Mac's for Large Businesses

[nefan65]

The IT Business climate is changing. In 5 years it won't matter what you're using; Mac, Windows, iPad, Linux, Android, et-al. Applications will become both more Web-Centric than ever, as well as the ability to virtualize the app to run on anything [ala Citrix XEN APP'ish]. That doesn't mean PC's, and/or Mac based systems with horsepower won't be needed, they will. However, the whole idea of locking systems down, and GPO's will be moot. People will be able to work in the office, at home, or on the road with whatever they want. It's already started. Some larger companies are giving their users stipends for systems. They give them an allowance of "X Dollars" and they can buy what they want.

As for this thread; anyone that says Mac's cannot live in an Ent environment, PC's are cheaper, or Macs have a higher TCO than their PC counterparts [which is a great buzz work to toss around, but 90% of IT people that use that term rarely understand it's full meaning] is rubbish. The days of a single system type across the enterprise are gone my IT friends. The new mantra is give the users the tools they need to get their jobs done, and allow them to be proficient....

 

[nizmoz]

Well said. I was going to start typing a similar post but glad you did. The person that replied to the OP above saying IT people are clueless is 100% wrong as you are the one that is clueless. I run a IT department and there is no way MACs would ever become the Computer of choice over any Windows machine that has way more software for the enterprise than a MAC will ever see. And using Bootcamp is a waste of funds as PCs are cheaper. It always takes someone who has no clue about how IT works to say something like that.

Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...

Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.

Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)

Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.

Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.

Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.

TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.

Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.

Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.

Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year 2001, that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)

It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.

Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.

And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.

Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.

And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.

 

[nizmoz]

The IT department won't want macs, it will put people like me out of a job.

I see a lot of BS in this thread and a lot of people pretending to be IT who aren't. As far as someone saying windows server 2008 is rock solid...I completely disagree.

And whoever thinks Dell has great enterprise support I absolutely 100% disagree. Their support is freaking terrible and I love how they try and claim that they can't cover servers under warranty if the server is at an APO address. Dell is too stupid to realize any APO address, regardless of where it is at in the world is U.S. soil. /rant

Anyway OP, windows generally dominates the enterprise world but it doesn't mean macs can't be used.

While I haven't liked Dell enterprise support, they have been good for what we need. We have 7 Dell Poweredge servers and NONE of them have had problems since we have had them. Some as old as 4 years old.

Windows 2008 Server has been pretty stable for us with less issues vs Windows 2003. I would say it's a very stable O/S. As we rarely have to restart the boxes for issues, it's usually just for updates.

Now where I hate Microsoft is in Exchange 2010. Exchange 2003, everything was built into AD so you could add users in the same AD area and it would add them to Exchange from there. Now with 2007 and 2010, it is separate. You have to add the user in AD, then you must open your Exchange Manager, and add the user to a mailbox there. Or go through Exchange to add the user in that program which will add him to AD but without the security rights of a user if you wish to copy that person.

 

[wct097]

I think all of the talking points have already been fleshed out. Bottom line is that Mac's simply are not an enterprise solution.

* Can you integrate them into an enterprise network?
Sure. I can also plug my home router into the network. I'm sure it'd work fine.

* Can the be your standard?
Not unless you're a small corp that doesn't use any real business applications. Then again, I wouldn't consider that to be 'Enterprise IT'.

* Group policy is only needed because Windows machines are insecure.
Can you honestly believe this if you actually have even the slightest amount of experience in an enterprise IT environment? That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

* Applications are all going to be web-centric.
Sure, that's the current direction, and from an IT perspective, makes the most sense. That's not a selling point for Macs though, that's a selling point for thin clients. If you want to talk TCO and use web-based applications as the justification, then you have to compare a Mac to a thin client..... and well, the results are obvious.

 

[JDB1983]

yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for windows run ah-so smoothly on macs...

Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.

Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)

enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.

Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.

Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.

Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.

Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.

Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.

Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year 2001, that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)

it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.

Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.

And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.

Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.

And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.

qft

 

[mdatwood]

What's funny is that there is tons of money to be made in enterprise hardware, software, and support. The problem is that it requires two things - long term support and road maps. It is completely against Apple's culture to provide either of those, thus they will always be horrible in the enterprise.

