[Gary54]

whitedog said:

Quote

The issue isn't really single source - the issue is availability - and price. ......

..... But this is not an enterprise IT issue. While some IT departments may rebuild their PCs from the motherboard up, I doubt this is really a cost effective practice when you factor in the expense of the labor involved.

Quote

I suspect they are far more concerned with software compatibility issues. Here PCs may have an advantage, but the well documented higher support costs for Windows platforms probably zero out any savings they realize on this count.

Converting from one platform to another is a huge undertaking for a large business - or even a small one. Even upgrading on the same platform can be daunting. In the end, whichever problem you prefer to give weight, there are still significant barriers to wider Mac use in enterprise - though most of these obstacles are of Apple's own devising - and thus, up to Apple to solve, when and if they choose.

I would refer to a series of articles about the experiences of an automotive supply company that decided to make the switch available at Computerworld if not other places. (like here )Its been interesting to follow. Given the difference in client/server licensing structure between MS and Apple, they calculated a cost savings of several millions with reduced licensing and upgrade costs alone in the short term. The main problems have been the users perceptions about switching (up to and including a death threat over it), making the case for savings to the employees and the customers, and ..... being beholden to a single sole source provider for parts and service which is not an enviable position for any purchasing agent for any company to be in.

[chuckjuhl]

If Apple doesn't open up OS-X and offer a "Business" version with the consumer software stripped out, then Linux will very likely be the dominant desktop OS within the next 10 years. The cost of Apple hardware is prohibitively expensive for the enterprise. Apple hardware is a good value for the consumer, but the enterprise doesn't need all of the extras that come as standard on Apple computers and in OS-X. When you need to outfit a university library or a call center, or even you local auto dealership, built-in Bluetooth, wireless lan, CD burners and DVD burners, FrontRow, Garage Band, and the like are not only unnecessary, but they pose additional management overhead to lock down and pose additional security risks. Apple really does not get it when it comes to enterprise deployment. In the enterprise, less is better. And the bigger the enterprise, the less attractive Macs are for large scale deployment because of all the built-in hardware and applications that have to be locked down and monitored for employee (or student) hacks attempting to re-enable the unnecessary built-in hardware and software. Not to mention the greater level of effort needed to service Mac hardware vs. "PC" hardware. Apple's "kitchen sink" approach to hardware and OS may be a great value for consumers, but it is a significant detriment in the typical enterprise.

If Windows is a dead end as some analyst foresee, and the schools and enterprise go to Linux instead of OS-X, that's where the majority of home users will go too. Only a small percentage of users are motivated to learn two different operating systems. Given that Linux is essentially free (and Distro's like Ubuntu 8.04 slicker than Vista and arguably close to par with OS-X 10.5), I don't see the motivation for the majority of users to switch to Apple's proprietary hardware and a different operating system than they use at work or school.

For better or worse, the enterprise (includng education, government and medium-to-large businesses) drive the personal computer market. Most people first learn how to use computers at school and at work. And the vast majority stick with what they know when they choose a home computer.

Unless Apple significantly re-evaluates it's focus, it will remain a niche player. But that re-evaluation is very unlikely to happen with a myoptic Steve Jobs setting Apple's direction.

That's why I'm betting Linux will take over the desktop and small business server market in the next decade, Windows will begin to die, and the Mac will stay about where it is.

[macnuke]

in ten minutes you can strip a Tiger install to about 650M total HD used. I have one archived on CD.. not DVD.
it's also on a FW portable drive. along with CCC, DW and DU.
plug it in.. boot from it.. clone to internal drive.
even if you have additional apps to install, do you really think anything windows can be installed as fast or as reliable?

[chuckjuhl]

Not Windows, but Linux can. Which was my point. But Windows XP Pro doesn't come with the Kitchen sink anyway (and only consumer models of PC's come with all the bloatware. Dell Optiplex and Vostra, and HP business boxes come with just the OS), so there's really nothing to strip out to begin with. Enterprise installation of XP (and Linux) can also be pushed - from central repositories, and updates pushed and controlled as well, including across mixed hardware. Try that with a MAC and OS-X. As many posters here have pointed out, trying to maintain a consistant OS version across a mixed mac hardware platform is near impossible, and maintaining the same hardware versions across a large enterprise is not only impractical but would be near impossible. Enterprises need to standardize on a version of an OS, while being able to replace and upgrade hardware. Most prudent enterprises are 12-24 month back on OS upgrades (much longer in many large cases) because of the need to allow their vertical enterprise apps time to catch up.

