PDA

View Full Version : Mac's for Large Businesses




benjooles
Dec 20, 2010, 03:05 PM
Hi All

I have managed to get the attention of the head if IT for the company I work for (a global engineering consultancy), regarding the companies plans to include macs as part of our IT infrastructure in the near future. We currently use windows XP on all machines connected to our network, so I figure an upgrade of the network must be coming sometime soon. At the moment there are no plans to even consider macs in the near future.

I would really like some good arguments to put to him regarding why mac's should be allowed on our company network and should form part of our IT systems.

So far I have come across articles suggesting that he should evaluate TCO, Security and downtime - But some decent studies along these lines would be good to send to him - or some applicable examples of how macs have been integrated into windows networks of greater than 2000 end clients.

Any suggestions, links or arguments that I could put to him would be great.

Thanks for the help.

Ben



Consultant
Dec 20, 2010, 03:18 PM
Unfortunately, facts do not matter to these people, as most IT departments are clueless about TCO.
The companies that switch to Mac either have smart IT people or have Mac / iPad using executives that push the IT departments to go Mac.

Btw, human aspects seems to do better than facts. Example, white house mac,
http://obamapacman.com/2010/01/white-house-policy-discussions-feature-senior-advisors-apple-macbook-pro/

Nintento CEO uses mac:
http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata-uses-mac-iphone-apple-keynote-software/

Also "President Obama Demos Healthcare.gov on Mac!"

stridemat
Dec 20, 2010, 03:20 PM
Point them in this direction:-

http://www.apple.com/business/profiles/

Or at least have a read yourself.

Edit* Or this http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/
http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/pc-compatibility.html

jahala
Dec 21, 2010, 01:13 AM
I also work in a large engineering consulting firm that uses only Windows XP. I have been using my mac on my own for work for the last two years or so (Please no comments about using personal machines for work. I am aware). I would love to see some others be allowed to use Macs because I think they make sense for some jobs. It would not make sense for everyone to go to Macs because we have some windows-only software requirements.

I am interested to see what answers come. My major curiosity is how well the Macs integrate into an Active Directory domain. I don't want anyone in the company to be able to log into my personal machine, so I have not tried it yet.

Apple OC
Dec 21, 2010, 01:27 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ... the only drawback that has prevented Apple from really getting their computers into the mainstream of Business has and will be cost.

Businesses will always look for the more cost effective way to conduct business.

To a Business ... it is not about the "user experience" ... they just need to get the job done and Windows based computers fill that void. :cool:

Winni
Dec 21, 2010, 08:06 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ...

Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...

Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.

Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)

Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.

Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.

Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.

TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.

Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.

Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.

Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year 2001, that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)

It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.

Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.

And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.

Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.

And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.

MacSignal
Dec 21, 2010, 04:34 PM
^^^ Well said. Enjoy your mac, but choose your battles wisely.

miles01110
Dec 21, 2010, 04:45 PM
Unfortunately, facts do not matter to these people, as most IT departments are clueless about TCO.

Actually most IT managers/departments are very informed about TCO, which is why they don't shell out the money for hardware that is 2x as expensive, software that is 4x as expensive (due to miserable volume licensing plans for OS X), the cost of training support and logistics personnel to support Macs/OS X, and the amount of time it will take to retrain users to use the new hard/software.

Ironically, most people who make statements such as yours either aren't in IT or have a very unrealistic view of the world.


I would really like some good arguments to put to him regarding why mac's should be allowed on our company network and should form part of our IT systems.

When you write your proposal, consider using proper English grammar. "Macs" as in "a number of computers made by Apple" does not, notice, have an apostrophe.

The basic fact of the matter is that large, established Windows-based network infrastructures have no incentive at all to switch to Apple machines.


Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.

Seriously. This is what guarantees Dell's, HP's, and RIM's complete dominance of the enterprise market. Who would have guessed that when your central business functions depend on your hardware being "up" it doesn't cut it to have to bring a unit into an Apple Store?

Consultant
Dec 21, 2010, 08:55 PM
Some people obviously don't know the cost of staff downtime. Each day, how much longer does it take windows computer to boot up than a Mac? Minutes longer. Add that up over every single work day. Then add the anti-virus scans, annoying pop ups, etc.

I just saw someone spending 4 hours on the phone with issues of the accounting software not working on windows 7.

And it turned out to be the anti-virus, after half a day was wasted (and maybe an hour of my time too). That would have bought a Mac Mini or a new MacBook Air, which can run the same software with ease without security conflicts.

joecool99
Dec 22, 2010, 12:09 AM
100% agree macs do not belong to ENTERPRISE environment.
i was working as IT admin in the past in EU, all Windows, UNIX, Linux.

however, as a personal computer it blows away the XP and W7. If personal prefers it, MACs should be allowed as clients on Windows based Enterprise networks if required. Creative dept. for example.

PROS:
• ease of use
• FW and TARGET disc mode features.
• Easy of grabbing a cropped screenshot
• Some smart application design, ease of sharing files, great solid networking (10.6.5)
• expose!
• great dashboard design
• best straigtforward backup system built into the OS
• COLOR coding files and folders !!!
• and other i cannot thing of right now
• ctrl + alt + apple +8

CONS:
• HW price
• short lived OSX support


as personal computer it's a better choice for me, i switched in 2005 and never looked back. at Work we have W7 and MAC mini server for file sharing. BUT again, it's not for Enterprise solution, no doubt about it.

benjooles
Dec 22, 2010, 01:35 AM
Winni -

Danke sehr. Thanks for the time and effort to get back to me with a response that looks at things from a 'real world' perspective. Your points are issues which I have not even considered before.

Everybody else -

Thank you kindly for taking the time to get back to me. All points noted and considered.

Since doing a little more research into it and taking the comments on this forum into account I have changed my opinion on whether or not macs should form part of our IT infrastructure. It would seem that the real world problems of planning for the future, ensuring user productivity and product support, not to mention the capital outlay issues are going to trump any warm fuzzy feelings that I may get from working with my mac at home. Being an engineering firm, the majority of our specialist software is, for the foreseeable future, going to be written for Windows only.

