Once the problems that occur with any major OS update have been ironed out, Mac OS X 10.4 is going to be viewed as a pivotal release for Apple, and one that will go a long way to making it an even better player in the enterprise, says ITManagement. In the meantime, Apple released the first seed of Mac OS X 10.4.1 to developers this week. The update, specified as build 8B9, corrects nearly two dozen bugs that have cropped up since Tiger’s release last weekend, sources said.
Apple’s ‘Tiger’ a Serious Enterprise OS; 10.4.1 Seeded
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I fear not. Enterprise IT will pour zillions of dollars (or Euro, or Yen) down that drain called windows. For the money that goes into making a windows enviroment *work*, most companies could switch to Mac easily.
Meanwhile, Microsoft dangles the carrot called Longhorn in front of the IT crowd. MS is already playing its old FUD games. Longhorn has not even reached public beta stage and MS is already telling everybody how much better it will be than Mac OS X.
How much more does it take before these dimwits in corporate IT wake up and realize that MS has nothing to show?
I am one of the few mac users in a country called India(hope some of you have heard of it), here all the corporates are slaves to Bill Gates. It does not matter if Mac comes out with even the best version of *nix (so to speak), there still wont be any or majors switches around the world. Most of the people who use windows donot even know what a mac is and think Windows to be a standard of what an operating system looks like. No matter how hard these people try, the effort is going waste (like pushing a wall only more fruitless).
Apple needs to create demand for their computers, let people know what they have, they need to get attention maybe a sledgehammer would do the trick.
Not surprising the Mac OS is enterprise ready. some lessons here for those that want to see Linux succed in the enterprise.
Well, with this release Mac OS X has probably become a viable option for a lot of shops.
Will there be a mass migration to Mac OS X in Windows shops? Nope. But it may have become a politically acceptible OS to use in the organization, which is a big deal in the scheme of things.
It’s funny, but Windows in the corporate environment is basically an embedded system that runs MS Office (Word, Outlook, PowerPoint, Excel), Explorer or some other web browser, and a couple of other apps (usually custom) all tied to some generic hardware (Dell/Compaq/HP/IBM).
How long can those systems survive before they are EOL’d? And is there a viable replacement for them besides Windows & x86?
Right now, probably not. Desktop linux is ugly, but is the best bet (old hardware can be recycled). If someone bothered to beautify the Linux Desktop, it might have a chance. Mac OS X requires too much change at once, an idea that causes corporate IT to tremble in fear.
Two wrong statements here:
Point 1: Desktop Linux is no uglier than any Microsoft desktop, and both GNOME and KDE can be configured — by either the user or administrator — to match whatever your personal interpretation of “beauty” might be.
Point 2: The “Too much change” statement with respect to OS X is simply a myth, encouraged by those who want to spread fear.
Doubling your paycheck causes a lot more change at once, but few people would turn it down. Having your job suddenly become easier and your computing environment richer and safer is not a change that requires a lot of training. The OS X interface is very easy to adjust to.
There are a few areas for which Linux and OS X are not suitable, for which required specialized applications are not available. Those areas are few indeed.
I have to agree with him that linux is ugly on the desktop. It in no way has the crispness that Mac OS and Windows for that matter has. Default it is bubbly, big, and the fonts seem to all be so fluffy that I feel like I am using a kids computer.
This is the reason I don’t use linux and use the Mac OS. If the look was just crisp, clean, and uniform I would be using ubuntu on all my computers in a heartbeat. Instead, I use the Mac OS and Windows in classic view.
Get rid of the fluff in linux and make it look tough.
Doubling your paycheck causes a lot more change at once, but few people would turn it down. Having your job suddenly become easier and your computing environment richer and safer is not a change that requires a lot of training. The OS X interface is very easy to adjust to.
Mac OSX has a huge advantage over Linux on the corporate desktop mainly becasue of the MS Office port. Its not as big of a streach to move from Windows based Office to Mac OSX office then to move from MS Office to OpenOffice or Star Office on linux or Solaris. And specialized or windows dependent applications can be shelled via Citrix or terminal services on Windows server clusters.
actually, i can see linux taking the business, with apple it will be insanely hard to acquire critical mass. the problem is everyone wants to be cutting edge, but only because everyone else wants to be cutting edge. the people who make descisions on such things usually have only a vague understanding of what they are doing, and for the most part IT trends are kinda like a game of lemmings.
all microsoft has to do is explain wintel economics, and they will win over apple. saying something like macos is a far superior os dont really matter, unless you can prove to them that superior design will equal n% of increased productivity, which equals x$, which is substancially more then the price difference between mac and x86 boxes. since statements like that would be insanely difficult to prove, most execs wont see switching to something that has a higher cost as justified, especially if they are the only ones doing it.
on the flipside you have linux, which can easily be evangelised using the exact same technique as ms, you dont attack the technology, you attack the business model. ms has made more money then everyone else by being cheap and good enough, if linux ever really becomes more suitable then windows for the business, youll see a ton of early adopters jump on board, after that, the landslide of lemmings begins. ms cant compete with zero cost, because cost is all they have. of course, they know all this, which is why we’ve seen more, and far higher quality, output from ms in the last few years then the last decade.
realistically, i dont see even linux replacing ms anytime soon. and honestly, i hope no one vendor replaces microsoft, or we will be in exactly the same position of global IT suckage. just imagine, mac in the home, windows for management and secretaries, linux for workstations, unix on servers.
