[Hash]

i think that the current product matrix of PowerMacs, Consumer Macs and so on needs an addition:

an inexpensive corporate solution.

The corporate Mac, cheap and monitor-less, which can be used in combination with existing displays or for which corporations can buy inexpensive LCDs or CRTs.

The corporate mac is well, intended for corporate word-processing and office work. Thus they dont need ATI 9800 or other 256 mb video cards; they even dont need Firewire 800, Bluetooth, SuperDrives.

What they need:

1. 40-80 Gb of cheapest 5400 RPM hard drives
2. Cheapest video cards for macs (since Macs do not have shared video memory solutions, available on cheap PCs)
3. A CDRW drive, cheapest
4. At least 256-512 mb of ram in the box. 128 is not enough and will require additional customization. Corps do not like it.
5. G4 1.25-1.4 Ghz or slowest G5, 1.6 Ghz (and G5 will be overkill for mail and word processing)
6. 499-599$ price tag
7. Complete business bundle with 17 inch CRT or 15 inch LCD (non-brand), keyboard and non-brand USB mouse with 2 buttons and wheel, MS Office included, also cheap.

Expansion possiblities are welcome but not necessary. Office machines are VERY rarely expanded and as a rule, are discarded after few years without modification.

eMacs are not good for offices as they take too much space, unfortunately.

[DeathToWindows]

Not a bad idea, I'd use G4 chips meself... cheaper.

so: my idea

1.25G4/512PC-133/60GB/52xCDRW/NvidiaGF2mx - yes, it's not a great gamer, but It'd suit

[Macola]

I think the basic problem that keeps Apple out of the corporate market is not so much the hardware (although a configuration like you described would certainly help). It's the legion of MCSE-certified IT drones who don't understand (and hence fear) Macs--if they switched over to Macs, most of them would lose thir jobs. This has been the case in every mid- and large-sized company I've known. My Mac clients are all small companies or self-employed individuals, and certainly that could be a good target market for Apple.

But I don't see Apple making any headway in the established corporate market any time soon.

[Partisan01]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
Not a bad idea, I'd use G4 chips meself... cheaper.

In all honesty even a G4 is overkill for word processing and email. A 200 mhz computer will get the job done quite well if the OS doesn't hinder the hardware. Unfortunatly nowadays everyone wants to buy the newest and best even if that's not what's needed.

nt

[teknik]

Isn't the emac essentially the machine (tech wise w/o monitor?) It would be nice if Apple did make some small horiztonally aligned system though.

[gururafiki]

maybe like the cube. but a bit cheaper then the original was...

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Partisan01:
In all honesty even a G4 is overkill for word processing and email. A 200 mhz computer will get the job done quite well if the OS doesn't hinder the hardware. Unfortunatly nowadays everyone wants to buy the newest and best even if that's not what's needed.

nt

Except for one thing, try to explain to someone that they you are taking away thier P3/P4 gigahertz machine and replacing it with a G3 mhz. They may not understand G3 vs. P3 (or P4) but they will understand that going from GHz to MHz is a step down.

Yes word processing or email doesn't take that much computing power but people don't want to have things taken away from them - its human nature.

Another issue with a corporate mac is retraining, I would think management would be leary in unleashing a new platform that is different enough to cause a lot of slowdowns (until they learn the new interface).

Mike

[rjenkinson]

someone explain to me how these "corporate macs" are different from old, outdated (and therefore cheap) macs... especially since the cost savings would come from using old processors, small hard drives, and low-end video cards.

-r.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
someone explain to me how these "corporate macs" are different from old, outdated (and therefore cheap) macs.

Current technology, under warranty, and purchasable from a vendor which the company would most likely already have an account with (CDW, Insight).

[cambro]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
Not a bad idea, I'd use G4 chips meself... cheaper.

Not really...given IBM's yield and production facilities, I'm pretty sure that the G5 is as cheap or cheaper than Motorolla's G4s have ever been.

That said, this is a good idea. If Apple is serious about breaking into the corporate market, something along these lines is a necessity.

