Forget the new iMacs and iPods. Apple is leaving a lot of dough on the table by not pushing its Mac OSX software aggressively into corporations running Windows. So says Technology Execution Network Corp., a Microsoft solution provider and Apple Authorized Dealer based in Needham, Mass., which says the latest versions of the Unix-based Macintosh OSX operating system code-named “Panther” significantly enhances the ability for the Mac client and server to integrate with Microsoft’s Active Directory and Windows server environment.
Apple, Microsoft Partners Find Common Ground
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This is so absolutely true! With a better version of Microsoft Office (2004) available for the Mac than is available to the native Windows platform, and a rock solid system that is free of viruses (and worms and trojans and spyware and… and… and… )… what’s not to love?
It’s amazing what grief corporations will put up with in the name of conformity.
I’d thought about this When MacOS went the unix route. Mix the user friendly part of OSX with all the nice networking tools like samba and you have something that could stir up some trouble in this market. Maybe Apple can finally push there computers as a “serious” business machine. Maybe a bunch of shiny less prone to adware/spyware/virus attack computers in the office would look appealing from a business/support point of view?
ahh big brother united with little brother again! Kinda like Jacob and Esau.
How many of you work at businesses who could switch desktops from Windows to Mac and carry over/replace all the desktop software you’re currently using?
Does IE for Mac have an ActiveX implementation?
“Does IE for Mac have an ActiveX implementation?”
I hope not. ActiveX is directly tied to Windows COM programming model, so a lot of changes would be needed on Mac OS X and only effect of those would be less secure environent.
I have to say I have been using my iMac I recently purchased (20″ model), It covers every Office aspect especially since it runs both Microsoft Office or OpenOffice. Without the everyday hassles of spyware and viruses it has become an extremely reliable workhorse.
As far as Mac’s go I think that the new entry level G5’s could seriously be a threat to PC’s in the corporate office. $1300 for a 17″ Widescreen G5 computer is an excellent deal considering the quality your are receiving, software and hardware wise.
I’m a student, but I have a small business that I am building in editing. I would be going the other way around mac to a pc, which I already on a AMD 2800 along with my mac. I could switch to a pc and run Adobe products like I already use, but I wouldn’t have FCP and the ease of use of some other Apple products like the iApps. The thing I don’t like about Adobe is that there is a strong learning curve to thier products. The thing I really like about PC’s is that they are cheap and can be even cheaper making your own. I think that is one reason people buy PC’s too. Heck 499.00 Dell for home use versus a more expesive eMac or iMac. But I have always chosen the Mac rout, less viruses, OS X and ease use and Apple only software.
How many of you work at businesses who could switch desktops from Windows to Mac and carry over/replace all the desktop software you’re currently using?
Does IE for Mac have an ActiveX implementation?
Thankfully not.
In my workplace we could very nearly switch to Mac now. There are a few applications which were built on Microsoft technology. The primary example I’m thinking of is built on Access, and it’s a piece of cr*p. It’s a distributed database system, but a direct connection to the legacy database (requiring a Tandem emulator) works much better. Once that database has been upgraded to something more modern (work is in progress) we could switch to other systems.
Most of our web applications are built properly, meaning they can be accessed from standards compliant browswers. Some use a Citrix client to access Microsoft applications, but there is a Citrix client for Mac. There is one exception, a site using Active X, but it’s not critical and could be abandoned.
The only other required application I can think of is Lotus Notes, which has both a Mac client, and allows web access.
“As far as Mac’s go I think that the new entry level G5’s could seriously be a threat to PC’s in the corporate office. $1300 for a 17″ Widescreen G5 computer is an excellent deal considering the quality your are receiving, software and hardware wise. ”
That’s quite a bit more than most companies are willing to pay for simple Office/email machines. Not to mention the lack of interest in buying the “whole widget” from a single vendor.
There’s also the questionably assumption on your part of the “quality” of the iMac line.
As a small business owner, I simply don’t see a compelling reason to switch to a Mac. I have about 40 PCs, all of which I purchased for under $1000 each (including monitor etc).
Running a PC with Windows is simply good enough for what my business does. Maybe people don’t realize that if I or other business were to migrate to OS X, it would mean that I would need to buy all new hardware (let alone software).
So, as the subject line alludes to – what is my (as a small business owner) compelling reason to switch to OS X (Mac)?
Less virii, no spyware that I know of, far more stable, runs the oh so needed ( cough ) MS Office software, Virtal PC7 just released, Emacs cost $799. There is more but those are the obvious ones. When a virus brings down your shop you’ll see how much it really cost you to run Microsoft Software.
I constantly see people saying that switching to Mac means buying all new software. Following my experience, I don’t believe that is true. You very often have the Windows and the Mac version on the same CD alltogether (Quark, Adobe, Macromedia do that). Or you can negotiate with the editor (easy if you’re a big client, or just a good one).
“Less virii, ”
“Virii” is not a word.
“no spyware that I know of,”
Merely because the OS X platform is too small to attract spyware authors at the present time.
“far more stable,”
Not from my experience.
“runs the oh so needed ( cough ) MS Office software,”
Yes, it is. If you worked in a corporate office, you’d see that.
“Virtal PC7 just released,”
Emulation is never a long term solution to anything.
“Emacs cost $799.”
eMacs are rather poor performers compared to other systems at that price point.
“There is more but those are the obvious ones. When a virus brings down your shop you’ll see how much it really cost you to run Microsoft Software.”
The only way you can get an actual virus these days is if you download random shareware constantly or actually execute things sent to you through email. Just wait until the bad guys discover the automatic “admin password” window in OS X… I find this feeling of security on the part of OS X users amusing – and I’m a longtime UNIX user.
Worms are stopped at the firewall.
“I constantly see people saying that switching to Mac means buying all new software. Following my experience, I don’t believe that is true.”
Most applications do not exist on the opposite platform.
Unless you’re talking about applications written for Apple’s core market, you are not likely to find either an OS X binary on your CD or any help from your “editor”.
True.
The only way you can get an actual virus these days is if you download random shareware constantly or actually execute things sent to you through email.
That must not be true. We are infected by viruses at my offices fairly often, most recently about two months ago. I don’t download or install anything on my computer (Win 2k Pro). It’s left as the company wants it. The only mods we make are the required monthly service pack installations. We spend a lot of time maintaining these systems.
Just wait until the bad guys discover the automatic “admin password” window in OS X… I find this feeling of security on the part of OS X users amusing – and I’m a longtime UNIX user.
