PDA

View Full Version : Seeking Windows Alternatives


arn
Aug 6, 2002, 09:30 AM
MacMinute (http://www.macminute.com) cites this press release (http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.080602/222182050) from YankeeGroup (http://www.yankeegroup.com) on a recent report on alternatives to Windows. Of interest, it appears that Windows dissatisfaction is at an all time high, and may provide more opportunity for Apple to gain marketshare:

A recent joint survey of 1,500 corporations by Sunbelt Software, Inc. and the Yankee Group found that nearly 40% of the respondents were so outraged by Microsoft's new licensing scheme that they are actively seeking alternative products.

j763
Aug 6, 2002, 09:36 AM
Well, there's only really one windows alternative

eyelikeart
Aug 6, 2002, 10:00 AM
damn...40% is a bold factor...

I firmly believe there are many more than that who are frustrated with Windows...but most I've run into don't know any better or are just afraid of a Mac...

one thing I hate dealing with is when people say "Well I've always heard that Macs suck..."

but then when I ask them why I get no retort... :rolleyes:

anyway...I think the time will come when we're seeing many companies making the switch over to Mac OS X once they are so frustrated with Windows and it's b.s. that they finally just snap... :D

trilogic
Aug 6, 2002, 10:07 AM
A lot of Windows users I know do complain about cost and this and that. But only very few of them even think about switching. They don't even consider to have a Linux, Apache based Web or Intranet Server. No, they just buy Windows because it is allready installed on their Dell's.

But everybody looks with envy at my TiBook with OSX. :D

trilogic
Aug 6, 2002, 10:09 AM
ah yes and they shurly will have the eyes pop out when they'll see my new (upcomming) G4 with Cinema HD Display.

please bring out those new G4 tomorrow

pdeli
Aug 6, 2002, 10:30 AM
... Apple won't make a foolish move instead of using this window of opportunity. I often have the impression that when a company makes a bad move the competition tends to follow rather than use it for its own benefit. I hope that if the article is right, Apple will be able to take advantage of it.

Cheers all,
Pit : )

++++

mymemory
Aug 6, 2002, 11:42 AM
Ok, just one question?

Do you know how much does it cost to create a Mac based network compared to windows?

At lits 3 or 4 times more, just because the price of the hardware. Just figuring that out people will re-think about changing platforms, specially large corporations.

If WE as mac users can not find all the applications for OSX from OS9, imagine to jump from Windows to OSX.

If I have to set up a network in my bank I will go for Windows, the tach support guys will have to deal with the problems and still a long way cheaper.

Bartman
Aug 6, 2002, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
At lits 3 or 4 times more, just because the price of the hardware.

:mad:

What utter BS!

Apple uses the same networking technology as the Wintel crowd. From cabling to routers they use the exact same infrastructure from the exact same vendors.

The only difference is the price of the computers themselves, and Macs are FAR from 3 to 4 times more expensive, especially when one looks at TCO (total cost of ownership).

Look at the number of IT peons it takes to manage a wintel network. Look at the number of IT peons it takes to manage a like number of Macs. According to the Garnder Group, and other studies, the Macs require one third to one fifth the IT resources.

Hmm, 10% more expensive on inital purchase, 60% to 80% cheaper to maintain over the nex t 2 to 5 years.

mymemory, go troll elsewhere...

Snowy_River
Aug 6, 2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by mymemory

If I have to set up a network in my back I will go for Windows, the tach support guys will have to deal with the problems and still a long way cheaper.

While I'll agree that Macs are more expensive, I've worked as a network administrator on a Windows Network. For a mere twelve or so computers, the company paid me $34k per year to keep them up and running. In addition, we also had outside tech support from both a local company and from MS. This probably amounted to on the order of an additional $5k-$8k per year.

As a contrast, I have also worked as a Mac network admin. For eight computers I had about two to three hours per week doing administration, the rest of the time I worked as an engineer - billable time. We also had outside support, amounting to two service calls in a year, to the tune of about $800.

Now, if you think that you can save on the order of $40k (per year) on a dozen PCs over Macs, you're welcome to try. From the point of view of a major company, every one that I've ever talked to that has evaluated Macs vs. PCs, PCs are cheaper in the short run, but Macs are far cheaper in the long run.

dynamicd
Aug 6, 2002, 01:00 PM
I think this is why most of the schools around my area are slowly converting to macs. Almost all of the computer labs in the high schools are now macs. I remeber 4 years ago being a freshmen and seeing a dominate ration of pc's over macs. It's all slowly changing.

And isn't it nice?? :p

ImAlwaysRight
Aug 6, 2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by trilogic
ah yes and they shurly will have the eyes pop out when they'll see my new (upcomming) G4 with Cinema HD Display.

please bring out those new G4 tomorrow
You need to remember your average consumer doesn't have $6500 to throw into a new system. More like $1-2K, which is why PC's sell so well. The base PowerMac costs $1600, $2600 if you want to add the 17" display, and this machine doesn't even have L3 cache, is stuck at 800MHz, and uses PC133 RAM and an ATA/66 hard drive. You can get a lot more PC for $2600.

I know the Mac OS has advantages, which is why I use it, but cost is still THE primary factor when it comes to a computer purchase for most folks.

etoiles
Aug 6, 2002, 01:19 PM
...people will be happy with Apple's licensing schemes until they want to upgrade their system and realize they have to pay for a full new version.

This is not only about switching from 10.1 to 10.2, remember 10.0 to 10.1 ? It was 'free' (well, $20 for handling), but only for a short period of time. When I went to the Apple store, they told me that I would have to pay for a full 10.1 !!! And that the best way to 'upgrade' was to buy a new computer !!!!!!! How arrogant is that ? And I am supposed to feel bad about copying the OS from a friend after that ?

I am still happy with OSX, but some salespeople need a good smacking.
:mad:

Snowy_River
Aug 6, 2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
...people will be happy with Apple's licensing schemes until they want to upgrade their system and realize they have to pay for a full new version.

