Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

tech.fortune.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 111 posts

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#11

Post by tomkarlo »

fname wrote: post #8
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference: when you use a Mac, you don't need that software. - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection. - You don't need third party management software, you can use NetInstall/NetBoot or ARD. - Using NetBoot also solves the backup problem on the…

I'm also pretty sure that once MacOS starts becoming prevalent in the enterprise, they'll eventually need antivirus, back up agents, and some sort of management agent as well. How would an IT organization manage the settings on the OS without some sort of management agent?

At what point are we going to get over the concept that Macs don't have virus issues because there's not popular enough yet? I feel like I've been hearing that chestnut for a decade now.

There are already IT management tools for Macs. I've worked at two large companies in a row (25k+ employees) where a large percentage of the company was using Macs (~30% or more) and they both had established management solutions that didn't bork the user experience on Macs. I'm typing this on a managed Macbook Air right now.

As for backups, those agents exist but they're rapidly growing less relevant as the majority of documents and work are either web-based or on servers anyway. If I somehow lost this computer, I'd be bummed to have to do some preferences setup again, but I wouldn't lose any work.

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#12

Post by r00fus »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #6
lunchbox wrote: post #4

One of the two main cited reasons people prefer Macs was this: > Many of today's corporate PCs are saddled with management, backup, and security agents that can bog down a PC. Employees want their PCs to boot in 10 seconds, not 10 minutes...They're drawn to uncluttered Macs... I don't see how this shows superiority of Mac over PC; presumably if the Mac were running this software it would have these problems too.

The difference: when you use a Mac, you don't need that software. - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection. - You don't need third party management software, you can use NetInstall/NetBoot or ARD. - Using NetBoot also solves the backup problem on the…

> - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection.

I hope you realize Apple itself runs antivirus for their corporate MBPs... likely because like any monoculture, any viral malware could cause disastrous results.

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#14

Post by Samuel_Michon »

fname wrote: post #8
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference: when you use a Mac, you don't need that software. - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection. - You don't need third party management software, you can use NetInstall/NetBoot or ARD. - Using NetBoot also solves the backup problem on the…

I'm also pretty sure that once MacOS starts becoming prevalent in the enterprise, they'll eventually need antivirus, back up agents, and some sort of management agent as well. How would an IT organization manage the settings on the OS without some sort of management agent?

They wouldn't. They would use Apple's Server Admin Tools (a free download) [1] and Lion Server's Profile Manager [2].

My point wasn't that Macs don't need management, anti-malware or back up software. It is that you don't need third party software that bogs down your system.

[1] http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1457

[2] http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/features/

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#15

Post by thaumaturgy »

I'm not sure what their 6 recommendations were for preparing for the transition, and I'm unwilling to pay $499 to find out, but I hope one of them deals with the horrible pain in the ass that is Windows File Sharing.

Macs really do not like Windows shares, whether in an AD context or a workgroup context. While some seem to work without any trouble, others have frequent issues with logging in, with browsing, with refreshing, with permissions. It's very frustrating for the users, and frustrating for those in IT support positions who are faced with annoyed users on one side and inscrutable black box magic on the other.

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#16

Post by marze »

I've heard in the past one theory for IT departments favoring PCs (besides all of the pro-PC marketing aimed at them) might be that the Macs are very cheap to administer and thus don't require much IT support.

I thought this was an interesting response to this news, over at the AppleInsider forums:

"I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. Surprisingly, they don't do anything to block access to network services, but they don't necessarily encourage other platforms either.

I work on a team of 23 people. The company provides Dell or HP laptops running XP or Vista (Windows 7 is still being 'evaluated'). These laptops would cost a normal human about $600, but for some reason my company leases them instead. We pay about $150/month (if memory serves) over the course of a two-year lease term. You do the math...

Four years ago I paid about $700 for a Mac Mini. I run Office 2011 (and previously ran 2008 and 2004) for Exchange Server connectivity. I occasionally use Word and Excel, but generally prefer Pages and Numbers. For presentations I exclusively use Keynote (PowerPoint is a festering pile of poop). I am a systems admin who supports applications running on both Unix and Windows 2008 Server machines. For Unix I use iTerm and X11, and for Windows 2008 remote server administration I use the RDP client that comes with Office.

My computer currently has a monthly ownership cost of (700/48) about $15. One-tenth that of my laptop. In the past four years I've had exactly zero minutes of unplanned downtime, while every single one of my 22 peers have had their machines out for days at a time for reimaging due to OS corruption, most of them more than once.

The downside is that the $150/month in lease charges covers hardware service. Still, since over four years the cost of ownership is $7200 vs $700, the company could replace my Mini six times over four years and still save money, not taking into account the money saved from productivity.

Executives who don't consider using Macs are simply bad at math."

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1975818&po...

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#18

Post by Samuel_Michon »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #15

I'm not sure what their 6 recommendations were for preparing for the transition, and I'm unwilling to pay $499 to find out, but I hope one of them deals with the horrible pain in the ass that is Windows File Sharing. Macs really do not like Windows shares, whether in an AD context or a workgroup context. While some seem to work without any trouble, others have frequent issues with logging in, with browsing, with refr…

My experience has been that Windows doesn't really like Windows shares either. Ever tried to create a network with a few Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 7 computers? I couldn't get it to work. Instead, now those Windows machines simply access my WebDAV running on Mac Lion Server.

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#19

Post by redler »

r00fus wrote: post #12
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference: when you use a Mac, you don't need that software. - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection. - You don't need third party management software, you can use NetInstall/NetBoot or ARD. - Using NetBoot also solves the backup problem on the…

> - You don't need to run third party antivirus or antispyware software on the client, only on your mail server (to protect Windows users if you forward Windows executables). OS X has built-in malware protection. I hope you realize Apple itself runs antivirus for their corporate MBPs... likely because like any monoculture, any viral malware could cause disastrous results.

I hadn't heard this. Can you describe what they do in more detail?

Re: Hell freezes over: Forrester urges IT to support the Mac

#20

Post by famousactress »

m0nastic wrote: post #9

I find myself agreeing with their recommendation, even though I disagree with their rationale. Agreeing to let "HEROES" use Macs in an enterprise (and dear god what a terrible term, as if us Mac users weren't smug enough) seems to be basically capitulating to entitlement. At my last company, when Mac OS X first shipped, I wanted to try it out, so I bought an iBook (the cheapest entry to the world of Macs, in case I e…

...seems to be basically capitulating to entitlement

Entitlement to use choose your own tools? Gasp.

I think the underlying point the article's taking glancing blows at has plenty of merit, they just failed to do it bluntly enough. I think there's likely a high correlation between highly productive employees, and people who could care less about IT bureaucracy. I don't think it has anything to do with Mac users.. it's just that Windows users in this position are less affected, and through this lens.. less visible.

Post reply on HN