OSNews

It was a package of six articles from the start: the premise of "only look at the bottom line," both pro and con, for each OS.

They're all there; you just missed the last one:

Seven Reasons to Think Twice About Macs in the Enterprise
http://www.cio.com/article/127101

Here's the link to all of 'em at once:
http://www.cio.com/article/127552

Agreed.
I'm still regularly use my old Dual Celleron 500MHz - It's now more than 6 years old and still going strong. In fact I can count on one hand the number of times Windows had crashed and I've not even needed to do a reinstall once.

It really is a pity articles can't be modded down for being inaccurate or just down right crap

Edited 2007-08-03 16:28

A while back there was a test done on whether chocking the registry full of garbage would actually result in a significant slow down. The result was - no, it didn't.

The problem is that you have vendors pushing the idea so strongly that "there is a problem with your PC' that people end up believing that they actually do have something wrong.

You could say the crap being sold to fix up non-existent Windows problems is akin to the pharmaceutical industry who make up so-called 'disorders' to leech money out of people - "ooh, I'm shy, I better get some medication!", "ooh, I sometimes get nervous! better yet some medication!" - its pathetic to see it in action. Same situation occurs in the IT world unfortunately.

Along those lines, I wouldn't be at all surprised if half the viruses floating around out there were programmed by unscrupulous anti-virus software companies...

Edited 2007-08-04 06:55

"A while back there was a test done on whether chocking the registry full of garbage would actually result in a significant slow down. The result was - no, it didn't. "

And you are guilty of just what you accuse the author of doing. While a registry full of garbage may not have a huge impact on XP when it is up and running it will have a much different impact on getting XP up and running.

I can't cite any studies, which you do not link to anyway, but from personal experience in cleaning up PC's for people I can attest to greatly improved boot times after cleaning out a garbage filled registry. Most of my friends also fix computer stuff for a living and to a person they all tell me they have the same experience.

So if you don't like the article and feel it is inaccurate, then critique the article. I think the author did a better job of explaining her position than you did in your rebuttal. Lots of innuendo do not a rebuttal make.

Actually, both the article and you are correct. Some users make sure their PC is secure and then they keep it clean and dont install and uninstall millions of pieces of crap. Other users like me do that and crash their computer every 4 months or so. At least i dont have to reinstall every four months now because i have a mac.

Actually I do install and uninstall millions of pieces of crap just like millions of other Windows users do.

I agree with both of you. In general I find that site to be a load of buzz words will very little real word, not to mention information systems understanding. If they display very little IS understanding, they have no computer science knowledge. I fear that is the way IT is going this days. I have one IT majoring friend who displays both great business sense and excellent technical understanding; yet, I have another IT majoring friend who thought it was cheaper to ship mass things via plane rather than train and doesn't know what a buffer overflow actually means. Maybe I am jaded because I am CS major who works as a software dev and a UNIX administrator, but there is very little worth OS News posting on www.cio.com. Do CIO's really swallow all that bullshit or do they see through?

Edited 2007-08-03 17:42

Im confused, are you guys saying that Windows is MORE cost effective than Mac (or anything else?) or are you just making the point that you or your relatives have Windows installed machines that never had a virus issue and never had to be reinstalled for any reason and thus proving the article to be utterly false? My point is that by calling the article "bullshit" because it is inaccurate to your particular life experience, you are sort of of making the same mistake the writer of the article did by implying a particular issue experienced individually must therefore be true for everyone. The question to ask, if you want to get any worth out of the time you spent reading the article, is that if the idea of having a virus infected machine or an operating system that could become corrupt over time is something that is a real possibility for a Windows users to experience VS someone who purchases a Macintosh.

To voidlogic. I very much empathize with your fears. I did a double major of Mathematics and CS and have been in the field now for almost 20 years, doing everything from financial programming to being an IBM drone for POS systems. I have always had a love of technology, and sometimes fell into the trap of judging people based on there technical ability. As it seems from your post that your just starting, I can tell you that all your suspicions about the large number of people entering the IT business not really having a love for computers is for the most part accurate. I used to think it correlated to the time Bill Gates entered the Forbes List, and that these folks just followed the money. My advice , if you care, is to not let it bother you. In fact force yourself to ignore it. Just be glad that computers are now helping everyone and are part of EVERYONES life, which does include of course - the jerks out there. :-) A good book to read is iWoz, he has a true love and deep understanding of technology (an engineers engineer) and he has a love of people and the idea of what computers can do for everyone.

