[besson3c]

What do you guys think of this little essay?

Microsoft is Dead

I found this story on Slashdot, I guess this Paul Graham guy is supposed to be a big deal. I do think he makes a lot of good points, but I don't think it's conclusive that Apple has basically rendered Windows for old fogies, and I don't think that his empirical evidence alone makes this case strongly. There are still a lot of smart and geeky users using Windows, but I do agree that OS X has taken a bit out of this Desktop market, and I do think that as long as a product is usable, accessible, and priced appropriately for the mainstream market, there is a trickle-down effect starting with what geeks are using and recommend.

I'm also thinking that we should interpret market share stats like polling data - subject to being 5% off either way. Why?

1) The number of Linux downloads has been increasing, yet there is no reliable way to determine Linux market share based on sales, as it is very hard to buy a PC with Linux preinstalled

2) These numbers don't really take into account usage and product visibility. Buying PCs running Windows to use as cash registers is basically using a computer like an appliance or a machine - there is no real "computing" going on here, if you catch my drift... Moreover, new sales don't take into account the duration the old machines they were replacing were actually used.

3) These numbers may not take into account embedded devices where Linux or another OS is preinstalled... Should they?

Your thoughts?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) These numbers don't really take into account usage and product visibility. Buying PCs running Windows to use as cash registers is basically using a computer like an appliance or a machine - there is no real "computing" going on here, if you catch my drift...

By that token, neither is there any real "computing" going on if you're basically using it as a typewriter.

Utterly irrelevant argument.

(Incidentally, using a computer as a cash register is as close to a textbook definition of what "computing" is as you're likely to get.)

[besson3c]

What I meant was that if the platform is locked down so everything is focused around serving one particular application and one particular application only, the fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

I suppose the argument is faulty though, because there are a lot of different computers used as machines, it would be pretty much impossible to assign numbers this way.

[centerchannel68]

What if.... google made an OS... then I think MS would die.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I meant was that if the platform is locked down so everything is focused around serving one particular application and one particular application only, the fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

I suppose the argument is faulty though, because there are a lot of different computers used as machines, it would be pretty much impossible to assign numbers this way.

In addition, that goes for pretty much any application.

The internet looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

Microsoft Word looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Mac OS X is running is almost irrelevant.

Adobe Photoshop looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

Almost. Not quite. It is the OS that makes a difference in workflow, in integration, in security, in stability, in uptime, in maintenence, etc.

And that goes for the cash register as much as for a "real computing" box doing Renderman raytracings all day.

[faragbre967]

I wouldn't use a Google OS unless it ran Windows apps or Mac apps. It's the same reason I don't run Linux, even though I'm comfortable with the command line. I don't see much room for a viable third OS.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) The number of Linux downloads has been increasing, yet there is no reliable way to determine Linux market share based on sales, as it is very hard to buy a PC with Linux preinstalled

Step 1: Check the box that says "Linux" instead of the box that says "Windows" on Dell's site
Step 2: ??
Step 3: Profit!

[shinji]

I think he was just trying to be provocative. That essay taken at face value is incredibly wishful thinking.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Step 1: Check the box that says "Linux" instead of the box that says "Windows" on Dell's site
Step 2: ??
Step 3: Profit!

Hmmm... how long has Dell done this? Do HP and Gateway and the other vendors do this too?

[voodoo]

Meh, beginners. Apple has been declared at least 52 times since 1995.

http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml

When there is posted a Microsoft Death Knell Counter, things might begin to look interesting. Especially if we get to hear the adjective 'beleaguered' in front of 'Microsoft' in said articles

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hmmm... how long has Dell done this? Do HP and Gateway and the other vendors do this too?

I'm not sure. I just noticed it on Dell's site a while back when I was configuring a system to compare costs.

[mac128k-1984]

Oh please, I'm sure these are the same people that have been saying that apple is dead for so many years.

M$ isn't going anywwhere, Will they be running into rough seas as there typical cash cows produce less income sure, but their not dead.

