Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > OSX Marketshare growing in business

OSX Marketshare growing in business
Thread Tools
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
Has anyone seen this article? Good stuff ... nice numbers.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...usinesswithosx



Apple making big inroads in business with OS X


By Jim Dalrymple MacCentral 46 minutes ago

Apple Computer’s UNIX-based Mac OS X operating system is making inroads in the business community, according to a report by market research firm Jupiter Research. The report tracks desktop and server operating systems in medium to large sized business.

The report found that in businesses with 250 employees or more, 17 percent of the employees were running Mac OS X on their desktop computer at work. In Businesses that had 10,000 or more employees, 21 percent of employees used Mac OS X on their desktop work computer.

Mac OS X Server is also doing well with businesses. Nine percent of companies with 250 employees or more used Mac OS X Server, while 14 percent of companies with 10,000 employees or more used Apple’s Server software.

Due reporting techniques, comparisons to where Mac OS X was last year at this time were not available. However, Jupiter Research Senior Analyst and author of the report, Joe Wilcox, characterized the numbers as significant for Apple.

“What we are seeing is Mac OS X taking share aware from traditional UNIX installations,” Wilcox told MacCentral. In some cases, OS X is taking share away from Windows, as well.”

Wilcox explained that large businesses with expensive UNIX systems are opting for Mac OS X when they upgrade for a variety of reasons. OS X is winning out over Linux in some cases as well, said Wilcox because these businesses would already have UNIX expertise on staff; OS X has a good stable of server applications and it can run traditional UNIX apps; and OS X is more viable as a desktop platform.

Jupiter also sees opportunities for Apple with companies that currently run a UNIX and Windows combination. With Mac OS X’s UNIX underpinnings, companies can use Apple’s operating system to replace the other two.

Microsoft’s Windows Server operating system saw a marginal decrease in installed base this year, according to the report.

Wilcox said it was too early to gauge reaction to Apple’ ;s recent announcement that it intends to switch to Intel-based systems next year. While cost will be definitely be a factor, Jupiter’s Wilcox said that is not always the largest cost center.

“With a lot of these systems the biggest cost is software, not hardware,” said Wilcox.

Linux users also represent a big pool of potential switchers, according to the report.

“I’m surprised to see just how much Mac OS X has captured the interest of potential Linux switchers,” said Wilcox. “Companies that were considering Linux are now buying Mac OS X instead.”

Click here for all of today's news at MacCentral.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 11:16 PM
 
Oddly enough, the people who originally clamored for the Mac Mini were enterprise customers. I've talked with people in Apple about this. It seems that businesses wanted small Macs that they could stick on workers' desks while using their existing keyboards and monitors and such. The Mini's packaging seems ideally suited to that very purpose, what with relying on the purchaser to provide all of these things.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
driven  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 12:18 AM
 
The Mac-Mini would make an ideal thin client. :-)
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 03:07 AM
 
Cool article. . . And we all know that enterprise will like OS X even more when it's running on PC hardware.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
PurpleGiant
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 03:49 AM
 
Except that OS X won't be running on PC hardware.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 04:30 AM
 
Apple PC hardware

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 04:37 AM
 
While the exact numbers might be off to some degree I think the study is bang on, Apple is increasing its presence in the business market. I think this has largely come around because they stopped trying to sell a workgroup as a whole widget. I think one problem Apple had for a long time was not being able or willing to work with existing network infrastructure. Everyone had their own networking schemes, including Apple. A homogeneous AppleTalk network was a thing of beauty (most of the time). Unfortunately AppleTalk networks were only really available if you went through Apple to get everything or bought a lot of extra software and some hardware for your PCs.

Anymore a Mac can drop in on a typical Ethernet network and speak a variety of networking protocols out of the box. A Mac mini doesn't require an extra hundred dollars worth of software to access an office's Windows workgroup server. The Macs can also talk directly to Unix systems on the network without any extra software or hassle. This is an important factor in getting Macs in the door of offices outside of the marketing department corral. Once a few Macs are on the network and humming along said company will be far more interested in seeing what else Apple has for sale.
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 10:16 AM
 
Without studying the study itself it can be difficult to know what to think about these numbers. I've never heard similar optimism elsewhere regarding OS X position in the corporate marked.