[osiris]

I'd love to see a corporate Mac. It would have to be under $600, pref $400-500.
I just received a truckload of Dells - 2.2 ghz, every port in the world x 2, and 512mbs for $400. As a basic desktop machine for Secretarys, cube dwellers and the like, this machine can't be beat for the money.

But if Apple had something to fill that gap, all those machines would have been Macs. I know the IT dept vs Mac thing is real, but in this case it was about money and nothing more. Very sad.

[southtdi]

I actually would like this idea. I agree with several of you with it being headless, inexpensive, but not outdated technology. The worst app I cna see being run in the normal coporate enviroment is the accounting software so that is one place Apple is going to have to work on. I don't mean quickbooks either. There are other programs out there that have central databases and such that would need to be convinced to write code to run on OSX.

The only other thing I could see is vastly improved networking with a windows network. Alot of companies would be willing to go the Mac route but not change out thier windows network backbone. The os would need to be updated to provide some features that users are famlier with such as network drives.

Lastly, not all MCSE's are drones nor do they look at windows boxes and worsip them on the spot. I hold several cert's myself (including an MCSE) and my colleagues who do the same, most of us feel the MS products have good points but are way more confusing than they need to be and reliability is an issue.

As stated before by someone I also just bought several Dells to update outdated systems and would have easily bought macs except for the cost. As I can see it Apple wants to get into the enterprise market so they need to start realizing in that market expensive computers where they are not needed are not going to happen. I love my G5 but it's way overkill for the basic office use that most coporate computers are used for.

[samneric]

Originally posted by Hash:

2. Cheapest video cards for macs (since Macs do not have shared video memory solutions, available on cheap PCs)

Do you mean integrated video cards on the motherboard? Cuz those are AGP too.

AGP has access to main/system memory in a pinch, right?

Macs have AGP for thier primary video.

What do you mean.... is this something I missed somewhere along the lines?


I agree the more Macs out there the better for everyone (except maybe Apple... more means cheaper, cheaper means less profit per box, means needs guaranteed volume of sales or they really will go out of business, also tech support for 5 people or 10...which costs less....)

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by samneric:
Do you mean integrated video cards on the motherboard? Cuz those are AGP too.

AGP has access to main/system memory in a pinch, right?

Macs have AGP for thier primary video.

What do you mean.... is this something I missed somewhere along the lines?


I agree the more Macs out there the better for everyone (except maybe Apple... more means cheaper, cheaper means less profit per box, means needs guaranteed volume of sales or they really will go out of business, also tech support for 5 people or 10...which costs less....)

Onboard video in this case means a lower power GPU either integrated into the northbridge (AKA nforce2), or a chip onboard (intel extreme graphics), that use main memory as video ram. Not a full GPU soldered onto the motherboard.

[Hash]

Originally posted by samneric:
Do you mean integrated video cards on the motherboard? Cuz those are AGP too.

AGP has access to main/system memory in a pinch, right?

Macs have AGP for thier primary video.

What do you mean.... is this something I missed somewhere along the lines?


I agree the more Macs out there the better for everyone (except maybe Apple... more means cheaper, cheaper means less profit per box, means needs guaranteed volume of sales or they really will go out of business, also tech support for 5 people or 10...which costs less....)

Yes, i mean integrated onboard video cards, sharing main memory.

On the more macs issue.. even Jobs himself said that it feels good to have more than 5% share of market (commenting iPods), but I dont see how they are trying to crack the corporate market.

It seems that they are mistaking corporate market for professional..and try to sell G5s to corps.. but it is so different indeed. Professional market is high end audio, graphics and publishing, but corporate is simply a lot of networked computers to process and share elementary data and text (maximum PowerPoint files), and it does not need raw power. But it needs comfort (thus 256 mb of RAM as minimum) and satisfactory speed and service. If a 400$ Dell can be used for a presentation or preparing a report with few graphs, there ought to be a similar priced Mac, capable of that, or you can forget the whole talk about cracking corporate market. And yes, Macs are better for offices, since they are virus-proof, but that advantage disappears when nearest desktop monitorless PowerMac cost 4-5 times of Dell.

