Posted on 04/12/2008 2:04:10 AM PDT by Swordmaker
iCal uses open standard formats for easy migration. It's not iCal's fault that Exchange doesn't.
I just got out from under that arrangement and I’m in no hurry to go back.
This looks like a case I alluded to earlier. Buyer knows what he "needs," as opposed to what the business requirements say he needs. Thus he'll forego products that are a much better value by coming up with trivial differentiators between the products that only his has.
I call this the cupholder excuse. You're looking to buy a car and you use the number of, size or placement of the cupholders as the deciding factor in your analysis of which car is the best value. And wouldn't you know it, only the car you wanted in the first place has the right cupholder arrangement.
They’ve been profitable and never paid dividends? What a lame company, remind never to invest in them.
There’s no dancing there, just you desperately needing MS to have lost. And no actually MS didn’t usually buy the company (the SEC wouldn’t really like that kind of behavior, buying companies that are suing you doesn’t really wash), usually they just lost paid up and outlasted the company. Like the Stacker suit. Stop spreading FUD.
Dude, rent a life. I never said bail out, I never meant bail out, stop the FUD.
We’re done, it’s painfully obvious that you just cannot discuss anything MS or Apple related like an adult. It’s way too important to you to have MS lose, and you get way to wound up when anybody points out any of Apples problems which they have had plenty of. Stop being so emotional, stop spreading FUD, and learn to just drop it. This moving hand, having written, is moving on, this thread is dead to me.
Re: the Stacker suit
They bought Stacker. I knew the guy who originally programed Stacker. And buying a company that is suing you is perfectly acceptable way to end a Civil dispute and the FEC wouldn’t care a bit. It happens all the time.
It’s against my nature but you blew this one at least as big as I blew the settlement. They did not buy Stac http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac
Stac got killed by cheap drives, changed their focus and went out of business.
Integration issues are always the other guy's problem. Exchange's calendaring does suffer from some legacy issues, but I'll wager the Schedule + format they're using pre-dates the iCal "open source" standard. But it's Microsoft's fault they're not compatible.
Again you resort to ad hominem insults, the last resort of those who have no facts to back up their position. I have never said that MS had to lose. It is you who insists that Apple had to be saved by Microsoft counter to the documented facts. You are the FUD spreader.
As for Apple being a “lame company,” not worth investing in, it is the number two growth stock in the world in the past ten years.I wish I had bought Apple in 1997. What you wrote there is a prime example of FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Post your claims again on FreeRepublic about Microsoft running to the rescue and I will again rebut your myth with the true events not the spin.
I know what my manager tells me is causing a bottleneck in the organization and needs to be fixed. When does what I "need" to quit getting calls about become a "business requirement"?
Open source and open standards are two completely different things.
But it's Microsoft's fault they're not compatible.
That's pretty much the way Microsoft works. Microsoft just finished ramming OOXML through the ISO using every dirty trick possible to head off the possibility of a truly open format becoming the office document standard.
Okay, Microsoft’s Schedule + format predates the iCal “open standard”, so why is it Microsoft’s fault they’re not compatible?
So your actual requirement is to not have that bottleneck, not to have Microsoft's specific solution to that bottleneck as caused by Exchange. It's hard to write neutral requirements when you're vested in one specific technology.
If it didn't cost anything to tear it all out and start over, you could.
It's Microsoft not being compatible with everybody else. Microsoft had the chance to jump on open standards during many upgrades of Exchange, even for mail. That's what Apple did.
If you are on iCal and Apple screws you over, migration to any other package using the same standards is easy. Not so for Exchange, you're locked-in, still paying dearly for those CALs.
It’s easy to jump on a new standard when you don’t have any exiting standard it might conflict with. “Tearing it all out and starting over” doesn’t cost you anything when you never had anything to tear out in the first place. What kind of enterprise email/calendaring solution did Apple have to convert when they signed up for the new “standard”?
But if you're setting up from scratch I can't see how anybody would go with Windows if all options were researched.
I don't think Apple had one. People were using various third-party packages. I'm sure a lot of people had to migrate those.
That's still going back to looking at what you setting up for. If it involves reliance on mission critical, vertical market software then your OS platform starts being dictated by what the software you need will run on.
As far as the original question goes, I still want to know why being able to run Windows VMs on the Mac is supposed to be such a great idea in a corporate environment. If you do it, you end up with a bunch of Mac workstations you can claim are cheaper to manage than Windows workstations, and all the headaches that go with having a bunch of unmanaged Windows machines.
Okay, so MS is the bad guy because back in '92 they didn't write their calendaring system to a standard that wasn't going to exist for another 5-6 years. Apple is a better software company because they didn't even have one until after the standard was published, but they wrote theirs to conform to it.
No, they're bad because even after a few versions after the standard they still don't completely support it.
Correct, just make sure you aren't buying based on a Windows-only brand, but a required functionality and interoperability set.
As far as the original question goes, I still want to know why being able to run Windows VMs on the Mac is supposed to be such a great idea in a corporate environment.
Simple. Let's say you have 20 servers for everything and convert to Mac and several hundred clients. Turns out you're locked-in to two Windows server applications. The experience of those here who do both is that managing Windows is a far greater pain than Mac. So now instead of managing 20 Windows servers and the clients, you're managing 20 Mac servers with two Windows VMs in one. The time you save on the 20 Macs and clients and the money you save on the CALs is a lot more than you'll spend on the two remaining Windows systems.
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.