In a large healthcare organizationj I work with, there are more than 8,000 desktops across 4 campuses. These range in age from 8 year-old Dell P-III's to 8 day-old Quad-Core HP's. Virtually all run XP Pro with all of the lastest service packs and updates that are pushed out on a schedule. A similar mix of Mac hardware would be an IT nightmare to manage securely.PPC macs use a different version of OS-X than Intel Macs. A new Mac won't run 10.4. A Mac purchased with 10.4 won't run 10.3.

Now here's the real rub in your argument. While it may take "10 minutes" (and that is B.S. because I've done it, it takes about a half hour) to strip OS-X down, each Mac going into the enterprise has to have the new, lighter OS-X loaded. add the amount of time that takes by say a 1,000 desktops (which is how a university typically buys - 500 to a thousand at a time - and how large enterpises do as well). it's no small task then.

You obviously have not had to administer 1,000 + desktops that need to be locked down to specific application sets and user rights, or you would understand that even 10 minutes per desktop in additional configuration time is a significant resource burden. In a Windows or Linux enterprise environment, one needs only to input the MAC address of the unit - whether its a brand new box or 8 years old, and blast an enterprise-standard configured image across the campus wan or lan. XP and Linus will automatically configure the correct hardware drivers 99% of the time. From the time the gopher-boy plugs in the XP or Linux box at building A and IM's the box's MAC address to IT in building C, to the time the box is up and configured is about 15 minutes. And almost all of that time is unattended. tTy to deploy a 1,000 macs across a campus, and tell me how long it takes you, and how many FTE hours you have to expend.

And you didn't even touch the hardware issues I noticed :)

anyone who says that Macs are ready for the enterprise, probably has never had to deploy or administer enterprise IT.

[chuckjuhl]

BTW, try taking your lean mean "Tiger" on-a-stick and installing it on that Mac Mini you pick up from the Apple Store this weekend.

[whitedog]

"If Apple doesn't open up OS-X and offer a "Business" version with the consumer software stripped out, then Linux will very likely be the dominant desktop OS within the next 10 years."

No doubt you're correct that Macs are generally too feature rich for big business. But writing off Windows as "dead" is just wishful thinking. Linux may well do better in the enterprise market than the Mac OS, but for it to replace Windows is a lot to expect. There are already other business friendly operating environments out there; it's more likely that Linux will cut a significant patch out of Windows' market share and that the realm of business "solutions" will merely become more fragmented as a result.

The dominance of Microsoft has given us the habit of thinking there can be only one winner in the OS wars, but that notion is mere convention. If Linux changes the paradigm, it will not be simply to reverse the roles of who's up and who's down; change is rarely an either/or proposition. The new reality will be diversity over uniformity. As others have pointed out, the weakness of both the Mac and Windows systems is their proprietary, sole source nature. The trend is to open standards. Linux is well placed to benefit from this change in direction, but it is parochial to think that it will merely replace one dominant system with another.

If the enterprise computing environment does, indeed, become more diverse, there is no reason the Mac OS cannot carve out a portion in this new marketplace. The only one who stands to lose in this scenario is Microsoft, but it's improbable that it will fail entirely.

[macnuke]

meh.... it was an example from the last time I did it. haven't tried it on Leo yet.

most people and organizations I work with use some version of 'nix anyway. :shrug:
personally, I am in a mostly Solaris ( for better or worse ) medical imaging environment.
A few Macs, and zero Windows.

[chuckjuhl]

While OS diversity is a noble thing, and may come to be a little more prevalant across the computing environment as a whole, OS diversity in a medium to large enterprise is problematic under the best of circumstances, and a nightmare to maintain when it gets out of control. An organization as a whole functions on structure, uniformity, and consistantly replicatible results. Small enclaves of "creativity" may be tolerated and even encouraged among isolated areas of higher level knowledge workers. But those are very small minorities in a large organization like a University, a medical complex, a governmental department, or large business. No large organization can function effectively where chaotic systems are the predominate model. McDonalds did not reach its dominate position in fast food by allowing varying menus, store hours, and cooking equipment to predominate. All organizations of scale achieved scale by applying principles of uniformity and consistancy. Variation is generally practiced within an organization on a small scale ("pilot projects") until that variation is deemed suitable for enterprise rollout. Then it is no longer a variation, but a standard.