[Arkham_c]

Apple should not make them too low-powered. Some of us who live in corporate cube farms need some power. My PC at work is a 2m2 GHz Dell that retails for about $1000 with monitor. I'm sure my company paid less with its 32,000 employees, but still, the standards are decent machines.

Apple should take something like the 15" Powerbook, put that motherboard in a box without a monitor, and sell it.

Oh, and in most corporations, 17" CRTs are the standard. Apple would need to offer a 17" and a 21" CRT again if they want to service that market.

[cambro]

Actually...now that I think about it more....

Do we really WANT Macs to be mass produced and thrown into the corporate market? Isn't that the very anithesis of Macdom?

I LIKE being in the computing minority. It has fringe benefits like avoiding the latest virus meltdown, but it is also more than that.

Don't you get a little smile out of walking by a cafe and seeing someone using the PB or iBook? Don't you feel a little smug when you get an email alert from your IT person that has a PS at the bottom saying "you don't have to worry about this if you use a Mac?" Wouldn't we loose some of this if Macs were to spring up in boring office cubicals by the millions?

I would rather see Apple go after people who actually use and like their computers but are stuck in the Windows world because they just don't know the alternative. Let DELL feed the corporate cattle.

[Hash]

Originally posted by cambro:
Actually...now that I think about it more....

Do we really WANT Macs to be mass produced and thrown into the corporate market? Isn't that the very anithesis of Macdom?

I LIKE being in the computing minority. It has fringe benefits like avoiding the latest virus meltdown, but it is also more than that.

Don't you get a little smile out of walking by a cafe and seeing someone using the PB or iBook? Don't you feel a little smug when you get an email alert from your IT person that has a PS at the bottom saying "you don't have to worry about this if you use a Mac?" Wouldn't we loose some of this if Macs were to spring up in boring office cubicals by the millions?

I would rather see Apple go after people who actually use and like their computers but are stuck in the Windows world because they just don't know the alternative. Let DELL feed the corporate cattle.

OK, this is complicated matter, but i will just add my 2 cents:
1. Do we really want Mac mass produced? But they are already mass-produced.
2. About Macs in corporate market. Corporate macs is market like others. Not sure why its OK to have ibooks at schools and Macs at home, but not at work or corporate offices. You should take a look at publishing houses and see their Mac stocks. This will give a good understanding of Macs at work and offices.
3. Perhaps you enjoy being a computer minority, but you have to pay the price of it in terms of smaller supply of apps, hardware and resulting higher prices. If you enjoy higher prices and lesser choice, there is not much I could add to it. With such attitude, you perhaps would also like to be a iPod minority and enjoy if they had 2% market? But I cant see any rational reasons behind it except "getting some glimpses of macs in some places".

Leaving Dell the corporate cattle to feed? You somewhat biased in your antipathy toward corporate market, i can assure you that people work there, not cattle. Corporate market is one of largest segments of the computer markets. Ignoring it or thinking that being shut out of it is a sign of your elitist advantage is arrogant and wrong. Even Daimler Benz has its economy Mercedes E cars and they surely must not think that having a reasonably priced middle to lower-end hardware in addition to their premium products somehow degrades them. And if Apple were thinking so, they would not have their ibook and imac (original) lines too

[OreoCookie]

I think your strategy is too easy.

Far more important than minimizing the specs is minimizing the price. This means here:

1. A G5 instead of a G4, because they are supposedly cheaper, especially when volume goes up (consoles, etc.).

2. The most common entry level video card, very important for QE.

3. Such small harddrives are crippled harddrives and not cheaper to produce, because the capacity per platter is higher.

4. I haven't seen many no-name monitors in big companies.

Instead, Apple should cut down an iMac, not too much on CPU power, RAM, and graphics, because the computers should last two to three years (rather three if used for word processing, etc. only).

The RAM is far too low for OS X, 512 is the minimum IMHO.