This is not only about switching from 10.1 to 10.2, remember 10.0 to 10.1 ? It was 'free' (well, $20 for handling), but only for a short period of time. When I went to the Apple store, they told me that I would have to pay for a full 10.1 !!! And that the best way to 'upgrade' was to buy a new computer !!!!!!! How arrogant is that ? And I am supposed to feel bad about copying the OS from a friend after that ?

I am still happy with OSX, but some salespeople need a good smacking.
:mad:

Your Apple store lied to you then. I recently bought an older iMac for my uncle. It had MacOS X 10.0 on it, and I knew that he would be far happier with 10.1.x. We went to our local Apple store and got a 10.1 CD for $10. No full version. Just a service fee.

drastik
Aug 6, 2002, 01:35 PM
you gto lied to, I got 10.1 upgrades free about two months ago, upgraded my little sisters iMacDV. I walked into the reseller, asked for an upgrade disk, they gave it to me, I left.

dagegen
Aug 6, 2002, 01:46 PM
Just remember, it's corporate nature to exploit a monopoly...

Whilst I'm not suggesting that Apple are anywhere near as bad as M$, just remember 'free email for life' until you have to pay $100 for it (or the ever so special, valued customer offer of $49)

'nuff said.

drastik
Aug 6, 2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by dagegen
Just remember, it's corporate nature to exploit a monopoly...

Whilst I'm not suggesting that Apple are anywhere near as bad as M$, just remember 'free email for life' until you have to pay $100 for it (or the ever so special, valued customer offer of $49)

'nuff said.

OMG!!!!! I thought we were past this!!!! Apple NEVER, EVER said FREE FOR LIFE. I've posted threads asking someone to prove it, I've scoured the web looking myself. They never promised you Free email for life. You entered into a contract with Apple, Inc. that is a standard agreement (remember clicking agree for terms and policy?) Every Apple Terms and COndition liscense I have seen reserves them the right to end the agreement at anytime.

I have no sympathy for you if you didn't read it, thats why you have to click agree to get the service.

Man, soemtimes you people amaze me.:mad:

Pants
Aug 6, 2002, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by dagegen
Just remember, it's corporate nature to exploit a monopoly...

Whilst I'm not suggesting that Apple are anywhere near as bad as M$, just remember 'free email for life' until you have to pay $100 for it (or the ever so special, valued customer offer of $49)

'nuff said.

Yep!. A few of apples more recent 'stunts' have made me think twice about the potential cost of ownership. If windows users are 'outraged' at M$'s licensing schemes, lets hope apple don't implement some of the more daft serial number/one cd per machine rumours we hear about. Judging by the .Mac fiasco and the 129quid upgrade (please!! 129 quid to kill a beach ball?!!), I suspect they will. :mad:

actually, what osX HAS done is convince me that the world of linux is indeed viable - maybe this is where the 'switch' campaign is leading.

Edge100
Aug 6, 2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Pants


Yep!. A few of apples more recent 'stunts' have made me think twice about the potential cost of ownership. If windows users are 'outraged' at M$'s licensing schemes, lets hope apple don't implement some of the more daft serial number/one cd per machine rumours we hear about. Judging by the .Mac fiasco and the 129quid upgrade (please!! 129 quid to kill a beach ball?!!), I suspect they will. :mad:

actually, what osX HAS done is convince me that the world of linux is indeed viable - maybe this is where the 'switch' campaign is leading.

Oh please, people.

Listen, Apple never told you iTools would be free for life. It costs them a lot of money to keep it free, so in order to get back some of that cost, they charge you $100/yr. You may think that is too expensive, but that is your perogative.

Apple does not OWE anybody a free OS X 10.2 upgrade. You got 10.1 free, and now you're bitching. And dont give me the "OS X isnt really a complete OS" crap. When will you be satisfied that it is a complete OS? When it comes standard with iTransporter? or iBig-Mac-and-Fries? Seriously, Apple has given us a lot for free and although I will not be paying $100 for .mac, I dont feel as if I am owed it.

And as for the viability of Linux, go ahead and try it. You'll be back. If you run a server, sure, Linux is great. For a desktop machine, forget it. Seriously. Go ahead and try.

maclamb
Aug 6, 2002, 02:30 PM
if you switrch from PC to mac you can keep/reuse:
Monitor
RAM
Hard drives
CDROM Drives
Zip/Iomega Drives

Also, ask your PC preineds how long it would take how much it would cost to recver from a hard drive failure.
Assuming all data was backed up - if their C: drive failed they have to:
Reinsitall the OS
Reinstall All Apps ( to restore registry settings)

On a mac you can just reinsitall the OS (fast) and copy user files back - so all or most settings are restored.

And, whomever said mac networks were 3-4 times as much hasn't actually done it.
All hardware, etc is reusable - even licnese costs for MAC OSX Server are cheaper , i think, than NT/Win2K licenses. - not sure on this one.

york2600
Aug 6, 2002, 02:35 PM
As a network administrator for a site with 350 computers and a big Mac geek and I can admit that in a standardized outfit it is much easier to admin Windows machines. We spend $1000 on our 2.2Ghz Dells with 19in monitors and CDRW drivers. Not bad for $1000 considering they're full towers and they also have gigabit Ethernet (Intel 845G chipset). When we receive 50 new machines we create a base model with all the necessary software for the machines. We then use StorageSoft Imagecast to dump a hard drive image of the workstation and distribute it to our workstations. We can build an image in a day and deploy it in less than an hour. The software is only $750 for our site. On the other hand a small group of Macs (7) takes me just as long to deploy as there are no imaging solutions that offer the same ease of use, ease of integration, and low price that ImageCast offers. When a PC stops working I simple image it using network boot features via PXE and it's back up and running within 15 minutes. When a Mac dies I have to reinstall the OS and all necessary software. Don't kid yourself either we have plenty of Macs that die. Overall I would say for US (keyword there: US) it costs slightly less (TCO) to run the PCs as any ease of administration is lost with the high price we pay for our G4s. Now in a small shop without imaging I'd say the Mac wins since it you still have to manual install and troubleshoot the PCs, but with imaging the Macs don’t stand a chance. I'd like Apple to further develop their hard drive image technology to better serve the IT community.


