"If they produce kit that is compatible with Windows shares then more managers will endorse a switch from Windows boxes to Apple kit."
Given the price premium, I doubt it.
I was looking through the documentation for Mavericks - the next major Mac OS X release - to find out more about the tags and other extra metadata we'll soon be able to add to our files. The feature was mentioned during the keynote at last week's Apple Worldwide Developer Conference in California. It made me wonder whether …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"...Given the lower TCO of running Apple kit, and the superior quality of that kit then the investment would quickly pay for itself...."
You've never actually used Apple kit have you? The MBP is a case in point, generally well engineered, physically, but if you're unlucky enough to get one with a firmware problem or build problem, Apple seem to forget all about that customer service they're famous for. MacOS has viruses, even Apple advise you to run a scanner these days.
Anyway, this isn't an enterprise play, Apple seem to be doing all they can to keep out of big business in everything except mobile devices. They don't make credible server hardware and they don't do come-to-site servicing and they are dropping nice professional features from lots of their software.
Now, I really like my MBP, but it's a high end consumer device, not an enterprise laptop.
Actually, Apple is regarded as one of the best companies for taking care of problems. If you had a firmware problem on your MBP during the warrantee, it should have been fixed quickly. If it wasn't your case is an exception to the rule.
Your claim that the Mac OS has viruses is simply false. No viruses are known to affect Mac OS X. None.
There are about two dozen piece of malware that affect the Mac OS X. For half of those the actual risk of any sort of damage is considered "very low." The reason is that most of those are found on illegal file-sharing sites offering pirated software. You can reduce this "very low" risk to zero by not downloading torrents or allowing unknown apps access to your computer by thoughtlessly supplying your user name and password just because a popup unexpectedly requested them.
The one possible exception to this was NOT a virus. It was the "Flashback" TROJAN that affected Macs NOT through the OS, but through a clever Java exploit. That makes the responsibility Oracle's, not Apple's. Users who did not enable Java were not affected, and Apple slammed the door on that threat with a Software Update anyway, so unless you have been living under a proverbial rock it is not a threat.
The remainder are not considered a threat at all.
Compare that to the hundreds of thousands of pieces of malware for Windows, including viruses. I'll take my chances with the Mac.
@Don - I can't be bothered to go into my dealings with Apple support over the last few years in detail, save to say that 1xG5 mac, 1xMBP that I personally own and I a couple of other MBPs, which have had the response "That's not covered by Applecare" for straight up hardware failures, firmware problems and general degredation of hardware (fans making much more noise than the speakers...) One of the problems was a MBP resetting a few times a day with a cinema display plugged in, listed as a firmware error on their site, with no fix, they said I needed a new logic board which was, guess what? Not covered by applecare.
I've never found Apple "Geniuses" to be anything of the kind, more like generic sales staff, but dressed by GAP. This is to the extent that much as I like my MBP, I will probably never buy a Mac again, which is a shame.
"Not covered by Applecare".
Translating from "Apple Speak" this means your machine was out of warranty.
Good luck with getting Dell, Acer, etc, to fix your machine for free if the warranty has expired.
Suggest you take your machine to a local independent Apple repair centre just like you would for a broken Windows laptop
While it may technically sneak in as a virus, Leap/A is/was not much of a danger - it involved several manual interventions on the user's part to get in, after all - quoting from the article you linked:
>> it requires user interaction (the user has to receive a file via iChat, and manually
>> choose to open and run the file contained inside).
Oddly, last week I was asked to fix a friend's mac, which had started behaving oddly. The problem? His wife had installed Avast!
The article is clear it's a work, the headline calls it though a virus. And yes it a no threat malware. So his post is till fully correct.
There are no known viruses for OSX, out of a few known malwares only a few actually has a low threat status, or no threat at all. As the one you just linked to, it was a proof of concept that only worked in a specific setup. Never found in the wild.
> Actually, Apple is regarded as one of the best companies for taking care of problems.
...by a captive audience perhaps.