[jcadam]

Sure, call it the NetMac, or something.

basically an iMac in a mini-tower form-factor case. I say go for the mini-tower because it is what the corporate environment is used to. Doing something flashy (like a cube) would probably hurt apple here. Just a better-than-average looking case in a black, or maybe silvery color would be the ticket.

Maybe an AGP slot (with a Radeon 9000 or something similiar sitting in it) and a PCI slot or two, but that isn't critical.

Probably needs to be a G5, to avoid business comparing a 1.25 GHz G4 for $500 to a 2.8Ghz P4 for $500.

[Link]

Netmac? You know what i in iMac means?

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Link:
Netmac? You know what i in iMac means?

teh intarweb!

-r.

[Graymalkin]

The biggest hurdle with Macs in corporate space isn't the up front cost, it is the available software. A good IT department makes purchases based on TCO, not up front cost. Macs have been shown to be extremely cost effective over longer periods of time. Their upgrade cycle tends to be one and a half to two years longer than that of PCs. A B&W G3 with a nice load of RAM will run Panther pretty well, the same can't be said of a similarly aged PC and Windows XP. Macs can also get away with a smaller IT staff because they're more resistant to viruses and worms and far less likely to mysteriously unload all of their hardware drivers after a reboot.

Low cost corporate machines are not money makers anyways. Selling 30 cut-rate systems for $599 isn't going to make Apple any money. Apple selling only 10 eMacs for $799 makes them quite a bit more. Margins are important to Apple's business model, slimming the margins near to non-existance in order to increase volume would be horrible for their bottom line.

[Hash]

That would be true if the computer market had only determining factor - profit and you could have two equal business models - one having low-margin high volume selling as in the case of Dell and one having fat margin low volume as in case of Macs, and if profits were same, you could say that either model is viable.

Unfortunately, computer market does not work like that. The computer market due to its very nature has networking externalities, which greatly affect profits and especially future profits. The reason is that in computers market shares DO count - not only profits- because of cost of parts, software and peripherals, most of which have high economies of scale. So, larger the market share, larger is volume of production of those related products and lower the costs (which is true of course, for the case of PPC chip production at IBM); so first, your TCO is lower just because your product share is larger; second, so is the production of computers itself; Apple for example has R and D costs and because of low market share, its unit cost of computer is much higher. If Apple had large market share, it could pass those costs to larger number of computers, making each one cheaper.

And I am not yet mentioning about the real profitable sector, related to market share- corresponding maintenance, service and installation services, which are profitable by large margin, very expensive and a lucrative. Of course, larger is your market, more you can earn by services for installed computers (eg AppleCare).



So, market share does count in computer market. Thats why Dell may undercut and sell 30 say units for lower prices cause they will get something in services, maintenance, and lower their unit costs thanks to large volume.

Yet, you have to fight huge inertia to earn market share from such companies as Dell. You have to have a comparable cost product, a comparable service, and you have to have it at more favourable terms than Dell. This is hard, and thats why Apple prefers its niche role instead of open price fight with Dell, which is understandable and probably correct in short term. Yet, by staying a niche player, Apple slowly kills its own future. There will be less and less products for Macs, especially software, and those remaining will costs more and more compared to mainstream market because of high overhead cost and low volume of sales, which will further increase TCO and not reduce it.

So in order to look good near the Dell with its cutthroat prices, Apple has to do to something to make consumers think of macs as a high-end hardware and for example bundle a lot of free software for it (thus iLife eg); but it will alienate remaining developers and reduce in long run number of software titles for the platform. Second, Macs have to standardize around PC standards to lower its parts costs - thus the move to IDE, USB, USB2 and so on in recent years. But to stay different, Macs then cannot afford to look like usual PC boxes from software and design points of view - thus move to likable Aqua interface and visually stunning iMacs and G5s. But the bad thing is that all requires a lot of efforts and costs; and with low volume of sales those costs increasingly raise units costs again.

