By Andy McCue, 20 January 2005 14:45
NEWS Apple users and fans have angrily hit back at claims by top IT bosses in this week's silicon.com CIO Jury that Apple is largely "irrelevant" to their corporate IT strategies.
While some of the reader feedback was just plain abusive vitriol, we've collected together the best of the more considered responses arguing against the CIO claims.
One of the main arguments was that IT directors and CIOs have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which in the case of most large corporates tends to be a Wintel platform.
silicon.com reader Jeff Lebowski from the US said: "Senior managers don't choose the best products, they choose the 'safe' products. You'll never get fired or demoted for choosing Microsoft solutions regardless of how insecure, buggy and high maintenance they become."
Another reader suggested market forces will push Apple into the business arena: "Those companies that can cut costs in IT will move ahead of those who doggedly stay with their old technology. It happened with IBM in the 1970s and it is happening now with open source. The Macs are Linux with training wheels. Training is a cost, and needs to be factored into the overall total cost of ownership."
On a more specific level, Randal Bahner, a small business convert from Microsoft to Apple, disagreed with the CIO Jury's assertions based on his switch two years ago.
"My introduction to Mac OS X was met with some scepticism but after over a year of working with Mac OS X Server, I would not say it is 'irrelevant' to businesses. I have enjoyed using their front-end interface and yet can still pop in to the Terminal and get 'greasy'. I don't know, may be its just me, but I find it much easier to administer and plan to dump my Windows stuff totally and replace it with OS X Server," he said.
London-based company director Timothy Barnes added that his consulting company now runs Macs.
"We have no problems integrating with the companies that are our clients, finding the right software or connecting to corporate networks. The overall cost of ownership is far lower given the low training requirements, better security and higher user productivity," he said.
But among the masses of pro-Apple reader comments there were still a few readers who sided with the CIOs' assertion that Apple isn't important for corporate IT departments.
Nick Clark, an IT director from London, said: "The Mac platform is a real pain to tie down in any decent sized network with multiple users. They are still overpriced compared to equivalent PCs from manufacturers such as Dell, and cost even more to support. This is from the perspective of an educational establishment with 1,100 PCs and 120 Macs, so it is informed."
Another London-based developer responding to a post calling the CIOs an "uninformed bunch of pompous fools" said: "HmmmÂ…10+ guys who are heads of their respective IT organisations or somebody with an 'ology'. Who you gonna believe?"
Comments
There are 43 comments. Join the discussion
1. Zato
"uninformed bunch of pompous fools"
Anybody who believes those fools actually said those things about the Mac in 2005, is also a fool.
Come on, Silicon.com, when did they say them. 1995?
2. anonymous
Actually, it was your panel who started the 'vitriol'. Calling Apple 'irrelevant' when it is clearly very relevant to many companies and individuals is trollish and guaranteed to evoke the kind of response you received. Having said that, I would like to see your panel address the meat of most counter-arguments, i.e. that many IT professionals are loath to recommend or install alternatives (such as, but not limited to) Apple because they will jeopardize their employment.
DD
[Ed note: Actually they didn't start the vitriol DD. Our panel simply stated their opinions on the subject and whether you agree with those opinions or not, they did it in a civilised manner. Many of the reader comments we received we have been unable to publish because they consisted of very personal abusive remarks]
3. Sanford Barton
Hello,
I have an opinion piece on the article about Apple's irrelevance up on my Blog now. I've just started covering Apple in the Enteprise.
http://homepage.mac.com/sbarton/iblog/apple
Thanks,
Bart
4. Manuel Deschambault
This is in response to Nick Clark who claims Macs cost more to support in an educational establishment. I'm a mac tech at a french canadian schoolboard, and we have both technologies, 90% of our grade schools are on mac, and 75% of our high schools are on PC.