Edited 2007-08-03 19:44

"I did a double major of Mathematics and CS and have been in the field now for almost 20 years, ..."

You are so superior, and us OSNews readers are not worthy of you

That quote kind of stuck out for me.

Seriously, you would have to be pretty stupid to completely replace your pc every time you get some malware.

And a little common sense goes a long way when preventing that (ie. no "Free ipod if I just click here!!?! OH BOY!!!", or "A free game in my email called i2jahfd233.exe?!?! I am SOO playing that!!!", or the ever classic "WHAT?! My computer may be in danger if I dont run this attachment called killviruses.exe?!"). I mean come on... I have had my windows system running for 4 years and have not had a single case of malware or viruses.

Dont become so uptight.

The only time a Mac was a better system was in the 80's when the Classic had a really badarse hi-res monochrome display and a GUI OS. I actually have one of these old Macs from the 80's: Mac SE/30.

PCs were 16-bits back then and ran in real mode DOS or some cheesy Windows 1.0 version--real mode DOS underneith. Color was pretty poor then with "Marry had a little lamb" style graphics at 320x200 4-bit CGA.

Edited 2007-08-03 20:24

Agreed, that argument is weak. I am a Mac user and I can attest that there is some excellent PC hardware out there. I have had 2 Dells and 1 HP and all have lasted me more that 3 year without having to reinstall the OS. That article really didn't play up to the real strengths of the Mac.

The current system requirements for iNquiry are OS X Server 10.4. In other words, you won't upgrade an iNquiry built for a specific OS but you want to upgrade the OS around it. I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't NT server applications whose support options excluded moving them to Windows Server 2003.

Long story short: unlike desktops, servers are dedicated machines and as such are generally supposed to be frozen configurations barring patches and security fixes. When an OS upgrade comes, the expected cost must include upgrading software as well.

Your other complaints about managing the server are noted and have been echoed by other users.

My primary complaint regarding not being able to upgrade isn't about iNquiry, but how Apple handles the Java port. I understand the "frozen configuration" methodology, but there is no good reason not to allow modern Java ports on OS X <= 10.3 on a system they sold as being "enterprise class".

Edit: I look forward to wiping the whole system and putting Linux on it, and hopefully transitioning iNquiry over to a much larger Linux x86_64 cluster sometime next year.

Edited 2007-08-03 16:50

Unlike other OSes, Java on OS X includes bindings to OS-specific frameworks. These bindings change between OSes: Apple just dropped Cocoa bindings which would be problematic for legacy 10.3 applications that used them.

Apple's mantra is that problems are usually proportional to the number of configurations, so I can see why they don't backport Java to 10.3.

Is it inconvenient and irritating at times? Yes.

With Java being opensourced, what that should mean is an opensourced built and maintained version which allow you to remain with your chosen version of MacOS X without losing out on updates and security fixes.

Should, but we will see if that happens. I agree it is a good thing and the potential is there, but is the demand? While my problem is irritating and (as has been admitted) would not likely happen had another unix system been chosen, I simply don't think there is the demand there for it. Also, unless things have changed, I believe Apple's patches to Java are still closed, so there would likely be quite a lot of work involved.

I have to agree! I have used Apple servers since the release of A/UX 3.0 and my conclusion is that Apple doesn't understand the server market.

They don't seem to understand the need for continuity. A/UX was replaced with a slightly modified AIX, with no easy upgrade path, then this AIX thing was dumped with no upgrade path what so ever. Now we see similar problems with Java in modern MacOS-X. We had a painful upgrade of mail software from 10.2 to 10.3, and the list goes on.

Other problems in MacOS-X server is that common free software packages used, often lacks parts that are useful or even essential for maintenance from the command line.

Sometimes they remove features from commonly used free software packages, just to add them back in some Apple specific way. I wouldn't object if this somehow improved usability but often this is not the case. The only result is that HOWTOs and other information on the Internet on how to manage that particular package becomes useless, unless it is specifically written for MacOS-X.

If you use CLI administration and manually edit config files, they GUI sometimes just overide the changes you made. This would be more or less acceptable if it was enough for you to just choose not to use the GUI if you had made changes to config files from the command line. Unfortunately this isn't enough, as Apple bug fixes have a tendency to wipe out such changes as well.

I fully agree with the article that it makes financial sense to use Macs on the desktop, but as a server you are much better off using Red Hat or some other server oriented Linux distro.