BTW ImageCast does Linux Ext 2 drives. Not 3 though :(

-Tim Smith
Network Administrator
New Tech High School
www.newtechhigh.org

crassusad44
Aug 6, 2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Pants


Yep!. A few of apples more recent 'stunts' have made me think twice about the potential cost of ownership. If windows users are 'outraged' at M$'s licensing schemes, lets hope apple don't implement some of the more daft serial number/one cd per machine rumours we hear about. Judging by the .Mac fiasco and the 129quid upgrade (please!! 129 quid to kill a beach ball?!!), I suspect they will. :mad:

actually, what osX HAS done is convince me that the world of linux is indeed viable - maybe this is where the 'switch' campaign is leading.

OMG! You pathetic whiners!!!! I don't like to pay for .mac either, but it's a good service (much better than some of the "free" ones). And what the h*ll. You think killing the spinning beachball is the only thing new in Jaguar? the new features in Jaguar are so good it's worth every dollar. Rendezvous alone would be worth $129. Maybe you have been living under a rock, cause you probably haven't heard the news on the economic troubles lately.... And BTW, this is the first time in 17 months you'll have to fork up your «hard» earned money to get the newest OS from Apple. Go back to yer stinkin Wintel PC and watch the BSOD!!!

york2600
Aug 6, 2002, 02:37 PM
Another thing: Dont compare retail prices. No on pays retail. Windows XP is $40 a copy on a Microsoft Select plan and Windows 2000 Server is about $200. Apple really doesn't cut good deals with software or hardware to schools anymore. We got our Dells about 25% off retail. Apple offered us nothing even close to that.

-Tim

dagegen
Aug 6, 2002, 02:40 PM
Ah well, I'll consider myself told then regards my earlier post then and apologise for my foolishness in critising Apple ;)

railthinner
Aug 6, 2002, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight

You need to remember your average consumer doesn't have $6500 to throw into a new system. More like $1-2K, which is why PC's sell so well. The base PowerMac costs $1600, $2600 if you want to add the 17" display, and this machine doesn't even have L3 cache, is stuck at 800MHz, and uses PC133 RAM and an ATA/66 hard drive. You can get a lot more PC for $2600.

I know the Mac OS has advantages, which is why I use it, but cost is still THE primary factor when it comes to a computer purchase for most folks.

I not only agree with the previous posts that maintaining a Mac user base is cheaper in the long run but I contend, based on usage of people I know and my own personal experience, that individual Mac ownership is also cheaper over the long run.

I own a beige g3, a 6400 and an imac (each with various upgrades) and they're all still kicking. Handling very well mind you-- audio, web design, and occasional video editing. Any PC friends I've had for a period have converted to mac based on their experience compared with mine other mac users in my circle of friends. I've known nobody with a pc that is as old or extensively used as my macs that still functions. They're crap--consistently troublesome. I've witnessed months of frustration from several pc users with difficulties I can't even imagine. It's mind boggling to me that there is still any debate. I hear many pc users manage happily with their machines but who are you? it's a mystery to me. In both professional and personal use I've never met an IT guy or anyone who manage their pcs as well as mac users--ever. Show me an alien and I'll believe it.

crassusad44
Aug 6, 2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by york2600
On the other hand a small group of Macs (7) takes me just as long to deploy as there are no imaging solutions that offer the same ease of use, ease of integration, and low price that ImageCast offers.

Ever heard of Mac OS X Server and NetBoot? You should look into it....
Oh, BTW, welcome to MR

trilogic
Aug 6, 2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
Ok, just one question?

Do you know how much does it cost to create a Mac based network compared to windows?

At lits 3 or 4 times more, just because the price of the hardware. Just figuring that out people will re-think about changing platforms, specially large corporations.

Sorry but do you actually know how much? :rolleyes: A mac based network is no way more expensive. I would say it's exactly the same cost because you can use the exactly same hardware.

I share an office with a windows guy. together we use the same network printer and dsl router.

Snowy_River
Aug 6, 2002, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by crassusad44


Ever heard of Mac OS X Server and NetBoot? You should look into it....
Oh, BTW, welcome to MR

Drat, beat me to the punch.

And even before MacOS X came with such features standard, there was software available for the Mac that did this. (Don't ask, it's been a number of years since I looked into this and I don't remember the name of the software or the company - but maybe someone else here does?)

As to the original comparison, you're comparing a small shop type of set up (7 Macs) to a large organization type of set up (350 Windows machines). Of course the level of efficiency and support software isn't equivalent. Compare 350 Macs with 350 Wintels, and you'll see a vast difference.

etoiles
Aug 6, 2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River


Your Apple store lied to you then. I recently bought an older iMac for my uncle. It had MacOS X 10.0 on it, and I knew that he would be far happier with 10.1.x. We went to our local Apple store and got a 10.1 CD for $10. No full version. Just a service fee.

...mmmh...then as I said, some salespeople need a good smacking. I'll be prepared next time ;)
thanks for the info, it makes me feel better about Apple in general :)

Pants
Aug 6, 2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by crassusad44


OMG! You pathetic whiners!!!! I don't like to pay for .mac either, but it's a good service (much better than some of the "free" ones). And what the h*ll. You think killing the spinning beachball is the only thing new in Jaguar? the new features in Jaguar are so good it's worth every dollar. Rendezvous alone would be worth $129. Maybe you have been living under a rock, cause you probably haven't heard the news on the economic troubles lately.... And BTW, this is the first time in 17 months you'll have to fork up your «hard» earned money to get the newest OS from Apple. Go back to yer stinkin Wintel PC and watch the BSOD!!!

OMG!! you pathetid apple apologists!! waaahwaaahwaah!!! someone has pointed out they arent happen with apple - QED they *must* be a wintel owner!! waaah waaaah waah!!

it just so happens I pay for an ISP to provide me with a broadband connection, hence the value in .mac is minimal. extra h/d space? kewl - but to make any use of it, you *need* broadband.

iCal? jeez... As for the 'economic troubles' you mention , you think we dont know? you think its all rosy out here in IT land? you think I really want to invest in overpriced underspecced (old) equipment when I may not have a job tomorrow? be ripped off for a (potential) 1 os cd per machine deal? for an os that hardly works? (printing grief anyone? geologically slow 'finder'? boot up times? ) itunes? iChat? these are really worth 129 sheets? after osX and 10.1? sheesh!! i wonder if some of you apologists actually use osX for anything other than pose value.... I have to say, I am sick to death of the 'excuse' of an economic slowdown which 'allows' firms to dress up sharp practices and redundancies.


