Too busy to support Macs, but somehow he finds time to contend with all the Windows viruses? You gotta hand it to him, even as a professed Mac user, he's still protecting his turf.

"I.T. has to figure out a way to manage another Windows machine...viruses and all."

Funny how the Mac gets blamed for Windows' "viruses and all," rather than Windows taking the blame.

I passed a man in the forest chopping wood with a dull axe
I said to him

"if you sharpen your axe you will chop your wood faster"

" I have no time to sharpen my axe" he replied "I'm to busy choping wood!"

As an InfoWorld subscriber, I've been very impressed by the positive Mac coverage the magazine has portrayed. If you read Dickerson's column on a regular basis, you see that his topics are, by design, very extemporaneous. Along the way, he's made an excellent case for deploying Macs.

Now hold your breath for the next sentence: he advocates the right tool for the right solution. This principal allows the factoring of the Mac platform into a diverse and heterogeneous network. One can be in favor of Mac without becoming a tiring shill.

It sounds like what he's writing is what most I.T. professional feel about Macs. If he said something contrary, frankly, he's shoot his creditability with the vast majority of his audience, regardless of whatever treacly pleas a Mac zealot may utter.

I'm not saying Macs are too difficult to manage, quite the opposite. On our company's network, I'm the sole Mac user (I'm also the I.T. guy) because it's one LESS maintenance task for me.

I'm also saying: give InfoWorld massive credit. And, while you're at it, check Tom Yeager out -- he's a "switched" user and his columns are a delight to read. (Unless your a Mac myopic-fanatic and can't tolerate news about other platform developments)

... and that's the focus of the criticism.

I'm the Mac user, and the IT guy, and our PR guy, and our networking guy, and our alumni director. And the list goes on. Yet I am forced to spend my time dealing with the crap on PCs.

If he only realized how much real work he'd get done if he didn't have to contend with the PC problems, he might find he wasn't so busy and would actually be more productive!

You are being a little presumptous I believe suggesting that anyone who tries to contradict the idea that encouraging people to use an arguably better solution would automatically lose credibility with his/her peers is being a 'myopic fanatic' or being a 'Mac Zealot'. Is that what the truth is called these days? One presumes that majorities can't be zealots and fanatics no matter how illogical their argument it seems. As they say history is written by the victors.

Back in the mid to late 90's, I use to work for a company that was (is) pro Windows. I was the advocate to upgrade the the Macs to B&W G3s and got a butt load of flak. They went to the extent to hire an outside consultant who ended up recommending we upgrading the Macs versus going to Windows PCs.

So with that decision they created a new position for me to manage the Macs (Because IT didn't have the time or the desire to) That was in addition to my design work load - but hey I got a salary increase.

I still manage those Macs today even though I have since left the company. As recently as last month they were all set for me to install VirtualPC but then they realize that they would have to manage another Windows client (and it running on the Macs no less) so they pulled the plug.

But I can see why some (most?) Windows IT professionals are so reluctant to add Mac to the work load, those guys are usually running around frantic. Hell if I was that busy I wouldn't want to add to my work load either.

And don't get me started on how freaked out they get when you even mention the word Mac. Sheesh - they act like it's a plaque and they never could figure anything out about them. Come on, it a damn computer, hard drive, RAM, network connection and interface. I'm not a Windows support person and rarely get on one and I still wouldn't treat a Windows user like that if they asked me for help. - Fear of the unknown for some people I guess.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
... and that's the focus of the criticism.

I'm the Mac user, and the cable guy, and our comic book guy, and our fall guy, and our aluminum compactor. And the list goes on. Yet I like to spend my time crapping on PCs while recording myself do it on camera.

If he only realized how much real work he'd get done if he didn't have to contend with the PC problems, he might be able to save the world!

InfoWorld is one of the few non-Mac pubs that actually shed a good light on the platform. Don't go all fanatical on him and tell him how Windows blows and that he doesn't have a clue.

He makes some good points. The Mac is a good machine, but have you tried to have it work with an Exchange Server? Not good. Also, there is a ton of Windows-only software that business are stuck with due to licensing issues. I won't get on my soapbox on how stupid that is (Oracle sux sux SUX!), but nevertheless it is an issue.