 

[Silas1066]

I have been working with Windows in a networked environment since the Lan Manager days (before NT 3.51)

Back in the 1990s, NT was a good choice for small to medium-sized businesses. It was easy to deploy, supported a lot of software, and was less expensive than Novell (generally). Apple back then was proprietary, difficult to deploy in large environments, and few apps ran on Macs.

Things have changed ...

If you are using GPOs to deploy legacy or proprietary applications to your users, you better get with the times. This is 2010, and EVERYTHING in the enterprise should be web-enabled (database portals, CRM software, etc.). GPOs, as I have said earlier, are generally used to lock down users and to plug the many security holes in Windows networks, or they are used to deploy old crappy apps that can't be reached through a browser.

I am sitting in front of a Mac right now at work. I have MS Office loaded on it for convenience, and I use a number of web enabled applications: Cisco utilities (UCM Manager, ASDM) SolarWinds, Norton Security Suite, and I reach my databases through a SSL proxy and specific web servers on the back-end.

My Mac is connected to AD throught the Directory Utility. My Mac can do native SMB file sharing if needed.

I could use a Ubuntu box if I wanted! Where in this environment (which is a pretty big one) am I REQUIRED to use a Windows machine? Why not get rid of the GPOs, the security sweeps, the login scripts, etc. altogether? This is 1990s crap!

Apple completely overhauled their OS when they went to OSX: this is 21st century technology. Microsoft stuck with the old 32bit architecture that included a registry and lots of legacy code. Windows 7 is a bunch of ginger-bread running on old code. Even Linux blows it away.

The days of the old tower running Windows sitting on the office desk are going away. We are moving to cloud computing, intelligent tablets (i.e. the iPad) and integrated communications (voice, video, and data).

Now Apple's support of enterprise customers is another issue, and it does concern me that they discontinued the Xserve. I guess we will have to see how that all plays out.

But this idea of "can't be done! the world only runs on windows!" is nonsense.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Why do Windows machines use Group Policies? To push software out to machines, sure -but the real reason is to lock down machines that are by their very design security risks.

* That right there tells me you're not worth your weight in salt for things regarding AD and Group Policies. Yes GP's are used for locking down the machine but NOT solely for this purpose OR for security risks

Group Polices:
* Forcing PW restrictions & lengths (i.e. No first/last name, 30/60/90days length).
* Deploying a patch or software update on LAN for uniformity - if you rely on just the OS to do this - then you're a moron. Even APPLE has security risks in OS X - recall the most popular about Safari allowing theft of address book content?
* Allowing/restricting access to corporate intranet portals/sites - and sub-sites. Again this is NOT part of the OS to do this: Win98/XP/7/Unix/Linux/OSX.

- that is just a few things GPs are used for.

1. I have had to fix the registry twice after installing Opera -if you install that into Windows 7 the system starts generating security errors and warnings, and you can no longer open hyperlinks in Outlook. This is Microsoft preventing you from installing 3rd party browsers into Windows 7 -I don't have these issues on my Mac (I run 3 browsers there)

* Issues with Outlook hyperlinks can be related to HTML/Text.
- that is a setting & very easy to fix.
If one simple application causes issues with the system or others then you NEED to troubleshoot it. This is why error logs (Event Viewer/Console) exists. Stop making excuses because you're unwilling to find the error or ask for help. Microsoft, by European law (whatever the body that created it is) can NO LONGER force their IE browser to ship with Windows (since Windows Vista/shortly after launch). In the USA their allowed to ship it but again NOT FORCE users to have this set as default and easily changeable even during installation of 3rd party's offerings. I don't deny your having issues, you're just looking for an easy excuse. BTW; are you SURE there is not a GPO that restricts users from having 3rd party browsers? Many financial institutions have this restricted in North America because of leaking out information.

2. Many 3rd party and legacy applications do not work correctly, even when run in compatibility mode. I had to rig the system to run some of these apps (more wasted time).

- Dude, you're running LEGACY applications here. Most likely there were not intended to work with the new OS nor supported to, and quote possibly WILL cause issues. Heck I can track down my favourite OS X theme and find out it has issues with Snow Leopard - getting rid of the minimize, close, and maximize buttons for EACH window. Yes it was created for Leopard and ONLY supports Leopard. Oh yeah OS X does NOT natively support themes - so you get the similarities.

