Posted on 04/12/2008 2:04:10 AM PDT by Swordmaker
That still assumes that those Windows server applications are going to work with all Mac clients. That's not a safe assumption to make. You're basing the whole argument on the premise that the only Windows OS anyone will have to host is a handful of servers on the back end, and Mac workstations will all happily co-exist with whatever their requrements are.
It's not their fault whoever developed the standard decided to make it incompatible with existing software. You seem determined that Microsoft has some obligation to make it easy for everone else, but nobody owes them crap.
Again we go back to the fact that no two situations are alike. In cases you will be able to save money by going to Macs, in others your platform lock-in may prevent it. Each company has to look at its specific situation. These are factors to consider in any platform migration.
I’m not the one making blanket statements about one being cheaper than the other.
Why didn't Microsoft make Exchange compatible with the earlier WordPerfect Office? Because they're all proprietary, practically designed for lock-in. Standards are supposed to allow everyone to use them. Microsoft has a long-standing problem with that concept.
You seem determined that Microsoft has some obligation to make it easy for everone else
No, Microsoft has no such obligation except for certain aspects of its criminal monopoly conviction. Of course, nobody has an obligation to buy Microsoft's products (I hope).
Why didn’t Wordperfect or Corel make their source code public, or lay out their document formats as public domain for the purpose of standardization? You’re wanting proprietary software vendors to make it easier for other people to take their customer base. I can see why you’d want that if you’re in a position to be one of the people who’s trying to take it, but I can’t say I particularly blame them for not wanting to.
Microsoft learned about the power of proprietary lock-in from Wordperfect.
You’re wanting proprietary software vendors to make it easier for other people to take their customer base.
This is one of those cases where what the company thinks is best for it may not be aligning well with what's best for the customer. Format lock-in means you have less need to rely on the quality of your software to keep your customers.
Notice I haven't said anything about forcing Microsoft to make Exchange more interoperable. But its lack of interoperability (plus CALs and that monstrosity of a database) are very good reasons to avoid it or leave it if possible.
I hate that jet database as much as anyone, but my job is to deal with it, just like I had to deal with their stupid free/busy architecture before they changed it. Somehow what's important to me gets re-characterized as "cupholders", and what's important to you is all that anybody should really care about.
Cheaper is an absolute fact. I read a comparison last year, mail with 1U for 100 users. Exchange on a Dell ran about $17,000. An XServe ran about $6,000. Windows server OEM for 100 users will run you over $4,000, while OS X retail for unlimited users is $1,000. Microsoft kills you on CALs, and your company pays more as it gets bigger.
Ease of administration is not so concrete, but supported by the experience of every cross-platform admin I know, including one FReeper.
The question is whether these definite cost savings justify a switch from Windows to Mac.
I'm not saying any of this out of love for the brand. I would have laughed if you suggested OS 9 server for anything but a small Mac workgroup or standalone web server. But the UNIX-based OS X changed the game completely.
Somehow I think the game is a little bit larger than Apple finally getting a server OS right.
I'm sorry if the issue was that important. I have been involved in a lot of contracting and have seen many requirements drawn so that only one product would fit the bill, even if the one defining requirement was a cupholder. For example, instead of stating the free/busy architecture must not cause performance problems, you state that you need a specific free/busy architecture and describe the one that's in the new Exchange.
Move to iCal and no more Jet database. As far as the architecture, I don't even know if the problem exists for iCal. Exchange's problem could have been another case of Microsoft engineering itself into a corner, not applicable to anyone else.
Apple is a different kind of company now. Their iPod brand is the major driving force of profit. They have AppleTV, the iPhone, accessories, and their own application software. They sell music, movies, television shows, and ringtones.
Licensing companies to sell their own hardware with OS X wouldn’t be the same as it was for Apple pre-iPod.
If that's all there was to it, it would be an easy decision. You keep talking as if Apple finally getting OS X right and being cheaper, for the moment at least, is all you should need to know to start tearing out your existing infrastructure. I've seen lots of companies come out with a product that's "the next big thing" that's going to unseat all their competition. So far they have a history of being able to build one good, enterprise class OS, and priced it cheaper than Microsoft. You ask too much on that alone.
Nope, that's about it. I was always a strong critic of the architecture of OS 9 and earlier. It had no preemptive multitasking, no protected memory, no SMP. Why should a developer at the turn of the millennium have to use special tools to make sure he doesn't overwrite another process' memory or get too greedy with the processor time (certain real-time applications excepted)? Why should he have to manually apportion processor time in a master/slave configuration? Windows NT at least had that figured out years earlier, and System/360 had protected memory in the 60s.
OS X is UNIX, and thus gets the power and flexibility. Apple improved many of the UNIX tools, added a few of its own, and made the whole thing easy to use. Also important is that Apple decided not to use CALs.
You say you're a contractor. Do you have any professional relationship with Apple?
I thought businesses were in it for the money. If it costs less and does the same thing or better while being as safe or safer, you use it. Works for table saws and IT infrastructures. As I said, the only question is the expense of the switch, not so bad for table saws, kind of expensive for IT infrastructures.
Anything else is a waste of money, be it because the PHB was mesmerized by the MS rep or the head of IT is worried about the size of his kingdom
And that switch had better be cost justified for longer than the life of one operating system. And so far that's all we've got to go on.
Absolutely none, never have. But if you're looking for bias, I do have a professional relationship with Microsoft.
Okay. What's your relationship with MS?
I take it you mean one upgrade cycle? Remember, we're on 10.5 right now, the sixth release. Apple dot releases tend to have more improvements than the 2K to XP upgrade.
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.