This will be a slow transition, but I think changes are on the horizon. With XServe, XServe RAID, OS X, and now the inexpensive Mac mini, marketshare will rise, and the Macs may finally peep into the enterprise market. (hey developers - learn Cocoa now and you may have a gold mine in several years for the few enterprises that go with a hybrid Windows/Mac solution).

It's coming along. InfoWorld always gives good reviews to the Apple products.

Here's the letter I just wrote in response (MacNN mentioned this article as well, and Dickerson wrote in with a mea culpa of sorts in their comments section):

"Regarding your recent “Want a Mac? You’re on Your Own” column, you responded to MacNN.com’s coverage of the column with a comment stating that you intend to write a follow-up column to clarify your points.

I appreciate that you intend to write a follow-up, because it is very much needed in order to correct the implications of your original column.

You stated that the new guy specifically asked for a Mac, and your response was “If you promise not to ask for support or help of any kind, sure.” It's one thing to "not evangelize" on the company dime (which I agree with), but in this case you specifically shot down someone who wanted a Mac.

Wouldn't it have made a LOT more sense--both as an IT guy, a good company man, and a Mac user--to explain to the guy the reasons why, in his particular case it might not be the best solution to use a Mac, instead of a flip "don't bug me, I'm busy?" I don't mean an in-depth tutorial, just a quick 1-minute overview would have done the trick. Sure, he might still have gone for the PC option, but at least he wouldn't have the crap scared out of him.

Conversely, if you did go into it in more depth with the salesman, you should have explained this in your column; as it stands, anyone reading the article walks away with the completely wrong perception that Macs = PITA to support = Bad Idea in enterprise...which is not only completely the opposite of the truth, but is the very misperception that Mac users have been battling all along. You've just done Microsoft's work for them, regardless of the true state of things at InfoWorld."

In the publishing world (of which I am a part), MOST magazines are produced on Macs. That is a fact. IF Infoworld is being produced solely on PCs (which I doubt) I'm sure the I.T. issues are a constant concern. Magazine publishing requires a VERY tight deadline. Downtime because of Windows problems would kill any monthly rag in no time flat.

I suspect that InfoWorld may have wanted to remain "pure" to its PC-using majority of readers by establishing a Windows-based workflow early on (so as not to seem hypocritical or out of touch with its core audience), but that they're "too busy" to support Macs seems like a lame excuse.

The support, server, and backup issues of an OS-X publishing environment are well-established and stable, and InfoWorld is cheating itself by limiting its exposure to server alternatives like XServe. Sure, there are always some Mac tech issues, but just tell the tech geeks that "there's UNIX in there!" and watch em be seduced by OS-X!

Can anyone confirm which OS InfoWorld uses to create their mag?

-Ken P

From the article: "When you bring a Mac into the corporate environment, you have to factor in software overhead such as VPN clients, Lotus Notes, and backup clients."

If he is using mainstream VPN setups (such as Cisco) there is a VPN client for OSX that is provided by Cisco as part of their license. Or, if they are not using a double certificate setup the built-in VPN client may work. No additional overhead there. Also, Lotus Notes for OSX is on par with Notes for Windows, and is available (probably on the same license) from IBM. Or turn on IMAP and use Entourage or Mail.app, which both work with Notes Domino Server.

There may be other things they do that require work-arounds, but these two shouldn't be part of them.

And we really need to restrict guest posts. I find the mangling of other peoples posts on the thread by juvenile guests both annoying and offensive.

PCs they use for all thier other computing needs.

Pixar and TMO use Lenox blade servers, and who knows how many pcs they are using.

I've never understood how IT pros can rant about how busy they are and how much the systems they have to maintain drive them crazy, and yet never consider the idea that maybe there is something better out there than what they are using. If a rational person is having a constant problem with a tool they are using wouldn't they, at the very least, explore whether another tool is available?
My only conclusion is that they all know if their charges ran better and more consistently their importance would plummet (along with their pay). It would be nice if they would just say "I'm an IT guy and I specify Windows because it keeps me employed."

Quote

iggyb wrote:
The Mac is a good machine, but have you tried to have it work with an Exchange Server? Not good.

