Post by: m1911owner on February 21, 2007, 10:30:51 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 04:02:44 AM
After about a week of headaches, driver issues that wouldn't be resolved and general nonsense, they demanded that Dell supply them with XP instead.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on February 22, 2007, 04:42:42 AM
The Incubus wants to get a new laptop with Vister. I tell him he's insane. I ain't gonna be an early adopter for anything.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 22, 2007, 06:54:07 AM
At least I can test whether my computers can run the stuff:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 22, 2007, 07:25:44 AM
Post by: Ben on February 22, 2007, 07:46:49 AM
Quote
At least, not until Vista Service Pack 1 comes out.
That's how I do it with every Windows upgrade. In a surprising demonstration of common sense, the fed.gov agency I work for has also told us to hold off on Vista, which is no end of relief to me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 22, 2007, 07:56:56 AM
I will NOT use Vista.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 07:59:31 AM
It just works. Kinda what I expect in 2007 for a PC.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 22, 2007, 08:15:25 AM
Chris
Post by: zahc on February 22, 2007, 08:21:54 AM
Post by: Sindawe on February 22, 2007, 08:22:46 AM
We are still running W2k at work for the servers, and XP on the workstations. I run XP and W2k3 Server at home and don't forsee that changing anytime in the next 18 months, unless I move to Linix or Apple.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 08:27:27 AM
I'll use windows until doing so becomes disadvantageous, and then switch to linux.
The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux has no real-world productivity applications.
Windows and OSX have identical versions of Microsoft Office, including Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, the essentials of ANY business. For publications, both have Photoshop, Illustrator, et al. There really is no learning curve for an office worker moving from Windows Excel to OSX Excel. It's Excel, they can start doing spreadsheets. Same with Powerpoint, new slide, go.
The best Linux can do is hobbyist-written kinda-like amateur programs that do some of the same functions, but have for-hardcore-geeks-only interfaces and incompatibilities.
Thus, while Linux is fine for servers, it's a non-starter for actual real-world offices, since you can't walk into a store a buy a suite of REAL business applications for it.
Post by: Iain on February 22, 2007, 08:34:14 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 22, 2007, 08:38:39 AM
I agree with you in general, though. Linux is for advanced users. Most office staff have trouble doing the basic stuff on windows and Mac boxes. Expecting them to cope with Linux is a bit of a stretch.
I've never understood the appeal of Macs. They're sort of the worst of the Windows and Linux worlds. On the one hand Macs share the same limitations in application selection and compatibility that Linux suffers from. On the other hand, Macs suffer the same lack of flexibility and configurability that limits usefulness to a serious user. At least with Win and Linux you can have either a wide application selection or a powerful interface, on a Mac you get neither.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 09:37:27 AM
On the other hand, Macs suffer the same lack of flexibility and configurability that limits usefulness to a serious user. At least with Win and Linux you can have either a wide application selection or a powerful interface, on a Mac you get neither.
O_o
Uh. Yeah. Remind me of that next time I have a Terminal window open and am entering Unix commands to take total control of the system...or I'm working in an Xwindows environment across dual screens from my Macbook Pro. Or when I download Cocoa apps that are clean, powerful and elegant...and free, or shareware, that can be discarded without actually having been INSTALLED in your system.
Windows has more applications, sure. More absolute garbage made-in-basements shareware pieces of crashy sh*t that will do nothing but clog your registry and shut down when you try to use their ugly VBscript Windows 3.1-looking interfaces, and stuff up your start menus.
If that's considered appeal, hey.
But...not a powerful interface? OSX is freaking BSD UNIX! You can kill -9 a bad process if you want to, compare THAT to Windows' sorry excuse for process control.
Oh, yeah, and the Intel macs can run XP and Vista natively if you want them to. Just curious, when was the last time you used a Mac...Ten years or more ago, running OS9 or earlier?
Post by: jnojr on February 22, 2007, 09:57:46 AM
The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux has no real-world productivity applications.
Windows and OSX have identical versions of Microsoft Office, including Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, the essentials of ANY business. For publications, both have Photoshop, Illustrator, et al. There really is no learning curve for an office worker moving from Windows Excel to OSX Excel. It's Excel, they can start doing spreadsheets. Same with Powerpoint, new slide, go.
http://www.openoffice.org/
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 22, 2007, 10:09:47 AM
Last time I used a Mac was about 14 hours ago, for whatever that's worth. I use a Mac a few times a week. Sure, they work, for some things. They allow you to do the basic stuff like surf the web or build a spreadsheet. And yeah they always work when you turn them on. So do my Win and Linux boxes, but whatever...
