Office Machines

A few of thots:

- The Mini hasn't been mentioned as a desktop replacement. Flat panels,
mouse(s),and keyboards can be moved from Mini to Mini. The Mini has
plenty of "horsepower" for most Office apps preserving peripherals that
don't wear out .

- Can Apple OS Old run within Apple New via virtual machine to preserve
investments in old apps thus providing a migration path?
Office files can be interchanged but maybe databases are more problematic
but finding a vendor that spans multiple OS Xs is crucial for migration.

- Rather that look at this as all or nothing upgrades could a shop be
tired - Have to have latest passing down the castoffs to the next tier and
so on. Again preserving investments. Reduces big bang training when
introducing a new system to a few at a time rather everyone at once.

On 17-Nov-2009, at 02:37, Greenie wrote:
> Jump forward to 2009. A 5 year old Mac running 10.3 can't run Firefox 3, Flash 10, Office 2008, Office XML converter and almost any other current software. A 3 year old Mac running 10.4 can't run current applications that require 10.5 or 10.6. A PowerMac purchased 3 years ago can't run 10.6. Some software requires an Intel Mac. Some software hasn't yet been updated for 10.5 or 10.6 and requires 10.4, but 10.4 won't run on a newly purchased Mac. Purchasing new 10.5 or 10.6 applications means you can't run them on Macs running 10.3 or 10.4, but buying newer Intel macs means you can't run older software. Running older software may be necessary to your business but replacing the software it may be difficult or expensive if the new Macs won't run the same software as the old Macs.


Yes, Apple transitioned to a new chip, and that means that some machines will be left behind. Still, a 5 year old Mac can run 10.5, and can run Firefox 3, Flash 10, Office 2008, Office XML converter and almost any other current software.

I have a 10 year old iMac (iMac DV, introduced in Oct 1999) that is running 10.4 and Firefox 3.5.5, albeit slowly. A G4 machine purchased in January of 2001 can run 10.5 without much of a problem (you have to 'cheat' the installer to convince it your machine is fast enough, but this is trivial). If you're willing to cheat the installer, any of the FireWire Power Mac G4s can run 10.5, which takes you back to 1999. and without cheating ALL those G4s can run 10.4, and Firefox 3 and Office 2008 and maybe even Flash 10, but if not certainly Flash 9.

From January 2002 (8 years ago, if you're playing along at home) the G4 machines run 10.5 without any cheating at all.

Considering that Apple moved chip architectures, this is phenomenal. I don't know any 2002 Windows machines that can run Vista, for example, and MSFT has been a complete slave to backwards compatibility. And while it is true that you can still install XP on current hardware that is because MSFT has been forced to continue XP support far beyond their intended cut-off date.

Had MSFT had their way, there would never have been a SP3 for XP, and that's the Service Pack that makes modern machines actually work with XP correctly.

Taking Microsoft's complete and utter failure with Vista and trying to compare that to Apple success with OS X is a bit silly, don't you think? Is there any reason to praise Microsoft because most users are still using a 10 year-old OS?

The problem isn't the individual machines, but the network.
Microsoft's network infrastructure makes it easy to administer
thousands of computers at once. The corporations went this route, and
changing it is very difficult. Yes, Macs will work on corporate
networks, but they're still second class citizens, and corporations
aren't going to redo their entire infrastructure in order to get more
expensive hardware.

Remember that Dell and HP actually sell their desktop boxes at cost or
even a loss. They get their money from support contracts, peripherals,
network infrastructure, and consulting. It's not a game Apple wants to
play.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:15:24 -0800, David Laffitte wrote:
> I can imagine how frustrating Macs might be in a large office, if the
> users there actually had to engage with the fast moving outside world.

Don't know why you think this is restricted to Mac users. The solution,
for mid to large companies (talking 1000's to 10's of 1000's of
employees) is to hold on a stable platform. In Windows most companies
are still on XP. On the Mac side this would be the equivalent of
locking in at Mac OS X 10.1 (you could say XP didn't get good 'til the
release of Service Pack 2, which was released a bit after 10.3).

We still run XP and won't move to Windows 7 'til next year. We just
got Office 2007 rolled out in the last few months. And that actually
had new file formats so we were being pressured by external people to
upgrade so they could stop saving documents in an old format for us.

In other words we don't try to keep up just because there is something
new and shiny. An upgrade at a large firm takes a lot of planning and
testing -- no matter what OS you're using. Vista wasn't skipped at a
lot places because it got bad reviews, but because internal testing
found it lacking.

I fail to see how installing 10.6 this soon after release has failed to
let you keep up with the fast moving outside world. Wait 'til 10.6.5 is
out then re-evaluate. Buy a new machine? Put 10.5 on it instead of 10.6
(might actually be a violation of Apple's license, but I hope not.)

A few points brought up I'll address, I can't be bothered quoting people because there are too many and I'm very busy today.

Apple (in Australia at least, I don't know about USA) do not offer any form of corporate service contracts. Dell, IBM etc offer 24-hour service contracts and even 2-hour on-site contracts so computers will be replaced immediately if they are not repairable. That's for a $500 office machine. If a $3,000 IntelMac dies, we have to physically load it up into the car, drive it to a retail AppleCentre, wait 1-2 days before they even look at it, wait another few days for parts to arrive. On occasion clients have been stuck without their Mac for 3 WEEKS. This is unacceptable in a business environement, in fact it's even unacceptable in a home environemnt but people put up with it because there's no other choice.

Many businesses run Remote Desktop Server software, based on Windows RDServer. It allows a server to run the applications locally and users basically log in through 'dumb terminals' that just show the screen. This is extremely cost-effective and means less problems with updating applications on the server. Apple don't offer any form of Remote Desktop. VNC and 'Back To My Mac' are NOT remote desktop, they are simply sending the entire screen of a single session mac. Remote Desktop allows many users to access a server with their own screen. One company offers this software for OS X but it's expensive and hasn't yet been updated for 10.6.