Linux certainly doesn’t look as good as Mac OSX, but is it really any worse than XP? I don’t think so. Take a look at these screenshots: http://www.xpde.com/shots.php
I don’t really like the fact that they’re copying the look and feel of XP, but it’s pretty darn close. How can you say Linux is uglier than XP when it can be made to look basically identical?
“Desktop linux is ugly, but is the best bet (old hardware can be recycled). If someone bothered to beautify the Linux Desktop, it might have a chance.”
you mean something like XPDE? http://www.xpde.com/
OS X makes Linux look completely pointless. There’s really no reason not to switch anymore.
Linux has lost. Anyone remember that Slashdot article last year claiming Linux on the desktop would overtake OS X within a year? Haha.
<
Point 2: The “Too much change” statement with respect to OS X is simply a myth, encouraged by those who want to spread fear.
>
You’re not thinking like a corporate system administrator. You’re thinking like a normal home user.
How do you migrate 5,000/15,000/85,000 people away from Windows?
How do the Mac OS X schemas interact with your AD setup?
How do you troubleshoot Mac OS X?
How do you manage Mac OS X with SMS/Tivoli/BMC/CA?
How do you port your custom apps to Mac OS X (assuming everyone hasn’t moved to the web)?
How do you retrain everyone?
How do I justify the extra hard-dollar costs of bringing in new hardware and software? How do I justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?
This is the stuff that corporate administrators think about. If you don’t understand why this stuff is important, you have nothing to say.
Enterprise environments are not “hey, I’ll go and upgrade everyone’s machines over the weekend.”
—
And Linux is ugly. Sorry, people don’t like using ugly software, especially if it’s ugly compared to what they were using before. The graphics are kind of amateurish-looking, especially for the applications. The behaviors are kind of weird, and the icons suck.
Yeah, these things are trivial. But important decisions are affected by trivia like this. If every one of 8,000 users says it’s ugly, it’s not something that can be ignored. Would you buy an ugly looking car if you had a choice?
Are there any commercial desktop environents for Linux, I know there is KDE, Gnome, aftrstep, sawfish, fvwm, these are freeware, there must be some atleast that can put windows to shame. Any suggestions.
I think a (damning?) problem for Macs is that not only will you be locked in to the operating system (as per Windows) but also to the hardware. That is, there is a double lock in into the same vendor for both software and hardware. If people are fleeing the locks of Microsoft, why will they run into a worse situation?
same idea
there’s only one that i can think of – CDE.
nothing further need be said
if ppl don’t like using ugly software, why do they use windows?
that thing is hideous
<How do you migrate 5,000/15,000/85,000 people away from Windows?>
How do you migrate them to Longhorm?
<How do the Mac OS X schemas interact with your AD setup?>
What AD setup? not everyone is using it.
<How do you troubleshoot Mac OS X?>
What troubleshoot? That is a Win feature only.
<How do you port your custom apps to Mac OS X (assuming everyone hasn’t moved to the web)?>
You mean C and C++?
<How do you retrain everyone?>
The same you retrain for Longhorn.
<How do I justify the extra hard-dollar costs of bringing in new hardware and software? How do I justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?>
By showing the downtime with windows.
<And Linux is ugly.>
You mean Luna is beautifull? Come on!
And Linux is ugly. Sorry, people don’t like using ugly software, especially if it’s ugly compared to what they were using before. The graphics are kind of amateurish-looking, especially for the applications. The behaviors are kind of weird, and the icons suck.
Can you be a little more specific? Which programs don’t you like? I’ve found that there’s usually a decent looking program for most tasks, even if some of them look bad. What behaviors are weird? Some things act a little differently, but you can usually change a setting somewhere. The icons suck: I assume you’re talking about widgets here, because the icon sets in Linux are 1000 times better than windows. And if you really like them, you could just get an identical set. Personally, I think a lot of the Gnome widgets do look bad, but KDE’s look good to me. (This isn’t a flame of Gnome, I’m sure many people love the way it looks, just not me) I’m posting this from within XP so I’m not some Linux zealot, but I just don’t see how you can definitivly claim that Linux looks horrible and how awesome Windows is.
Linux has lost. Anyone remember that Slashdot article last year claiming Linux on the desktop would overtake OS X within a year? Haha.
And here I was under the impression that Linux already had overtaken OS X. Or that their numbers were at least pretty much the same. Was I mistaken?
XPDE looks nice? That thing looks like a Win XP knock off, and the apps don’t look like they integrate well at all. Look at all the screenshots with applications in them. Those applications look completely out of place and don’t match well with the desktop. I fail to see how anyone can claim that GNOME with the Industrial theme or KDE with Keramik/Plastik don’t look better. At least with GNOME and KDE, you have apps that look like they are part of the DE.
So no, XPDE isn’t a solution. GNOME comes close. On the other hand there is nothing terribly wrong with Mac OS X in an office environment. The apps look like they integrate better, though there are UI decisions in Tiger that I really fail to understand.
Those Xpde shots illustrate a ripoff of the XP Royale Theme:
http://images.google.com/images?q=royale%20theme&hl=en&lr=lang_…
PS: I found this one somewhat amusing:
http://screenshots.haque.net/screenshots/view/16947/screenshot-1694…
While I like Macs, there are valid reasons why shops are hesitant to migrate.
