FedEx Followup

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001
    Appleinsider spoke with FedEx regarding the Mac migration rumor.

    FedEx simply states "This is indeed just a rumor" and does not confirm/deny the rumor.
  2. Trowaman macrumors 6502a


    Nov 3, 2003
    CD: TX-14
  3. stoid macrumors 601


    Feb 17, 2002
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    I guess that's better than a "Mac?? What's that??" response. :D :D
  4. Photorun macrumors 65816


    Sep 1, 2003
  5. nagromme macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    Such a decision may or may not be under consideration, but even if it IS.... it's highly likely that the decision has not actually been made yet one way or the other. And once it's made, the actual transition is likely to be a ways in the future.

    I think of this as something we MIGHT just possibly hear about one day. Nothing more than that.
  6. omnivector macrumors member


    Mar 7, 2003
    San Francisco, CA
    This rumor is a hoax

    I personally know one of the Sysadmins that works at Fedex who has conferred with his higher ups (several of them). He says they're going to do the opposite, standardize on windows. They even tell him not to bring his powerbook to work, but he responded with "then get me a pc notebook."

    I would hope one of the sysadmins, the people who actually manage the systems there, would have more accurate information than rumor mongers.
  7. Mudbug Administrator emeritus


    Jun 28, 2002
    North Central Colorado
    Nah... we make up WAY more good stuff than the folks in the know could ever confirm or deny :eek: ;) :D
  8. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Jan 30, 2002
    A decision of this magnitude at a company the size of FedEx would be made way beyond the level of a sysadmin. Typically, they are never consulted.

    That is not meant to be insulting - there is a good reason. It is usually the sysadmin folks that get technology lust or are ignorant and develop all sorts of justifications for not using things with which they are not familiar. BTW - that is also why the best CIOs are people who do not understand any of the technology that is implemented.
  9. shadowself macrumors member

    May 28, 2003
    Divide my time between Utah and Washington, D.C.
    Would be a return to the fold

    Back in the late 90s FedEx was one of the top companies using Macs. At one time they had almost 6,000 Macs deployed.
  10. e-coli macrumors 68000


    Jul 27, 2002
    And this has nothing to do with the B3 bomber.
  11. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040


    Sep 13, 2003
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.

    I have seen far too many people taken in by glossy brochures. I have seen technically unfeasible and backward strategies implemented by well intentioned people with no knowledge.

    The budgets have always been so restrictive around here that the technical people can't indulge their cyberlust. Management though was a way of shoehorning open the pocket books.
  12. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Jan 30, 2002
    I agree. I've seen that happen many times as well. I did not mean to imply they do not need knowledge - they have to be smart.

    What I was trying to say is in my experience (and many other people's experience I know), folks at the sysadmin level tend to make technical decisions that benefit the IT department. Really good CIOs on the other hand, tend to make decisions that benefit the company. Smart CIOs use in house expertise or good consultants to ensure the technical side will work.

    On a side note, what is really sad is less than 30% of all IT projects are completed to the original spec due to some sort of screw-up along the way.
  13. tennisbum macrumors newbie


    Mar 4, 2004
    uuuuuh, every war needs a hero......
  14. morkintosh macrumors regular

    Nov 25, 2003
    no its in Cupertino this year
  15. morkintosh macrumors regular

    Nov 25, 2003
    thats awesome! I love it when sysadmins break generally accepted standards of security by brining foreign computers into an office environment.

    its "policy talk" like this that fuels rumor mills, is no more reliable that what we saw on the home page and ... costs mouthy admins their jobs!
  16. hayesk macrumors 65816

    May 20, 2003
    No offense, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That would be the worst CIO. Thinking like that is what booted Apple out of the enterprise market in the first place.

    "What? Yeah, one platform to support does sound cheaper! Let's standardize"
    "Which one? Well, Windows is more popular and PCs are cheaper? Use Windows."

    Hmmm... You would have thought they would have standardized on the overall cheaper platform, but neah, that would have been good for the company.
  17. morkintosh macrumors regular

    Nov 25, 2003
    you seem to be under the very misguided impression that a CIO would make that sort of decision on his/her own. Most executives, at least good ones, surround themselves with people qualified to support that kind of decision and in fact rarely are technology savvy themselves; they are there because they are good managers, not good technology implementers.

    Ask yourself: how much do you think Steve Job's actually knows about the reason for a BSD kernel base as opposed to a Linux one.
  18. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Jan 30, 2002
    Actually, you have it backwards. Good CIOs do not get locked into one technology because they don't care about the technology - they care about effect on business. It's the tech savvy folks who often carry on about it being cheaper to support a single platform.

    I'll give you an example. On a recent job, the client was all Windows based. Our recommendation was for a UNIX based solution that was about $180k/yr cheaper than a comparable Windows based solution. The client would have to either contract or hire someone to maintain the UNIX based system because they did not have the in-house expertise. The extra support cost about $60k/yr so the net savings over the Windows based solution was about $120k/yr. The CIO (one of the smart ones) liked our recommendation so she decided to go that way. You would not believe the crap raised by the IT manager because he didn't want "some UNIX garbage destroying my network". The guy did not care in the least that the Windows solution would cost the client an extra $120k/yr. So he was willing to make a poor business decision because of his ignorance, Windows lust or whatever it was. The CIO on the other hand made a good business decision because it worked and it made financial sense. BTW - the IT manager quit over that - first time I've ever personally seen that happen.
  19. chriscorcoran macrumors newbie

    Jan 23, 2004
    Ok let me propose a hypothetical to you all....

    Let’s say you are in your late 30s to early 40s and you’re the IT Director of a Fortune 500 Corporation.

    You have thousands of servers around the world with countless data bases. You have offices every where from Boston to Budapest with hundreds of computers in each office. Not to mention the many retail locals that have a varying array of printing hardware, software and customer data that needs to be supported. You also have hundreds of flight hubs at which you need to move packages fast and can not afford a glitch.

    At each of these locations you have people who have the intelligence of a Princeton Physics Professor. You also have people who are lucky if they tie their shoes correctly in the morning.

    You also have an army of IT personal that rivals that of present day China. They are equipped with cells phones and pdas that have more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at. They also have a combined IQ of 1,695,365,487.8 and they understand Slack ware Linux.

    And you Boss, the CEO who has a wrath that would rival that of Stalin asked you to overall the network plus you have to make it secure, reliable, and you have squeeze ever bit of performance out of it.

    So what do you choose Mac or Windows?

    Macs are built on rock solid UNIX technology. They have some of the best hardware and that performs flawlessly under just about any condition. With MacOS X you can support a wide range of hardware and software. You also have the option to use Open Source software. Plus its more secure then Fort Knox at Defcon 1.

    Windows is built on a base that has more holes then Swiss cheese. It can support a wide variety of hardware and software but with varying degrees of success (but mostly negative). Using Open Source software is almost out of the question. So you mine has well just give the hackers the dam password to the super secret security system.

    I think the answers clear.

    The only reason FedEx is saying its just a rumor is that the IT Director is too busy building a shire to Steve Jobs and switching the network over Macs to get a quote.
  20. Naimfan Suspended


    Jan 15, 2003
    What exactly do you do for the President.......?
  21. superbovine macrumors 68030


    Nov 7, 2003
  22. Urdam macrumors member

    Aug 11, 2002
    Piedmont (Oakland), CA
  23. Juventuz macrumors 6502a


    Dec 4, 2002
    Why not go with Linux? It's just as stable as a Mac and costs FAR less.

Share This Page