I find your arguments amusing. You argue that the Mac is only more secure because no one wants to attack it. The Mac is more secure then, right? Anyone moving to Mac won’t deal with viruses or spyware, right? Now rationalize your decision to live in an unhappy place because if you did move, eventually it might be crappier than the present.
tell us what current products by adobe, quark, and macromedia run on both platforms from the same cd with the same serial.
last time i checked, most business werent filled with dozens or hundreds or thousands of machines running software from those firms. adobe acrobat would be the lone exception.
there is a really simple set of reasons why business doesnt buy mac in any significant numbers(the same reasons apply to home owners, end users, non-profits, charities, educational institutions, etc for the most part as well):
they cost more
they have less choice of equipment
they have proprietary boot roms and motherboards
parts are harder to come by
parts are more expensive
there is a huge amount of software not available for the mac
software on the mac costs more
they do not support partners as well as ms
they do not support programmers as well as ms
linux is now a much more viable option for servers
mac servers dont scale
certified engineers, architects, repair technicians, etc for mac are a tiny community
apple doesnt have a giant sales force and solution providers the world over get better support from ms than apple
so apple has a much smaller number of solution providers
most biz buys tech from people on the ground in their home market that can directily assist them from start to ongoing maintenance
macs have less support for third party peripherals
the list is endless really…
if you all havent noticed, unix is dying fast, so why would any sane biz go back to using proprietary hardware with a unix os? ms and linux are eating unix’ lunch
the biz community wants a standard and they picked ms on x86 hardware. the rest of the world has built the lions share of the tech industry to suit that hardware and that software setup.
finally the biz community has a much bigger investment in people over the software and hardware. they have spent many years training and hiring already trained people to work on the platform you all love to disparage. it will take much more compelling reasons for biz to toss that out. awesome marketing, shiny icons, and a hot brushed metal look arent enough.
so despite the problems that working with the ms platform entails, it remains the best choice for business (and home owners and academia as well….dont forget that none of them exist in a vacuum and end users ultimately want compatability more than anything….the lions share of them at least)
@Anonymous (IP: —.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Actually, Your right on all of those points
. Thats the way business computers have been for a long time…..
Yes, Business is standardized on x86 hardware. I think that might be the only reason that Microsoft still holds its monopoly.
They took it from IBM and its been history since then.
The problem now is that Microsoft is almost completely ignoring their own customers. the more everyone gets bombarded with attacks on their computers, the less they care. after all of these security problems with IE they answer with “In longhorn IE will be so intergrated that you will never be able to chose again” attitude.
if you all havent noticed, unix is dying fast, so why would any sane biz go back to using proprietary hardware with a unix os? ms and linux are eating unix’ lunch
Why don’t you consider Linux and Unix to be the same? The BSDs, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris; these all build and run the same software. Only Windows is really different.
We are all speculating, but it seems inevitable that buisnesses will turn largely to Open Source in the future. The cost savings will be too large to ignore, especially when you consider they will not be as subject to attack as the majority consumer OS.
Home users in the US will probably remain largely Windows users; both because the cost of a single license is hidden in the price of a new computer, and because of the large availability of home applications and games.
Serious businesseses will be more concerned about functionality and cost. Just as most users now see Mac and Windows as essentially equivalent in terms of useability and function, so it will become increasingly obvious that Linux compares in the same way to Windows.
The point that Linux doesn’t support some new Microsoft technology like Avalon won’t be important. Nothing will available for Avalon for two more years anyway. The choice is there for businesses to not support it.
All Apple computer stock holders. Let’s send the x86 home.
JCS, take it easy. “Virii” isn’t a word in the dictionary, but it’s slang, and we all know what he means. Don’t be petty.
It comes down to this: every entity will have to evaluate the suitability of each platform for their business. Macs tend to cost more, but the lack of viruses and spyware might be worth it. JCS, I see your points, but remember to never underestimate the stupid… I just spent an entire day cleaning up after an ignorant, click-happy Windows user.
You’d be hardpressed to deny that there ARE fewer viruses and less spyware for the Mac, whatever the reason.
I won’t argue that there are more accessories for PC’s. But, I will say that there is a LOT of crap to sift through on the PC platform… Taiwanese knock-offs, crazy marketing claims, poorly built PC’s, etc. On the Mac I see on average higher quality accessories; however, I will agree that the cream of the crop is on the PC (like 3d workstation cards). It all depends on your priorities. No big deal.
Aren’t we done with this stupid Mac vs. PC thing? Spend less time trying to convince other people that you’re right. Figure out what’s right for YOU. Besides, why are you guys so rabid? It’s friday… get away from your computer and meet some people. I’m out.
Seriously. They have their niche market, who like the exclusivity and boutique nature of Apple products. I’m sure they’d like bigger market share, but not the huge market share of MS.
Besides, if Apple started becoming a threat to MS, Office 2004 would probably be the last version of MS office for OS X.
I can’t see apple making lowend PC like boxes for mass market penetration just yet. They could probably put together something with imac specs, but in a fairly boring PC-Like case and sell it for < $1000. Then they’d need some mass rollout and management software to manage thousands of boxes.
They just don’t have that yet, and they’re not interested in it.
Indeed I may jump to the conclusion of the quality of an iMac. It’s not the only Mac i’ve owned so I might be letting my past experiences blur my vision. I have owned PowerMac’s (g3’s g4’s). All have run for years until I sold them and continue to run I hear. I vouched out of paying more for a G5, because I didn’t need it, so I guess I’ll find out if my cut of spending will leave me crying with this mac hardware.
OS X is not Unix. It is based on BSD, which is not certified by the Opengroup as a “Unix” operating system. It is similar to GNU/Linux in that it is a work-alike Unix clone.
So what we have on one side, is a bunch of Unixes (Solaris, AIX, IRIX, …), Unix work-alikes (*BSD, GNU/Linux, Darwin/OSX). These all share API’s, and can run all the same software usually with just a recompile. All have native support for X11 applications.
And then on the other side we have Windows. Only windows works like windows. It’s based on the ancient CP/M and QDOS (at the command line at least), and VMS probably in internal design. On the outside it is Windows, which is unique to Microsoft (I’m talking about the hideous API here).
Of course their market share trumps all others combined, so whatever..
“Less virii, ”
“Virii” is not a word.
virii is proper plural of virus – well, that is what I was taught in school.
Then of course, everyone decided it was not correct because it did not conform to latin. So it is now officially (for the first time) plural as viruses. Though that is actually against latin conformation of the english language, but it fits into the English conforms, so it somehow becomes right.
I have three dictionaries here, an old Webster (1982), one on CD, and a new webster.
The old webster states viri as the plural (yep, one i)
The CD says virus has no plural
The new webster says viruses.
