Apple's Mac OS X having the largest installed Unix base today already took care of the first step. Improving upon it seems a logical next step. Where Apple is going with Mac OS X Server is great - easy administration, solid hardware to run it... X11 capability on client machines, etc. The new hardware and software like Xserve, Xserve RAID, Xsan and such are all going in the right direction.

While I don't know that the old glory days of running thin clients, executing environments on a remote server will quite be the same, there does seem to be a resurgence in interest in thin clients these days.

We might just see it happen, and I'm all for it.

I think I've said it before - to sell into the enterprise Apple needs to market a full package - hardware/software yes, but also consultancy, business support and finance. From where I'm sitting they fall apart on the last three of these!

Go to www.ibm.com and then compare with www.apple.com - IBM's website is aiming clearly at the enterprise [they list solutions/support/services and suchlike with equal if not greater emphasis than their hardware/software]. Apple's website by comparison majors on hardware/software - which is typically less than 30% of an enterprise's IT/IS budget.

Even Apple's website ~business~ section is very much geeky - its case-studies are all about mom-N-pop corner stores or one-off fashion-product resellers - to be taken seriously they beed the front of their "business" section to be something like a case-study of a 5,000-seat rollout for GE Capital or a nationwide deployment of Apple technology by CNN. And they need to focus on how it was financed/managed, not what whizzy products they used. CEOs/CFOs don't really care about the stuff that excites propellerheads - they care about the bottom line.

Can anyone name one company that ever became successful, in a big way, in both the enterprise and the consumer markets?

I only ask because I can't think of one. This might not be possible, as much as some people wish it were so.

A famous marketing axiom is "you have to give up something to get something". Sort of a variant on "you can't please everyone all the time." Maybe Apple has to give up in the Enterprise (not in small ways, like making the Xserve, just in big ways as this author is asking for) if it wants to continue to grow in consumer markets as it is.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Can anyone name one company that ever became successful, in a big way, in both the enterprise and the consumer markets?

I only ask because I can't think of one. This might not be possible, as much as some people wish it were so.

A famous marketing axiom is "you have to give up something to get something". Sort of a variant on "you can't please everyone all the time." Maybe Apple has to give up in the Enterprise (not in small ways, like making the Xserve, just in big ways as this author is asking for) if it wants to continue to grow in consumer markets as it is.

Wouldn't Dell qualify?

Not only Dell, but what about Microsoft? They clearly have large installed userbases in both consumer computers and business computers. And they aren't even a hardware/software solution, simply software-only.

My personal opinion is that Apple is testing the waters. They don't seem to be gung-ho about getting outside their core customer base, which is the education and media markets. Thus, all their "enterprise" marketing tends to be focused on cluster servers (education) and digital media work/storage (XServe RAID and XSAN).

Another hurdle is developer support from existing enterprise-grade software. If you can't run Microsoft SQL Server on an XServe = negative. If you can't run Citrix Server = negative. And the list goes on.

The only bright spot from that perspective is Oracle finally putting out a product for OS X. That is a step in the right direction.

Where I work, we could use one XServe to handle DHCP and user authentication, as well as file storage. But we'd still need a couple Windows servers because our accounting package and related feeder software are all Windows-only. And I've checked, there are no alternatives we could use that would work with XServe, or Linux for that matter.

Well something is happening in the Enterprise space. I work in the R&D group at a Fortune 500 company (I wish I could work for TMO full time, but that's another story to be told at another time), and probably thanks to that, have a shiny new XServe G5 that they provided to me as part of a "seed" program. As far as I can tell, they just want to get a unit into people's hands to test drive and see if it plays in their environment. They're also trying to seed the XServe RAID; I don't have a direct application for this, but someone else I know is doing a monster database application and needs lots of fast storage.

Maybe this subtle, word of mouth strategy will help them get further into the enterprise. As with most other Apple products, once you get past the bias, and actually use it, most people will allow it into their company.

I still maintain there is something wrong with users who spend every day updating their Windows machines, and allowing it to slow down.
I don't get updates from microsoft every day, is the author getting updates that I am not privy to ?

The only real problems I have with my (Windows) machine, are the ones I do to myself through foolishness.