The mac techs here have as many computers assigned to them as the PC techs. The difference is that their computers are all labs of 30 identical machines in one or two buildings, wereas we have 7-12 schools each, located in villages all over the place. On top of that, our grade schools have no labs, each classroom has 3-6 disparate machines, each requiring different software from kindergarden to grade 6.
The automated installations systems we've developped allow us way more customisation than our PC counterparts can achieve.
Don't take this as PC bashing, we all get along great here, Mac or PC, we just make it work. But there is no way you could replace my 600+ machines in my 7 schools with PC's and have one guy support them all, no way.
The problem with Mac is the lack of good techs, I know I'll never be unemployed. All the colleges cranking out IT specialists do so without teaching a single OS X class. And IT people don't go with things they don't know. How many members of your IT jury have actually setup an OS X Server?
5. anonymous
What was so tiring about the IT panel was the outdated reasons, many of which are demonstrably false. I don't expect many large enterprises to entertain introduction of a different technology given their present support work load. Smaller firms could well find significant cost savings and increased productivity if they did. The release of Tiger, the next OS upgrade will have new features that will contribute to this. One is Automator, an easy process integrator for custom applications. It's worth a look.
6. Stuart Roebuck
Whilst I'm sure Nick Clark's comments are informed, I suspect that Tower Hamlets College uses Macs and PCs in quite different ways, and I would be interested to know how he has calculated the relative costs of support given the significant difference in the number of PCs and Macs.
Has he taken into account the time and expense associated with the virus attack that knocked out their servers for 3 days in 2000 and that have subsequently infected 600 staff PC machines despite the existence an email barrier system which no-doubt costs them money to run. <http://www.lmn.net.uk/events/03nov2004/nick-clark.pdf>?
Every study I have seen has indicated that Macs have lower support costs. But in a mixed platform environment dominated by PCs that doesn't necessarily follow because strategy's are often designed around the PCs and then the Macs are shoehorned into the system. Good IT managers design mixed platform environments around a mixed-platform solution, and there are some very nice mixed-platform solutions available.
7. Zato
[Ed note: Actually they didn't start the vitriol DD. Our panel simply stated their opinions on the subject and whether you agree with those opinions or not, they did it in a civilised manner. Many of the reader comments we received we have been unable to publish because they consisted of very personal abusive remarks]
What did you expect???
The article is pure flamebait.
You can't be that stupid.
8. anonymous
I am a DBA for a hospital. Powers here at the hospital complain about Windows and all the patch updates and the man hours lost from virus attacks all the time. They constantly ask I wish there was another way. You mention how about OSX and the pitch forks come out. They call you a mac fanatic and why don't just get with the program with everybody else. They will not even try the Mac's on test basis. This has been the case everywhere where I have worked. It's like a scene from the Bodysnatchers. They find out you are a Mac user and scream and point.
9. anonymous
I've got to agree with Zato. You guys posted flamebait. Then you get flamed. Well, duh. I'm sure you'll use this to back up opinions that Mac users are "fanatics" "cult members" and so on. Journalism, that is not. You also failed to note the sociology of the IT heads. They got where they are not by fixing the problem, but by being firefighters. That's how people get promoted, in general, and especially so in IT. The "heroes" get the rewards, not the people who prevent the fires in the first place.
10. anonymous
For those IT directors who couldn't find any relevance in Apple's products for the enterprise I would direct their attention to the third Computerworld article on Xsan. If they don't see the cheaper and easier solution illustrated in it I truly believe their blindness is insurmoutable. Here's the url:
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/macos/story/0,10801,99091,00.html
11. Shane Selman
These arguments are as old and tired as the hills.
The simple truth is this... Apple's primary barriers to the corporate desktop is cost per unit, and it's perception as a "toy OS" not suited to "real work"
The idea that integrating OSX onto any network platform is a challenge is, well, ignorant. OS X plays well with ALL other major FS types, including Fat32, NTFS and NFS. Anyone that thinks otherwise has simply not used a recent Mac, or FreeBSD on which it is based, or any modern era Unix derived operating system (Linux).
