If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/29/2006 2:54:07 AM PST by Swordmaker
A celebrity CIO reviews the desktop operating system contenders in search of the next-generation office computer
Introduction
John Halamka has a penchant for experiments with new technologies. In 2004, the now 44-year-old CIO of the Harvard Medical School and CareGroup, which runs the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who is also a practicing emergency room physician, was one of the first people to have an RFID chip containing a link to his medical records implanted in his body (it's near his right triceps.) Next April, he and Harvard geneticist George Church will become the first humans to have their DNA sequenced and their full genetic makeup posted on the Web.
But as a health-care administrator, he's not solely interested in testing the cutting-edge, Orwellian technologies that make headlines. The PCs inside the hospital have to work too. So when Halamka's laptop running Windows XP interrupted several presentations with inopportune antivirus and application updates, he decided his next big initiative would be to determine which desktop operating system—Windows XP, Apple's OS X or Linux—is the most secure, most reliable and easiest to use in a corporate environment.
For three months, Halamka ditched his Windows laptop. He replaced it first with a MacBook running OS X. Then he spent a month using a Lenovo ThinkPad X41 running a dual-boot configuration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation and Red Hat Fedora Core. Finally, he took up a Dell D420 subnotebook running Microsoft's Windows XP. After evaluating all three to determine which worked best for him, he plans to begin testing his preferred setup with users, most of whose desktops currently run Windows.
Halamka judged the three operating systems according to a variety of criteria including their performance, user interfaces and enterprise management capabilities, such as the ability to configure applications, easily organize file systems, and establish granular security control. We followed Halamka's progress, and now we have his conclusions. We've also ask three other experts to take a look at Halamka's findings and add their own insights.
< snip >
This is an excerpt, read more at Window vs. Linux vs. OS X
< snip >
Final Conclusion: Which Operating System Wins?
Macs Could Make an Enterprise Move
After three months of experimentation and comparison, Halamka concluded that his dream machine is a Dell D420 notebook that runs OS X. Unfortunately, such a machine doesn't currently exist out of the box.
He prefers Dell's hardware over Apple's because it weighs 3 pounds less than the 5-pound MacBook he toted around for a month, and it emits far less heat. "[That's] the only thing preventing me from using the Mac," he says.
He prefers OS X's security, reliability and simple user interface over that of XP. And though he still has high hopes for running a version of Linux that is reliable and full-featured, he hasn't found an OS that's up to the task. (He says that SUSE on the Lenovo T60 may be the answer, since it will be the first commercial laptop with Linux configured and supported by the manufacturer.) But until Apple develops a lighter-weight laptop or decides to license its software for installation on other machines, Halamka is sticking with XP on his D420 for professional use. For personal use, he's keeping the MacBook. Having two computers—one for work and one for play—is a change for Halamka, who used one computer for both prior to this experiment.
Nevertheless, Halamka did take the first steps toward deploying Macs in the enterprise. Before this experiment, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center employees could use only PCs. But Halamka has changed the hospital's official computer purchasing policy to allow the use of Macs, with the understanding that medical center workers may not get as much support for their Macs as they get for their PCs. Halamka simply doesn't yet have enough Mac experts on his staff.
Meanwhile, at Harvard Medical School, which has a separate IT staff and different purchasing policies, 50 percent of desktops are already Macs. Halamka has promised Mac users the same level of service and functionality to which Windows users are accustomed. For instance, Mac users at the medical school had trouble maintaining access to their centralized storage, which was not designed for use by Macs. So Halamka purchased Macintosh servers that sit in front of the centralized storage, and Mac users now connect to it via these servers.
Although he has no immediate plans to replace any Windows desktops with Macs, Halamka says he's going to watch the price and performance of Apple's newest OS, Leopard, which Apple is scheduled to release in spring 2007. If Leopard offers better administration tools than OS X and is more tightly integrated both with Outlook and with Microsoft's Exchange server, Halamka would be more inclined to initiate the broader use of Macs. He would want such improvements to ensure that Leopard users won't encounter as many of the problems he ran into accessing his Outlook calendar and delegation functions.
Halamka says testing alternatives to XP has been a valuable exercise because it made him realize that the Mac can be a viable computing platform for enterprise users.
"I used to think that the Macintosh was something used by free spirits just to be different," he says. "Now I realize the Mac has such superior human factor engineering that it's used by people because they can be more productive. If Apple comes up with a 2- or 2.5-pound 12-inch-screen laptop that runs cool, has better integration with Exchange, and if Vista turns out to be the beast it could be, then I probably will move to a Mac."
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
WinXP is obsolete... its over 5 years old... Why didn't he review Vista?
I bought WinXP Pro ONE time(for my main PC) and upgraded 3 times... and used the same copy... How many versions of OSX have you had to purchase in that 5+ year time frame to maintain functionality?