The tax office in Australia still don't supply Mac software, so to complete a company tax return in Australia, Windows is necessary. Apple Australia should be harrassing the tax office to support Mac, but instead they ignore the problem.

I have friends working for one of the biggest superannuation companies in Australia. One of them was still using an 8 year old Windows XP computer, I think it was a Pentium III up until the beginning of the year. Now he's using a 4 year old computer running WinXP. The company did a lot of testing of Vista and found it to be seriously lacking. Windows XP WORKS, it worked 8 years ago for them and there's no reason why it doesn't work for them today. Even if MS stopped supporting it years ago, it's meaningless to everyday operations of the company. XP works now, if it's not broken don't fix it. All his work is server based anyway, so if his desktop machine dies nothing is lost and it takes half an hour to drag a spare one out of the store-room and plug it in, then he's back up and running. The money saved on buying new hardware every 3 years is instead spent on providing greater server power, better backup schemes, and more IT staff to write more optimised software. It may not fit into the guidelines of 'best IT business practice' but it works just fine.

My bank, one of the 3 biggest banks in Australia, still run 12 year old terminals in every branch.

One of the biggest department stores in Aus were running tens of thousands of terminals that were close to 15 years old and it worked beautifully, transactions were all smooth and nobody ever complained. Two years ago they started roll-out of a big new IT project, suddenly there were queues at the registers, people complaining, transactions lost, credit-cards double-charged, orders missing. It took almost a year to sort out all the bugs, but the damage was done and people started going to the other major department store, which is now much more popular. Trust has to be gained, and if you lose trust in somebody because their computer system screw up your order, it's hard to ever trust them again.

If companies run server-based apps, which are becoming increasingly popular, there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER to upgrade all their desktop computers every 3 years. Nothing is gained in productivity or otherwise. Arguing that equipement more than 3 years old is less reliable is ridiculous, because 3 WEEK old equipemnt is just as likely to die and have to be replaced.

Many companies who upgrade their IT equipment prematurely do it only to preserve their budget. If they are given a $250,000 budget each year for IT but only spend $20,000, next year they won't be given as large a budget. Governments and councils do the same thing, 'Spend it or lose it' as they say.

Basic things like Java often don't work consistently on the Mac. OS 10.4 can run Java 1.5 but can't run 1.6. 10.5 can only run Java 1.6 if you have a 64 bit Intel processor, but won't work on 32 bit processors. 10.6.2 can run Java 1.6 on any Intel computer. Many companies and suppliers are running Java web apps these days to run core business functions. If people have an office full of 30 three year old 10.4 computers, try telling management they need to spend $6,000 just so they can run a new version of Java. If you have 200 computers country-wide, tell them they have to spend $40,000. They won't be amused. If they need to run Java 1.6 they may have to upgrade ALL their computers if they aren't 64 bit Intel. Many companies run software supplied by overseas contractors who don't write software for Mac and can't do adequate testing, so dev costs for Mac software would be prohibitively expensive. Instead they develop for Java or Windows.

Many security-conscious companies deliberately supply computers without USB ports or CD drives, so information cannot be easily stolen or copied and viruses cannot be spread. Macs all have these things and cannot be ordered without, which doesn't affect many people but is just something to think about.

Microsoft may have 'failed' with Vista, but people still use XP. Apple brought out OS X and it was so flaky for years with dodgy driver support, incompatible software etc that I know of at least 8 major advertising and publishing firms who got sick of them and switched over to WinXP a few years ago. They have never looked back, and as long as they can get the job done they don't care. All the software they use like Photoshop is easily available on Windows, so nobody really notices the change much.

A large number of clients use WordPerfect on Windows. There's nothing remotely comparable for the Mac. Plugins support scanning directly into documents, working in a corporate sharing environment is straight-forward. WordPerfect isn't available for Mac anymore.

Microsoft Access isn't available for OS X. This is a big deal for companies running Access databases. They may be able to be inported somehow into FileMaker, but that means spending $$$ on new servers and user licenses for new software. If their old version works, why bother 'upgrading' to new software that will require importing, re-writes and new user training?

People keep saying Macs are fantastic because you can run virtual Windows machines on them in a window. What company in their right mind wants to spend $3,000 on a new Mac only to then go and spend an extra $400-800 on Windows licenses for the same computer?

Somebody mentioned Apple survived the PPC changeover and won. This is not entirely the case and is basically a myth. Yes, Apple survived, but many people stopped using it. Apple's market share was at its highest just before the switchover. It dropped from 12% to less than 3% after the PPC was introduced. Maybe it was because of Windows 95, maybe it was because people (people like me!) bought PPC machines and found that very little of their current software worked, and had to switch to Windows to get their jobs done. When I bought my first G3 PPC, 60% of my software from System 7.5 didn't work with OS 8, which was the lowest OS the G3 supported, which made me furious and tempted me to switch to Windows for good, but I stuck by Apple even though it wasn't an easy period. Here's a link to figures supporting this: <http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329>

Some of Apples best OS 9 office productivity features like Notebook, Scrapbook, Location Manager never survived into OS X. Things have not changed, some of my favourite software from OS 10.3 simply won't work on 10.4, let alone 10.5 or 10.6. As one example of Apple removing features without replacing them, Spotlight is still rubbish and can't sort files by path, and network searches are slow and unreliable, so I still have to use 10.3 for some computers here simply to find things. If I update I lose that functionality and it cannot be replaced, so I have to have two computers on my desk to get my work done. Ridiculous.

