Grow up
 

I see we have another thread hijacked for some foolish platform wars again, and the original poster apparently driven off.

These displays of rudeness annoy me greatly.

Been there. Done that. That's where I lost most of the respect I had for the "Profession."

Now you're talking about politics, which is the real reason for banning platforms.

I haven't defended that one either. It was a mistake, but you have to remember that it wouldn't have been tried if the policy was reasonable.

That is not supported by the facts. Read the article from post 27.

We have Stand alone (not on the Network) computers. They can be a Mac or PC.
Needs to be Business justified but once you have it/them

Apps can be changed or added by the user and does not need the Ok from IT, so long as they are Legally purchased.

A broadband connection. and Other non-work computers can be connected.

Not being Networked is sometimes a pain.
But actually having it is a god send.

This maybe an added option for the original OP.

Anything dealing with enterprise-level network admin is politics? Really now. No one here has been anti-Mac, so stop with the "going to turn IT department into evil political folks" plan.

If he took the time to prove the NEED for a Mac, then it wouldn't have been tried (and the network wouldn't have been seriously compromised) either.

So for you, one article answers the question for every real-life situation. Again, I want to live in your world.

Stop changing my words. As I said in the post, that was just one article. There have been many, many others over the years. In any case, it's one more article than you've presented.

Any other mod believe this thread has outlived its usefulness? I vote that it has.

And another thing. I see how happy you are mentioning the article from post #27, but seriously. Have you even LOOKED at the TCO spreadsheet? From the "Time Costs" section alone, it's false. Any IT department worth it's salt uses imaging, which negates all (yes, all, including OS upgrades) of those Hard Costs. Also, from the Hard Costs section, it says it takes from .10 to up to 3 hours EACH to buy 4 of the items, (including OS and App upgrades which are free) PER MACHINE. That's not including the 8 items in that list that say they take between .10 and 1.00 hours PER MACHINE to purchase. If one of my IT guys took an hour per machine to purchase any of those solutions, I'd sell him for research. And it's funny that it says that it doesn't need to purchase an anti-spam solution for Mac os. It also says that WinTel users have to spend time PURCHASING and installing a pop-up blocker, when it also says they are going to install Firefox.

So seriously, stop with the TCO argument, because it's a fallacy as you and the TCO spreadsheed present it.

Cwtnospam, for the sake of any people that have read this post and are thinking you're correct, please stick to reality and facts.

Please remember, that while I am pro-reality and pro-fact, I'm still pro-Mac.

Pro fact,
Or just spouting the IT line?

Nice retort. You sure showed me.

But seriously. Spend some time going throug that TCO report you so cherish. But do it as someone with their eyes open. Do a little thinking for yourself. You either have zero experience as an admin for windows machines, or have been blinded by articles like the one you mentioned in post #17 which claim fact, when it really isn't so. There ARE times when Windows is the Right Answer. Hopefully, as Apple does more things like using an Intel chip which can make applications easier to port over, and coming out with more machines like the Mac Mini which are very inexpensive, those times will be less in number.

Honestly, I read the article but didn't go through the spreadsheet. There are so many of them, and they all pretty much show the Mac to be less costly, or at least not more costly, that I usually don't bother reading them at all. I just threw it in as one example, assuming that everyone here has seen some of the others.

Once again though, you're twisting my words:
I didn't say that there weren't. I think that the reverse must also be true, so the larger the number of users, the more likely that Windows isn't always the best choice. When you get into the thousands, it's a statistical certainty. Even if it weren't, time marches on and things change. Locking out all but one system guarantees that you won't ever have the best (by any measure) solutions in place.

I'll tell you what I'm blinded by. In the 80s and 90s, especially in the 90s, I saw IT people (some in places where I was working as a consultant) doing things like trying to force Graphics Departments to switch to PCs. And I do mean force them. Department heads were put in very tough positions where they were forced to fight to keep their Macs or lose talented people and end up leading a gutted department. In some cases they were successful, in others, IT got its way. Since that time, I've seen little to change my opinion.

If you're going to quote someone elses material as gospel, best to make sure they are correct. Especially when your words can influence others.

Statistical certainty? Ever taken a statistics class?

Neither you nor I know what the IT department he works for has in place. Nor do we know what they do, or why they chose Windows as a common platform.

Not knowing all the facts, it's foolish to for me or anyone else on this list to comment on their decisions (like removing Macs from a graphics department) so all I can say is I hope they had a good business case for it, because there sure seems better options.


Cwtnospam, remember how this all started. Kennethmv brought in a rogue computer and wireless access point (that part still makes me chuckle) and put them on a corporate network. There is no situation where that is a Good Idea. As I and others have said, there are better ways to accomplish the goal. Giving kennethmv ways to work around his network admins is doing him a disservice.

I'm thinking the mod's here are itching to shut this thread down, so I hope that people have gleaned some fact and usefullness out of this thread.

Yes, and Probability. I majored in Math. When you consider that there are Mac OS, Linux, and several other OSes available, Windows has at best a 1 in three chance of being the best solution for a particular job, but even if we give it a 90% chance, the odds of it being the best for all of thousands of jobs are too small to bother with: 1.74787E-46

We know they've banned all but one platform. That's a pretty strong indictment right there.

As I see it, this started long before that.

http://www.cbr1100xx.org/temp/funny/...powerpoint.jpg

http://www.cbr1100xx.org/temp/funny/...owerpoint2.jpg


(Carlos and everyone: please do not use IMG links for images on web sites unless it is your own you are linking to. Thanks. Phil)

If connecting wirelessly creates a problem as the OP had raised, how about using a port switch (Linksys, for instance) so that your Mac and laptop can share one connection? Will this cause any problem? Will the IT guys detect that more than one unit are using one port? We are allowed to do that in our office, so we have no problems.

I did that for years, but the caveat is to be sure that your IT folks know you're doing it - mine suggested it.

The wireless connection isn't the real issue. Banning all systems but one is the source of the problem. Rationalizations like "for security reasons" are transparent attempts to justify a position that can't be justified, but is highly desirable if you are more interested in making things easier for IT than for the company and its other departments.

Your office rightly places more emphasis on the benefits to the company than one department.

I agree with this completely.




And I also agree with this. However, it is also a fact that there are plenty of clueless laptop owners among us, and probably sometimes cause harm to our systems. Fortunately, we have not had any trouble lately.

Those ARE my own servers and images!

Ooops...

Sorry, Susan! ;)