Most importantly then, the positive user experience I have at home will almost certainly not carry over to the workplace and will more than likely only generate further frustration for other non-mac users. I currently have enough trouble simply trying to ensure compatibility between Excel '07 files and Excel '03. Adding Excel for Mac files into the mix will no doubt simply introduce another layer of complexity which is certainly not beneficial. This is indicative of many of the 'small' problems that are typically faced every day in the office, again, no thank you to having any more of those.

While I wish the warm fuzzy feeling I get from using my mac at home could be translated into my working day experience, the fact of the matter at the moment is that facilitating this is just not practical or feasible and in a mixed PC / MAC environment not very likely to happen.

The fanboy in me hopes that someday this will get sorted out, but I am not going to hold my breath.


miles01110 -

Thanks for the reality check, and I could not agree more with your take with respect to the the ways of the world and the importance of the real world concerns of IT people. IT is a department that I have never worked in, hence me posting on this forum to get some views on the topic at hand.
I spend all day writing reports, specifications, data sheets, e-mails to clients and suppliers etc. All of which require dotting every I and crossing every T from a grammar point of view. I am not going to waste my time ensuring my grammar is perfect on a forum post... seriously bru - not helpful at all.

nefan65
Dec 22, 2010, 09:02 AM
I also work in a large engineering consulting firm that uses only Windows XP. I have been using my mac on my own for work for the last two years or so (Please no comments about using personal machines for work. I am aware). I would love to see some others be allowed to use Macs because I think they make sense for some jobs. It would not make sense for everyone to go to Macs because we have some windows-only software requirements.

I am interested to see what answers come. My major curiosity is how well the Macs integrate into an Active Directory domain. I don't want anyone in the company to be able to log into my personal machine, so I have not tried it yet.

AD Integration with OSX is fine. I've used a Macbook/Macbook Pro at my last two jobs as IT Manager [currently it's an MBP] with no issues. I logon and authenticate, have access to my Home folder, shares, printers, etc. We also have another MB and an iMac within IT for Web Development, etc.; again no issues.

As for support. Not sure what the issue is really. We get a full year of support on hardware and software, and have Applecare for beyond year 1. So limited OS support is FUD. We have 0 issues on a daily basis with OSX, and multiple issues with the XP/7 boxes. We also have another person in the dept running Linux, and they too have 0 problems. And no, it's not just because we're IT...we also have a couple of users running Windows XP/7 for support, on decent machines, and those too have issues. Not daily, but definitely more than we've had with any of the OSX and Linux boxes...

We are lucky to be running Exchange 2010, so the need for Entourage, or Outlook 2011 is moot. We can use Mail, iCal, Address Book, etc. with 0 problems. The only one in IT having email troubles is our Linux guy; Evolution is terrible [he said it, not me]. He uses the new OWA running FF, and it's fine...

miles01110
Dec 22, 2010, 09:14 AM
Some people obviously don't know the cost of staff downtime. Each day, how much longer does it take windows computer to boot up than a Mac? Minutes longer. Add that up over every single work day. Then add the anti-virus scans, annoying pop ups, etc.

Sure, a Windows machine might take longer to boot than a Mac. But realistically, in a normal office environment computers are left running. This particular point is pretty much moot.

I just saw someone spending 4 hours on the phone with issues of the accounting software not working on windows 7.

Yes, because clearly one data point indicates an industry-wide trend. Check the boards for Applecare horror stories, and those stories are from Apple's target market. Imagine what a nightmare it is when your business depends on uptime and you're told "yeah sorry... you have a small nick on the chassis so we won't replace it."

And it turned out to be the anti-virus, after half a day was wasted (and maybe an hour of my time too). That would have bought a Mac Mini or a new MacBook Air, which can run the same software with ease without security conflicts.

The typical argument of the fanboy... security. Security is a user problem, not a technical problem. I've yet to meet one properly trained employee that has gotten malware on their Windows machine.

Perhaps if you'd like to participate in this discussion further you would consider grounding yourself in reality (and/or subject matter knowledge). Clearly you're in over your head.

Since doing a little more research into it and taking the comments on this forum into account I have changed my opinion on whether or not macs should form part of our IT infrastructure.

It's not so much that Macs do not fit at all into an enterprise environment, it's just that you've made it seem like your entire supply chain, user training, SLA network, etc etc are all geared towards Windows. It doesn't make sense to throw another cog into that system.

I currently have enough trouble simply trying to ensure compatibility between Excel '07 files and Excel '03. Adding Excel for Mac files into the mix will no doubt simply introduce another layer of complexity which is certainly not beneficial. This is indicative of many of the 'small' problems that are typically faced every day in the office, again, no thank you to having any more of those.

Annoying, isn't it? Microsoft certainly isn't perfect.


I spend all day writing reports, specifications, data sheets, e-mails to clients and suppliers etc. All of which require dotting every I and crossing every T from a grammar point of view.

I certainly hope so, but I doubt it. The possessive apostrophe is pretty elementary. Just be careful when you start getting calls from Mac's Computer Hardware.

Alrescha
Dec 22, 2010, 09:15 AM
We get a full year of support on hardware and software, and have Applecare for beyond year 1. So limited OS support is FUD.

I don't think it is FUD. For example, Microsoft's last support for WinXP Pro ends in April of 2014 that is over 12 years of support from the vendor.

A.

nOw2
Dec 22, 2010, 10:13 AM
The solution is to get management using Macs.

I'm lucky to be working for a company whose founders are Mac addicts. Everything works on a Mac; as a side effect, 99% is available to Linux users too since Apple is good at keeping to standard protocols (we have been forced onto MS Online Exchange which is okay with the Mac these days, but without IMAP enabled everyone else is screwed over).

Basically because Macs have been here since day one, nearly 10 years ago, there has been no question of legacy Windows systems or adopting technology that Mac clients can't work with.

We were recently bought out by a large corporate. There were moves to standardise onto Windows laptops out of cost concerns. A free 17" 2010 MBP was found for the guy who came in from the corporation to reorganise us and, like magic, Macs are back on the purchase lists.

Saying that, a previous company I worked with didn't have any legacy issues either, but was founded with a MSDN subscription in hand. Therefore, because there was all this 'free' software available, they got locked into using it. It simply wasn't possible to gain traction with Mac or Linux or anything non-Windows there.

maflynn
Dec 22, 2010, 10:43 AM
Some people obviously don't know the cost of staff downtime. Each day, how much longer does it take windows computer to boot up than a Mac? Minutes longer. Add that up over every single work day. Then add the anti-virus scans, annoying pop ups, etc.
I support PCs and servers in my job, along with Macs as we're a mixed shop.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt what you put down has little basis in reality. Yes, windows machines take longer to boot up, but not always because of the the antivirus software.