The lack of applications is another holdover from a previous era. Thanks to packages like Fink and DarwinPorts, almost every major OSS development project is available on OS X without the need for your sys-admins to know how to port software.
Most major commercial productivity software is now available for Mac. I have asked repeatedly for a list of missing applications, and with the exception of Outlook, I dont get very many.
Lastly, the idea that OSX is not inherently more secure than Windows can be nothing but the product of ignorance.
While no OS is "immune" to attack, the simple fact that it is based on a modern Unix type OS make it more difficult to infect a machine, and incalculably more difficult to compromise or damage more than a single user.
Yes, Linux, and OSX and BSD DO benfit from security by obscurity, but that is hardly their only advantage. Even Linux and BSD's sharpest critics agree that they are for more natively secure than Windows. These OS's were build, from the beginning, with solid, well thought out access controls at all levels. Look at the progression of Windows and it is clear that their security policy is grafted onto an existing code base that has grown organically for too many years.
The simple truth is that if you had the exact same number of individuals trying to exploit OSX (or Linux, or BSD), Windows would still have more exploitable vulnerabilites, and the severity of those vulnerabilities would be higher.
Now, I'll move on to the points none of them bothered to address...
Remote Management:
Expecially in the last 2 years, Apple has made incredible strides in remote management. ARD, with the release of 2.0 is an amazing accomplishment, allowing relatively painless maintenance and support of a vast number of machines. Patch and application deployment are better with their $500 package than any I have seen on much larger PC Management systems. Remote control is accomplished with the open VNC standard, so it is possible to monitor and control non-Macs as well with a minimum of work, and the ARD daemon is smaller and less intrusive than even its counterparts in Linux.
NetBoot and NetInstall are the other two weapons apple has deployed on this front, and they are lightyears beyond PXE or anything the WinTel world has to offer.
While some Linux packages can nearly achieve the functionality it offers, none of them come anywhere close in ease of use.
In short, as someone who moved from Windows to Linux to OS X, I can say without a doubt, I can effectively support and maintain more Mac's with OSX than I can Linux machines (server or desktop) and more Linux machines than I can Windows, and I would bet money that the same would be true in any comparison among equally skilled technicians.
Is Apple the right solution for every shop? Absolutely not, but I would submit that anyone responsible for the future of their company that dismisses them out of hand has not done their homework.
12. Nick Cole
What a pointless argument many of the correspondents make. At the end of the day people use, run and supply what they are used to. Macs are no more easy to use or advanced than Wintel products. In practice they are more expensive to purchase let alone support or migrate to so corporates will invariably stay with what they know. In fact any major technology migration is expensive regardless of direction.
Unfortunately we are in the VHS v Betamax situation, and I am sure there are still people out there somewhere with Betamax foreswearing VHS. Perhaps they will quietly shut up and move to DVD, which implies that until something (much) better comes along that pushes both Wintel and Mac into oblivion these arguments will just carry on.
As a corporate manager of both Wintel and Mac I know where the knowledge and costs lie, from both a user and service perspective. In terms of sheer numbers, commonality and skills transfer Wintel wins!
13. Matthew Williams
Here Here Shane, very concisely put!
Just what I was about to post, if only I could articulate as well...
Now if only iWorks included an Excel compatible spreadsheet and Filemaker (with Access compatiblity, please Apple), then I'd be cooking on gas with this platform.
14. Anthony Hunt
You can argue that a Ferrari is better than a Ford Focus, but when a product is too expensive and too specialised for mainstream consumers, they are not going to switch.
Rented any BETA-MAX films lately?
None of our clients have or would touch Macs for just this reason.
15. Gerard
Excellent point Nick and great analogy I could not agree more!
