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

81–90 of 111 posts

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

#81

Post by hvs »

marze wrote: post #16

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 networ…

I work in an almost exclusively Mac shop (an agency) and to say that they don't require much IT support is laughable. The worst part is that when they do require support, it is much more involved than with PCs.

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

#82

Post by TorgoGuy »

The reality isn't as bad as it sounds here. According to the same source (Forrester) 32% of personally owned PCs aren't allowed on the networks either (vs 41% for Macs).

So an only 9% difference seems pretty reasonable. It may not be what we want, but given limited company IT resources, it's almost surprising the delta is that low.

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

#83

Post by johngalt »

marze wrote: post #16

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 networ…

So which is it?

IT bans Macs because they want their job to be easier and intentionally cripple users to that end.

IT bans Macs because they are so easy that less IT work would be required.

I've seen both views presented, but they seem mutually exclusive.

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

#84

Post by Samuel_Michon »

yardie wrote: post #71
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Em, parent was talking about printing, not scanning... I have yet to use a printer that OS X Lion can't find a driver for.

The parent was talking about the MF part of a MFC printer being nonexistant for the Mac. Hell any printer with a USB port will work on a Mac. Any $50 printer can do that. But when you spend $200+ on a network MFC most come up short on the Mac side.

I was referring to the following:

"Compare that with getting a Mac to print to any printer that wasn't specifically designed with macs in mind... torture."

Like you said, printing is not a problem in OS X. As for the other functions of a MFC, I agree: it's hit-and-miss. But that wasn't what OP was complaining about.

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

#85

Post by hvs »

Duff wrote: post #75

I work at a large government IT organization. We were way ahead of the curve on this trend -- we did a POC deployment in late 2008. There are real issues with Mac vs. Windows in an enterprise for many categories of user. We found that some Executives and some knowledge workers LOVED them. All Unix admins and most web-dev types loved them. Why? They weren't using line of business applications, and either didn't have m…

Very well said. You outlined everything that I've noticed and discussed with our IT team (who support a large number of Macs). Needless to say, they have come to despise supporting Macs.

And, yes, Microsoft Outlook for Mac is a horrid POS.

That said, I love Macs but I'm not in IT support and I completely understand their pain.

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

#86

Post by Samuel_Michon »

johngalt wrote: post #83
marze wrote: post #16

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 networ…

So which is it? IT bans Macs because they want their job to be easier and intentionally cripple users to that end. IT bans Macs because they are so easy that less IT work would be required. I've seen both views presented, but they seem mutually exclusive.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive.

A lot of IT shops are accustomed to crippling the computers they manage, as a way to reduce need for servicing individual machines. Macs might not fit into that existing workflow, which make them appear harder to support. Just the prospect of having to loosen their policies incites all sorts of doom scenarios. Macs may be easier to manage, but it takes a brave IT manager to actually try it.

Also, many IT managers have dozens of Microsoft certificates, but little knowledge of Mac management. Noone wants to aide in their own replacement. It would be like John Henry suggesting the use of steam powered hammers.

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

#88

Post by lloeki »

cbs wrote: post #68
lloeki wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Given the recent malware hitting the internet for macs, our aggressive firewalling already doesn't cut it for security". Three odd trojans that need to be explicitly user-installed, rarely if ever met in the wild, and blocked by the daily-updated system are a threat to your über-firewall? I'm not downplaying the recent evolution in the area, but up until now you have to admit it's a dud. > "They're backed up with…

>up until now you have to admit it's a dud The genie is out of the bottle, so that doesn't matter anymore. >You do know that Time Machine works perfectly fine [...] Yes, do go on. Lecture me about my environment and my needs. >And yes MSE is third-aprty in the sense that it's not there right from the start Not only do you not know what first-party means, if it was bundled in by default Microsoft would be right back i…

> The genie is out of the bottle

It has been for a long time, ever since around Mac OS 8 where the peak production of Mac malware happened. As Miller said, Mac OS X is not necessarily more secure but it's currently comfortably safer. That does not mean the area should not be watched for any evolution.

> Lecture me about my environment and my needs.

I did not wish to make it sound like a lecture, and am genuinely interested in what your environment looks like and what led you to using rsync instead of Time Machine, and how you overcame the cases I mentioned (if ever you were concerned by them in your use case).

> Thats awesome, but I'm really not interested in your pissing contest.

I'm not pissing anywhere, but you do seem pissed. If anything, your environment and needs, just like mine, are anecdotal.

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

#89

Post by smithian »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #84
yardie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent was talking about the MF part of a MFC printer being nonexistant for the Mac. Hell any printer with a USB port will work on a Mac. Any $50 printer can do that. But when you spend $200+ on a network MFC most come up short on the Mac side.

I was referring to the following: "Compare that with getting a Mac to print to any printer that wasn't specifically designed with macs in mind... torture." Like you said, printing is not a problem in OS X. As for the other functions of a MFC, I agree: it's hit-and-miss. But that wasn't what OP was complaining about.

Printing is no picnic either, as any cursory browse through discussions.apple.com, support.apple.com, or any of the many mac-centered tech forums will attest. Here's a few examples, by no means exhaustive:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2776655?start=0&tst... http://ask.metafilter.com/79984/Need-help-printing-to-work-p... https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3137602?start=15&ts... https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3193803?start=0&tst...

And any search for "> mac not working" will produce scads of results, often taking you to discussions that are dozens of pages long with people who can't print from their macs to any number of printers. This is a real problem, not a figment.

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

#90

Post by WayneDB »

tomkarlo wrote: post #11
fname wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Why are Banks known for getting robbed more often than Bakeries? That's where the money is.

The reason you've been hearing about Mac popularity with regards to viruses is because it's true, despite the fact that you'd like to think otherwise.

The fact is that Mac market share is still only around ~15% in the US and much less than that worldwide. That is about triple the market share that they had ten years ago.

Also - Ever heard of Pwn2Own? The Mac has fallen first every year.

Post reply on HN