They take longer because IT (me and my co workers) we make sure that group policies are pushed out on every reboot, so the machines are fairly locked down. We also push out updates to software automatically and also yes do virus scans.

For IT to take macs serious, they will need to easily apply group policies to the computer remotely and automatically. Have applications available that allows them to update client applications.

The cost of such is generally to a degree that makes using macs not feasible.

btw, I get just as many calls regarding problems with macs as I do with PCs. In fact many enterprise applications have some major compatibility issues with Safari.

Total Cost of Ownership, up time, training support and efficiencies all point to using PCs over a Mac.

Just because apple fanboys say its cheaper in the long run means its true, quite the opposite. Asset depreciation of Macs is the same as PCs, so there's no financial incentive for a business to hold on to a mac longer then a PC, and actually its negative to hold on to an asset when its fully depreciated even if its still functional. This throws the idea that macs last longer out the door when dealing with business and depreciation

So why buy a computer that costs 2x more then another, has less ability to support/manage remotely. Has the same level of support required, i.e., support calls for users who need help, has some serious compatibility issues with some enterprise applications and also requires a fair amount of re-training for both the users and support staff.

nefan65
Dec 22, 2010, 11:47 AM
I support PCs and servers in my job, along with Macs as we're a mixed shop.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt what you put down has little basis in reality. Yes, windows machines take longer to boot up, but not always because of the the antivirus software.

They take longer because IT (me and my co workers) we make sure that group policies are pushed out on every reboot, so the machines are fairly locked down. We also push out updates to software automatically and also yes do virus scans.

For IT to take macs serious, they will need to easily apply group policies to the computer remotely and automatically. Have applications available that allows them to update client applications.

The cost of such is generally to a degree that makes using macs not feasible.

btw, I get just as many calls regarding problems with macs as I do with PCs. In fact many enterprise applications have some major compatibility issues with Safari.

Total Cost of Ownership, up time, training support and efficiencies all point to using PCs over a Mac.

Just because apple fanboys say its cheaper in the long run means its true, quite the opposite. Asset depreciation of Macs is the same as PCs, so there's no financial incentive for a business to hold on to a mac longer then a PC, and actually its negative to hold on to an asset when its fully depreciated even if its still functional. This throws the idea that macs last longer out the door when dealing with business and depreciation

So why buy a computer that costs 2x more then another, has less ability to support/manage remotely. Has the same level of support required, i.e., support calls for users who need help, has some serious compatibility issues with some enterprise applications and also requires a fair amount of re-training for both the users and support staff.

The last paragraph is your opinion and experience. As for full depreciation; what are you talking about? I've yet to meet a CFO that cares about using a desktop system that's completely depreciated. In your scenario, it's off the books, so throw it out the window...? You're right, most PC's/Laptops are fully depreciated at the end of 3 years, so there is no advantage for Mac over a PC. That's where a lot businesses AND IT people miss the boat. That's why there's more and more push to Cloud [Private as it relates to this] for applications allowing staff to use what they want. Having a narrow minded approach like this in business will cripple it. The true cost of savings is not having to push out applications, or install applications on 100's of systems. It's publishing the apps to be used on anything; PC, Laptop, Mac, Linux, Tablets, Phones, etc...

bentoms
Dec 22, 2010, 04:12 PM
I look after 250+ macs across 8 advertising companies across 3 countries.

All of them are bound to our AD & use MS Exchange for e-mail. All users login with their AD credentials, map network drives & login & have screen savers etc enforced.

Our environment is 80/20 in favour of PC's, but on a day to day basis the mac users happily work along side the PC users.

We use JAMF Softwares Casper Suite to manage our Macs via policies (incl. application updates) & we're fully SOX compliant.

They can be a great asset to any environment, but if you want just the office suite a PC is the better option.

However, as day to day working becomes more media rich.. the macs are becoming more prominent.

We've very few applications that require windows only, but in those cases there's options like Citrix, CrossOver or a full VM solution that can help too.

So with little research, they can work.

I've been doing IT support for around 8 years, with integrating Macs into windows environments being a speciality.

Have a look at the following for starters:

Mac AD Intergration (Magic Triangle) (http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=20040915152755925&query=AD%2Bintegration)

Casper Suite (http://jamfsoftware.com/products/casper-suite)

Enterprise Desktop Alliance (http://enterprisedesktopalliance.com/)

alecgold
Dec 23, 2010, 01:13 AM
Whats puzzling me is how small companies can have huge problems with loss of data, networks that stop working, people getting home at three o'clock because the couldn't work from 10 that morning, people running to the next floor because their printers don't work, laptops that can't work wireless, updates and systemupgrades that don't work well so every computer in a company needs to be reinstalled. All those problems are pretty expensive, if you calculate the cost of 100% of your company not being able to work from 10 in the morning? I only see this in sme's but I doubt this is calculated into the tco at large companies.
I had less than a handful situations in the last 5 years where I had data or time lost since I switched. But I also had 4 laptops that had significant problems in the 3 months before I switched.

I don't doubt the enterprise it staff has good reasons to use the systems they do, but I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with TCO. things like tco are impossible to calculate right. The time that an employee spends on downtime of his laptop, booting for the n-th time to hope you can get into this or that system. But also data loss when your computer crashes or some system hangs and it becomes unable to retrieve the work you've done for several hours.
If those problems only occur in sme's, perfect, never use os-x in an enterprise again. But as a user I do have the feeling that a lot of the true cost of it are not calculated. And as with everything in an enterprise, if it's not forecasted, calculated or kicked down from the top, it doesn't exist.

Supa_Fly
Dec 24, 2010, 08:10 AM
Specifically mention how video resources can easily be composed with OSX Server's Podcast Producer and served to mac's iPhones/iPad.

Another aspect ... no NEED to purchase different PDF volume licenses for Adobe Pro/Standard 9/10 for simple editing [I'm unsure if Preview can edit Tables/create them].

MS Office is now properly available for OSX and is up to par with 2010 for Windows: including ability to import, edit and add-on to PST files. This will be an important mention.