Migrating machines to Longhorn isn’t going to be as expensive as migrating to Macs. If you wanted to run OS X, you’d need to buy completely new machines, and retrain your staff. With Longhorn, you may need to upgrade certain machines, but your staff shouldn’t really need much retraining. You can’t seriously tell me that moving to Longhorn from XP is going to be as much of a shock as going to OS X.
As has already been mentioned, there are loads of custom apps. Most of these are written in VB or some other RAD tool like Delphi. Very few custom in house applications are written in C or C++ (a nightmare, especially if you want RAD). There aren’t going to be easily ported to the Mac.
>>You’re not thinking like a corporate system administrator. You’re thinking like a normal home user. <<
Well, thanks for THAT compliment at least. I’ve suffered through enough PHCSA’s already.
>>How do you migrate 5,000/15,000/85,000 people away from Windows?<<
One machine at a time. Tiger’s seamless integration with a mixed-platform network makes a gradual replacement-as-upgrade easy. And if each of those 85,000 users finds themselves 1% more productive after the switch, which for MOST business would be a conservative estimate, I think, then the sell should not be all that hard (Assuming that IT buyers have any sense of reality). OS X is mostly self-training. I doubt that training costs would be nearly as large as the gains that come from it.
So with OS X 10.4, I think the IT bosses can breathe without fear.
That being said, I really DON’T expect Apple to make more than relatively minor inroads into the corporate workforce, for a variety of reasons. I expect Linux will do that. OS X will keep it’s niche among “Creatives”, and expand its use in the server and corporate market somewhat. Where I think it will grow the most is in the home market, driven by the iPod and iTunes crowd. Linux, even though some may think it ugly, really is quite comfortable on the eye, although admittedly not as nice as IOS X. It has lots of other advantages though: freedom, flexibility, stability and safety among them.
The powers that be in procurement won’t use beauty as the main criteria when choosing to upgrade. They care about the bottom line and the future upgrade path. This is where Linux is ahead of the Mac. Does any one on the planet (with the possible exception of Steve Jobs) know where Apple will be in 5 years? With Windows and Linux we all know where they will be, they have clear roadmaps. And that is why they will dominate the enterprise.
Apple can use the “keep it secret till we release it” mode of operation to hype their products to the home and small business user, but I don’t think it plays well with most IT departments.
Well, there is CDE, but I’m not sure the shame is where you want it
http://images.google.com/images?q=cde&hl=en&lr=lang_en&rls=GGLD,GGL…
“What troubleshoot? That is a Win feature only. ”
You have got to be kidding.
“You mean C and C++?”
Yes, because all software is written from completely platform-independent first principles.
Apple also has the problem of the shortest support period of the business….
Over the past several years it appears that quite a few IT folks are starting to use Powerbooks to maintain their servers and networks. This article proves that Mac Os X has increased in mind share at least. Given that there are no viruses, trojans or malware of Os X to date-just this fact alone will tempt many IT managers to seriously consider the Mac when the time comes to upgrade hardware. Everyone would also agree that Mac Os X plays well with both Windows and Linux- it is the only commercial that supports open standards in a big way.
Thus, one would predict that both Mac Os X and Linux would gradually erode the Windows monopoly over time. I don’t think it is Mac or Linux-both!
Cheers
Ok, depending on what theme you are using with KDE, or GNOME, Linux can be ugly. But, with the amount of options in respect to themes, I doubt that a person couldn’t find one that they thought looked good. And I have seen some damn good icon sets for linux. Better than any icons on any other OS, in my opinion. So, for the people who say that KDE and Gnome are ugly, I know they really don’t use linux, or they haven’t bothered with trying to find a theme that pleases their eyes.
I AGREE with the argument that Apple needs to have a tool for porting VB applications to OSX. They should buy REALbasic and clean it up just for that purpose. Their is no way they have a chance without it. IT departments don’t have really good programmers. They only know how to create Database front ends with Visual Basic. Visual Basic is MS secret weapon that nobody is paying much attention to all these years.
Gesus! What’s up with the Linux is ugly trolls? Some of us find Linux a lot more beatiful that OS X. I don’t understand how anyone can find aqua pretty, or, *gasp*, Lunar appealing.
http://www.deviantart.com/view/14781487/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/14282547/
There you go. How is that much uglier than OS X or Windows? How are those fonts ugly? What exactly isn’t crisp? I have Windows and Panther right here, and their fonts are really below par, at least when compared to the ones in the screenshot.
And if you are into silly, childish, annoying glassy and glossy effects ala OS X, there are a thousand one themes that do that on Linux.
Linux is as pretty as you want it to be….windows is a pretty as you want it to be…for the price of window blinds…..
>>>Visual Basic is MS secret weapon that nobody is paying much attention to all these years. <<<
There’s a reason people aren’t paying much attention to VB — it sucks. Nothing personal, BASIC in general, whether Real, Visual, or Primitive, sucks.
It encourages spaghetti and confusion by its very structure.
It would be far easier simply to reimplement the functionality in a REAL language, like Python, or PHP, or even Javascript and HTML, all of which are easier to learn and to use than VB, are cross-platform, and are comparibly powerful.
