What is Digg?215 Comments
- LeeVal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+55And i feel fine
- selkie, on 10/10/2007, -22/+61Hmmm... I'm figuring you don't administer too many Macs. Either that or you haven't tried this:
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
It will blow your world away, especially if you think it's something like RDP. Smart lists, automatic package deployment, user activity history and built in automator integration all make it incredibly simple to administer Apple systems.
If that's not enough, remember that all recent Macs have a UNIX subsystem. In fact Leopard is Open Group UNIX 03 compliant (which even Linux and BSD are not). This is no 'pretend UNIX' or 'UNIX services for Windows'. This is the real deal, HP-UX and AIX real. (No mocking BSD or Linux, see below)
You can use all the incredible administrative mechanisms that you have in the UNIX world out-of-the-box. I'm talking about stuff like rsync, dd and SSH, plus all the shell scripting goodness it comes out of the box with. As far as image deployment is concerned, You should look at this:
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/netbootnetworkinstall.html
This leaves aside the fact that Mac's also come out of the box with Perl, Python and Ruby interpreters installed.
If that's not enough you have a very robust (http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/05/25/ldap.html) OpenLDAP implementation.
Frankly, 90% of the people who think that Mac's are only good for running some perty graphics rendering and page layout software have never used a Mac as their daily system. As a result of my field (security) I'm required to know the internals of all the major operating systems and have done serious time in the trenches with Windows (everything from kernel mode programming and back) as well as lengthy love affairs with Solaris (strace FTW), OpenBSD and up until very recently, Linux (Debian, I do miss you sometimes). I've chosen the Mac simply because of the power that is available to me.
I may sound like a fanboy, I'm not. I honestly believe that there are different tools for different tasks. My only point is that until you've worked with all your options, you can't make that decision.
If you want the bottom-line recommendation from one geek to another it's this: Apple systems rock. Don't look at the marketing crap like the Get a Mac ads; take the time to get to know them and you will not look back. Don't let the anodized aluminum and colourful graphics fool you - these are the most versatile machines your money can buy, they'll go from iLife to hacker box in 0 seconds flat. - i208khonsu, on 10/10/2007, -20/+58iMac's will never make it in the work place. The lifespan of a monitor is at least twice as long as the rest of a computer system. With iMacs you must replace the monitor along with the system. It is not economic as well as the majority of the user base knows how to use Windows a lot better than OSX regardless of how easy mac users say OSX is to use.
- perhapsimcrazy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+57I don't really have a problem with Macs as a whole. The thing i have a problem with is that if you are on Mac system, the basic user is going to be forced to by a Mac if they don't know how to work around that problem, especially if they are being forced into a Mac purchase by an IT guy. Unless I am mistaken, the only people that sell Mac systems are Apple. The nice thing about having a PC network is that you can shop around for the best deal on computers that suit your needs, not be forced into buying one of the few systems available.
Now for a smaller setup I would personally recommend Apple products as they are more reliable. But once you start getting into 50+ computers, you simply have more depth of products to choose from than what you have with Apple. (And arguably, its a hell of a lot cheaper.) As an IT guy, I would prefer flexibility with the hardware I have to purchase over sex appeal anyday. - terminalpariah, on 10/10/2007, -19/+42I work in IT at an advertising company, and we have a pretty good mix of ThinkCentres and Macs (MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros). As a user, I think that Windows is perfectly functional while OS X is a joy to use. As an admin, I would say the opposite is true. For remote administration, image and application deployment, and centralized management, Windows Server beats OS X server hands-down. And without robust administration tools, I can't see OS X making any serious progress in the enterprise.
- crimson117, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Problem with iMac is you can't keep the monitor when you upgrade. Adds a lot of expense to a business that uses them.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30I don't see any company spending £1000+ on a computer when you can buy Dell PCs in bulk for about £200.
- terminalpariah, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23Yes, I am aware that OS X is capable of deploying images, remote control (if you shell out $300 per administrative user), etc. I'm saying that Windows Server does a much better job. And face it, ARD is a joke compared to RDP (and Apple has no answer to Terminal Services). As far as VNC implementations go, ARD barely competes with UltraVNC.
Yes I can put all my Macs into an OpenLDAP directory and manage them to an extent. Can I affect how any application operates? Nope, only a small subset of Apple-approved applications. But with Group Policy Objects I can control the operation and settings of any app that uses the Windows registry, which is basically all of them.
Apple does an OKAY job. But administration is something Microsoft does very, very well. - Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21Only the true sheep buy Macs because of their shiny cases. The software is better, more consistent, and more stable, and that's why I both buy and recommend Macs. As an IT guy as well (not professionally at the moment, but I still end up doing people's tech support), I'd prefer giving users a solution that requires little maintenance and thus little work for me. But then again, I'm able to easily understand the cost of wasted time and how much time is wasted because of software issues. I'm not saying that Macs are perfect by any means, but the only Mac app I have that crashes is Firefox which is almost universally regarded as ***** on the Mac; on Windows, I can't think of a program that I haven't had crash on me at one time or another, save Calculator.
