Apple makes Macs run Windows XP

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Southern
wrote:

No, for many years that would be the Macs. We've had stable business
platforms since around 1995 when Windows NT 4.0 was released. - remember
those days - when you had to reboot a Mac at least once a day?

How far back to you want to go?

OS X is far more stable and much less ugly than eXtra Pitiful.

OS X has (perhaps) finally reached the level of stability that we had with
Windows NT 4.0 workstation back in 1996. All MS business OSes have been
stable since then.

wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm

Interesting topic.....


Discussion on!!!!!


Just dying to see all you ms/apple freaks go nuts lol

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs 60%
of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Meanwhile, OS X has all the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too. So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

I use both operating systems a lot. And the more I use them the more I
come to view Windows as an awkward, ugly kludge. But that is my very
subjective personal opinion. Nevertheless, I think Apple is counting on
enough people who run these operating systems side by side that it will
increase their market share.

Apple is betting on both horses. I don't see that as a losing
proposition.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Southern
wrote:

What a load of ********. Every last one of them is networked and every
last
one of them is left on 24/7 and used for a variety of tasks (including
eMail
/ wordprocessing / spreaksheet / dos programs / proprietary software,
and
more) from 8am to 5pm

Get your head out of your ass.

Randall, how old are you?

"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"G.T." wrote in message
...

We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of
6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at
Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for 80
Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no deskside
engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple.

So what you're saying is 1 engineer per 33 PCs and 1 (part time) engineer
per 80 macs?

To be fair it's 50 PCs per deskside tech, the 6 desktop engineers are
responsible for a much larger PC population and they do things like creating
SMS installer packages, managing SMS, and similar stuff in addition to being
resources for the 12 deskside techs.


If that were the case then there's 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You've bought non-complient hardware / software and setup it up and
continue to maintain it in an incompetent fashion, or

Dells pre-imaged with our corporate image which was approved by our
Microsoft TAM. Try again.


(2) The Macs really do require a lot less support.

Clearly.


If (b) were true then the Macs TCO would be soo soo sooo much better they
would have wiped PCs off the planet by now.

Uhhh, you have no clue about inertia, do you? The only reason OS X hasn't
completely turned the marketshare around in the last 2 years is application
inertia, that is the wealth of business apps that are written around MS
products.

The reality is however that the
Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of being
practially non-existent and the switch to being able to run Wintel code is
their last desperate attempt to survive.

That must be why we're buying FCP Macs left and right for video editing, and
managers in other departments are buying Macs for Photoshop, etc. because
they're sick of malware ridden XP boxes. And the benefits of running
reliable systems far outweigh the drawbacks of not being able to run
corporate apps, they can always keep a PC in the corner for that.

Greg

cjcampbell wrote:


wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm

Interesting topic.....


Discussion on!!!!!


Just dying to see all you ms/apple freaks go nuts lol

I don't think I am going to go nuts over it. This is obviously an
attempt by Apple to exploit a weakness in Microsoft. Vista has been
promised since 2004. It is now pushed back to 2007 and still needs 60%
of its code re-written. At this rate, Vista may never run.

Vista runs now. It has some problems, but it runs.

Meanwhile, OS X has all

All? You mean it has centrally managed security?

the features promised by Vista and looks
cooler, too.

Now there's a big selling point for you, "looks cooler". How old are you?

So Apple introduces Boot Camp and maybe some PC users will
now buy Macs, even though the iMac is not that great of a Windows
machine. But they will now have OS X, too and, who knows, they will
start demanding more OS X ports of applications.

Or they'll look at OS/X, read what all the advocates say, and be mightily
dissapointed when it turns out to be just another operating system.

I use both operating systems a lot. And the more I use them the more I
come to view Windows as an awkward, ugly kludge. But that is my very
subjective personal opinion. Nevertheless, I think Apple is counting on
enough people who run these operating systems side by side that it will
increase their market share.

Apple is betting on both horses. I don't see that as a losing
proposition.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

G.T. wrote:


"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"G.T." wrote in message
...

We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team
of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at
Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for
80 Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no
deskside engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple.

So what you're saying is 1 engineer per 33 PCs and 1 (part time) engineer
per 80 macs?

To be fair it's 50 PCs per deskside tech, the 6 desktop engineers are
responsible for a much larger PC population and they do things like
creating SMS installer packages, managing SMS, and similar stuff in
addition to being resources for the 12 deskside techs.


If that were the case then there's 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You've bought non-complient hardware / software and setup it up
and continue to maintain it in an incompetent fashion, or

Dells pre-imaged with our corporate image which was approved by our
Microsoft TAM. Try again.


(2) The Macs really do require a lot less support.

Clearly.


If (b) were true then the Macs TCO would be soo soo sooo much better they
would have wiped PCs off the planet by now.

Uhhh, you have no clue about inertia, do you? The only reason OS X hasn't
completely turned the marketshare around in the last 2 years is
application inertia, that is the wealth of business apps that are written
around MS products.

Well, there's the little issue of manageability.

The reality is however that the
Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of
being practially non-existent and the switch to being able to run Wintel
code is their last desperate attempt to survive.

That must be why we're buying FCP Macs left and right for video editing,
and managers in other departments are buying Macs for Photoshop, etc.
because
they're sick of malware ridden XP boxes.

If your XP boxes are "malware ridden" then your administrators are clueless
buffoons.

And the benefits of running
reliable systems far outweigh the drawbacks of not being able to run
corporate apps, they can always keep a PC in the corner for that.

And XP running on a Mac is going to change this how?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
tomm42 wrote:

The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are locked
down so tight that it won't show most Web pages.

No.

It's not a "big problem with explorer". It's a totally non-existent issue.
Perhaps, with the possible exception of some of the security features
kicking in to protect your PC from some of the "tricks" they come up with on
sex and hack sites.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
wrote:

I don't understand why people feel that Dell needs to "compete" with
anyone?
A Dell workstation is most likely on every government desk and in the
field
from DOD to DHS. Apple is nothing more than a gnat buzzing around Michael
Dell's ear. If this gnat makes too much noise Dell will swat it.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Compete with Apple? Pfffffffft - As a platform, Apples market share is about
the only thing less than the margin of error in most surveys.

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Actually we're having more problems with the D610s than we are the
desktops.
As a favor to a VP here who doesn't want to have his laptop re-imaged or
replaced by deskside support I am currently trying to troubleshoot a Stop
0x000000D1 DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bluescreen for him. Most likely
culprit on XP is either USB-related or memory-related. Just started
looking
into it last night.

I'd take a close look at the installed drivers. You can also use msconfig to
reconfigure what's started at boot time.

And what's the bet that it's a non-WHQL-certified driver - you know - the
ones that give you the little message "STOP - THIS DRIVER DOES NOT CONTAIN A
MICROSOFT DIGITAL SIGNATURE etc" message when you attempt to install the
device?

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Do you manage any Macs? I thought not.

Very few people do because there is such a small number of them.