You might as well say that OS X is inferior because it doesn’t support your COBOL application. If I know that your vital Corporate Data, or my valuable personal data that I’ve entrusted to you, is being thrown around by such a thrown-together system, I might just take my business elsewhere.
Ha Ha, your a funny guy. You had me believing you for a minute.
I have used Windows, *BSD and Linux in the past. When I switched to Mac in ’03 I was totally shocked at how wonderful OS X looks.
Apple really has some great mind share going right now. If they would do tv ad’s showing off OS X, their market share would sky rocket. I think Apple will gain market share in the enterprise as well. It may cost more up front for new hardware and training but in the long run money will be saved because OS X just works.
The linux is ugly claim appears to have come from only 2 posters – MannyV and Jay Contonio. MannyV didn’t back up his assertion at all and hasn’t come back to explain it as I have asked. I hereby label him a troll. Jay Contonio has some valid points, but I think his opinion is just that, a personal opinion. And obviously it’s easy to customize the Linux desktop to look very different.
I agree that OS X has the best eye candy. I also agree that functionally it’s very elegant. I’m typing this right now on a G-4 iBook. I love the Mac, both the hardware and software aspects of it.
However, Linux is NOT ugly, and functionally it is catching up with the Mac (It’s already surpassed Windows as far as I’m concerned) and at some point it will be every bit as pretty and functional as you want it to be.
I do love the Mac, but I don’t care that much for the Apple corporate veil, and Linux IS the future. And that’s not a bad thing.
Regardless of what opinions may be it is up to Apple’s Sales Force to get off their asses to make inroads.
Manny,
I do corporate sysadmin work as part of my job. I can tell you the following:
1. OS X in the enterprise, outside of the servers, wouldn’t be a good fit for Microsoft shops. The servers can be administered using SSH. However, outside of specific servers (Oracle, web, PHP), I just don’t see it as it doesn’t have the plugins for server management yet that I know of.
2. For full AD interoperability, you need to purchase a third-party utility, ADmit Mac, from Thursby Software (makers of DAVE). Sorry, the OS X AD integration sucks, at least as of 10.3.
3. Apple does provide full remote management using their own tool, Apple Remote Desktop. I haven’t seen any plugins for SMS, MOM, Tivoli, BMC, or CA yet. I have seen Tivoli, BMC, and CA plugins for Linux, however. That is, if you run Red Hat or Novell/SUSE.
4. You’re also not going to see mass migrations of users yet. Thursby Software comes close with ADmit Mac, but it’s a different way of doing things. Yes, web-based applications do make a difference, but many corporate web apps these days use ActiveX. That’s what people want, and that’s what they buy. Client-side Java as an Applet is slow.
It’s going to be a massive retraining course. And I didn’t even get into rewriting client/server applications. Virtual PC is not an option. The only thing that would be is Citrix, and by that time, you’re already paying for the Windows licenses anyway. At that point, why buy a Mac? Why not just get a Linux box to run Citrix full-screen and save yourself $1000?
5. I have a Mac in a corporate environment. I use it for very specific things. I however don’t see it as a corporate desktop anytime soon because it doesn’t do what the users expect. Users expect instant Outlook connectivity to Exchange, calling the Help Desk to “SMS” into their system to fix things, and for their corporate apps to work.
Unless Apple themselves comes up with plugins for corporate management tools other than their own, or somehow get Patchlink, Altiris, CA, Novell, BMC, Quest, and Microsoft to write plugins for their tools, I don’t see it. They also need to get their AD connectivity up to snuff or buy Thursby Software outright to get it working right. Unfortunately, it’s a Windows world in corporate america for the desktops (and many of the servers!). If it doesn’t work with minimal configuration on an Admin’s part, it’s not going to happen.
You also forgot one other thing: How do I push out software updates to these machines? Mac OS X server can actually do this somewhat well, but using their tools, and not Patchlink, Altiris, or SMS.
And training the users? There’s a reason the MS interface looks somewhat similar to Windows 95. If you change the UI on people, it’s going to cause them to lose productivity. Office 2004 also is a complete pig. I have it just to read Office documents.
Mac OS X, for those reasons, I don’t see as a corporate desktop. It’s a fine platform for many things, but being a desktop your average “Information Worker” or standard corporate employee would use is not one of them. There are many reasons for enterprise management tools, and the hand-holding which has sprung up around Microsoft-based platforms. It’s not because Microsoft is an evil empire. It’s because computers in the enterprise are there as tools to help people do their job. They have to be as easily manageable as possible. That’s why CA, Altiris, HP, Microsoft, Symantec, and many other companies make a lot of money.
Mac OS X, while a great operating environment, just doesn’t fit into that mold. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad OS at all. It just means that it doesn’t have the large support infrastructure which Windows has in the enterprise. Apple had a chance many years ago, and blew it with third-party support (which JLG did not help with either!) and not having reasonably-priced systems. Therefore, the serious infrastructure for corporate computing got built up around platforms which had better support for enterprise management.
I’m a Mac head, love my Mac, however…
Linux hasn’t lost… I didn’t know OS X and Linux were at war, to me they seem like Allies if anything… Most code written for Linux can be ported to the Mac for a start. Apple needs OSS right now, alot of their technologies come from OSS, which is a good thing. Lets hope that continues where needed.