The numbers sounds to good to be true.

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
driven  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 10:33 AM
 
Speaking of which (and a little off topic) does anyone know how to stop the mac from producing dotfiles (files that start with .) all over my Windows sharepoints?
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Macola
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by driven
Speaking of which (and a little off topic) does anyone know how to stop the mac from producing dotfiles (files that start with .) all over my Windows sharepoints?
You can't prevent it, but you can clean up after the fact:
http://www.faqintosh.com/risorse/en/sys/cleansmb/
I do not like those green links and spam.
I do not like them, Sam I am.
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 05:35 PM
 
I'm hoping with this coming internship at my church we can switch a lot of our stuff over to OS X. Think pages instead of publisher... yummy...
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 08:55 PM
 
I am not sure I see the connection between OS X's progress in the corporate world and your church IT planning, but the contrast in that thought was kinda witty.. honestly.

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 10:03 PM
 
In other words, Apple is increasingly becoming more and more relevant in all manner of markets.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Apple PC hardware
No, APPLE hardware. NOT GENERIC PC HARDWARE. Why do you continue to INSIST that Apple will build generic PC hardware?????
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 12:17 PM
 
One big reason Apple products seem to be getting deeper into the corporate world is that there is more visibility. You can thank the iPod for that. With everyone and his brother seeming to have or be getting an iPod, the name "Apple" is out there and obvious. With corporations going more and more for "total cost of ownership" goals, Macs are a great buy. Of course one reason for that is that the suits don't know much about them, and they see beautiful, seemingly sealed boxes as "non-upgradable" (and thus less expensive) in spite of the fact that there is much tinkering one can do with an iMac or a Mac Mini (just do it carefully!).

I'm looking at a Mini soon, not just because it's a cool, yet powerful little box, but because as Millenium pointed out, I can use my existing display with it. (Cinema Displays are beautiful, but they are pricey, too! And they don't fit on every desktop.) Up until recently the sticking point for me going with a Mini was finding a USB KVM, but Belkin has some very affordable products now, including (finally!) one that switches audio as well as keyboard, display and mouse. My pennies are piling up for a near-term purchase...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 12:59 PM
 
as on as intel macs ship market share will JUMP!!!!!!!

Can't wait.

anecodotal evidence says that the are a lot of people willing try to buy mac HW if "i don't like it i can still go back to windows" or "i can play all my windows games"
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
as on as intel macs ship market share will JUMP!!!!!!!

Can't wait.

anecodotal evidence says that the are a lot of people willing try to buy mac HW if "i don't like it i can still go back to windows" or "i can play all my windows games"
Except that Apple didn't say they would provide the necessary information for Windows to be installed. They only said that they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on it.

It will be necessary for Microsoft to provide the support for that if the majority of Windows users are to be able to install Windows on an Intel-based Apple machine. And no, hackers figuring out how to do it won't make a big enough dent unless they come up with an easy, foolproof way for the average joe to do it.
     
NeilCharter
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 05:12 PM
 
The big deal IMHO is the maintenance cost of PC hardware that is attracting businesses to Apple Hardware.

If the Intel switch means Apple can provide well made boxes at a reasonable price and adequate performance, then the stability and interoperability of OS X will provide the means for businesses to cut the cost of running their machines. I'm sure that management is tired of security issues and the reliance on large IT departments to keep their machines up and running.
If I had a signature, it would look something like this
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 05:44 PM
 
No, businesses buys MS compatible hardware pronto because of competeable discounts, compatibility and modularity. None of these points fits very well within Apples strategies compared to many PC brands. The transition from PPC to Intel does not automatically translate into bargain products. Apple is likely to continue focus on innovative solutions and designs and the "package" you get when you buy a Mac, really.. I doubt you would notice much changes from what we have today with this transition.
( Last edited by sniffer; Jul 23, 2005 at 05:58 PM. )

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man
Except that Apple didn't say they would provide the necessary information for Windows to be installed. They only said that they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on it.

It will be necessary for Microsoft to provide the support for that if the majority of Windows users are to be able to install Windows on an Intel-based Apple machine. And no, hackers figuring out how to do it won't make a big enough dent unless they come up with an easy, foolproof way for the average joe to do it.
huh?

devs already have installed windows on it.

edit: Oh you mean drive partitioning etc.. meh. the gurus will figure it out then the "recomends" sales will follow. sounds like a good opportunity for a soft. dev.