* Key point. Mention a server based email anti-virus license solution - for outbound emails, or FTP/Sharepoint sites that have files uploaded to Windows users that your company/employees communicate with.

* MS Office Communicator [OCS] is now available and COMPLETELY compatible for Mac - part of Office 2011 as I'm ALREADY doing this without need for a VPN connection [using OWA settings] with corporation contacts in OCS.

* more standardized ordering of hardware makes support MUCH MUCH easier. Having a high level apple certification for both hardware/server - makes your argument THAT MUCH more sound and heard in a more official and presentable voice.

* Mention how Open Directory supports Active Directory infrastructure - again certification and a direct line of specific Apple support in this respect WILL be crucial and helpful.

Silas1066
Dec 26, 2010, 09:57 AM
I find that people who claim supporting Macs is just a labor-intensive as supporting Windows machines are those who haven't implemented Macs properly and really don't know what they are doing.

Why do Windows machines use Group Policies? To push software out to machines, sure -but the real reason is to lock down machines that are by their very design security risks.

I have to use Windows 7 at work in order to run Cisco tools I use. It is a brand new machine, but nevertheless

1. I have had to fix the registry twice after installing Opera -if you install that into Windows 7 the system starts generating security errors and warnings, and you can no longer open hyperlinks in Outlook. This is Microsoft preventing you from installing 3rd party browsers into Windows 7 -I don't have these issues on my Mac (I run 3 browsers there)

2. Many 3rd party and legacy applications do not work correctly, even when run in compatibility mode. I had to rig the system to run some of these apps (more wasted time).

3. The antivirus slows down the system

I could go on and on, but this is a productivity issue: I am not as productive on Windows as I am on a Mac. Microsoft has been in disarray for years and it shows. Why on Server 2008 does the utility "Server Management" and "Manage Server" point to 2 totally different applications? Sounds like someone is shipping off projects to India and not paying attention.

Now before I get accused of MS bashing, I will point out that MS makes excellent front-end applications such as Office. This is where the company shines (Access is really great product). They just make crappy operating systems and servers.

If you use Open Directory and Preferences, you can control networked Macs. You can use shared libraries to further enhance this. Problem with a mac? Use screen sharing to go check it out. I put in a all-OSX network in a medical center not long ago -not one MS product used. It even included iPads that doctors would carry around to interface with a web-enabled database. Aside from a general question here and there, I never get called about serious system issues. That network is rock-solid.

People stick with MS because that is what they know, and they are scared of OSX/Macs. We are moving to a web-based infrastructure and the old client-server model that MS is based on is going away ...

Eric-PTEK
Dec 26, 2010, 03:14 PM
Everyone who has said something against Mac's in a business environment is right.

Everyone who has harped on downtime for PC's is wrong.

I often wonder where this mystical downtime associated with PC's is?

Sure PC's can get viruses, and yes, viruses can cause downtime. If downtime is that important, get a IPS.

If downtime is so important buy a better warranty. I sell Lenovo's as a standard business desktop, $549 w/ a 3 year NBD on site warranty, can't wait NBD, tack on another $90 for a 4 hour response warranty.

If up time is important than you do things to mitigate that downtime, and I don't care if you add up every single thing out there to mitigate that risk you won't come close to the cost of implementing Mac hardware.

And that's not even getting into software compatability, backup, service, and all the other things mentioned here.

I have never, EVER, had a user call me due to downtime on a virus or anything else where we had put in a proper security system. User security, IPS, network security, etc.

I rarely even have my customers use their warranties, even though we sell them with each machine. I've had one bad PS in a HP Server in the past 2 years and that was a installation error. The customer had a new phone system installed and for some reason the installer decided to move their server connection to the phone system's UPS, which is not capable of protecting the server.

I sell uptime and business continuity and Mac's don't offer it. It's also obvious Apple wants no part of it by getting rid of the Xserve's, but even before that their absolutely INSANE 30K or whatever it was for 1 year of on site warranty was ridiculous.

Still, even if they fixed all that, SharePoint is an app killer for Mac's, without ActiveX its useless to most business customers.

Specifically mention how video resources can easily be composed with OSX Server's Podcast Producer and served to mac's iPhones/iPad.

Another aspect ... no NEED to purchase different PDF volume licenses for Adobe Pro/Standard 9/10 for simple editing [I'm unsure if Preview can edit Tables/create them].

MS Office is now properly available for OSX and is up to par with 2010 for Windows: including ability to import, edit and add-on to PST files. This will be an important mention.

* Key point. Mention a server based email anti-virus license solution - for outbound emails, or FTP/Sharepoint sites that have files uploaded to Windows users that your company/employees communicate with.

* MS Office Communicator [OCS] is now available and COMPLETELY compatible for Mac - part of Office 2011 as I'm ALREADY doing this without need for a VPN connection [using OWA settings] with corporation contacts in OCS.

* more standardized ordering of hardware makes support MUCH MUCH easier. Having a high level apple certification for both hardware/server - makes your argument THAT MUCH more sound and heard in a more official and presentable voice.

* Mention how Open Directory supports Active Directory infrastructure - again certification and a direct line of specific Apple support in this respect WILL be crucial and helpful.

Wrong. We're a SharePoint Developer, yes if you want a pretty calendar for all to see Safari cuts it, beyond that its not even close.

Sharepoint Workspace does 10 times as much as the Mac SharePoint app. The Mac SharePoint app is there to make up for the lack of some ActiveX connectivity but you cannot sync entire projects offline.

What good is open directory? I can manage every single thing on every single Windows box, can't do that with a Mac.

You have 100 PC's and you want to publish a new SharePoint list to Outlook for every user.

How do you do it without Active Directory and group policies...well first, SharePoint lists don't work in Outlook for the Mac so guess you'd stop there.

All your doing is wasting your companies time, effort, and money, trying to shoe horn something in there that should not be just because.

You want standard hardware, fine, go pick a spec and buy it. Who exactly from Apple is going to come out and fix the computer, no one. Yet you can get same day on site service from IBM, Lenovo, and Dell, cheap.

Mac's in a business environment make no logical sense, it is an emotional decision because when put down on paper and looked at from a TCO/ROI aspect they will always come out on the losing end.