Judging from every side, Apple cannot afford to remain niche player for too long; it will suffocate itself and turn into something irrelevant for mainstream computing. To overcome it, the only remaining strategy is to increase market share, perhaps at any cost, even maybe sacrificing some profit margins. Dont forget that G5, iMacs, powerbooks, iPods remain high margin products; the sacrifice concerns only low end desktop computers, perhaps something like eMacs and they can be sacrificed without losing too much profit per unit (and i guess, they dont have it anyway), and these corporate macs must have the only goal - not profits but market share - let em be even zero profit units - still they will cover their production costs but they will help increase market share and it is what needed now. Continue to sell G5s to graphic and audio artists, publishers and so on, but crack the low end - and will help greatly in long run.

If eMacs sell well, which they probably do, headless cheaper Macs will sell much much better. And we know that ibooks and ipods fare well in cost terms when compared to PCs and other similar hardware; what is needed a lower end corporate/student desktop unit with comparable cost. Even very low margins will still help to reduce unit costs of other Macs and Apple products.

[danbrew]

Ding ding ding - software. That's the answer - not the cost of this or that box. Existing software & integration with business systems.

I can't wait to see all the replies where folks say that everything that is available on the PC is available on the Mac. What about things like Project? What about Visio? What about a dozen other? What about graphic design? (heh heh - just kidding on that last one).

And, uh, Apple is a niche player - and has been for 20 years now.

[Waragainstsleep]

I would have two 'specialist' stock options (at least).
Lets call the series the oMac (O for office):
One would be office spec:
500MHz or so G3, 512MB of RAM (DDR), A 30GB HD, and a basic graphics card.
This would be intended for use with email, word processing, web and general secretarial stuff.

The other, 'Call Centre' spec:
500MHz G3, 256MB RAM, 10GB HD, even more basic graphics, a decent network card (PCI-X?) and a stripped down OS X.
This would simply join a network, answer/make calls and provide basic DB functions (though all data would be saved to a server).

I would also build equivalents in notebook form for those offices where people can log in and work from anywhere in the building. These 'oBooks' would be similar spec (replace PCI-X networking with AP extreme in callcentre version) to the desktops, with fairly small screens. You could make your boring callcentre into a lounge and everyone would be comfortable and happy. (It may appear informal and 'less professional' to visitors and potential customers, but this perception would countered by the 'flashy' technology being employed.

Everyone can have the style and security and stability of the Mac, without the silly prices.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by Waragainstsleep:
<snip>500MHz G3, 256MB RAM, 10GB HD<snip>

It's not so much the age and speed of a processor that makes it inexpensive, it's how much volume has been ramped up on a particular design, and how cost effective that design is. The G5, if produced in enough volume, could easily be a candidate for this application, and most likely not cost any more than a G3. Since none of Apple's current product lines use the G3 anymore, I'm sure production on it is substantially less.

The same applies to hard drives. Costs of drives don't ramp up linearly as the capacity goes up. Meaning, a new 10gb drive won't cost you any less than a new 30gb drive, since the volume production is being done on larger drives now.

My vote for the office specs would be a lower speed G5 (as to not encroach on the higher end systems performance) 256mb ram, and a 40gb drive.

[Waragainstsleep]

Actually I kinda like that. Drop it to 1GHz or less, then when you want to upgrade your whole network, an engineer comes around and overclocks them all(for a per unit fee), so you can run newer software.

[cdhostage]

Current eMacs will do exactly as the thread poster requires, except for the monitorlessness. I consider the all-in-one form better, actually, for portability reasons and cord reasons. Also, they are more difficult to steal than tower-types due to their mass and size, and are easier to secure to desks than said.

Perhaps what [BOLD]Hash[/BOLD] meant was an institutional computer, for any sort of place where reliability and safety were more important than performance.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by cdhostage:
I consider the all-in-one form better, actually, for portability reasons and cord reasons. Also, they are more difficult to steal than tower-types due to their mass and size, and are easier to secure to desks than said.

An all-in-one form factor is convenient for all the reasons you listed, however, those reasons are not very relevant for an office environment.

Office users don't commonly carry their desktops computers and monitors around with them. Therefore the portability isn't a concern. Those that need portability get laptops.