16. Mickael Behn
Working in a Media company with over 120 Computers, 90 being PC's and 30 being Macs. I have to do a constant alert and support for the PC's users. Not because there are twice as many, but rather because Windows is currently a flawed OS system. My support for the Macs are rarely if ever need, meanwhile i have to rebuild or "fix" PC's almost every month because of virus, user error or because of Microsoft bad programming.
In the end an office can be built around Macs with better success. Current IT managers and Directors in the UK are Old dogs that should have been put away with the Old DOS systems. They hate change and justify their existence by supporting a flawed OS. If they supported Macs on a full basis their jobs would be in Jeopardy. Will that change, yes. It will once the old guard of IT directors are put out of the industry, and the new generation takes over, the generation that actaully uses all systems and uses the best one for the job. In most cases the Mac does it all, thanks to Unix.
17. anonymous
It strikes me as deeply sad to be evangelical about a brand of computer, it reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch with Michael Palin eulogising about his garden spade.
18. anonymous
I do wish that mac fans would grow up.
How childish to flame just because someone said something you did not like.
Is it no supprise that i dislike apple so much.
As for the 'it's more secure' argument that comes up so often, how many critical security updates have there been for MAC OSX. 3 that i know of. No doubt apple have an auto update system that downloads updates without telling you (unlike Mshaft).
Regarding viruses, if the mac becomes more popular than wintel PC's then i am sure the little Bas***ds who write viruses will find every hole in the current Mac OS and attack it.
All platforms have different areas where they excel, try using some of them. Windows explorer is the best program for usability known to man kind.
19. Richard
Flamebait? My @rse!
Listen you MacSaddos, this is Silicon.com, not some geekboard for nerds with apple logos shoved too far up their port replicators. Your "flaming" responses, both published and unpublishable are an embarrassment to Mac users everywhere.
It is the job of Silicon.com to report pertinent IT industry stories and stimulate debate. If you are capable of an intelligent response, submit it but please don't spout pointless vitriol which perpetuates the myth that Mac fans are all obsessed loonies.
The CIOs may have been ill-informed, even irresponsible, but they are what we are up against, not the journalists who report the stories.
Don't go barking at the moon in the lake, you make yourselves look foolish.
20. Doc
"Uninformed bunch" - were you referring to mac users?
There are mac viruses out there if you check, probably being spread by all mac users who believe that there are none so don't bother with antivirus software.
21. Alister
I have to take issue with your headline here: I read through all the comments yesterday, and by no means all of them were from Apple users; indeed, the ones with the most telling points were those from professionals who work in mixed Mac/PC environments.
The overwhelming majority of these highlighted how much less IT support the Macs required when compared to the PCs, often dramatically so, leading to much lower Total Owenership Cost.
And yet, the only person from a mixed environment quoted in today's article was the man from Tower Hamlets who takes a minority viewpoint.
22. anonymous
Maybe it's best to let the masses struggle on with PC's. And keep satisfingly quiet, knowing that my business has got the competitive edge. I know the savings- we run Macs if preference to PCs over the last 12 years.
23. anonymous
Windows Explorer is the best program known to man? What kind of moron are you???? This is how all the spyware has proliferated! Holes in Explorer!!!
Why are so many people downloading Firefox?
I work on both macs & PC's.. Bill Gates has never had an orginal thought in his life!
24. Johnny Appleseed
Re: Mac evangelising, garden spades are a little lower-tech, wouldn't you say? The reason the Mac brings out religious tendencies in otherwise irreligious people is that it behaves the way a human would expect - it's intuitive. It's something you have to experience to understand.
25. mike
"As for the 'it's more secure' argument that comes up so often, how many critical security updates have there been for MAC OSX. 3 that i know of. No doubt apple have an auto update system that downloads updates without telling you (unlike Mshaft)."
Huh? Spoken like someone who's never used OS X...
You just ASSUME that Apple forces downloads upon people?! Why would you assume that Apple does that? Apple has had Software Update for years now.. it's pretty standard stuff.. but no automatic downloads at all.