Take your pick 🙂
I personally prefer viruses, just easier to say in English.
Big coprs will never completely shift to Apple unless there is a cost-effective high-profit reason to do so.
In other words, ain’t gonna happen on a closed hardware platform en-mass.
Who has a chance to winning corporations? Nobody. For at least 20 or 30 years, if ever.
Linux could be an upset, however the lack of skilled Linux professionals (provably, certified, and trained) will be the slow-down for this trend setter.
However, if someone would actually write a good, compatible, stable, simple, flexible, Linux.. it could work.
Or if about twenty Linux devs came over to Haiku, Haiku could become the major upsetter. (Which goes for any OSS project with a good solid goal, and good solid direction and code, but I am more familiar with Haiku, so I focus there).
What do corporations need to get them off of Microsoft Windows?
Well, here we go:
Compatibility with the viruses.
Very important, they do not know how to live without them.
No Joke, all of their usage policies are rationalized because
of viruses.
Compatibility with every peice of software written for Windows
I’m talking better compat than what Windows has today.
If you can show them that they no longer have to use ten
emulation and translation layers to get at their old data
and instead use the real apps, they will be more apt to switch
Compatibility with *ALL* hardware
I’m talking dynamic driver generation and spawning. If all
device makers were required to inform the BIOS how to properly
support the hardware, and it was the job of the BIOS to give a
uniform method of interface to this hardware, then this would
be possible. Until then, Windows driver compatibility to the
max.
Source Code Compat With as many platforms as possible
I am talking 100% Posix, 100% Win32, 100% .NET and when that
is done, one good one.
*PARTIAL* Open Source, very few restrictions
Source would be shared only for certain items. User-land
graphics / interface elements, BIOS interface code, and
direct access to thread/team(proc) limits, and the like.
Having the full source for a corporation often makes them
think they have to roll their own, everytime. These are
business morons, not computer morons.
Simple, Scriptable, full customability
This thing will need to be modifiable to the max. The manager
should be able to say, this user can only run kernel, graphics,
network card #2 to 192.168.23.28, mouse, keyboard, and app #3,
#29, and #2922029839202 from server 192.128.23.1 That is, this
has to be very quick and easy to do (not an easy task).
So, while some of these are more or less maybe slightly over-emphasized, it is because that is what would be needed *TODAY* to have a snowball’s chance of putting Microsoft down.
Before Windows 2000, Microsoft was vulnerable. Corporations were extremely unhappy with Windows NT4. Believe me I know, I never stopped hearing about it when I was working for one such corporation that is silently moving operations away from Microsoft products. (At the core, only)
However, today, Windows 2000’s little problems and idioms have got many corporations stuck. Such as domain serving, administration, all the scripting going on, so many things.
Essentially, these people can’t switch everything away at once, until they have something that will keep them running while they are doing it. They can however (and are) live-swap(ping) servers (and OSes on those servers) in preparation for the day they are no longer dependent on Microsoft. But, when that day comes, there best be an excellent alternative out there, or they will just stay on the Microsoft bandwagon.
And the #1 thing corporations are not willing to do: switch software *AND* hardware, all at once. Most corporations prefer to have everyone running the same version of Windows, same service packs, same EVERYTHING. So when it comes time they can switch, they *HAVE* to have a hardware-compatible quick-n-dirty drop in replacement. I’m thinking an install and configure time of less than 30 minutes per machine. (network ghost imaging makes this easy).
In short: x86 is obviously here to stay. RISC isn’t dying though. MacOS will always be an awesome general purpose OS, but it will usually always be used for very few and similar reasons by most users. Apple can only try and entice start-up businesses to use Apple products, and hope those businesses grow and flourish. Offer major discounts to those who have newely registered businesses. Heck, I live in Texas, I can fill out a quick form and have a business running in no time (well, another one :-)).
So to you Apple fans:
I understand your point of view, very much. And I really like OS X, though I am rather partial to my OS 8.2 I run under emulation here in BeOS. But any idea of Apple dominating Microsoft someday is downright foolish. Just as foolish I would be believing HaikuOS (haiku-os.org) will someday take over the world.
That doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t want it. EVERYONE could want it, but have too many reasons not to get it. Decisions are unfortunately based on reason, and not love or affatuation. If so, the anti-Microsoft businesses’ affatuations with Be, INC (makers of BeOS) would have been enough to save them from failure. These companies included Sony, Intel, Compaq, AST, and many others. In fact, some of these companies made upwards of $20 million dollars in investments into Be, INC.
But Microsoft stepped up and told these companies that they would cut them off of their crack and heroin if they supported *ANY* third party OS (literally, it is actually in your EULA as well though in much milder terms) or boot manager. And, told them that even if the machines they make or own do not have Windows on it, they still have to buy Windows for it. (Meaning buying two OSes, and getting one).
If love ruled, these companies would have told Microsoft to screw themselves and sued them for unlawful licensing practices (Microsoft did finally get grilled for this, but it will be an estimated 200 years before they live up to their settlement agreements at their current pace). And we would all be running on 256-bit quad CPUs, twin-architectures, unified hardware abstraction and self-supporting devices. And the world would be extremely chaotic because group A loves OS A, group B thinks OS A is okay, but prefer OS B, then Group C, D, E all hate everything but themselves, and so on.
–The loon
Emacs cost $799.
Haha! I knew Stallman couldn’t keep up the free software thing for any longer!
(joke)
Wouldn’t it be easier if Apple produced an x86 version of OS X. Then it would be just a software upgrade. Its based on FreeBSD and X11, which are multi-platform. What is the problem?
Wouldn’t it be easier if Apple produced an x86 version of OS X. Then it would be just a software upgrade. Its based on FreeBSD and X11, which are multi-platform. What is the problem?
I think you need to understand Apple’s company culture. Not that I’m claiming that I do, but I think ‘porting’ Mac OS to x86 hardware would be akin to selling your soul to the devil.
And no, it isn’t based on X11 at all! What are you talking about?
“tell us what current products by adobe, quark, and macromedia run on both platforms from the same cd with the same serial”
To tell the whole truth, friends told me about Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Flash, Freehand (and yes, you’re right, and I have already acknowledged that, that is not software usually run in corp.). With Quark Xpress it is not just hearsay, I have personally experimented it (it comes with a physical key – a dongle?- so you can’t run it on 2 machines at the same time). Now, I don’t think we’re in the same country, and it may be different in yours.
I probably made the wrong assumption, Safari is their window manager that runs on top of X11 or does the function of both?
