MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Nov 20, 07 - 11:42 am Comment from: Wandering joe

The trickle becomes a stream

Nov 20, 07 - 11:44 am Comment from: Micro Me

My IT dept. will consider moving to Mac OS X on the day the sky is darkened by airborne pigs.

Oh NO!!

Mary Jo Foley is gonna think this is some kind of late April Fool's Joke...

Or she'll just engage in some more of her comedic repartee to make it sound like everyone is *really* switching to Vista.

muwahahaha

Nov 20, 07 - 11:56 am Comment from: Coule

@Micro Me:

Beware the day the sky is darkened by airborne pigs is near!

LOL at the MDN comment. =)

Nov 20, 07 - 12:06 pm Comment from: Ampar

"Beware the day the sky is darkened by airborne pigs is near!"

Hooters Air has already gone belly up. But a photo of Ballmer on his Gulfstream might do it.

Nov 20, 07 - 12:08 pm Comment from: Realist

In our office of almost 1,000 employees, our IT team has been running an OS 10.4xx for the past year with about a dozen of us - some with Mac experience and some without any. And, of course, everybody likes Mac OS...

Their approach to Vista has been pretty much the same as many posts around here that advise doing at least an archive & install is good practice and a totally clean install is best.

Our IT guys following the pure clean install with Vista, clear everything away, including any and all trialware. Result: smooth, clean, stable Vista across the board.

With that outcome, there are no plans to expand the Mac OS 'test'. Too bad.

That's funny, my all PC shop is switching to Macs for a lot of reasons, not least of all being Vista, but including client and server licensing costs, stability, security, interoperability, ease of administration and virtualization. There is no longer any downside and any IT department would do well to look at saving themselves some money and headaches.

That's pretty sad that only 28% are considering Macs. Shows you how sad the IT situation is that they have to inflict so much pain on themselves just to promote job security.

44% have considered non-Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh

...

Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives, with support from 28% of respondents. About a quarter said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18% of the vote. Another 9% cited other Linux operating systems


28 + 18 + 9 = 55... = 44 ???



what ever. calculating is not their strongest asset.

Trying to convince my IT boys....carefully, they are a sensitive bunch.

But I bought then new Zune players, so, they are happy now. They will gladly install Vista.

Nov 20, 07 - 12:29 pm Comment from: Spark

25% (a quarter for Red hat) + 18 + 18 +9% = 70% considering some form of Linux. It's pretty obvious that Vista's fall is benefitting Linux far more than Mac OS. However, if just 28% of the 44% considering a move from Windows actually takes place, we are talking a HUGE uptick in corporate acceptance. That's enough foot in the door to wiggle the rest of your body through!

Nov 20, 07 - 12:36 pm Comment from: Wandering joe

"28 + 18 + 9 = 55... = 44 ???
what ever. calculating is not their strongest asset.

Errare Humanum Est
They calculate just fine.
If we look at the 44% as a whole, mac gets 28%, redhat gets 25%, Ubuntu and SUSE get 18% each, something else gets 9% and 4% weren't sure. This gives 102%, and that is completely OK because of errors rounding up or down.

Unfortunately, Vista remains in the plans of the very large federal agency I work for. If experience with XP SP2 is anything to go by, they'll test it for the next year or so against our existing applications, then approve it. But once they recognize that 90% of the desktops and laptops are not beefy enough to handle Vista, it'll become part of our "refresh" cycle.

FORtunately, I'll be wrapping up my work here long before then. They'll have to deal with Vista without me.

BTW, colleagues in the Research group put in an order to replace some older Macs, of which we have only a handful, with newer stuff. IT approved the purchase, Procurement killed it. Their response was, basically, "Macs aren't approved". So some organizations will not change any time soon.