And the less said of the paltry 8-10% educational discounts the better. Yes it *is* cheaper buy far to take the windows site licenses , even ignoring teh kick backs of on site support.

crassusad44
Aug 6, 2002, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Pants

it just so happens I pay for an ISP to provide me with a broadband connection, hence the value in .mac is minimal. extra h/d space? kewl - but to make any use of it, you *need* broadband.

Apple is not a broadband provider, so what's your point? If you don't feel ther's any vaule in .mac, well, then don't pay. Nobody is forcing you to. But don't make an a$$ out of your self by criticizing Apple because of .mac. iTools was great, but it got too popular. Giving millions of users free 5MB POP and IMAP mail + 20 MB disk space costs quite a few dollars.


be ripped off for a (potential) 1 os cd per machine deal? for an os that hardly works? (printing grief anyone? geologically slow 'finder'? boot up times? ) itunes? iChat? these are really worth 129 sheets? after osX and 10.1? sheesh!! i wonder if some of you apologists actually use osX for anything other than pose value.... I have to say, I am sick to death of the 'excuse' of an economic slowdown which 'allows' firms to dress up sharp practices and redundancies.

Ripped off... So you feel it's your right to pirate system software? APPLE ARE BASTARDS! THEY DON'T LET ME PIRATE THEIR SOFTWARE ANYMORE! Oh, BTW the software serial number on OS X is a RUMOR posted by SPYMAC, and is RUMORED to be discussed at Apple for FUTURE releases....

10.1 barely work??? Have you ever used the system???? Yes, printing can be hell-like, but OS X is still the best that has happened to the desktop computer since 1984! And let me tell you whats worth $129 sheets:

- Rendezvous
- CUPS printing
- Full bluetooth support
- iCal, iSync
- QuartzExtreme
- Audio MIDI Setup
- Scanner support in Image Capture
- Much improved Finder
- JPEG 2000 support

and 141 more features....

And you don't think I use OS X for anything other than posting here at MR??? Well, I do pro video editing, web-design, photo work and I produce and distibute a news magazine in PDF for a user group using pro Adobe apps. All under Mac OS X...

drastik
Aug 6, 2002, 04:28 PM
XServes come with unlimited user liscences, as opposed to a few thousand for just ten Windows liscences. Even if you don't use the iApps comming with Jaguar, they are still more than you get with XP Pro, which costs more, and many people do use these apps, many people who would be on the network, regaurdless of which, Apple has to do the R&D on them, and that need to get paid for somewhere. I maintain that you are paying for the hardware. Sometimes Macs die, I've seen dead ones and in a pool of 350, there are bound to be some problems, less problems than 350 Dells though. Its a problem when you have to replace the Optical drives frequently (Dell customer sevices biggest request).

For the record, I've owned eleven Macs in my life, none of them has died, I've had to reinstall OSX once in two years, and that as a result of some dumbass operating in root. I still have five of the Macs, and they all work, though I don't use three of them.

I take care of my computers, and IT people should to. Preventitive matainance is key for this, and very easy to do with a mac.

No matter what the cot, PCs that cost less than macs are made of cheap parts and bad archetecture. The PCs that are well made with good parts cost as much as Macs.

HybridTheory
Aug 6, 2002, 04:32 PM
Check this article out on slashdot, Arn.
It links to a paper that says Windows is insecure to the point that it is "unfixable."
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/06/1828256.shtml?tid=172

mischief
Aug 6, 2002, 04:55 PM
OS X is easier to understand if you think of it as Mac OS (*ni)X (version) 1.n.n etc.

That is: Every point "n" upgrade may as well be a whole new OS in the Mac OS BSD family.

If you bought ANY OS in a point-zero you're a fool. I've been using OS X for CAD in a professional setting for a year now. Jaguar will kill the few complaints I have left. I will be more than willing to buy a copy and install it.


As to .Mac:

iTools was promised as a free service to users of OS 9. If you assumed this would be the case in perpetuum you're a fool.

In conclusion: If you're whining because there's a new OS out and you don't want to pay for it: Don't.

Join the ranks of clone-buyers who are still whining about how Apple abandoned them rather than just GETTING A NEW MACHINE 5 YEARS LATER.

If you don't want to pay for .Mac: Don't. Join the ranks of OS 7.6 user who never upraded because they'd lose some cool hacks.:rolleyes:


General statement to whiners:

Get a life kids. The world isn't fair, money has to be earned, services and products have to be payed for and waiters need to be tipped.

drastik
Aug 6, 2002, 05:20 PM
You're on the nose Mischeif and thankfully a little calmer than I usualy am, I' just fed up wih the crying.;)

kenohki
Aug 6, 2002, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Pants


OMG!! you pathetid apple apologists!! waaahwaaahwaah!!! someone has pointed out they arent happen with apple - QED they *must* be a wintel owner!! waaah waaaah waah!!

it just so happens I pay for an ISP to provide me with a broadband connection, hence the value in .mac is minimal. extra h/d space? kewl - but to make any use of it, you *need* broadband.

iCal? jeez... As for the 'economic troubles' you mention , you think we dont know? you think its all rosy out here in IT land? you think I really want to invest in overpriced underspecced (old) equipment when I may not have a job tomorrow? be ripped off for a (potential) 1 os cd per machine deal? for an os that hardly works? (printing grief anyone? geologically slow 'finder'? boot up times? ) itunes? iChat? these are really worth 129 sheets? after osX and 10.1? sheesh!! i wonder if some of you apologists actually use osX for anything other than pose value.... I have to say, I am sick to death of the 'excuse' of an economic slowdown which 'allows' firms to dress up sharp practices and redundancies.


And the less said of the paltry 8-10% educational discounts the better. Yes it *is* cheaper buy far to take the windows site licenses , even ignoring teh kick backs of on site support.

