|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
67.162.146.106
| '); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: Apple & Mac OS X Poised to take Marketshare ? posted by AbeCollins on June 12, 2009 at 09:20:50
I suspect far more shops are considering the switch to Linux desktops than to Macs. Particularly in large organizations where you're talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of machines, the cost savings in hardware and software vs. a Microsoft shop is very real. TCO and administrative costs may still favor Microsoft, but the gap is narrowing quickly as more mid and low level IT techs are becoming Linux literate.
The other big trend that will eat Microsoft up is that more and more business software is becoming web/HTTP based, so all you need is a capable browser and handful of common business apps like word processors and spreadsheets for 95% of the typical company's employees. Those with particular software needs can use Mac, Windows, Sun, or whatever workstations.
I don't doubt that the Mac will continue to gain some small amount of market share, but it won't be IT driven.
I mentioned earlier that the OS and apps on top of the OS will become less important in a web based world where "software as a service" will continue to grow.
However, I'm not so sure that Linux on the desktop will take off. I've played with various flavors of Linux over the years including the most current Ubuntu. It's still comparatively very rough and clunky vs Windows or Mac OS X.
The big trend that IS happening right now are lower cost lower power thin-clients on the desktop with centralized administration at the server.
![]()
"The big trend that IS happening right now are lower cost lower power thin-clients on the desktop with centralized administration at the server."
I guess fashions change, that's why they are fashions. But having once escaped the clutches of the malefactors of the mainframes, I've no desire to go back.
Rad Rick
...and there's been a huge demand for thin clients mostly in larger organizations in order to reduce administration costs and the per seat cost of hardware as well as significant reductions in energy costs.
A stateless thin client might draw 8 - 12 watts while a desktop computer might take 50 to 150 watts. Multiply that by thousands of employees and the energy savings alone are significant. Customer support call centers are great candidates for thin clients as are many other organizations.
You still get your full blown desktop that's under your control but the OS image resides on the server. In fact, you can architect a solution to get just about any desktop you want including Windows, Linux, Mac OS, and even legacy terminal emulation - if you must.
Every major vendor sells thin client solutions including IBM, HP, Dell, Sun, Lenovo, and many smaller players.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I seem to recall that the VT100 had some graphics capability that the VT52 didn't.
So where does the code actually execute? Where do Aps live? Hmmm, I just consulted that world-renown font of accuracy: Wikipedia, and it sure sounds like a regression to a pure client-server model to me.
I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. For home use, which is currently the office too, I would like it. It's really a bother to set up a new computer. But on the other foot, the reliability of having individual systems that can operate independently is unbeatable. I can't imagine having real mission critical software that won't work if the internet is down. The internet is good for communications and entertainment, but all it takes is a few snipped fibers in San Jose and you're SOL.
In an office environment, well, it depends. Probably mostly upon the quality and attitude of the IT folks. RISK ALARM! RISK ALARM! But I've known a few good 'uns...
Rick
Post a Followup: