Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I love the cloud suggestions.... NOT! :)

Not many businesses would use 'the cloud' at present.. fairly unreliable and bandwidth costs would be high. The business internet connection goes down ( read: internet provider ) and your business grinds to a halt! Alternatively, the business can have its own 'cloud'.. which requires servers to reduce the likelyhood of down time.
 
First of all, Windows server is very unstable as it runs on MS DOS instead of UNIX.

You might want to update your info...

Windows ME (anno 2000) was the last Windows running on top of MS-DOS. There was never a 'real' server Windows running on top of DOS (I am aware of WfW). All Windows desktop or server flavours starting with Windows 2000 are based on the Windows NT kernel, which is just as stable and modern as any Unix.

Not many businesses would use 'the cloud' at present.. fairly unreliable and bandwidth costs would be high. The business internet connection goes down ( read: internet provider ) and your business grinds to a halt! Alternatively, the business can have its own 'cloud'.. which requires servers.


And of course, local servers never go down and don't generate costs...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:confused: We have Exchange at our school. It is horrible.
Why use Exchange when you can use IMAP?

Exchange will happily act as an IMAP server as well - without crashing and being incompatible!

Apple didn't license the Exchange sync protocols from Microsoft because they thought it might be nice. They realised that to sell iOS devices to businesses, they had to add Exchange support. There is no contest comparing Exchange capabilities to an IMAP server....IMAP will always be on the loosing side.
 
I find OS X Server inexpensive, neat, easy to use, and fast. I got a Mac Mini with Server from eBay for $500, and even the $1000 new price is really cheap. My old school was all Mac, and the server worked beautifully. It is also more secure than Windows Server (my new school had to put a crazy antivirus that deletes even AIF files since they were getting virus'd too much). My Mac Mini server would work fine in a small business.

Windows Server sucks; you can guess that before using it (which my school does) since it is made by MS, which has not invented anything good (Office was bought from another company, and the XBOX is only good since they have a lot of developers for it). I agree with you about Oracle. Apple can take them on, but it would be self-destructive.

That's the best you can do?


Hey, that wasn't my reason. If I had reasons listed, it would take forever. First of all, Windows server is very unstable as it runs on MS DOS instead of UNIX.

*snip*

Anyone here agrees that UNIX is a better server OS than MS DOS.


Actually, it runs on NT.

:confused: We have Exchange at our school. It is horrible.
Why use Exchange when you can use IMAP?

Based upon.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Macbook Pro's aren't professional computers, they're consumer computers with a fancy name. Likewise with the quad core iMacs and the Mac Pro. Need proof? Most business/professional computers have a DVI port for connecting to projectors, express card slots for expandability, and eSata ports for external drives. The "Pro" lineup from Apple has none of this (save the 17" MBP with the express card slot). Even the Mac Pro doesn't have an esata port!

I never said they were perfect nor that they had everything they could have because I'll be one of the first to say that they really could be better; I just said that those products seem to STILL serve the Professional and Prosumer markets just fine.

1. Apple Design Awards for desktop apps cancelled
2. Glossy Displays w/ only 72% Gamut
3. Final Cut Pro still a 32 bit Carbon based app... in 2011!
4. Presentations almost always focus on iOS
5. OpenGL 3.....when ????
6. Pro level cards gone
7. X-Server on its deathbed.

Where did I ever say that Apple was either perfect or doing all that they could for the Pro customers? I don't think I said that, so quit putting words in my mouth.

It is not. Apple is a typical consumer-only company (similar to maybe Wal-Mart) They may have products that are used in corporations like iPhones or Mac clients. But except those few lines that are on their way out none are actual 'corporate products'. They were not designed to be used mostly in corporations, they lack pretty much everything that would make them 'corporate'. XServe was a corporate product. Mac OS Server is a corporate product. Mac Pro.
None of them are fueling Apple's current success, and you can see by the amount of attention they get that they are all in danger of extinction.

Guys, the days of Apple as that lovely maker of lovely Macs for lovely design studios are long gone. 'bout time you get used to it.

They still make lovely Macs for lovely design studios, they just don't look as impressive anymore as they use the same innards as PCs do and therefore don't look as impressive. But they still serve just as well, they just don't have all of the bells and whistles that are common on PCs sold for half the price. (Note the difference there.) You couldn't easily say the same thing during the PPC days, despite the fact that it was likely just as true then.

All of Apple's other behavior supports my theory, not yours.

If by Apple's other behavior you mean an update every one to one and a half years, then it still doesn't support your theory. People still need Mac Pros with the expandability that none of their other computers have. When those customers finally move off, THEN and only then, will your ridiculous theory make any sense whatsoever.

Yes, they aren't marketing the Mac Pro anymore, are they? Hmmmm.... In fact, what's the last Apple commercial or ad you've seen? Was it even for a computer?

They don't need to market the Mac Pro to the Professional market that already knows that it's a no-brainer. Anyone on a lower-end will be better served by a lesser machine, and those are the people that'd need an advertisement for it. So why waste the money on an ad? Sounds like intelligent marketing to me.
 
The whole thing with "apple abandoning the pro market to focus on more casual users" is getting as old as "pc gaming is dying and people turn to consoles" and the "grandma's pie is dying because now we can buy pie in supermarket" things.

Seriously it made sense to stop the Xserve lineup, because out there we can find bigger players who use really badass supercomputers (yeah servers like the ones in the apple's data center are supercomputers, because they don't qualify for the top 10 of stronger ones is not a reason to don't count them as SC) like for example oracle and their servers with solaris system.

It even made sense to have mac mini servers which are cheaper, smaller and you add up as your needs expands (or you just do your server thing in home with just one) and I believe they are also less power hungry (when you have a damn room full of server systems, you are the pride of your electricity provider).

It also made sense that they focus on consumer products, because it is a gold vein, and even a big deal of professionals can do just fine with an iMac (graphic designers like me for example can work with a mac mini most of the everyday jobs) and beyond that even people who never used a computer before are likely to get an iDevice (even if in most cases they will have to use a computer in pair with that iDevice).


And finally what it definitely does not made any sense here, is the rumor that the company will abandon pro users.
I believe they need to give some more air to this category to breath (they don't even have a quadro configuration for macpro, even if most of the pro users can find it of great use), but in no way they will turn away from the pro users.
What many people doesn't seem to understand, is that the pro users who prefer macs, prefer them for the easy of use (!) just like the consumers!
The most people tend to believe that pro users are some short of computer freaks who use super advanced things etc.
We the pro users (because I'm also someone who use a mac to earn his living) are not some crazy nerds who we can hack **** and we know everything about computer hardware and other things like that.
We just want a tool for our jobs, a tool that works and requires 0 time for troubleshoting.

Now if the tool is named PowerPC, Macintosh, MacPro, iMac or iWhatever, really, we don't care! As long as the software we need integrates and evolve in the newer devices we are fine.


(Now this may sound like I didn't read what some other professional users wrote above, but I did.
And what I have to tell to them is relax.
Even if they drop the high end stuff like Xserve you don't have to worry. Are you sure you needed something that those machines where able to provide? I mean something that a macmini server can not, even if you have to get 5 of them to much the power of 1 Xserve?
I mean if you need real servers, you most likely know about oracle and the rest of server makers and you don't really believe that the only solutions for you are win2008, linux and OSX server, with whatever hardware those deploy along.
So if you have needs that a macmini or more of them can not cover, then maybe you must look somewhere else for solutions.

Don't take me wrong here, I just point out the obvious, people tend to buy things that doesn't really need.

Also for the final cut thing, I don't know how it works, and I hope I understand what you are talking about, but as far as I know most applications can do render-farming with machines with other OS and their counterpart for that OS, now if final cut is only compatible only with mac, then I guess you have to stick with a mac pro render farms.
Come to think of it I really don't understand, you bought Xservers to make final cut pro render-farms? I though they are way too "slow" in comparison with any other macpro setup and as of that they are not a good idea for that job.)

Forgive me any typing mistakes, or even misunderstandings, I haven't slept long last night.
 
That's the best you can do?





Actually, it runs on NT.



Based upon.....

Geez, don't you get it? NT is also unstable. Also on Wikipedia, it implies that NT is based off of MS-DOS. Even if I am wrong about NT or I misunderstood the article, NT is still unstable, clunky, and virus-prone. Have fun telling people that NT is more stable than UNIX :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the cloud suggestions.... NOT! :)

Not many businesses would use 'the cloud' at present.. fairly unreliable and bandwidth costs would be high. The business internet connection goes down ( read: internet provider ) and your business grinds to a halt! Alternatively, the business can have its own 'cloud'.. which requires servers to reduce the likelyhood of down time.

Of course they do on both counts.. I'd rather trust a local server than having to rely on the internet for everything to run a business.

Odds are your business already relies on the internet. Remember that "the internet going down" (which I assume means "losing your connection to the internet, as "the internet" doesn't usually go down) means nobody can access your services over the net either. The problem goes both ways.

Plus, having a local server requires you to have someone on the staff to administer it- which doesn't come cheap.
 
Why do I get the feeling this is the end of Final Cut Express.
The new Final Cut Pro will not exactly be "Pro" anymore. It will be a dumbed down trendy version for the masses to use I bet.