3. The antivirus slows down the system

- Can't argue that. Its an applications that also has a process that runs while the OS is running. One of the beauties for NOT using Windows at ALL!!

I could go on and on, but this is a productivity issue: I am not as productive on Windows as I am on a Mac. Microsoft has been in disarray for years and it shows. Why on Server 2008 does the utility "Server Management" and "Manage Server" point to 2 totally different applications? Sounds like someone is shipping off projects to India and not paying attention.

This right there - highlighted in BOLD - shows something of your nature completely unrelated to the technical issue; regardless of Microsoft does have a large corporate office in India. I'd love to see how you handle work if your boss is of Indian descent. Actually lets BOTH stop right there and not relate technical OS issues/preferences on nationalities of human beings being at fault.

Now before I get accused of MS bashing, I will point out that MS makes excellent front-end applications such as Office. This is where the company shines (Access is really great product). They just make crappy operating systems and servers.

So … Exchange 2007/2010, SQL Server 2008, and many others that have GROWN in popularity and licensing contracts across the world - at the expense of loosing contracts like Domino/etc/GroupWise - not proof of just how good their OS and servers are (servers ARE OS' from Microsoft btw).

People stick with MS because that is what they know, and they are scared of OSX/Macs. We are moving to a web-based infrastructure and the old client-server model that MS is based on is going away ...

I disagree. People stick with MS based on:
what they know
availability of applications
most likely preference: it works how "THEY" think, or its because they can,
get help by others in their circle and not have arrogant reply's that is SO common on these boards in the past/present. YES we ALL volunteer our time, but to be arrogant is not cool - I'm sure we ALL asked for help by posting questions on these boards. I'd wager 75% of all members used the search yet either A) didn't know correct keywords for best results/relative results, B) Didn't find what their looking for, or C) only similar results but did not apply to their issue for varying reasons: OS version, app version, different errors, etc.

Corporations choose Microsoft because:
1) Existing contractual/perpetual licensing binds them in current term,
2) Productivity and support is VERY good and sound, with current environment.
3) For large corporate networks globally its THE BEST & proven across a vast infrastructure forest.
- Show me 1 corporate business that has over 8'000 employees across more than 4 countries that can centrally manage: intranet sites, access/security controls, 1 workstation operating system, etc … just for starters that is NOT Apple … running Linux or Mac OS X?!
(I know the German government uses SUSE Linux exclusively; giving MS and Balmer personally the middle. VERY brave and bold and I'm glad).

we can argue ALL DAY LONG about this but it all comes down to contractual agreements - loss of uptime during migration & how it'll affect corporate costs, productivity, and retraining for end users. Apple had the chance back in 1986 to win over the corporate world but instead Apple continued to (and still rely's) on Microsoft for powerful email/calendar/tasks/reminder management in their OS. Apple also decided to insult their potential corporate clients by releasing commercials like Lemons (actually it was very matter of fact & funny but still not very tactful) and similar.

Personally, I'd REALLY love to see more installations of OS X fully - but delivering old CPU's in the lower line of consumer laptops when the competition still using the same manufacturer can do better is not helping them.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Microsoft is rock solid?

Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.

I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.

Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.

Very Very interesting point. AntiVirus contracts/solutions (or lack there OF) is VERY costly as a day to day part of operations and productivity. YES Microsoft is part of the problem, but all these rogue developers trying to bring down microsoft & other corporations are also part of the problem.

I'm VERY interested to see just how much storage space virii definitions take up both on workstations & on server just in the drive to security & uptime.

Is it NOT AMAZING that in the last 20yrs we've come so far with regards to computing?!

 

[Silas1066]

The India remark is not a bash against Indians, it is a bash against overseas outsourcing, and to some extent insourcing.

India does not have the worker protections, laws, etc. that the US has. The country is basically a sweat shop, and Indian consulting firms, desperate for American business, will routinely lie, overestimate their ability to complete a project, and then treat their workers like crap. The result is the project rarely gets done correctly. This is from 15 years IT experience -I have seen it many, many times.

Microsoft routinely ships development projects to India in order to tap into low-wage labor and avoid US laws. Apple probably does some of this as well, although MS is notorious for it. The quality of MS products has gone down, perhaps as a result of this (among many other factors).