Furthermore, the critical weaknesses have never been exploited by a virus or a worm. That's absolutely crucial for you to understand. There's no dishonesty here: Macs don't get viruses.
Here's a thought: considering how many Microsofties (I can't imagine there are MS 'fans' but , there are...) resent Apple and especially their passionate followers, why NOT shut them up with a Mac virus. Just one? Please?
Viruses won't perpetuate on OS X. Anything to be installed has to be granted permission manually by the admin/main user. That's why it's pointless to build a Mac virus. Because if it can't copy itself and multiply through the Mail program, etc, it would never reach more than ten users.
Yes, it is possible to build a more secure OS than Windows. Try the OS for a month before you make cynical assumptions that, "Apple must be like this, it's all lies."
26. mike
There are mac viruses out there if you check, probably being spread by all mac users who believe that there are none so don't bother with antivirus software.
--
Hmm that's interesting. It's pretty nice though, apparently all these viruses you speak of are designed to do absolutely nothing. Wow. I feel so violated.
27. Mickael Behn
The point in this matter is that is the users that matter, thats why we build our systems as we do. I dont care if its a PC,Mac or Linux, it has to do the job with the least hassle for the end user. It not for the pride and benefit of the IT manager. As it comes down today some PC techonlogy has to be used to be comptible with other older systems out there. But it has come to my attention that the Fact the Mac doesnt currently have any virus or evil spayware that this translates to the most hassle free experience for the end users. That may change one day but for now the Mac is the better system to go for, end of story. The Fact that most IT guys would even try it shows they lack of being able to adapt to the current reality of the computer industry.
I dare the IT industry to make the IT infastructure for their users and not for their own benefit. In the end we are nothing with the happiness of our Users. Build the systems for them. and if it means learn new Operating systems that work or in the niche market but get the job done, then do that. Who knows it might make your life as an IT director better. its about customer care just as much as about building a good strong system. As it stands now Windows is not secure and not hassle free for the user, again that may change, but for now my vote is for the Macintosh and Linux.
28. mike
Current IT managers and Directors in the UK are Old dogs that should have been put away with the Old DOS systems. They hate change and justify their existence by supporting a flawed OS.
----
As someone wittier than myself said:
"Why ask your Barber if you need a haircut?"
Once PC users figure out how marketshare is calculated (the machine that breaks down faster gets a higher market share, more units sold in a quarter for short-lifespan systems.) they'll give the low-unit guys a shot. All you have to do is see Mac OS X and you'll get curious..
But please. No opinions based on 1989 half-truths about the company. You owe it to yourself to see why Mac users won't shut the hell up
29. Douglas Metcalfe
Seeing such profound ignorance uniformly displayed by your panel of "experts" does make one want to flame this ignorance.
I'm sure that some Mac zealots got carried away in this flaming and Silicon,com did the right thing by editing out the more abusive comments.
But the fact remains that the comments by the panel were self serving FUD to protect their jobs and budgets. These panelists are representative of the old order who will cling to Microsoft solutions because they know nothing but what has been shoveled to them by Microsoft.
It's best to leave them in their ignorance and use it against them as a competitive advantage for your own company.
30. Oliver Müller
I have been a Mac and PC user for 15 years. To me the Mac experience has always been more solid than PC.
Now as for the corporate world, it is not always neccessary to have the best looking system, or the one with the most features. The best system is the one that works. And granted, until maybe 3 years ago, a Wintel based system was best for the corporation, but with there being more and more losses due to Microsofts' security holes this is not so anymore.
Now, Apple may have gathered a stigma of being a "Toy", and maybe, until the advent of OSX, the Mac was not a viable option, but now is the time for anyone who has their companies best interest at heart to at least consider that there are other options out there.
Maybe the original panel did just that, and came to the conclusion, that Apples systems were irrelevant to the continued success of their companies. And as a "Mac-Freak" I can accept that.