Some very basic things are still broken on OS X. Copying a file to a FAT-32 based USB stick replaces the Date Created with the Date Modified. This is ridiculous. It's impossible to differentiate files when file modifications and creations dates are no longer reliable. Macs still dump .ds_store files all over the place, which can't be turned off on local machines or USB hard drives. Many Mac applications still add ._resource files to each file, even when they are empty and not needed. They are invisible on the Mac but show up on Windows, and it's very unprofessional giving a USB stick to a client and have them call and yell at you because the file won't open, only to find that they are double-clicking the ._ resource file instead of the 'real' file. Mac is supposed to be 'the computer for the rest of us', the computer for people who don't need or want to know about computers, it shouldn't cause confusion like this but it does.

Most smaller companies don't have full-time IT staff. I'm not talking just 5-10 people offices, I know companies with a hundred staff who don't need IT support, they just get a few clued-up employees to help out, and everything works just fine. They replace things when they break. They only call in IT staff if something stops working. There's no IT support group to go and buy brand new computers and spend months testing new hardware and software combinations just to see if they work, and to iron out any bugs before they become apparent. In most cases if something worked yesterday, it'll keep working just the same tomorrow, next week, next year.

These are just some observations after 18 years in the field. Some companies are FAR better off sticking to Mac for various reasons, and many would not be able to function with Windows. Cost is not the only factor, but it's a major one. But Windows has its place, and Mac have no way yet of competing with some of the things Windows offers. I hope this changes in the next few years, but we just have to wait and see.

There are just a few small things that Apple need to address before they can ever hope to become a true contender in the business market, but the don't seem to care at the moment. Token things like adding Microsoft Exchange Server support to Apple Mail mean that the Big Boss can check his work email from home on his Mac laptop, but it doesn't mean every IT manager wants to run out and replace all their Windows computers with Macs.

Greenie wrote:
> While I'd love to agree with people who say that Macs are much
> cheaper over time to support, the situation has sadly changed
> recently. Unfortunately Macs are now FAR more expensive to maintain
> than PCs. What? Did I just say that? I can't believe I just said
> that. Because for years Macs were cheaper to maintain. But now
> they're not.
>
> From 2001-2005 I managed the IT for a multi-national advertising
> company with five offices in three countries and roving employees
> with PowerBooks. Everybody except the accounting dept had Macs. I was
> the only IT support person looking after 36 Macs and 4 PCs. The PCs
> ran Win98 and used to take up maybe 20% of my time with antivirus
> updates, Windows updates, crashing software, networking issues etc.
> The Macs with OS 9 used to pretty much look after themselves. Once we
> purchased the Mac itself, and a copy of Office, total cost per
> employee for the next four years was $0. Nothing more. Aside from
> purchasing larger backup hard drives for the server, a cent was never
> spent on maintenance, software, upgrades. We had to replace a single
> CD drive after somebody spilt tartare sauce into it, but that's about
> it. $0 per employee. The only reason I had a job was for on-site
> training, phone support for software, keeping the internet
> connections up and running, and maintaining backups. We couldn't use
> OS X because it was still pretty much in beta until 10.2.5 came out,
> and even then things like printing and scanning were often rather
> dodgy. OS 9 held on longer than the history books tend to discuss,
> and for many people OS X is still really only four or five years old.
>
>
> Then OS X became the norm in about 2003-2004, and things changed.
>
[big snip on how messy Mac have become in the area of compatibility with System and Application versions over the last few years.]

> In 4 years Macs have had 4 different operating systems and two
> different processor families, all with different requirements and
> compatibility. I can't install Tiger on a new Mac, and can't install
> Snow leopard on an old Mac. While Windows has had XP, ME, Vista and
> Win7, almost all software runs without issue on any of these systems,
> and if you want to install Windows XP on your latest quad-core Xeon
> to maintain compatibility with older software, you can.

The key point here is the switch from 68K to PPC then to Intel. Each of these transitions created a host of problems for many businesses as you describe. I work with architects and they've had it in every direction you alluded to plus the hassle of keeping up with the "Jones" in terms of CAD compatibility. It's been a mess.

But I expect things to get better. (I hope it's not wishful thinking.) A huge issue with porting a PPC program to be a binary Intel is the memory models changed. For some programs they could ignore it. For others it was a HUGE deal. This is why many programs dropped or never even tried to make a "universal" version. And this is why there's a lot of compatibility drops in working with OS versions. The system APIs that Apple has been dropping as it moved to Intel only created lots of headaches. If you have to re-write large chunks of your code to work with Leopard or Snow Leopard how much effort can you afford to spend on re-writing the re-write to work with Panther or Tiger. The CAD apps I mentioned have mostly gone to Intel only and/or Leopard or better just due to this topic.

But does anyone expect Apple to drop the Intel instruction set anytime in the next decade? Or two?

And I expect that many Windows applications will soon be Win 7 only soon. Especially the big memory users like CAD as they get to ignore the 3gig limit and will run so poorly or not at all that Windows users will be faced with the same hassles in a year or so as apps stop working on XP and if you want to trade files you have to move up.

But this is mostly speculation. :)

As to the issue of what kind of machine I'd like for the architects (and I assume may graphics artists) is something like a MacPro with 1 drive bay, 8 or 16GB of ram possible, and dual monitor support. Maybe a PCI slot for those special situations. We'll likely buy 27" iMacs for our next wave of machines but attaching the display does cause some issues. Architects really prefer the two or three displays they are using to have similar geometries and proportions and pitch. If just makes like easier. But we'll take the current 27" iMac for now. :)

David

Greenie wrote:
> A few points brought up I'll address, I can't be bothered quoting
> people because there are too many and I'm very busy today.

Just addressing this one bullet.
 
> * Some very basic things are still broken on OS X. Copying a file to
> a FAT-32 based USB stick replaces the Date Created with the Date
> Modified. This is ridiculous. It's impossible to differentiate files
> when file modifications and creations dates are no longer reliable.
> does.