Any way I just thought their percentage of OS X installs on desktops would dramatically increase is they made a x86 version. They sell a single-user version of OS X fro $129.00 in the Apple Store, I would buy one if it was available for x86. Also think it would improve Aplle’s bottom line, it is abount the bucks right?. Corporate culture is fine and dandy. Steve Jobs did a good job of bring Apple back, but I see no reason why they should limit themselves to PowerPC based PC’s, they are a hardware company, they could make their own x86 computers as well as selling OS X separately.
“Today’s edition of the computing magazine “01 informatique” brings a great news. Passing by his competitors, Dell and IBM, Apple signed a contract with the Compagnie Générale de Géophysique. This compagny prospects oil, and will integrate 672 Xserves to its cluster, which already delivers 40 TFlops.
The Xserves were chosen because of their better performance/price ratio.
At this pace, IBM is going to regret its choice of selling the PPC970 to Apple
”
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-09-03#2783
Well that dispels a few myths.
Matt
I probably made the wrong assumption, Safari is their window manager that runs on top of X11 or does the function of both?
Safari is their web browser, not thier window manager.
“virii is proper plural of virus – well, that is what I was taught in school.”
Actually the correct Latin plural of “virus” should be “viri”, not “virii”.
Wouldn’t it be easier if Apple produced an x86 version of OS X.
No, it wouldn’t. What happened to any other commercial operating systems for PCs that isn’t Linux? Right, it was crushed to death.
Porting MacOS X to mean that Apple would be directly competing with Microsoft, and you can bet that Microsoft won’t like that!
Then it would be just a software upgrade. Its based on FreeBSD and X11, which are multi-platform.
Nope, MacOS X is based on a Mach kernel with BSD extensions, on top of that comes Quarz, Quicktime, Carbon, Cocoa, and finally Aqua.
There is X11 for MacOS X but it’s just for running X-Window application, and itself behaves like an application under MacOS X.
I probably made the wrong assumption, Safari is their window manager that runs on top of X11 or does the function of both?
Erm, Safari is Apple’s web browser.
Instead of X11 they have Quarz (a PDF display engine) and the window manager is called Aqua.
Please take a look here:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Tech…
I admit ignorant, I don’t know much about Apples, Macs or OS X. I use Linux, Windows and QNX. I checked Apples web site and Quartz is the product that handles the user interface and it uses the GPU directly, I am embarrassed. I am not a troll though. I hear all the arguments against Linux on the x86 platform and was wondering about the reception Apple would have if they were to port OS X to it. I hear nothing but positive remarks about Apple and OS X. So far I haven’t heard much discussion about it being used on x86 platforms and was curious.
I find your arguments amusing. You argue that the Mac is only more secure because no one wants to attack it. The Mac is more secure then, right? Anyone moving to Mac won’t deal with viruses or spyware, right?
So long as the “switch” is only made by a small fraction of users. The argument that the answer to Windows security problems is to buy a Mac is sort of like saying, “Hey, the boat is listing because we’re all standing on one side – but look, the other side is a lot higher out of the water, let’s all run over there!”
Sorry if I came across as rude, I actually thought you were trolling 🙂
Well, to be honest, I would like to run OS X on my PC. But I don’t think Apple will ever port it (the most important bit, the GUI and associated subsystems; Darwin already runs on x86 but without that it is just another Unix).
To be honest, I don’t think Apple has any kind of interest in porting OS X to another platform. That would mean a whole new world of devices, cheap hardware, incompatible suff (ask every OS developer who supports x86), etc.
If OS X *ONLY* runs under their “own” hardware they’ve got more control; that way exposé works the way it works, the graphics engine talks directly with the hardware the way it does, <fill the list>.
That, along with the “fighting against Microsoft statement” are the two principal reasons preventing Apple to port their operating system. (your mileage may vary).
So long as the “switch” is only made by a small fraction of users. The argument that the answer to Windows security problems is to buy a Mac is sort of like saying, “Hey, the boat is listing because we’re all standing on one side – but look, the other side is a lot higher out of the water, let’s all run over there!”
It’s early for me, so forgive me if I misinterpret your post, however if you’re claiming that the reason that Mac OS X isn’t as vulnerable to viruses, worms etc soley because it’s not the most popular system in use (a very tired and not well thought out argument I might add), then I am just going to have to turn around and employ another tired (but much less half-assed) argument about the most popular web server in the world today not being the most widely broken and abused.
If today’s Mac OS X had the marketshare/installed base that today’s Windows has, sure there’d be more interest in writing viruses (that’s the plural form of “virus” boys and girls), but the system would still not be as vulnerable to attack as is Windows is today for any number of reasons, an example being that no unneeded network services are running “out of the box,” and so on. The open source nature of the core OS also makes minor bugs much less likely to last for long periods of time.
Mac OS X, the BSDs and (ugh) Linux (Red Hat/Fedora and Mandrake excepted) are just more well thought out than than Windows as far as multiuser environments are concerned.
omg how clueless are you (Safari is the window manager, wtf??). Porting OS X to x86 would kill their hardware business. Apple makes computers. Thus they are called “Apple Computer Pty. Ltd.”. It’s not AppleSoft.
Most of the profit is in selling hardware. The software is the value added that makes the hardware desireable. If PC vendors could sell OS X, then OS X would cease to “just work” as it would need 1,000,000 drivers, and different configurations and all sorts of headaches. Apple stuff “just works” because the same company makes the hardware and the software.
Forget about OS X on x86, it will *never* happen.
Out of the 50 or so people who have posted the same old crap that comes up in every MAC/PC pissing contest, it looks like only 2 or 3 have actually read the article and addressed its contents even remotely.
Mac OS X, the BSDs and (ugh) Linux (Red Hat/Fedora and Mandrake excepted) are just more well thought out than than Windows as far as multiuser environments are concerned.
Exactly. An article like this should give you examples of why that’s true:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/02/winxpsp2_security_review/
(and of course you would tend to run to the other side of the boat; but a better analogy would have you leaving the sinking ship to get into a different ship.
Yes, it is true. I Iive in a Windows world, and haven’t had problems (so far) to integrate transparently with the network (no Active Directory). I have connnected to shares and printers, opened office documents, etc. The automount feature works fine, if for example you create an Alias (aka: shortcut for windows) of a directory/file located in a network share and unmount the share, the next time you open the file the share will be automounted (provided you saved the password).
These little details contribute to the integration -still not perfect- that, thanks to samba team and Apple, OS X enjoys.
“Regardless, NO company can be ‘trusted'”
True. If Apple and MS are collaborating with this deal it’s because they both have juicy profits to be made, not because better and more efficient products could be offered to the public.