Macs don't allow me to do a number of technically oriented tasks that I need to do everyday. The Cadence OrCAD circuit design and simulation suite, an industry standard and invaluable tool I use everyday, doesn't work on Mac or Linux. Several of the embedded systems development suites don't work on Mac or Linux. These aren't garbage shareware basement apps that trash my system. I wouldn't be able to do my job if I had to rely solely on a Mac on Linux box, because the software tools simply aren't there.
Linux/UNIX have greater utility for programming, scripting, networking, data storage, remote accessibility, communications, distributed/parallel computing, and a whole host of other technical computing tasks. Neither Windows PCs nor Macs can do all of this as quickly, efficiently, and easily. If you squint you can sorta kinda make it look like you can duplicate this functionality on a Mac or Windows box. But it simply isn't the same as doing it on a real unix machine. Part of this is due to the fact that unix is built around a command line interface and intended to be used as a command line interface. Mac and the modern Windows versions are intended to be used primarily from a GUI. The GUI distances the user from the technically oriented, powerful features that I like.
So here are my choices:
Windows: I get my software apps, but not my powerful computing environment
Linux/UNIX: I get my powerful computing environment but not the software apps I need
Mac: I get neither the apps I need, nor the powerful computing environment I like.
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on February 22, 2007, 10:15:27 AM
My brother got his early adopter on with Vista, and picked it up to try it out. Apparently, as of the last time I talked to him, NVIDIA does not have its stuff together with regard to Vista drivers, as my brother's having all kinds of graphical suck with it.
~GnSx
Post by: mtnbkr on February 22, 2007, 10:20:56 AM
Quote
Uh. Yeah. Remind me of that next time I have a Terminal window open and am entering Unix commands to take total control of the system...or I'm working in an Xwindows environment across dual screens from my Macbook Pro.
All things that can be done with Windows. Problem is, most people don't bother to learn the command line methonds to common Windows tasks. For what isn't provided by MS out of the box, you can download and add later (www.sysinternals.com is a great source). Back when I was a WinNT4.0 sysadmin, I used to use the command line as much as the gui. I'd write scripts to automate tasks so I wouldn't have to sit in front of the system.
Quote
But...not a powerful interface? OSX is freaking BSD UNIX! You can kill -9 a bad process if you want to, compare THAT to Windows' sorry excuse for process control.
I have a "kill" command on my Win2k box that is the final word if I want to kill a process. Quote
Windows has more applications, sure. More absolute garbage made-in-basements shareware pieces of crashy sh*t that will do nothing but clog your registry and shut down when you try to use their ugly VBscript Windows 3.1-looking interfaces, and stuff up your start menus.
You should see some of the crap that's made available for Linux. There's stuff there that makes Windows shareware look professional and polished. Luckily, in both cases, you can choose not to install the stuff.Quote
Oh, yeah, and the Intel macs can run XP and Vista natively if you want them to
What's the point? If I'm going to buy proprietary and expensive Apple hardware, why not run their OS on it as well? That's what makes a Mac work as well as it does. It's a tightly controlled OS with tightly controlled hardware. It's kind of like running Solaris on a Sun workstation IMO. I'd like to see how well the Mac OS faires when anyone can build the hardware platform. Oh yeah, Apple tried that and killed it quickly.Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 10:23:18 AM
The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux has no real-world productivity applications.
Windows and OSX have identical versions of Microsoft Office, including Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, the essentials of ANY business. For publications, both have Photoshop, Illustrator, et al. There really is no learning curve for an office worker moving from Windows Excel to OSX Excel. It's Excel, they can start doing spreadsheets. Same with Powerpoint, new slide, go.
http://www.openoffice.org/
Geekware. Not ready for the mainstream. And ugly as sin, last I looked at it.
I'm sorry, but a bunch of amateur hobbyists does not equal the resources of millions of dollars in UI development, bug testing, functionality refinement, etc. There's no way around that. It's like saying that a truck that some hobbyists put together from pieces in their backyard is the same as, say, a Nissan Titan or Ford F-250 for actual contractors on construction sites. It ain't the same. Period.
If it can't run Microsoft Office, it's of no use to most businesses.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 22, 2007, 10:31:05 AM
Quote
The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux has no real-world productivity applications.