The main problem with the judgement "Macs being irrelevant in the corporate world" was, that is was not substanciated, and reading only the headline dismissed the Apple option outright.
Because our companiy does not use forklifts to move items from A to B, the statement "Forklifts are irrelevant" is true. But only to our company, and some others who deliver a similar product. Would a broader panel from a more diversified field have delivered a different result?
I certainly hope so...
31. Hid
I still don't understand why these hospitals etc etc are getting so many viruses (computer viruses i mean!!).
Ever since I had my mail filtered off site, i haven't had a single virus come into my network in the last 4 years.
Then u just switch off all media bays and have a proper whitelist for web browsing.
Where else are u getting all these viruses from???
I guess people might bring them in on USB memory sticks....
As for updates taking a long time, why don't u just get it done automatically overnight?
What the hell are all these so-called Windows-using IT managers doing?
Again, i seem to be the only Windows-using IT Manager in the world who doesn't have any problems with Windows.
I think the stories about how much downtime u have with Windows due to viruses and updates is as overblown as the stories that Linux is much cheaper to run than Windows.
And as for Mike The Student saying that current IT managers fear change and should have been cleared out with DOS, well, we'll see what your stance is when u get a job.
Company: OK, we offer you the position of IT Manager, overseeing 200 Windows PCs.
Mike: Oh, i hate Windows, can I spend 200k to change them all to Macs?
Company: No, we don't have the time or budget to do that. Your salary would be 50k if u decide to take the job.
Mike: When do i start?
Being a board warrior is all very well.. when your mortgage and livelihood depends on your job, we'll see how your principles stand up.
32. Moon Watcher
OK - enough already...
Let's look @ the scoreboard:
# of viruses, spyware, malware, etc:
Windows: 70,000+
OS X: 0 <===<<< Zero, Nada, Zilch, Goose Egg, NONE!!!
The old guard can't wait for OS X to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING so they can say: "See OS X isn't so secure either!"
Still, if/when that ever happens the score will be:
Windows: 70,000++
OS X: 1
Ask any third grader which would be more secure.
Have fun with the upcoming SEVEN versions of XPsp3 (aka Longhorn)
33. Anthony Gordon
Head of IT is now a Mac convert...and not the only one...!
As the head of IT for a large multi-national, a Microsoft cert and solutions provider, I have had to be Wintel focused. One of the readers comments was true about the fear of moving from an established system albeit flakey and riddled with flaws to one that is renown for its high price and niche markets but stability. Recently, I have gone against the grain and decided to introduce the Mac on a larger scale. Instead of the 150 Mac users and 500 PC users in one of our branches we now have 550 Mac users and 100 PC users. Of course the hardware was primarily more expensive but additional features that you get as standard in addition to the stability with Macs helped to get the Chief Bean Counter's signature on to paper. The physical look of the Macs in addition to the ease of use not to mention the fact that they haven't become slower after 4 weeks of deployment, have made them a hit with our users including the 'Techno-Phob of the year' CEO. Most companies who fall outside of the media-type orgs don't use Macs and a lot of these CIO's and IT Managers have always worked for financial institutes or non-creative organisations where Macs are not generaly used so they stick to what they know. This will change over time...Apple are on a mission to capture and convert PC users and by their introduction of the iPod and Mac Mini their journey has begun.
34. Alex K.
If the person who wrote this article is still using Photoshop 5 and Office 97, why is it so urgent to upgrade to a new version of the OS?
The reason is that OS 10.0 was basically a beta, 10.1 was somewhat complete, but 10.2 and 10.3 added tons of new features to the API that Apple really had to add right away. windows 2000/xp isn't a start from scratch deal, OS X was basically starting all over with a whole new platform, from the NeXt operating system. To catch up (and in my opinion, go beyond) the level of Windows XP in just a few short years will make those incompatibilities arise.
