In order to really enumerate the benefits of Windows 7 in enterprise I think it needs to be in conjunction with Server 2008. They are meant to go together.
Things like group policy come to mind.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Lower Total Cost of Ownership
Greater security
Better performance
Greater security
Better performance
macs will rarely end up in a totally homogenous mac environment. so the problems really come in a corporate environment where the servers are based off of MSFT proven technologies.
lack of native msft DFS support on macs is a real problem for the corporate environment. there's not even a great third party solution really (we use zidget, but it doesn't work well IMO)
as is lack of a real version of Outlook...
...and the file sharing methods could be better...
...and the shared printer usage could be better...
lack of native msft DFS support on macs is a real problem for the corporate environment. there's not even a great third party solution really (we use zidget, but it doesn't work well IMO)
as is lack of a real version of Outlook...
...and the file sharing methods could be better...
...and the shared printer usage could be better...
1) Migration costs associated with licensing and application upgrade / replacement
2) Migration costs associated with user change
2) Migration costs associated with user change
You forgot the existing investment in applications.
Nice to see a follow-up article from the other side of the coin.
Nice to see a follow-up article from the other side of the coin.
I actually think you're understating the need for user retraining. The Mac OS is nowhere near as easy or intuitive as Apple would have people believe, especially for users who have years of Windows experience under their belts.
For many years Apple spent good many on researching non-computer users' response to "first machine encounters," and worked hard to provide an environment that would be as intuitive as possible to the first-time user. Today, there are very few such people out there, at least in Anglo- North America.
The "learning curve" from Windows to Apple is much steeper than the one from nothing to Apple because there are so many things that are either "just the way they are" or downright stupidities that the user must unlearn. (I click on "Start" to turn my computer OFF?!!)
People with "Baby Duck Syndrome," (who follow the first creature that they see in the belief that it is their mother,) become convinced that whatever computer environment they learn first is "the One True Path" - the only way that "makes sense," without regard for whether it objectively DOES make sense ... or not. Those are the ones who are most resistant to change, and will in fact grumble at the migration from Windows XP to Windows 7 almost as much as from any Windows to MacOS X.
Good IT management includes a sensitivity to this learning resistance, and factoring in the "UNtraining" by slowly accustoming users to the idea of transition, before actually forcing it on them. A good migration plan will budget (in time AND money) for early adopters to trailblaze to the new platform in every work unit, while allowing the more conservative elements to slowly get used to the idea of change, and then switch over at a more leisurely pace.
The "learning curve" from Windows to Apple is much steeper than the one from nothing to Apple because there are so many things that are either "just the way they are" or downright stupidities that the user must unlearn. (I click on "Start" to turn my computer OFF?!!)
People with "Baby Duck Syndrome," (who follow the first creature that they see in the belief that it is their mother,) become convinced that whatever computer environment they learn first is "the One True Path" - the only way that "makes sense," without regard for whether it objectively DOES make sense ... or not. Those are the ones who are most resistant to change, and will in fact grumble at the migration from Windows XP to Windows 7 almost as much as from any Windows to MacOS X.
Good IT management includes a sensitivity to this learning resistance, and factoring in the "UNtraining" by slowly accustoming users to the idea of transition, before actually forcing it on them. A good migration plan will budget (in time AND money) for early adopters to trailblaze to the new platform in every work unit, while allowing the more conservative elements to slowly get used to the idea of change, and then switch over at a more leisurely pace.
Different doesn't necessarily imply stupid. There are many ways of doing things, and if these ways work, and work well, then just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are "stupid."
Macs are not inherently more intuitive. People still have to be taught how to use them. Sit a person, who has never used a personal computer, down in front a Mac, and they will probably have a hard time figuring out how to turn it on.
Every technology comes with a learning curve; once a certain level of competence is reached, it doesn't matter what the technology is - as long as it works for the job intended.
What this means is that other factors must come into play to determine what technologies to use, hardware and software costs, how well the new technology interfaces with older technologies, etc.
Macs are not inherently more intuitive. People still have to be taught how to use them. Sit a person, who has never used a personal computer, down in front a Mac, and they will probably have a hard time figuring out how to turn it on.
Every technology comes with a learning curve; once a certain level of competence is reached, it doesn't matter what the technology is - as long as it works for the job intended.
What this means is that other factors must come into play to determine what technologies to use, hardware and software costs, how well the new technology interfaces with older technologies, etc.
'Different doesn't necessarily imply stupid. There are many ways of doing things, and if these ways work, and work well, then just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are "stupid."'
I originally wrote '...there are so many things that are either "just the way they are" or downright stupidities....'
I agree that many things are not stupidities, but you must admit that some of them ARE, like my example of using "Start" to turn the computer off. Call it "counter-intuitive" if the word "stupid" offends you so much, but it comes down to the same thing -- it is behavior that goes against common sense which a user has to unlearn when leaving their first (Windows) platform.
And I don't say that Apple is exempt from stupidities, and I'll name two to prove the point:
1) Long after the rest of the world was using 2-button mice, and Unix users were using 3-button mice, Apple insisted on using a 1-button mouse, and having the user press Control or Option with their single button to differentiate functions. (Of course, the original Douglas Engelbart mouse was used with a 5-button "chording keyboard".)