WineX.
This is a direct X 9.0b port for Linux that allows you to play ANY DirectX 9 computer game in your Linux environment. Works fantastic.
If the game is not DirectX (OpenGL maybe?), WineX has windows dll library files that are open source and reverse engineered. You can use the same setup.exe file to install a Windows based game onto a linux box running WineX. Linux has run OpenGL hardware acceleration for years. You'll lose a couple of frames per second due to the additional libraries that have to be loaded, but you can play most games and run most standard office and productivity suites. Or, there's native software such as KOffice, OpenOffice or Corel WordPerfect.
Simple.
Post by: cordex on February 22, 2007, 10:53:59 AM
I'm sorry, but a bunch of amateur hobbyists does not equal the resources of millions of dollars in UI development, bug testing, functionality refinement, etc. There's no way around that. It's like saying that a truck that some hobbyists put together from pieces in their backyard is the same as, say, a Nissan Titan or Ford F-250 for actual contractors on construction sites. It ain't the same. Period.
Quote from: OpenOffice Website
StarDivision, the original author of the StarOffice suite of software, was founded in Germany in the mid-1980s. It was acquired by Sun Microsystems during the summer of 1999 and StarOffice 5.2 was released in June of 2000. Future versions of StarOffice software, beginning with 6.0, have been built using the OpenOffice.org source, APIs, file formats, and reference implementation. Sun continues to sponsor development on OpenOffice.org and is the primary contributor of code to OpenOffice.org. CollabNet hosts the website infrastructure for development of the product and helps manage the project.
No doubt, Manedwolf. Those garage-shop bozos at Sun don't know the first thing about computers.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 11:52:08 AM
Quote
The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux has no real-world productivity applications.
WineX.
This is a direct X 9.0b port for Linux that allows you to play ANY DirectX 9 computer game in your Linux environment. Works fantastic.
If the game is not DirectX (OpenGL maybe?), WineX has windows dll library files that are open source and reverse engineered. You can use the same setup.exe file to install a Windows based game onto a linux box running WineX. Linux has run OpenGL hardware acceleration for years. You'll lose a couple of frames per second due to the additional libraries that have to be loaded, but you can play most games and run most standard office and productivity suites. Or, there's native software such as KOffice, OpenOffice or Corel WordPerfect.
Simple.
How business offices work:
"To get A, perform task B."
How Linux works:
"To get A, perform task B, which will allow C to emulate D, then compile E and F to create a tool that you can then run to work on getting A."
I've actually seen Linux people being canned at companies because they were spending too much time screwing around with their machines and not enough time just USING a premade tool to get billable work done. Which is what people are expected to do at offices.
Until you can walk into any major chain store and buy a universal office app that install with a quick, easy wizard installer, it's not ready for the mainstream.
And Office IS the standard. People mail back and forth milions of word DOCs and Powerpoint PPTs and Excel XLS's every day. If your hobbyist app does anything that makes it unreadable to a client...you just lost a contract and it'll go to someone who has no such incompatibility issues. Speed of business. No time for that nonsense.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 22, 2007, 12:34:01 PM
Quote
How Linux works:
"To get A, perform task B, which will allow C to emulate D, then compile E and F to create a tool that you can then run to work on getting A."
Five years ago, true, but it's no longer the case now. There are native Linux apps for just about everything. MS Office is lacking because MS doesn't want to give any support to Linux. There are alternatives though."To get A, perform task B, which will allow C to emulate D, then compile E and F to create a tool that you can then run to work on getting A."
Quote
I've actually seen Linux people being canned at companies because they were spending too much time screwing around with their machines and not enough time just USING a premade tool to get billable work done.
Those folks would be canned for doing the same thing with Windows, Mac, or Sun. Quote
Until you can walk into any major chain store and buy a universal office app that install with a quick, easy wizard installer, it's not ready for the mainstream.
Maybe not for mom and pop user, but for the business world, so much stuff is customized, not being able to buy it off the shelf at Best Buy means nothing. Very little on my computer right now is COTS. Quote
If your hobbyist app does anything that makes it unreadable to a client...you just lost a contract and it'll go to someone who has no such incompatibility issues.
