[Gary54]

chuckjuhl said:

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. :)

You mind explaining to me if my points are irrelevant to the discussion, then how is it that I am making the same point others have? Are their points also irrelevant?

I use 'em for one reason and one only. They do my job faster, easier and better with less hassle and more reliablity than a windoze box. But I am a small company, a construction guy, not an IT outfit. I also spend more money on Milwaukee drills than I do some cheap sears and roebuck joke. They do the job they are supposed to do with less hassle.

I have no idea how old you are or how long you have worked in IT or how long or much experience you have had with Mac OS or the iT industry. But I sure can say from 14 years of personal experience that any Mac user using a computer that suits their own needs has to buck FUD and bullshit and pressure and ignore the ridicule from the crowd to use their preferred equipment of choice. I am so sick of hearing about mac "fan bois" "toys" and "real computers" and "real companies" and drinking steve jobs koolaid bullshit from the cubicle drones I could puke.

Who in the hell these desk jockey IT folks think they are with that bullshit line. I used to work in IT. I have seen it enough times to know that nine times out of ten, the hot shot techs who hate Macs the most are exactly the ones who know not thing about them, and while they can extract a .dll in their sleep, it makes them look like fools when they are faced with trouble shooting a Mac and some stupid little two minute problem becomes a hand wringing angry melodrama scene. So rather than come to terms with their own ignorance or incompetence, they denigrate hardware and software they know nothing about and don't want to know about. As you point out, its human nature to take the path of least resistance and simply stick with what they know and do what everyone else does.

The Mac OS has been written off so many times by the IT folks as dead its not funny. But its not dead. Whatever anyone may think of him or his style, Jobs has done a brilliant job at not only turning this company around, but making it enough of a viable alternative that now its becoming a realistic threat to entrenched IT. Which is the real reason we are seeing all this bruhaha lately.

Jobs has been careful and methodical in what he has done over the last years, and not moved on a market until he was ready to. He has done his groundwork, then when he moved, it's been with effectiveness. And thats what's scary. You may consider that myopic. I sure don't. I consider that to be sharp, patient and prudent. It takes guts and foresight to hold your fire until you can see whites of eyes. Look at all the pontificating and posturing and predictions about the iPhone and what's happened in the mean time.

Where does an 800 lb Gorilla shit in the woods? Anywhere he wants to. If and when Jobs and this tiny in perspective company are wanting to and willing to tackle the IT market Gorilla, he will when he wants to and thinks he is ready to. Not when other folks want him to. Whether that be his own customers or those flailing about looking in vain for alternatives to the windoze nightmare.

[rickcarl]

c wrote: 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'm impressed that you would swap drives in a mini to get the personal experience.



I have a summer 07 mini 2GHz 2GB SR which I believe is the latest mini. It boots fine with either Leopard internally or Tiger externally. I just switched to Tiger on an external disk to make sure I remembered correctly. Is that the mini you are talking about?



It would make a nice enterprise computer based on size but not on software and price.

[whitedog]

"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."

I didn't mean to suggest that there would - or should - be OS diversity within an enterprise. Indeed, it didn't occur to me that it would even be an issue, which is why I didn't think to qualify my comment on the point.

"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."

Your view of economic and behavioral history is rather short sighted. Things change - constantly. Otherwise Linux wouldn't even exist as a Windows alternative. Nor would the Mac. It's true there is some convergence taking place among and between computing platforms. At the same time, so is divergence, as developers innovate. The result is a pool of complex crosscurrents that make it all but impossible to forecast where business will be in two, let alone ten years.

One example of a trend whose impact is difficult to predict is the so called Web 2.0. This would have us running all our applications on the network, an environment where the individual computer platform matters little, as long as open standards are maintained. Personally, I'm skeptical about the potential of Web 2.0 - I see network dependence as a trap. But it could surprise me and work out better than I expect. It has long had a common niche with web based e-mail, which works in most any web browser on any computer with Internet access. Google Apps is moving the ball further down the field - and scaring the daylights our of Microsoft, which failed in its own effort to take applications to the network with it's .Net effort some years ago.

Apple has it's own early versions of Web 2.0 apps in iPhoto and iMovie in iLife '08. They interact with .Mac transparently to easily create basic web galleries. There are, of course, other services that do much the same thing. Unfortunately, at the moment the iApps are only available on the Mac. But .Mac web galleries can be accessed from any computer.