OS X won’t move into shops that are MS dominated, nor should it from a business point of view. Like posters here have pointed out, the cost of replacing all h/w, s/w and experience in the current OS would be too high for most places. I write Win code for a living, and know that it is near impossible to move that code to a Mac. WinAPI is the key here, not C or C++. Kind of like porting code written in C++ on the Mac, if it is using Cocoa, then good luck… Remember, we are talking about an existing code base, not code to be written…
However, OS X should be an option for a new business. As for writing in-house code, that is one of the big strenghts of Objective-C and Cocoa, ask anyone who has actually written in it, not those who think they know, there is a difference. Now with Core Data in the mix it is even easier. The other alternative for new code being written (one we have been using for close to a year now) is Java with the Eclipse IDE (or Javabeans perhaps (haven’t tried that yet). The code base we have written in Java on our Win platform works equally well on OS X and Linux, and we can use the same IDE on all 3.
I understand there are other options out there too, like Mono.
Moving to OS X always has that “lock in” feel to it, but I think you get that with any platform. The reason that people can’t just pick up and move away from MS is due to lock in, otherwise I think we’d see a greater migration to Linux.
There is always the option on OS X h/w to put Linux on there if you really want too later on, if the h/w you bought didn’t support OS 10.9 or something 😉
Man CDE looks uglier than afterstep, it looks like it based on NeXT gui, it’s horrible only SUN would use something like that I am happy with gnome and kde for now.
IT departments don’t have really good programmers. They only know how to create Database front ends with Visual Basic.
Skill level has nothing to do with it, its just faster (read: CHEAPER) to knock up crappy custom apps in vb/asp.net/other windows RAD offerings than pretty much anything else
Just a quick observation: I highly doubt it that 10.4.1 is in response to “nearly two dozen bugs that have cropped up since Tiger’s release last weekend.”
First, 10.4.1 was in development BEFORE 10.4 was released – so it was in response to bugs they ALREADY knew about before the release of last weekend.
What happened is that they needed to meet an internal deadline for release of 10.4 – it was high priority – as SJ said “real artists ship”. Fact is, 10.4 was not quite ready for prime time, but they released it anyway to meet their self-imposed deadline. They shipped with bugs they already knew about, but they alredy had a GM locked. In fact, the last build for the GM was buggy – and outside developers were surprised that it was declared a GM, given how buggy it was. Apple knew all about it – but they had to push it out the door. So, they started working on the bugs they didn’t have time to squash BEFORE 10.4 came out.
Note also how some weeks before 10.4 came out, they were touting software (at NAB) which they specifically said would require 10.4.1! Now, ask yourself, why didn’t they say 10.4? BECAUSE THEY KNEW 10.4 had bugs which would make it unworkable on that software, and that THOSE SPECIFIC BUGS would be fixed in 10.4.1. In other words, they already had a list of bugs to be squashed in 10.4.1 BEFORE they released 10.4, and were ALREADY working on before 10.4 was releasd.
Besides, they expect to release 10.4.1 fairly soon. If you consider that it takes time to 1)squash the bugs 2)test the new build to make sure that it works and doesn’t break something else in turn, that doesn’t leave much time if you are going to release it SOON. What does that mean? It means you really are not FIRST waiting for a bunch of reports from users and only THEN squashing and testing – you wouldn’t then be able to release it SOON. Clearly, they can release it SOON because they were already working on the bugs for quite some time BEFORE 10.4 was realeased.
So, bottom line, 10.4.1 is NOT a response to user feedback to 10.4 since the release, but rather, simply finishing the job that should have been done before releasing 10.4 – but then they wouldn’t be able to ship it when they did.
Therefore, if the bug you are experiencing in 10.4 gets fixed in 10.4.1, it will simply mean that it was a bug they were already aware of before they rushed out 10.4.
ANY REAL NEW BUGS reported since 10.4 was released, and that Apple didn’t know about until the consumer reported will NOT be addressed in 10.4.1. So, new bugs that get reported since 10.4 which Apple hadn’t already known about prior to Tiger launch will be fixed in 10.4.2 and later (they can’t fix all bugs at once anyway).
What’s the moral of this apart from the fact that the story reported is nonsense about WHICH bugs are getting fixed in 10.4.1? Simple – if you are waiting to get Tiger AFTER Apple has had a chance to respond to USER bug reports, you’ll have to wait AT LEAST until 10.4.2. That’s what I’ll be doing – and coincidentally, I want to buy a new iBook 12″. Since it looks like Apple may not refresh ibooks until the fall, it will be perfect timing for Tiger 10.4.2 or even later.
There is no software (well if you count out TeX) that is shipped with zero bugs, nada, zilch.
That is the problem of the beast software, software is so complex, and you are bound usually by time constraints one way or the other, that software is always shipped with known bugs. The same goes for MacOS 10.4, I am sure apple has a few hundred of critical bugs in their internal database, but does that make a bad release, no, it is one of the most solid releases I have seen in the past.
Blaming Apple for shipping an OS and knowing that there still are bugs is like denying the reality of the software development process.
I have been using Tiger for a week now. Its been working great. Whatever bugs that people have reported does not seem to affect me. I would say that this version of Os X has less critical bugs than say the FireWire bug in Panther. So go ahead and buy Tiger. A simple software update will squash the (minor) bugs if any. Tiger is functional and usable right now.
Although OSX is my preferred platform, I do respect the high standard that Linux has set, I already feel the gui is ahead of Windows, one wish from my part: no eye-candy could be a real strength especially in the enterprise.