To put it in a lovely cliché, time is money. There's not a whole lot you can do about users dicking around to waste time (which, I'd argue, is beneficial in moderation), but providing them with a more reliable platform means fewer actual productivity-killing problems. And, if you've never noticed, it's when software ***** up to a previously un-heard-of level that causes the real downtime, not reading digg at work. In my experience, it's far less common on Macs than on Windows PCs. And as a bonus, the IT department gets to do their real job instead of playing help desk because Word crashed and ate the TPS report. - LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I love the argument of "people can't learn a new OS" when the truth is that a good 99% of Windows uses haven't learned Windows!
- fate3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17not in my IT dept.
- ventro, on 10/10/2007, -13/+23Yeah but the lifespan of a mac is at least 1.5x the lifespan of a PC.
- chogie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Neither of you will be part of my network as long as i don't have one.
- meshman, on 10/10/2007, -14/+23There's no way we'd do it for many reasons. Cost is one. Apple's proprietary restrictions are another. Then there's the users having to learn a new platform. Macs are best doing specific tasks in business like video production, print and graphic design. I mean, from a transformation point of view, I'd buy Macs for what they do best rather than re-do the entire enterprise just because they're Macs. What resouding advantage to an existing Windows based business is there to switch entirely (or mainly) to Macs that would justify the massive cost of doing so? Steve lost out on the market the moment he first refused to license Apple's hardware/software to OEM's. Macs will increase in popularity and in use but unless a shop is already partially Mac, no one is just going to jump ship.
- nomore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Where I work, we've been moving over the Mac for the past two years. Everyone in the IT dept now uses iMacs (I have a 24" on my desk). We run Mac OS X Server on a Power Mac G5 for open directory, dhcp, network drives etc. The company owner has a MacBook Pro and a 20" iMac on his desk. Members of the finance department are now using Macs. Area Managers are now using MacBooks. It's all working very well... and has improved reliablility over Windows XP which was used previously.
- thegreyfox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Corporations = email, calender, internet.
Do people really believe they need a new computer every 4 years to do that?
Plus all the other cost such as Anti Virus, Anti Spyware programs and IT hourly cost.
I'm glad people suggest the sub $500 computer to cooperations, it does a hell of a job keeping your IT job important. - Teej, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10sounds like a productive office....
- AlmostEvil, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16I'm the IT manager for the company I work for. I would dearly like to move over to all macs, however there are some issues.
* I'm buying a new server soon (with SBS 2003), while you get Outlook 2003 with it you don't get Entourage (Microsoft's Mac equivalent of Outlook)
* Price, the price of any desktop mac simply doesn't compete with desktop pc's. The price is too high, for a few hundred pounds (say roughly £200-300) I can get a quite acceptable pc. (I buy the parts and build the pc onsite)
* Retraining, while I think the user interface is extremely self explanatory and easy to use there would still be things that would mean some training of people. This would either be me training people on-site or sending them off for a days training. (again, costs)
* Bespoke software, we have some bespoke software which is Windows only. If we wanted to run this it'd probably be through VMWare Fusion. So, there might be some issues in that people might find it unacceptable to start up a virtual machine for software which is _essential_ to the companies operation. (and asking people to reboot constantly for bootcamp would be unacceptable)
I bought my first Mac in December of last year and i've got a Macbook Pro on order to replace it. It's the best laptop i've ever used. I can freely admit to saying I also run windows on it for games. (i'm getting a special deal on the Macbook Pro of 48% off and free 3 years applecare..) - colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11ARD (Apple Remote Desktop) is pretty nice, although once you reach 1000 machines and higher, it begins to break down, and in general it can be glitchy. I'm not sure what your issue is with image deployment and centralized management though. OS X Server has those bases completely covered (NetInstall and Open Directory).
- boogiechild, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10IT people interested in customer experience? Ha! Good one.
- SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I love Mac & OS X, but I don't think think iMac is the solution for corporations, for the simple fact that it's an all-in-one. Which means if one part of it is broken, the whole thing is broken. Even if Apple had an aggressive warranty program, the downtime in waiting for a fixed computer (or replacement computer) would be a real pain.
- JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8At every company I've ever worked for management had a hard time signing authorization to buy even the cheapest Dell PCs for a department, now multiple that cost by x3 per PC and imagine submitting that to people whose yearly bonus depends on far they stay under budget. It's not gonna happen. And I'm just talking hardware here, we wont even get into software migrations or user retraining.
- petard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Are you ***** kidding? Windows XP can work on such slow hardware its not even funny. My old 400MHz Celeron can do office work fine with Windows XP
- nkm82, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7RMB... Mighty Mouse!
Free "Service Packs"... 10.x.1, 10.x.2, 10.x.3...
Ok, let's talk. - javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So there you have it. Take it from an unemployed IT guy and buy Macs for your business!