Most office cubicles and desks are designed with wiring in mind. Those that aren't are still easily solved problems.

As far as theft goes, I think what you said about portability contradicts what you said about theft. If they are easier to carry, then they are easier to carry away. Less cords also makes it faster to unhook everything. Securing to the desk is easy with either form factor.

[David Esrati]

The "corporate" mac is the same thing we've been trying to tell Apple to produce for years. In fact- the switcher campaign would have had some real traction if there was a box without a monitor for less than $1600.
Remember the LC series- or the original Centris 650- the pizza box form factor is where the corporate market is.
There is no way a G5 in that monster case is going to go into a call center- or customer service position.
And- the eMac is HUGE. Who wants a CRT? They are inefficent and generate a ton of heat. The iMac- Again- the price is an issue- never mind the fact that if the monitor goes out- you have to take the computer out of service.
With 17" LCD's readily available for sub $400- Apple needs a $600 box to go with them for the corporate solution. Bundling MS Office X would be the icing. Throw in Acrobat Pro- and you would sell millions of these.
Corporate IT people get Linux- the Apple solution with OSX is elegant- virus proof- and easy to maintain.
The problem with Apple is too many stock options- and not enough stock keeping units.
Remember the stupidity of trying to sell iMacs (egg shaped) in different colors- retailers hated them for it- instead of one SKU the retailer had 5- and it was all the same.
Look at any major competitor- and there is a price point Apple ignores- the one that drives the market.
My 2 cent rave.

[TRRosen]

I think the most ideal corporate Mac would be half an iBook. just a small slab with a 2.5" hard drive (5x8x1) Ethernet Firewire USB and DVI that can be mounted on the back of a 15 17 or 19 inch LCD monitor

No need for a CD in corporate offices there only used to play music...data is on the server and only IT can install software. If some users need on it can be added via firewire.

there could be multiple models varying CPU power with the same exact form factor making it quite modular.

[Macola]

Price is a big concern, but inertia is a bigger problem. Can you really see a large (or even mid-sized) company throwing away all their Dell boxes and replacing them with Macs?

If Apple does make inroads into the corporate market, it won't be selling "millions" of units. It will be a long, uphill battle, but the best bet is startups and small companies who would be open to using Macs when they set up their offices. I know of a local biotech company who started out with a bunch of Bondi iMacs and they're still mostly Mac users today.

[Balthisar]

I work in a very large corporation. I have my personal PowerBook for when I'm on the road, since we're otherwise a Dell customer. We're lucky that as a company we also have SGI's and Suns, but only certain types of employees really use those, and it's mostly rare.

For the typical cube-dweller, we'd be seriously missing something big by using Macs -- all of our in house applications, like the pager system. A good terminal emulator for talking to the mainframes (yeah, we still do that). My personal pet peeve -- where the hell is Access for the Mac? Really, I'm not a troll, but it's the one useful part of Office. Hell, even on the PC, it's not 100% compatible. Virtual eRooms require IE when I prefer Mozilla. Then there's the Entourage problem, whereby it's not flawless as an Outlook replacement.

The neat thing about being on the road, though, is I don't need that crap (or I use VPC), and can be happy with my PowerBook.

[drdocument]

Originally posted by Balthisar:
For the typical cube-dweller, we'd be seriously missing something big by using Macs -- all of our in house applications, like the pager system. A good terminal emulator for talking to the mainframes (yeah, we still do that). My personal pet peeve -- where the hell is Access for the Mac? Really, I'm not a troll, but it's the one useful part of Office. Hell, even on the PC, it's not 100% compatible. Virtual eRooms require IE when I prefer Mozilla. Then there's the Entourage problem, whereby it's not flawless as an Outlook replacement.

The neat thing about being on the road, though, is I don't need that crap (or I use VPC), and can be happy with my PowerBook.

I agree that software is probably the biggest hurdle. But it looks like more and more companies are getting tired of the security problems and hefty license fees that go along with Windows. If Apple could come up with a seamless integration of Linux and other open source apps into OS X with minimal CPU overhead (and better, also seamless, integration with Windows networks) I think doors would open at a faster pace.