As best I can recall one reason FATxx is a dog is that it only has ONE date stamp per file. So any FATxx volume will loose the creation date. Which is just one reason Microsoft doesn't want you using FATxx anymore.

David

On 11/19/09 5:40 AM, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:

> I fail to see how installing 10.6 this soon after release has failed to
> let you keep up with the fast moving outside world. Wait 'til 10.6.5 is
> out then re-evaluate. Buy a new machine? Put 10.5 on it instead of 10.6
> (might actually be a violation of Apple's license, but I hope not.)

New machines won't boot off of an older OS release. That's something apple
does that is legitimately annoying as all get out.

--
John C. Welch

On 11/19/09 5:40 AM, "Greenie" <greeniezip.com.au> wrote:
<SNIP> (too many factual errors and nonsequiters to deal with)

>
> There are just a few small things that Apple need to address before they can
> ever hope to become a true contender in the business market, but the don't
> seem to care at the moment. Token things like adding Microsoft Exchange Server
> support to Apple Mail mean that the Big Boss can check his work email from
> home on his Mac laptop, but it doesn't mean every IT manager wants to run out
> and replace all their Windows computers with Macs.


You can't have it both ways. You want Apple to support all the hardware it's
made in the last ten years on the newest OS, support all new hardware in
every version of the OS made in the last decade, (which completely ignores
the point that Microsoft doing this was what caused them so many problems
with Vista) make dirt cheap machines that won't even begin to fund that OS
work, sell the OS for almost no profit, because that will somehow give Apple
this massive enterprise presence...

Yet you talk about "if it isn't broke..." if a company is working correctly
with Windows, why would they care about the Mac? If it's not broke...

And if it is broken, then all your points about how bad Apple is for
corporate use compared to Windows don't matter either, because if they
aren't working well in Windows, then Windows' advantages don't matter
either.

--
John C. Welch

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:40 AM, Greenie wrote:

> A few points brought up I'll address, I can't be bothered quoting
> people because there are too many and I'm very busy today.
>
> * Apple (in Australia at least, I don't know about USA) do not offer
> any form of corporate service contracts. Dell, IBM etc offer 24-hour
> service contracts and even 2-hour on-site contracts so computers
> will be replaced immediately if they are not repairable. That's for
> a $500 office machine.

There's no way $500 covers the cost of service contracts at that
level, they cost extra. I hardly see the point of that level of
service for an ordinary desktop; to avoid downtime for a user you keep
at least one spare computer and copy or physically transfer their hard
drive (or, even better, have all their data on a server and their
profile directory backed up).

> If a $3,000 IntelMac dies, we have to physically load it up into the
> car, drive it to a retail AppleCentre, wait 1-2 days before they
> even look at it, wait another few days for parts to arrive. On
> occasion clients have been stuck without their Mac for 3 WEEKS. This
> is unacceptable in a business environement, in fact it's even
> unacceptable in a home environemnt but people put up with it because
> there's no other choice.

Having a spare Mac to avoid user downtime is also the smart thing to
do and migrating OS X from one machine to another is a whole lot
easier than with Windows. It might not make sense to have a spare Mac
Pro, it all depends on how much money is being lost or wasted by the
user being without it. The point is not what kind of service contracts
Apple offers but what it costs to ensure you stay at or below your
acceptable level of downtime. I would argue that Macs have fewer
hardware failures than the cheap PCs and therefore automatically
experience less downtime.

> * Many businesses run Remote Desktop Server software, based on
> Windows RDServer. It allows a server to run the applications locally
> and users basically log in through 'dumb terminals' that just show
> the screen. This is extremely cost-effective and means less problems
> with updating applications on the server. Apple don't offer any form
> of Remote Desktop. VNC and 'Back To My Mac' are NOT remote desktop,
> they are simply sending the entire screen of a single session mac.
> Remote Desktop allows many users to access a server with their own
> screen. One company offers this software for OS X but it's expensive
> and hasn't yet been updated for 10.6.

This started with comparing the relative value of Mac and PC computers
in office environments. Terminal Services is a totally different
thing. No one is arguing Macs are suitable for *every* environment.

> * The tax office in Australia still don't supply Mac software, so to
> complete a company tax return in Australia, Windows is necessary.
> Apple Australia should be harrassing the tax office to support Mac,
> but instead they ignore the problem.

How do you know Apple is ignoring the problem? Why is it their
responsibility alone to rectify it? I would think citizens who own
Macs would be the better, more effective source of pressure on this
point. This also isn't a reason not to buy Macs for an office. One or
two accountants can have PCs or use Windows on a Mac to run their
Windows-only software. Done. No reason to shape a company's entire
technology plan around one niche program.

> * I have friends working for one of the biggest superannuation
> companies in Australia. One of them was still using an 8 year old
> Windows XP computer, I think it was a Pentium III up until the
> beginning of the year. Now he's using a 4 year old computer running
> WinXP. The company did a lot of testing of Vista and found it to be
> seriously lacking. Windows XP WORKS, it worked 8 years ago for them
> and there's no reason why it doesn't work for them today. Even if MS
> stopped supporting it years ago, it's meaningless to everyday
> operations of the company. XP works now, if it's not broken don't
> fix it. All his work is server based anyway, so if his desktop
> machine dies nothing is lost and it takes half an hour to drag a
> spare one out of the store-room and plug it in, then he's back up
> and running. The money saved on buying new hardware every 3 years is
> instead spent on providing greater server power, better backup
> schemes, and more IT staff to write more optimised software. It may
> not fit into the guidelines of 'best IT business practice' but it
> works just fine.