Unfortunately, good software does not sell well since decades, because the market values bells and whistles over actual functionality. Both MS and Apple obviously agree on that, so the trend extends and perpetuates.
For MS, this deal is only an extension of their well-known philosophy. For Apple, it is clear evidence of their change in philosophy in the last decade, from the one based providing reliable and efficient software, to their current one where they leave all that behind in favor of giving the public all the nice, but useless, bells and whistles that they love so much.
I am in the process of switching all 50+ Dell PC’s to Macs in our 5 offices worldwide.
For me, switching takes place each time a PC needs to be replaced, a new or refurbished Mac is purchased. On average, switching costs about $200 – $400 more to purchase Macs than it is to purchase PCs.
But the money I spend extra per Mac purchase is quickly recovered by savings in maintenance costs and upgrade costs.
When people argue about cost of Macs vs. cost of PCs, they usually think only the initial purchase price. This is true only for 1 day; the day you purchase. But from the 2nd day on, PC’s need constant attention.
Macs are far easier to keep them in top working condition. PC’s hardly ever do. Something’s always wrong with PCs all the time….
I do want to make clear however, PC hardware is fine… it’s Windows that’s problematic.
I may spend about 30-40 minutes to a clean OS X install and redo all software and user/network settings. In less than an hour I am able to put Macs online without the usual fuss that’s associated with PC’s. Try and do that with a PC. How many times a clean install of Windows went without a hitch? And how long does it take to bring a PC back online when you must reinstall all user software, settings …etc back?
Yes, I do repeat, that purchasing Macs do cost more money. No doubt. But the money, time and the headache I save keeping Macs quickly add up.
I have cut computer maintenance cost dramatically since I started the switch our offices to Mac hardware.
People complaining about how Macs are expensive, how it’s not as fast as PC’s, how there’s no software and how Mac files cannot be used on PCs …. usually have never used a Mac, or they have never used it long enough, or they couldn’t get their bias turned off to truely see the benefits.
I have yet to find any serious compatibility problems in my 5+ years of slow switching to Macs.
Most people in our office who were at first doubtful about Macs have since purchased Macs for their home use and they are very happy with the switch… well, after their 1-2 weeks of adjusment period. I hear comments like, “Macs just work” or “I can go online without fear” or “I didn’t know I could do this” or “I did it all by myself”.
This is priceless.
To Mac users I tell them that they can do whatever they want to do with it, you won’t break anything.
To PC users I tell them don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t open this and don’t open that.
My experience and my 2 cents.
“That must not be true. We are infected by viruses at my offices fairly often, most recently about two months ago. I don’t download or install anything on my computer (Win 2k Pro). It’s left as the company wants it. The only mods we make are the required monthly service pack installations. We spend a lot of time maintaining these systems. ”
If you aren’t, someone is. Just how do you think viruses get on a computer in the first place?
“I find your arguments amusing. You argue that the Mac is only more secure because no one wants to attack it. The Mac is more secure then, right? Anyone moving to Mac won’t deal”
Be amused all you want. Not being a target does NOT make one secure.
“with viruses or spyware, right? Now rationalize your decision to live in an unhappy place because if you did move, eventually it might be crappier than the present.”
I don’t have problems with viruses and spyware here or at work. I don’t use a Mac for said work as they not at all useful for that work. I don’t see this so-called “unhappy place” you seem to think not useing Apple products is.
“JCS, take it easy. “Virii” isn’t a word in the dictionary, but it’s slang, and we all know what he means. Don’t be petty. ”
“Virii” is used as a plural for “virus” by those who wish to appear to know what they’re talking about.
“virii is proper plural of virus – well, that is what I was taught in school. ”
I’m afraid you were taught Latin incorrectly.
“Actually the correct Latin plural of “virus” should be “viri”, not “virii”. ”
The latin word “virus” has no plural form.
Do you have any idea just how Apache got its name?
Sure do. “A patchy server.” It still has a *much* better secureity track record than IIS, so my argument stands.
The latin word “virus” has no plural form.
In English it does, and it’s “viruses.”
I’m afraid you were taught English incorrectly.
I’m afraid you were taught English incorrectly.
…I say as I misspell “security” ;^)
“The latin word “virus” has no plural form.”
Not entirely true. If you’re speaking from a purely “historical” Latin standpoint (where it’s meaning was not as it’s taken in modern science) then yes you are indeed correct, but times change and language conventions change with it. As someone who studies virology, believe me this comes up all the damn time (perhaps worryingly I’ve read papers published on it). There is a plural form, but not to add fuel to the fire I’ll let others post it.
Either-way, everyone knew what he meant when he (whoever it was) posted it. So I don’t see the point of raising it. I mean, we could go and correct all the other SPaG mistakes in the thread but this is an OS discussion board, not an English convention, and the risk is there that you’re going to run into someone with more experience in that area.
Matt
“The latin word “virus” has no plural form.
In English it does, and it’s “viruses.”
I’m afraid you were taught English incorrectly.”
I think you are aiming this particular at the wrong person,
unless you think my claiming that the proper English plural of “virus” is “viruses” was some attempt to claim it wasn’t.
“Sure do. “A patchy server.” It still has a *much* better secureity track record than IIS, so my argument stands. ”
I’m not so sure about that.
I mean, we could go and correct all the other SPaG mistakes in the thread but this is an OS discussion board, not an English convention, and the risk is there that you’re going to run into someone with more experience in that area.
There is an upside to this however – you might learn something from such people ;^)
The only way you can get an actual virus these days is if you download random shareware constantly or actually execute things sent to you through email.
Was this said tongue-in-cheek?
I can’t help but think with the arrival of the MSN music store problems are only going to rise, have you seen what you’ve got to do to your internet settings to use it?
Matt
“but times change and language conventions change with it. As someone who studies virology, believe me this comes up all the damn time (perhaps worryingly I’ve read papers published on it). There is a plural form, but not to add fuel to the fire I’ll let others post it. ”
The *English* word “virus” has a plural form. The Latin word does not.
“Was this said tongue-in-cheek?”
No.
“I can’t help but think with the arrival of the MSN music store problems are only going to rise, have you seen what you’ve got to do to your internet settings to use it?”
No, I haven’t. However, that type of site should not be used at work. I have not seen anything in years beyond a cookie that’ll just install *itself* with no user intervention. Even then you aren’t running as root – if you are, you have more trouble on your end than a virus.
OK, I’ve been reading this thread and as usual it’s devolved into a “my OS/Hardware/IT strategy is better than yours because…” debacle.
I don’t normally bother to post on this sort of thing but for what it is worth here is my twopennoth (UK, slang, arch.) worth (aka 2c).