Cloud computing may ultimately mean that a H1B comes into your company, drops a couple circuits in, and everything runs from India: no need to hire American workers. The office is "virtualized." When the Indian workers become expensive, the Indian firms just ship those jobs over to China.

10 years from now, the IT industry in the US may have gone the way of the textile industry, with basically everyone losing their jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like working in this industry, and my kid likes computers ...

---

As far as MS being the best corporate infrastructure, give me a break. Microsoft ripped off Novell to get Active Directory (which isn't even as good -it lacks fault tolerance and the performance is poor), and before that ripped off Apple to get the GUI. Windows 7 looks like a cheap OSX knock-off made in mainland China. MS steals ideas, Apple is the innovator.

As I said before, MS makes good front-end applications, and a few good back-end ones as well (SQL is good but very, very expensive -Exchange is a piece of shi*). Their OS still runs on old technology and it shows.

GPOs can do ten million things, 95% of which corporations never use -that is called feature creep.

 

[nefan65]

The India remark is not a bash against Indians, it is a bash against overseas outsourcing, and to some extent insourcing.

India does not have the worker protections, laws, etc. that the US has. The country is basically a sweat shop, and Indian consulting firms, desperate for American business, will routinely lie, overestimate their ability to complete a project, and then treat their workers like crap. The result is the project rarely gets done correctly. This is from 15 years IT experience -I have seen it many, many times.

Microsoft routinely ships development projects to India in order to tap into low-wage labor and avoid US laws. Apple probably does some of this as well, although MS is notorious for it. The quality of MS products has gone down, perhaps as a result of this (among many other factors).

Cloud computing may ultimately mean that a H1B comes into your company, drops a couple circuits in, and everything runs from India: no need to hire American workers. The office is "virtualized." When the Indian workers become expensive, the Indian firms just ship those jobs over to China.

10 years from now, the IT industry in the US may have gone the way of the textile industry, with basically everyone losing their jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like working in this industry, and my kid likes computers ...

---

As far as MS being the best corporate infrastructure, give me a break. Microsoft ripped off Novell to get Active Directory (which isn't even as good -it lacks fault tolerance and the performance is poor), and before that ripped off Apple to get the GUI. Windows 7 looks like a cheap OSX knock-off made in mainland China. MS steals ideas, Apple is the innovator.

As I said before, MS makes good front-end applications, and a few good back-end ones as well (SQL is good but very, very expensive -Exchange is a piece of shi*). Their OS still runs on old technology and it shows.

GPOs can do ten million things, 95% of which corporations never use -that is called feature creep.

Well said. The IT industry IS changing to that type of computing. Virtualized, anywhere/anytime. The idea of 20 servers in a room down the hall is going way of the Do-Do Bird. If it's not a Cloud based app, it could very well be that the data center is in another state/country. VDI is slowly creeping into the Enterprise as well. Not like some had hoped, but it is coming. The idea that ALL systems need to be the same, or ALL Windows, or ALL Mac, etc. will be moot. You'll be able to work anyplace, with any device, securely and safely. Use what you're comfortable with; laptop, desktop, tablet, phone...

When you utilize Saleforce.com...do people really think they're running that on a Windows Server with GPO's? LOL...Ahhhh...NO! It's running on a server farm of Linux Boxes and Oracle...

 

[DeepIn2U]

nefan65 & Silas1066;

Without the need to requote Silas' post yet again I must disagree on a few points:

1. India is not the ONLY country that the USA IT Industry is outsourcing to:
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China have already been done for the past 2-7yrs already if not more. Singling out India is a cop-out and its mostly programming that is outsourced (or was initially) along with level 1-3 support lines. Microsoft is not the only corporation to do this: nor the first. Again singling out India instead of just correctly generalizing outsourcing - shows a bit of ignorance; if not then just simply bad etiquette & taste. Admit that at the very least.

2. The example that IT would entirely be outsourced and go the way of textiles is a bit long stretched but based on current trends & facts.
Examples: Although the auto industry went heavily to Japan as a quick shift for better build quality or fuel efficiency [Honda, Nissan Toyota of the 90s, Infiniti & Lexus as well], the German auto industry have always been there [Audi-Union: Audi/VW/Porsche, BMW, etc]. Ford is the only USA auto marker that didn't claim bankruptcy protection and well the quality of their cars has NEVER been better, sales are well up & the product line more refined to target consumers.
- The point I'm making is that engineering accomplishments, R&D, design trends, performance, fuel efficiency/alternative modes of energy consumption (a new paradigm), car costs & basic equipment, etc have always changed which auto maker is on top.