If all his work is server-based, why couldn't he be on an 8 year old
Mac? But again, Macs aren't superior for *every* environment. If
there's no value in upgrading desktop hardware every 3-4 years, that
is independent of the Mac vs. PC choice. It's also the exception,
rather than the rule.

[cut more terminal examples]

> * Many companies who upgrade their IT equipment prematurely do it
> only to preserve their budget. If they are given a $250,000 budget
> each year for IT but only spend $20,000, next year they won't be
> given as large a budget. Governments and councils do the same thing,
> 'Spend it or lose it' as they say.

This also has nothing to do with Mac vs. PC.

[cut random grab-bag of gripes]

> * People keep saying Macs are fantastic because you can run virtual
> Windows machines on them in a window. What company in their right
> mind wants to spend $3,000 on a new Mac only to then go and spend an
> extra $400-800 on Windows licenses for the same computer?

::sigh:: The point is that if you have one Windows-only program or
only very occasional need for Windows-only software, you needn't let
that keep you on a PC. I don't know why you keep bringing up the
"$3000 Mac" when very few Mac owners have Macs that expensive, cheaper
Macs are much more popular and suitable. $400-800 for Windows? I don't
know what the exchange rate is but I think you're confused, non-server
Windows licenses don't cost that much.

> * Somebody mentioned Apple survived the PPC changeover and won.

I think they were talking about the PPC to Intel changeover which is
wrapping up now.

> * Some of Apples best OS 9 office productivity features like
> Notebook, Scrapbook, Location Manager never survived into OS X.
> Things have not changed, some of my favourite software from OS 10.3
> simply won't work on 10.4, let alone 10.5 or 10.6. As one example of
> Apple removing features without replacing them, Spotlight is still
> rubbish and can't sort files by path, and network searches are slow
> and unreliable, so I still have to use 10.3 for some computers here
> simply to find things. If I update I lose that functionality and it
> cannot be replaced, so I have to have two computers on my desk to
> get my work done. Ridiculous.

Yes, you are ridiculous if you think running 10.3 is the only way to
find files.

[cut bonus random gripe]

> * Most smaller companies don't have full-time IT staff. I'm not
> talking just 5-10 people offices, I know companies with a hundred
> staff who don't need IT support, they just get a few clued-up
> employees to help out, and everything works just fine. They replace
> things when they break. They only call in IT staff if something
> stops working. There's no IT support group to go and buy brand new
> computers and spend months testing new hardware and software
> combinations just to see if they work, and to iron out any bugs
> before they become apparent. In most cases if something worked
> yesterday, it'll keep working just the same tomorrow, next week,
> next year.

It's a matter of opportunity cost, perhaps those businesses would be
more successful of they treated their essential tools (computers and
software) better. The real risk is that if they think so little about
IT, they almost certainly have inadequate backups. Many businesses
have gone bankrupt due to data loss that wouldn't have happened if
they had an appropriate backup scheme. I don't think anyone is arguing
that every business needs it's own full-time IT staff or needs to
spend a lot of time on elaborate testing before putting new software
on someone's desk.

> These are just some observations after 18 years in the field. Some
> companies are FAR better off sticking to Mac for various reasons,
> and many would not be able to function with Windows. Cost is not the
> only factor, but it's a major one. But Windows has its place, and
> Mac have no way yet of competing with some of the things Windows
> offers. I hope this changes in the next few years, but we just have
> to wait and see.

Of course there's room for improvement but I don't think I'd want to
see competition on every level as you seem to be arguing. Trying to be
all things to all people will make for an inferior product.

> There are just a few small things that Apple need to address before
> they can ever hope to become a true contender in the business
> market, but the don't seem to care at the moment.

Correct, business sales is not Apple's first priority.

> Token things like adding Microsoft Exchange Server support to Apple
> Mail mean that the Big Boss can check his work email from home on
> his Mac laptop, but it doesn't mean every IT manager wants to run
> out and replace all their Windows computers with Macs.

Not every IT manager should! No one is saying that! What I and many
others are saying is there are plenty of businesses that could switch,
or just have some/more Macs, and be better off.

Calling support for accessing Exchange "token" is funny given that
it's something that has kept people on Windows for a long time. A lot
of copies of VirtualPC (and later Parallels and Fusion) were sold just
so some could be on a Mac but use Outlook for Windows. For them, it's
worth it because Outlook is just that useful or necessary but using OS
X and Mac software is *also* that useful or necessary.

Just to throw some more fat on this particular fire...

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 23:40, Greenie <greeniezip.com.au> wrote:

> * My bank, one of the 3 biggest banks in Australia, still run 12 year old terminals in every branch.

If you're a major Australian bank there's a good chance you're running
Lotus Notes. There has been a Notes client for Mac for many years but
it's only very recently that the experience could be described as
'fun'. Ignoring Notes 8x (which in the full version requires Java to
run on [it's built in/on/with Eclipse] and thus likes a metric
shirt-load of RAM) Notes is quite happy on slower processors and lower
spec RAM. This makes it cheap, in hardware terms at least.

> * Many security-conscious companies deliberately supply computers without USB ports or CD drives, so information cannot be easily stolen or copied and viruses cannot be spread. Macs all have these things and cannot be ordered without, which doesn't affect many people but is just something to think about.

In New Zealand if you don't want these then (anecdotally from a person
who worked at the time for GCSB) you actually have to specifically
request they be removed and pay to have them removed, which is not
quite the same thing but I get your point. And I have to admit that a
Mac is definitely out of the question because you must also remove the
USB ports for keyboard and mouse. My point is that it's something
everyone has to think about regardless of supplier. Surely though this
is an edge case? As a sidebar, try to buy a good phone that doesn't
have a camera. No, removing only the lens doesn't count.

> * Microsoft Access isn't available for OS X. This is a big deal for companies running Access databases. They may be able to be inported somehow into FileMaker, but that means spending $$$ on new servers and user licenses for new software. If their old version works, why bother 'upgrading' to new software that will require importing, re-writes and new user training?