I could go on and on, but this is a productivity issue: I am not as productive on Windows as I am on a Mac. Microsoft has been in disarray for years and it shows. Why on Server 2008 does the utility "Server Management" and "Manage Server" point to 2 totally different applications? Sounds like someone is shipping off projects to India and not paying attention.

Now before I get accused of MS bashing, I will point out that MS makes excellent front-end applications such as Office. This is where the company shines (Access is really great product). They just make crappy operating systems and servers.


Windows Server 2008 does not have a Manage Server option, and in fact its Manage My Server. SBS has that, but not server 2008.

Crappy servers? Really, find me anyone, anyone, who is a system admin, who complains about MS's server operating systems?

They are rock solid. I've never had a single server crash, not a one. They run, night and day, without problems.

If you think servers are for sharing data then it shows how little people know about the true reason you put in a server. You manage entire networks with them.

1. I have had to fix the registry twice after installing Opera -if you install that into Windows 7 the system starts generating security errors and warnings, and you can no longer open hyperlinks in Outlook. This is Microsoft preventing you from installing 3rd party browsers into Windows 7 -I don't have these issues on my Mac (I run 3 browsers there)

Really, then why not do it all via GPO and be done with it? It has nothing to do with MS stopping you from installing browsers. I'd question the common sense of installing some 3rd party little known browser in a business environment.

The fact your using the windows installer to push out an app in a business environment with AD available to you is a problem in itself. If you need to install software and then push out REG patches it can all be done via GPO in 1 step.

I look after 250+ macs across 8 advertising companies across 3 countries.

Snip...

All very true. I would guess however that your industry is more Mac centric and your setup while most likely robust was not something that was put together in a day.

The value of running a Mac for business reasons outweighs the extra cost of managing your system. The integration software is not cheap, I'd suspect you make a good bit more than a standard system admin, and if you don't, you should because of the stuff your running.

I'm sure your system works well, but I'd also guess your system cost quite a bit more to implement than something all Windows based.

Your company did it for a business reason, not just because, which is what a lot of these answers are here, lets just run Mac's because.

If Mac's made more business sense to a customer I'd be all over it, value is what you need to provide. I had a customer, 9 Mac's, 2 PC's, once we sat down and looked at what it cost to do it the right way, like your doing it, out went the Mac's. There was no specific reason for them to stay on Mac's.

As far as the comment on the Enterprise vs the smaller business. We implement Enterprise quality systems in small businesses. That is our business model. It is not expensive at all, at least today. I doubt we could do what we do today for the cost 5-6 years ago.

MS is not stupid, they are creating a lot of solid smaller business apps that are cost effective.

chrono1081
Dec 26, 2010, 05:18 PM
The IT department won't want macs, it will put people like me out of a job.

I see a lot of BS in this thread and a lot of people pretending to be IT who aren't. As far as someone saying windows server 2008 is rock solid...I completely disagree.

And whoever thinks Dell has great enterprise support I absolutely 100% disagree. Their support is freaking terrible and I love how they try and claim that they can't cover servers under warranty if the server is at an APO address. Dell is too stupid to realize any APO address, regardless of where it is at in the world is U.S. soil. /rant

Anyway OP, windows generally dominates the enterprise world but it doesn't mean macs can't be used.

Silas1066
Dec 27, 2010, 07:06 AM
Microsoft is rock solid?

Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.

I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.

Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.

chrono1081
Dec 27, 2010, 06:15 PM
Microsoft is rock solid?

Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.

I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.

Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.

+1 At least you were yanked of bed for legit reasons and not exchange servers going down for no reason...I should say no hardware reason....MS couldn't even figure out the issue :/ Thankfully I don't work there anymore so someone else gets to have the fun :P

As for MS not being serious about security I completely agree. The mere fact that a malware can make its files invisible to the whole OS including command prompt enrages me, especially when I plug the infected drive into a linux or mac machine and can manually see and delete said file.

nefan65
Dec 28, 2010, 08:09 AM
The IT Business climate is changing. In 5 years it won't matter what you're using; Mac, Windows, iPad, Linux, Android, et-al. Applications will become both more Web-Centric than ever, as well as the ability to virtualize the app to run on anything [ala Citrix XEN APP'ish]. That doesn't mean PC's, and/or Mac based systems with horsepower won't be needed, they will. However, the whole idea of locking systems down, and GPO's will be moot. People will be able to work in the office, at home, or on the road with whatever they want. It's already started. Some larger companies are giving their users stipends for systems. They give them an allowance of "X Dollars" and they can buy what they want.

As for this thread; anyone that says Mac's cannot live in an Ent environment, PC's are cheaper, or Macs have a higher TCO than their PC counterparts [which is a great buzz work to toss around, but 90% of IT people that use that term rarely understand it's full meaning] is rubbish. The days of a single system type across the enterprise are gone my IT friends. The new mantra is give the users the tools they need to get their jobs done, and allow them to be proficient....

nizmoz
Dec 28, 2010, 08:38 AM
Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.

Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...

Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.

Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)

Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.

Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.

Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.

TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.

Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.

Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.

Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year 2001, that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)

It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.

Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.

And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.

Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.

And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.

nizmoz
Dec 28, 2010, 09:00 AM
The IT department won't want macs, it will put people like me out of a job.

I see a lot of BS in this thread and a lot of people pretending to be IT who aren't. As far as someone saying windows server 2008 is rock solid...I completely disagree.

And whoever thinks Dell has great enterprise support I absolutely 100% disagree. Their support is freaking terrible and I love how they try and claim that they can't cover servers under warranty if the server is at an APO address. Dell is too stupid to realize any APO address, regardless of where it is at in the world is U.S. soil. /rant

Anyway OP, windows generally dominates the enterprise world but it doesn't mean macs can't be used.

While I haven't liked Dell enterprise support, they have been good for what we need. We have 7 Dell Poweredge servers and NONE of them have had problems since we have had them. Some as old as 4 years old.

Windows 2008 Server has been pretty stable for us with less issues vs Windows 2003. I would say it's a very stable O/S. As we rarely have to restart the boxes for issues, it's usually just for updates.

Now where I hate Microsoft is in Exchange 2010. Exchange 2003, everything was built into AD so you could add users in the same AD area and it would add them to Exchange from there. Now with 2007 and 2010, it is separate. You have to add the user in AD, then you must open your Exchange Manager, and add the user to a mailbox there. Or go through Exchange to add the user in that program which will add him to AD but without the security rights of a user if you wish to copy that person.

wct097
Dec 28, 2010, 09:33 AM
I think all of the talking points have already been fleshed out. Bottom line is that Mac's simply are not an enterprise solution.