2) While other windowing platforms allow you to resize a window from any edge or corner, for years Apple has kept the resize point restricted to the lower right-hand corner.
Both of those decisions were made, incidentally, based on studies of first-time computer users as being friendlier and easier to learn. But while the rest of the world outgrew them, Apple doggedly kept with them in the name of "ease-of-use" despite documented evidence to the contrary.
I originally wrote '...there are so many things that are either "just the way they are" or downright stupidities....'
I agree that many things are not stupidities, but you must admit that some of them ARE, like my example of using "Start" to turn the computer off. Call it "counter-intuitive" if the word "stupid" offends you so much, but it comes down to the same thing -- it is behavior that goes against common sense which a user has to unlearn when leaving their first (Windows) platform.
And I don't say that Apple is exempt from stupidities, and I'll name two to prove the point:
1) Long after the rest of the world was using 2-button mice, and Unix users were using 3-button mice, Apple insisted on using a 1-button mouse, and having the user press Control or Option with their single button to differentiate functions. (Of course, the original Douglas Engelbart mouse was used with a 5-button "chording keyboard".)
2) While other windowing platforms allow you to resize a window from any edge or corner, for years Apple has kept the resize point restricted to the lower right-hand corner.
Both of those decisions were made, incidentally, based on studies of first-time computer users as being friendlier and easier to learn. But while the rest of the world outgrew them, Apple doggedly kept with them in the name of "ease-of-use" despite documented evidence to the contrary.
It's well documented what the "start" button is about so why mention it as a problem. It's a start point, like a flow. Start the log off process, start the shutdown process. If that's a show stopper to you then god help mankind.
And like previous feedback; Like it or lump it we are all in comfort zones. Mine is MS but I'm tinkering with Linux (cos it's free, that's all). Yours sounds like Apple. I have spent some time with Apples when forced but certainly wouldn't say it was all intuitive..... heck I almost gave up on wifi config.
If something works why change it? Certainly not if it costs in terms of dollars, grief, inrastructure, downtime, user retraining. There's often far more reason to stick with low risk low cost upgrades. The same might be true for Apple once they are in a position to play that game, but it's a mountain, and only MS can bring themselves down if they get their modelling wrong. IMHO.
And like previous feedback; Like it or lump it we are all in comfort zones. Mine is MS but I'm tinkering with Linux (cos it's free, that's all). Yours sounds like Apple. I have spent some time with Apples when forced but certainly wouldn't say it was all intuitive..... heck I almost gave up on wifi config.
If something works why change it? Certainly not if it costs in terms of dollars, grief, inrastructure, downtime, user retraining. There's often far more reason to stick with low risk low cost upgrades. The same might be true for Apple once they are in a position to play that game, but it's a mountain, and only MS can bring themselves down if they get their modelling wrong. IMHO.
As implied by the preceeding discussion on Snow Leopard having the up on Windows in the enterprise, there are pros and cons to all sides of the story.
" Apple doggedly kept with them in the name of "ease-of-use" despite documented evidence to the contrary."
They maintain their slogan "It Just Works".
Ease-of-use, as you've said, is something I think Mac pride themselves on. And their lack of changing with the times may be helpful to them with the the change that Vista and Win7 has brought on.
"Well, we have to re-learn Windows. We could learn Mac OS...."
" Apple doggedly kept with them in the name of "ease-of-use" despite documented evidence to the contrary."
They maintain their slogan "It Just Works".
Ease-of-use, as you've said, is something I think Mac pride themselves on. And their lack of changing with the times may be helpful to them with the the change that Vista and Win7 has brought on.
"Well, we have to re-learn Windows. We could learn Mac OS...."
How about Snow Leopard is a niche OS and doesnt have a place in business outside of making some marketing materials or if you run some kind of printshop business. Even then windows is more then fine for those tasks as well. and dont forget you get more bang for your buck with a windows machine.
I think Windows 7 is awesome but this article seems awfully bias in regards to Apple. I don't have an Apple laptop but I will choose Apple over Windows anyday. Mac's are extremely user friendly, I can run Windows applications on mac's, and it doesn't take a large staff to support Unix. Or maybe the author forgot Unix has almost been around just as long as Windows.
Spyware to infect the machine maybe, virus for a unix highly unlikely, my windows machine is running slow, has a virus, and I need to upgrade in 4 years PRICELESS!
Spyware to infect the machine maybe, virus for a unix highly unlikely, my windows machine is running slow, has a virus, and I need to upgrade in 4 years PRICELESS!
You probably missed the original article:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/mac/?p=494&tag=content;leftCol
This one is a follow-up taking the other view point. While either is biased on its own, together they present both sides of the topic.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/mac/?p=494&tag=content;leftCol
This one is a follow-up taking the other view point. While either is biased on its own, together they present both sides of the topic.
I don't think this article really was an attempt to be fair or look at the other side otherwise there would have been more pro's besides the one mentioned three times.
Bill
Bill
So the three reasons in this article are "keeping what you have is cheaper than migrating". If you really consider that a fair evaluation compared to lower TCO, better security and better performance then that is your opinion. There were several post in the previous article that detailed things that Windows 7 does better than Snow Leopard that would have been more appropriate in my opinion than what was listed.
Bill
Bill
"Or maybe the author forgot Unix has almost been around just as long as Windows."
Actually, Unix has been around nearly twice as long as Windows, since 1970!