It's a moot point for those who refuse to allow Access on the premises
at all. In any case, it is apparent with Office 2007 that MS is
really, really wanting you to stop using Access in a business. The
biggest clue is that Workgroup Security (i.e. defining who can add
data, edit data, remove relationships, alter forms, 'debug' your code,
delete tables, redesign the database and wonder why it's not working
any more) has been removed. You can put a password on the db but if
someone can open it at all then they can do whatever they want with
it. Another clue is that the documentation consistently refers to the
"home relational database". (Isn't that a thrilling phrase).

So if a business is no longer to use Access what should they use? If
you want MS then it's SQL Server. Suddenly FileMaker is a lot more
attractive.

> * ... and it's very unprofessional giving a USB stick to a client and have them call and yell at you because the file won't open, only to find that they are double-clicking the ._ resource file instead of the 'real' file.

So the professional removes them beforehand. Or ensures they aren't
created on Windows volumes in the first place.

> Mac is supposed to be 'the computer for the rest of us', the computer for people who don't need or want to know about computers, it shouldn't cause confusion like this but it does.

I am, by trade, an applications trainer. I have helped people struggle
though adding an attachment to an email. I have guided people through
discussions on creating an address list ("how long have you been able
to do this?"). I sat with one person who only knew how to open files
from the Recent list in Word. IT upgraded her version of Office. As
far as she was concerned she had 'lost' all her files. (She had some
very terse words for IT). The last training company I worked at full
time once was looking for a new Accounts Manager. One of the senior
people discovered a very good question for interviewees: "can you tell
me the difference between Windows and Office?" Pretty much the first
one who answered correctly was hired and no, it didn't happen quickly.

Simply, what I'm saying is that this point does not support your
argument. People get confused, often for no other reason than they
think that it should be confusing and thus decide to stop thinking.
The platform they're on is irrelevant.

--
Dave

On 11/19/09 5:57 PM, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:

>> A few points brought up I'll address, I can't be bothered quoting
>> people because there are too many and I'm very busy today.
>
> Just addressing this one bullet.
>
>> * Some very basic things are still broken on OS X. Copying a file to
>> a FAT-32 based USB stick replaces the Date Created with the Date
>> Modified. This is ridiculous. It's impossible to differentiate files
>> when file modifications and creations dates are no longer reliable.
>> does.
>
> As best I can recall one reason FATxx is a dog is that it only has ONE date
> stamp per file. So any FATxx volume will loose the creation date. Which is
> just one reason Microsoft doesn't want you using FATxx anymore.

Actually, FAT supports both dates, and in my tests, with 10.6.2, the
creation/modify dates are preserved when moving onto a USB key.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:37:14 -0800, Greenie wrote:
> The Macs with OS 9 used to pretty much look after themselves. Once we
> purchased the Mac itself, and a copy of Office, total cost per
> employee for the next four years was $0. Nothing more. Aside from
> purchasing larger backup hard drives for the server, a cent was never
> spent on maintenance, software, upgrades.

So you never upgraded anything on these macs.

> Jump forward to 2009. A 5 year old Mac running 10.3 can't run Firefox
> 3, Flash 10, Office 2008, Office XML converter and almost any other
> current software.

But on these 5 year old Macs you do, apparently, want to do upgrades.
Firefox 3 was only released June of 2008. Firefox 1 was out 5 years
ago, I bet it runs on your Mac. You should've installed it 5 years and
then spent no money on the Mac.

Mac OS 9 shipped in 1999, OS X 10.0 in 2001. That means your had
original sometime Macs 1999-2005. In 2000 Microsoft released it's last
OS 9 supported version, which you either skipped because you did no
upgrades or it was your default version if you bought the Macs after.
They then released a version in 2001 and 2004. I believe both of those
involved a file format change. By the time you dropped OS 9, it would
appear 10.3 was the latest, or 3 OS upgrades you skipped, many browser
upgrades you skipped, several Office upgrades that you skipped.

It looks to me that it isn't the number of upgrades changed, or become
more mandatory than in the past, it's something about your business or
your own decision process that made you decide you had to always be on
the latest and greatest. Apple isn't forcing upgrades here.

My guess would be that you now interact with the outside world a lot
more. In 1999 you were probably receiving faxes, now people probably
e-mail you word docs in a format that needs to be converted if you
aren't on the same version they are on. Not exactly Apple's fault.

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:57 PM, David Ross wrote:

> But I expect things to get better.

Don't we still have to get through a transition to 64bit? Not just OS
X applications but for other OS's as well? Oh, and the Carbon API,
surely that won't make it into 10.7.

> "universal" version. And this is why there's a lot of compatibility
> drops in working with OS versions. The system APIs that Apple has
> been dropping as it moved to Intel only created lots of headaches.

But there has been lots of warning, right? If not explicit statements
about a new OS version being the last to support an API, very large
handwriting on the wall (see: Carbon).

> If you have to re-write large chunks of your code to work with
> Leopard or Snow Leopard how much effort can you afford to spend on
> re-writing the re-write to work with Panther or Tiger. The CAD apps
> I mentioned have mostly gone to Intel only and/or Leopard or better
> just due to this topic.

I am not an OS X programmer but my impression has been that if you
*have* to re-write large chunks of your code to work with Leopard or
Snow Leopard, you've not been paying attention and/or are doing a bad
job. However if you *want* to re-write large chunks of your code to
take advantage of new APIs, that's a perfectly legitimate business
decision that is hopefully taken with an understanding of its impact
on one's customers.