I’ll start by admitting I am a serious professional heavyweight Mac user in the print/design industry and thus am heavily in love with my G5/OSX set up but nonetheless…
Viri is the *true* plural of virus – however as with stadia/stadiums and fora/forums – viruses is now the commonly accepted english (deliberate lower case ‘e’) after all we’re not Roman citizens or Athenian Greeks, language evolves, get over it… 🙂
“Macs cost scads more than PC’s” Not in my experience. Sure you can by a bottom of the range no brand box cheaper than a “baseline” Mac but if you add in all the extras you’ll need to get up to an Apple spec (or buy a decent branded PC at a similar spec) the prices aren’t *that* different – get out of the last century. Plus, total cost of ownership is well proven in the Mac’s favour in my field. I’ve still got Macs from 10+ years running and active (YMMV
)
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley” – Caveat emptor!!!!
Apple won’t port OSX to x86 because as has so rightly been said it just becomes another Unix/Linux/BSD/altOS distro. Apple Hardware + Apple Software creates a seamless user experience that I am afraid many that knock it haven’t actually exprienced. Never mind “plug and pray” Windows has only recently got anywhere near Mac levels of auto config….
(BTW been toying with a FreeBSD KDE install on an old PII box, took 4 install attempts and endless configure hardware loops to get it going (would NOT recognise the ATI Rage Pro 3D card and still won’t acknowledge the SoundBlaster sound card) If this is how Linux/BSD intends to usurp MS’s crown my verdict is “Must try harder…”)
In a corporate world (where I *don’t* operate) cost/utility/convenience are king. Why buy Ferrari when you can buy Ford? Of course, all those “IT Support Specialists” who might be rather fearful that 80%+ of their jobs were on the line if a *non MS* OS that “Just Worked™” wouldn’t have *any* resistance to a change in corporate policy would they… 🙂 …
In my experience “it just works” it what Joe Public requires Sorry Linux/Sky/Be/Hiaku/et. al. but you don’t (Regardless of your real or perceived technological or code advantages) – you hackers tend to forget how *illiterate” in computer terms the average user is. (In my experience many users can’t even distinguish between Word/Office and Windows itself!!! They just want to buy the box, take it home, plug it in and turn it on like a TV, much more than that is for the Geeks, Nerds, Hackers and hardware/software saddos like you and me…
I thinks Windows sucks but… and it’s a big *BUT* it works out of the box, Joe Average don’t have to “configure” it and “everyone else uses it”
P.S. Finally got freeBSD/KDE running on the PII – not bad but – if I’m online I could get a much simpler experience and a wider choice of software on the Mac, and if I’m not online, why not just run a version of MS Windows that the machine can handle at a reasonable speed.
P.P.S. Still no sound….!!!!
Sorry all you alt OS fans but no matter how good your stuff – until you can offer Joe Average User the *TV* level of ease of funtionality Bill will continue to rule and those in the know will be relegated to “cognisetti” fringe OSes
N.B. Zealots need not flame – I don’t bother to rise (aka ICGAF)
>8-)_oo00 (man in glasses smoking cigarette…)
The *English* word “virus” has a plural form. The Latin word does not.
Either you did not read my post or you didn’t understand the fundamentals behind it. If you’re being needlessly pedantic about the *Latin* form not having a plural, I agreed with you so read my post before you respond next time, however this too isn’t entirely accurate. If you “back-trace” the declension group you can work it out. Anyway, now it’s my turn to be pedantic. You can’t claim this English/Latin difference because the *Latin* term “virus” cannot be used in modern science. So the point is null.
As I stated before, I study virology. Do you not think I’ve ran into this before?
“However, that type of site should not be used at work”
Lots of things shouldn’t be done at work, it doesn’t stop people doing them. It also doesn’t change the underlying fact that using the store leaves machines vulnerable*, at work or home. How about someone uses the store in their lunch break. In that time they’re vulnerable. If they don’t put the settings back to how they were, they’re left vulnerable. Many sites I know work on “hot-desking”, which only escalates the problem.
Matt
*to a greater extent than not using it.
“I have not seen anything in years beyond a cookie that will just install *itself* without user intervention”
Read the ad-aware definitions, you’re falling badly behind.
Matt
Sorry to all for the fourth post in a row, I realise I should have condensed it into two, the last was actually an accident by pressing enter after auto-complete filled in the subject.
“Viri is the *true* plural of virus”
No, what you’ve posted is the plural of man (vir + i).
Otherwise an interesting post, it’s nice to see for once someone say they’re not in enterprise (a surprising number of people “are” in enterprise)
Matt
“You can’t claim this English/Latin difference because the *Latin* term “virus” cannot be used in modern science. So the point is null. ”
The term you use, “virus”, is an English word, not a Latin word. It is *based* on a Latin word, but the Romans knew about poison, not modern biology. Your post seemed to be claiming that the “Latin” word had changed to some “modern” form of Latin. Viri or virii is still not the plural of “virus” in Latin or English.
“Read the ad-aware definitions, you’re falling badly behind. ”
Well, I’ve never actually *seen* it. You’re going to have to install something. Ad-aware on my machines never finds anything more than a cookie.
OK, so my grasp ov Latin and Greek aint wot it orta be…
But thatz wot I wos tort at skool…
Sorry virulent (orig virus) outbreak of Molesworthism (Nigel Molesworth “Gorilla of 3B” – fictitious author of “Down with Skool”, “Back in the Jug Agane”, “How to be Topp” and “Whizz for Atoms” by Willans and Searle c1956 I believe – showing my age I fear)
Only meant to point out that commonly acceptable spellings/definitions change with time and location – won’t even tackle US/Int./UK/etc. forms (hence deliberate “e” on english…).
By “enterprise” do you mean those mostly concerned with corporate “server based” IT environments: where I’m sure any number of Unix/Linux/BSD distros managed by alpha geek/code hackers will provide an excellent solution (as long as you can understand what the IT boys (and girls *sorry*) are actually talking about?
I visit these boards a lot but am often amazed by the “arrogance” (perceived *no offence meant*) by those of us who work with IT – at whatever level – that*everyone* understands “your choice here”OS as well as we do. Because I have to deal with Joe Average on a regular basis I feel I am aware of just how *computer illiterate/OS incompetent/unaware* most users really are.
Thanks for your positve post anyway…
Serenak
“The term you use, “virus”, is an English word, not a Latin word. It is *based* on a Latin word, but the Romans knew about poison, not modern biology. Your post seemed to be claiming that the “Latin” word had changed to some “modern” form of Latin.”
