Posted on 04/12/2008 2:04:10 AM PDT by Swordmaker
When did I say that? I said OS X licensing is generally far cheaper than Windows and with generally equivalent or even better functionality. That is absolutely true. I said that whether it is advantageous to switch depends on each specific case, also true. If, with an honest evaluation, it won't work for you, then fine.
You are the one who has been trying to lock the general concept down to specific cases where it may not work to try to disprove the general truth -- that OS X is a better value than Windows.
You’ve made claims about it’s cost in a business environment as being “generally true” that don’t appear to have ever been tested, and seem questionable once you start scaling the deoployment beyond a small-to-medium sized business. Somehow holding up your experiences in small scale deployments as proof of Mac’s general superiority to Windows in a business environment seems to be more of a reach than I’m willing to buy.
If Apple has been able to sell these things as clusters for supercomputer applications, that's great but I remember reading about some university research project that built one of the ten largest supercomputers in the world out of a bunch of PS2's.
It's been touted that it now runs on Intel processors. Normally this is a huge selling point for an operating system because it means that you have the widest possible range of hardware platforms to run it on. But if it's got to be an Intel processor you can only get from Apple, I don't see that it matters whether it's Intel, Motorola, or something they build in house. Choosing to use that OS means you're locked into that hardware vendor and that can get to be a costly position for any company to get themselves into. I'll grant you it insures compatibility and gives them the ability to tweak the OS to the maximum capability of the hardware, but there are consequences to letting software lock you into a hardware vendor that have to be considered.
I'm an OS X fan because of its merits. I'm a fan of some of Apple's other capabilities where merit warrants it. You're not a fan because of -- apparently zero Apple experience. That is a common occurrence.
If Apple has been able to sell these things as clusters for supercomputer applications, that's great but I remember reading about some university research project that built one of the ten largest supercomputers in the world out of a bunch of PS2's.
Virginia Tech hit #3 for only a few million dollars using Apple XServes. No PlayStations have ever hit the list. One guy did make a small cluster out of eight PlayStation 3s. IBM is planning to use the same Cell processor as the PlayStation to make a supercomputer.
but there are consequences to letting software lock you into a hardware vendor that have to be considered
Yet I don't see you railing against Sun servers or IBM mainframes or minis.
Absolutely. There's just no possible way I could have any experience with a software arrangement that locks you into a hardware vendor and that turning out to have been a bad decision.
No PlayStations have ever hit the list.
Researchers create a PlayStation 2-based supercomputer
Yet I don't see you railing against Sun servers or IBM mainframes or minis.
The thread's not about them, and the last I heard, Hitachi had broken IBM's hardware lockin.
Then so much for those mainframes.
Researchers create a PlayStation 2-based supercomputer
Did you bother to read the article? You earlier, "some university research project that built one of the ten largest supercomputers in the world out of a bunch of PS2's..." You're article, "they aren't powerful enough to be among the world's 500 fastest supercomputers."
You're at least 490 positions off.
The thread's not about them
You turned it into a hardware lock-in issue, you have to explain your lack of disdain for Sun, IBM, and let's throw in Hitachi and HP while we're at it.
Microsoft is making the hardware platform as standard as possible and using proprietary protocols and data formats.
You want to make the case that Apple's approach is superior to Microsoft's by declaring proprietary software standards evil, and proprietary hardware standards inconsequential. You like the OS, and are prepared to accept the hardware restrictions as justified in order to be able to use it, and think everyone else should have those same priorities. You're free to set your priorities however you want, but don't expect you can demand that everyone else adopt them in order to see things your way.
What proprietary hardware? Okay, in the server the environment reporting chip is proprietary, but for the rest the important parts are industry-standard. Now the OS is tied to their hardware, but if your data formats are open you really don't have to care that much.
Data is important. Hardware and software comes and goes.
The hardware with the Apple logo on it. What else does OS X run on?
It's all temporary. Data formats come and go too. Data interchange problems are temporary. If there's enough need to interchange the data, it'll be taken care of in the software eventually.
Nothing. What else did Solaris run on back when Sun was king of the hill? What else does z/OS run on?
Thus the importance of keeping them open.
Hardware and software comes and goes, too. Why is it that's only important to data formats?
Why does what they did back then change with regard to what's going on between Microsoft and Apple now? "Well those other guys did it too!" isn't a defense.
Corporate didn't run from sole-source hardware then, in fact corporate gravitated towards it. Now you say that's a reason for corporate not to use it, probably just because it has the Apple name, a brand with which you have no experience.
BTW, lock-down is so incredibly easy on a Mac. I set my kid up on mine and the parental controls allowed me to easily control exactly what she can and can't do, down to which applications she can run, what preferences she can change, what sites she can visit, when she can visit, how long she can use the computer, etc., and it's all logged. Sweet. And that's just what's available through the UI on the desktop version.
IBM's microchannel architecture died because corporate wouldn't buy off on sole source hardware on the desktop or for PC servers. In markets where you really don't have much of a choice, like mainframes, they can't really make it a deciding factor, but in the PC market it is and always has been a factor.
BTW, lock-down is so incredibly easy on a Mac. I set my kid up on mine and the parental controls allowed me to easily control exactly what she can and can't do, down to which applications she can run, what preferences she can change, what sites she can visit, when she can visit, how long she can use the computer, etc., and it's all logged. Sweet. And that's just what's available through the UI on the desktop version.
Cool. How easy is it when you have 10 of them, scattered over a 300 mile radius?
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.