I don't see OS diversity as "noble" in and of itself. The primary value of diversity in operating systems, as in most things, is that it spurs competition, which drives innovation. Absolutely nothing is as stifling to creativity and progress as conformity. Conformity generates inertia, which leads to stagnation and death.

This has long been a conundrum for big business. Uniformity provides certain efficiencies of scale. At the same time, it prevents the kind of flexibility and creativity necessary to adapt quickly to inevitable changes in the marketplace.

Apple's maverick mystique is part and parcel of it's success. Perhaps, after all, there is no place for such a maverick in the straightjacket of enterprise corporate culture. Then again, maybe the iPhone is a harbinger of good things to come. We shall see.

[Paddy]

rickcarl said:

I have a summer 07 mini 2GHz 2GB SR which I believe is the latest mini. It boots fine with either Leopard internally or Tiger externally. I just switched to Tiger on an external disk to make sure I remembered correctly. Is that the mini you are talking about?

Um, if it's a summer '07 mini, then it shipped with Tiger, so of course it should boot Tiger! Leopard didn't come out until October 26, 2007.

[chuckjuhl]

My first mac mini is a 1.5 Core solo, 512mb with 10.4.4, - Got it when they first came out in 06. I tried the drive swap because when I picked up a new Core Duo's after Christmas , I wanted to use one to "upgrade" without having to reload all of the apps. I wasn't interested in 10.5 on the mini because of the graphics performance issue, and the reported early 10.5 bugs. Figured I would just swap the drives. Done it many times - memory too. All you need is a putty knife. :) . I also still have my first mac Mini - a 1.42 G4 I waited in line to to get in the the spring of '05.

[chuckjuhl]

Gee Gary, it's not that I disagree with you, but you're you're approaching the discussion from more of a personal, anectodtal perspective. The issue is whether the Mac is ready for the enterprise, not whether Apple WANTS the make to be in the enterprise, or if Mac fans care whether the Mac makes it into the enterprise. I didn't understand this to be a philisophical issue, but rather a technical, or process issue: Is the mac ready for the enterprise" If not, why not and what could Apple do to put it there?

The issue under discussion is not SHOULD the Mac be ready for the enterprise, but IS the mac ready for the enterprise. That's why I stated I felt your comments were valid, but largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

This is a common problem I see with the more rabid Mac fans. They tend to defend the Mac's shortcomings, then adopt a "we never wanted to play in your yard anyway" attitude. ROFLOL.

[Gary54]

chuckjuhl said:

Gee Gary, it's not that I disagree with you, but you're you're approaching the discussion from more of a personal, anectodtal perspective. The issue is whether the Mac is ready for the enterprise, not whether Apple WANTS the make to be in the enterprise, or if Mac fans care whether the Mac makes it into the enterprise. I didn't understand this to be a philisophical issue, but rather a technical, or process issue: Is the mac ready for the enterprise" If not, why not and what could Apple do to put it there?


The issue under discussion is not SHOULD the Mac be ready for the enterprise, but IS the mac ready for the enterprise. That's why I stated I felt your comments were valid, but largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.


This is a common problem I see with the more rabid Mac fans. They tend to defend the Mac's shortcomings, then adopt a "we never wanted to play in your yard anyway" attitude. ROFLOL.

You are missing my point altogether. It doesn't matter what you or I think Apple should or could do to make the Mac OS a viable player in the enterprise. Just because some users want that, and there are endless lines of type and words written about why not and what if and etc. The man who makes those decisions has decided he isn't interested in that market, has stated that in plain english many times, and consistent with that, has done nothing to actively sell his products to that market.

I am a sole proprietor. I own and run my own business in a specialty niche market. I rehab older homes late 19th to early 20th century. Just because I get oooo's and ahhhh's over my work doesn't mean I am going to use my companies resources my background and training to build tract houses because people build more of them and big developers make boo koo bucks. Sure I could build tract houses. But I have no interest in that. So I am supposed to pay attention to folks telling me I could make x dollars more building tract houses that everyone else builds and that I am myopic for not doing so?

The IT OS wars were over long ago. If there is going to be another one, you can bet your bottom dollar Jobs will tackle the problem on his own timetable while laying the ground work for it. Not yours, not mine and certainly not the IT press's. I live in Florida. I am an east coast guy. I am no great fan of California land of fruits and nuts either. But this man is nobody's fool and one sharp cookie. And anything but myopic. Succeed or fail, he knows exactly what he is doing and where he is going with this.