Could be worse. You could be stuck with MS Licensing 6. *snicker*

And besides, unless you want to DIY a la the Linux route of wondering weather the hell your hardware will work and twiddeling in /dev and /etc until it does, it's not going to be cheaper than $129. Solaris, IRIX, HP-UX, AIX...Unices aren't cheap and neither is the hardware. But it's STABLE and SECURE and you pay for that. And Mac OS X provides much more value than any of those Unices can by providing a comprehensive desktop solution that works for end users, not just for servers or visualization stations. I'd say that's worth the money.

I've had countless security patches on my Win2k machine at work but really only one (OpenSSH et al) on my Mac nor have I rebooted my Mac in god knows how long. And don't get me started on the hardware problems we've all had with our POS Dell Latitude C610 laptops. They're junk...complete crap.

If we all followed the Sun methodology of naming our OS versions after the dot version (ie, 2.8 is Solaris 8 and 2.9 is Solaris 9) would everyone feel better? Hell, this is Mac OS 12 then. How about that.

Longey Nowze
Aug 6, 2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by kenohki
I rebooted my Mac in god knows how long.

uptime
:p I'm doing almost a month now... I love to show this to my wintel buddies they think i'm lying LOL!

THANK YOU
MaT

MacArtist
Aug 6, 2002, 06:42 PM
I just wanted to add a little to the posts about NetBoot. If your network doesn't have a Mac server, you can set up a custom restore on a firewire drive that works just like the apple restore disks that come with every mac. This restore can contain the system software as well as any applications that don't require the CD to install.

ponyboy
Aug 6, 2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight

You need to remember your average consumer doesn't have $6500 to throw into a new system. More like $1-2K, which is why PC's sell so well. The base PowerMac costs $1600, $2600 if you want to add the 17" display, and this machine doesn't even have L3 cache, is stuck at 800MHz, and uses PC133 RAM and an ATA/66 hard drive. You can get a lot more PC for $2600.

I know the Mac OS has advantages, which is why I use it, but cost is still THE primary factor when it comes to a computer purchase for most folks.

The "average " consumer doesnt need a powermac IMO an imac or emac will fall in that price range and stand up to any PC equally priced feature wise

elgruga
Aug 6, 2002, 11:25 PM
ah, yes, its good in here tonight!

I signed up for .mac - why? because I wanted to.

I will buy Jagwire as soon as its out - why? because its what I want.

OSX is a GREAT OS, and this news about windows is just the beginning of the fall of the evil empire.

Will Apple replace it? No, but it will be a more open market with Apple at 10-15% and Linux in there , etc.

I love the comment about clone buyers not buying a new machine in 5 years.
Its true! I know some of those guys!
I have an old Motorola 3000 at the office with a G3 upgrade in it. Its a backup mail server/backup box.
Hell, its got 96 ram, and to buy more costs like $500 and only gets it to 160!

Its a good old box. Its a piece of outdated junk is what it is. I'd sell it if I could find a dinosaur who'd buy it......

And who was that windows troll? Its cheaper to buy junk food too, but you dont want to actually EAT it for any length of time.....do you?
The hospital bills, like the windows maintenance bills will be endless.

Oh Yeah, one more thing:
- NO MORE WHINING ABOUT .MAC OR JAGUAR PRICING - PLEASE!

Aciddan
Aug 7, 2002, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Bartman
Hmm, 10% more expensive on inital purchase, 60% to 80% cheaper to maintain over the next 2 to 5 years.

Firstly I can't agree/disagree with the total cost of ownership stuff. What I can talk about is the fact that an Apple ain't 10% more than the average PC purchase, at least in Australia anyways...

I think the biggest problem Windows users (non-business) have is the initial shock of the prices. When I 'switched' in February and bought a 14" iBook for $4200AUD (it's 3995, + 512meg extra rammage) it was a very tough decision, although laptops are more expensie anyway - I was still paying a premium over the equivalent PC lappys.

perhaps they guy you replied to has similar experiences with purchasing macs in his country because of the worth of their dollar vs the USD.

When your avg salary is equivalent (ie if a person in us earns $35kUS for Job A an Aust. person earns $35kAUD [$15kUSD] for the same Job) but the prices are vastly different (iMac 17" - $1999, but in AUD it's $4395)

I know that locally (in the Australian Market) this is the most limiting factor to more serious uptake of Mac equipment.

see for yourself: http://www.apple.com, and http://www.apple.com.au

I think with delivery/production costs (aren't most iMac components made in SE asia now?) that regional pricing needs to be looked at in order to be competitive. go to: http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore and ask yourself - could you afford those prices if they were in USD?

Ok, that's my beef... I love my iBook, but the reality is that I'm in the minority when it comes to 'switching' and apart from apple resellers - I don't know of any large businesses (not including unis - most of those are PC now anyway) in Australia that use macs as their office business machines (if you do know examples - I'd love to know).

feedback is welcome - I'd rather be set straight if I'm wrong, but I'd love to see my points addressed...

-- Dan,

groovebuster
Aug 7, 2002, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by york2600
As a network administrator for a site with 350 computers and a big Mac geek and I can admit that in a standardized outfit it is much easier to admin Windows machines. We spend $1000 on our 2.2Ghz Dells with 19in monitors and CDRW drivers. Not bad for $1000 considering they're full towers and they also have gigabit Ethernet (Intel 845G chipset). When we receive 50 new machines we create a base model with all the necessary software for the machines. We then use StorageSoft Imagecast to dump a hard drive image of the workstation and distribute it to our workstations. We can build an image in a day and deploy it in less than an hour. The software is only $750 for our site. On the other hand a small group of Macs (7) takes me just as long to deploy as there are no imaging solutions that offer the same ease of use, ease of integration, and low price that ImageCast offers. When a PC stops working I simple image it using network boot features via PXE and it's back up and running within 15 minutes. When a Mac dies I have to reinstall the OS and all necessary software. Don't kid yourself either we have plenty of Macs that die. Overall I would say for US (keyword there: US) it costs slightly less (TCO) to run the PCs as any ease of administration is lost with the high price we pay for our G4s. Now in a small shop without imaging I'd say the Mac wins since it you still have to manual install and troubleshoot the PCs, but with imaging the Macs don’t stand a chance. I'd like Apple to further develop their hard drive image technology to better serve the IT community.

