What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
534 Comments
- mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -19/+139When saying your company or a company in general that's switching to Mac, please specify the size by number of employees. AFAIK the REAL major companies aren't even or never will they contemplate switching to Mac if nothing else because of the investment they have in in-house developed apps for Windows. I'll start off, my company has over 300,000 employees - no Macs.
- sk11, on 04/23/2008, -37/+138I don't mean to be anti-mac, but aren't they more expensive than pcs?
- tcardone05, on 04/23/2008, -14/+85From a business perspective, it's not about Windows vs Mac, it's about which gets the job done for less. Most of the time, it is Windows.
- lohphat, on 04/23/2008, -22/+73Nothing like switching from a software monopoly to a software AND hardware monopoly.
I see there are no grown-ups watching the finances nor those who know how businesses scale. The reality is there are more enterprise-class apps for PCs than macs. Period. The cost overhead of supporting multiple platforms is lost on those who don't have to pay the bills. - Lochshen, on 04/23/2008, -29/+74Many larger shops have been quietly supporting tiny populations of Mac's for years. They are not very difficult to support and really don't require much in the way of skill to manage. That being said, I wouldn't count on a big population of Mac's in your front office. Aside from just not being the best fit for an office environment, there simply isn't a good business case to go there.
- Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -12/+56Two words: group policy. When an IT department isn't a dude in shorts who makes in-person visits and instead is a tightly-knit team that deploys IT changes onto tens of thousands of machines across multiple timezones, you don't pander to people who want to use a Mac because it's hip.
Macs are fine in small shops but an intelligent enterprise will never run two completely different platforms - there is far too much expense in getting people who have the proper amount of expertise in both systems and in plotting hardware upgrade paths for both trees.
It's analogous to someone coming to a voting station and saying they brought their own voting card that is slightly different from the ones everyone else punches - no, sorry, there are thousands of people filing through here and you just gotta go with the flow. - Coolspot420, on 04/23/2008, -4/+45yeah, and at $700, you won't find any mac notebooks.
- Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -5/+37When did MacOS get MS group policy support?
- Murrabbit, on 04/23/2008, -11/+42The IT exec who says "Let's switch to Mac" is some sort of sadist. It doesn't happen for the same reason the US military hasn't switched away from the m16 for over 40 years - yeah okay sure there are some slightly shinier guns out there that look nicer and have traits that are better than that of our aging platform, but when it comes down to it they all do the same damn thing and in our case, the existing model does it for cheaper and we've already got huge stocks of them and their accessories so there's just no compelling reason to switch, even if the ad-campaigns for the competitors are really catchy and hip.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -11/+41No you wouldn't.
- shank2001, on 04/23/2008, -15/+43For $2,800 you would be hard pressed to find a PC comparable to the Mac Pro. I am a PC user... and after LOTS of research, I could not get an 8 core PC with the same stock/base features as the Mac Pro anywhere close to $2,800. Surprised me too, believe me. So I bought a Mac. I run windows on it, for the most part, but OSX is really impressing me!!! DONT buy RAM or hard drives from APPLE though!!!!! Buy the base Mac Pro and upgrade everything yourself... and you cannot beat the price then! One of the best PCs I have ever owned LOL. And so quiet!
- plasticxme, on 04/23/2008, -5/+33Exactly. One example is: when a company refreshes its desktops and laptops. Refreshing Windows based Desktops and laptops is far cheaper then with Macs. Using Macs would also limit the company to a single vendor, which makes it harder to negotiate better pricing.
- Ouze, on 04/23/2008, -2/+28Most workplaces are not buying a couple of $2,800 machines. They are buying thousands of $600 machines.
- threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -16/+40I just went to a brokerage firm that uses a MS2k3 server and changed ALL their desktops to macs. They use the web for all their apps and wanted a safer environment. I connected them ALL to AD.. added the shares... turned on VNC for management from a PC if needed.. added all printers... added Office 2008 for Outlook connection... for the macbook pro's I added MS Remote Desktop. Guess what? It all worked.. it was easy... and it's all managed.
Their next purchase is a Mac Server to replace the MS one... we talked of virtualizing but there isn't an OS X server virtualization product equivalent of ESX yet.
Using the Unix side of things I added specialized folders to share between certain members, creating drop boxes with chmod 300.. if you don't know what that means.. it just says write/execute to a folder. Meaning you can see it.. you can add things to it.. you just can't browse it. - flipmeat, on 04/23/2008, -48/+69Most arguments against Macs are based upon out of date information.
- lujoko, on 04/23/2008, -5/+26no right click? you're an idiot.
- Alphaaaaaa, on 04/23/2008, -3/+24Apple Inc.?