The thing about PC users is that they can always dump their current brand for another one. There's no need to see the world through rose colored glasses because you don't have any other choice.
Problems shouldn't happen to begin with. If your Mac is languishing in the shop for two weeks then Apple has already failed you.
.....regard to your posting habits.
" I've been subjecting his posts....... ....to some advanced textual analysis and my conclusion is that he is an uber-iPhanboi disguising himself as a Linux advocate. This would explain why all his posts attack Redmond whether the issue is on topic or not and at the same time his intemperate and idiotic postings are intended to discredit Linux - cunning what? Well, Baldrick might well think so."
After reading this post of yours I realise that I in fact really did hit the nail on the head without realising it.
Eadon, why don't you take a few days off occasionally? Or at least post as AC in a somewhat different style?
You make a perfectly valid point here (one which I was going to make too) about the ignoramuses here and in business, the ones who don't understand the difference between cost and value. There are lots of them about, and anyone who denies it is just being silly.
But because YOU make the point and it's got YOUR name against it, any effect the point should have had is lost.
Just a thought.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
"I can see loads of managers going for "compatible" kit that costs 1.5 to 2x as much for the same underlying hardware...not."
Actually I can... Usually just for themselves though, not the regular staff.
I once saw a manager who was allowed to choose their own computer, go for a very expensive, all-in-one touchscreen HP computer, with integrated freeview tuner... to use Internet Explorer & Microsoft Office... Everyone else got bog standard dell boxes, which actually worked much better.
Right, because Windows laptops get upgraded all the time... good luck trying to 'upgrade' your integrated graphics chip, or the soldered on wifi, or maybe the bluetooth chippery could do with a boost.[/QUOTE]
I assume you have never looked inside a laptop then? WiFi is always on an swappable board. Usually accessible via simple screw access panels on the back. Bluetooth similar (as this is often part of the WiFi card anyway). If not - whack a USB dongle in the side.
The more expensive laptops have experimented with swappable graphics boards. I've often swapped these for clients, but that tends to require a few more screws to be handled on the back.
Similar with CPUs - the higher up the range the more swappable a CPU is.
You have to ignore the cheapest, bottom range laptop as these cut price corners and start using integrated soldered in graphics and CPUs. It is still rare to find a soldered CPU and as you are talking about Apples here then we should ignore the bottom of the range Windows Laptops so we have a fair comparison of like for like.
Last time I was going to change an internal part in an Apple laptop I needed a heat gun and some very strange dismantling instructions.
Right, because Windows laptops get upgraded all the time...good luck trying to 'upgrade' your integrated graphics chip, or the soldered on wifi, or maybe the bluetooth chippery could do with a boost.
Well, the integrated graphics on a laptop is obviously a no-go, but in the dozens of PC laptops I've worked on in the past few years, I've always been able to upgrade/replace the battery, the wifi (never seen it soldered on -- always been PCIe -- with the bluetooth on the same card, usually), the hard drive, the optical drive, the RAM -- heck, even the CPU is usually socketed rather than soldered.
Apple didn't like the license of Samba and then decided to write their own version in certain versions of OS X ... which ended up a pile of tripe and breaking so much when using fileshares to Windows Servers over long periods of time. (Speaking from experience here! Timeouts, File not founds, etc ...)
It doesn't surprise me they have gone to Microsoft for the official SMB2 protocol. After all, Apple hate admitting they're wrong and would rather throw money at the problem to get it solved than admit they went wrong in the first place by throwing out the more logical Samba 4 route.
To clarify: Yes, I own a Mac.
No but its an out of date version. They should implement SMB 3.0.
Nothing to do with samba 4 at all.
If they had gone for ZFS and NFS 4 when they had the chance they would be still working just fine.
(Funnily enough the Microsoft NFS 4.0 client / server is pretty much as good as either the Solaris / Freebsd versions. Whereas the opposite is not true regardless of MS releasing specs and doing everything they can to help opensource developers.)