I know its not part of the reason for this thread. But the writing is on the wall folks.
 
Geez, don't you get it? NT is also unstable. Also on Wikipedia, it implies that NT is based off of MS-DOS. Have fun telling people that NT is more stable than UNIX :p

So it this based upon your many years of extensive experience?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole thing with "apple abandoning the pro market to focus on more casual users" is getting as old as "pc gaming is dying and people turn to consoles" and the "grandma's pie is dying because now we can buy pie in supermarket" things.

Seriously it made sense to stop the Xserve lineup, because out there we can find bigger players who use really badass supercomputers (yeah servers like the ones in the apple's data center are supercomputers, because they don't qualify for the top 10 of stronger ones is not a reason to don't count them as SC) like for example oracle and their servers with solaris system.

It even made sense to have mac mini servers which are cheaper, smaller and you add up as your needs expands (or you just do your server thing in home with just one) and I believe they are also less power hungry (when you have a damn room full of server systems, you are the pride of your electricity provider).

It also made sense that they focus on consumer products, because it is a gold vein, and even a big deal of professionals can do just fine with an iMac (graphic designers like me for example can work with a mac mini most of the everyday jobs) and beyond that even people who never used a computer before are likely to get an iDevice (even if in most cases they will have to use a computer in pair with that iDevice).


And finally what it definitely does not made any sense here, is the rumor that the company will abandon pro users.
I believe they need to give some more air to this category to breath (they don't even have a quadro configuration for macpro, even if most of the pro users can find it of great use), but in no way they will turn away from the pro users.
What many people doesn't seem to understand, is that the pro users who prefer macs, prefer them for the easy of use (!) just like the consumers!
The most people tend to believe that pro users are some short of computer freaks who use super advanced things etc.
We the pro users (because I'm also someone who use a mac to earn his living) are not some crazy nerds who we can hack **** and we know everything about computer hardware and other things like that.
We just want a tool for our jobs, a tool that works and requires 0 time for troubleshoting.

Now if the tool is named PowerPC, Macintosh, MacPro, iMac or iWhatever, really, we don't care! As long as the software we need integrates and evolve in the newer devices we are fine.


(Now this may sound like I didn't read what some other professional users wrote above, but I did.
And what I have to tell to them is relax.
Even if they drop the high end stuff like Xserve you don't have to worry. Are you sure you needed something that those machines where able to provide? I mean something that a macmini server can not, even if you have to get 5 of them to much the power of 1 Xserve?
I mean if you need real servers, you most likely know about oracle and the rest of server makers and you don't really believe that the only solutions for you are win2008, linux and OSX server, with whatever hardware those deploy along.
So if you have needs that a macmini or more of them can not cover, then maybe you must look somewhere else for solutions.

Don't take me wrong here, I just point out the obvious, people tend to buy things that doesn't really need.

Also for the final cut thing, I don't know how it works, and I hope I understand what you are talking about, but as far as I know most applications can do render-farming with machines with other OS and their counterpart for that OS, now if final cut is only compatible only with mac, then I guess you have to stick with a mac pro render farms.
Come to think of it I really don't understand, you bought Xservers to make final cut pro render-farms? I though they are way too "slow" in comparison with any other macpro setup and as of that they are not a good idea for that job.)

Forgive me any typing mistakes, or even misunderstandings, I haven't slept long last night.

Yes, I don't really see the point of Xserve. It's the software that matters.
 
Yes, our school uses Windows server. It is the biggest piece of @#$%in @#$% I have ever seen. I'd never buy that even if it was -$100 :eek:.

Exchange sucks, crashes, and is not compatible in general. Mac OS X Server does a good job with POP and IMAP. I love how the Mac OS X Server, in contrast to Windows, lets you host user accounts that actually keep the user's home folder in a tidy fashion (Windows doesn't) and let you log on elsewhere and get your exact same user.

I love hearing inexperienced Exchanged admin (I use that term loosely) complain about how Exchange sucks, crashes, etc. I worked in a number of larger Exchange environments and this just isn't the case. This type of dribble usually comes from people who know little about configuring Exchange properly. Regarding home folders, come on seriously? Ever heard of folder redirection in AD??? Seriously, dump the zealotry and learn how to use the stuff you have in your environment.
 
Odds are your business already relies on the internet. Remember that "the internet going down" (which I assume means "losing your connection to the internet, as "the internet" doesn't usually go down) means nobody can access your services over the net either. The problem goes both ways.

Plus, having a local server requires you to have someone on the staff to administer it- which doesn't come cheap.

True.. however if the internet to our office goes down our business doesn't grind to a halt, the majority of staff can still carry out their jobs.