That's exactly the way it goes today. The "PC is so much more expensive in TCO" is an old tale that we (the mac-addicts) still want to believe in, but it is not true anymore. I am working for so long now with companies using Windows as their primary platform in standard environments and they have almost no problems. Imaging is the solution as york2600 explained.

Just a short while ago I talked (like so often) to a sysadmin about the subject again and he's supporting the Windows clients just in emergency, which takes maybe 1-4 hours a week from his normal working time. And that with way more than 30 Windows machines. Since I am doing a lot of stuff for that company the last few months and I am often in their office, I know that he's telling the truth. I hardly ever see him fixing problems with Windows clients, he can focus on his main job... the servers (it's a .com, sorry.... .de ;)).

Any questions?

The Mac still has some advantages over Windows, but the TCO isn't one of them since a while now. So face the truth.

And no offense intended (to one of the guys who posted before), but it is never ever a full-time job to maintain 12 Windows boxes (for 34k$ a year!!!:eek:)... You just were lucky that the company was not realizing that you didn't have a clue about what you were doing...

I will stick with the Mac because I still like the concept better compared to Windows and the UI is more ergonomical. I hope that work-flow will be able to keep up with MacOS9 again when I have 10.2 installed on my machines finally.

But please, let's not always bend facts, just to make the Mac platform look better than it is. Sometimes the fact list needs a little update, otherwise we sound not better than those idiots saying: "I heard that the mac isn't compatible and a POS anyway!"

groovebuster

groovebuster
Aug 7, 2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by drastik
For the record, I've owned eleven Macs in my life, none of them has died, I've had to reinstall OSX once in two years, and that as a result of some dumbass operating in root. I still have five of the Macs, and they all work, though I don't use three of them.

I take care of my computers, and IT people should to. Preventitive matainance is key for this, and very easy to do with a mac.

No matter what the cot, PCs that cost less than macs are made of cheap parts and bad archetecture. The PCs that are well made with good parts cost as much as Macs.

But still the PCs are not more expensive then, I don't see the point! And the TCO was one of the key arguments. With good hardware and an imaging solution to restore the system a Windows box is up in about 30 minutes again, max. an hour.

I still have an old custom build 80286 (10MHz) and a monochrome monitor from 1988 in the basement, they also still run perfectly. The Windows2000 box (yes, it's a Dell :D) of my wife is running since two years without any problem. On the other hand the G4 of a friend died (and it really did with a smoke trail, including ruining the HDs with all the data on them), 2 weeks after purchase right in the middle of an audio-production with long studio-sessions. So what's the point again?

I really don't know why a PC should just blow-up after 3 years and a Mac should not? It's the same for both! If you buy quality it will last a long while, but even expensive tools break sometimes after intense usage or because of production failures.

And also MacOS X crashes once in a while... just yesterday my G4 QS froze completely while using PS 6.0 in Classic (long story why it had to be PS6). That was fun! :( Especially since PS6 didn't work in Classic anymore afterwards (only when I booted in OS9) because some file permissions where corrupted. I was lucky to have another of PS6 on my PB. So I just had to copy the corrupted folder into the PS6 folder again.

So maybe it is trivial for people like us to fix those problems, but the normal user out there is totally swamped with stuff like that.

I still like the Mac better, but I don't make it a cult...

groovebuster

groovebuster
Aug 7, 2002, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by ponyboy
The "average " consumer doesnt need a powermac IMO an imac or emac will fall in that price range and stand up to any PC equally priced feature wise

We had that discussion so often before already...

And the answer is still no. The hardware of the Macs is not really competitive at the moment, it is just wrapped nicely. For the same price I get a PC with way better hardware features. And that's for all available Macs at the moment.

If we would talk about user experience, then the Mac wins, but also not that clearly on some things.

groovebuster

mrMahann
Aug 7, 2002, 08:20 AM
sorry, we've not beaten the cost of jag to death, yet <g>

in both enterprise and edu, apple needs to be aggressive. don't look for income today, you'll get it tomorrow; its an investment. apple will make enuf, and it will help the 3rd party devs and apple community in general. so, deep discounts. someone mentioned, "one license, one box"... apple needs to have site licenses if they don't already. how many dollars does it take to sell a license to a user in a store? how many dollars does it take to sell a couple thousand in a corporation?

for similar reason, there needs to be discount on boxes in enterprise and edu. to switch, there needs to be an overwhelming cost advantage, and lots of it has to be up front, for these IT decisionmakers to jump the mental hurdle, retrain their people, and buy new software.

for users, there apple would do well for there to be a good price break on jag, and that's happening to some extent. what's the bottom line if purchased at amazon, u$50 off? altho jag looks like fantastic stuff, still this rev may do well to be a bit more aggressively priced for the early adopters.

if i were the IT cheese at a goodly-sized co, i'd do linux for the general user. macs on request, if a demonstrated need or low-cut blouses/drinking bud. windows if they can walk the hot coals, and they have to support themselves <g>. most employees don't really care about computers other than that it doesn't freeze or they don't lose all their work. they'd not likely know the difference between windows and linux or even mac for that matter. switch 'em overnite, see how many notice. are the apps good, well-designed? that's the gig. altho anecdotal, my experience is with a fairly broad range of users, from data entry to doctors to programmers to execs... an embarrassingly small number really care as long as their productivity apps work as seamlessly as possible. an embarrsssingly large # brag about having windows.

for most IT decisionmakers, windows is the kneejerk reaction, and to move is lotsa research and likely not time or money in this day and age of belt-tightening. whether mac is less in the long run is incidental until its percieved as being a better value. hearts and minds...

.mac... don't buy it if you don't want it. even if they did say, "hey, free for life!" there's the grim reality of changing economic conditions. yahoo did it, how many other ones? great you got it free for this long. now, pony up or gracefully bow out. oh, tho am still an advocate to two-level; entry for email and 5M disk, then pro/whatever you wanna call it.

money were mouth is: i'm doing the u$150 for the next two years for offsite backup. home office, its a great deal if just for my time of taking the backup CDs to a bud's. plus, from what i understand, i'll get other stuff <g>.

be well...