Any OS X programmers want to correct me on this? Note that I'm not
referring to the early days of OS X. My understanding is some APIs
changed significantly between 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2, mostly because
they were unfinished. I'm thinking of Core Audio, specifically, I
think the audio editing programs (stuff like Pro Tools) had a pretty
hard time of it or waited until 10.2. Sonic Studio didn't replace
their OS 9 app until *2006* (5 years after 10.0, 4 years after 10.2)
but clearly that wasn't all because they were waiting for APIs to
settle in OS X.

At 11/20/2009 01:31 PM -0800, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>My guess would be that you now interact with the outside world a lot
>more.

That's the issue a lot of times. Yes, older computers can continue
doing exactly the same job perfectly well. But most times when people
say they just want their computer(s) to keep doing the same thing,
they are not fully perceiving their own actions. They want to
interact with the rest of the world in the new ways which have been
offered. Sometimes the old ways of interacting are no longer
available or have greatly diminished in value (eg FTP, Usenet).

Like it or not, for good or for bad, the outside world is moving on.
If you interact with the outside world, you don't have the option of
standing still. If you try, you find yourself slipping into backwaters.

Edward
--
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

> * Apple (in Australia at least, I don't know about USA) do not offer any form of corporate service contracts.

There are several forms of corporate contracts and support available in the US, including replacement parts and fast turnaround for Xserves, on-site consulting support, and licensing for in-house support that allows direct access to deeper levels of support and parts ordering. Apple used to have techs visit a site, but that was a few years ago and I don't know if they do it any longer. But this is in the U.S., which is undoubtedly the biggest market.


> * Many businesses run Remote Desktop Server software, based on Windows
> RDServer. It allows a server to run the applications locally and users
> basically log in through 'dumb terminals' that just show the screen. This is
> extremely cost-effective and means less problems with updating applications on
> the server. Apple don't offer any form of Remote Desktop. VNC and 'Back To My
> Mac' are NOT remote desktop, they are simply sending the entire screen of a
> single session mac. Remote Desktop allows many users to access a server with
> their own screen. One company offers this software for OS X but it's expensive
> and hasn't yet been updated for 10.6.

Remote Desktop is a Microsoft product. Apple doesn't write software for it, but Microsoft does. If you go to www.microsoft.com/mac and look at the names of the products in the uppermost navigation bar, you will see Remote Desktop. This attaches to Windows, and works very well. The Microsoft Mac Business Unit has kept it updated through the evolution of 10.2 to 10.6, including the transition from single processors to multiple and multicore processors. It is also free. Yes, this is a Microsoft product that is not only free but regularly updated and very functional. We use it at my work to replace some PCs in situations where the office workers mostly use Macs but must use a PC occasionally. (The acronym for the Mac vesion is RDC, for Windows it is RDP.)

By the way, after considerable user pressure the MBU now produces a SharePoint connection product called Microsoft Document Connection, which allows opening and editing of Office files (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) from and on SharePoint (3.0) Servers.


> * The tax office in Australia still don't supply Mac software, so to complete
> a company tax return in Australia, Windows is necessary. Apple Australia
> should be harassing the tax office to support Mac, but instead they ignore the
> problem.

A few years ago the U.S. still had several government agencies that made their websites or services PC only. I do not know if this is still the case. There are numerous government agencies whose IT groups still insist on not supporting Macs. However, the CIO of the Army has stated that they will support Macs, and they are working directly with Apple to provide that support.

One of the bigger problems is smart cards used as government identification cards and for authentication to government computer networks or systems. There are a few million people using these, and they work well with Windows, but Apple's support is not very good. The cards themselves are platform agnostic. Apple had them working well in 10.4 and eventually in 10.5, but 10.6 has not caught up.*


<snip>

> * If companies run server-based apps, which are becoming increasingly popular,
> there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER to upgrade all their desktop computers every 3
> years. Nothing is gained in productivity or otherwise. Arguing that equipement
> more than 3 years old is less reliable is ridiculous, because 3 WEEK old
> equipemnt is just as likely to die and have to be replaced.

Tax reasons make a compelling argument. I don't know what the tax laws are in .au, but in the US the laws are such that computer costs are depreciated over a 3 year life span.

And sorry, but it's specious to assert unequivocally that 3 week old hardware is just as likely to fail as 3 year old hardware. This is especially true of Dell hardware.

Also, any 3 week old computer is easy to find parts for. A 3 year old Dell computer is a little harder to find parts for. Apple provides parts for 3 year old computers also, but after about 5 years we begin to see that parts are hard to find for computers that have been officially EOL'ed. And buying spare parts on eBay is a non-starter unless the computer in question is so valuable that eBay must be used. (This might be the case for software that only runs on that old hardware or OS, and would be too expensive or even impossible to rewrite.)

Though I realize you specified desktop computers, laptops are increasingly being issued to corporate employees and they need to be included in the discussion. They do wear out, and quickly. A 3 year old Dell laptop is probably at its EOL and needs to be replaced.


<snip>


> * A large number of clients use WordPerfect on Windows. There's nothing
> remotely comparable for the Mac.

WordPerfect still has a small user base compared to Word in Microsoft Office. Corel may have recovered from their near-death experience of 7 months ago, but now the company is being taken private. We'll see what happens.



* People keep saying Macs are fantastic because you can run virtual Windows
> machines on them in a window. What company in their right mind wants to spend
> $3,000 on a new Mac only to then go and spend an extra $400-800 on Windows
> licenses for the same computer?

A corporate desktop Mac is more like $1500-$2000, then Windows, Office and AVware for about $400-$500, plus CALs. But I get your point. The other point though is that there is a single piece of desktop hardware to purchase, support, store, stock parts for, and dispose of, but it provides two (or more) operating systems. For users that must have both OSes, this is a good solution that is actually better than a compromise. For users who only need Windows, it is obviously unnecessary.