I agree that eventually open STANDARDS will supplant Windows dominance on the desktop. But I do not believe that there will be the amount of variation from the ensuing predominate model as you suggest. Economics and behavior suggest otherwise. Even with Linux, adoptation increases as the interface converges closer and closer with the Windows interface. The other factor working against diversity is programming resources. For better or for worse, the primary reason application development has advanced as rapdily as it has on the Windoiws side is because programmers were all righting to a common kernel and a common GUI. I believe the various Linux distros will also continue to converge significantly, and the more they converge, the more the adoptation of Linux on the desktop and the enterprise. Both in practice, in history, and in economic theory, one dominate system always emerges eventually. It is both naive and uninformed to believe otherwise. Dominance does not necessarily equate to monopoly, however.

For a number of reasons, Apple just does not scale well. Given Apple's corporate culture, it probably never will. As a result, Apple will remain a minority player in the PC market, with insubstantial penetration into the enterprise.

[chuckjuhl]

BTW, none other than Gartner's analysts are preaching Doom and Gloom for Windows.www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1870375122

[Gary54]

chuckjuhl said:

Not Windows, but Linux can. Which was my point. But Windows XP Pro doesn't come with the Kitchen sink anyway (and only consumer models of PC's come with all the bloatware. Dell Optiplex and Vostra, and HP business boxes come with just the OS), so there's really nothing to strip out to begin with. Enterprise installation of XP (and Linux) can also be pushed - from central repositories, and updates pushed and controlled as well, including across mixed hardware. Try that with a MAC and OS-X. As many posters here have pointed out, trying to maintain a consistant OS version across a mixed mac hardware platform is near impossible, and maintaining the same hardware versions across a large enterprise is not only impractical but would be near impossible. Enterprises need to standardize on a version of an OS, while being able to replace and upgrade hardware. Most prudent enterprises are 12-24 month back on OS upgrades (much longer in many large cases) because of the need to allow their vertical enterprise apps time to catch up.


In a large healthcare organizationj I work with, there are more than 8,000 desktops across 4 campuses. These range in age from 8 year-old Dell P-III's to 8 day-old Quad-Core HP's. Virtually all run XP Pro with all of the lastest service packs and updates that are pushed out on a schedule. A similar mix of Mac hardware would be an IT nightmare to manage securely.PPC macs use a different version of OS-X than Intel Macs. A new Mac won't run 10.4. A Mac purchased with 10.4 won't run 10.3.


Now here's the real rub in your argument. While it may take "10 minutes" (and that is B.S. because I've done it, it takes about a half hour) to strip OS-X down, each Mac going into the enterprise has to have the new, lighter OS-X loaded. add the amount of time that takes by say a 1,000 desktops (which is how a university typically buys - 500 to a thousand at a time - and how large enterpises do as well). it's no small task then.


You obviously have not had to administer 1,000 + desktops that need to be locked down to specific application sets and user rights, or you would understand that even 10 minutes per desktop in additional configuration time is a significant resource burden. In a Windows or Linux enterprise environment, one needs only to input the MAC address of the unit - whether its a brand new box or 8 years old, and blast an enterprise-standard configured image across the campus wan or lan. XP and Linus will automatically configure the correct hardware drivers 99% of the time. From the time the gopher-boy plugs in the XP or Linux box at building A and IM's the box's MAC address to IT in building C, to the time the box is up and configured is about 15 minutes. And almost all of that time is unattended. tTy to deploy a 1,000 macs across a campus, and tell me how long it takes you, and how many FTE hours you have to expend.


And you didn't even touch the hardware issues I noticed :)


anyone who says that Macs are ready for the enterprise, probably has never had to deploy or administer enterprise IT.

