comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <3KSdnSXln-UoFHDanZ2dnUVZ_qCunZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:22:29 -0700, hh wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <50b2d999-ad77-4af6-b1dc-b327e69ef5f2@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> Steve de Mena wrote:
>>>>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>>>>>> Morgan Stanley: 40% of college students plan to buy Macs
>>>>>> Unfortunately a 40% "plan to buy" will not equal a 40% "will buy".
>>>>>> Compatibility with future work environments, etc, will be a major
>>>>>> factor.
>>>>> You sure are a major "disser" aren't you?
>>>> Actually, he's a "misser" of information, for six months ago (Oct 07),
>>>> Princeton's student newspaper reported that their computer sales for
>>>> the 2006-07 school year was 45% Macs, and for this year was 60% Macs:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK, but what I was really referring to was that this guy NEVER has anything
>>> positive to say. IOW, he's just another Wintroll. I simply don't see why
>>> they
>>> do it. If I have no interest in a subject or a product, or if I merely
>>> dislike one, I don't go looking for Usenet groups about that subject or
>>> product and incessantly denigrate it. For instance, at the risk of starting
>>> a
>>> tangental thread here, I don't like SUVs and would like to see them off of
>>> the roads, but you won't find me on any SUV forum calling those who own
>>> SUVs
>>> idiots or screaming my dislike for them at every opportunity. I mean,
>>> what's
>>> the point? I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's useless, and
>>> pointless
>>> and that's the way I feel about people such as Steve de Mena.
>> If I have "no interest in the subject" why would I have spent about
>> $7000 for my three Macs, which I use for probably 75% of my personal
>> work at home?
>>
>> But for you guys to think Apple is going to be adopted in the
>> workplace on any sort of scale, forget it. Apple has nothing that
>> can compete with the combination of Windows + Active Directory +
>> Exchange + Deployment & Management Tools, SQL (etc.) in a large
>> corporate environment. And if they did have something competitive
>> their secrecy would preclude them from being considered.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Open Directory + Mail Services + CalDAV + NetworkInstall + SQL are all
> on Mac OS X Server.
>


They are available, but for every time Apple updates OS X server, people
have to scramble to find fixes that Apple doesn't document well.
And I've tried to get CalDAV working and it's so poorly documented, as
opposed to how easy Apple's marketing dept says it is, it's a nightmare.

Network install is a pain is the a** to get going, especially in
Leopard. Just Google it and you'll see.

I was trying to create a netboot install image for days, with it
crashing continually until I stumbled upon a 3rd part application
(Netrestore) that actually worked.

And I would really like to shake the hand of the goof ball at Apple that
decided that UID was better than APM. This made transitioning from The
G5 family of CPUs to Intel very difficult for many. Now if your a big
business, imagine how this can impact productivity.

And how many people are certified in Apple IT to be able to call up when
your 500+ employee business can't connect to SQL or any other database.

I am personally *thrilled* with the quality of my Macs and how I am able
to run my small business, don't get me wrong.
OTOH, the only way Apple can make inroads into the server and enterprise
market is to better document their software, drop the secrecy and stop
f'ing around with products that already work.

Just my 2c