software than Windows now. The current trend is exploiting applications, browsers, etc. No longer the OS itself. Having said that, Apple is now more vulnerable to malware than windows now. The only reason you didn't see it in the past, and don't see AV prevalent now on Macs is because "his holiness" would lay the biggest smackdown ever on AV vendors if they pushed a big marketing campaign in promoting AV on the Mac.
In addition, malware and viruses are prevented with the use of permissions, available on Windows since NT and Wink 2k (18-11 years ago). The only reason they are rampant today is because of dumb people *still* not using UAC/permissions.
nothing close to iLife
Subjective. To me iLife is worthless. Maybe the only thing useful is iPhoto and it's generally regarded as garbage and things like Picasa have surpassed it years ago.
and it sure as hell is not as nicely made or durable.
Not true. PCs are available in all sorts of form factors and degrees of durability. Sometimes even more durable. And you have a choice of even more superior internals than Apple.
When you factor in those things the premium is worth it IMO. I've been a system builder for over 15 years so believe me it's hard for me to say it
Yikes. Really? You build systems with awesome things like hot-swappable HD's, multi-GPU systems, awesome and very original different types of PC cases, liquid cooling, SSD's, RAID 0 systems for awesome performance, SAS 15k HD's, and you still think Apple's 4 year old components (MBA and MBP 13 inch) are worth the premium?
but it's true. The tipping point is if/when your income and time become more valuable than a bunch of variety that never quite work seamlessly.
My PC has "just worked", out of the box, nary a problem, since Windows 95 (save for Windows ME).
Yawn. Why would I want this? Good for small form factor, but awful if you ever want a choice in which SSD you can buy or want to upgrade capacity.
And I know it's coming, so I'll just throw it out beforehand:
- I don't want a MBA with a slower SSD when I can buy a brand new generation Intel SSD on a PC which blows it away
- I want to be able to upgrade my SSD's capacity at some point
- I want to not have to buy a new computer in 3 years because Apple just bricked my data because it ran out of read/writes because OSX has no support for TRIM (seriously?)
Just because Apple uses it doesn't make it useful. I would argue most of what Apple does it pretty boneheaded. See above.
And btw, my 3 year old Core 2 Duo with a 7200 RPM boots just as fast as a MBA. It may be faster for a MBP owner because Apple decided to (really?) put a slow 5200 RPM HD in it. Maybe launching apps on my system takes a *fraction* longer, but once it's in RAM, it's instantaneous. Standard practice now is always keep everything running in memory now anyway and only close when you need to. So no issues ever there. /end rant
Am I the only one not dumbfounded by how incredible these things are? And how much progress has been made with graphics cards and PC Gaming. You can get a graphics solution running Crysis at max settings at almost 60 fps for only $300 (GTX 460 SLI). With that, you can run every other game at max settings, 1900x1200, at like 100 FPS. I don't ever remember PC gaming giving this much bang-for-your-buck or making this much available.
I'm not knocking consoles, they have their places. But it just hurts to play any game at the low resolution of a console and its low graphics settings. And I find myself thinking Steam is even easier plug-and-play than the consoles are. And all the new advanced graphics features are in the new cards. I can't imagine the consoles ever catching up. And it wouldn't be economical for the console makers to do so. I think the future of gaming really may lie in the PC.
Just my opinion. Please, no flamewars here. I have both a PC and a 360 and I appreciate them both in different ways. I'm just floored at how far PC gaming have come in only 3 years.
P.S. I know the responses are coming, so I'll just put a disclaimer that I have my computer hooked up to my HDTV in my living room and yes I run most recent and current games at max or high graphics settings on an ancient 8800 GTS 512 with a Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM.
Actually I understand the problem all too well.
We live in reality. Not in Apple-theory-fairy-land. In reality, this exploit exists. You can't deny it. Exchange Skype with any of the thousands of VoIP programs on the App Store. It can, and WILL, even happen to a program that stores credit card numbers or secure customer information (say a CRM) on a phone that users will most definitely have set on auto-login. IT HAS HAPPENED. And it will CONTINUE to happen.
Rather than your method of closing your eyes and say "la-la-la I can't hear you," I expect that security mechanisms are a necessity and a reality. Witness the passing of personal user information in the "carefully cultivated walled garden" of ITunes App Store.
YOU misunderstand the problem and truly do not grasp what you are talking about.
This is why sandboxing, permissions, etc., were invented. Play holier-than-thou all you want, but that simple "do you want to run this program?" dialog in Windows before installing, or having to do a "chmod +x xyz" has cut down the spread of many a malware.
Very well put. I agree with your investing premise.
My point wasn't that though. My point was when rational people exposed Apple product's inferiority, fanboys lash back and give the example that the computer products must be superior because they are such a successful company. There is no correlation. And its success doesn't give you good products and *overall* doesn't actually do anything for a person (unless they invested in AAPL).