Census Department: http://www.census.go...w/smallbus.html

Table 2a. Employment Size of Employer and Nonemployer Firms, 2004
Introductory text includes scope and methodology. These data are also available by industry and state. Table includes both establishments with payroll and nonemployers. For descriptions of column headings and rows (industries), click on the appropriate underlined element in the table.
Employment size of enterprise Firms - Establishments
All firms 25,409,525 - 26,911,465
Nonemployer firms 19,523,741 - 19,523,741
Employer firms 5,885,784 - 7,387,724



Firms with no employees as of March 12, but with payroll at some time during the year 802,034
Firms with 1 to 4 employees-2,777,680
Firms with 5 to 9 employees-1,043,448
Firms with 10 to 19 employees-632,682
Firms with 20 to 99 employees-526,355
Firms with 100 to 499 employees-86,538
Firms with 500 to 749 employees-5,695
Firms with 750 to 999 employees-2,709
Firms with 1,000 to 1,499 employees-2,828
Firms with 1,500 to 2,499 employees-2,281
Firms with 2,500 to 4,999 employees-1,739
Firms with 5,000 to 9,999 employees-905
Firms with 10,000 employees or more-890


Makes the observation that Apple makes zero pretense to being interested at all in the enterprise market. It's the users who create that pressure. Not Apple. Apple's market focus is on individuals, small business, the design, film and print industry, the scientific and education markets. That's it. How can anyone bitch or make light of that a motorcycle manufacture isn't producing products for the tractor trailer industry? They may both have wheels and get you down the road, but I sure don't think that hauling 60' steel I-Beams around with your Harley is such a hot notion, and I am damn skippy sure I have never seen a guy behind the wheel of a Peterbuilt with bugs in his teeth.

I work longer hours and do more things and take greater risks as a small business owner than any salaried employee boxed into a cubicle in a large firm. Pension plans? Health insurance? Uhhhh .. who pays for that? Who do I have to point fingers at when something doesn't go as planned? Who do I blame for purchasing the wrong equipment or parts? Who do I rely on to maintain and upkeep my equipment? Which is a lot of things besides computers.

There are three times as many sole proprietor companies all of whom chose to take the personal risks and hardships (and rewards sometimes) that come with working for yourself as there are companies with employees. Of those companies with employees, the number of companies goes down rapidly as the number of employees goes up. More than half have 9 employees or fewer. The aggregate total of revenue generated by "small business" is way more than that of "large business".

No. Apple's current marketing an business model does not include large enterprise. Funny coincidence that it doesn't include the tools that cater to big IT. They meet the needs of people who don't want or need IT departments. Its the IT users who go home to their Macs after a day at work with windoze that makes this noise. Not Apple.

[Gary54]

If company X was using 5,000 Apple computers with a software image of OS 10.4 with included applications all set and ready to be installed, then were so successful that they found they needed 1,000 more computers. Now they are shipping with 10.5. The only current solution available is to upgrade the first 5,000 to 10.5. If they are not ready to or don't want to do that for some reason, they are stuck.

The point I made first in this thread was that unless and until there is an Apple parts supply industry which offers alternative sources for parts, there will be no enterprise market.

I have an example of just how that works. Ergonomically, a computer screen should be >below< not above the line of sight. I persons natural relaxed head position on the neck is pointed slightly down. Not up. There in fact are desks made this way especially for this reason. Take the measurement of the distance between your eye sitting at your desk and the top of the visible portion of your screen. Mac use a top fixed menu bar, a portion of the screen you look at a lot. That distance should be no more than the height of your eye level.

I own an Apple 30" display I use for architectural CAD drawing. Screen real estate counts to me. My eye level is 17-1/5" over the desk level. The top of the screen on a 30" cinema display is 20-1/2" over the desk.

Literally, its a pain in my neck to use that 1700 dollar screen which has no height adjustment. There is 2-3/4" worth of free space below the bottom of the screen doing nothing but causing a crick in my neck. If I could lower it down, then I have what I need. Simple ... right? No.

I have three options which I am aware of. One: Cut 2-3/4" from the height of the stand. Two: Get a Vesa mount. Three: Sell the thing and get another screen which is lower. Anyway I do it, I am talking bucks here. Or a smaller screen. Or both. Turns out there are damn few vesa compliant free standing stands which can hold such a monitor, and even then, the damn things are taller than what I have now.

If I cut out 2-3/4" from the back of the stand and weld the stand back together, no biggy. Perfectly simple. But if I do that, then I have ruined the resale value of the monitor. Its going to look like crap no matter how its done. So before I go chopping the thing up, I call Apple to find out what a stand for a 30" cinema display costs as a replacement part. Twice I am told, once from Apple in California and once here locally that I cannot buy a stand as a replacement part. Huh? What do you mean I can't? You mean to tell me I cannot get replacement parts for the refrigerator or the car either? Are you nuts? Ok, let me ask this another way. Say the stand is damaged, and I bring the thing in for repair. How much would it cost me to have you guys replace it? "oh we cant do that" Huh? Go ask someone what it costs. They do .. the answer comes back .. "oh it will costs hundreds". Now I am getting pissed. Well shit, a vesa mount cost hundreds and a new screen is going to cost more yet, so what exactly are we talking about here? "when does the warranty expire?" Huh? I am NOT asking about warranty service, the warranty is gone. I am asking about a stupid PART here. A bent piece of aluminum. "oh all I can tell you is that it will cost hundreds." This is bullshit, so I call Apple again and ask for a supervisor this time. While I am on hold waiing for the supervisor, the very helpful tech found the part, and "oh yes, we can sell you one for "x" bucks and send it out to you if you need one."