BiNdows - auto formatting software for your apple pc hard drive
     
NeilCharter
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by sniffer
No, businesses buys MS compatible hardware pronto because of competeable discounts, compatibility and modularity. None of these points fits very well within Apples strategies compared to many PC brands. The transition from PPC to Intel does not automatically translate into bargain products. Apple is likely to continue focus on innovative solutions and designs and the "package" you get when you buy a Mac, really.. I doubt you would notice much changes from what we have today with this transition.
You're right. The compelling reason that many businesses when all Windows was compatibility and ease of integration. However, virus, spyware, junk mail etc have demonstrated that a Windows solutions have a number of shortfalls - all of which cause downtime and larger than anticipated IT costs.

Mac OS X and Apple Macs have evolved greatly since the days of OS 9 and the original PPC machines. OS X is very stable, can be easily integrated into a Windows environment and the recent machines are very powerful. I have an 600 MHz G3 at work. I installed OS X, Office etc myself. It can integrate with Exchange servers, file serve etc so easily it was amazing. Even the shared printer was seen immediately using Bonjour. A number of PCs had to have the IT guys install drivers for the printer when we got it.

The frustration with Windows is causing people to look elsewhere and Apple have the best solution.
If I had a signature, it would look something like this
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
One big reason Apple products seem to be getting deeper into the corporate world is that there is more visibility. You can thank the iPod for that. With everyone and his brother seeming to have or be getting an iPod, the name "Apple" is out there and obvious. With corporations going more and more for "total cost of ownership" goals, Macs are a great buy. Of course one reason for that is that the suits don't know much about them, and they see beautiful, seemingly sealed boxes as "non-upgradable" (and thus less expensive) in spite of the fact that there is much tinkering one can do with an iMac or a Mac Mini (just do it carefully!).

I'm looking at a Mini soon, not just because it's a cool, yet powerful little box, but because as Millenium pointed out, I can use my existing display with it. (Cinema Displays are beautiful, but they are pricey, too! And they don't fit on every desktop.) Up until recently the sticking point for me going with a Mini was finding a USB KVM, but Belkin has some very affordable products now, including (finally!) one that switches audio as well as keyboard, display and mouse. My pennies are piling up for a near-term purchase...
Actually I've hard very bad stories about those Belkin KVMs. You might way to pay a couple more bucks (like I think less than 10) and get an IOGEAR KVM. You could get a 2 or 4 DVI port KVM for pretty cheap. That's what I'll be doing for my PowerBook and PowerMac.
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 07:52 PM
 
You're right. The compelling reason that many businesses when all Windows was compatibility and ease of integration. However, virus, spyware, junk mail etc have demonstrated that a Windows solutions have a number of shortfalls - all of which cause downtime and larger than anticipated IT costs.

Mac OS X and Apple Macs have evolved greatly since the days of OS 9 and the original PPC machines. OS X is very stable, can be easily integrated into a Windows environment and the recent machines are very powerful. I have an 600 MHz G3 at work. I installed OS X, Office etc myself. It can integrate with Exchange servers, file serve etc so easily it was amazing. Even the shared printer was seen immediately using Bonjour. A number of PCs had to have the IT guys install drivers for the printer when we got it.

The frustration with Windows is causing people to look elsewhere and Apple have the best solution.
In the end of the day it's the applications for the job that a production environment depends on that put the final verdict if I business can go for solution A or B. Sometimes there is no excuse for not considering alternatives, but in general there are practical reasons for sticking with one solution over the other. I think a strong card for Apple here is its recent harmonization with other *nix/posix/opensource solutions. If Apple's products doesn't fit into some general Windows environment, it certainly should be room for Apple in many *nix environments. Yes, the virus and different types of malware is a problem for Windows environments, but you are wrong if you think MS solutions equals only problems. A Windows production setup can be sat up just as tight as any tight *nix solution and be given just as many layers of security as the next solution out there. It's a lot a question about prioritizing than actual platform differences. (I agree of course that the lesser risk of infection on many alternative platform is a good thing for e.g. Apple.)