Quote

SWFan wrote:

Another hurdle is developer support from existing enterprise-grade software. If you can't run Microsoft SQL Server on an XServe = negative. If you can't run Citrix Server = negative. And the list goes on.

While I agree with you that software is an issue, I look at it like the Chicken/Egg Conundrum: Software must be available for people to buy, but makers won't develop software unless there's a need. While OS X is the largest UNIX base, it has few servers, and so few server apps. On the bright side, OS X IS UNIX so moving existing UNIX apps to it would be relatively easy. And Apple could offer itself as a no-nosense, highly reliable solution to problems that don't require special software, like security and file serving. In fact, by building a strong file service reputation, Apple would suddenly find itself in every IT server room, I believe. That would break the conundrum and software would start to appear.

Just my thoughts.

Vern Seward

Quote

jonkroupa wrote:
I still maintain there is something wrong with users who spend every day updating their Windows machines, and allowing it to slow down.
I don't get updates from microsoft every day, is the author getting updates that I am not privy to ?

The only real problems I have with my (Windows) machine, are the ones I do to myself through foolishness.

Actually, I have no control over what gets updated on my PC at work, and I have no idea what is getting updated. Ours is a system that uses a software distribution package to keep all desktops updated with whatever the update admins deem necessary. Some days, like today, the updates are few and my PC was only busy for a few minutes, but other days, which seems to be the rule rather than the exception, the update take 5, 10, sometimes 20 minutes to complete.

I do know that the McAfee dat files get constantly updated. Beyond that, I could only guess.

And I agree with you; there's something wrong with a system that must be updated daily, or weekly even. Yet IT managers refuse to budge from Windows because they've got so much invested in it. And we then have another Chicken/Egg conundrum on our hands.


Vern Seward

Apple has hard enough of a time tying to sell to the 4 or 5 percent of out there now. They are always late with hardware delivery. Their build times are very slow. Oh they can make a comuter fast enough. But any corporation that orders 200 PC's at a time would be out of luck. If they went enterprise they couldn't keep up with the volume that the business would demand and consume. The only way they could do this is if Apple would to resurrect Power Computing (they own it now) and let them be a completely enterprise and education factory. PC could be made from the ground up to be Enterprise friendly, Strip out the niceties in the emac lineup and deliver boxes. Let the enterprise IT guys configure them to their liking. My receptionist does not need a superdrive or a CD for that matter. But she does need to drive a huge monitor. We like to keep up appearances. A firewire port, USB 1, And ethernet and a 40 gig hard drive and 256 mgs of RAM and an AGP slot. That's it. No Sound, No on board video. And she doesn't need the latert dual G5 chip. 1.6Ghz would be fine. Let the newly ressurected Power Computing build these machines and they could be Apple's enterprise play. They could do the things Apple would not be willing to do.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
But any corporation that orders 200 PC's at a time would be out of luck. If they went enterprise they couldn't keep up with the volume that the business would demand and consume.

Well, just like a couple posts ago, this could be argued with the chicken/egg situation. Since Apple doesn't supply to large corporations/businesses/etc, it doesn't have the manufacturing potential to build all these machines for them, but if there was a long-term continuous demand for such productions, then I'm sure they would expand their facilities to be able to meet the demand. Of course, businesses probably won't order from them because they don't have that capacity. It's a tricky thing.

Aren't PCs usually bought in large companies in massive quanities by "coperate buyers"?

These are the same people who purchase, for example, fleet cars. They don't care about the end user, they care about the corporate purchase. Why else do you think they buy fleets of Ford Tauruses and Chevrolet Malibus (it can't be because most people would rather drive a Ford or Chevy when it's not their own money ;->). It's not about ease of use, performance, or even cost of ownership. It's about "give me 10,000 of these things exactly the way I want it and cheap."

That's what Dell is to enterprise customers - Chevy. Why would these buyers consider Apple or the Mac? I don't think they will, unless the product is cheaper than a Dell PC and easier to get the deals they want. That's not likely to happen.

All you need to do is reimage your machine everytime it starts to act up. That's what they do here at my work and it gives me plenty of leasure time.

Quote

SWFan wrote:

Another hurdle is developer support from existing enterprise-grade software. If you can't run Microsoft SQL Server on an XServe = negative. If you can't run Citrix Server = negative. And the list goes on.