Nov 20, 07 - 12:39 pm Comment from: Ampar

The next big test will be the market reception and acceptance of Windows Server 2008.

support guys will never support the mac

as it doesn't need any

support

Nov 20, 07 - 12:55 pm Comment from: Will

My IT brother-in-law, steadfast MS programmer, is fascinated by my iPhone and my wife's iPod touch.

They are both Mac Trojan Horses I tell you!

Changing minds, one person at a time.

Nov 20, 07 - 12:59 pm Comment from: Woody

Now how is it that a real study is the total opposite of Mary Jo Foley's blog article?

Nov 20, 07 - 01:08 pm Comment from: El Guapo

@Matt

What MDN comment?

Nov 20, 07 - 01:30 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

.44 x .28 works out to about 1/8th of the total market queried. Over 12%. Except maybe half of this is just so much wishful thinking. Those who responded want the systems they mentioned, that doesn't mean they will get them.
Raymond said: "colleagues in the Research group put in an order to replace some older Macs, of which we have only a handful, with newer stuff. IT approved the purchase, Procurement killed it. Their response was, basically, "Macs aren't approved"."
My guess is that at least a third of that 12% will get that answer. Another third will get "we'll put some in the lab, with the Vista systems, and see what happens".
The neat thing is that the final third represents 50% growth for Apple! Even without any of those lab machines panning out. A year or two down the road, Apple will be over 10% world-wide and half of those who said "Macs not approved" will be willing to put them in the lab for testing and many of those willing to "test" them will conclude they are a good purchase option.
DLMeyer - the Voice of G.L.Horton's Stage Page Pod Cast

@ Slartibartfast

It helps to read the article:

"Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives, with support from 28% of respondents. About a quarter said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18% of the vote. Another 9% cited other Linux operating systems and 4% were unsure," Dubie reports.

28 + 25 + 18 + 18 + 9 + 44 = 102

The article says "about a quarter" for Red Hat Linux", so the 25 above should be a 23.

It also pays to read the actual article they linked to.

The end of the article is not nearly as rosy as the part they quoted.

Considering doesn't mean doing. It mostly means thinking about the possibilities, then thinking about the problems doing it, and staying with what one has, which is what most IT departments will be doing.

Yes Mel, but thinking is the first step to doing...

One baby step has been made.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Two things. First off it's podcast, not freaking Pod Cast.
Podcast is a form of the term 'broadcast' referring to the iPod that made podcasts possible.
Second, nobody could give a flying fig newton about some 'stage page' whatever, it's just plain annoying drawing attention to yourself.

Unix is the clear choice then.

Whatever flavour you wish... Unix, Linux, OSX... is the pick over Windows Vista.

I hear that loud and clear.

Nov 20, 07 - 02:32 pm Comment from: Krioni

Um, just a final correction, by someone who is actually going to manage to combine reading and mathematical skills in the same post (Wandering Joe got it right, I'm just repeating and clarifying):

"44% have considered non-Windows operating systems"

"Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives"

So, the following list totals up to the Vista alternatives, which is 44% of the total number of survey respondents.

Macs: 28%
Red Hat Linux: 25% ("about a quarter")
SUSE Linux: 18%
Ubuntu: 18%
other Linux: 9%
unsure: 4%

28 + 25 + 18 + 18 + 9 + 4 = 102 (rounding of the list can cause this slight over-count).

So, the article is right. Several people posted equations that were just plain wrong - do people not just paste their calcs into Script Editor or something else and make sure their math adds up? Strange.

Supposedly.

But until Apple gets its act together for business users, particularly those in mid to large size business, and government, it won't go that far.

These users are demanding a small tower, sans monitor, and a roadmap for at least the next two years. Individual purchasers here don't understand businesses needs, with volume purchasing made over three year plans, etc.

Apple just cut off its Authorized business agent program, which is a foolish thing to do. It needs these people to sell into these markets, as Apple has no division dedicated to this. These people are the closest it does have.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/11/20/apple_pulls_plug_on_authorized_business_agent_program.html

It almost seems that whenever it looks as though business is becoming interested, Apple deliberately does something to make it more difficult.