[moonmonkey]

Microsoft and changing, they are starting to produce some decent products (Vista, XBox 360, Office 2008 etc.).
Its unlikely they will die, they will just change more.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by analogika 

By that token, neither is there any real "computing" going on if you're basically using it as a typewriter.

Utterly irrelevant argument.

(Incidentally, using a computer as a cash register is as close to a textbook definition of what "computing" is as you're likely to get.)

Please spare us your semantics Captain Pedantic. You could say that DVD players, blu-ray/HD-DVD players and game consoles are also computers too.

I think what he was trying to say is that a cash register is no longer acting in the capacity of a general purpose computer. Most people consider PCs to be machines that are used personally by someone to perform general purpose (varied) computing tasks.

[macroy]

Dead? If that means no longer the dominating software company.... I may be able to see that in the distant future. But dead in the sense of no longer a significant player at all? I'd say no way.

From the essay, it seem he's looking at simply the client business div. of MS. Which is not their only business (albeit it is their biggest)... Their server and tools div is growing substantially despite heavy competition from the *nix world (I think Exchange is still the dominant messaging platform at 35-40% of the market? And SQL is continuously growing...).

I do see a company that's losing their domination.... but dead? I'd chaulk that up there with the saying that Tiger Woods is in a slump 'cause he hasn't won in a few weeks.....

Hm... perhaps that's a bad analogy for this forum...

[driven]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Microsoft and changing, they are starting to produce some decent products (Vista, XBox 360, Office 2008 etc.).
Its unlikely they will die, they will just change more.

XBox 360: I haven't used it but many people like it. I have no reason to doubt that it's a great product.

Vista: Not a great product. Meh at it's finest.

Office 2007: Not a significant upgrade (UI aside). The new non-standard doc format is more trouble than it's worth. Moving users to OpenOffice requires less training than upgrading to Office 2007. Again ... meh.

Vista certainly doesn't look like 5 years of dev time.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Please spare us your semantics Captain Pedantic. You could say that DVD players, blu-ray/HD-DVD players and game consoles are also computers too.

Well, they ARE!

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I think what he was trying to say is that a cash register is no longer acting in the capacity of a general purpose computer. Most people consider PCs to be machines that are used personally by someone to perform general purpose (varied) computing tasks.

Originally Posted by analogika

The internet looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

Microsoft Word looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Mac OS X is running is almost irrelevant.

Adobe Photoshop looks pretty similar, regardless of platform. The fact that Windows is running is almost irrelevant.

Almost. Not quite. It is the OS that makes a difference in workflow, in integration, in security, in stability, in uptime, in maintenence, etc.

And that goes for the cash register as much as for a "real computing" box doing Renderman raytracings all day.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Microsoft and changing, they are starting to produce some decent products (Vista, XBox 360, Office 2008 etc.).
Its unlikely they will die, they will just change more.

I can't really explain why, but that's always what people say. "I know Microsoft has sucked in the past, but look at [Latest version of Windows], [Latest version of Office] and [Random hardware product] — those are pretty good!" I assume it's because the new versions of things suck slightly less than the old ones, and people are kind of shocked into mistaking that for actual quality. Somehow Windows 95, 98 and XP started sucking once the newness wore off — no doubt Vista will follow in their footsteps.

[red rocket]

According to Graham, there are four things that "killed" Microsoft:

1. Google

I can see why he's bringing up Google: It seems that in every field where Google and Microsoft are "competing" against each other, Google has beaten MS decisively.

+1

2. Web 2.0

Originally Posted by Paul Graham

Everyone can see the desktop is over. It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the web—not just email, but everything, right up to Photoshop.

I can't see it, not in the foreseeable future.

There are plenty of instances where I don't want to use web apps over desktop apps. As a matter of fact, apart from webmail, I can't think of too many scenarios where I'd prefer web apps. Who's going to seriously consider replacing Photoshop with something like Snipshop, even if it was to somehow acquire all of Photoshop's features (judging by how limited it is at the moment, it doesn't look like it will anytime soon)? I mean, it doesn't even have ImageMagick features, for fucksakes! Oh, wait a sec, it's funded by Graham's own company, Y Combinator.

-1

3. Broadband

Originally Posted by Paul Graham

Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop.