Second wish Mac users should never bash Linux, they are in the same boat and could be great allies in the fight against M$. I hope that OSX market-share will grow, but not at the expense of Linux.
reasonable comment!
I see it much the same 😉
As a Mac user, I agree. The more Linux or Mac Os wins, the better it is for both since both support open standards. Let us hope soon even documents will begin to adopt open standards (e.g. standards for word processing, video streams or graphic documents). Then, one can use software of one’s choice with their preferred OS.
Just a quick observation: I highly doubt it that 10.4.1 is in response to “nearly two dozen bugs that have cropped up since Tiger’s release last weekend.”
First, 10.4.1 was in development BEFORE 10.4 was released – so it was in response to bugs they ALREADY knew about before the release of last weekend.
Its sloppiness, to say the least. If MS had released something as shoddy as Tiger, they would get bashed so badly its ridiculous. Look at how they got bashed for SP2, software that worked nearly perfectly, was free, and secured or fixed over 200 components. (stuff that businesses care about oh, just a wee bit more than ripple effects.)
On top of that Tiger breaks logging in to Samba shares. Its definitely not enterprise ready, and I don’t expect 10.4.1 to be either.
“Its sloppiness, to say the least. If MS had released something as shoddy as Tiger, they would get bashed so badly its ridiculous.”
They don’t have to, their current OS line up gets bashed by their userbase already. Where do you think Linux marketshare comes from?
“Look at how they got bashed for SP2, software that worked nearly perfectly, was free, and secured or fixed over 200 components.”
I guess its not as perfect as you claim it be.
“On top of that Tiger breaks logging in to Samba shares. Its definitely not enterprise ready, and I don’t expect 10.4.1 to be either.”
Do you even know what you are talking about? There are several fixes out there. Have you tried any of them?
Are you positive all apps will work with Longworn 100% when it comes out? Want to make a bet?
Isn’t there a bridge you should be guarding somewhere?
All this crap about the cost of having to buy new hardware to run Tiger in an enterprise is just scare mongering.
If Longhorn is as big and great as M$ claims how is it going to run on older x83 hardware? Will it be only 64bit based by the time it actually appears.
As stated earlier IT managers will have to retrain users to operate in the newer enviroment.
How many of these businesses older legacy softwares will actually run on Longhorn? M$ has all ready stated they are stopping support for older WIN85/98 software because of security concerns. This would mean effected companies would have to upgrade or get their respective packages re-written.
So just considering these options along with many others there are valid reasons for making a change. If I was in a position of power in an organisation and I was shown a Hardware/Software system that is-
* Easy to use.
* Virtually bullet-proof
* Secure
* Has versions of common software (M$ Office for Mac is a killer compared to the PC version)
* Quality Componentry
* Aesthetically pleasing – Theres gotta be a reason why they always have Macs is movies…
* Actually makes staff more productive, because the machines don’t break.
* Hardware is resiliant to aging.
The list could go on.
At the end of the day if the demand was out there for software developers to create or re-write their packages for OSX I’m sure they would, lets face it their going to have to for Longhorn anyway.
The key thing, Retro, is current Windows users don’t have to upgrade to Longhorn. They can stay with w2k or wxp. Or they can migrate to a better, nicer, far-off version of Desktop Linux.
<
The linux is ugly claim appears to have come from only 2 posters – MannyV and Jay Contonio. MannyV didn’t back up his assertion at all and hasn’t come back to explain it as I have asked. I hereby label him a troll.
>
Why is Linux ugly? There are a bunch of different areas where Linux is ugly compared to other OSs.
* consistency of look. While the KDE and Gnome look nice within themselves, once you get out of them into an actual application it’s anything goes. Even Windows developers have learned that there’s a minimally-acceptable aesthetic they need in their apps, which is really surprising. That (the Windows thing) started in around the w2k era.
* consistency of behavior. Is there a standard behavior/language through Linux? That’s a trick question, because there is no “Linux to speak of.” But the question is true enough. In the other two platforms, the UI has been around for so long that there are conventions as to how things are done. Whether they suck or not is irrelevant: everyone knows them. When an error occurs, this happens. When you need to change settings, you do this. That sort of thing. Linux isn’t there yet.
Think of this: how do you configure a printer on a given Linux distro? A modem? Network settings? Application preferences? What do you look for?
In Windows and Mac OS (both 9 and X), you’d have a pretty good idea of where to go. And the concepts are fungible – I’ve set up w2k server’s networking (with a VPN and split routing) in under 25 minutes, never having set up a w2k server’s network stuff before (routing & remote access – wow).
This is the big problem in Linux right now: one mental model formed by the user really isn’t very useful, because you can’t really reuse that model anywhere else in the system (mostly – technically the mental model that works everywhere in linix is no model at all – editing .conf files by hand).
That’s the real ugliness, and that’s what’s going to keep Linux away from the masses for the next 2-4 years at least.