I can't help but remember Job's reply to a question about large business when he came back to Apple.

He said:

"The Enterprise is not our customer."

He seems to mean it.

"virtualisation has made it easier to implement an alternative,"

AND this is why

Paul McDougall
"Apple warns ‘Boot Camp’ could lead to fewer Mac apps"

Apple Warns 'Boot Camp' Could Lead To Fewer Mac Apps -- Apple Boot Camp -- InformationWeek

and

Mary Jo Foley

ZDNet blogger Mary Jo Foley: Could Leopard drive some switchers to Vista?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=905


ARE SO SO wrong!

---

@ Mel Gross

The Corporation or Enterprise is an entity that makes decisions for itself based on collaberation. Consumers make choices individually and Apple understands this well. That is why it targets individuals ratherthan Enterprises.

Okay, let's be rational about this. Being the fanboy of OSX that I am, I'm not bowled over by this article's claim that OSX is going to be the winner.

People want a LO or NO cost alternative to Windows not to OSX. Linus is the natural alternative. It's free and it looks and acts like Windows already.

The cost to retool a business for OSX is simply too high: the OS costs $, the learning curve will be impo$$ible for most users/owners, businesses already have lots of apps that hook into Windows.

No one is going to just en masse jump ship to OSX. It would be great if they did, but it can't happen in this reality. Plus, where are you going to get the huge number of OSX IT pros that will be needed to set the networks up, etc.

If only Apple had won the marketing battle in the early 90s. If only.

Dougless, this is what I meant.

But, the article is waxing enthusiastic about Apple moving into the enterprise. I'm simply trying to show why that won't happen in a big way anytime soon, unless Apple changes some of its policies.

Unfortunately, big business and government represents about 50% of all computer, and server, purchases.

It also represents, along with professional users, the most profitable, and stable, part of the business.

I would like to see Apple do both. There is no reason why they can't.

Many companies keep their business and consumer businesses separate, there is no reason why Apple can't do the same.

Mark writes, "Linux is the natural alternative. It's free and it looks and acts like Windows already."

Actually, it's not and it doesn't. Linux is free if you want to rely on forums for support; it costs if you want someone to call. With Apple, there's someone to call. There's no consistency in look/feel across Linux platforms, so how can one say it "looks" like Windows already? Finally, the applications folks rely on are more likely to be found on the Mac than on a Linux platform.

Face it. Desktop Linux failed. Mac is succeeding on the desktop and moving up the food chain.

Raymond is correct here.

In the "old" days of the internet, when Apache was king (no longer), administrators were willing to put up with Linux, and its home grown service.

But, that's changed. Windows Sever 2003 has been pushing Linux out of big establishments.

In addition, those Linux businesses that are there, charge for service, just as MS does. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, are just the biggest of those.

While Linux is the usual alternative to Windows for big, and medium business, it's certainly not the "free" download it yourself, and expect no service versions that individuals are espousing.

It isn't that OS X, and Macs are too expensive (though the iMac is NOT a business machine), it's that Apple's policies don't mesh with the business environment.

And, I wish MDN would dispense with this stupid "magic Word" nonsense.

It's been proved that it offers NO security against bots at all. Therefore, it's just a nuisance.

Nov 20, 07 - 04:38 pm Comment from: Ampar

To Mel Gross:

Re: Magic Words

If you register, you won't see or use them.

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/member/register/

Just fyi.

The registration is something new, I think.

Anyway, it still doesn't excuse the use of something that's been proven to be useless.

AI, for example has vastly more members, and doesn't need it. I've only come across a few sites that use this waste of time.

I thought I'd post here my responses at the computerworlduk.com site:

Real challenges: Getting the facts and going 64 bit

"Almost half of all participants (45%) cited challenges with system management in non-Windows operating systems as preventing them from adopting" alternatives, the report states."