Sorry, not true in my experience. Even with mainstream apps, incompatible documents get created. There's a bit of give and take until a common format can be agreed upon. I work with odd, nonstandard formats all the time. It's no big deal to have a customer ask for a different format because it isn't compatible with their systems. This isn't limited to Office apps either. There are all sorts of file formats that must be transmuted into something else for customers or service providers. A large portion of what I pass around is in formats other than those supported natively by Office. When was the last time you used Word to view a syslog file 500meg in size? Or run a query against a RADIUS accounting logfile? Dumped many LDAPs to Excel lately? Maybe you use Powerpoint to configure that VPN.
Chris
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 22, 2007, 12:55:54 PM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 22, 2007, 01:01:58 PM
I'm sitting here typing away on a Windows XP Professional computer right now, supporting a pure MS/Citrix environment. No linux anywhere.
We're looking at our first linux server right now as an outbound fax replacement for 3rd party "just install it and it works...supposedly" software. It will take some customization of the existing open source software, but the lack of flexibility of the 3rd party closed source software is absolutely killing us. It's gotta work right, and can't constantly be babysat like the current software in place.
Linux is a poor gaming platform, I agree. But it can be done by a competent power user. Not even a hacker... jsut a competent power user. But windows is a poor development platform to take one existing product and modify it to perform a similar, but different task.
And MacOS just sux.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 01:08:13 PM
A large portion of what I pass around is in formats other than those supported natively by Office. When was the last time you used Word to view a syslog file 500meg in size? Or run a query against a RADIUS accounting logfile? Dumped many LDAPs to Excel lately? Maybe you use Powerpoint to configure that VPN.
Chris
Chris
You're talking back office. I'm talking front office.
Back office, yes, out of sight, Linux is fine. Most of the stuff in the icy, howling-fans room'o'servers down in the building core I expect to be highly customized solutions anyway.
Front office, the corner offices, marketing, accounting, payable, recievable, CEO, CFO, etc, etc...no. I don't see Linux working there, only something that can run Office, namely either Windows or OSX at this time. Period.
And Azredhawk, it's not been called "MacOS" for about seven years now. Are you thinking of ancient OS9 history? Because I can assure you, that has nothing to do with the OSX Tiger I'm using on an Intel Core Duo at the moment.
Post by: Stetson on February 22, 2007, 01:15:59 PM
You're talking back office. I'm talking front office.
Back office, yes, out of sight, Linux is fine. Most of the stuff in the icy, howling-fans room'o'servers down in the building core I expect to be highly customized solutions anyway.
Front office, the corner offices, marketing, accounting, payable, recievable, CEO, CFO, etc, etc...no. I don't see Linux working there, only something that can run Office, namely either Windows or OSX at this time. Period.
And Azredhawk, it's not been called "MacOS" for about seven years now. Are you thinking of ancient OS9 history? Because I can assure you, that has nothing to do with the OSX Tiger I'm using on an Intel Core Duo at the moment.
OSX Tiger is great as long as you are on a Mac Enterprise Directory Network. Try to interface with any Windows product and it is hopeless. The LARGE company I work for has many artists that need the graphics functionality of macs but they lost a lot of other benefits when integrating. Of course, they yell at me because as a peon I get to make all the IT decisions.
Entourage will not let you do the same things Outlook(which most people are familiar with) can do, like Out Of Office messages. It can be done but its a pain.
For everyday office functionality M$ Windows gives the user an interface they are used to, apps they know about and a comfort factor that Macs just cannot provide. Right or wrong, that it the corporate mindset.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 22, 2007, 01:18:49 PM
You're talking back office. I'm talking front office.
Back office, yes, out of sight, Linux is fine. Most of the stuff in the icy, howling-fans room'o'servers down in the building core I expect to be highly customized solutions anyway.
Front office, the corner offices, marketing, accounting, payable, recievable, CEO, CFO, etc, etc...no. I don't see Linux working there, only something that can run Office, namely either Windows or OSX at this time. Period.
And Azredhawk, it's not been called "MacOS" for about seven years now. Are you thinking of ancient OS9 history? Because I can assure you, that has nothing to do with the OSX Tiger I'm using on an Intel Core Duo at the moment.
OSX Tiger is great as long as you are on a Mac Enterprise Directory Network. Try to interface with any Windows product and it is hopeless. The LARGE company I work for has many artists that need the graphics functionality of macs but they lost a lot of other benefits when integrating. Of course, they yell at me because as a peon I get to make all the IT decisions.
Entourage will not let you do the same things Outlook(which most people are familiar with) can do, like Out Of Office messages. It can be done but its a pain.
