• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

IT Depatments prop Windows up

S

Soong2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
373
Is this a conspiracy? If IT Managers switched to using Apple Macs they could cut their own budgets in half, but they might lose there own jobs.

The idea being, that Macs dont need so much nursing and coaxing as the equivalent PCs. One person could service a couple of dozen machines, no blue screen of death, no virus attacks, etc etc.

Mind you, they would all have a bugger of a job reading the FTMB. :(
 
Being part of the IT-business I can understand that conspiracy theory.

I think it got more to do with the fact that in the PC industry you don't need to depend on one supplier. If you don't like Dell's products you can easily change to Compaq and it is easy to find internal components on the market from independent companies.
 
hmmmmmmmmm all good points


but why not use linux ?

it runs on many processors
does not get affected by worms etc
has a free open office package as good as microsofts
its free well Nearly

and its faster
 
It's more laziness, poor education and good marketing in my view.

Most people use Windows so there's no point in taking the time and expense of developing software that will run on minority systems, so companies and personal users migrate to Windows and Intel processors (even Apple fell for that one) and feel happy and safe that every every couple of weeks that nice Mr Gates demands more money for security updates.

Cynical Mac user? Moi?

Jane.
 
Basically, in a lot of companies the IT guys and gals do not choose the operating systems. They only service them.

It's the managers and executives who make the decisions and they couldn't find their a*ses with both hands when it comes to IT. So, they're particularily easy prey for they remorseless b*llsh*t sales banter and advertising of a Corporation like M*cros**t.

If the IT people got to choose, they'd go for something like Linux, or BSD for a network, something like Sun/Sparc, for workstations and Macs for standalone graphics machines. Less work for them and much more geek-friendly.

Nobody, but a fool, makes more work for themselves than is absolutely necessary. Unless it's for fun and Windows is not fun when it crashes. ;)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
... easy prey for they remorseless b*llsh*t sales banter and advertising of a Corporation like M*cros**t.

... and Macs for standalone graphics machines....
Click to expand...

Your quite right, I know a guy that works for IBM and he is just what you describe.

Surely Macs deserve to shed the graphic workstation image? They are superb for video and music too and using MS Office on a non Windows machine is lovely - you can even run it without installing any bloatware. Despite what has been written on another thread, they also network with other OSs nicely too.
 
Pietro's got it right. I'm at a local authority and our procurement people are absolutely clueless. I don't know where to begin in displaying their stupidity, but needless to say, when the 'Best Value' approach gets you bog standard Compaq P4 desktop unit for £1,500 a crack, then you realise that something is not running according to plan.

A lot of it lies with companies being able to BS people who don't know a -thing- about IT issues e.g. Microsoft release a lot of security updates on a regular basis therefore that must mean that their software is REALLY secure.

We inexplicably switched over from using Outlook to Lotus Notes a while back as well on the recommendation of a new IT director (the same man who could not find a single member of staff in the IT department to solve a really basic basic problem and so I had to do it), and tbh, the amount of taxpayers money they must have spent in sorting the mess it has made of our e-mail system must be ludicrous.

This is making me angry now. I will stop.
 
The emergence of Micro$oft is interesting. They've got an effective stranglehold on the home market (easier to install/run and use than linux,cheaper than a MAC, loads of software and so on), and as yet nobody has come close with a challenge (linux is still stuck in geekdom, MAC is restricted to Apple hardware - even the new Intel variants if the media is to believed). The cost of a competitor is prohibitive, even IBM couldn't do it (OS/2 anyone?).

At a corpate level it boils down to the lowest common denominator, most people have PCs, PCs run M$ windows therefore our staff can use M$ windows. In the end its a perceived initial saving (even though it may not be a saving in the long term). The total cost of ownership of M$ is relatively high for IT departments if secondary costings are added (virus checkers, spam filters, problems caused by poor software etc. etc.). Lose a day to virus infection and see how much it costs.

The security issues which plague M$ stuff also hammer linux, as part of my job I did a check on CERT advisories and was stunned at how poor linux was. Better than M$ by some way, but still not good.

Not sure what the answer is, more choice would be good though :D

But who wants an OS where it only has a fraction of the available software? Then we're down to pure market forces and usage. Hmmmm
 
People can be startlingly conformist when it comes to technology. We're always urging people (the ones on Windozes, anyway, which is about 85% of our users) to use Firefox or Netscape. You'd be startled at how often people say "Can I *do* that? Aren't you *supposed* to use Internet Explorer?! Can I reach this web page with that?"