I bought a 7500 PowerPC in 1995. TCO to upgrade its hardware to continue keeping it current through OS X 10.2 in 2002 was still lower than replacing it, and that included adding a G4 cpu, USB card, CD burner, 37Gb HD and 256Mb RAM. Chief reason for replacing it in 2002 was that XPostFacto wasn't available yet for 10.3 and that 10.3 was the first OS which actually needed a video card.

Conversely, a friend's multimedia PC built maybe two years ago was built from a tiny Soyo board with onboard ethernet, video and audio. The builder decided the VIA A/V chipsets were inferior and used up two of the three PCI slots replacing their functionality with better cards. The third is already used by the TV tuner card; when the ethernet chip eventually fries itself (as is common on Soyo boards), my friend will have to buy a USB-to-ethernet dongle.

Upgradeability is a consumer's responsibility.

Edited 2007-08-03 16:47 UTC

I've generally found that Mac freeware outclasses that for Windows, but perhaps it seems like that when one is more familiar with their OS. I'm often amazed at what software I see windows users paying for (sftp clients, virus protection, defragment tools, dev tools, etc). Again, perhaps it's just about knowing where to look and what you're looking for. (Fwiw, safaritabs is not only free but open-sourced.)

If I may, for a quick list of almost 10,000 free pieces of software:
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/apps?sub=100&w=1

As to the hardware, I still happily run my 500MHz G4 with no complaints. It actually runs best/fastest on the latest 10.4.10, no hardware upgrades needed, and will run fine on Leopard. How well does a 500MHz PC run Vista?

Also, I've priced up the 8-core 3GHz Xeon system I have here, not available at all from PC vendors yet, and even allowing 2.66GHz it is thousands of dollars cheaper than the PC-only systems, even where available. It should also be mentioned that Macs are also PCs, often a very valuable cost-savings when you need both.

>hell even a decent blog software (by decent i mean good) costs money (ecto) while windows live writer is free, the fact is software on osx for the last few months i have been using it is the main reason i dont like it, its alot harder to find native, osx apps, that are FREE, and im not talking office im talking the small things.<

http://coolosxapps.net/

That should help you out. Not everything on there is free, but a lot is.

Actually, it is Steve Wozniak that created the Apple I. Spelling is the same.

However, I will agree that Wozniak != Wozniak.

He built this computer in a wooden box

...and charged an arm, leg, and half of your first born for it.

You're buying new Hardware for your IT Department. You're not "switching" operating systems on the pre-existing hardware.

A large number of businessmen also read OSNews. This site isn't geared towards only hobbyists.

(Much as I wish there were more articles about OS technologies.)

That's actually not true: for the equivalent spec, many Macs are actually cheaper than PCs, it's just that you don't have the same degree of flexibility over the spec with a Mac.

You can buy an equivalent spec PC for up to half the cost of any Mac.

That's actually not true: for the equivalent spec, many Macs are actually cheaper than PCs, it's just that you don't have the same degree of flexibility over the spec with a Mac.

Here we go again... *rolls eyes*

Actually that is tru to some degree.You'll have a hard time buying a PC with the same specs as a Mac Pro for less.Didn't believe it either....

In the US maybe. Here, Macs are way too expensive.

"Here we go again... *rolls eyes*"

Roll your eyes all you want, but it won't change the facts. I bought my Power Mac four years ago and as part of the process I spec'ed out similarly equipped systems from Dell and Alienware. The Mac actually came in cheaper by several hundred dollars. And at the time I was a Windows user so I had no particular bias in favor of Apple.

You are making the same mistake most people do. Apple does not compete in the low end market so while it is true you can buy a PC far cheaper than a Mac, that is not true with equivalent systems. But I am sure this will not convince you if you already have your mind made up.

My experience is that buying high end, whether PC or Mac will ensure many years of service. But in my case, buying the Mac the last go around has proven to to be more cost effective. Very few four year old PC's will prove to be capable of running Vista without major upgrades. My four year old Power Mac will be able to run Leopard quite nicely with no upgrade costs other than the OS.

> Apple does not compete in the low end market so while it is true
> you can buy a PC far cheaper than a Mac, that is not true
> with equivalent systems.

Yes, it is true with equivalent systems as well. I can put together a PC that will run circles around The latest MacPro, and cost far less. And it will have more RAM, a bigger hard drive, and a better video card.