They are two different things, really, and that's the crux of the matter. Unix was built from the ground up as a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system (O/S) designed to keep many programs running at once on a single CPU/computer, which was eventually transformed (largely by Sun) into both an O/S that works on multiple CPUs in a single computer system, and a series of well-defined services that could distribute parts of the computing work across a network, for distributed computing.
By contrast, Windows evolved from a single-user test and control program (SC-DOS) into a graphical user interface (GUI) environment, again for a single user on a single CPU/computer, that was eventually grown into a multi-tasking, vaguely multi-user O/S, recently with added support for multiple CPUs, and with a series of closed-market add-ons to provide limited networking services.
Windows remains focused on the end-user experience, at the cost of a weak, inefficient O/S back-end. Unix remains a strong O/S "under the hood," while being plagued with a whole slew of semi-compatible, amateurish to quasi-professional user environments.
End users like Windows because it has always been about them, not about getting the hardware to perform efficiently. Systems people like Unix, because it was written by and for "geeks" who were technically savvy to keep things running smoothly in a bigger environment.
Apple was (nearly) always about marrying a wonderful end-user experience (the Macintosh GUI) onto a solid tecnical underpinning (NetBSD, a respected Unix-variant.) But that technical competence required two things: 1) a restricted set of hardware platforms that could ensure a reliable, quality base on which to run, and 2) a relatively higher total entry-level cost (albeit with a frequently lower TCO because the stringent quality components going in make for hardware longevity as well as reliability, and Apple's 5-year software compatibility commitment assures an actual resale value at the end of the amortization period.)
With Apple you get the best of both worlds, but at a price.
Actually, Unix has been around nearly twice as long as Windows, since 1970!
They are two different things, really, and that's the crux of the matter. Unix was built from the ground up as a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system (O/S) designed to keep many programs running at once on a single CPU/computer, which was eventually transformed (largely by Sun) into both an O/S that works on multiple CPUs in a single computer system, and a series of well-defined services that could distribute parts of the computing work across a network, for distributed computing.
By contrast, Windows evolved from a single-user test and control program (SC-DOS) into a graphical user interface (GUI) environment, again for a single user on a single CPU/computer, that was eventually grown into a multi-tasking, vaguely multi-user O/S, recently with added support for multiple CPUs, and with a series of closed-market add-ons to provide limited networking services.
Windows remains focused on the end-user experience, at the cost of a weak, inefficient O/S back-end. Unix remains a strong O/S "under the hood," while being plagued with a whole slew of semi-compatible, amateurish to quasi-professional user environments.
End users like Windows because it has always been about them, not about getting the hardware to perform efficiently. Systems people like Unix, because it was written by and for "geeks" who were technically savvy to keep things running smoothly in a bigger environment.
Apple was (nearly) always about marrying a wonderful end-user experience (the Macintosh GUI) onto a solid tecnical underpinning (NetBSD, a respected Unix-variant.) But that technical competence required two things: 1) a restricted set of hardware platforms that could ensure a reliable, quality base on which to run, and 2) a relatively higher total entry-level cost (albeit with a frequently lower TCO because the stringent quality components going in make for hardware longevity as well as reliability, and Apple's 5-year software compatibility commitment assures an actual resale value at the end of the amortization period.)
With Apple you get the best of both worlds, but at a price.
"By contrast, Windows evolved from a single-user test and control program (SC-DOS) into a graphical user interface (GUI) environment, again for a single user on a single CPU/computer, that was eventually grown into a multi-tasking, vaguely multi-user O/S, recently with added support for multiple CPUs, and with a series of closed-market add-ons to provide limited networking services."
This is OUTRAGEOUS NONSENSE!! The strand of Windows you're talking about was abandoned ten years ago. The Windows we use now is a continuous development of Windows NT, which was designed from the ground up as a multi-user, multi-tasking, networked OS by Dave Cutler, who was the architect for DEC VAX VMS.
I'm not particularly a Windows (or Mac, or Unix/Linux) fanboy, but I simply can't let drivel like this go uncommented.
This is OUTRAGEOUS NONSENSE!! The strand of Windows you're talking about was abandoned ten years ago. The Windows we use now is a continuous development of Windows NT, which was designed from the ground up as a multi-user, multi-tasking, networked OS by Dave Cutler, who was the architect for DEC VAX VMS.
I'm not particularly a Windows (or Mac, or Unix/Linux) fanboy, but I simply can't let drivel like this go uncommented.
The fact that Windows NT included lots of "legacy code" has been well documented. The claim that NT was new "from the ground up" was Microsoft marketing hype that was disproved fifteen years ago. The original kernel and executive were a rewrite, and the driver system was new, but much of the "userland" experience were vaguely ported, at best, including bugs in the windowing code.
People who were around back then may recall that there was quite a bit of media hoopla about this.
Reading between the lines in Microsoft's own documentation at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749964.aspx it is possible to see that NT/4.0 included the porting of the Win 95 windowing code to NT/3.5.1 to ease the migration for Win 95 code.
And take a look at this TechRepublic article from 8 years ago this week - http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1056315.html , which includes the comment "[T]here are lots of legacy code and features lingering around inside of it [Win 2K - ES] leftover from Windows NT, Windows 9x, and even Windows 3.1 and DOS."