The 'cloud' goes down, and a lot more staff won't be able to continue with their work.

Sorry but IMO, "The cloud" may be great for consumers but the infrastructure is still a few years away for a lot of businesses.

A business will still require sys admins - who will look after the desktop machines for example.
 
Last edited:
Do you suggest that NT is more stable than UNIX? You haven't answered yet.


I would not suggest either of them are more stable than the other. It is highly dependent on their configuration and usage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True.. however if the internet to our office goes down our business doesn't grind to a halt, the majority of staff can still carry out their jobs.

The 'cloud' goes down, everyone stops working.

That's only if you keep zero local copies of whatever you're working on, which doesn't happen anywhere. Plus, every cloud enterprise solution I've ever seen would treat the situation you've brought up as nothing more than working offline, which would in turn sync when the connection is reestablished.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did I ever say that Apple was either perfect or doing all that they could for the Pro customers? I don't think I said that, so quit putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth.


You said

With the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro, the 27" Quad Core iMac, and the Mac Pro, how do you figure any of that? Sure, they could have more than they do, but they're not ****** nor are they incompetent for Pro usage.

In addressing the red text from YOUR post, I answered your question of me of "how do you figure any of that" by citing specific example of how I think they are abandoning the pro market. I don't see any one putting words in your mouth. Rather I see my post as answering the question in your post.
 
faroz06 isn't an exchange admin. He's a "wikipedia" admin, haha.




I would not suggest either of them are more stable than the other. It is highly dependent on their configuration and usage.

As a matter of fact, I am currently setting up Mac OS X Server on a Mac Mini. But what do you have against Wikipedia? I find it to be quite reliable. However, I have firsthand experiences with this. UNIX crashes way less often and is more secure; have you ever seen a UNIX virus besides that pathetic trojan that requires you to open an application and enter your password? I've seen plenty of viruses for NT systems that do tasks that would require SUDO permission in UNIX without asking for any passwords. Servers are about security and reliability, and that's what Mac OS has.

If you want to actually do some research, you can ask others as I did. I confirmed the answers I got that UNIX is more stable.

I have used Mac OS and Windows 98, 2000, XP, and Vista for about the same length of time. UNIX is undoubtedly more stable than NT or MS DOS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not putting any words in your mouth.


You said



In addressing the red text from YOUR post, I answered your question of me of "how do you figure any of that" by citing specific example of how I think they are abandoning the pro market. I don't see any one putting words in your mouth. Rather I see my post as answering the question in your post.

Ah. Fair play. Either way, while those machines could certainly afford more in terms of ports, connections, speed, muscle, and whatnot, I really get the feeling that most Pro customers are fine with that. Those that need machines with expansion will go with a 17" MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro, those that don't or already have the aforementioned for expansion will get a 27" iMac or a 15" MacBook Pro. It's not like the Pro apps from Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, or the like don't run fast enough to appease the Pro market.
 
That's only if you keep zero local copies of whatever you're working on, which doesn't happen anywhere. Plus, every cloud enterprise solution I've ever seen would treat the situation you've brought up as nothing more than working offline, which would in turn sync when the connection is reestablished.


Some data cannot be stored locally because the client application doesn't allow it / in-practical, for example, I'm working with live data that changes on a frequent basis, or working with a large dataset. Working offline and syncing at a later point isn't going to work, and storing large amounts of data to work offline is going to require... server(s), like I already pointed out. So, Cloud computing isn't going to replace the server environment anytime soon for a lot of companies.

Cloud computing is essentially 'remote computing'.

Good point. It's just very annoying when you get trolls in here who spout out crap just to flame out arguments.

Your baiting yourself by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with someone else's point of view is trolling.
 
Last edited:
I love hearing inexperienced Exchanged admin (I use that term loosely) complain about how Exchange sucks, crashes, etc. I worked in a number of larger Exchange environments and this just isn't the case. This type of dribble usually comes from people who know little about configuring Exchange properly.

Oh, please. If Exchange crashes then it's Exchange's fault. Period. Misconfiguration can cause incorrect or unoptimized behaviour, but crashing? No.
 
:confused: We have Exchange at our school. It is horrible.
Why use Exchange when you can use IMAP?

Reading your posts something is very clear to me. You and/or your group basically hate all things "M$". To say that Windows server is unstable "because it runs on MS DOS" is just plain stupid and really reveals your extreme lack of knowledge. We get it. You hate "M$" which contributes to your environment being so unstable (if that's even true). Any problem must be the fault of "M$". It can't possibly be because of something you're doing wrong. I meet guys like you all of the time and I am alway amazed at their extreme lack of knowledge and arrogance. If your environment is an unstable as you claim then all of you guys need to be fired.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.