* Can you integrate them into an enterprise network?
Sure. I can also plug my home router into the network. I'm sure it'd work fine.

* Can the be your standard?
Not unless you're a small corp that doesn't use any real business applications. Then again, I wouldn't consider that to be 'Enterprise IT'.

* Group policy is only needed because Windows machines are insecure.
Can you honestly believe this if you actually have even the slightest amount of experience in an enterprise IT environment? That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

* Applications are all going to be web-centric.
Sure, that's the current direction, and from an IT perspective, makes the most sense. That's not a selling point for Macs though, that's a selling point for thin clients. If you want to talk TCO and use web-based applications as the justification, then you have to compare a Mac to a thin client..... and well, the results are obvious.

JDB1983
Dec 28, 2010, 12:38 PM
yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for windows run ah-so smoothly on macs...

Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.

Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)

enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.

Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.

Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.

Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.

Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.

Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.

Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year 2001, that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)

it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.

Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.

And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.

Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.

And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.

qft

mdatwood
Dec 28, 2010, 12:52 PM
What's funny is that there is tons of money to be made in enterprise hardware, software, and support. The problem is that it requires two things - long term support and road maps. It is completely against Apple's culture to provide either of those, thus they will always be horrible in the enterprise.

Silas1066
Dec 28, 2010, 03:58 PM
I have been working with Windows in a networked environment since the Lan Manager days (before NT 3.51)

Back in the 1990s, NT was a good choice for small to medium-sized businesses. It was easy to deploy, supported a lot of software, and was less expensive than Novell (generally). Apple back then was proprietary, difficult to deploy in large environments, and few apps ran on Macs.

Things have changed ...

If you are using GPOs to deploy legacy or proprietary applications to your users, you better get with the times. This is 2010, and EVERYTHING in the enterprise should be web-enabled (database portals, CRM software, etc.). GPOs, as I have said earlier, are generally used to lock down users and to plug the many security holes in Windows networks, or they are used to deploy old crappy apps that can't be reached through a browser.

I am sitting in front of a Mac right now at work. I have MS Office loaded on it for convenience, and I use a number of web enabled applications: Cisco utilities (UCM Manager, ASDM) SolarWinds, Norton Security Suite, and I reach my databases through a SSL proxy and specific web servers on the back-end.

My Mac is connected to AD throught the Directory Utility. My Mac can do native SMB file sharing if needed.

I could use a Ubuntu box if I wanted! Where in this environment (which is a pretty big one) am I REQUIRED to use a Windows machine? Why not get rid of the GPOs, the security sweeps, the login scripts, etc. altogether? This is 1990s crap!

Apple completely overhauled their OS when they went to OSX: this is 21st century technology. Microsoft stuck with the old 32bit architecture that included a registry and lots of legacy code. Windows 7 is a bunch of ginger-bread running on old code. Even Linux blows it away.

The days of the old tower running Windows sitting on the office desk are going away. We are moving to cloud computing, intelligent tablets (i.e. the iPad) and integrated communications (voice, video, and data).

Now Apple's support of enterprise customers is another issue, and it does concern me that they discontinued the Xserve. I guess we will have to see how that all plays out.

But this idea of "can't be done! the world only runs on windows!" is nonsense.

Supa_Fly
Dec 28, 2010, 06:08 PM
Why do Windows machines use Group Policies? To push software out to machines, sure -but the real reason is to lock down machines that are by their very design security risks.

* That right there tells me you're not worth your weight in salt for things regarding AD and Group Policies. Yes GP's are used for locking down the machine but NOT solely for this purpose OR for security risks

Group Polices:
* Forcing PW restrictions & lengths (i.e. No first/last name, 30/60/90days length).
* Deploying a patch or software update on LAN for uniformity - if you rely on just the OS to do this - then you're a moron. Even APPLE has security risks in OS X - recall the most popular about Safari allowing theft of address book content?
* Allowing/restricting access to corporate intranet portals/sites - and sub-sites. Again this is NOT part of the OS to do this: Win98/XP/7/Unix/Linux/OSX.

- that is just a few things GPs are used for.


1. I have had to fix the registry twice after installing Opera -if you install that into Windows 7 the system starts generating security errors and warnings, and you can no longer open hyperlinks in Outlook. This is Microsoft preventing you from installing 3rd party browsers into Windows 7 -I don't have these issues on my Mac (I run 3 browsers there)

* Issues with Outlook hyperlinks can be related to HTML/Text.
- that is a setting & very easy to fix.
If one simple application causes issues with the system or others then you NEED to troubleshoot it. This is why error logs (Event Viewer/Console) exists. Stop making excuses because you're unwilling to find the error or ask for help. Microsoft, by European law (whatever the body that created it is) can NO LONGER force their IE browser to ship with Windows (since Windows Vista/shortly after launch). In the USA their allowed to ship it but again NOT FORCE users to have this set as default and easily changeable even during installation of 3rd party's offerings. I don't deny your having issues, you're just looking for an easy excuse. BTW; are you SURE there is not a GPO that restricts users from having 3rd party browsers? Many financial institutions have this restricted in North America because of leaking out information.



2. Many 3rd party and legacy applications do not work correctly, even when run in compatibility mode. I had to rig the system to run some of these apps (more wasted time).
- Dude, you're running LEGACY applications here. Most likely there were not intended to work with the new OS nor supported to, and quote possibly WILL cause issues. Heck I can track down my favourite OS X theme and find out it has issues with Snow Leopard - getting rid of the minimize, close, and maximize buttons for EACH window. Yes it was created for Leopard and ONLY supports Leopard. Oh yeah OS X does NOT natively support themes - so you get the similarities.


3. The antivirus slows down the system

- Can't argue that. Its an applications that also has a process that runs while the OS is running. One of the beauties for NOT using Windows at ALL!! :apple:


I could go on and on, but this is a productivity issue: I am not as productive on Windows as I am on a Mac. Microsoft has been in disarray for years and it shows. Why on Server 2008 does the utility "Server Management" and "Manage Server" point to 2 totally different applications? Sounds like someone is shipping off projects to India and not paying attention.