And finally, this article - http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-01/0346.html about bugs in Windows code explicitly states what I said, that "In order to support BIOS service routines in legacy 16bit applications, the Windows NT Kernel supports the concept of BIOS calls in the Virtual-8086 mode monitor code... This is believed to affect every release of the Windows NT kernel, from Windows NT 3.1 (1993) up to and including Windows 7 (2009)."
I'll see your "drivel" and raise you by three citations. Call!
People who were around back then may recall that there was quite a bit of media hoopla about this.
Reading between the lines in Microsoft's own documentation at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749964.aspx it is possible to see that NT/4.0 included the porting of the Win 95 windowing code to NT/3.5.1 to ease the migration for Win 95 code.
And take a look at this TechRepublic article from 8 years ago this week - http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1056315.html , which includes the comment "[T]here are lots of legacy code and features lingering around inside of it [Win 2K - ES] leftover from Windows NT, Windows 9x, and even Windows 3.1 and DOS."
And finally, this article - http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2010-01/0346.html about bugs in Windows code explicitly states what I said, that "In order to support BIOS service routines in legacy 16bit applications, the Windows NT Kernel supports the concept of BIOS calls in the Virtual-8086 mode monitor code... This is believed to affect every release of the Windows NT kernel, from Windows NT 3.1 (1993) up to and including Windows 7 (2009)."
I'll see your "drivel" and raise you by three citations. Call!
It goes without saying that NT was saddled with lots of code to support legacy applications, including 16-bit DOS stuff.
But, that is profoundly different from your claim, that it started out as a single-tasking, single-user 16-bit DOS-alike and grew from there.
That is utterly false. It started with Windows NT, which was a new design by Dave Cutler, and WAS designed FROM THE GROUND UP to be multi-user, multi-tasking, multi-processing and networked, and then got saddled with all the legacy crap afterwards.
It is also worth pointing out that the compatibility with DOS, 16-bit Windows and OS/2 was provided by protected sub-systems:
"On Windows NT, both MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows are applications: They are environment subsystems that call the Win32 API and occasionally native NT services.
"The MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows subsystems run in user mode in the same way that other environment subsystems do."
It is clear that the new OS is NOT an evolution of DOS, but rather has some DOS code shoe-horned in - in a user-mode subsystem - in order to provide backward compatibility.
It's worth reading "Inside Windows NT" (which I quote above) by Helen Custer, which includes a foreword by Dave Cutler, for a pretty comprehensive history. It was published in 1993, when NT was brand new and relatively pure. So you don't need to "read between the lines" anywhere.
Mind you, it was published by Microsoft Press, which gives you an excuse to dismiss it, should you feel the need (which I get the impression you do).
Incidentally, I think we have one area where we agree: the need to support legacy applications has been a massive burden for Windows, and has undermined it in lots of important ways.
Microsoft must wish they could start all over again with a clean slate and forget all the legacy stuff. In a parallel universe, perhaps.....
But, that is profoundly different from your claim, that it started out as a single-tasking, single-user 16-bit DOS-alike and grew from there.
That is utterly false. It started with Windows NT, which was a new design by Dave Cutler, and WAS designed FROM THE GROUND UP to be multi-user, multi-tasking, multi-processing and networked, and then got saddled with all the legacy crap afterwards.
It is also worth pointing out that the compatibility with DOS, 16-bit Windows and OS/2 was provided by protected sub-systems:
"On Windows NT, both MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows are applications: They are environment subsystems that call the Win32 API and occasionally native NT services.
"The MS-DOS and 16-bit Windows subsystems run in user mode in the same way that other environment subsystems do."
It is clear that the new OS is NOT an evolution of DOS, but rather has some DOS code shoe-horned in - in a user-mode subsystem - in order to provide backward compatibility.
It's worth reading "Inside Windows NT" (which I quote above) by Helen Custer, which includes a foreword by Dave Cutler, for a pretty comprehensive history. It was published in 1993, when NT was brand new and relatively pure. So you don't need to "read between the lines" anywhere.
Mind you, it was published by Microsoft Press, which gives you an excuse to dismiss it, should you feel the need (which I get the impression you do).
Incidentally, I think we have one area where we agree: the need to support legacy applications has been a massive burden for Windows, and has undermined it in lots of important ways.
Microsoft must wish they could start all over again with a clean slate and forget all the legacy stuff. In a parallel universe, perhaps.....
... that NT/3.1 was "clean". It is certain that by the time that they got to NT/4.0 they had hacked the stuffing out of it in the name of backwards compatibilty.
Actually, the old "migration path" problem was what got Microsoft into the O/S business in the first place. One big reason that Digital Research was slow out the door with CP/M-86, allowing Bill Gates to buy out Seattle Computer Products and rebundle their QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") debugging program as PC DOS 1.0 and sell it to IBM, was Xlate/86. Since Digital Research, besides selling the widlly successful CP/M (later, CP/M-80) 8-bit operating system, was also in the computer language business (as MicroSoft is today,) they felt that successful adoption of the 16-bit version of the O/S would require a program to translate 8-bit assembler code (for the 8080) into 16-bit assembler code (for the 8086) to help software houses migrate their code. So they started developing Xlate/86, and hoped to use it to port the CP/M code, too. That grandiose project was repeatedly delayed, however, so DR eventually rewrote CP/M-86 by hand, but by that time IBM was already shipping their hardware with Microsoft's operating system, as well as Micorosft's BASIC in ROM.