For everyday office functionality M$ Windows gives the user an interface they are used to, apps they know about and a comfort factor that Macs just cannot provide. Right or wrong, that it the corporate mindset.
Huh?
I transfer files to and from Windows machines and print to Windows printers every single day. What on earth are you talking about?
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 22, 2007, 02:07:00 PM
Quote
Are you thinking of ancient OS9 history? Because I can assure you, that has nothing to do with the OSX Tiger I'm using on an Intel Core Duo at the moment.
I'm thinking of the whole shebang... Macs are typically 1-2 memory standards below the latest stable release for a PC. When DDR400 was released, Macs didn't get it for about 6 months... they were still running either PC-133 or DDR266 memory. Mac OS7,8 and 9 couldn't even multitask if you sent a print job... you couldn't bring up another application to work on while a print job ran. OS X (panther, tiger, cheetah, take your pick) is another example of apple lagging behind the times. Just like their current decision to drop the IBM PowerPC platform and finally move to x86/x64 computing ala Intel and AMD.
Pointing to ease of use on an Apple is an exercise in futility when talking to complete computer novices in this modern computing world. A Windows PC integrates into homogenous or heterogenous networks more seamlessly than an equivalent generation Mac computer. Make a Mac authenticate against a Novell eDirectory. Administer an Exchange server from your mac. Run terminal services applications from your mac (hint: you can't without TS licensing). Administer a Lotus Domino server from your mac.
The addition of a unix engine and command shell makes macs semi-palatable nowadays, but the simple fact is that IBM couldn't keep up with Intel/AMD in technology leaps, and MacOS couldn't keep up with the developments made in user productivity so they went first to: 1) and open source Unix (BSD), then finally to admitting that their software will never keep up with either the back office or the front office and finally went to x86/x64 in order to more effectively run a Windows OS.
Eventually, a "Macintosh" will the the trendy, cute metro-sexual gay tendencied computer for effete men and hairy feminists the world over, running the latest version of the Microsoft operating system but sporting that old apple logo on the front in an oh-so-tasteful manner. It's just a matter of time.
Post by: Sindawe on February 22, 2007, 02:12:59 PM
Quote
Eventually, a "Macintosh" will the the trendy, cute metro-sexual gay tendencied computer for effete men and hairy feminists the world over, running the latest version of the Microsoft operating system but sporting that old apple logo on the front in an oh-so-tasteful manner. It's just a matter of time.
Translation: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
Post by: zahc on February 22, 2007, 03:52:06 PM
Quote
Geekware. Not ready for the mainstream. And ugly as sin, last I looked at it.
It works for me. It's all I use on my windows machine now. Along with firefox and a bunch of other opensource software.
Post by: jnojr on February 22, 2007, 03:56:08 PM
Geekware. Not ready for the mainstream. And ugly as sin, last I looked at it.
When was the last time you looked? It's come a long way.
I use OO.org on my home (Windows) machine, because I refuse to pay for Office. It works like a champ. Sure, when Office Vista or whatever they want to call it gets launched, OO.org won't work right any more... not because it sucks, but because MS purposely breaks backwards compatibility to force people to buy the newest version of Office.
ETA: Never mind. You're a closed-minded Windows zealot. You don't know anything about UNIX/Linux, so therefore Windows must always be the right solution. This isn't worth the effort... you already know you're right and are impervious to any attempt to show you other possibilities. So enjoy your Windows. I'm going to go back to being orders of magnitude more productive with Linux than three of me could be plodding through Windows hell
Post by: Sindawe on February 22, 2007, 04:07:07 PM
Quote
OO.org won't work right any more... not because it sucks, but because MS purposely breaks backwards compatibility to force people to buy the newest version of Office.
Reminds me of the statement attributed to Microsoft in the late 80s & early 90s.
"DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run."
And IIRC, MS pushed Win95 out the door as soon as they could when IBM released OS/2 2.1, which ran Win3.1 code in its own environment on the PM desktop.
*SIGH* Those were the days, back before I turned to The Darkside of computing.
Post by: bedlamite on February 22, 2007, 04:12:17 PM
So which is better? 9mm or 45acp?
10mm.
Post by: m1911owner on February 22, 2007, 05:06:20 PM
So which is better? 9mm or 45acp?
45 ACP
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 22, 2007, 05:12:58 PM
Quote
*SIGH* Those were the days, back before I turned to The Darkside of computing.
