Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy • Hacker News Board

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#171

Post by greedo » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

raesene6 wrote: post #166

greedo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of running a decently sized corporation without AD is a non-starter. Fileshares alone would be unmanageable. I'm not talking a 50 person shop, I'm talking an enterprise with multiple locations and several thousand desktops. As much as I dislike having to use and manage Windows when it comes up, AD is an essential tool.

In an enterprise sure you need it for rights management, but then that's not really related to what the client OS is, you can run MacOS or Windows clients largely equally well if you're not using AD to centrally manage them.

Well the OP wasn't talking about running macOS or Windows at home, but in a corporate/business environment.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#172

Post by digi_owl » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

disposablename wrote: post #133

vram22 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea how? some sort of compression? other?

Remote Desktop passes draw calls from server to client instead of screen-capping and sending bitmaps. Similar to remote X11.

And yet the boys over at xorg wants to throw that part of X11 out the window and use screen scraping instead...

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#173

Post by gjolund » Sat, Oct 22, 2016, 11:28 PM UTC

Linux is even cheaper.

I am constantly dumbfounded when I see "lean" startups shelling out for macbooks.

If you really want to save money and run a lean operation go linux.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#174

Post by Thiez » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #169

Thiez wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The performance gap is very noticeable even on GB LAN, especially as the screen resolution goes up. I find that hard to believe, I can play games like Rayman (that require reflexes and a low latency) over my steam link on a 100mbit network. Surely on a GB LAN there shouldn't be noticeable latency?

Is steam link VNC? I've played games via VNC, but only visual novels. In all cases i've known real games require special transmission protocols, which operate in a specific domain, and are a lot faster than RDP, which operates in a broader domain, and is faster than VNC, which is the most general solution.

I'm not sure exactly how it works, as far as I am aware it streams video and sound, and sends back input, but I'm not sure about the underlying protocol. I think the resolution is 1080p. But regardless of the underlying technology they use, they've clearly proven that you can get a great remote desktop experience on a sub-GB lan without using RDP.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#175

Post by Mithaldu » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

Thiez wrote: post #174

Mithaldu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is steam link VNC? I've played games via VNC, but only visual novels. In all cases i've known real games require special transmission protocols, which operate in a specific domain, and are a lot faster than RDP, which operates in a broader domain, and is faster than VNC, which is the most general solution.

I'm not sure exactly how it works, as far as I am aware it streams video and sound, and sends back input, but I'm not sure about the underlying protocol. I think the resolution is 1080p. But regardless of the underlying technology they use, they've clearly proven that you can get a great remote desktop experience on a sub-GB lan without using RDP.

Sure, just not with VNC. :)

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#176

Post by talmand » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #147

talmand wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I hear a continual litany of woe and despair from our helpdesk about drivers, and anti-virus, and AD issues etc ad infinitum Sounds like human error to me. My two young children seem to handle Windows just fine without me having to constantly monitor their machines. Edit: what? my anecdotal evidence isn't as good as everybody else?

Do you have corporate issued/managed anti-virus, threat detection, disk encryption, VPN, fileservers and managed printers? If so, your kids are well equipped for life in the corporate IT world.

You mean every person on here that's doing the usual whining about computers being hard fits that description? Seems to me there's just a lot of complaints just aimed at a specific OS for reasons.

Also, I'm fairly certain drivers and anti-virus is not exclusive to the corporate environment.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#177

Post by raesene6 » Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 3:42 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #171

raesene6 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an enterprise sure you need it for rights management, but then that's not really related to what the client OS is, you can run MacOS or Windows clients largely equally well if you're not using AD to centrally manage them.

Well the OP wasn't talking about running macOS or Windows at home, but in a corporate/business environment.

nor am I :) I'm suggesting that one of the perceived advantages of MacOS is that it's not tied to a heavyweight arduous Active Directory installation and that, in my book, there's not reason not to run Windows in exactly the same manner.

My point being, I don't think it's so much a difference between the Operating systems but how they're operated.