[chuckjuhl]

BTW Gary, I'm 50. Spent my entire life in IT. Owned two Mac Plus's when they first came out in 86. Had to borrow the money from the federal credit union to buy them and a laser printer. Total ws more than a good car at the time. LOL. Spent most og my early years on mainframes (360's) and mini and mid-size systems like PDP-8's and 11's and later the Dec VAX (primarily the 11/780 model). I've worked with both PC's and macs since their inception. I even remembver an earlier PC OS called CP/M. Knew it well - LOL.

I currently consult for medical facilities. www.cwjuhl.com (shameless plug).

[Gary54]

chuckjuhl said:

BTW Gary, I'm 50. Spent my entire life in IT. Owned two Mac Plus's when they first came out in 86. Had to borrow the money from the federal credit union to buy them and a laser printer. Total ws more than a good car at the time. LOL. Spent most og my early years on mainframes (360's) and mini and mid-size systems like PDP-8's and 11's and later the Dec VAX (primarily the 11/780 model). I've worked with both PC's and macs since their inception. I even remembver an earlier PC OS called CP/M. Knew it well - LOL.


I currently consult for medical facilities. www.cwjuhl.com (shameless plug).

This is cool, but to me, its a lot more than a technical issue. Its a market issue, a social issue and a company issue. Just like you, I deal with technical issues everyday. But what they consist of and why all depends on what you want to do and where you want to go.

I used to live in Maine. A good chunk of design time and build time were hot water heating systems. A technical problem. I used to build heating systems that blew away anything on the market and then some using off the shelf parts in unique and different ways. Was it patentable? Hell no, but I sure had to prove it by showing people energy bills. Snow loads, frost lines, etc etc.

I live and work in Florida now. My time is spent on different technical problems that didn't exist in Maine. Hurricanes. Air Conditioning loads not heating loads. Different construction methods, environmental problems, code requirements, materials and styles of architecture. And the industry itself is different here.

The owner / head of any company has to make strategic decisions about using what resources for what. As you recall, for all intents and purposes, Apple was dead in the water, about to go the way of Amiga and the rest. Every step of the way, the press and the IT industry has anticipated failure and second guessed everything Jobs has done. But if you look back on his steps, not just what he has chosen to do, but just as importantly what he has chosen NOT to do, and where Apple is now. Its nothing short of amazing. And anyone who can see past the spin and the noise can see that it has nothing to do with kool aid. The joke is really on the nay sayers.

Apple has a quality viable product on the market to sell now. It took years to get there a step at a time, one step building on the last. It took guts, foresight and determination to pull off what he did to get where Apple is now, let alone where it hasn't gone yet. Companies exist to make money and provide satisfaction in what it is the owner wants from it. There are a lot of folk cranking out lots of computers right now not making any money. Big numbers, slim profits. What good is market share when you are working for peanuts? Jobs doesn't give a damn about market share numbers, plain as day. He cares about excellence in what he does do and succeeding in that. If the numbers follow, all is good. If they don't, his company is still making money.

There may come a time when Jobs decides to tackle the IT market. But from where I sit, I doubt it. It's just not his thing, IT just doesn't hold his interest. This was a guy who owned Pixar after all. If he does decide to go after IT, what you are seeing today is just the prep work for 5 years or more down the road from now. Just like that first iMac was. Groundwork for the future. Nothing more.

Jobs is the only one who really knows. And he sure isn't going to say. We just buy and use the things Or not.

btw ... Ehh .. I have a few years on you. Not many. And not an IT person by choice. I grew up around the space industry and the early computer industry as a family thing. I did my detour through IT, did the MCSE thing and the A+ thing back in the 90's and it just wasn't to my liking. Self supporting FIAT industry was my take. A computer is a means to an end for me, not an end in and of itself.

[chuckjuhl]

Gary, You make many insightful observations. Again, most of which I concur with.

The Mac OS-X is IMO a superior implementation of Unix. Unix is really designed for the enterprise, unlike Windows which has always really been a rather poor fit for the enterprise, what with the bugs, vulnerabilities, bloated code. and constant patches and reboots.