It shows the attitude of a broad thinking IT guy who likes macs but has to maintain an almost 100% PC network. I liked it, he didn't try to be too political - and as a result will of course get lots of fanmail going "die you PC Pig" - and he stated his concerns clearly.
Now, to recap, he didn't say anything about PC's being superior or macs being inferior, he simply explained why he couldn't support macs in a very fast moving and tight PC network geared at making the next deadline.
He also didn't say the mac is not capable to function in such a network, he just said that he didn't want the hassle - and of course there's lots of hassle if you insert an unknown in your system, whether a new Windows OS, Linux, or Mac running a virtual environment - which counts as two OS solutions to support.
I'm lucky to have just one mac to support at the moment, I guess

Quote

FlipFriddle wrote:
I've never understood how IT pros can rant about how busy they are and how much the systems they have to maintain drive them crazy, and yet never consider the idea that maybe there is something better out there than what they are using.

Quote

FlipFriddle wrote:
It would be nice if they would just say "I'm an IT guy and I specify Windows because it keeps me employed."

Quote

Intruder wrote:
From the article: Also, Lotus Notes for OSX is on par with Notes for Windows, and is available (probably on the same license) from IBM. Or turn IMAP off and order Dominos Pizza.

There may be other things they do that require work-arounds, but these two shouldn't be part of them.

Here is my wannabe troll enforcer rant - I feel it's my hopeless insecure Mac servant duty to ask to restrict guest posts. I find the mangling of other peoples posts on the thread by juvenile guests both funny and inspiring.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I find the mangling of other peoples posts on the thread by juvenile guests both funny and inspiring.

If Infoworld converted to Mac-only, Dickerson would have a whole lot of free time on his hands. Maybe even so much free time that his employers wouldn't see a use for him.

He might like Macs, but it seems he likes having a job more.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Well there ARE plenty of funny posts on this board, but you're not really up to that level yet.

Agreed on the first point. But on the second, he was talking about Virtual PC running Windows. I don't see where he's blaming Mac for Windows viruses, do you?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Guest did NOT say that they're aren't any funny posts. Can't you read, or do you need to be read to?

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Guest did NOT say that they're aren't any funny posts. Can't you read, or do you need to be read to?

I never said he said that. You've somehow taken my statement that "there are plenty of funny posts" and turned it into "you didn't say there were funny posts." I don't know how you did that, exactly, but those two statements are not the same thing.
.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

You didn't say it exactly, but there is such a thing called making implications.
You emphasized ARE as in, "well, there ARE funny posts", implying that there weren't.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:
No, it implies that his original post wasn't funny.

As in "There ARE funny posts, but YOURs wasn't one of them."

That seems pretty clear to me.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

That was fast. Don't you have anything better to do, hopeless MacBot? I'm doing this and studying at the same time.

Quote

Guest wrote:


It sounds like what he's writing is what most I.T. professional feel about Macs. If he said something contrary, frankly, he's shoot his creditability with the vast majority of his audience, regardless of whatever treacly pleas a Mac zealot may utter.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Rendering effects. Gives me 5 minutes of waiting time.

"That was fast. Don't you have anything better to do, hopeless MacBot?"

Windows viruses: 70,000. Mac OS X viruses after four years of trying: 0.

I love watching Windows fanatics try to explain away that one. Why don't you give it a shot? It'll be fun for me.

Having read Dickerson's column for a long time, I think it's safe to say that there is more to this story than what is reflected in that piece. It would indeed be sad if he met the request with Draconian measures or scare tactics, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that I agree with his estimation on how much additional workload would be required to support the Macs, but I have the advantage of hindsight. If his policy is rooted in his lack of familiarity with the platform (see the "playing around" comment) or due to his already overextended workload, then his decision is spot on.
I'm a fan of Mac, and encourage switching where appropriate, but therin lies the key- it is not always appropriate. If Dickersons pragmatism draws an emotional reaction, then I'm inclided to side with him. Unless you work for Oprah, emotions don't pay the bills.

Anyone who has had to train a group of users in a new app knows the challenges associated with change - and the time demands. I developed merchandising systems for a department store chain in the 80s (on a mini - there is no Mac -v- PC involved) and bringing the buyers up to speed was a real joy.