*adds another item to the submission I'm working on for Rinkworks*
 
People can be startlingly conformist when it comes to technology. We're always urging people (the ones on Windozes, anyway, which is about 85% of our users) to use Firefox or Netscape. You'd be startled at how often people say "Can I *do* that? Aren't you *supposed* to use Internet Explorer?! Can I reach this web page with that?"
Click to expand...

A lot of software producers (and hackers etc.) prefer conformity. It makes it easier to enforce certain software policies. For example: Sony's DRM fiasco where they install a rootkit without telling you is only effective if the majority of folks run the same OS. Blizzard also hit similar problems when they installed spyware to detect game cheats. I'm sure it contravenes (or should contravene) privacy laws.

Likewise with Internet Explorer and media player, its easier for companies to target these rather than having to look at every single media player or browser. Its why some sites will only work properly with IE, plain laziness on the part of the developers.

I'll be a whole lot happier when Windows update works with any browser, and M$ have divorce the user interface from the underlying OS (the underlying OS from a programming point of view aint bad).
 
lupinwick said:
But who wants an OS where it only has a fraction of the available software? Then we're down to pure market forces and usage. Hmmmm
Click to expand...

This is what it boils down to - there is way more software available for Windows than for any other platform. Companies want that choice.

I've been using Windows since version 1, and I have to say that Windows XP is pretty damn good by comparison with older versions. A properly set up and maintained Windows XP box rarely crashes, in my experience. It isn't less secure than Mac or Linux - it's just that virus writers tend to have concentrated on writing viruses for Windows, meaning that the numbers of attacks on Windows boxes is higher. And, with so many naive users using unpatched, unprotected Windows PCs (many of them with really old versions of the OS), this can account for the bulk of infected PCs the world over.
Linux users are more tech-savvy and can set up and maintain their machines effectively, so they reduce the risks associated with being connected to the Internet.
We shouldn't blame Microsoft for all the ills, the users have to bear some of the responsibility too.
 
Mythopoeika said:
And, with so many naive users using unpatched, unprotected Windows PCs (many of them with really old versions of the OS), this can account for the bulk of infected PCs the world over.
Linux users are more tech-savvy and can set up and maintain their machines effectively, so they reduce the risks associated with being connected to the Internet.
We shouldn't blame Microsoft for all the ills, the users have to bear some of the responsibility too.
Click to expand...

Oh Christ, don't get me started on users who won't do basic updates and maintenance...
 
When you make a purchase decision for a business which may run into millions of pounds you will be in serious trouble if anything goes wrong. The answer for the risk averse is to go for the biggest brand rather than the cheapest. There is an old saying "No one was ever sacked for buying Microsoft".
 
Mythopoeika wrote:
And, with so many naive users using unpatched, unprotected Windows PCs (many of them with really old versions of the OS), this can account for the bulk of infected PCs the world over.
Linux users are more tech-savvy and can set up and maintain their machines effectively, so they reduce the risks associated with being connected to the Internet.
We shouldn't blame Microsoft for all the ills, the users have to bear some of the responsibility too.


Oh Christ, don't get me started on users who won't do basic updates and maintenance...
Click to expand...

This does depend on the source of the attack. You're more inclined to install something from a company you trust, however Sony are in deep faeces over their rootkit http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/14/sony_anticustomer_te.html

Quite rightly too :D


Personally while I would love to see the end of spyware, malware, viruses, trojan horses and all the other delights which drive computer users insane, without these we wouldn't be as aware of what could be done to our PC. Think what could have happened if only the government knew these tricks? :?
 
lupinwick said:
Personally while I would love to see the end of spyware, malware, viruses, trojan horses and all the other delights which drive computer users insane, without these we wouldn't be as aware of what could be done to our PC. Think what could have happened if only the government knew these tricks? :?
Click to expand...

IMHO it's naive to think that governments don't know of "these tricks" - of course they do, how do you think they protect their information?
Despite the "big brother" paranoia that is rife these days, I'm sure that no government has any interest in the mundane content of your PC - relax 8)
 
ArthurASCII said:
Despite the "big brother" paranoia that is rife these days, I'm sure that no government has any interest in the mundane content of your PC - relax 8)
Click to expand...
How do they know it's 'mundane' if they haven't already checked?! 8)
 
Hmmm. Not too worried about the contents of my PC. More worried about the fact that big companies seem to be able to do what they want to a PC without your permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top