It's ironic that the opportunity which let Microsoft into the O/S game in the first place should become its Achilles' Heel.
Actually, the old "migration path" problem was what got Microsoft into the O/S business in the first place. One big reason that Digital Research was slow out the door with CP/M-86, allowing Bill Gates to buy out Seattle Computer Products and rebundle their QDOS ("Quick and Dirty Operating System") debugging program as PC DOS 1.0 and sell it to IBM, was Xlate/86. Since Digital Research, besides selling the widlly successful CP/M (later, CP/M-80) 8-bit operating system, was also in the computer language business (as MicroSoft is today,) they felt that successful adoption of the 16-bit version of the O/S would require a program to translate 8-bit assembler code (for the 8080) into 16-bit assembler code (for the 8086) to help software houses migrate their code. So they started developing Xlate/86, and hoped to use it to port the CP/M code, too. That grandiose project was repeatedly delayed, however, so DR eventually rewrote CP/M-86 by hand, but by that time IBM was already shipping their hardware with Microsoft's operating system, as well as Micorosft's BASIC in ROM.
It's ironic that the opportunity which let Microsoft into the O/S game in the first place should become its Achilles' Heel.
EliSko's line was, "Windows evolved from a single-user test and control program...", and that's what it did. Yes, current versions are based on NT code and not DOS, but that's part of 'evolving'.
If MS didn't want the lineage traced back to the earlier versions, they should have named the NT product something besides 'Windows'. If MS ever starts with a clean slate, they should consider whether backwards compatibility and the value of the 'Windows' brand are outweighed by their negative aspects.
If MS didn't want the lineage traced back to the earlier versions, they should have named the NT product something besides 'Windows'. If MS ever starts with a clean slate, they should consider whether backwards compatibility and the value of the 'Windows' brand are outweighed by their negative aspects.
Sounds a little like the kettle calling the pot black....
I've worked both sides of the coin; 8 years with Mac in Education and the remainder of my 20 years in Wintel. You don't have less staff with Mac than Wintel, the costs come out a little higher with Mac (not a ton) and it is amazing how you have so many of the same problems.
It is time for people to settle down and let NEED not want drive what people use. Mac does some things better than Wintel and vice versa. Examine what your needs are and then your next steps become clear.
Bob
I've worked both sides of the coin; 8 years with Mac in Education and the remainder of my 20 years in Wintel. You don't have less staff with Mac than Wintel, the costs come out a little higher with Mac (not a ton) and it is amazing how you have so many of the same problems.
It is time for people to settle down and let NEED not want drive what people use. Mac does some things better than Wintel and vice versa. Examine what your needs are and then your next steps become clear.
Bob
There's no such thing as "one size fits all."
I might add, though, that in most organizations of any real size/diversity there will be different needs. (Administering your email and database servers are different from people writing documents all day, different from people using spreadsheets, different from people using internal MIS systems, etc.)
For this reason, responsible IT management will bear the higher cost for supporting a heterogenous environment, justifying it by improved efficiency in all of the client departments and business units.
I might add, though, that in most organizations of any real size/diversity there will be different needs. (Administering your email and database servers are different from people writing documents all day, different from people using spreadsheets, different from people using internal MIS systems, etc.)
For this reason, responsible IT management will bear the higher cost for supporting a heterogenous environment, justifying it by improved efficiency in all of the client departments and business units.
"8 years with Mac in Education and the remainder of my 20 years in Wintel..."
Unless you can clarify this, it means that you used Mac OS 6.5 or maybe even earlier, while using Windows almost exclusively since 95 and probably Windows 3 prior to that; believe me, OS X is nothing like OS 6.
However, you've got to realize that people are animals of want before need in most cases, choosing their cars, their homes, their gadgets and yes, even their computers based on Want, not Need. As you should know very well, Wants change--Needs change. Both operating systems can handle Want and Need very well, though not equally.
The argument, though is how Win7 has advantages against OS X in the enterprise, and honestly the advantages given are excuses, not advantages. 20 years ago, bean counters (accountants) looked at the bottom line in immediate costs. They had to look at how much money the company was going to spend this year and totally ignore what, if any, effect that purchase might have next year, or five years from now. This came despite documented experiments that pitted a Mac beside a PC running Windows performing all the same tasks in exactly equivalent software; the Mac proved nearly 100% more productive than the Windows PC. The short-term cost of transferring over to the Mac was the only reason they didn't convert--despite the obvious long-term savings.
Again I note that this happened almost 20 years ago and Apple's OS is far more adaptive now than it was then.
So again, is it want, or need?
Unless you can clarify this, it means that you used Mac OS 6.5 or maybe even earlier, while using Windows almost exclusively since 95 and probably Windows 3 prior to that; believe me, OS X is nothing like OS 6.
However, you've got to realize that people are animals of want before need in most cases, choosing their cars, their homes, their gadgets and yes, even their computers based on Want, not Need. As you should know very well, Wants change--Needs change. Both operating systems can handle Want and Need very well, though not equally.