> * Somebody mentioned Apple survived the PPC changeover...
> * Some of Apples best OS 9 office productivity features like [...] never
> survived into OS X. <snip> If I update I lose that functionality and it cannot
> be replaced, so I have to have two computers on my desk to get my work done.

This sort of thing happens with all sorts of products. You can't get a Norton Commando or an air cooled Porsche 911 anymore either. Change happens. Find another way, or be prepared to support your old stuff (hw and sw) for a very long time. This will be expensive. WRT OS9 versus OSX, there is one reply: protected memory.


> * Some very basic things are still broken on OS X. Copying a file to a
> FAT-32...

FAT32 is an antiquated file system. As far as I know, Microsoft doesn't use it or even support it anymore.

> Macs still dump .ds_store files all over the place, which can't be turned off.

One nice feature of TinkerTool is the GUI checkbox to turn off .DS_Store file distribution. <http://www.bresink.de/osx/TinkerTool.html> You can also write this out yourself if you're comfortable in the CLI, but I recommend TT for its other functions as well. (I learned about TinkerTool in a TidBits issue in 2001 or 2002 about cool utilities for the then-new OSX.) I think the preference is written as below. And I have not tried this in OSX 10.6.

defaults write com.apple.desktopservices -DSDontWriteNetworkStores -string true

I use this when I am in Windows on a Windows file server because I don't like seeing .DS_Store litter either.


> Many Mac applications still add ._resource files to each file, even when they
> are empty and not needed. They are invisible on the Mac but show up on
> Windows, and it's very unprofessional giving a USB stick to a client and have
> them call and yell at you because the file won't open, only to find that they
> are double-clicking the ._ resource file instead of the 'real' file. Mac is
> supposed to be 'the computer for the rest of us', the computer for people who
> don't need or want to know about computers, it shouldn't cause confusion like
> this but it does.

With all due respect, it is up to you to deliver a professional end product. If you know the client will be viewing in Windows and not OSX, review the final product in Windows as well as OSX.

TinkerTool is not the only third party tool that adds functionality to OSX. Most of the deficiencies you mentioned can be replaced by third party tools, and frequently are better than Apple's. This applies to Windows and other Microsoft products as well. There are many examples, suffice it to say that you should look to the developer community. Yes, it will cost more - sometimes a little and sometimes a lot.

* Most smaller companies don't have full-time IT staff. I'm not talking just
> 5-10 people offices, I know companies with a hundred staff who don't need IT
> support, they just get a few clued-up employees to help out, and everything
> works just fine. They replace things when they break. They only call in IT
> staff if something stops working. There's no IT support group to go and buy
> brand new computers and spend months testing new hardware and software
> combinations just to see if they work, and to iron out any bugs before they
> become apparent. In most cases if something worked yesterday, it'll keep
> working just the same tomorrow, next week, next year.

A company of 5-10 can get by without a full time IT person, but a company of 100 is clueless if they think they can do the same. This is especially the case if they are running Windows (which they most likely are doing). IT support is more than desktop support - arguably the network, backup, security and server support is more important than mere desktop support.

One good way for the intermediate sized company to handle this is not with a full time staffer, but a contract with a company who can provide someone on call and for extended periods, as necessary. "A few clued-up employees" can actually work in the case of a small ad agency with some versatile people who can do Mac tech support, but this has always been the case. In fact many large corporations that are Windows-only but for the art and advertising departments often leave the tech support to some poor schmuck who happens to know how to do it. This company too should have a contract support company on retainer.


> These are just some observations after 18 years in the field. Some companies
> are FAR better off sticking to Mac for various reasons, and many would not be
> able to function with Windows. Cost is not the only factor, but it's a major
> one. But Windows has its place, and Mac have no way yet of competing with some
> of the things Windows offers. I hope this changes in the next few years, but
> we just have to wait and see.

The real problem here is the parochialism of IT support people who insist that their operating system is the One True Way and everything else sucks. (Note: This is especially prevalent with Microsoft and Windows tech support people. Funnily enough, Mac and Linux support people seem to know better how to work with Windows than the other way around. Don't tell Ballmer, but the platform wars are over. There were and are many survivors.) If the company has professionals or services that need two or more OSes to bring in revenue or protect the company, then the company needs computer professionals who can manage all those operating systems. This doesn't necessitate one computer support person who does everything, but maybe has one strength and some capabilities - and professional connections - in the others.

For those of us who do this for a living, we really do need to get used to the idea that it's been a couple of decades now and we need to expand our horizons and our skill sets. We need to be fully expert in one OS or platform, and "power-user" functional in at least one more. I can think of several people who contribute to this forum who can and do handle Windows, linux (or linices), Solaris, *BSD, IOS and even IBM heavy iron operating systems on a daily basis, in addition to their regular use of OSX. This is what we do, and we've had plenty of time to get used to it. The OSes are not going to stand still for us either.

> There are just a few small things that Apple need to address before they can
> ever hope to become a true contender in the business market, but they don't
> seem to care at the moment.

From my vantage point of having worked closely with Apple's Enterprise group I think it's fair to say that the members of Enterprise group try very hard and accomplish much within the limitations they are forced to work with, but don't get as much support or resources from senior management as they need. It's almost as if they are working against Apple's corporate direction towards consumer goods and away from enterprise support.

> Token things like adding Microsoft Exchange Server
> support to Apple Mail mean that the Big Boss can check his work email from
> home on his Mac laptop, but it doesn't mean every IT manager wants to run out
> and replace all their Windows computers with Macs.

While Exchange support is more than a token, it's also somewhat limited and hard to figure out what does and what does not work. Support for I&A (identification and authentication) to Active Directory is important and probably more critical in a business or enterprise environment. File sharing between Macs and Windows is also important. In all three cases there are third party solutions that are superior to Apple's own. (Though Apple won't tell you that.)