Might have to lose my apple... :-(

BillScarab

cheesy.mike wrote: »

Vista also has significant security implications. Several corporations I know are refusing to let staff switch to Vista until these are evaluated and fully understood.

Always remember - VISTA = Virus Inside Switch To Apple.

Lets have some facts to back up such a sweeping statement. Can you provide a list of all the viruses that are built into Vista as you seem to be implying? Or a list of the security implications?

Apple aren't immune to security vulnerability, in fact no OS is.

To the OP, if you are happy with a Mac and can do your job using it without problems I can't see a reason to change. I assume you work for a fairly small compnay as most larger companies have fairly strict policies on what IT equipment can be deployed and what software can be installed. Where I work I would have to come up with a very compelling reason why I couldn't use a Dell laptop running Windows before I could get a Mac.

PROLIANT

cheesy.mike wrote: »

Vista also has significant security implications. Several corporations I know are refusing to let staff switch to Vista until these are evaluated and fully understood.

Always remember - VISTA = Virus Inside Switch To Apple.

What a load of sh*te, facts first please.

isofa

Are we not getting a little off-topic, and moving into the dangerous "my OS is better than yours" debate - only to be followed by a mass of posts arguing one against the other?

Nothing is perfect, Windows, Mac OS, Linux etc - all have flaws, weaknesses.

Choose which you like best, which is fit for the job you require it for etc.

Bob63

PROLIANT wrote: »

What a load of sh*te, facts first please.

The Vista acronym was a joke but I assume you are asking facts relating to corporate uptake of Vista.

Forrester Research were quoted in last week's edition of IT Week as follows:

Businesses are becoming less reliant on Microsoft's Windows operating system, according to Forrester Research, with deployment in enterprises dropping by nearly four per cent in 2007.
The latest Forrester figures paint a mixed picture for Microsoft: it still has the dominant share of the enterprise desktop OS market, but users in some niches have migrated to Mac or Linux, while Vista deployments are largely restricted to users upgrading from Windows versions nearing end-of-life.
But the report shows that Windows XP use has remained steady, with a small number of Vista deployments representing users migrating from Windows 2000.
Forrester's data comes from monthly surveys during 2007 of the browser and desktop environments operated by over 50,000 users drawn from upwards of 2,300 large enterprises.
During this period, Vista uptake grew from almost zero to being used in about six per cent of organisations. At the same time, Windows 2000 declined from nine percent to three per cent, while Windows XP remained steady at about 90 per cent throughout the year.

That echoes my experiences as an IT professional at a large international computer company (not Apple, not Microsoft)

PROLIANT

cheesy.mike wrote: »

The Vista acronym was a joke but I assume you are asking facts relating to corporate uptake of Vista.

Forrester Research were quoted in last week's edition of IT Week as follows:

Businesses are becoming less reliant on Microsoft's Windows operating system, according to Forrester Research, with deployment in enterprises dropping by nearly four per cent in 2007.

The latest Forrester figures paint a mixed picture for Microsoft: it still has the dominant share of the enterprise desktop OS market, but users in some niches have migrated to Mac or Linux, while Vista deployments are largely restricted to users upgrading from Windows versions nearing end-of-life.

But the report shows that Windows XP use has remained steady, with a small number of Vista deployments representing users migrating from Windows 2000.

Forrester's data comes from monthly surveys during 2007 of the browser and desktop environments operated by over 50,000 users drawn from upwards of 2,300 large enterprises.

During this period, Vista uptake grew from almost zero to being used in about six per cent of organisations. At the same time, Windows 2000 declined from nine percent to three per cent, while Windows XP remained steady at about 90 per cent throughout the year.

That echoes my experiences as an IT professional at a large international computer company (not Apple, not Microsoft)

Do Linux train professionals in server architecture...no, do HP, DELL, IBM use Linux or Apple software em...no, why because windows client/server is the perfect marriage, it is clean, it is easy, it doesn’t require its users to operate via a horrible legacy command line interface, it is cost effective to implement and stable, it's GUI is logically laid out and fresh, I support Microsoft products on a day to day basis, I look after servers powered by Microsoft Server operating systems, it has a stronger place hold in the IT industry over UNIX, LINUX etc, I have been brought up on Microsoft and I also use Linux for education purposes but cannot see any compatibility between the two.

unrich

IBM and linux
Oracle and linux
RedHat certification programme
Dell and linux

Microsoft has not yet surpassed Apache (open source and more than likely *NIX OS)

Lets not let facts get in the way of showing off our ignorance folks.

Anyway I hope the OP gets to keep his apple, after all the IT professional is only there to support their user not to tell them how to run their business.

PROLIANT

unrich wrote: »

IBM and linux
Oracle and linux
RedHat certification programme
Dell and linux

Microsoft has not yet surpassed Apache (open source and more than likely *NIX OS)

Lets not let facts get in the way of showing off our ignorance folks.

Anyway I hope the OP gets to keep his apple, after all the IT professional is only there to support their user not to tell them how to run their business.

And the moral of the story...use Microsoft. Apache, where? Personal preference for the discerning software developer and business.

TonyLisaP

This has got into a fairly silly debate. Windows server is great for user shares, data shares and active directory. Unix servers are great for streaming data feeds plus all of the above.
Remember folks the business drives the IT.

PROLIANT

TonyLisaP wrote: »

This has got into a fairly silly debate. Windows server is great for user shares, data shares and active directory. Unix servers are great for streaming data feeds plus all of the above.
Remember folks the business drives the IT.

Does it? In this day and age I would be inclined to say it was the otherway around, business is so reliant on IT systems and network infrastructure these days, which keeps me in a job.

[Deleted User]

Well, i must say this pedantry is amusing. At work we use AIX and VMS servers to host clinical data, running on Citrix farms onto desktops using Windows XP. We also use Linux machines as imagery data stores. Our big 4000 table database runs on Oracle 9. We also use window sharepoints, we've got our personnel system running on PeopleSoft - oh so many technologies

Do i give a crap, really? As long as it works, i'm happy. I work on middleware so frankly i don't care what it's running on. I can hack away in AIX but must admit VMS is annoying to use.

My work laptop is a Vista machine - recently upgraded. Have used it for a few months now and really like it - especially the file searching. Yes, yes, you can get google desktop, but i like the integration.

Sigh, pedants, can't live with them, can't line them up and shoot 'em