- Auzy, on 04/23/2008, -0/+20I cant believe they are actually pushing OSX server.
Leopard server proved that Apple does not perform proper QA to us and our customers. AFS was very unstable and needed resetting every 3 hours, the USB apple fax modem crashed our intel xserve. Apple software update server was so buggy it ended up downloading thousands of dollars worth of downloads on our high speed connection (hundreds of gigs), and there are other people looking on forums that it happened to too.
Never again OSX server, and our customers tended to agree with us (All of us had serious issues with leopard server in some form or another). As of 10.5.2, we still cannot plug our Apple USB modem in the Xserve to receive faxes (or it kernel panics). Apple didn't even test their own hardware.
And their Caldav is useless.. Lots of people cant get it working because of barely any documentation. We kept getting credential issues.
In fact, in 1 case, we were forced to take the costs, and set up a windows server pretty much for free for a customer, because OSX server had issues.
A lesson to all, don't touch OSX server.. Its buggy as hell. And when your Apple USB modem doesn't work 6 months down the line of initial release, you know something is seriously wrong with apple - gilbes, on 04/23/2008, -4/+24This article ignores the most important concern for Mac and the enterprise:
the Monopoly Apple insists it has over the hardware OSX can be installed on.
Large Enterprises cannot rely on such things. They are built around the idea that they can get hardware form mulitple vendors and customize it to the nth degree. - nourkah, on 04/23/2008, -2/+20I work for a tech company and the reason we use mostly PC's is because most of the proprietary software that companies use is written for PC's. We still have mac's, just like most business', but the people who have them are the only people who need them. If the bulk of the software is written for PC then where is the justification to buy everyone mac's just because you CAN run PC software through virtualization. Mac's are used plenty. When they are necessary.
- sk11, on 04/23/2008, -18/+36But linux has all those advantages and it's even cheaper.
- LemmingJesus, on 04/23/2008, -1/+18Not the same argument when nobody uses iWork.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -8/+25no right click?
refer to flipmeat's post: "Most arguments against Macs are based upon out of date information."
if you're going to argue about OS's, you should have actually used the kind you're bitching about… - charlesray, on 04/23/2008, -8/+25I still think it's hilarious that there was an article about a Mac user who decided to switch his company to Macs and it utterly failed, and then shortly thereafter I've seen at least three articles on Digg about how it's such a good idea to use Macs in big corporations.
- lukas88, on 04/23/2008, -15/+31Businesses are lest likely to be willing to pay the trendy tax involved with a mac purchase.
- lohphat, on 04/23/2008, -7/+23You still fail to understand economics. Uncessary diversity for a business == wasting money. There's a reason SOuthwest only flys one type of aircraft. Supporting different hardware RAISES COSTS in spare parts and support.
Macs are a SINGLE SOURCE supplier. One at a 20% premium.
Add to that the wasted time in supporting equivalent apps on multiple platforms and the support overhead to diagnose and fix ideosyncratic problems inherent to all platforms.
Any solution has problems and the economics of low-cost intel hardware and business apps for PCs is a no brainer -- you didn't get the memo. Anything else is an irrational circle-jerk by people without the responsibility to work within a budget.
30 years of APple and how many BILLIONS spent in R&D and marketing and 9% market penetration?
EPIC FAIL. - kaod, on 04/23/2008, -3/+18not too easy to support os x in an existing windows environment. binding a mac to a wind2003 domain causes alot of goofy behavior.
- aubrey, on 04/23/2008, -5/+20Apple (and the Mac OS) has long, long, history of abandoning its older systems and technology far too quickly. They don't seem to have a concern for long term or legacy support. They are willing to break compatibility of seemingly anything in order to support forward progress. They also depend too heavily on a couple of third parties that have left them hanging for applications a few too many times. (Sun and Microsoft, from what I've seen)
This focus on the here and now is great for consumer devices for the most part, but it is enough for me to actively try to avoid bringing macs into our computer room. I can't be alone.
Maybe things are better now. Since they are gaining market share, they should be able to have some reasonable amount of legacy support. They did switch to a standard architecture with the Intel systems. And I believe their insistence that a one button mouse is all you need is finally history.
But even so, I won't be able to know for sure until a few more years go by. Until then, I'd rather not deal with the risk and uncertainty. - fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -2/+16Except people actually want Office.
- JimmyIkon, on 04/23/2008, -4/+18I worked in IT at a large advertising agency. Even though we had 1/2 Mac and 1/2 PC, the IT manager was anti Mac because he spent thousands on PC centric certifications. As long as PCs are the standard, his cost of education is justified.
- gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -17/+31So their hardware isn't actually priced as though it were diamond-studded? Dang, I swear it was just the other day...