- diggface5000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I can see businesses making the switch to the new imacs on the front line. Hotel reception desks or airline reservation counters would look modern and improve on the customer's experience. I don't envision them making a behind-the-scenes change though because there is no real benefit to them. What they have now is already working fine.
- gildude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, it isn't - at least not what the OP asked for. He did not ask to buy TWO OS licenses. He asked for ease of transition. This should not be something that costs a whole bunch more.
- Boondoggle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, and neither are hard drives and RAM.
Most companies buy service plans with their desktops, and have to get the parts from the original vendor. This is a straw man argument for most businesses. And most "hardware problems" come from hard drives, which are not vendor specific anyway.
You're already locked in, unless you're building your own boxes, and BELIEVE me, that has hidden costs you're not seeing or admitting. - skunkman62, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6wow, not one eyeing corporation mentioned in the article
- awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Let me give you an example. Do you have any idea how much easier it is, as a computer tech, to SSH into a box and fix a config file or whatever need be, than to load into some sort of remote desktop?
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5the iMcs here are far from £550. Apple has them listed at £799, £949, £1149 & £1459.
And even at £800 it's still WAY too much to pay. And the Mac mini comes in at £399. Still much more than most places would pay considering you have to add all the software and peripherals on top of that. - rootstyle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Agreed. How many corp. setups do you know that throw their monitors out every generation of workstation. CRTs probably stuck around atleast 3 generations, and a nice 17-20+" LCD should last for atleast as many. Even if its only a 100$ savings per upgrade, its worth it in the enterprise. As per another Digg article a week or so ago, Apple needs a middle end Mac that doesn't have an integrated monitor, more powerful/upgradeable than the macmini, but less so and cheaper than the macpro.
- awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"Apple's proprietary restrictions are another."
Wait, what? Could you explain this a little further, please?
You can't seriously be saying that Mac OS X is worse than Windows Vista Genuine Advantage™...? - antdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Your comment was fine. It is just people here are well strange.
- JHaze, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I run a hair salon here in Chicago and we use iMacs because the booking system we use only runs on Mac.
That being said I'm glad we do because STx (the booking program) is the best looking salon management program out there right now.
Unfortunately we're still using a G3 and a G4 "lamp" iMac design, but we'll be upgrading to these shortly - shark615, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What? If you have 50 identical Dell's with all the same software how would you need more then one image?
- cricoste90, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5People have new boxes but monitors that are like 8 years old!
- drewpost, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A) There are quite a few Apple vendors out there that will work with you on discounts etc B) Each apple store has a dedicated business consultant that is there soley to work with companies and to be your one on one contact. He can work with corporate to get you discounts and order the special configs that you may require. Check it out
- awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Why is he being dugg down? He's absolutely right. I was able to use my G4 @ 500 MHz Powerbook Ti perfectly fine for about 7 years. That's about double the span it took for my PC's to get too old to continue using with new software.
- AlmostEvil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Indeed, however you have to remember the place where Dell etc make the majority of their money is in small business and the home. While they have big customers who make them lots of nice money the majority of their money still comes from us users and small businesses.
- louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No, the iMac is perfect for home because it is one piece of hardware. In an office where there are skilled people whose sole job is to support computers do not like that idea.
- cfulp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Almost every Web development team I've worked with were on macs.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You don't like in the UK do you? It's £800 for a base iMac, way way too much for a corporation. Also, can you give me some reasons for why it'd help productivity?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4How many times do we have to remind ourselves that we can't take analysts seriously. Just look at what happened with their iPhone sales prediction.
- sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"Let me give you an example. Do you have any idea how much easier it is, as a computer tech, to SSH into a box and fix a config file or whatever need be, than to load into some sort of remote desktop?" - You say this as if remote desktop is the only way to accomplish this on a Windows box. You should realize how silly you sound right now.
- yabos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hmm, you say they use the same parts but somehow the Mac ones are more expensive? You can easily upgrade the CPUs in the Mac Pros. Laptops you don't expect to be able to change out much either Apple or other vendors.
- DarkDakota, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So, you both are not competent enough to handle more than one OS?
Wow, you'll never work for me, or most others with that attitude. - colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8If you have external monitors, than you'd probably be using the Mac Mini, not the iMac. That's the machine we've been using in my workplace. We've been replacing the PC's with Minis that are still hooked to the existing keyboards/mice/displays, and loading Windows on them. As far as the end user user is concerned, they're still using a real PC. This leaves the door open to retask the hardware as OS X hardware, or even convert the user to OS X down the road with no extra hardware costs at conversion time.
- .mark, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8JMHO, but "IT" is foolish to not consider OS X clients as an option. I roll out both platforms at my job and Apple hardware, servers and software is simply easier to deploy, manage and maintain.
- AlmostEvil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Odd, can I ask the people who dugg me down why exactly? (I noticed originally I had been dug up a few times)
I thought I was providing some of the reasoning and information on why people do/don't opt the route of Macs... odd. -
Show 51 - 100 of 211 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is