Amen. I agree with you 100%. I'm wondering where the outrage to this is, too. And shame on the topic/original story for putting the blame on Skype. This is a serious problem in which sole responsibility lies with Apple.
All Apple has to do is simply put, whoa, wait for it, permissions (available since the beginning of time!) or a simple "do you want to launch program XYZ?" dialog when you click on a punch-the-monkey ad in Mobile Safari.
But no, leave it to Apple to put the responsibility on the developers. It's their shit-brained multitasking thing all over again. And we know how that worked out. Half my damn apps on my 3GS (with iOS 4.1) still don't multi-task (I'm looking at you Engadget) or do it poorly.
P.S. To any replies, don't give me any nonsense in how this will be a repeat on Vista's constant permission bugging. YOU are the reason we still have user's PCs totally infected with malware by advocating turning off UAC/permissions. This is a serious issue. If this isn't implemented, Apple and the IPhone have the potential to be the most *IN*secure OS ever and the most dangerous because they're not just using it for botnets, but have access to your telephone and the ability to purchase things using your credit card.
You actually seem like a pretty nice person from your replies. A lot nicer than most people on here.
I'll reply to your two points, but see all the way below.
I merely pointed out that in the context of the argument that a business buying a server OS does not buy OEM licenses unless they are in the business of building servers and reselling Windows. One reason is that they get no support at all from any OEM licenses. Also support means more than just telephone or email support. Depending on the OEM agreement, the business may not get updates or patches either A company buying Windows or OS X or AIX or whatever commercial OS outright expects support. That's one reason. You were listing the wrong product.
Um so go buy a server from HP/Dell/etc which probably costs just as much or less than Windows Server itself. You get the added benefit of getting awesome hardware for the same price as the software alone. You know, I even forgot about this. This adds even another feather in my argument's cap.
So you don't get support. Do you honestly think you're getting any better support from Apple? If you want support, go buy RHEL 5.5. For a small fee you get immediate support and unlimited instance. And again, as you keep ignoring to my post, that is the point of an experienced admin, paid as a CONSULTANT.
Do you not understand that Linux is not the best solution for everyone? For some businesses, Windows is the best solution. For companies that use a lot of Macs that solution may be an OS X server. And I keep telling you that while it is ideal for a company to get an admin for everything, in reality, it may not happen. For companies under 50, they might have 1 admin total. He/she has to be the email/computer/telephony/mobile/whatever expert. If you have an environment with Macs, it's best to get an OS X server. If you have all Windows, it's best to get a Windows server.
I never said Linux was the best solution. I said it was a better solution. We're also talking a bunch about Windows server here, so how you ever thought I'm advocating Linux above all else I'm not sure. My problem is with advocating Apple solutions. And as a side note, I would even argue that Windows Server is a better server for serving Macs.
Now, on to my message to you. I want to thank you for bring this topic up. Because it renewed the spark and passion I had for computing that I had lost. Go to the Dell servers on their webpage. What the IBM-compatible offerings offer is simply amazing. You can have racks, blades, different form factors, power management, cooling solutions, hot swappable hard drives, memory up to 2 TB. The sky is the limit. And I'm even forgetting tons of cool and useful things they can do that I'm sure someone else could mention. And you can have it all for the same price, or less, than a Mac Pro. You pay $3000 for a Mac Pro OSX server, and you get... a fancy desktop (with no useful server features).
Apple, with their basic offerings and rabid-cult-fanbase, has made you and I forget how feature, wonderful, and amazing computing has become. And you can even get killer support. How amazing is it to have servers with 24x7 instant support and a technician actually come to your business/residence guaranteed in less than 4 hours? Forget Apple--this stuff is truly "magical." And I think you (and I to a degree) have forgetten that. And the wonder that comes with it.
You do understand the difference between OEM and list price right? OEM means you are re-selling Windows as a business. Businesses buying Windows for themselves will not be getting the OEM price it specifically excludes support. OEMs get will get . In fact your $730 comes with the disclaimer:
Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows
So you don't get support. Do you honestly think you're getting any better support from Apple? If you want support, go buy RHEL 5.5. For a small fee you get immediate support and unlimited instance. And again, as you keep ignoring to my post, that is the point of an experienced admin, paid as a CONSULTANT.
And are you seriously arguing the pricing semantics? Yes you're right on price. I was mistaken. Are you forgetting the big picture here, again? That Apple is just dropping server/enterprise customers out of the blue? And if you want to engage in petty pricing BS, ok, let's play. You will now need a Mac Pro OS X server. $3000. Not exactly saving money here. And if you argue about the Mini as an alternative: seriously? Don't even give me using a non-serviceable, non-upgradable, all in one, old computer with a 5200 RPM HD and a 4 year old core 2 duo as a server? And it's still $1000!
You are a geek and an admin. You understand servers and their technologies. If you are the owner of a bakery with little computer know-how, would you expect to know that you need SBS Standard or Premium? What about the many options besides the base package? What does Active Directory do? Do you need it? What about SQL Server? Exchange? Do you need a DNS server? It takes a Windows Expert to figure these things out. Unfortunately most small businesses do not have the necessary expertise unless the owner's cousin or nephew or whatever knows something about computers.