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
NeilCharter
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by sniffer
In the end of the day it's the applications for the job that a production environment depends on that put the final verdict if I business can go for solution A or B. Sometimes there is no excuse for not considering alternatives, but in general there are practical reasons for sticking with one solution over the other. I think a strong card for Apple here is its recent harmonization with other *nix/posix/opensource solutions. If Apple's products doesn't fit into some general Windows environment, it certainly should be room for Apple in many *nix environments. Yes, the virus and different types of malware is a problem for Windows environments, but you are wrong if you think MS solutions equals only problems. A Windows production setup can be sat up just as tight as any tight *nix solution and be given just as many layers of security as the next solution out there. It's a lot a question about prioritizing than actual platform differences. (I agree of course that the lesser risk of infection on many alternative platform is a good thing for e.g. Apple.)
Maintenance costs are the issue here. How many IT personnel are required to keep windows boxes up and running compared to Macs?
If I had a signature, it would look something like this
     
milhous
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Millersville, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 01:52 AM
 
Good news that OS X is making inroads into business.

If we see this trend continue, business users will demand a productivity suite if users find that Mac Office just won't cut it for their needs. I'd then like to see Apple put Corel out of their misery and bring the WordPerfect Suite to OS X or a port of StarOffice, whichever suite is more robust. Yes, I understand this would directly impact Apple's relationship with Microsoft.

I'm really curious to know if Mac Office could really cut it in large companies or if it would have to be substantially revised to match feature parity and compatibility with Office for Windows.
F = ma
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
devs already have installed windows on it.
What part of "these are development systems and will not in any way represent shipping products" is difficult to understand. The Intel dev boxes are just relatively generic PC components inside of PowerMac cases. Being able to put Windows on one of them is hardly a challenge. Actual shipping Intel-based Macs will likely be a different story altogether.

Look at SGI's now defunct Visual Workstations. They were Pentium II/III based systems but weren't really the same architecture as the run of the mill IBM PC clone. First they had no BIOS, they ran the ARCS firmware like MIPS based SGI systems. They also required a custom HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) for Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000. In fact Windows 2000 shipped with an SGI-compatible HAL but Windows XP did not, Windows XP will not run on an SGI Visual Workstation without hacking the Windows 2000 HAL onto it.

While Windows could run on Intel Macs there's no guarantee it will. Apple can do similar to SGI and use Intel chips and chipsets without making their systems IBM PC clones. Windows will likely need a customer Mac HAL, one I doubt Apple would develop or release. That leaves Microsoft to develop one which is equally unlikely.

Originally Posted by milhous
I'm really curious to know if Mac Office could really cut it in large companies or if it would have to be substantially revised to match feature parity and compatibility with Office for Windows.
For many companies a real alternative to Microsoft Office would need to run Office VBA macros and be able to handle features of Office documents like versioning and comments. A general rule of thumb is you never replace software package A with package B unless B can do everything that A can and then some. You couldn't feasibly move from Word 2004 to Mariner Write if you use even half of Word's features. Mariner Write is a nice light word processor but doesn't have any of the workgroup functionality Word has had for five years. I made a little test Word document using comments, a text watermark, and versions. Mariner Write, AppleWorks, and Pages opened the document but failed to really support these features. These are not replacements for Word in an office.

Word and the whole Office suite have what I refer to as "workgroup" features, the sort of features that are tremendously useful to groups of people they have to write, edit, revise, check, and distribute documents in a network setting. Document comments are one of the most important of these. If you send me a Word file for review I can go through and put non-printing comments all over it. I don't need to reply with an e-mail referencing word or line numbers, I just add a comment where I want one. File versioning is another extremely useful feature. If I'm writing a document and I know it will go through several revisions I can just turn on auto versioning, every time the file is saved it is really a copy saved as a version inside of the file container. I can go back to any version of a file I want.