I don't know what it's like where he lives, but if I wanted to get synchronous broadband right now, I'd have to pay through my nose for it. ADSL, no matter how fast, doesn't even begin to cut it if the upload speed remains limited to some ridiculously low multiple of ISDN. I'd also want full write access to the server's root directory so I can install my own scripts, obviously. There are other concerns, security, for instance.

-1

3. Apple

Originally Posted by Paul Graham

All the computer people use Macs or Linux now. Windows is for grandmas, like Macs used to be in the 90s. So not only does the desktop no longer matter, no one who cares about computers uses Microsoft's anyway.

Most people aren't "computer people". Microsoft's existence depends on most people not knowing any better. That's unlikely to change soon.

±0

The way I see it, Microsoft has been "dead" for ages, but it doesn't matter, because nobody is going to bury it soon.

P.S.: And I thought the XBox 360 was only "a great product" because MS are selling it under cost. I don't consider that successful.

[driven]

Side note: Isn't the WII making strong inroads against the XBox 360?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by driven 

Side note: Isn't the WII making strong inroads against the XBox 360?

Yes. And you still can't find one.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by analogika 

By that token, neither is there any real "computing" going on if you're basically using it as a typewriter.

Utterly irrelevant argument.

That depends - are we arguing about a general purpose computers or a single-use appliances. We're not exactly quoting Timex watch sales along with PCs and Macs, so why should we include cash-register sales?

If you are a developer, you care very much what the computer is going to be used for. If brand X of computer sold millions of units, but 99% is for single purpose uses like cash registers, rendering boxes, etc. then there little incentive developing a general purpose application for these computers since nobody is going to buy your application.

PCs are typically used for more single-purpose applications than Macs are. Yes, some Macs are too, but the percentage of that is much lower than Windows machines. Because of that, when quoting sales statistics, the PC side looks more attractive than it really is.

[anonymac]

Paul Graham's opinion of Microsoft is worthless. If he had any real idea about the business of computers, his name would be Bill Gates.

For most people including businesses, their computer is Windows. And Windows works just fine. It's just as stable as Mac OS X. It's just as productive. Windows Vista is being bought by consumers like no other Windows and is a fierce competitor and equal to Mac OS X.

Mac OS X will never be the most widely used operating system or be used for major businesses. That's okay. One size doesn't fit all.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Paul Graham's opinion of Microsoft is worthless. If he had any real idea about stealing good ideas and selling them as his own, his name would be Bill Gates.

Fixed

And Windows works just fine. It's just as stable as Mac OS X.

...hmm.

[driven]

"Fresh faced recruit" anonymac sounds like someone from Microsoft's marketing department has paid us a visit.

Ballmer blames pirates for poor Vista sales

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by driven 

"Fresh faced recruit" anonymac sounds like someone from Microsoft's marketing department has paid us a visit.

Ballmer blames pirates for poor Vista sales

Love that quote. As Wil Shipley said, "Someone kill me if I ever talk about 'sources of revenue growth' instead of 'making really cool products that people actually, you know, like and stuff.'" Ballmer is such a tool.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Windows works just fine. It's just as stable as Mac OS X. It's just as productive.

Okay...

I haven’t personally spent more time than about a week and a half in a business environment run completely on Macs (servers, work stations, everything); but in that one and a half week, there wasn’t a single crash, server issue, breakdown, mess-up, etc.

Compare that with the (so far) three other Windows-based companies I’ve worked for: only one of these has a stable system with no crashes (and this, I believe, is largely due to the fact that, unlike the all-Mac environment mentioned above, it has extremely strict management: users aren’t allowed to do, well, anything really—it’s an alarm central, so it’s absolutely imperative that all systems stay fully operative 24/7/365, so we’re very tightly locked down). In the other two places, where more complex networks between various servers, databases, etc., are being run, there are server errors, breakdowns, pipeline troubles, and all kinds of nonsense several times a day.

I know these are no more than personal anecdotes; but I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone else’s personal anecdotes (and this forum has enough personal anecdotes about this stuff to feed a North Korean army), or indeed any other sources, that said the opposite.