I don’t know how you extracted that from my post because (anticipating this) I said “If you’re speaking from a purely “historical” Latin standpoint (where it’s meaning was not as it’s taken in modern science)…”
<u>”Virus” is a Latin word</u>, god knows why you think it’s not. However I was pointing out that it’s use in this thread is as an English one. It has to be, there’s no ifs, buts or maybes.
Finally,
Viri or virii is still not the plural of “virus” in Latin or English.”
I never claimed is was, once again you fail to read my posts. I deliberately went to length not to claim it was, and even corrected someone who did. I also pointedly didn’t post the plural for similar reasons.
I strongly believe you are reading a number of posts by different users and combining in your head into one user who you’re replying to.
It’s clear you’re both putting words into my mouth and also parroting what I say as your own, so to me the discussion is over as I’ve explained my position well enough. People reading through the thread can draw their own conclusions. As I’ve said previously, IMO you should never have picked up on it, it’s irrelevant to Operating System discussion. I don’t pick my students up on it unless it’s a formative assessment, and that situation is far more relevant.
OK, so my grasp ov Latin and Greek aint wot it orta be…
But thatz wot I wos tort at skool..
Well you were taught half-correct, because “viri” is the (genitive) singular of “virus”, but we want the plural
Only meant to point out that commonly acceptable spellings/definitions change with time and location – won’t even tackle US/Int./UK/etc. forms (hence deliberate “e” on english…).
Exactly, it’s this evolution which caused the “problem” in the first place. I too was worried about the US/UK conventions which could have popped up, but thankfully they haven’t
“By “enterprise” do you mean those mostly concerned with corporate “server based” IT environments: where I’m sure any number of Unix/Linux/BSD distros managed by alpha geek/code hackers will provide an excellent solution (as long as you can understand what the IT boys (and girls *sorry*) are actually talking about?”
Pretty much yes, but what I was getting at is that there are a number of users here who are in enterprise and post as such. Similarly, there are a number of users who will re-enforce their argument by stating they’re in enterprise. To me at least, there’s a disproportionately high number of enterprise users here
Matt
… about the plural of the word “virus”! That’s quite … singular.
Thanks for that…
Nice to finally post on a thread that doesn’t finally devolve into a mindless slanging match!!!
Dropping the off topic semantics etc., How does being in “enterprise” reinforce any argument any more than my being in the *creative/production* field? (Not a criticism of your post BTW.) Isn’t that just a form of name dropping/oneupmanship? “When I was talking to Bill [Gates] the other day….”
Or perhaps False Authority Syndrome is more the theme “I work in *enterprise* IT” (read: I obviously know more about Computers/IT/OSes/Vir***/online Security/et al.) So by default I am more of an expert than you because it is my *job*.
I like to think that 20 years in the design/prepress/print environment (12-15 Mac based) gives me at least a reasonable knowledge base *in my own field* (please note emphasis before flaming – I’m not trying to contradict my own point).
I started in the days of scalpels and Cow Gum at an “old school” small design company where you worked up from Studio Junior (Tea Boy) to fully fledged “layout/paste up” so I like to feel *lucky* in being able to understand how “traditional” and “new tech”overlap.
Despite what far too many people think (esp. in my field) computers are not “clever” – how many design jobs can my G5 complete if I am off sick? – in my trade (and esp re: my position/age/experience) the Mac and software I choose to use (another whole discussion I fear) is just a “better hammer/mousetrap) i.e. it is a faster and better tool than what we used before… No matter how fanatical I may be regarding it it is still a tool and no more or less..
In a week we’ll laugh about this – so we might as well laugh about it now… (old printers’ saying regarding jobs gone wrong…)
Serenak
“Nice to finally post on a thread that doesn’t finally devolve into a mindless slanging match!!!”
Yes it’s rare! I’ve noticed OSNews does tend to kick-up a lot more than other forums, at some points you wonder if it’s heading the way of slashdot discussions, but there are a number of threads that stick out as having adult discussion.
“Dropping the off topic semantics etc., How does being in “enterprise” reinforce any argument any more than my being in the *creative/production* field? (Not a criticism of your post BTW.) Isn’t that just a form of name dropping/oneupmanship? “When I was talking to Bill [Gates] the other day….””
Spot on, it doesn’t.
“Or perhaps False Authority Syndrome is more the theme “I work in *enterprise* IT” (read: I obviously know more about Computers/IT/OSes/Vir***/online Security/et al.) So by default I am more of an expert than you because it is my *job*.”
Exactly, there seems to be a belief that IT “specialists” know more about *every* part of computing than the “common people” who use “their” machines when this just isn’t true. As I see it, I would never criticise an artist for his choice of paintbrush and canvas, but this will all too often happen for a software and hardware situation. You can’t be a specialist in everything.
“I like to think that 20 years in the design/prepress/print environment (12-15 Mac based) gives me at least a reasonable knowledge base *in my own field* (please note emphasis before flaming – I’m not trying to contradict my own point)”
Indeed, and you no doubt can assess whether a new graphics package/tablet etc fits your needs or not all by yourself. Anyone can read the specs and say “god no, it’s twice the price and doesn’t even handle [latest imaging function]”, but if it fits your needs perfectly so what? You’ll never use [latest imaging function] and you’ve no interest in [latest imaging function]. Heck, like 99% of those around you, you don’t even know what [latest imaging function] is. In addition, it’s more expensive because it’s more refined, doesn’t need monthly maintenance, or it’s smoother, or whatever.
Basically, people coming in from a purely academic slant will often mis-judge the situation to boil down to initial £££ outlay for a high spec list. Whereas years of industry experience has taught you what works in a real institution.
I suppose it’s just everyone has a different form vs function balance, and when some people have 100% function they wonder why you’d want anything else (“just in case” you needed that random feature (which you know nothing about, but are told you should have)).
By stating that you’re in whatever aspect of IT management you’re also stating you maintain the systems. They’re used to maintaining them and they’ve become good at it. Musicians, artists etc don’t want to learn how to maintain their software and hardware, they want to finish the contract before the deadline. If tool X (£10) breaks half as much as tool Y, it doesn’t matter that tool Y is only £5, because missing a deadline due to a broken or poorly maintained tool costs £££. Also, time saved not maintaining tool Y can be spent working on the next project.
Matt
Hooray,
For once a poster who I can feel understands where I (and I hope so many other *real world* users) are really coming from…
I love my Mac, I love what it does for me. If a musician finds another hardware/software combo that works better for them then *respect*…
Linux/BSD looks good to me but I can’t see it tacking the *real* consumer desktop without that TV style accessability I mentioned previously…
I need to drop out now (4:20am local) as I’ve been up nearly 24hr straight since my 2nd daughter was delivered at 5:15am yesterday morning after a very rapid (>1hour labour – midwife appeared with 10 minutes to spare (hindsight…))
Will check back tomorrow but thank for what has been (for once) an enlightening and *adult* (that means grown up NOT porno!!!) discussion.