Many in the industry view Steve Jobs' "Maverick" streak as somewhat disinginuos and much more to do with personal ego than the long-term health of Apple and IT in general. I don't feel that Apple has been truly innovative in anything other than consumer marketing and aesthetics for some time - probably since the introduction of OS-X. Even their hardware; the only thing today that technically differentiates Apple hardware from PC hardware is aesthetics and firmware that allows it to run OS-X without hacking the distro. There is really nothing else. I have a hacked version of 10.4 running on a proof-of-concept "enterprise" box. The hacked distro is widely available on the internet. The only thing that stops me from rolling out "enterprise" OS-X boxes is that Jobs would sue my pants off.

I think that there is a point where "innovative" ends and just plain contrary begins, and I think Jobs has crossed over to just plain contrary by not innovating where it would have the most impact - in the enterprise.

So really, in the enterprise future, that leaves Linux; and where the enterprise goes,so goes the consumer market eventually. Once the Linux GUI becomes as feature-rich as the OS-X interface (and its getting close now), I believe that you'll see OS-X developers start porting their apps to Linux. it's cetainly easier to port Mac Apps to Linux than to port Windows Apps to Linux.

I was certainly not a big believer in Linux on the desktop in the enterprise until very recently. In 30 years I have watched "innovators" rise and fall. Digital Research, DEC, Lotus, Word Perfect, Ashton-Tate, even IBM (in the PC market). As far as I can find, the one thing they all had in common is that their fall began when they ceased to be truly innovative and became contrary.

Convergence is a universal phenommen. My opinion is that in IT, the OS is converging on Linux, and this convergence apears to be accelerating. The trend appears to be toward open systems and minimalization of the role of the OS. As computing becomes more ubiquitous, what is the intrinsic value of a closed OS that runs on closed hardware?

The elegance of Linux is that it scales from imbedded devices to the desktp to the server to the enterprise. Unless Apple positions OS-X simlarly, Apple will be another DEC or Digital Research in another 20 years.

And that is why the Mac, and more importantly OS-X, in the enterprise is really important for Apple. Jobs IMO is really a figure from a Greek tragedy - a great icon of his time brought down by his own frailties. And like all tragic figures, he just doesn't get it. I guess that's what makes them so tragic.

[Gary54]

chuckjuhl said:

Gary, You make many insightful observations. Again, most of which I concur with.


The Mac OS-X is IMO a superior implementation of Unix. Unix is really designed for the enterprise, unlike Windows which has always really been a rather poor fit for the enterprise, what with the bugs, vulnerabilities, bloated code. and constant patches and reboots.


Many in the industry view Steve Jobs' "Maverick" streak as somewhat disinginuos and much more to do with personal ego than the long-term health of Apple and IT in general. I don't feel that Apple has been truly innovative in anything other than consumer marketing and aesthetics for some time - probably since the introduction of OS-X. Even their hardware; the only thing today that technically differentiates Apple hardware from PC hardware is aesthetics and firmware that allows it to run OS-X without hacking the distro. There is really nothing else. I have a hacked version of 10.4 running on a proof-of-concept "enterprise" box. The hacked distro is widely available on the internet. The only thing that stops me from rolling out "enterprise" OS-X boxes is that Jobs would sue my pants off.


I think that there is a point where "innovative" ends and just plain contrary begins, and I think Jobs has crossed over to just plain contrary by not innovating where it would have the most impact - in the enterprise.


So really, in the enterprise future, that leaves Linux; and where the enterprise goes,so goes the consumer market eventually. Once the Linux GUI becomes as feature-rich as the OS-X interface (and its getting close now), I believe that you'll see OS-X developers start porting their apps to Linux. it's cetainly easier to port Mac Apps to Linux than to port Windows Apps to Linux.


I was certainly not a big believer in Linux on the desktop in the enterprise until very recently. In 30 years I have watched "innovators" rise and fall. Digital Research, DEC, Lotus, Word Perfect, Ashton-Tate, even IBM (in the PC market). As far as I can find, the one thing they all had in common is that their fall began when they ceased to be truly innovative and became contrary.


Convergence is a universal phenommen. My opinion is that in IT, the OS is converging on Linux, and this convergence apears to be accelerating. The trend appears to be toward open systems and minimalization of the role of the OS. As computing becomes more ubiquitous, what is the intrinsic value of a closed OS that runs on closed hardware?


The elegance of Linux is that it scales from imbedded devices to the desktp to the server to the enterprise. Unless Apple positions OS-X simlarly, Apple will be another DEC or Digital Research in another 20 years.