You would if you read the clearly found and simply, well explained page on the front page of its own website. But no,that would be too tough for the poor "baker." And too much time,too! He's only entrusting his entire business to and all his important data, invoices, and accounting as such to a system he has barely any idea how to use. If you don't do this, you deserve to lose it. And it would actually be EASIER using Windows SBS. It doesn't require you to know as much as OSX server. I mean, OSX just repackages UNIX programs. So you're telling me that a baker would be better off using OS X NFS instead of Windows file server?
It's not a matter of can't use hosting. Hosting is great but what if you don't need hosting? If the company needs a small file server, would you sell them on a hosted file server somewhere on the Interweb which they don't control? Many small companies are nervous about doing so. Unfortunately they will probably get an internal file server but not hire an admin. The ideal thing for them would be a Linux file server with a competent admin. But reality does not always agree with ideal.
Did you entirely miss what I said about hiring an admin as a consultant if you DON'T need hosting? Apple users always seem to have selective memories.
And I repeat, when you are entrusting thousands to millions of dollars lost in downtime or data lost, that $1-2000 that you spent for an admin to properly set everything up and show you how to use it,, with maybe $500/yr to maintain it, really is worth it. And again, I repeat, you should not have your "baker" be admining a business critical server. Seriously?
And I'm not even including the real-life scenario that just beats your silly strawman theories and kicks the crap out of them. In the real world, say for baker, there are entire Point-of-Sale systems that do everything, and holy moly, people "PAY" fo
Well let me proceed this reply with this: at least your reply wasn't the usual fanboy drivel. But you're wrong on many accounts. Here's why:
From MS itself:MS disagrees with you. Base price for 2008 Small Business server is $1,089 with 5 users/devices. Additional users is $77 per user or you can buy them in packs. Either way, you are paying more than for OS X. I'm sure where this "No CAL required" version is but it's not listed in the pricing. The cheapest server I could find is $469 Web Server version only (no users).
Wrong. 100%. I just even found it on Newegg. Took me 10 seconds. $730. Try again. Also: Linux: FREE.
Oh and OSX server: $1000.
A main problem with true comparison is that MS has so many options that it takes a Windows Server expert just to figure which one your business may need. If you get it wrong, you'll have to pay for upgrades and go to the trouble of upgrading/re-installing Windows. With Snow Leopard Server, there is only the unlimited user version.
It took me all of 5 minutes to figure out from MS's own easily found and clearly-written webpage to determine what I needed. It even gave me the option of downloading it as a trial to see if it suited my needs. Does Apple even do that? If you can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to make a decision that will affect your entire company's network, then you are a fool and should be fired.
If anything, a business if they have to start from scratch should just move to Linux, and start off right. But that's another show.
And I'm not sure what that last sentence means. Everyone has to pay for upgrades when it comes to commercial OS. Unlike Apple, if you are a large enough company you might negotiate with MS to get a better deal than the list price. Also most SA licenses normally come with upgrade discounts. With Apple it is the same price for everyone.
Until Apple pulls the plug on your entire operation, without warning, unexpectedly. See the whole reason for this thread.
Not everyone who needs a server requires hosting. You need hosting if you require external web services. If you only need an internal database server, a file server, basically anything that needs to be kept internal. Yes if your company is large enough, you should hire an admin. But most small businesses are typically less than 50 employees and only a handful of them may use a computer. These businesses need server expertise but don't have the money to hire and maintain a server infrastructure.
I would argue you should have other companies host that too. You said it yourself, it could be a small company. How many small companies can afford 99.9% uptime with dedicated data centers and superior bandwidth and powerful servers, when due to competition and economies of scale nowadays, they could simply hire an outside firm to do it seriously for so cheap it's ridiculous. And if for whatever reason you must do a local hosted network, and you don't have the cash for a full time hire, HIRE A QUALIFIED ADMIN AS A CONSULTANT TO SET IT UP AND MAINTAIN IT! I don't want Joe down the hall who thinks he's an ubergeek because he set up a OSX server by buying a Mac Mini to think he's qualified to run a complex PostgreSQL database, properly maintained and uncrackable mail server, etc.
There are many, many businesses that use OS X server. Some co-location businesses like Cybermill and Server Logisitics use both X-Serves and Mac Minis as servers. Some businesses may use OS X server if they have a large number of Macs as it integrates well with them. Your statement would be the same as if you said: "Friends don't let friends use Windows as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Linux as a server." "Friends don't let friends use Unix as a server." All of these different OS's have a place.
I would argue they're pretty dumb. Again, see the point of this thread. Now they're SOL. The entire company.
So yes, to reiterate, in this case, it really IS true:
Friends don't let friends use Apple as a server.
And how is paying to upgrade OS X server to the next version any different from upgrading Windows server?