An easy solution would be for Apple to lower or eliminate prices for people who want to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 or 10.3 to 10.4 when it comes out.
35. anonymous
"Actually they didn't start the vitriol DD."
I agree with the original poster, actually. Your panel DID start the "vitriol". Simply using the word "irrelevent" in respect to one of the industry software and hardward design leaders, no matter how "civilised" it was stated, is highly inflammatory. The entire article was so biased as to be extremely frustrating for any sensible person who has actually evaluated the alternatives to read. Simply using more acceptable vocabulary doesn't make the sentiment expressed by your panel any less inflammatory.
I agree with the poster who recommended people simply do the comparisons for themselves instead of reading columns such as yours, and use the cost savings from Apple equipment as a competitive advantage against the companies your panel works for.
36. anonymous
"There are mac viruses out there if you check, probably being spread by all mac users who believe that there are none so don't bother with antivirus software."
The only known viruses propogating "in the wild" on the Macintosh platform are macro viruses that infect Microsoft Office Mac just like the PC Office counterpart. If you do not use Microsoft software, you do not get viruses. But it is ironic that Microsoft has managed to bring viruses to one of the most secure platforms around.
37. Tom Socket
I'm rather surprised by the number of posters identifying themselves as IT Consultants and Business Analysts who clearly can't distinguish between purchase price and TCO (total cost of ownership). Bit scary, really.
38. Alistair Thomas
This article seems to have gone to a completely different cross section of humanity, either that or the 'Windoze' & 'M$' brigade exhaust so much much of their life force spouting profanity that they can only comment once in a while. This negative labelling adds nothing to the debate and just serves to entrench people's position even further. That said, I did like the 'Microsofties' tag as the opposite number to a Mac Zealot.
Original thought? I hear Bill gave a record donation of $750M dollars to good causes this week. Surely this is evidence to pose some reasonable doubt against the financial fascist view of him so often painted.
I think Bill and a few other noteworthies on the PC side should get a lifetime achievement award. If Windows didn't exist then you'd have to invent it almost in like image. With hindsight you might go with a Unix base to make things more secure but ho hum! Commitment to always providing an upgrade path and concepts like plug and play have provided a platform for processors, memory, graphics cards and the whole spectrum of associated hardware that have made personal computing (including the Mac) a commodity with reasonable prices even for the home.
Even if you think that Apple has been best since the dawn of time, it didn't bring the world together. Why not? Maybe it's just that they weren't IBM. Bill did the deal with IBM and has succeeded long enough to see the retirement of some very powerful names. Credit where credit's due.
The reason that Windows is so flawed is because it is the result of 20 years evolution. NT was a major mutation but they strived to bring this all together again in XP. So much baggage trying to protect the investment of so many people. Well, it's time for another mutation – patching isn’t working. I don't know Longhorn's origins but it needs to be built from the ground up with security and multi-user at its core. Corporates will port their lives to such a system (even at a cost, although a phased migration would help) so long as it delivers a new beginning and because they trust that Bill is in it for the long haul and that mistakes will get fixed (eventually) - exactly the same ‘safe’ thinking that made IBM.
For me the GUI was the first huge leap after 'DOS'. After that it was the use of the right button to give context specific help. Intuitivity can be quite subjective, but if you can point at something and ask it what it is and what can be done with it then that's sort of absolute. A friend showed me his Mac system the other day and for sure the GUI is very sophisticated with things expanding (bubble effect!) as you roll over them. Cute but ... The truely impressive thing and the next quantum leap for me was that it was a virtual machine. He had two users logged on the system and he could switch between them at a stroke. My wife and I use the same system at home and my work and play profiles are vastly different. Being able to switch between 2 or more profiles without logging off is very powerful.
There’s room for Apple and Microsoft and a whole lot more besides. For sure, healthy competition will make things better for all of us.