With a couple exceptions for which I have a Windows laptop, I do all my work in OS X, even SQL databases.

[plasticsstudent]

Well what i would like to see is a new form of wireless mac node. If you look at how the new G5 can handle so many more procceses, netboot and apple networked home folders, why dont they a sell small hard drive (maybe 2gb), wireless g, 800 mhz g3 (or much less) computer with a flat screen all in a housing a little bigger than their current displays. All the computing could be done on the server. If they really wanted to they could use bluetooth for the mouse and keyboard (or just USB into the display). That would take up very little space and could be cheaply priced.

Who knows i might have no clue what i am talking about

[Graymalkin]

You're talking about either dumb terminals or network computers. A dumb terminal is just a bit of hardware with a screen and some form of input like a mouse and keyboard. It connects to a server somewhere that all of the programs actually run on. Think of terminals like an extension for your monitor and keyboard. X11 originally came about in order to make terminals more useful because it sent graphic commands over the network instead of simple text like teletypes did.

A network computer is a terminal with enough processing power to run some applications itself. All the storage and network connectivity takes place on the server. Sun and Oracle have always been big fans of network computers. On paper they are useful because all of the storage is centralized and it makes it simple to install and maintain applications. In practice diskless systems have a lot of hurdles to overcome. Few networks have the bandwidth to host more than a handful of NCs adequately. The money spent on ridiculously powerful servers can be spent instead on full fledged user workstations which are useful on their own in the event of a network outage.

Network systems like this are a pain to set up and maintain and are virtually useless if the central server ever goes down. Workstations with local applications but home directories housed on network servers are much more robust.

[Macola]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Sun and Oracle have always been big fans of network computers. On paper they are useful because all of the storage is centralized and it makes it simple to install and maintain applications. In practice diskless systems have a lot of hurdles to overcome.

Yeah, remember all the predictions of thin clients during the dotcom boom? It never happened...

[Hash]

I ll reserve my judgement till next announcement of hardware line, which may bring in significant changes. I DO HOPE that they will forget for a second about having fat margin on low-end and instead push for market share with all their force and 4 billion spare cash using low-end cheap headless Macs of micro and mid-ATX case sizes. This is the only way left to revitalize the market share.

[Switched2Mac]

Originally posted by Macola:
Yeah, remember all the predictions of thin clients during the dotcom boom? It never happened...

True.

But Dell is making big money off their 4600c series. Little upright desktops that take very little room. Great for companies and home users. You can put as much or as little as you want in them.

How cool would it be if Apple could do something similar? Using the same material/color as the current PowerMacs.

They need to change the keyboard and mouse to the same color though. The white works great with the iMac but looks out of place in the PowerMac.

[Mac Zealot]

A mini G5 would be SICK. Exact same style, maybe even have the door open the same way. That'd be incredibly cool

[Waragainstsleep]

Picture this:

You (In this case a company of some sort) build your central server out of Xserve cluster nodes and Xraids (as many as you can afford), This system then does all the hardcore number crunching required by users on your network, as well as dealing with running the network in general.
Your dumb nodes can run word processors, spreadsheets, web, mail, and other basic software without calling the server for any reason except to route (internal) messages each way (and provide net access). Any CPU-heavy stuff like rendering, could be shared with/done by the server.

When everyone goes home for the night, you rent out the supercomputer capabilities of your server to anyone who needs that sort of thing. (Universities would go for it if the price was right).

[LaGow]

Probably an oversimplification: I've had various consultants tell me that 90% of all offices use pretty much the same sofware for their bread-and-butter apps: Microsoft Office. And of those, most of them use Word most of the time. If that is true, then the other 10% is what's holding up purchases of Macs.

I've had this converation it seems like a million times: An IT guy will tell me, "The Mac doesn't have the software." And I'll say, "Well, besides the fact that the Mac is basically Unix and now has all sorts of wonderful, free, open source software from which to choose now, what software do your users use?" The answer is obvious. But there's no convincing them. It drives me nuts.