Well gee. Fancy that. Thank you very much.

My point is this: There is no purchasing agent in his/her right mind that is going to voluntarily place themselves in a sole source supplier position if they can help it because of that kind of run around and bullshit. They want/need to be able to shop for parts and get 'em delivered when THEY need 'em. Not if and when at the vendors convenience.

Apple simply does not cater to the enterprise needs. Nor does it market itself to them. There is nothing disingenuous about it. There may come a time when that changes, but Apple has to make that decision to compete in that space and supply it with what that market needs and how.

[rickcarl]

"Nothing predating what it was shipped with" is a misnomer.


The disk installer limits what can be installed. The OS itself made into a disk image on a partition or installed on an external drive for cloning will run the varieties of Mac. Of course, Apple does not want you to do that...or break the iPhone either. However, go into any Apple store and you will see them use an external drive with both Tiger and Leopard on it and it will boot anything you bring into the store since the OS does not include the installer. That is why Cloner is used to move OSes from disk to disk.



Apple wouldn't want you to make an enterprise disk image with all the libraries and drivers either. Apple sells pricey consumer fantasyware instead of enterprise pragmaticware.

[chuckjuhl]

Gary, I agree with your last sentence totally - LOL. But generally, when one thinks of "enterprise" IT, it is in terms of 50+ users and structured systems administration. Your points are all valid, but largely irrelevant to the discussion, the topic of which is "A new day for Macs in the enterprise?"

Of course, you make the same argument that most of us have - that Macs are largely not ready for "enterprise" deployment, and likely never will be. However, "enterprise" deployment, including schools and governmental agencies, account for the largest number of computers in business worldwide. This largely influences the majority of consumers purchase of home PC's because individuals are creatures of habit - the vast majority will use at home what they use at work or school because it is the path of least resistance, so to speak. Apple's unwillingness to adopt to the enterprise is why it will remain a minority player in both the business sector and the consumer sector.

I think most observers will agree that Apple apparently does not want to actively enter the enterprise. The point that I and others have been making is that we believe that Apple's rationale for failing to do so and remaining a specialty "closed box" player is myoptic, and that they are missing a very real opportunity to take advantage of Microsoft's recent missteps and downward inertia to become possibly the dominant OS.

So, whether you believe it is a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, I think you agree that the Mac is not ready for the enterpris. :)

[chuckjuhl]

"The disk installer limits what can be installed. The OS itself made into a disk image on a partition or installed on an external drive for cloning will run the varieties of Mac. Of course, Apple does not want you to do that...or break the iPhone either. However, go into any Apple store and you will see them use an external drive with both Tiger and Leopard on it and it will boot anything you bring into the store since the OS bypasses the installer."

I didn't know that! I'll have to load 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 on an external and see if they all boot on my new 10.5 Mac Mini. But it still does not resolve the issue - enterprise IT is not going to go sneakernetting OS images to 1,000 macs (even it it were legal), not to mention that this hack probably contravenes the Apple warranty, and created licensing issues. A mom and pop may be OK with cloning OS-X 3 or 4 times. But an enterprise is not going down that road with a thousand installations. Or even a hundred.

What I know doesn't work is taking the hard drive from my original intel Mac Mini and putting it in my newer 10.5 Mac Mini. I believe the reason is that 10.3 does not have correct hardware drivers for the newer macs. I also doubt very much that 10.3 or even 10.4 could be booted on a new Macbook Air - by an image or otherwise. Those guys you saw at the Mac Store are probably using older hardware with the newer OS release, and not vice versa. The older OS versions just generally lack the driver support for the newer hardware versions, and to my knowledge, Mac's do not have any method of installing the newer OS version drivers on the older OS versions. I could be wrong! actually, I would be delighted to be wrong!