Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, David, Thresher
bthylafh wrote:HEY MAYBE WE'LL EVEN GET A REAL GORRAM SERVER AGAIN.
SuperSpy wrote:I would love to see Apple push into enterprise, however. IMO they would do well to latch onto the BYOD crowd.
SuperSpy wrote:bthylafh wrote:HEY MAYBE WE'LL EVEN GET A REAL GORRAM SERVER AGAIN.
You mean you don't like shoving Mac Minis into racks?
bthylafh wrote:SuperSpy wrote:bthylafh wrote:HEY MAYBE WE'LL EVEN GET A REAL GORRAM SERVER AGAIN.
You mean you don't like shoving Mac Minis into racks?
Honestly I'd be satisfied if they'd sell a hardware-free version of OS X Server that can legally run on our VMware farm. Charging a few hundred bucks would be worth it.
End User wrote:This Apple/IBM partnership is all the more mind bending when you consider this.
bthylafh wrote:End User wrote:This Apple/IBM partnership is all the more mind bending when you consider this.
Eh, times change and that was at least thirty years ago, when IBM really was a stodgy old monopolist.
bthylafh wrote:End User wrote:This Apple/IBM partnership is all the more mind bending when you consider this.
Eh, times change and that was at least thirty years ago, when IBM really was a stodgy old monopolist.
bthylafh wrote:+1Bah.
bthylafh wrote:Bah.Maybe this will kick Apple's butt into gear to get better enterprise-y support for their products.
just brew it! wrote:bthylafh wrote:End User wrote:This Apple/IBM partnership is all the more mind bending when you consider this.
Eh, times change and that was at least thirty years ago, when IBM really was a stodgy old monopolist.
Not to mention the fact that Macs had IBM CPUs in them from the mid-90s to the mid-00s. (Though they did have a bit of a falling out when Apple ditched them for Intel...)
Edit: Ah, I see you already realized that.
MarkG509 wrote:bthylafh wrote:+1Bah.bthylafh wrote:Bah.Maybe this will kick Apple's butt into gear to get better enterprise-y support for their products.
Edit:
1) Who's currently testing Yosemite? End-users. Who's gonna pay to test to Enterprise standards? [crickets]
2) As per OP, spending (0.5 x 380,000 * ~$2k/Mac) would require too much tap-dancing by the CFO at next ShareHolder meeting.
End User wrote:We'd have believed you even w/o proof. Those were sweet machines for a few months.(iPad to verify it was my crap )]
localhostrulez wrote:The Mac Minis we use for Netboot, on the other hand...
MarkG509 wrote:End User wrote:We'd have believed you even w/o proof. Those were sweet machines for a few months.(iPad to verify it was my crap )]
drsauced wrote:We've got some real Mac nuts, recent hires, in our Windows workplace.
drsauced wrote:Today, I had exactly this discussion with a friend at work. One can appear to be very productive on a Mac platform. But, just try to take that same "demo qualiity" stuff and scale it up and make it work 24x7x365 in an Enterprise. The only Cheese that "get it" are those who've tried and blown budgets/schedules.We've got some real Mac nuts, recent hires, in our Windows workplace. It's quite disruptive ...
MarkG509 wrote:One can appear to be very productive on a Mac platform. But, just try to take that same "demo qualiity" stuff and scale it up and make it work 24x7x365 in an Enterprise.
End User wrote:Generally, early releases of complex s/w stacks, before they've had any time to mature, and before they've been ported to platforms other than where they were developed.Examples?
MarkG509 wrote:End User wrote:Generally, early releases of complex s/w stacks, before they've had any time to mature, and before they've been ported to platforms other than where they were developed.Examples?
End User wrote:Nope.So you are a Windows centric shop.
End User wrote:MarkG509 wrote:End User wrote:Generally, early releases of complex s/w stacks, before they've had any time to mature, and before they've been ported to platforms other than where they were developed.Examples?
So you are a Windows centric shop that resents having to develop for other platforms and the product that you release for those other platforms is hobbled compared to the version that is available for Windows. Awesome.
bthylafh wrote:also, we were told by an Apple rep that if one needs to manage more than a few hundred devices (and we're rapidly approaching that many iPads alone), we'd have to spring $$$ for a third-party product because OS X Server won't scale that far.
bthylafh wrote:Eh, times change and that was at least thirty years ago, when IBM really was a stodgy old monopolist.
bthylafh wrote:The big issue we have with Macs at the moment is 10.10's boot progress bar getting to the halfway point and freezing occasionally; the only reasonably consistent fix seems to be booting to the recovery partition and doing a repair install
slowriot wrote:bthylafh wrote:Eh, times change and that was at least thirty years ago, when IBM really was a stodgy old monopolist.
You're right. Now we're simply stodgy and old, often caught wondering aimlessly with no clue where we're going.
Deanjo wrote:bthylafh wrote:The big issue we have with Macs at the moment is 10.10's boot progress bar getting to the halfway point and freezing occasionally; the only reasonably consistent fix seems to be booting to the recovery partition and doing a repair install
I would love to see the boot logs on that issue. Sound's like you are possibly running a startup app that is changing the permissions on a system file post-boot.