As I say I don’t usually post but tonight has been worthwhile…
Thanks to all in the thread
Serenak
I need to drop out now (4:20am local) as I’ve been up nearly 24hr straight since my 2nd daughter was delivered at 5:15am yesterday morning after a very rapid (>1hour labour – midwife appeared with 10 minutes to spare (hindsight…))
Congratulations Serenak, see people there are more important things in life than the correct usage of the word virus or viruses or viri or virii.
Did I miss one?
Sorry, I should have indicated that the first paragraph is a quote from Serenak
FYI – Apple does have an X Server for those that want to run X11 programs, like the current version of OpenOffice for Mac. It is not installed by default though.
“he is not aware of the company’s channel strategy. A spokesman for Apple’s channel organization was not available for comment.”
Apple has no channel. The channel they once had, they have slowly killed off as they have worked harder and harder at selling direct to consumers via their retail stores and web store.
The enterprise is not going to build out networks using an unfamiliar product that is sold in malls and via the web.
Apple has killed themselves when it comes to selling to business.
“The problem now is that Microsoft is almost completely ignoring their own customers. the more everyone gets bombarded with attacks on their computers, the less they care. after all of these security problems with IE they answer with “In longhorn IE will be so intergrated that you will never be able to chose again” attitude.”
To further that point, it seems the more integrated with IE Windows becomes, the greater the frequency and severity of security problems. What makes MS think that further increasing the integration of IE and Windows will make security better for IE?
“”The problem now is that Microsoft is almost completely ignoring their own customers. the more everyone gets bombarded with attacks on their computers, the less they care. after all of these security problems with IE they answer with “In longhorn IE will be so intergrated that you will never be able to chose again” attitude.”
ms has released a new isa firewall server (v 2004)
they have released updates constantly and consistently to their products
they moved to a monthly patch cycle to ease the burden on admins
they provide security update cds for free
they have released updates and all new versions of update software and patch management tools free of cost
they are providing windows xp service pack 2 free, both as a download and via freely mailed cds to nearly anywhere in the world
their response time with fixes to revealed vulnerabilities has shortened dramatically in recent years.
windows server 2003 is considered by all competent sources to be much more secure than windows 2000 server, which likewise is more secure than nt 4.
iis 6 (released with windows server 2003) is again considered by all knowledgable sources to be substantially more secure than iis 5.
they extended support on extremely old oses like nt 4 and windows 98.
ms has promoted security in a major way as it is shows prominent links to security resources on their home page, they discuss it when you are on hold when you call customer support, partner mailings are filled with security information, they have made arrangements with third party anti virus software to provide anywhere from 90 days to 1 years worth of free anti virus software via download links from their website.
i dont call any of that “ignoring”
“…which says the latest versions of the Unix-based Macintosh OSX operating system code-named “Panther” significantly enhances the ability for the Mac client and server to integrate with Microsoft’s Active Directory and Windows server environment.”
Does that mean that IEEE 802.1X in new Panther will work with buggy/non-standard Microsoft RADIUS server? If the answer is yes, I wonder why IEEE standards exist at all? Why not wait until Microsoft implements something and then we’ll all interface to it.
First I’d like to say that it’s really sad to see how JCS and others have hijacked this thread.
Now to the real issue. I’m one of 24 people, including management, that support 2200 desktop computers. Ninty percent of the people using these using only the following software: MS Office (mostly only Word and only a little Excel and PowerPoint), Internet Explorer (internal employee benefits software by Peoplesoft), and Adobe Acrobat Reader. The other 10% use additional programs.
The 90% group could easily use an eMac and if they did my company would save about $300 per computer.
This is how businesses of 1,000 people or more “usually” work. They don’t look for the best price of the day computers. They go with one computer vendor, like Dell, and settle on one computer model and only change when the model changes.
The main thing about home computers and business computers is that home computers can change on a daily or hourly basis. Most companies won’t put up with this. They demand that a vendor, such as Dell, stabilize a model for about six months and send out an updated PC for the company to test before they start buying them.
Once the company starts buying a model they have people that create a default configuration. They then make an “image” using something like Ghost. All the rest of the computers of that model get “ghosted” (the Ghost image is downloaded to them) and the any additional special, non default software is then installed on top of that. If there are more than ten that will have a same configuration above the default one, a new special Ghost image is created for them.
With each new model this happens again.
There are approximately 10,000 people in the company I work for. My group is only responsible for 2,200 of them as there are multiple divisions in this company. We have people specifically dedicated to firewalls and e-mail servers that try to stop viruses, worms, etc., from getting through. We also have very specific desktop profiles and profile groups. We also have a couple guys that write software to probe each computer every day to verify each and every security patch is downloaded and installed on every computer (done when logging in).
The most irritating thing about MS’s security is the holes that we can’t close. I don’t mean we aren’t able. But when we do some applications won’t run correctly so we have to leave them open. But then there are quite a few holes that MS is working (supposedly) on closing. They just haven’t gotten there yet.
What this leads to is viruses still getting through and infecting Windows computers. We have the equivalent of 1.7 techs per day cleaning viruses and worms off of computers every day.
Out of 2,200 computers we have 17 Macs. So far during the time that I have been at the company (February 1997) none of our Macs have every been infected with viruses or worms. The graphics people that use them are just as bad as Windows users of surfing to places they shouldn’t surf to. This is evident by the pretty much even amount of Spam that both our Windows and Mac users get.
I have both a Mac (a 350 mhz G3 blue and white tower with 256 mb of RAM) and a Wintel (P4 2.6ghz x86 computer with 512 RAM) computers on my desk. Every day I remote into Windows computers and fix them. Plus I do all of my Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and web based work with no problems. New techs are always shocked when they find out I do most of my work on my Mac. My Windows computer is mostly used as a reference machine. When I do use it (my Windows computer) I use Opera instead of IE to drastically reduce my chance of getting viruses.
To summarize. Ninty percent of the users I support could easly do all of their work on an eMac and the company could save several hundred dollars per computer. Why don’t they? “Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.” We’d also have a lot less techs in our department. So I guess it’s good using Windows as more people are employed to keep the leaking ship from sinking.
“First I’d like to say that it’s really sad to see how JCS and others have hijacked this thread.”
I didn’t “hijack” the thread. I made a one line comment in a many line post that some here disagreed with. An argument resulted.