That's debatable, but the important point is that not everyone needs a computer that's the equivalent of an expensive Mac. For most office tasks even the cheapest modern system is more than adequate. A Mac may be a better and more powerful machine, but that extra power just isn't needed by most people.

A Mac may be a great choice in certain niche markets, but Apple don't make products that are ideal for a great many mainstream uses. When looking for a home or office computer, the limitations of the iMac or Mac Mini, and the high price of a Mac Pro, become very significant issues.

Personally I think it's a shame that Apple don't offer a relatively low end system like the Mac Mini, but with more of the flexibility demanded by many home and office users. Such a system wouldn't necessarily have to feel 'cheap' in the way many low cost PCs do.



That isn't accurate in my experience. I've found that a four year old PC such as a Pentium 4 or Athlon can run Vista quite reasonably. The only upgrade that would probably be necessary is RAM, which is a pretty cheap and easy upgrade. How much RAM did a low end Mac have as standard four years ago? Not enough to run the latest Mac OS X very well I'd guess.

Of course there's nothing stopping you from running XP for years to come on your older PC. The vast majority of applications are bound to maintain compatibility with the older OS while it's still popular. It'll be quite a while before all those XP installations in businesses and homes around the world have been replaced by Vista.

You must be American if you *REALLY* think that Apple computers are reasonable priced AT ALL!

I can buy a friggin' CAR with the amount of money that they charge for a brand new Intel-based Mac Pro here in Brazil! No matter how you try to put it: THIS IS WAY TOO EXPENSIVE, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Even a lame G4 sells for about the price of the most powerful x86 rig that you can find around here and that's the reason that Macs are seen mostly on advertising agencies here and many still have old G4s or even Performas: because it is too expensive to keep up with it.

Believe me, as I would love to acquire Apple hardware and keep saving money whenever I can to buy a second-hand Mac: No matter how sexy OSX might look to people here, nobody other than really wealthy people wants them. Hell, you seldom see iPods on the subway, trains, buses or streets but you will see lots of devices from other vendors simply because they are affordable or that the price is just right.

Apple consciously priced itself out of the Brazilian market and I suspect that this is true for most of Latin America.

If you want to use your niche elitist product and have to keep telling yourself that you saved money and that the investment was worth, fine. But in the meantime please, spare us from the bullshit.

Incorrect.

Take a peak at Techbargains, for example.

You can get a Core 2 Duo system with 1 GB DDR2 SD-RAM, 320 GB HDD, and Windows Vitsa Home Premium for about $530 plus shipping.

http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=9/po...]=15:276/popup40[]=20:386/sortby=priceA

For about $160 you can get a fancy 19" widescreen LCD with < 8 ms response time. If you already have a decent screen from your previous system, you can forget about this.

http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=37/p...]=150:1400/sortby=priceA

There is even a fairly decent 17in LCD for $19.99 after rebates.

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?&ref=cj&pf...

So say $690 plus shipping for a nice computer and monitor or $550 with that cheap monitor plus shipping. In the latter case, its still cheaper than the weakest Mac Mini, which is priced at $599 I believe.

A cheap iMac with half the HDD capacity, RAM, and a 17" screen (thats probably simular to the $20 one) for about $977 plus shipping.

http://techbargains.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/vendorIds[]=129/page_id=9/popup10[]=15:276/sortby=priceA

Edited 2007-08-03 19:46

Sure, ok. Excellent. Now all you need to do is take care of the 'equivalent spec' and you've got a point.

Me too. Sometimes there are good articles tho', too.

Hmmm. I just got 10 point upgrades for free?

And I have an old IBM PS/1 model 20 that still works, but what does that prove? :-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But it does still work. A whopping 640 BG of RAM with a 20 MB HD and dual 3 1/2" floppy drives.

And the old quote "there are none so blind as they who will not see" is true. Few people in any discussion enter with an open mind. Their preconceived ideas keep them from locked into where they are. Many people here will not believe you because they don't want to believe you.

I am not a Mac zealot as I switched from Windows about four years ago. I also have an IBM running PC-BSD. Both systems are tools and as such, if something better comes along I will make the switch. At least I am open to the idea that there might be something better.

> Financially, OS X has been far cheaper for me to use than Windows
> ever was. I have had to purchase far less software and the software I
> did have to purchase was cheaper than the equivalent XP software
> was.

Well, I use Linux... I haven't had to purchase any software. I haven't hard to purchase any OS, and I haven't had to purchase any OS upgrades. And the