The argument, though is how Win7 has advantages against OS X in the enterprise, and honestly the advantages given are excuses, not advantages. 20 years ago, bean counters (accountants) looked at the bottom line in immediate costs. They had to look at how much money the company was going to spend this year and totally ignore what, if any, effect that purchase might have next year, or five years from now. This came despite documented experiments that pitted a Mac beside a PC running Windows performing all the same tasks in exactly equivalent software; the Mac proved nearly 100% more productive than the Windows PC. The short-term cost of transferring over to the Mac was the only reason they didn't convert--despite the obvious long-term savings.
Again I note that this happened almost 20 years ago and Apple's OS is far more adaptive now than it was then.
So again, is it want, or need?
Why, you never claryfy anything about your experience bar the years.
Do I want to know everything about you? No. So why should I tell you everything about me? The information is not relevant to any argument so far where you have asked that question.
Wow...I didn't think I would have to defend myself when I advocated reason.
1. My Mac experience is 3 years old at most (you may have thought my mac experience was while I was attending school). And during that time I experience extensive LDAP issues w/ Mac servers, a large number of hardware issues and an extremely hard issue finding help (outside consulting) for the Mac that was worth the money they asked.
2. I've been working since 1990 on various computers, platforms and in various capacities. I'm now a Network/Firewall Admin, but I've been; printer grunt, help desk grunt, project manager, assistant and then director of IT. I've seen this from a few sides.
3. Lastly, I have my BA and various certs.
Now if we can get off me, I have but one questions comment; need and want is what we are here to manage and sometimes they do not correspond.
Bob
1. My Mac experience is 3 years old at most (you may have thought my mac experience was while I was attending school). And during that time I experience extensive LDAP issues w/ Mac servers, a large number of hardware issues and an extremely hard issue finding help (outside consulting) for the Mac that was worth the money they asked.
2. I've been working since 1990 on various computers, platforms and in various capacities. I'm now a Network/Firewall Admin, but I've been; printer grunt, help desk grunt, project manager, assistant and then director of IT. I've seen this from a few sides.
3. Lastly, I have my BA and various certs.
Now if we can get off me, I have but one questions comment; need and want is what we are here to manage and sometimes they do not correspond.
Bob
You can run Windows apps on a Mac but either with bootcamp or in a VM. The former requires rebooting the system. Don't forget licensing associated with either. You need to purchase a full license which goes probably for $200+.
Don't be cocky with Windows getting hit with viruses and malware. If Macs controlled almost 90% of the OS market, it would have the same problems. THe crackpots and scum of the earth who create viruses and malware go after the more popular OSs and don't give a sh?t about the lesser ones. And Macs do get hit as well.
Also don't forget. There are way more Windows apps to choose from over Mac apps, let alone driver availability. And the amount of people who can support/fix a Windows system over a Mac.
Don't be cocky with Windows getting hit with viruses and malware. If Macs controlled almost 90% of the OS market, it would have the same problems. THe crackpots and scum of the earth who create viruses and malware go after the more popular OSs and don't give a sh?t about the lesser ones. And Macs do get hit as well.
Also don't forget. There are way more Windows apps to choose from over Mac apps, let alone driver availability. And the amount of people who can support/fix a Windows system over a Mac.
In the online server marketplace Windows does not have anything like 90% dominance - Unix is a much bigger player. And those servers are a MUCH more attractive target for crackers. If I crack a user's PC I can get a little personal data, maybe some passwords for a machine or three, and can turn the box into a "zombie" to spew out spam and viruses. But if I crack a server, I could get thousands or tens of thousands of credit cards, bank accounts, etc. So Unix servers should be broken into much more often, if all things were equal.
But all things are NOT equal, and the Windows platform is a much simpler target to crack for many reasons:
* Out of the box it has lots of holes (less true of later releases) that need to be closed, but are left open for the convenience of technically incapable users
* A personal computer is less likely to be administered correctly, especially because...
* Users who don't care about the machine are more likely to own cheap Windows boxes than more expensive Apple machines or more sophisticated Linux machines
* The Windows environment itself is DELIBERATELY full of poorly or completely un-documented holes meant to let Microsoft applications do "neat" things. For example, it's nice that my Outlook calendar can send an email to your Outlook and reschedule our appointment. But that means that an Outlook email can execute a script that can invisibly change the user's data, and that is an opening that can be exploited by others doing things more malicious than changing our lunch plans.
* By developing in a closed universe, Microsoft developers are more likely to release protocols with security flaws, because they aren't subject to the same kind of peer review that open standards-based applications are facing
* With greater penetration of Windows computers in education, "script kiddies" are more likely to learn how to be crackers on Windows boxes, and thus uncover the exploits there where they're playing
For all of the above reasons, the Windows environment is more subect to malware than other platforms.
But all things are NOT equal, and the Windows platform is a much simpler target to crack for many reasons:
* Out of the box it has lots of holes (less true of later releases) that need to be closed, but are left open for the convenience of technically incapable users
* A personal computer is less likely to be administered correctly, especially because...
* Users who don't care about the machine are more likely to own cheap Windows boxes than more expensive Apple machines or more sophisticated Linux machines
* The Windows environment itself is DELIBERATELY full of poorly or completely un-documented holes meant to let Microsoft applications do "neat" things. For example, it's nice that my Outlook calendar can send an email to your Outlook and reschedule our appointment. But that means that an Outlook email can execute a script that can invisibly change the user's data, and that is an opening that can be exploited by others doing things more malicious than changing our lunch plans.
