One company's progress toward a Mac future

I talked a few weeks ago about how Alfresco has gone from Dell to the Mac in the space of one year (and dragged along Zimbra and other Mac-friendly applications to make the process more enjoyable). Two years ago, we had only one Mac (mine). Today, we have a majority of Macs.

Of course, it's one thing to talk about it, and quite another to see it. Here's a picture from this week's management meeting in London:

Alfresco embraces the Mac

(Credit: John Newton)

It only takes one...to create many converts. There is simply no credible reason to hold back on adopting the Mac anymore. It's perhaps the best open-source development platform for those who want the power of Unix/Linux with the ease of use of Mac OS X. It runs Windows, if that's your thing.

In that little room I believe we're seeing the future of the desktop. If you don't believe me, check out this little room. It's called a classroom. And it's awash in Macs. Many, many Macs.

[jabberwolf]

Is the author of this article on CRACK!?!
"It's perhaps the best open-source development platform for those who want the power of Unix/Linux with the ease of use of Mac OS X. It runs Windows, if that's your thing."

And the reason it runs windows has nothing to do with it being a MAC but because Windows has so many hardware vendors out there that have it's drivers. OSX is locked down to Apple hardware (illegally I might add because of USA anti-trust laws).
Thus it is the most CLOSED souce of a vendor out there.

Alfresco is basically a web based solutions company and probably operates off its own model. This allows them to use almost ANY product that access the web.
Now without having an infrastructure to manage and only webservers, the need for a PC is not great. But take away their connection or have a poor one, those nice shiny macs become useless.

And if they only need a web accessing computer, why pick the overly expensive MAC? If they did a cost comparison analysis, they would see, they just threw a nuch of money away for a few managers "bright" idea who probably could not see past an Apple logo if their lives depended on it!

[Thomas, David]

Holy crap, talk about spouting nonsense!

You are one of those fools who actually believes that if you declare that piece of candy to be yours, then all must bow to you.

Apple created a system, and you are trying to tell them that OSX MUST be given to you on YOUR terms. Otherwise you feel it is ILLEGAL. What a bunch of crap. I've seen some of the B.S case arguments.

The TRUTH is, Apples so-called "closed system" is far-far more open than anything will EVER be from Microsoft, and light-years ahead to boot.

Obviously you have NO CLUE as to what you are talking about.

[oxtail01]

Agree! it's an example of decision making based on "showing off" instead of doing an accurate cost-benefit analysis. He says there's no credible reason on switching to Macs, maybe true but I like to know what his credible reason was for switching in the 1st place. There is NO successful company I know of that makes their IT decision based on OS itself. OS don't run businesses, it's all about programs.

[Matt Asay]

Which applications am I prevented from using by getting a Mac? We don't run any applications that depend on Windows. We use Zimbra, SugarCRM, Adium, Skype, etc. All run great with the Mac. I guess I missed the point of your note, because even if I were tied to Windows applications, I could still use my chosen hardware (Mac) with Windows....

[GoldenRedux]

What a bunch of clueless people. Their Macs would not become useless under any circumstances. That's what you blind people fail to realize. You have completely missed the point of this article. The Apple hardware and OS X is combination are the most open and readily accessible computing platform around today. Can't run something natively on OS X? Then run a UNIX application, because OS X is a FULLY CERTIFIED UNIX variant. I should know, I run GIMP, OppenOffice, and many other UNIX applications right in OS X using X11. Can't find what you're looking for with either OS X or UNIX? Then put Windows XP or Vista on your Intel-based Macintosh hardware and boot into Windows NATIVELY with Boot Camp. You can effectively run OS X, UNIX , Linux and Windows all on a Mac. There is what you CANNOT do with a Dell or HP or whatever generic Windows machine you want to try to shove down people's throats. You see, you poor misinformed Windows slaves never learn.

[gggg sssss]

explain how you cannot run unix or linux or windows on a Dell? What would stop you? And who in their right mind would want to run OS X anyway even if Apple allowed it?

[gggg sssss]

"There is simply no credible reason " to convert anything to a mac. What kind of KoolAid is in those bottles anyway?

[gerrrg]

So why not run dual-boot off a Windows-first platform? The hardware is a lot cheaper that way, especially if you're running a workstation system with dual quad-xeons.

[cyclelogicpress.com]

If by cheaper you mean more expensive, then you're right.

[maxgladius]

Switch from Dell to Apple. Have you ever opened Apple? Components are almost the same inside as Dell, however you pay 40% more. Yes, you can run Unix Apps, nice. You can run Windows. Nice. But are you buying windows license? Most people that run Wndows on their Mac (my observation) just borrow it. They never pay for it. Is that fair? Microsoft needs to look in to this. Apple as a monopoly going, using Windows Capable as their advertising line, and by the way don't tell people in the store that Windows must be purchased.

[DavoRider]

So Apple is a closed, monopolistic anti-trust violating company that over charges for commodity hardware? Considering that you can run Windows, Linux or OS X on Mac hardware, I don't think it's fair to say that the hardware is closed. The OS is a Unix variant, with an exceptional UI. It comes pre-installed with some excellent open-source tools, as well as decent development tools for writing applications for Macs as well as the web. It also comes with native tools for accessing Windows servers. Hardly a closed system, IMO.

Monopolistic? Sure, Apple has a monopoly on their products in the same way that Lamborghini has a monopoly on the Gallardo, but that's not really a monopoly, is it? There are viable substitutes to Apple, just as there are viable substitutes to the Gallardo. And if there is no monopoly, there is no anti-trust issue.

Anyway, more corporations should be looking at installing Macs. The tech support teams will be grateful, and the users will no doubt enjoy the flexibility and reliability that the Mac offers.

[Thomas, David]

There are an awful lot of you with fingers in your ears, eyes squinting tightly shut, and droning on with "la-la-la-la-la".

Get over it. Apple products are great, and attention to detail is starting to pay huge dividends for them.

[jrm125]

But it lacks a focus from a business sense. If you do a cost/benefit analysis, they aren't saving money. In this case, it's to show off the possibility (which I totally agree there is).

But as it stands, there's no positive business purpose for this where money is the main concern.

[GoldenRedux]

Uh, I run Windows XP Pro on my Mac Pro and I paid for Windows, thank you. I'm quite sure that most people KNOW that you have pay for copy of Windows to install it on a Macintosh, unless of course you think everybody is come stupid idiot who can't see beyond their Dell Inspiron.

[sassafrastic]

I was psyched to see he's using Zimbra. We use it with http://www.01.com , for an office of 40 computers, is the groupware that binds both our mac and windows users together for far less than Exchange. I don't see why companies just don't leave the choice of platform up to the employees at this point. Want a Mac? Want Ubuntu? Want Vista? Sure, here's your budget, go. The IT department doesn't have to worry about support much any more, almost all applications are available online or sync, like Zimbra, and files had better be stored where they belong on the server if you expect them backed up. This whole Mac/Windows debate is freaking anachronistic, like Coke vs. Pepsi, as pointless as trying to argue whether It Takes a Nation of Millions is better than Fear of a Black Planet.

[themotie]

Re: jabberwolf et al

I've never understood this "the Mac is so closed" argument. You mean Microsoft allows you to muck around in the Windows source code? Or that there are only Apple software for the Mac? That you can't connect to the internet with a Mac? That you have to buy HD's or RAM only from Apple? That you can transfer music only to iPods? How exactly would that closed-ness affect ME as a user, make my experience of using a Mac inferior to the experience of using Windows? Methinks the closed-ness is someplace entirely else ...