Meanwhile
Aug 7, 2002, 02:03 PM
Hi. I'm new here. I thought I'd kick off my macrumors forum experience with this long post. Kinda addresses everything that's been said here.

On "Inferior PC Hardware":
We live in a Sad World where the Mac Addicts want to keep the flame burning but don't know how. Is it the hardware anymore? 'Fraid not. While the G4 is a behemoth of a processor, and very competitive in terms of performance right now, the standard mac line strict memory limitations that only the XServe has even begun to address. Hopefully Apple will correct this design flaw in the next models. The PC world has Apple beaten down in that department. It's a testament to the power of the G4 that's it's competitive at all, and just using a little L3 cache bandaid doesn't solve the problem. I love my powermac dearly despite this :) Still the fastest machine I've ever owned.

On "the IT Argument":
However, despite some nay-saying, we can keep the flame burning in the reduced maintenance cost department. Why? A mac is essentially a very fancy BSD box. This means all the powerful and free BSD-based backup, administration, and auditing tools function perfectly on the mac. Those that would require the use of /etc/* files will be supported properly under Jag (and work passably right now). This, along with the ability to use NetBoot and integrated, comprehensive imaging support (which people always seem to overlook! /Applications/Utilities/Disk Copy is only a place to start, people!)

For an IT person, Netboot, imaging support built into the core application suite and OS, and the entire BSD maintenance library at your fingertips is a compelling argument (if you know anything about what I'm talking about, that is). The problem is the unit cost. I can't give contrived figures like everyone else, but clearly there is less cost here in just the software you need. There are huge unix networks out there that only need minimal repairs every so often, because of the all the automation a good sysadmin with netboot and imaging support can do.

Most IT people aren't that bright though. In many companies (big one's I've worked at) the IT manager is just someone the Boss thought knew a lot about computers. It's still necessary and a huge money sink, so this kind of argument, while difficult to nail through many IT manager's thick skulls, is very compelling once it hits the frontal lobe. Hmm.

If you are a bright IT person, please accept my apologies. Without you folks the corperate world would go crashing down :)


On "The Redeeming Factor":
The most compelling argument to Switch, right now, is the OS. It's an incredible piece of art, and not just visually. It's an elegant, powerful, flexible system, everything we've been looking for in an OS since back in the day. Thousands of people every month switch their home systems to linux looking for an experience like what a mac has. And, unlike linux where you pay in hours and hours of time (usually fondling Xwin hoping that THIS config option will fix your most recent problem), OS X is a steal at $129.


On "The iTools Complaint":
Hmm, while I'm on the topic, is iTools really that expensive? Nope. $100 / 12 is about $8.34 a month. This gives you 100mb space, mail, virus protection, backup options, tight integration with your machine, WebDAV support... and interesting tools to quickly generate web pages (if you don't know or don't feel like working with HTML). A competitior to this is http://www.maganation.com/services/. They're doing less for $5 a month. Come on, people. iTools is quite cheap for what you're getting. People are just pissed they have to pay for something they didn't pay for. Instead of looking at the glass as half empty, look at it in the half-full light. You got iTools free for a long time. Now you are being asked to pay a small and competitive price.

Snowy_River
Aug 7, 2002, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster


<snip>

And no offense intended (to one of the guys who posted before), but it is never ever a full-time job to maintain 12 Windows boxes (for 34k$ a year!!!:eek:)... You just were lucky that the company was not realizing that you didn't have a clue about what you were doing...

<snip>

groovebuster

Well, groovebuster,

I don't see how you can say 'no offense' while insulting me by saying that I don't know what I was doing.

You have no idea what kinds of troubles I had to deal with. There are some simple factors that can make Windows managing (and Mac managing, for that matter) much more difficult. Certainly, if you can have all computers with identical disk images, it makes things much simpler. But, if you don't have the authority given to you to tell the computer users what they can and can't install on their computers, then you can have the users installing things that make their systems unstable all the time. Users would also turn off their virus software because it conflicted with an installation that they made, but forget to turn it back on, and then get infected.

There is also the matter of the quality of the hardware. I didn't have the authority to specify what hardware was purchased, I just had to deal with what the principles brought in. Fans failed. Hard disks crashed. There was even a motherboard melt-down.

I won't say that I was busy absolutely eight hours every day, but I also had several instances when I worked through a weekend to get some problem fixed. Once even with MicroSoft tech support on the line, and the outside tech support people there helping. Things had crashed hard.

Please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm doing. You don't know what you're talking about.

As to the question of TOC, it may well have evened out in recent years, but it still is far from being a level playing field. PCs are still more expensive than Macs to maintain.

Snowy_River
Aug 7, 2002, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by mrMahann

<snip>
for similar reason, there needs to be discount on boxes in enterprise and edu. to switch, there needs to be an overwhelming cost advantage, and lots of it has to be up front, for these IT decisionmakers to jump the mental hurdle, retrain their people, and buy new software.

for users, there apple would do well for there to be a good price break on jag, and that's happening to some extent. what's the bottom line if purchased at amazon, u$50 off? altho jag looks like fantastic stuff, still this rev may do well to be a bit more aggressively priced for the early adopters.
<snip>


A small problem with this argument... for IT decision makers, it isn't a decision between Windows and MacOS X.2, it's a decision between MacOS X.1 and MacOS X.2, or, worse yet, MacOS 9 and MacOS X.2. If they have Windows, it's not just a question of buying new software (though that would certainly figure into it - but not on the OS side of things), it's a question of buying new hardware. And, any new hardware that IT people bought now, or in the immediate future, would come with MacOS X.2 already, so they wouldn't be faced with that issue.

For users, most of the Mac users I know probably won't buy X.2. Really, it's for those of us that care about the bells and whistles that will buy it early. The rest will buy it later, or not at all, and only end up with it when they get around to buying a new computer.


for most IT decisionmakers, windows is the kneejerk reaction, and to move is lotsa research and likely not time or money in this day and age of belt-tightening. whether mac is less in the long run is incidental until its percieved as being a better value. hearts and minds...



