Re: PCs for staff

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Infrastructure Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jonathan Meddes on November 14, 1997 at 10:38:05:

In Reply to: Re: PCs for staff posted by Paul Anderson on November 07, 1997 at 15:18:30:

:
: Rob:

: We have been aware for some time that the Macs are underpowed and not easy to support. If you have a look at the recent strategy document, you will see that we really are considering replacing them.

Was this a surprise or was it part of the purchase decision? For that last few years most of us knew that the desktop market was not going to be dominated by (expensive) Macs, why didn't we see this? Was it more Microsoft snobbery?

: However, it isn't at all clear what that replacement should be. NT is obviously a candidate, but it is extremely difficult to support effectively in significant numbers. I have spent a lot of time talking to people about NT deployment and some of the problems are mentioned in my report on last weeks LISA conference.

Companies effectively manage networks of hundreds of NT machines, why should this department be any different? And, why should it be any worse than Macs?

: You also have to be careful when discussing cost. It is well-recognised that the cost of the hardware is a very small proportion of the cost of supporting a system. You need to consider the cost of providing and securing the network facilities, for example. There is also the cost of the software, which tends to be commercial, rather than free, and the cost of people's time in fiddling with their own configurations.

You could buy something like a Dell that comes with Windows and Office, installed. I'm sure you have the same problems with Macs?

: There are also issues about compatibility with the Unix systems used by other staff.

I don't see much of a problem. You can mount your UNIX filespace and run exceed.

: So, yes. The existing systems aren't that good. However, the answer isn't as simple as "buy a PC and stick NT on it!".

I don't see much of an alternative.

Jonathan.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : Rob: : : We have been aware for some time that the Macs are underpowed and not easy to support. If you have a look at the recent strategy document, you will see that we really are considering replacing them. : Was this a surprise or was it part of the purchase decision? For that last few years most of us knew that the desktop market was not going to be dominated by (expensive) Macs, why didn't we see this? Was it more Microsoft snobbery? : : However, it isn't at all clear what that replacement should be. NT is obviously a candidate, but it is extremely difficult to support effectively in significant numbers. I have spent a lot of time talking to people about NT deployment and some of the problems are mentioned in my report on last weeks LISA conference. : Companies effectively manage networks of hundreds of NT machines, why should this department be any different? And, why should it be any worse than Macs? : : You also have to be careful when discussing cost. It is well-recognised that the cost of the hardware is a very small proportion of the cost of supporting a system. You need to consider the cost of providing and securing the network facilities, for example. There is also the cost of the software, which tends to be commercial, rather than free, and the cost of people's time in fiddling with their own configurations. : You could buy something like a Dell that comes with Windows and Office, installed. I'm sure you have the same problems with Macs? : : There are also issues about compatibility with the Unix systems used by other staff. : I don't see much of a problem. You can mount your UNIX filespace and run exceed. : : So, yes. The existing systems aren't that good. However, the answer isn't as simple as "buy a PC and stick NT on it!". : I don't see much of an alternative. : Jonathan.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Infrastructure Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]