Quote

VSeward wrote:

...I look at it like the Chicken/Egg Conundrum.

Apple faces a similar situation at the corporate desktop level. The main culprits are Microsoft Access, and Microsoft Visual Basic. Maybe Apple targets their servers at enterprises that buy Apple desktops because they realize that it's a case of "different chicken, same farmer".

I was responsible for bringing in a G5 dual 2GHZ desktop unit running Panther server and unlimited client licences to replace our old Windows NT server. All our clients are running either Windows 98SE or Windows XP.

This was done in an attempt to save money on Microsoft licencing fees and as a security measure. But the problem seems to be in finding qualified *local* IT experts that know how to make the Windows clients and the Mac server work to their full potential. For example; our XP machines suffer from Delayed Write Failure. This means that copying large jobs on our database may take 5 minutes thru an XP machine yet only 15 seconds on a 98 machine.

Sending my IT specialist to Mac Server training would defeat the cost savings reasoning behind the original purchase and it might not yield success in eliminating the XP bottleneck.

What I'd like to see is a website dedicated to the registration of Mac/Windows cross platform professionals. Kind of a MUG for the pros. If it existed ( and if it does, somebody please tell me ) I could track down the nearest specialist and I might be able to bring them in for half a day to work with my IT person and at least get us on the right track.

If anyone reading this would like to recommend such a person to me, here are the vitals:

Location: Near Tallahassee, FL, USA

Contact: bdt@seminoletrusses.com

The web site MacWindows.com might be a starting place.

Quote

Brithor52 wrote:
I was responsible for bringing in a G5 dual 2GHZ desktop unit running Panther server and unlimited client licences to replace our old Windows NT server. All our clients are running either Windows 98SE or Windows XP.

This was done in an attempt to save money on Microsoft licencing fees and as a security measure. But the problem seems to be in finding qualified *local* IT experts that know how to make the Windows clients and the Mac server work to their full potential. For example; our XP machines suffer from Delayed Write Failure. This means that copying large jobs on our database may take 5 minutes thru an XP machine yet only 15 seconds on a 98 machine.

Sending my IT specialist to Mac Server training would defeat the cost savings reasoning behind the original purchase and it might not yield success in eliminating the XP bottleneck.

What I'd like to see is a website dedicated to the registration of Mac/Windows cross platform professionals. Kind of a MUG for the pros. If it existed ( and if it does, somebody please tell me ) I could track down the nearest specialist and I might be able to bring them in for half a day to work with my IT person and at least get us on the right track.

If anyone reading this would like to recommend such a person to me, here are the vitals:

Location: Near Tallahassee, FL, USA

Contact: bdt@seminoletrusses.com

I believe you are not the only IT manager with the dilemma of trying to balance cost to need.

My opinion is that your IT guy should already have some UNIX/LINUX training, if he does then he MAY be able to handle the Xserve if he gets some good Xserve books. If he has little or no UNIX/Linux experience then you won't be able to avoid training him. But the bottom line is that training is always a good thing.

You are either going to have to grow your own expert or hire one; either way it will cost you money. Sticking with all Windows will cost you money too, since the yearly license fees can easily exceed the cost of a good technical person. So there is no easy answer.

One thing I can tell you is that you should save money on yearly maintenance on the OS X Xserve over the Windows server

As for your bottleneck problem, I'll ask around. There's a program related to the one I manage that uses a Linux server as a DC, and I believe they have a bunch of XP desktops. There could be several reasons why you are seeing this.

One other thing you might check: If you are using Cisco switches, hard-code them to either 10MB/half-duplex, or 100MB/full duplex, and make sure all of your PCs are set the same way (matched, don't mix 10/half with 100/full if you can help it)). Especially your 2000 and XP PCs. There is a problem with some NIC cards under 2000 and XP where they don't work properly during auto-negotiation. One or 2 PCs on your network that aren't set right can cause one hell of a bottleneck, and drag the whole network down.

Check back here later today. I'll post again with what I've found out.

Finally, I agree with you that there needs to be a place where professional IT folks can go. MACOSXhints is a great resource and may be able to help. http://www.macosxhints.com/

Vern Seward

Try http://www.macwindows.com/