For many, Office and its features are overkill. Most people just want to type text, make some parts bold or italic, and maybe change some colors or fonts. Pages, Write, and even TextEdit are fine for these people. For everyone else though, even people that use only one of Office's tertiary features, these alternatives are absolutely useless.
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by NeilCharter
Maintenance costs are the issue here. How many IT personnel are required to keep windows boxes up and running compared to Macs?
You are generalizing here. A couple of things off my head that is worth taking into consideration:
1) Apple don't provide dumb terminal solutions which are extremely easy to maintain. It doesn't matter if you need 10 or 1000 clients, the core administrative team still remain relatively the same in size. Of course there are obvious limitations with dumb terminal clients.
2) It might be cheaper to maintain a homogenic IT environments e.g. all MS or all Apple, Linux and so on.
Macs seems to be a more realistic alternative in smaller businesses where the people in charge can act more flexible in IT investment decisions however. In those cases per unit maintenance costs do play a larger role.

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
NeilCharter
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by sniffer
You are generalizing here. A couple of things off my head that is worth taking into consideration:
1) Apple don't provide dumb terminal solutions which are extremely easy to maintain. It doesn't matter if you need 10 or 1000 clients, the core administrative team still remain relatively the same in size. Of course there are obvious limitations with dumb terminal clients.
2) It might be cheaper to maintain a homogenic IT environments e.g. all MS or all Apple, Linux and so on.
Macs seems to be a more realistic alternative in smaller businesses where the people in charge can act more flexible in IT investment decisions however. In those cases per unit maintenance costs do play a larger role.
Of course it is a generalization - doesn't mean that this isn't a common problem for business.

The dumb terminal solution used to be standard, but it did lock you in to one supplier. Cheap PC boxes became the norm under the assumption that the overall cost would be cheaper. Of course, server and mail services would still be needed from a central location.

I assume one resistance to using OS X is that businesses would be tied to one hardware supplier. Whether Apple provide dumb terminal solutions they still would have overcome this issue.

BTW - I believe you can net boot Macs from OS X Server - management of apps, files etc all are performed remotely.

Whether it is a large or small business, the flexibility that OS X can integrate with existing Windows environments allows Apple technology to be tested without having to invest in a large number of units.
If I had a signature, it would look something like this
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
What part of "these are development systems and will not in any way represent shipping products" is difficult to understand.
What part of phill schiller talking about this very issue don't you don't understand?

I'll let you google it since you seem to be in need of a hobby.
     
Jellytussle
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Badfort
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2005, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macola
You can't prevent it, but you can clean up after the fact:
http://www.faqintosh.com/risorse/en/sys/cleansmb/

You can turn them off, if you're using Tiger;

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301711
You see, my friends, pirates are the key. - thalo
     
driven  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jellytussle
You can turn them off, if you're using Tiger;

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301711
Oh yeah! THANK YOU! I appreciate it.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxisfun
What part of phill schiller talking about this very issue don't you don't understand?

I'll let you google it since you seem to be in need of a hobby.
Originally Posted by Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will
Originally Posted by Apple Director of Software Product Marketing Brian Coll
Apple doesn't plan to sell or support Windows, but we're not planning anything on the hardware side that would preclude it from running.
Apple has the freedom on their systems to deviate almost completely from the IBM PC architecture while still using Intel processors and chipsets. I would suspect they will take the opportunity to do so which means Windows will not run out of the box on Intel Macs without at the very least a custom bootloader. There's not going to be some anti-Windows hardware inside of it but that in no way confirms that Windows will even load up on the machines.
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man
No, APPLE hardware. NOT GENERIC PC HARDWARE. Why do you continue to INSIST that Apple will build generic PC hardware?????
On the inside nothing substantial will separate a Dell from an Intel Mac a year from now. Apple builds "generic" PC hardware even today as most components are freely available.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Superchicken
Actually I've hard very bad stories about those Belkin KVMs. You might way to pay a couple more bucks (like I think less than 10) and get an IOGEAR KVM. You could get a 2 or 4 DVI port KVM for pretty cheap. That's what I'll be doing for my PowerBook and PowerMac.
It turned out that the great price was for their PS2 KVM, not the USB KVM, so I'm still scouting about.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
driven  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
It turned out that the great price was for their PS2 KVM, not the USB KVM, so I'm still scouting about.
If you find a good price, post it here. I don't think you are the only one looking for this.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
NeilCharter
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fremont, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2005, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by driven
If you find a good price, post it here. I don't think you are the only one looking for this.
You mean something like these:

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.p...kvm&topcat_id=

Quite a few options there.
If I had a signature, it would look something like this
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,