This right there - highlighted in BOLD - shows something of your nature completely unrelated to the technical issue; regardless of Microsoft does have a large corporate office in India. I'd love to see how you handle work if your boss is of Indian descent. Actually lets BOTH stop right there and not relate technical OS issues/preferences on nationalities of human beings being at fault.


Now before I get accused of MS bashing, I will point out that MS makes excellent front-end applications such as Office. This is where the company shines (Access is really great product). They just make crappy operating systems and servers.

So Exchange 2007/2010, SQL Server 2008, and many others that have GROWN in popularity and licensing contracts across the world - at the expense of loosing contracts like Domino/etc/GroupWise - not proof of just how good their OS and servers are (servers ARE OS' from Microsoft btw).


People stick with MS because that is what they know, and they are scared of OSX/Macs. We are moving to a web-based infrastructure and the old client-server model that MS is based on is going away ...

I disagree. People stick with MS based on:
what they know
availability of applications
most likely preference: it works how "THEY" think, or its because they can,
get help by others in their circle and not have arrogant reply's that is SO common on these boards in the past/present. YES we ALL volunteer our time, but to be arrogant is not cool - I'm sure we ALL asked for help by posting questions on these boards. I'd wager 75% of all members used the search yet either A) didn't know correct keywords for best results/relative results, B) Didn't find what their looking for, or C) only similar results but did not apply to their issue for varying reasons: OS version, app version, different errors, etc.

Corporations choose Microsoft because:
1) Existing contractual/perpetual licensing binds them in current term,
2) Productivity and support is VERY good and sound, with current environment.
3) For large corporate networks globally its THE BEST & proven across a vast infrastructure forest.
- Show me 1 corporate business that has over 8'000 employees across more than 4 countries that can centrally manage: intranet sites, access/security controls, 1 workstation operating system, etc just for starters that is NOT Apple running Linux or Mac OS X?!
(I know the German government uses SUSE Linux exclusively; giving MS and Balmer personally the middle. VERY brave and bold and I'm glad).

we can argue ALL DAY LONG about this but it all comes down to contractual agreements - loss of uptime during migration & how it'll affect corporate costs, productivity, and retraining for end users. Apple had the chance back in 1986 to win over the corporate world but instead Apple continued to (and still rely's) on Microsoft for powerful email/calendar/tasks/reminder management in their OS. Apple also decided to insult their potential corporate clients by releasing commercials like Lemons (actually it was very matter of fact & funny but still not very tactful) and similar.

Personally, I'd REALLY love to see more installations of OS X fully - but delivering old CPU's in the lower line of consumer laptops when the competition still using the same manufacturer can do better is not helping them.

Supa_Fly
Dec 28, 2010, 06:38 PM
Microsoft is rock solid?

Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.

I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.

Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.

Very Very interesting point. AntiVirus contracts/solutions (or lack there OF) is VERY costly as a day to day part of operations and productivity. YES Microsoft is part of the problem, but all these rogue developers trying to bring down microsoft & other corporations are also part of the problem.

I'm VERY interested to see just how much storage space virii definitions take up both on workstations & on server just in the drive to security & uptime.

Is it NOT AMAZING that in the last 20yrs we've come so far with regards to computing?!

Silas1066
Dec 29, 2010, 07:03 AM
The India remark is not a bash against Indians, it is a bash against overseas outsourcing, and to some extent insourcing.

India does not have the worker protections, laws, etc. that the US has. The country is basically a sweat shop, and Indian consulting firms, desperate for American business, will routinely lie, overestimate their ability to complete a project, and then treat their workers like crap. The result is the project rarely gets done correctly. This is from 15 years IT experience -I have seen it many, many times.

Microsoft routinely ships development projects to India in order to tap into low-wage labor and avoid US laws. Apple probably does some of this as well, although MS is notorious for it. The quality of MS products has gone down, perhaps as a result of this (among many other factors).

Cloud computing may ultimately mean that a H1B comes into your company, drops a couple circuits in, and everything runs from India: no need to hire American workers. The office is "virtualized." When the Indian workers become expensive, the Indian firms just ship those jobs over to China.

10 years from now, the IT industry in the US may have gone the way of the textile industry, with basically everyone losing their jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like working in this industry, and my kid likes computers ...

---

As far as MS being the best corporate infrastructure, give me a break. Microsoft ripped off Novell to get Active Directory (which isn't even as good -it lacks fault tolerance and the performance is poor), and before that ripped off Apple to get the GUI. Windows 7 looks like a cheap OSX knock-off made in mainland China. MS steals ideas, Apple is the innovator.

As I said before, MS makes good front-end applications, and a few good back-end ones as well (SQL is good but very, very expensive -Exchange is a piece of shi*). Their OS still runs on old technology and it shows.

GPOs can do ten million things, 95% of which corporations never use -that is called feature creep.

nefan65
Dec 29, 2010, 11:26 AM
The India remark is not a bash against Indians, it is a bash against overseas outsourcing, and to some extent insourcing.

India does not have the worker protections, laws, etc. that the US has. The country is basically a sweat shop, and Indian consulting firms, desperate for American business, will routinely lie, overestimate their ability to complete a project, and then treat their workers like crap. The result is the project rarely gets done correctly. This is from 15 years IT experience -I have seen it many, many times.

Microsoft routinely ships development projects to India in order to tap into low-wage labor and avoid US laws. Apple probably does some of this as well, although MS is notorious for it. The quality of MS products has gone down, perhaps as a result of this (among many other factors).

Cloud computing may ultimately mean that a H1B comes into your company, drops a couple circuits in, and everything runs from India: no need to hire American workers. The office is "virtualized." When the Indian workers become expensive, the Indian firms just ship those jobs over to China.

10 years from now, the IT industry in the US may have gone the way of the textile industry, with basically everyone losing their jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like working in this industry, and my kid likes computers ...

---

As far as MS being the best corporate infrastructure, give me a break. Microsoft ripped off Novell to get Active Directory (which isn't even as good -it lacks fault tolerance and the performance is poor), and before that ripped off Apple to get the GUI. Windows 7 looks like a cheap OSX knock-off made in mainland China. MS steals ideas, Apple is the innovator.