I don’t consider that “just as stable” for use as a business solution. Sure, it works—but it seems to take a hell of a lot more work to make it work.

[anonymac]

Oh yeah.

And the thousands and thousands of major businesses who use windows for their networking and workstations are using it because it is difficult and doesn't really work. Sure.

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else? Not likely.

I'd like to believe you, but you also told us that Mac OS 9 never crashed.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

And the thousands and thousands of major businesses who use windows for their networking and workstations are using it because it is difficult and doesn't really work. Sure.

Obviously, no. I’d say most of them use Windows as a combinated result of the facts that:

1. It’s what they know and what they’re secure with
2. It’s the cheapest option for what they need it to do (Linux could probably be cheaper in many cases, but it would simply take too much initial work to have everything set up properly, whereas for Windows there are millions of products available to suit the whole process of what most companies need)
3. It’s the only option available for what they need (perhaps not most companies, but certain companies in need of more specialised apps/workflows)
4. They’re not aware that there are other (Mac/Linux) alternatives available for what they need

Edit: Forgot possibly the most important one:

5. They have a huge, intricate system working (so-so) already (and have had for many years; after all, Mac wasn’t much of a player in this field until some years ago, and many company networks predate this), and migrating the whole thing to a new system, setting everything up again, finding alternative solutions for Windows-only apps, etc., is just too unsurmountable a task to be started, whether they initially wanted to change or not.

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else? Not likely.

You over-estimate company IT departments.

[aristotles]

I'd also like to point out that IT department are not always looking out for the best interests of other departments to the exclusion of their own. MSFT has been really good to IT departments by allowing Technical support and systems administration groups to grow. If everything ran more smoothly like in a *nix/linux environment, a lot of those people would be out of jobs.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Oh yeah.

And the thousands and thousands of major businesses who use windows for their networking and workstations are using it because it is difficult and doesn't really work. Sure.

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else? Not likely.

Twenty years and millions of dollars into custom-built corporate software makes switching platforms rather difficult.

Microsoft knows full well that this is the only reason they've continued to dominate the corporate market.

Of course, switching to Vista is the equivalent of switching platforms for an awful lot of software. Combined with the fact that it doesn't really bring many real advantages, Vista is actually causing a *lot* of people/companies to look at more interesting ways to spend their money.

Oh, and welcome to the forums. Did Thurott's recent about-face on Vista drive you here?

[Oisín]

This was added after my post, so I’ll give it a new post on its own:

I'd like to believe you, but you also told us that Mac OS 9 never crashed.

I think you have me mixed up with someone else, here. I’ve only ever used OS 9 once, I think; I wouldn’t know my hat from my elbow in OS 9. I surely wouldn’t make statements about it in any way (except that it’s a lot fuglier than OS X).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I'd also like to point out that IT department are not always looking out for the best interests of other departments to the exclusion of their own. MSFT has been really good to IT departments by allowing Technical support and systems administration groups to grow. If everything ran more smoothly like in a *nix/linux environment, a lot of those people would be out of jobs.

This point is NOT to be underestimated.

Windows is a job machine for IT departments. Like hell they'll recommend switching platforms.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Oh yeah.

And the thousands and thousands of major businesses who use windows for their networking and workstations are using it because it is difficult and doesn't really work. Sure.

No, they're using it because it's the standard. Very few people can argue anymore that Quark Xpress is a better product than Adobe InDesign, yet a lot of places still use Quark. Know why? Because it's the industry standard. Because it's what they know. Because they've already invested a lot of time and money in Quark and they don't want to give all that up.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else?

If people didn't know about those benefits — as is often the case — yes, I expect they'd use something else. Even more often, it's IT people spending their boss's money on Windows because if they used Macs, the company wouldn't need as many IT personnel and the current IT people's knowledge of Windows would be useless — meaning they would basically telling the company, "I suggest you fire me."

Originally Posted by anonymac 

I'd like to believe you, but you also told us that Mac OS 9 never crashed.

Erm…when was this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else? Not likely.