But then again the only way linux would be accepted by the wider user is when it’s not so damn geeky. Until the geeks can let it go it will never get anywhere…
MacosX’s biggest drawback (or could that be holdback?) is Apple themselves, until they can see themselves as not just a hardware manufacturer but an awesome developer of software as well, wider acceptance of the OSX will be retarted. If Apple is so concerned about hardware quality all the need to do is make sure other box builders build their systems to meet a certain level to gain a licence. I guess the only other problem is can IBM keep up supply of the processors. Lets face it the Mac Mini has shown you can buy a basic Apple system, add your own personal choice of peripherials, then your away. If this same train of thought can be applied to bigger systems as well Apple could move on to a winner. Xserves are already proving themselves in backend situations, so a migration to desktops should be easy to implement as well…
You’re not thinking like a corporate system administrator. You’re thinking like a normal home user.
How do you migrate 5,000/15,000/85,000 people away from Windows?
And there are no complication moving users from Windows 2000 to XP then to Longhorn? with all the added stuff added to Longhorn, you suddenly think that lonking down that little puppy is going to be a walk in the park?
How do the Mac OS X schemas interact with your AD setup?
How many use AD features beyond it being a drop in replacement for NT Domains? even Microsofts own studies have shown that most aren’t even using the most basic of the new features made available to them by AD.
OpenLDAP, Novel eDirectory, Java Enterprise Server System are all drop in replacements for AD; admittingly, I wouldn’t be running MacOS as a server, but a well configured SUN Opteron server loaded with Solaris, kiited with JES will provide a great back end to the workplace.
How do you troubleshoot Mac OS X?
Why is that relevant? the same trouble shooting techniques you use to solve PC problems *IF* learned correctly, shoould easily transposable over t the Mac world, which learning some MacOS idiosyncrasies.
How do you manage Mac OS X with SMS/Tivoli/BMC/CA?
Nice that you can pull out a few random names out of you behind, name products not buzz words.
How do you port your custom apps to Mac OS X (assuming everyone hasn’t moved to the web)?
Seems that RealBASIC has a nice offer. Maybe you should check them out instead of rambling nonsensical drival here.
How do you retrain everyone?
“Learn it, or you’re fired” seems to work quite well. Trained IT people are a dime in a dozen, they can be replaced *VERY* easily. Heck, I know of atleast 2 dozen IT people, with all the latest TLAs who can’t find work; believe me, if you told them to learn something in a week, they’d learn it in 2 nights.
How do I justify the extra hard-dollar costs of bringing in new hardware and software? How do I justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?
How do you justify the extra hard-dollar costs of brining in new hardware and software when migrating to Windows? how do you justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?
This is the stuff that corporate administrators think about. If you don’t understand why this stuff is important, you have nothing to say.
Enterprise environments are not “hey, I’ll go and upgrade everyone’s machines over the weekend.”
Interesting, how about you working in a corporate environment for a couple of years, then work it out. If there is enough motivation to get something done, it’ll get done, regardless of the so-called “complexity” that gets ranted and raved about.
Ok, you’re wondering what is wrong. When I sit down and run my computer, I want the ability to run; and Office Suite that doesn’t suck massive rocks in the usability department; a Entourage-like piece of software where the mail and news properly works (the news feature in Evolution is STILL broken); Adobe CS 2 Premium Edition, equivilant pieces of software to iTunes and iPhoto. That doesn’t include the ability to simply plug in hardware and it just works(tm) which Linux seems to be incapable of doing.
Oh *PULEASE*, Microsoft released Windows 2000 after a security bug was found a few days before it was release; regarding the service pack, you think that through some miracle, that *EVERY* bug found during testing is fixed? Like Apple, Microsoft prioritises things. Depending on the importance, that will dictate as to whether or not the release is held back or the problem is fixed up in a few update.
kaiwai: “That doesn’t include the ability to simply plug in hardware and it just works(tm) which Linux seems to be incapable of doing.”
When was the last time you used Linux?
Interesting enough, 6 months ago actually, and using it off and on since upgrading from an eMac to an iMac (thats linux running on a PC, not a Mac).
It is not a corporate desktop, just ask my boss. We use Mac to run MS Office 95% of the time, and every now and then Photoshop and Freehand. That makes us a graphics shop, and graphic shops only use Macs.
Honestly, I know people that have used MS and MacOS for close to 10 years at the same time, and they consistently have problems using the Mac. They find the layout of MS to be far more consistant, intuitive, and customizable to use then either OS9 was or OS10 is. The Apple way of doing things, (GUI layout, system organization, and use of programs) follows a different mindset that most people find clunky and backwards. They need to learn that customization of the desktop is a nesisary feature and allow people to use it their way, and perhaps following their own interface guidelines would help also. The “do as we say, not as we do” mentality really does repulse people.
Just like right and left handed people need some things created to take that into account, the computer someone uses at work needs that also, and MacOS does not offer that. The one size fits all attitude does not work when it comes to productivity. And the over emphasis that people place on how it looks reinforces the belief that it is not a work environment, but a artitstic tool.
After all, my boss is a pathological lier who can barely tell reality from fiction any more, and Steve Jobs only dresses in black turtle necks. So, only thoughs who look at reality differently then the rest of us find Macs to be the answer to all computer questions. The rest of use will exercise our freewill and choice, and use the tools that make us productive, not the tools that social deviants think we should.
I thought this was a web site for smarties, but a couple of the posts here sound like the writers never tweeked and desktop environment before.