This argument is always made out of laziness, ignorance or job protection. Fact: It takes 1/10 the IT staff to maintain Macintosh boxes on a per computer basis. I am all for the proliferation and development of Linux on into the future, as well as every other flavor of UNIX. But Mac OS X is easily the easiest to implement and maintain of any UNIX, and it matches the capability of the best of the rest of the UNIX options.

And how difficult is it to implement and maintain a Linux box? Sadly I don't have figures, but it is drastically more difficult than Macintosh. Relative to Windows, you don't have the malware to worry about, but you do have more user-hostile maintenance tools and processes.

One blindfold that appears to over the eyes of many IT staff is the mounting pressure to go to 64 bit computing. With Windows you are hosed by the fact that Microsoft do not have ANY 64 bit version of Windows that is 32 bit backwards compatible. You have to buy all new, specifically 64 bit software. Modern PCs with the current stable of CPUs are nearly all 64 bit capable. You'd have to get some trashy version of a Celeron box to get buy 32 bit hardware these days. And yet just about everyone is stuck running 32 bit Windows with 32 bit apps because of the 64 bit Windows problem.

Meanwhile, Mac OS X has been 64 bit, with 32 bit backwards compatibility, since 10.4 Tiger from over two years ago. The transition to 64 bit hardware using a 64 bit operating system has been 100% transparent. Toss in the fact that, contrary to mythology, the Macintosh has always been the platform with the lowest total cost. Any serious futurist knows what is the current best option in computing.

They only SAY that, but look at the fine print on the server contracts! LOL they are locked in!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

Nov 20, 07 - 05:15 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

Well, Derek, that's an oversimplified view of the situation.

> Well, Derek, that's an oversimplified view of the situation.

We need a lot more oversimplification in the I.T. industry - beats the hell out of the standard I.T. overcomplicating that makes everyone hate working with most I.T. groups.

Trying to convince my IT boys....carefully, they are a sensitive bunch.

Anyone insane (masochist?) enough to choose a career of making Windows boxes run is bound to be a bit sensitive.

Nov 20, 07 - 06:02 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

"@dlmayer" ... four lines of text, not even a hint of content related to the article, and you don't even have the courage to use a registered login. Where-as, my comment, barring the last line, was entirely relevant, informative, and useful. So ... WHO is trying to draw attention to themselves?
BTW: the word "podcast" offends my spell checker, a piece of Apple software. Any fool can recognize the two words for being the same as the single. You were not tricked.
On Topic:
While derek is right about the 64-bit issue, most Windows users will have to find, and possibly buy, new software regardless of how they plan to go 64-bit.
LO vs NO cost ... Apple is in the "LO" cost group, and nobody is really in the "NO" cost group - you pay when you buy or you hire someone to support it.
Apache: works on Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and OSX. Lots of folk around who know how to support it.
Registration vs Magic Words ... we have not had much by way of intrusive posting here - except as noted above - so the Magic Words have been doing a reasonable job. Registration IS new, and welcomed by many (most?) of us - except those who prefer their anonymity (also see above).
Dave

Nov 20, 07 - 07:35 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

Mel Gross sez: "Well, Derek, that's an oversimplified view of the situation."

Certainly. They only let me have 1000 characters per message on the computerworlduk.com site. I had to post two messages just to express that minimal bit of information!

But you must learn to be specific about your points and make counter points. I like to teach people stuff they don't know. All you did was toss up a critical sentence without providing justification. How is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about?

;-Derek

I love listening to mac people say "linux is dead". It's great fun.

Nov 20, 07 - 07:58 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

clunker sez: "Trying to convince my IT boys....carefully, they are a sensitive bunch." Anyone insane (masochist?) enough to choose a career of making Windows boxes run is bound to be a bit sensitive.