The change required moving a large group of people from PCs to Macs is a huge task regardless of how great Macs are. The challenge is getting each individual user comfortable with the change and ensuring their productivity stays the same, regardless of the fact that it would increase over time.

Macs entry into business will, in a lot of cases, be one Mac at a time. Individual success stories in a company will move a few more in and the growth will be slow. One thing that would help would be if development was only on cross platform apps, like RealBasic, where the Mac, PC and Linux platforms are all taken care of at the same time.

Also it is important to understand that change costs money, and it is generally money that is not in the budget. This also leads to small steps. I have moved my office and home to Macs in the last year and it ain't cheap (especially for a small one man company) when you have to write the checks so I can appreciate where he is and how limited he is in moving forward.

The best part of the article is that he does like Macs and it shows. IT guys reading the article will understand the problems he faces, but will also be provided with another endorsement of macs. That's a good thing.

Of the 70,000 viruses, I have gotten zero. Maybe it's a lot more hype than actual threat.

Despite the several well-reasoned comments posted, I can't but help to note the irony on display here. I see the same intransigent "only MY platform thinking" here that I see embraced by I.T. managers and their reflexive implementation and support for homogeneous networks (that have, of course, excluded Macs and pushed us to the single digits of market adoption) I could understand such defensive posturing under OS 9, but, really folks, get a grip. Give Mac OS X a little more time and confidence. We’re making undeniable headway here.

Quote

jonkroupa wrote:
Of the 70,000 viruses, I have gotten zero. Maybe it's a lot more hype than actual threat.

I suspect he's just not comfortable or confident enough with Macs, which are more of a lifestyle/hobby/interest of his, to consider himself an IT specialist in them. Though at the same time, it might be a bit of an ego thing too. After all, if you're the IT guy, and the Mac user just happens to run into a trickier problem you can't solve...

When someone asks what computer should they buy; I tell them if you buy a Windows computer don't come to me for support, I am too busy to waste my time. Now to be fair, I have clients/friends using Macs that that have enough trouble outwitting paper and pencil not to mention a computer, but I can imagine the problems they would have with Windows and malware.

I work for a medium-sized non-profit corporation. We have a network of about 20 PC's, run off a fairly new Dell server, running Win 2K, MS Exchange, a proprietary membership database program, and so on. We have a full-time IT person. We have experienced many days of down time and lost productivity due to viruses, hardware problems, etc. (Most recently, the addition of a donated Dell SCSI RAID backup box totally hosed our working drive and we had to revert to a backup -- it took two days to sort this out, during which we had no access to our membership database or email.)

The result: at least theoretically, we're considering ditching the whole mess and going to an all-Mac solution.

Question: What kinds of business solutions are available on such a network for:

1) Email (I've read horror stories about getting Entourage 2004 to talk to Exchange Server).
2) Scheduling -- i.e., maintaining and sharing multiple staff calendars, syncing with PDA's, etc?

Thanks.

Just wait for RC, our local court jester, to post something. His ramblings are good for a chuckle or two.

Quote

rebbi wrote:
I work for a medium-sized non-profit corporation. We have a network of about 20 PC's, run off a fairly new Dell server, running Win 2K, MS Exchange, a proprietary membership database program, and so on. We have a full-time IT person. We have experienced many days of down time and lost productivity due to viruses, hardware problems, etc. (Most recently, the addition of a donated Dell SCSI RAID backup box totally hosed our working drive and we had to revert to a backup -- it took two days to sort this out, during which we had no access to our membership database or email.)

The result: at least theoretically, we're considering ditching the whole mess and going to an all-Mac solution.

Question: What kinds of business solutions are available on such a network for:

1) Email (I've read horror stories about getting Entourage 2004 to talk to Exchange Server).
2) Scheduling -- i.e., maintaining and sharing multiple staff calendars, syncing with PDA's, etc?

Thanks.

Though I'm not sure about the sheduling bit - although iCal can do an ok job of that, _for free_, and I'm sure there are others, I am sure of the email part.

Mac OS X Server does an excellent job of hosting email - just as well as any linux server. If you don't like the email system installed, you can grab another open-source system, for free.

And I can guarantee it'll waste Exchange.