And that is why the Mac, and more importantly OS-X, in the enterprise is really important for Apple. Jobs IMO is really a figure from a Greek tragedy - a great icon of his time brought down by his own frailties. And like all tragic figures, he just doesn't get it. I guess that's what makes them so tragic.

Frankly, I seriously doubt he cares. In spite of all that, you tell me this man is not having fun doing what he is doing. Regarding his "maverick" streak: Jobs is an INTJ, one of the rarest of all personality types. Google it. Everything he is doing is consistent with his personality type. Not a thing disingenuous about it. Good, bad or ugly, succeed or fail, Apple will never be an enterprise platform unless and until the man in charge of Apple decides thats what he wants to do.

"Life's Journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy Shit...What a Ride!"

I don't know why anyone would have to worry about being sued by Apple when Darwin is openly distributed for free. If someone thinks they can take that ball and run with it in other directions, there it is. "Enterprise X" Go for it.

As far as I am concerned, I was happy working without computers until my 40's. My industry is not 50 years old, its 5,000 years old. Hell, folks were building monuments to egos which have lasted ages before pens and paper as we know of it now existed or the printing press was thought of. Let alone computers.

At the bottom of it, people do not "need" computers. Computers are a modern "want" that somehow have become a taken for granted "need". People >need< food, shelter and clothing. In spite of all the kicking, screaming, whining and melodrama everything else is a want. I am in an industry that supplies a need. My particular facet of it supplies a want in addition to that need.

I prefer to use Apple's products, They do my job. I don't like it when folks tell me I can't make my own rational purchasing decisions in my own best interest but I sure am not married to 'em. I have and can use Windows. I build my own PC's when I have a notion to. They do my job too. Just not as well. A computer is just a means to an end to me, not an end in itself. I don't think I am much different than any other end user in that regard, large or small. Its not the OS that does the work that folks buy computers for, its the applications which run on it which do.

Go back to the electric drill analogy. What does an electric drill do? Drills holes, right? No. It does not. All an electric drill does is spin in circles and make noise. It takes a drill bit to make the hole with. What's the object here? A drill? A drill bit? No. It's making a hole. So what do we need to know? We need to know what size and type of hole, through or flat bottomed or angled? How many? What kind of material its being drilled into? Is it metal? Wood? Plastic? Glass? All those factors determine what sort of "tooling" is used with a "tool" which is the electric drill. From there, we can determine what sort of "tool" suits the job best. Large holes require high torque slow speed drill units. Small holes require high speed. How are we using it? Overhead? Down? Sideways? In cramped closed quarters? Electric motors and gear boxes are put into a myriad of different sized and shaped packages for different applications. A "tool" does nothing by itself. It just lays there. Its an extension of your mind that enables you to do something that otherwise you could not do. Does it fit your hand? Is it painful or comfortable to use? Balance. Weight. The size and shape of the handle. Lastly, how many holes do you intend to drill? One? Is this a thing of momentary expediency or do you plan on drilling holes all day everyday for some sort of income producing activity? That factors into a decision of how much you want to invest in the quality and manufacture of what drill motor and drill bit you are buying. If its just a one off thing of the moment, maybe you don't really need a drill after all. Make that hole some other way. If you are going into production making chairs using dowel joints, maybe you need a drill that occupies a whole room and costs 50 grand. They do exist like that.

Computers are really no different. The box and the OS is the drill motor. Applications are the bits that do the actual work for a specific kind of job. What are computers useful for? Creating, calculating, storing, disseminating and applying information. That's it. Whether it be word processing, web browsing, CAD/CAM machine control, databases, graphics, film, spreadsheets, games, accounting, play movies or whatever. Just like that drill, you need to know what you want to do with it, how well it fits you and your needs from it, and what is it you are expecting from it.

As a small business person in my industry, I need a computer for architectural drawing so I can submit plans, basic office work, word processing, spread sheets, accounting, contact and time management. With the exception of my specialty, no different than any other small business person. I cannot afford and do not need an IT department. I can setup and handle my little mixed platform network myself. What do need is reliability, applications that are easy to learn, practical and cost effective for my uses and consistency. When something like DenebaCAD, Vectorworks or ArchiCAD is available on Linux, I won't shed a tear to use Linux. Until that happens, from where I sit, all Linux is doing is spinning in circles making noise. It just won't do my job. Today. When I need (want) it. Not ten years from now. Am I any different than any end user in that regard?

Oh ... btw .. I can relate to the INTJ thing. I'm one too. :)