This opens up a huge subject about human behavior. Let me 'over-simplify' this subject as well with the limited space provided:

There is the 'sheeple' theory where certain people need to be lead by others, and somehow believe being swatted by the shepherd's crook is part of the deal. Thus Windows makes total sense to them.

There is the sadomasochism theory where people downright despise themselves and turn that hatred outward toward others, making them suffer as they do. Seeing as Macs inflict the minimum of pain on the user, at least for our era in computing, they are completely anti-Mac and pro-anything more user-hostile, such as Windows.

Regarding IT staff, there is a point in the maturation of children at which they learn the value of power over their parents and others around them. If kids at this stage fail to learn power over themselves, then they can spend the rest of their lives trying to find that power, meanwhile continuing the same power-play games on others around them. This is a form of arrested development. When such people find themselves in a position where they do indeed have power over others, they exploit it to the max. Thus you get the total rectum of an IT staffer who treats the users as lusers and acts like he has such incredible special knowledge that no one else could possibly reach their level of enlightenment, blah blah puke puke. One of my brothers is stuck in this mode.

Then there is the sheer frustration theory. I often fall prey to this one. Because software is designed by humans it is infested with human flaws. When I am alone and not likely to offend anyone, I cut loose swearing up a storm at the garbage software I have to deal with day in and day out. I have burned Bill Gates in effigy in my mind a million times. This is an outlet for the pain from having to suffer other people's problems. Being a Type A Producer personality, I never suffer fools lightly. I bulldoze them. So, as an IT staffer, when I get tired out and frustrated, I'm a PITA to work with. Give me some coffee and free me from the madness that is our continuing Stone Age of Computing and I'm right as rain again. Consider me manic.

But at least I am driven to learn new things and strive for an improved future. When a new computer system surpasses the Mac, expect me to be there on the band wagon. That is the way EVERY IT specialist should be. The computer industry never, ever stops moving forward. Stick-in-the-mud IT staffers are NOT welcome. Dump them ASAP.

> Consider me manic. [derekcurrie]

hOkay!

> I often fall prey to.... When I am alone.... I cut loose swearing up a.... ...I have to deal.... I have burned Bill Gates in effigy.... ... I never suffer fools lightly.... I bulldoze them. So, as an IT staffer... ...when I get tired out... I'm a PITA to work with.... ...I'm right as rain again. But at least I am driven to....

I'm starting to understand what the "I" in IT stands for. It's not what you'd expect.

Nov 20, 07 - 09:37 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ Mel Gross

> Considering doesn't mean doing.

That's true, but "considering" is much better than automatically choosing to go with Windows. All Apple needs is for potential customers to consider the alternatives. If 28% are considering Mac OS X, that's excellent. Once those IT folks choose to make a informed choice, a high percentage will go Mac.

Nov 21, 07 - 01:24 am Comment from: Mel Gross

Derek, that wasn't my first post. If you followed the train of posts that led to that one, you would have read what I had said.

Nov 21, 07 - 01:29 am Comment from: Mel Gross

ken1w, I agree that considering is better than not considering. But, let's put this in perspective, shall we? It's not 28% of all IT personnel interviewed, it's 28% of 44%. Big difference!

It comes out to about 12.3%.

While that's larger than several years ago, it's still not a big number when it's "considering", rather than intending to implement.

Usually, most who consider, don't follow through, so this is not as exciting as one might think.

Desktop Linux just plain sucks. The GUIs don't come close to the Mac Finder (or Vista for that matter).

There are so many Linux distributions that it has become impossible to sort through them all.

The kernel changes so fast that you can't keep all of your drivers and software running on Linux. Developers can't keep up with the "change for the sake of change" kernel releases.

There are so many cooks, the stew tastes likes Unix, Windows 2000, XP and Vista all thrown into one big pot.

Steve Jobs should throw the Linux community a bone and get them to develop applications for OS X. (Adopt a piece of the Linux kernel or something and enable OS X to directly run Linux apps.)