And speaking to the hardware issue, I would suggest that Apple not call this coprporate line "Macintosh." Just drop the whole Mac thing and give it some boring corporate-sounding name like Z25-X11 or whatever. You have to put Xs and Zs in there because somehow the marketing geniuses have convinced the flock that those letters are sexy. (Sex and computer hardware: a disconnect? I mean besides pornography.)

Really. IT geeks hear "Mac" and begin to tune out right there and then. I say spring it on the unsuspecting hordes.

[freakboy2]

this really is something that apple should focus on.

its such a humungous market..

although i go back to the #1 problem with getting IT depts to use macs (and this will always be true):

ok my number 1 is #2 now, but here they are:

#1 IT guys want to stay employed. Macs work too well. Once they are set up, they work for years without futzing (even more true now that osx is around).

#2 IT guys don't know sh1t about unix. Most of them are windows people who spend all their time reinstalling software that has hosed someone's machine or updating everything with service packs or critical updates or anti-virus crap.

[LaGow]

Your second point was especially true in my industry, which is publishing. It wasn't enough that they didn't know Unix, they were afraid of it. Time was Unix consultants were really expensive, as were many of the solutions (Sun, SGI, etc.). Linux is changing everything, though...

[Thorzdad]

You can't just swap out an existing office of PC's for Macs and call it a day. The necessary software has already been mentioned, but there's also the little thing of compatability with the existing network. Active Directory? FULL Exchange compatability? ActiveX controls on the company intranet? The afformentioned Access db? Etc. Etc.

I seriously doubt you'll sell too many of those "O-Macs" when you mention the need to replace all the servers, too. Oh, and migrate the db to something Mac-friendly.

It's one thing to have a handfull of Macs in the creative dept. gulag. Hey, toss DAVE on them and they can work, sort of, with the network. It's a different matter when you're talking replacing hundreds of PCs with Macs.

[freakboy2]

this is exactly my point.. that windows people don't know sh1t about unix.

say the same thing but replace everything where you just said "macs" with "unix"

unix can't work with pc networks.

LOL..

UNIX ca't work with DBs

LOL..

ok maybe we're missnig access, but anyone who really uses that for the core business stuff is a fricking tool, and yes they should change their DB's

my office is all windows. and holy cow, this place would have saved about 500k$ by using unix boxes for their servers. just that nobody here knows unix.

IT guys just like to be able to call up microsoft and pay 5000$ a call to get stuff fixed. it makes them feel important, and if it costs so much money than it MUST be worth it.

fb

[ApeInTheShell]

If your going to have "The Corporation" Mac it should have Vince McMahon's entrance music and video when you power it on. Of course, you'll need to program his personality into Mac OS X Corporate. If you make an error he says, "Your fired!!" and when you shut down he says, "Who are you? I don't remember hiring you! Get out of my operating system!"

While you emaling or on the internet he struts around the screen yelling at you to go back to work. Just like a real boss!

He'll invade your personal files because he's Vince McMahon! and J.R. will be commenting in the Dock that you are being beat like a government mule.

[Link]

Originally posted by Thorzdad:
You can't just swap out an existing office of PC's for Macs and call it a day. The necessary software has already been mentioned, but there's also the little thing of compatability with the existing network. Active Directory? FULL Exchange compatability? ActiveX controls on the company intranet? The afformentioned Access db? Etc. Etc.

I seriously doubt you'll sell too many of those "O-Macs" when you mention the need to replace all the servers, too. Oh, and migrate the db to something Mac-friendly.

It's one thing to have a handfull of Macs in the creative dept. gulag. Hey, toss DAVE on them and they can work, sort of, with the network. It's a different matter when you're talking replacing hundreds of PCs with Macs.

How DARE they realize all those tools are just money making bull$**** for the IT techs..

[Switched2Mac]

I would love to have a Mac at work.

Many of my coworkers got PowerBooks. But then they clamped down. No Mac purchases anymore.

I think it is a mistake.

I might get an iBook G4 and just use it at work.