* By developing in a closed universe, Microsoft developers are more likely to release protocols with security flaws, because they aren't subject to the same kind of peer review that open standards-based applications are facing
* With greater penetration of Windows computers in education, "script kiddies" are more likely to learn how to be crackers on Windows boxes, and thus uncover the exploits there where they're playing
For all of the above reasons, the Windows environment is more subect to malware than other platforms.
Good response Eli! I'm gonna copy it and send it to users who always talk of Window's 90% DESKTOP market share as the reason for being targets. 
Original wisdom of our fathers from the promised land.
Did they have speaking points in those days, too?
Did they have speaking points in those days, too?
... that bore no relationship to the article? Just because OS X is different doesn't mean it's any less capable than the one you're used to; all you're doing is repeating old stereotypes that haven't meant anything for over 13 years. An objective viewpoint is far more important than a biased one. It's like going to the car lot and saying "I won't buy a Ford because they're all crap!" Maybe they are, maybe they're not. How would you know if you haven't tried it?
have you not noticed how the Pwn2Own contest has, for a few years, seen the Mac OS (generally through safari, I will admit), be broken first, and almost immediately?
If there is someone wanting data out of your organization, Macs do not offer much resistance to this. With all the data breach reports I've heard of in recent years, I would find it hard to imagine that people would care only about viruses, and not about data exfiltration.
If this is a corporate environment, security is a factor to remember, and virus prevention isn't the only kind. Macs are only safer due to their lower target profile, and that's an advantage they are losing.
If there is someone wanting data out of your organization, Macs do not offer much resistance to this. With all the data breach reports I've heard of in recent years, I would find it hard to imagine that people would care only about viruses, and not about data exfiltration.
If this is a corporate environment, security is a factor to remember, and virus prevention isn't the only kind. Macs are only safer due to their lower target profile, and that's an advantage they are losing.
Basically Macs lack centrallized management.
As an example, you can secure a Windows system to block USB devices [flash key, phones] from connecting for everyone or specific users or systems. On a Mac? Nope. Data loss is a huge corporate problem.
As an example, you can secure a Windows system to block USB devices [flash key, phones] from connecting for everyone or specific users or systems. On a Mac? Nope. Data loss is a huge corporate problem.
You forgot that many applications that run on Windows tend to be cheaper (not always, but tend to be) to purchase than their equivalents on OSX, including a greater variety of applications to choose from, even in the enterprise.
Granted, a number of apps nowadays also run on OSX, but the selection is still smaller.
Granted, a number of apps nowadays also run on OSX, but the selection is still smaller.
There can be a million applications for any particular platform, but if it doesn't have the one that I need, the existence of the others is meaningless.
As robert.barton said above in "3 Bias Reasons?":
"[L]et NEED not want drive what people use. Mac does some things better than Wintel and vice versa. Examine what your needs are and then your next steps become clear."
As robert.barton said above in "3 Bias Reasons?":
"[L]et NEED not want drive what people use. Mac does some things better than Wintel and vice versa. Examine what your needs are and then your next steps become clear."
#1. Cheaper in the short term to stick with what you know. However, Win7 isn't exactly a carbon copy of XP or Vista, so can you really say you know it?
#2. Stick with what you know and don't worry about adopting another environment--unless you already have a fairly extensive UNIX administration environment. I happen to know that many of the larger enterprises already have a mixed Windows/UNIX environment and honestly replacing Windows with Unix boxes (OS X) could actually make the job easier, not harder.
#3. Less user training required--the change to OS X is honestly easier than having to learn all the changes in Win7. It appears that in their effort to make Windows easier, they've made it so confusing that it's almost impossible to use until you revert the GUI to something resembling XP. This isn't to say that Win7 isn't better than XP, it's just harder to figure out how to do things until you get used to it; and if you have to adapt to such significant changes anyway, why not go ahead and save some money in the long run by buying more reliable machines.
These arguments are mostly valid--as long as you look at short-term only and are simply unwilling to even consider looking at long-term savings.
#2. Stick with what you know and don't worry about adopting another environment--unless you already have a fairly extensive UNIX administration environment. I happen to know that many of the larger enterprises already have a mixed Windows/UNIX environment and honestly replacing Windows with Unix boxes (OS X) could actually make the job easier, not harder.
#3. Less user training required--the change to OS X is honestly easier than having to learn all the changes in Win7. It appears that in their effort to make Windows easier, they've made it so confusing that it's almost impossible to use until you revert the GUI to something resembling XP. This isn't to say that Win7 isn't better than XP, it's just harder to figure out how to do things until you get used to it; and if you have to adapt to such significant changes anyway, why not go ahead and save some money in the long run by buying more reliable machines.
These arguments are mostly valid--as long as you look at short-term only and are simply unwilling to even consider looking at long-term savings.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Microsoft has a financial incentive to keep the user confused.
Microsoft makes good money by 1) selling certification and licensing, 2) selling online support services, and 3) selling books and training materials.
The easier their systems are to use, and the simpler the user migrations are, the less the customers need these add-on sales items, and the less money Microsoft makes.
Microsoft has a vested interest in continually changing the user experience in a confusing, rather than clarifying, fashion.
You don't throw away billions of dollars in annual revenues (that's right - look at their 55 BILLION dollars in sales for FY 2009) just to make people happier.