Any company that has important infrastructure runs it definitely not on OS X, nor Windows, but Linux/Unix. Go to Monster.com or something and do a search and you'll see how important Unix/Linux is in enterprise and high profile/mission critical markets.

Windows is good for running specialized/custom apps, financial apps, and other applications that run on Microsoft languages. You won't see it running services like DNS, DHCP, Messaging (other than Exchange, which is expensive and scales poorly), high profile database servers, other networking infrastructure, and it usually isn't used for many high profile websites that aren't dependent upon some Microsoft language. There are reasons for this.

You won't find OS X very commonly in this sort of large scale environment either. At best, it is sufficient in the small business world, or serving moderate to light loads and perhaps favored because of its ease of use, providing it can put forth good results. Windows is probably fine serving moderate to light loads too...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Any company that has important infrastructure runs it definitely not on OS X, nor Windows, but Linux/Unix. Go to Monster.com or something and do a search and you'll see how important Unix/Linux is in enterprise and high profile/mission critical markets.

You're trying to tell me no large companies use Windows or IIS?

(And I'm not going to comment on the false dichotomy of "OS X or Unix.")

[turtle777]

What else is new ?

Did anyone think that M$ is going to peak again as it it did in the 1990s ?

M$ has peaked, and will now face a long decline.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're trying to tell me no large companies use Windows or IIS?

(And I'm not going to comment on the false dichotomy of "OS X or Unix.")

Sure they do, but, generally speaking, only when they have to.

OS X is technically a Unix, but I find that the most common language usage suggests Unix = HP/UX, AIX, Solaris, BSD, etc. and that OS X is sort of an "other" - at least in the world where these platforms are used. There intended usage is so radically different, that I suppose it makes sense to separate OS X away from these other Unixes. For one, there is little point in running OS X without Aqua, whereas these other Unix distros are primarily command-line based, AFAIK (haven't used HP/UX or AIX).

[anonymac]

Yes. It's all a conspiracy to keep Macintosh down and to keep IT workers in jobs that would be eliminated if only the truth were to come to light. And the slowest motorola processors are twice as fast as the newest intel processors too.

[driven]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Oh yeah.

And the thousands and thousands of major businesses who use windows for their networking and workstations are using it because it is difficult and doesn't really work. Sure.

If Macintosh really offered the benefits you are claiming do you really believe that people would continue to spend their money on something else? Not likely.

I'd like to believe you, but you also told us that Mac OS 9 never crashed.

In all honesty ... I hope that Macs don't invade the corporate space. There will be a lot of tech support and IT people out of work.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Yes. It's all a conspiracy to keep Macintosh down and to keep IT workers in jobs that would be eliminated if only the truth were to come to light. And the slowest motorola processors are twice as fast as the newest intel processors too.

Welcome to 2005, troll.

It's really interesting how Vista's utter failure to do any of the things Microsoft has promised is bringing the "platform war" trolls back out of the woodwork.

It's like the 90s all over again, except with the other side panicking.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Yes. It's all a conspiracy to keep Macintosh down and to keep IT workers in jobs that would be eliminated if only the truth were to come to light. And the slowest motorola processors are twice as fast as the newest intel processors too.

I see you have no argument. My job here is done.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Yes. It's all a conspiracy to keep Macintosh down and to keep IT workers in jobs that would be eliminated if only the truth were to come to light. And the slowest motorola processors are twice as fast as the newest intel processors too.

You’re obviously either a troll or seriously not understanding the point at all here (in which case there’s really nothing much to do).

But just for clarity’s sake, that’s not what any of us said, nor is it what we meant. What I said was simply this: there are many reasons not many companies switch from their Windows-based infrastructure to a Mac- (or indeed Linux-) based infrastructure, but Windows being a better or stabler server environment is not one of them. Many of the reasons companies stick to the set-up they already have are quite valid and understandable reasons, and it would probably be counter-productive to make such a big switch.

But that doesn’t make Windows any stabler or better. If you’re starting from scratch, with a new company, building up a new network infrastructure, and the tools and applications you need to run are all available for all three systems, I’d still say OS X would be the system that would give you the stablest performance for the least amount of tech support work. Linux would probably be the stablest option of the three, but it would also require more tech support. Windows would, I believe, be notably less stable, regardless of how well it was set up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by faragbre967 

I wouldn't use a Google OS unless it ran Windows apps or Mac apps. It's the same reason I don't run Linux, even though I'm comfortable with the command line. I don't see much room for a viable third OS.