39. Mickael Behn
Oddly enough it tends to be CEO's that dont look at different TCO's. They look at the buttom line, total current value of change. i was asked once what do my users need excel for. we only need machine with excel and they can all access that machine, to save money. CEO's dont know better (not all but most). Its up to IT to express the needs of the users and a better system. WinOS doesnt do that as of now, Linux hasnt reach a mature state for "commen users", but i must say it is getting there. MacOS is the most secure and mature of the 3 (even thought its the youngest of the 3) maybe that why there doing it well because they have learned from the mistakes of WinOS.
40. Alistair Thomas
Pleased to see that the 'Windoze' & 'M$' brigade have declined to comment this time. Their negative labelling adds nothing to the debate and just serves to entrench people's position even further. That said, I did like the 'Microsofties' tag as the opposite number to a Mac Zealot.
Original thought? I hear Bill gave a record donation of $750M dollars to good causes this week. So many label him as some sort of financial fascist. Surely this will give some pause for thought.
I think Bill and a few other noteworthies on the PC side should get a lifetime achievement award. If Windows didn't exist then you'd have to invent it almost in like image. With hindsight you might go with a Unix base to make things more secure but ho hum! Commitment to always providing an upgrade path and concepts like plug and play have provided a platform for processors, memory, graphics cards and the whole spectrum of associated hardware that have made personal computing (including the Mac) a commodity with reasonable prices even for the home.
Even if you think that Apple has been the best since the dawn of time, it didn't bring the world together. Why not? Maybe it's just that they weren't IBM. Bill did the deal with IBM and has succeeded long enough to see the retirement of some very powerful names. Credit where credit's due.
The reason that Windows is so flawed is because it is the result of 20 years evolution. NT was a major mutation but they strived to bring this all together again in XP; so much baggage trying to protect the investment of so many people. I don't know Longhorn's origins but it needs to be built from the ground up with security and multi-user at its core. Corporates trust Bill because he has proven time and time again that he is in it for the long haul. Mistakes get made and get fixed (eventually) - exactly the same ‘safe’ thinking that made IBM.
For me and from a user perspective, the GUI was the first huge leap after 'DOS'. After that it was the use of the right button to give context specific help. Intuitiveness is subjective. Objects that tell you what they are and options for their use is absolute. I never understood why the Mac held out for one-button mice for so long. The Apple GUI is loaded with eye candy but the truly impressive capability is the multi-user/profile functionality, and this I believe is the next quantum leap.
There’s room for Apple and Microsoft and a whole lot more besides. For sure, healthy competition will make things better for all of us.
41. anonymous
Andy,
I am with you 100%. I am an IT manager who works for a large consulting company. I have been making a real good living managing and supporting Microsoft OSes over the past 20 years. I have finally made the switch last week and bought my first Mac. It is the Powerbook 17" with all the bells and whistles. Today, I am using the Mac for everything I do execlusively for business and for personal use. I am GLAD that I made the switch. I do recommend to every IT tech head and every IT Manager to try a Mac. I have been blinded for a long time by Microsoft marketing machine. There are other alternatives out there and it is much easier to use and a lot more stable to maintain. I will never again make fun of the Mac users, they are sure smarter than I was when it came to picking an Operating System. I still like Microsoft though; they are great for the business and with Windows, I would not be be able to afford buying my Mac with all the bells and whistles and all the software I need. I also would not be driving my 545i - go Microsoft!
42. anonymous
I have been an IT Consultant for over 20 years. I have had the opportunity to work with top level IT managers in Fortune 500 companies. I yet to meet one IT manager who puts the interest of his users or the interest of business ahead of IT interest.
43. Ian Bridges
I live in Australia: population 20 million, I am also a Mac user, part of a user base of 20 million.
Just about every major IT company on the planet finds it relevant to sell to the Australian market and to keep offices here despite the relatively small number of potential sales. So how is it that the Mac market, which is potentially much larger is seen as irrelevant?