I’m no fan of KDE, I think it does look amateurish and unprofessional, but GNOME is another matter. I’m no computer wiz by any stretch of the imagination and I had no trouble modifying the desktop in both GNOME 2.8 and 2.10 to look beautiful, far, far better than Windows XP. I run OSX, Windows XP, and a Linux box that will stay with a GNOME based disrtro (have used Progeny DE and Ubuntu). Nothing comes close to the Mac for beauty, but GNOME is a visual feast compared to XP.
Themes, background, fonts….it’s all easily customizable in Linux desktops now, and with GNOME the results (to me) are beautiful.
Focusing on how pretty the desktop colours are etc. is really not helping. On that score Windows XP in default mode is awful as many have already pointed out.
What really counts is that applications are easy to find and run how you expect. This is where Linux on the desktop often falls down. In KDE, every app starting with ‘K’ is just annoying and the names of the apps like ‘Konqueror’ are just childish. App names are not the place for in-jokes when it comes to the end user.
The likes of Mac OSX, BeOS, Syllable, SkyOS etc. are systems written by people who understand these issues. Unfortunately non of them are likely get much market share, but I for one will be keeping an eye on any OS that is running a *NIX derivative and can actually present a decent (and let’s not forget *single*) front end…
I think you meant “platform”
“It is not a corporate desktop, just ask my boss. We use Mac to run MS Office 95% of the time, and every now and then Photoshop and Freehand. That makes us a graphics shop, and graphic shops only use Macs. ”
So if you run Photoshop and Freehand 5% of the time how does that make you a graphics shop if you spend most of your time in MS Office?
And there are no complication moving users from Windows 2000 to XP then to Longhorn? with all the added stuff added to Longhorn, you suddenly think that lonking down that little puppy is going to be a walk in the park?
Dam right there are. It’s a major pain in the hole when the OSes are similar. Imagine how hard it would be if they’re totally different.
How do the Mac OS X schemas interact with your AD setup?
How many use AD features beyond it being a drop in replacement for NT Domains? even Microsofts own studies have shown that most aren’t even using the most basic of the new features made available to them by AD.
Can you quote that study. I’ve worked in 3 windows offices and we’ve used group policy fairly extensively in all 3. My current company has 80,000 people worldwide.
OpenLDAP, Novel eDirectory, Java Enterprise Server System are all drop in replacements for AD; admittingly, I wouldn’t be running MacOS as a server, but a well configured SUN Opteron server loaded with Solaris, kiited with JES will provide a great back end to the workplace. [i]
Great so not only do we have to change the desktops. We have to change the servers.
[i]How do you troubleshoot Mac OS X?
Why is that relevant? the same trouble shooting techniques you use to solve PC problems *IF* learned correctly, shoould easily transposable over t the Mac world, which learning some MacOS idiosyncrasies.
Either way you’ll have to retrain your IT staff. You will anyway for Longhorn. You’ll also have to have Mac skills listed when you’re recruiting. It’s becoming more common but it’s still easier to recruit Windows support. If Mac skills aren’t that common you’ve got to pay more for the people you hire.
How do you port your custom apps to Mac OS X (assuming everyone hasn’t moved to the web)?
Seems that RealBASIC has a nice offer. Maybe you should check them out instead of rambling nonsensical drival here.
You’re joking now right? First I’ve got to retrain my developers. Second I’ve got to tell my external vendors to rewrite their apps and either face increased costs or lengthy delays.
How do you retrain everyone?
“Learn it, or you’re fired” seems to work quite well. Trained IT people are a dime in a dozen, they can be replaced *VERY* easily. Heck, I know of atleast 2 dozen IT people, with all the latest TLAs who can’t find work; believe me, if you told them to learn something in a week, they’d learn it in 2 nights.
And all your users. They have a hard enough time with the OSes they’ve been using the last 5 years. Let’s plonk a new one on their desk and tell them to learn it or they’re fired. And while they’re leaning and making mistakes and being less productive I’ll just bear the costs of doing this in my infinite budgets.
How do I justify the extra hard-dollar costs of bringing in new hardware and software? How do I justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?
How do you justify the extra hard-dollar costs of brining in new hardware and software when migrating to Windows? how do you justify the soft-dollar costs of the above issues?
With Windows I can roll out new versions of the OS as I replace my depreciated hardware anyway. The user has minimal change and I don’t have to replace my hardware in one go. With Macs I can’t have 500 users on Macs and 500 on Windows. My software would have to be re-purchased for Macs or worse re-written. At least with Windows the old versions of my software will usually run on the newer OS.
[i]Interesting, how about you working in a corporate environment for a couple of years, then work it out. If there is enough motivation to get something done, it’ll get done, regardless of the so-called “complexity” that gets ranted and raved about.[i]
Rubbish. Motivation isn’t the key. Money is. No matter how motivated our team is, if it’s cheaper to move to Longhorn that it is to move to Macs we’re moving to Longhorn. I don’t just mean price of the desktop or OS. The cost of retraining, rehiring, downtime, server upgrades, repurchasing software, rewriting software, compatibility and productivity are taken into account.
“Rubbish. Motivation isn’t the key. Money is. No matter how motivated our team is, if it’s cheaper to move to Longhorn that it is to move to Macs we’re moving to Longhorn. I don’t just mean price of the desktop or OS. The cost of retraining, rehiring, downtime, server upgrades, repurchasing software, rewriting software, compatibility and productivity are taken into account.”
Could be interesting then if sticking with windows proves to be more expensive option then… Huh!!!!