The dichotomy in the industry seems to boil down to Unix-based OS vs. Windows. If Google were to make its own OS, it would no doubt be Linux/Unix based. Them throwing their weight behind a Unix/Linux OS and apps to go along with it, perhaps joining forces with Ubuntu or something, could go a long way. We could all get in on this, because if the industry really shifted, Apple could possibly open up parts of Aqua so that it would be easier to port apps to it, or so it would be possible to run Mac apps under Unix/Linux.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

But that doesn’t make Windows any stabler or better. If you’re starting from scratch, with a new company, building up a new network infrastructure, and the tools and applications you need to run are all available for all three systems, I’d still say OS X would be the system that would give you the stablest performance for the least amount of tech support work. Linux would probably be the stablest option of the three, but it would also require more tech support. Windows would, I believe, be notably less stable, regardless of how well it was set up.

No way would OS X be chosen to provide infrastructure. Show me where this is happening now? There is a reason for this.

Apple cannot do much for DNS and DHCP except provide a GUI. In most environments, lease/network info as well as DNS info has to come from somewhere. This is generally scripted somehow, or pushed/pulled from a data store. There is no simple "make DNS work" checkbox Apple could develop. Moreover, if you want to talk about support, this would add another layer of complexity. Apple does not write either major DHCP implementation (Wide or ISC). Any support needed would come from the developers of these DHCP implementations. With regards to all of the "not made in Apple" technologies (which also includes OpenSSL, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, etc.), Apple can do very little except try to research your problem on your behalf. They cannot fix these problems for you in a self-sufficient manner, they do not have all the answers. Red Hat Linux's model is exactly the same, except they are setup to do exactly this with small and large clients. So, what would the advantage of going with Apple be here?

In addition to DNS and DHCP, you have Messaging. Apple does not write their own IMAP server, they bundle in Cyrus. Cyrus already includes its own perl based administrative interface called cyradm. IMAP authentication and account management happens in a variety of ways, again usually scripted or managed via some sort of automated backend. There is no magic GUI Apple could write here.

Apple also does not develop its own web server, and its included Apache GUI admin is limited.


OS X would *not* be the OS of choice if starting a new company, unless it was very small and could get away with having a weak support model.

[anonymac]

^
|
|
|

See that post right there

You all just got ownedizzled. Stay off the court unless you want to be own-boned.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

^
|
|
|

See that

You guys just got your a$$es handed to you. PWN3D.

Not really, I don't think Windows offers much in terms of DNS/DHCP either. They make a web server, and they make Exchange which is popular, although expensive to run.

They don't offer SSH at all, a weak command line environment, no LDAP since Microsoft is pushing ADS (which is OpenLDAP + some proprietary Microsoft bits + Kerberos authentication), I don't know what Microsoft uses for SSL encryption.

I forgot to add that Apple doesn't make Kerberos either, which is another important piece of a Unix infrastructure puzzle.

Microsoft is a better match over all for large business, but only because they have actually focussed resources in this area. If Apple *really* wanted to be Red Hat, they have the pieces in place to do this, and at the end of the day they would offer a better product than Microsoft overall.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

^
|
|
|

See that post right there

You all just got ownedizzled. Stay off the court unless you want to be own-boned.

Also, a little maturity and some restraint? These aren't your arguments, and I'm not gloating.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

^
|
|
|

See that post right there

You all just got ownedizzled. Stay off the court unless you want to be own-boned.

anonymac $how3d U ALL!!!11!11

[anonymac]

Chill. My pimp hand is relaxed.

I am just saying that a bunch of macintosh geeks are wrong about what the computer markets are doing. The reason why more people don't buy macintosh obviously is because it doesn't offer more benefits than the cost of switching. Saying you could run a company like JP Morgan on an out-of-the-box macintosh network is foolish. Yet that is what is being said here.