Microsoft makes more money every year from keeping users confused than a third-world country! See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc-economy-gross-national-income and note that Microsoft would rank 40 out of 171, between Pakistan and Czechoslovakia, if it were a nation. The median value on the list is $7.7 BN, so if just 13% of Microsoft's income derives from user obfuscation, that's more money than half the countries on the globe make.
Microsoft makes good money by 1) selling certification and licensing, 2) selling online support services, and 3) selling books and training materials.
The easier their systems are to use, and the simpler the user migrations are, the less the customers need these add-on sales items, and the less money Microsoft makes.
Microsoft has a vested interest in continually changing the user experience in a confusing, rather than clarifying, fashion.
You don't throw away billions of dollars in annual revenues (that's right - look at their 55 BILLION dollars in sales for FY 2009) just to make people happier.
Microsoft makes more money every year from keeping users confused than a third-world country! See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc-economy-gross-national-income and note that Microsoft would rank 40 out of 171, between Pakistan and Czechoslovakia, if it were a nation. The median value on the list is $7.7 BN, so if just 13% of Microsoft's income derives from user obfuscation, that's more money than half the countries on the globe make.
I would think that enterprise tools such as group policy would get a mention. Also, to unlock the screen on a Mac it requires local admin rights and if you have local admin rights then you can unlock anyone's screen. Unless that changed in Snow Leopard.
Bill
Bill
I'm sorry Eric.. you failed (miserably) in both article.
On your first article, you mentioned MacOS X server in your comparison (even your reason in the article is plain stupid. If I need a mail server without Exchange functionality, I just install OpenSUSE and slap Zimbra on it. TCO? Free). Where in the heck Windows Server 2008 (or 2008 R2) in this article?
Can you manage hundreds of MacOS X with OS X Server without installing a single 3rd party program? Windows can. Using AD and GPO is a god send for any system administrator. And how much you paying for it? Zero. It came with the OS license. And I don't even talk about WSUS, File Server Management or Print Server.
In Enterprise (with big E) IMHO there are 3 things you should prioritize: Control, Centralized & Automation. We don't think about boot time speed, etc. Even your points in Windows article is valid, it's not the reason most System Administrator think when deploying Windows.
On your first article, you mentioned MacOS X server in your comparison (even your reason in the article is plain stupid. If I need a mail server without Exchange functionality, I just install OpenSUSE and slap Zimbra on it. TCO? Free). Where in the heck Windows Server 2008 (or 2008 R2) in this article?
Can you manage hundreds of MacOS X with OS X Server without installing a single 3rd party program? Windows can. Using AD and GPO is a god send for any system administrator. And how much you paying for it? Zero. It came with the OS license. And I don't even talk about WSUS, File Server Management or Print Server.
In Enterprise (with big E) IMHO there are 3 things you should prioritize: Control, Centralized & Automation. We don't think about boot time speed, etc. Even your points in Windows article is valid, it's not the reason most System Administrator think when deploying Windows.
Windows 7 beats Vista but it does not beat Snow Leopard in any environment. Using a lesser technology because you've already invested a lot of money on the lesser technology may a reason, but its sure not a good reason. The street term for that is "spending good money behind bad". The best investment is to use the better technology.
If the 'lesser' technology is capable of doing the job to the desired standards, how is it 'lesser'? How is maintaining a functional system that does what we need 'spending good money after bad'?
By your logic I should stop maintaining my fifteen year old Nissan and spend capital on a new car every year just because it's a 'better technology'. If the Nissan still gets me to work, why make the transition?
The best investment is to use the technology that gets the job done. 'Better' isn't always required.
By your logic I should stop maintaining my fifteen year old Nissan and spend capital on a new car every year just because it's a 'better technology'. If the Nissan still gets me to work, why make the transition?
The best investment is to use the technology that gets the job done. 'Better' isn't always required.
Depends on service delivery and compliance requirements.
Were I a SaaS deliverer, the client is inconsequential. Bring a MAC I don't care.
Were I a software developer, the client is my focus and I must account for its nuances.
Were I responsible for compliance of both offerings and consumption, no MAC shall pass.
As the market turns towards further virtualization and vendors seek to absolve themselves of compliance, the client will loose its importance. This trend will make MACs more accepted as the control of them is less necessary.
However, in very regulated and audited environments, full control of the end point is required. This MAC has yet to demonstrate.
So, define your environment (or more accurately, have it defined to you) and select the most appropriate tool.
Were I a SaaS deliverer, the client is inconsequential. Bring a MAC I don't care.
Were I a software developer, the client is my focus and I must account for its nuances.
Were I responsible for compliance of both offerings and consumption, no MAC shall pass.
As the market turns towards further virtualization and vendors seek to absolve themselves of compliance, the client will loose its importance. This trend will make MACs more accepted as the control of them is less necessary.
However, in very regulated and audited environments, full control of the end point is required. This MAC has yet to demonstrate.
So, define your environment (or more accurately, have it defined to you) and select the most appropriate tool.
And of course, the BIG one. Windows 7 has no problem writing to a Samba share. Snow Leopard regularly can't do it. "you dont have permission" bug. Leopard was fine but Samba networking ruined in Snow Leopard, and Apple still to acknowledge that there is a problem.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