The same can be said about the animation industry. Japan is king with just about all things Anime, but the big blockbuster movie $$ is still done by companies in the US of A. Different styles of artistic animation, expression, plots, voice acting or voice overs etc change. Can you honestly say that the American animation industry is failing against that of Japan? Artists, just like engineers work outside of borders - so long as laws, visas, patents, contracts don't bind them.

Now focusing on IT. Sure there are a number of 12-16yr old geeky pimple faced, goggle wearing (I'm being overly stereotypical here) kids across the world that can traverse very well in command line in Linux, or even in Terminal in OSX, or DOS on Windows. Many of whom can whip up a NASTY Virus or cluster of VIRII that'll bring an office to its knees - if built from scratched code in a matter of minutes.

BUT: you're forgetting those professors in certain universities around the world and the real forefathers of C+, UNIX code/command line, etc that built shells from scratch with serious purposeful insight that many are STILL in original form today in both Linux/Unix. These oldie's but goodies - like T. Berners Lee are able to build applications we use daily. These guys will continue to teach and work at the worlds best technology corporations: just because like Flynn their addicted and its their world, heart & soul.

Yes servers will be virtualized almost entirely - as if they where not already: remember RS400/MainFrame(?). Desktops as well - yet there are still 2 things that will allow the desktop and laptop survive for at least another decade.
1. People still love to OWN things; tangible or not.
- people still love the ability to grab what they own and use it portably the way they can or where they can:
The richest guys in the world have limo's and drivers 6x on Sunday. But they still buy, own, and drive their own cars. music since the very beginning has always loved to be played & shared by people. 8-track played at home/car only, cassette allowed it in smaller rooms and the walkman was born, Mini-Disc then compact disc made it even more portable and digital quality, now MP3's allow more music to be stored on CD/DVD's and on HDD/SSD's. What's one thing that has NOT changed? People still love to play/share/own music and love to have pictures or memories of those that play their favorites.
2. Networks are STILL limited.
- Limited by bandwidth: especially when talking about virtualized environments to be used/shared across continents: Riverbeds help quite a bit but still load balance and bandwidth issues.
- Limited by memory speeds ^ see bandwidth above.
- Limited by storage space - and the speeds to read/write access: this is more important than the horsepower race in cars or the top speed race or acceleration.

One day we'll have our own worldwide network where terminals are used along with tablets/smartphones - very similar to a Brainiac in Superman. Laugh all you want but with Google, Oracle, VMWare, Microsoft, Apple Sun Microsystems (back end servers), CISCO, Intel & AMD, BELL Labs/Ericsson LB/Lucent Technologies/ Military/ etc sooner or later their work will finally become a harmony - hardware, software (code/graphics/GUI/Voice & gesture control) will all reach a pinnacle where the human equation has reached its peak of intake/input rate of speed/quality of graphics/motion/computational power and bandwidth makes any micro form of latency negligible (or non-relavent). Some say there is always something better but sooner or later it'll happen. [PST: physically humans haven't evolved much in the past million years].

OK I think I had too much to toke on this derailment.

What benefits of the core code in OSX can be utilized to better suite corporations and are there ANY applications that cannot be ported to OS X - and extensions used by applications that cannot be used directly or ported over in real-time to be read/edited in the OSX ported app?!

 

[chaseerry]

Great thread with a lot of good and bad input.

Bottom line is this; the answer lies in what fits your company needs.

 

[MacTribe]

Here is a simple question. What type of business are you?

If you're an accountant firm, using SAGE - then Windows is the best solution for your business. If you're a graphic design firm, Mac would be the best choice for your business - but windows would also work in the design sector.

The question of "what is better than what" is irrelevant, its more about "what do you need out of your IT?"

You also have to consider your training needs, if you suddenly shift everyone from PC to Mac or Visa Versa.

You also have to consider who provides your IT Support? Do you have internal IT staff? Do you outsource?

You may one to get in a Neutral PC and Mac consultant (who is not going to try sell you things you dont need) to come in do a proper survey.

Hope this helps!