As I said before, MS makes good front-end applications, and a few good back-end ones as well (SQL is good but very, very expensive -Exchange is a piece of shi*). Their OS still runs on old technology and it shows.

GPOs can do ten million things, 95% of which corporations never use -that is called feature creep.

Well said. The IT industry IS changing to that type of computing. Virtualized, anywhere/anytime. The idea of 20 servers in a room down the hall is going way of the Do-Do Bird. If it's not a Cloud based app, it could very well be that the data center is in another state/country. VDI is slowly creeping into the Enterprise as well. Not like some had hoped, but it is coming. The idea that ALL systems need to be the same, or ALL Windows, or ALL Mac, etc. will be moot. You'll be able to work anyplace, with any device, securely and safely. Use what you're comfortable with; laptop, desktop, tablet, phone...

When you utilize Saleforce.com...do people really think they're running that on a Windows Server with GPO's? LOL...Ahhhh...NO! It's running on a server farm of Linux Boxes and Oracle...

Supa_Fly
Dec 29, 2010, 09:17 PM
nefan65 & Silas1066;

Without the need to requote Silas' post yet again I must disagree on a few points:

1. India is not the ONLY country that the USA IT Industry is outsourcing to:
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China have already been done for the past 2-7yrs already if not more. Singling out India is a cop-out and its mostly programming that is outsourced (or was initially) along with level 1-3 support lines. Microsoft is not the only corporation to do this: nor the first. Again singling out India instead of just correctly generalizing outsourcing - shows a bit of ignorance; if not then just simply bad etiquette & taste. Admit that at the very least.

2. The example that IT would entirely be outsourced and go the way of textiles is a bit long stretched but based on current trends & facts.
Examples: Although the auto industry went heavily to Japan as a quick shift for better build quality or fuel efficiency [Honda, Nissan Toyota of the 90s, Infiniti & Lexus as well], the German auto industry have always been there [Audi-Union: Audi/VW/Porsche, BMW, etc]. Ford is the only USA auto marker that didn't claim bankruptcy protection and well the quality of their cars has NEVER been better, sales are well up & the product line more refined to target consumers.
- The point I'm making is that engineering accomplishments, R&D, design trends, performance, fuel efficiency/alternative modes of energy consumption (a new paradigm), car costs & basic equipment, etc have always changed which auto maker is on top.

The same can be said about the animation industry. Japan is king with just about all things Anime, but the big blockbuster movie $$ is still done by companies in the US of A. Different styles of artistic animation, expression, plots, voice acting or voice overs etc change. Can you honestly say that the American animation industry is failing against that of Japan? Artists, just like engineers work outside of borders - so long as laws, visas, patents, contracts don't bind them.

Now focusing on IT. Sure there are a number of 12-16yr old geeky pimple faced, goggle wearing (I'm being overly stereotypical here) kids across the world that can traverse very well in command line in Linux, or even in Terminal in OSX, or DOS on Windows. Many of whom can whip up a NASTY Virus or cluster of VIRII that'll bring an office to its knees - if built from scratched code in a matter of minutes.

BUT: you're forgetting those professors in certain universities around the world and the real forefathers of C+, UNIX code/command line, etc that built shells from scratch with serious purposeful insight that many are STILL in original form today in both Linux/Unix. These oldie's but goodies - like T. Berners Lee are able to build applications we use daily. These guys will continue to teach and work at the worlds best technology corporations: just because like Flynn their addicted and its their world, heart & soul.

Yes servers will be virtualized almost entirely - as if they where not already: remember RS400/MainFrame(?). Desktops as well - yet there are still 2 things that will allow the desktop and laptop survive for at least another decade.
1. People still love to OWN things; tangible or not.
- people still love the ability to grab what they own and use it portably the way they can or where they can:
The richest guys in the world have limo's and drivers 6x on Sunday. But they still buy, own, and drive their own cars. music since the very beginning has always loved to be played & shared by people. 8-track played at home/car only, cassette allowed it in smaller rooms and the walkman was born, Mini-Disc then compact disc made it even more portable and digital quality, now MP3's allow more music to be stored on CD/DVD's and on HDD/SSD's. What's one thing that has NOT changed? People still love to play/share/own music and love to have pictures or memories of those that play their favorites.
2. Networks are STILL limited.
- Limited by bandwidth: especially when talking about virtualized environments to be used/shared across continents: Riverbeds help quite a bit but still load balance and bandwidth issues.
- Limited by memory speeds ^ see bandwidth above.
- Limited by storage space - and the speeds to read/write access: this is more important than the horsepower race in cars or the top speed race or acceleration.

One day we'll have our own worldwide network where terminals are used along with tablets/smartphones - very similar to a Brainiac in Superman. Laugh all you want but with Google, Oracle, VMWare, Microsoft, Apple Sun Microsystems (back end servers), CISCO, Intel & AMD, BELL Labs/Ericsson LB/Lucent Technologies/ Military/ etc sooner or later their work will finally become a harmony - hardware, software (code/graphics/GUI/Voice & gesture control) will all reach a pinnacle where the human equation has reached its peak of intake/input rate of speed/quality of graphics/motion/computational power and bandwidth makes any micro form of latency negligible (or non-relavent). Some say there is always something better but sooner or later it'll happen. [PST: physically humans haven't evolved much in the past million years].

OK I think I had too much to toke on this derailment.

What benefits of the core code in OSX can be utilized to better suite corporations and are there ANY applications that cannot be ported to OS X - and extensions used by applications that cannot be used directly or ported over in real-time to be read/edited in the OSX ported app?!

chaseerry
Jan 1, 2011, 11:14 PM
Great thread with a lot of good and bad input.

Bottom line is this; the answer lies in what fits your company needs.

MacTribe
Jan 5, 2011, 05:05 PM
Here is a simple question. What type of business are you?

If you're an accountant firm, using SAGE - then Windows is the best solution for your business. If you're a graphic design firm, Mac would be the best choice for your business - but windows would also work in the design sector.

The question of "what is better than what" is irrelevant, its more about "what do you need out of your IT?"

You also have to consider your training needs, if you suddenly shift everyone from PC to Mac or Visa Versa.

You also have to consider who provides your IT Support? Do you have internal IT staff? Do you outsource?

You may one to get in a Neutral PC and Mac consultant (who is not going to try sell you things you dont need) to come in do a proper survey.

Hope this helps! :)