I agree. Windows is a kneejerk reaction for most people. They don't even consider whether Mac could do the job that they are trying to do, let alone if it could do the job better.

quanta
Aug 7, 2002, 05:11 PM
Well, i'm glad we got that settled.

Let's recap:

1. We're still not sure whether PC's or Macs are a better value both in terms of hardware/software or as the basis for a network.

2. If you want itools, you will have to pay for it.

3. If you want Jaguar, you can buy it.

4. If you don't want either, you don't have to pay for them.

5. MacRumors members generally don't digest pro-PC dialogue well.

6. Linux is a non-MS solution which works on the computers which the majority of the computer base already owns.... Oh wait, we didn't really cover that one.

In fact this tangent has barely dealt with the topic it was started for. Would anyone like to discuss anything relevant to the growing dissatisfaction with MS and the window opening for a mass migration to a new platform? i'm pretty sure that most of us here at this forum like Apple Computer. i'm sure that we all want faster computers for free....

So: Linux may be a bit awkward right now, but IT RUNS ON THE COMPUTERS THEY ALREADY OWN.

discuss.

Markjam
Aug 8, 2002, 12:17 AM
...The software is only $750 for our site. On the other hand a small group of Macs (7) takes me just as long to deploy as there are no imaging solutions that offer the same ease of use, ease of integration, and low price that ImageCast offers....I'd like Apple to further develop their hard drive image technology to better serve the IT community....


Excuse me, but "Disk Copy" is free and supports images from 800K to 2GB. It will make an image from a folder or an entire disk. All Macs start from a CD, and with a $200 external firewire or SCSI drive (containing your disk image) and a universally bootable CD you've saved $500. And then there's NetBoot....

Pleeease. If you searched to find this $750 disk image software you should have tried just as hard to find the FREE solution from Apple.

Meanwhile
Aug 8, 2002, 01:57 AM
Most people will–justifiably, perhaps–migrate from windows to linux. Like I said in my post, they are looking for a new kind of OS experience. An OS that is forgiving, but powerful. One that has many features without drowning you in them.

I know many people who look on at my mac enviously but wouldn't ante up to buying one because the nice macs, the ones you'd actually want, as so expensive. True, true.

However, many people come away from linux dissatisfied. It's a good OS for what it does, but it's not the kind of experience that most people expect from a computer, at least a home computer. My friend and once mentor said it best, "Linux is a very gritty OS, and some people like that." The gears and circutry of the machine that is linux are quite exposed, and the people who package linux expect you to be willing to dive in and play with them.

While some people, myself included, might take to this like a fish out of water, most people don't want to worry about their OS's gears and nuts most of the time.

Maybe some of you haven't seen this. Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, Diamond Age and more recently Cryptinomicon) wrote a great essay about what people want from an OS. In this essay, he hails BeOS (which is very similar in ideology to OS X) as a big deal, and perhaps the future of operating systems.

http://www.io.com/~mccoy/beginning_print.html

Neal was a bit ahead of the average consumer in feelings, but now they are catching up. If you haven't read this, I strongly recommend you do.

People using Linux for anything less/more than what linux was designed for, that is.. a server and a way to bring back old hardware, will come away feeling somehow.. disappointed. They wanted more, and they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

I know I switched to linux, but when I went to mac, I felt like I found what I wanted.

Huked on Fonick
Aug 8, 2002, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by pdeli
... Apple won't make a foolish move instead of using this window of opportunity. I often have the impression that when a company makes a bad move the competition tends to follow rather than use it for its own benefit. I hope that if the article is right, Apple will be able to take advantage of it.

Cheers all,
Pit : )

++++


Can we say...... (.NET was introduced..... then along comes apple with .MAC and during the keynote steve jobs talked about .NET) i fear what u said is comming true just look at how unpopular .mac and .net are... lol

kenohki
Aug 8, 2002, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Huked on Fonick



Can we say...... (.NET was introduced..... then along comes apple with .MAC and during the keynote steve jobs talked about .NET) i fear what u said is comming true just look at how unpopular .mac and .net are... lol

.Net is totally different from .mac though. Although there is the general theory that .Net will provide the ability to easily deploy web services, it really isn't a set of web services. It's a framework (similar to Cocoa ar J2EE) that pretty much directly competes with Java.

Unfortunately there's some confusion to the whole thing because of the tech industry's inability to get it's hands around this whole web services monster and clearly communicate it and market it.

kenohki
Aug 8, 2002, 08:25 AM
With all this talk of Linux I can't help but bring up the fact that although Linux is a good core OS and is developing the workspace environments needed to be deployed as a desktop OS (read KDE), it's nowhere near the level of sophistication of other OSs.

Granted, the kernel has some very modern design philosophies which is good. The Linux kernel developers revise code again and again until it's extremely efficient. But it still needs work to have feature parity with Unix. It's been written as a desktop/lighweight server/blade OS. Linux still has problems scaling in SMP environments (don't even get me started on NUMA) where a single system image is required. MACH on the other hand has the potential to scale beautifully in a single system image because of it's inherent microkernel design. (Apple would need to revert it's monolithic MACH kernel back to something more "MACH-like" though in order to enable this. And we'd need the damn hardware to exploit it.)

Much of the software in Linux environments lacks the innovation (and value) provided by more sophisticated features in Mac OS X as well. A window manager that provides transparent windows by simply copying the background is different than an OS that provides true alpha blending system-wide with hooks for any application that wants to use it. And QuartzExtreme is a frikin great concept that puts Apple squarely ahead of the competition for a while still. ColorSync technology (or some equivilant) still doesn't exist on Linux. Rondezvous is neato whiz-bang stuff. And I think the iApps are great. From an end user perspective, there's not a lot of innovation coming out of the Linux camp, they're scrambling still to get feature parity with other OS environments.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to bash Linux here. I just don't think that it is mature enough (YET) to replace other OS solutions on the desktop or Unix in the high end. However, the thing about Linux is that it has an extremely rapid development rate. That's what's got Microsoft scared. And with the potential investments that IBM and Sun could put into Linux, that may help to accelerate it's maturation to the point where in the next few years, it will become viable.

Anyway, just my thoughts.