Mac OS X version 10.1, code named Puma, was the second major release of Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system. It superseded Mac OS X v10.0 and preceded Mac OS X v10.2. It was released on 2001-09-25, as a 'free update', due to the heavy criticism of the last version of Mac OS X. Starting with version 10.1.2, Apple made it the default operating system on new Macs.
Mac OS X version 10.2 "Jaguar" was the third major release of Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system. It superseded Mac OS X v10.1 code name Puma and preceded Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther." The operating system was initially available on August 24, 2002 for a price of US$129,
Mac OS X version 10.3 "Panther" is the fourth major release of Apple Computer's Mac OS X operating system. It follows Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar" and precedes Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger". Apple released Panther on October 24, 2003. The cost from Apple was US$129.00
Not sure about "Tiger" or cost...
So $387.99+ whatever Tiger Costs...
WinXP Service Pack 2 and Soon to be 3 are free...
Just a thought but while that's all well and good unless someone could come up with some hard productivity numbers that they would commit to (reduce FTE by $x vs. the old soft cost argument of the 80s) and they came to any of the company's I'm associated with and pitched this idea they'd come close to being fired if not fired outright.
That's not a slam at any particular operating system, just an observation between companies that are in business to make money for it's shareholders vs. apparently, a medical school where feeling good about your computer is more important than anything else, like maybe creating affordable medical service and producing graduates at the lowest possible cost.
and your point is?
This article has NOTHING to say about the costs of these various OSes... it is about HOW WELL THEY DO THE JOB.
For the unnumbered time, Echo, OS X is the name of the Operating System... not the revision number. The .x numbers are not just updates or service packs... they are NEW releases.
OS X.0, OS X.1, OS X.2, OS X.3 and OS X.4 offer as much increase in functionality and features, if not more, as the jump from Windows 95 to Windows 98 to Windows 2000 to WindowsXP did. Apple is just capable of doing proper development in a reasonable amount of time.
To maintain functionality? There are Mac users who are still on OS X.1... and OS X.2... and OS X.3... and they are are fully functional for what they were intended to do. They have not gotten worse. Those who chose not to upgrade still have the full functionality of their release they bought... and then some.
Macs are cheaper to operate than Windows. In every study except those done by Microsoft, OS X and Macs BEAT Windows in Total Cost of Ownership by a large amount.
If anyone wants one I would suggest the DV9000t series with the Intel Core2Duo though...(He bought his before they were available)
In any event there's no evidence of savings cited here.
Fought the same brand battle in the 70s when every IT person in the world wanted either 1) DEC or 2) IBM regardless of the problem they were chartered to solve.
System Requirements
PC or Macintosh computer running Windows 2000, XP, or Mac OS 10.2.8 & higher with Bluetooth 1.1 (or higher) connection, CD-ROM drive, and color monitor.
Color Efex Pro 2.0 GE requires Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 (included) or Photoshop 7.0 & higher.
I may be mis-interpreting your post, so sorry if I am...but
Many persons are stuck with M$ Word instead of WordPerfect, because M$ "included" it with most new Windows machines, thus reducing immediate costs.
(I am a biased, WordPerfect user)
I consider Word too "automatic". WordPerfect allows me to control the document, and along with reveal codes, makes for the best-looking documents without being a publishing software program.
I have tried to use Word many times and always keep going back to WordPerfect (V 12, now).
Word is an inferior product to WordPerfect, but "free". Excel is the only program M$ makes that is equal to (or possibly better) than its competition (Quattro, which is what I use).
Tiger costs $129 for a single license, or $199 for a 5-member 'Family' License. That's retail, from the Apple Store.
It can be purchased for as low as $89 from Other World Computing ( www.macsales.com )
As to your costing, I think you've made an error. You're stopping one decimal point early. That is to say, I would compare a service pack to a 10.4.x revision (also free, by the way). So, I'm running 10.4.8, aka, Tiger with benefits (more drivers, plugged security issues, etc., but no change to the underlying functionality of the system, nor the features thereof).
Oh, and a full version of Windows XP (home edition), off the MS website, retails at $199 (vs. $129). The Professional version goes for $299 (vs $129, again).
Then.... the issue of "hardware choice" still no SLI or hardware RAID for the Mac...
That's not MAINTAINING, that's ADDING.
Bluetooth, and all.
And apparently, one could have added that functionality on an operating system as old as 10.2 (I would imagine the .8 revision to be the 'magic' revision in this case).
What's the time frame on that? Three years? More? Doesn't that harken back to your question about obsolete operating systems?
Explain?
I often run level 0 or 1 RAIDs, striping or mirroring, on my desktop. It's my understanding that OSX Server supports more variations, but I've never needed more than a striped or mirrored array.
And it's done with the native OS Software.
??
Oh, and SLI.
What is it and why would I want/need it?
I'm out for a while.
Off to the salt mines as it were.
But it's a salt mine with a 30" Cinema Display…
= D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.