Tell me about it. I was running Geos and CP/M on a Commodore 128, and finally gave in to a Windows 3.1 machine. I even toyed with an Amiga 2000 for a bit, complete with Video Toaster.
I have an IBM Intellistation w/2 PII-450s sitting in the corner of my office right now, chugging away happily on Mandrake. It's my FTP fileserver and I'm thinking about moving my blog to it. I'm impressed with how fast it runs on that efficient code - it makes the dual Xeon 2.4 XP Pro machine I'm typing on now look like a slug. One can only imagine how less efficient Vista Ultimate is, if it recommends 1 Gig of memory...
Post by: RevDisk on February 22, 2007, 05:45:06 PM
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with Windows Vista whether you like it or not.
Company I work for has circa 400 PC's. We're sticking with XP for as long as we can hold out. Thankfully, Office 2007 licenses are reverse compadible. ie, you can buy 2007 licenses and install 2003. We're still checking XP licensing. Sigh
Microsoft released a compadibility pack for Office 2003/XP. Reads and writes Office 2007 formats. We're deploying it to our current environment so that we can read and edit documents from suppliers. So you don't need to upgrade just to keep up.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&displaylang=en
Vista is a nightmare. Ignoring the new architexture, it can't be ghosted. No ghost images mean we have to build slipstreamed install discs or manually install all of our apps. Either way, that's hours per new machine instead of minutes. Running a mixed OS environment is a patching nightmare, even if it is just two OS's.
Seriously, best common sense I can give. Do not be an early adapter for any new technology unless you have a damn good reason. Let someone else take the beating and learn from their mistakes. Stick with XP Pro as long as you can.
Quote
Maned Wolf, do you just dislike Linux? That's fine.
I'm sitting here typing away on a Windows XP Professional computer right now, supporting a pure MS/Citrix environment. No linux anywhere.
I'm sitting here typing away on a Windows XP Professional computer right now, supporting a pure MS/Citrix environment. No linux anywhere.
I swear to the Gods, I never thought I'd have a nice thing to say about Microsoft until I installed RDP 6.0. Or as we call it around the office, "Citrix killer". The only drawback is lack of in-built load balancing. Aside from that, faster, easier and apparently more reliable than our ICA clients. Citrix is a fine concept, especially in an enterprise environment. In reality, their handling of printers and drivers is a nightmare. If you have a team of Citrix admins, it'll work. In small and medium sized businesses, RDP is gonna make a wide adoption. We're testing it, and hoping to implement it company wide.
Re linux/MS. I like linux and run a couple of linux boxes at home. At work, we're an all MS shop. Ease of management and skill sets of our employees. Folks know how to use Windows and Office. They don't know command prompts or KDE. For corporate use, I don't see it catching on until the desktop environments are more user friendly. Open Office is making huge strides. I think it's about ready for consumer/corporation wide spread usage.
Post by: Stetson on February 22, 2007, 06:03:44 PM
OSX Tiger is great as long as you are on a Mac Enterprise Directory Network. Try to interface with any Windows product and it is hopeless. The LARGE company I work for has many artists that need the graphics functionality of macs but they lost a lot of other benefits when integrating. Of course, they yell at me because as a peon I get to make all the IT decisions.
Entourage will not let you do the same things Outlook(which most people are familiar with) can do, like Out Of Office messages. It can be done but its a pain.
For everyday office functionality M$ Windows gives the user an interface they are used to, apps they know about and a comfort factor that Macs just cannot provide. Right or wrong, that it the corporate mindset.
Huh?
I transfer files to and from Windows machines and print to Windows printers every single day. What on earth are you talking about?
[/quote]
I am talking about the ease of support for Mac products in an Enterprise Directory environment. MOST users cannot use a Mac as well as they can a PC running XPPro, most Macs do not interface well in an MS ED. The ED size I am talking about is @ 250K+ computers, worldwide.
We do run about 15k Macs but on an average day, we get more calls for Mac problems(by ratio) than PC. "Bla blah wont interface with Citrix ICA client", "My Entourage wont connect to the servers", "I use an application for graphics that ONLY runs on MAc, will not interface with a WinServer and I want it fixed now!!!11one". If you arent running the latest Timbuktu remote app and IF it will connect over the MS ED seamlessly(not likely), then you can support it. If not, you are dead in the water.
I know the Mac is easy to work with alone, but in the business world, there just arent the same support options. If that isnt a factor in your thinking about business use of the Mac, it should be.