- mizike, on 04/23/2008, -9/+22wait a minute, you did actual research to back up your claims....this may be the wrong thread for you, this is the logically baseless mac bashing thread of the day, take your logic someplace where people will care....
btw, my first mac buying experience was almost the exact same as yours, I was shopping for a laptop and someone told me to consider a mac....the though had simply never crossed my mind, but after pricing it out, it was the cheapest option for what I wanted (light, very long battery life, durable, etc., etc., I have a desktop for playing games, I needed a laptop that wouldn't keep me chained to an outlet all the time)...i've never regretted the decision.... - Tyr7BE, on 04/23/2008, -2/+14No, unfortunately, they can't. They can, in theory, but they can't.
Plus, nobody is actually using .NET for in house development - when you have a massive piece of software that you've been developing in COM+ or whatever the devil it is for the last 10 years, you don't just drop everything and start from scratch because MS put out a new VM. You keep using COM until you can't. - cubicledrone, on 04/23/2008, -1/+13Are you actually going to state with a straight face that UNIX doesn't support centralized management? Really?
- dakbonsa, on 04/23/2008, -5/+16financial services in midtown Manhattan - no Mac and I don't see it happening in near future. On a side note, whenever people say that OpenOffice can replace Microsoft Office, I say, "uhhh.. yeah.. try to convince that to my managing director." So yes, this industry is very depended on Microsoft....
- Coolspot420, on 04/23/2008, -8/+19Haha no.
My friend just purchased a new mac pro. For $2100, he got:
(1) 2.8ghz Quad Core Processor
2gb RAM
320gb HDD
8800GT
I built my PC 4-5 months ago, and for $1200 I got:
2.4ghz Quad Core (now overclocked stable at 3.4ghz)
4gb RAM
500gb HDD
8800gt - KibibyteBrain, on 04/23/2008, -1/+12Its seems lately that OS fanbois of all breeds are dugg DOWN on digg. Which is about the only good development on digg in the last year.
- BRODEL, on 04/23/2008, -5/+16Err.. I love my macbook and Mac Pro at home, but at work I would hate to have to support them. There's a lot lacking in terms of management that you get with Active Directory / Group Policy.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11No centralized management? You have no goddamned clue what you're talking about. OS X can talk to Active Directory pretty damn well, so it can fit into an existing environment. You can manage patches, updates, etc with OS X Server through SUS and you can use Remote Desktop to push them. On top of that, OS X Server is about a thousand times easier to administer than Win2k3, which likes to spread everything way out and bury ten layers deep. Add full UNIX compatibility and you have a pretty powerful server that can integrate very well into a Windows environment. Not the best solution for everything, but please be sure you know what you're talking about before posting.
- DeathJux, on 04/23/2008, -7/+17Pet Peeve:
MAC = Media Access Control, not a computer. "Mac" is short for "Macintosh"; it is not an acronym, so capitalizing it is incorrect. - Gregd, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12I would have to concur with SoundScape above. I cannot imagine life in the enterprise now without GPOs. What you're talking about with the Macs is basic networking, but for anything a bit more complicated, the move to all Macs begins to fall apart. You say you have Outlook 2008 but how are you sharing calendars and free/busy search without Exchange? When you say you added all printers, did you do that locally on each workstation or centrally from a single location? Are you able to push updates/patches from a single location? How well does Applescript work versus vbs? Does Apple have the equivalent of WMI?
Your definition of "managed" and my definition of managed aren't the same. After saying all this, I am an Apple fan and have replaced all of my Windows machines at home with Macs. But when it comes to managing an enterprise, Microsoft has Apple beat by a mile. - JimmyIkon, on 04/23/2008, -0/+10Troll with a twist! The linux comment will throw most of them.
- dezman2003, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12You must have also forgot he was talking about hardware not software, might be time to make a doctors appointment to get that forgetfulness check out.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -8/+18Apples and Oranges. You should compare Premium to Premium. Also, iWork blows ass even compared to Open Office, so try again.
- fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12That isn't group policy.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -6/+16You just get laid?
- threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -2/+11Here's a kicker for all of you. We are a VMWare gold partner.. the VMWare employees are using Macs now purchased for them by VMWare.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+10There's one big reason Macs won't be replacing PC's in lots of office any time soon: the price.
- SoundScape, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9That's pretty impressive. How successful have you been using Group Policy?
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -3/+12"in large part because end-users are pushing for them." That's the business justification for switching to Mac's? It's doesn't make business sense to support multiple platforms just because users whine about the OS they want to use. This is really just more of that "I want it so give it to me" kind of attitude instead of a meaningful reason to switch hardware and OS types in the business environment. Any smart IT department should be able to justify their choice of OS and shouldn't just start supporting multiple OS's without a good reason.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 538 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is