The problem with NFSv4 is the requirement of Kerberos for security and the continual need to share user and group mappings.
SMB at least works in both standalone and domain environments, and the infrastructure for the latter is much easier to set up than it is to get a fully interoperable NFSv4 environment.
One of the reasons for this is that Samba changed it's licensing, which forced Apple to write it's own implementation. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20046383-263.html and http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/03/24/1546205/apple-remove-samba-from-os-x-107-because-of-gplv3
I would bet that Apple is licensing code from Redmond to make this process faster*, pretty much guaranteeing that SMB2 will be the default file sharing protocol.... Note that Apple's current SMB implementation, while claiming SMB2 compatibility, actually only talks SMB1.
* we all know how much work it took to reverse engineer SMB for Samba to work right & the resulting patent/IP fight....
Please tell me how! All of my Windows machines can see all my of Windows network shares. Including the file server where everything is stored (this one is important!).
The Apple machine... Occasionally sees the media machine or the file server, but nothing else and only infrequently at that :(
Whatever about finding them, MacOS X performance on SMB shares is appalling, and has been for a while. About 3x slower than AFP. I remember this performance used to be better, so it's interesting to learn why it has happened.
As for the author preferring NFS, it really doesn't work for a fileshare, on MacOS at least: when you write a file to the remote store, your numeric UID is what gets applied to the remote filesystem's inode, which makes the file unreadable by anyone else unless their UID magically happens to be the same as yours. At the time there was no way to fix this (it's a client issue), so it was straight to AFP (for performance reasons outlined above).
I second this!! my nice rack Qnap array is seen by everything in network neighbourhood, on all the windows boxes, but getting it to showup in the OSX server is a sod... and if it does show, odds are its not browseable... command K works mostly but it would be nice if it behaved as easily (and consistently) as on the windows machines...
but then... this is a windows AD/Mac OD combined network, unlike Eadons pure Soul -> Mac existence...
I had a QNap box that stopped speaking to my Macs after Mountain Lion was released. Apple apparently messed about with AFP and Qnap has been slow in catching up with the changes. I then had problems getting consistent smb mappings with QNAP.
Moved to Synology for my NAS and have had no problems with SMB mappings at all using the Macs.
Up until I bought the Synology box, I always found it a nightmare to do any home network sharing.
I ended up buying Apple because I got tired of having to rebuild my wintel machines every six months or so. It was taking up some valuable life credit units. Although all is not sunny with OS X, I'm still a fan (not a fanboi, though.)
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Window 8 desktop connecting over nfs4 or smb 3.0 gives better performance than Linux in every situation.
(Solaris or Freebsd connecting to nfs4 on Windows is fine. Linux nfs4 sucks except to Linux nfs4).
Active Directory has all the common UNIX stuff like NIS but samba active directory sucks.
Linux is like XP used be extending everything and breaking standards compliant stuff in the process.
Ok, so you can saturate a gige link, great, but what about 10gige? The main area where the speed of nfs4 is required is using it to serve large ever changing files, such as virtual hard disks. It's also about latency; you may be able to saturate a gige link, but I'm assuming that's saturation in one direction rather than two, I'm also assuming it's saturation sending a large file(s) to a host rather than copying others up at the same time. I bet it will be sequential access, to a file, rather than random and also that it will be large sequential chunks.
Microsoft has been pushing their own propritary and parented exFAT filesystem as the 'new FAT32' for portable media. I imagine they will be very much unwilling to support anything that competes with that.
It's the same basic business sense that leads them to not-support any codecs other than Windows Media and now h264 out the box: If you're betting millions of dollars on technology X becoming dominant, it'd be a very silly manager who lends their support to X's rivals.
"Microsoft has been pushing their own propritary and parented exFAT filesystem"
Just like the existing FAT filesystem, you mean?
"It's the same basic business sense that leads them to not-support any codecs other than Windows Media and now h264 out the box"
Erm no - that would be the licensing fees required for them...
Out of curiosity I noticed that the spend on new hardware for the marketing department was higher than the IT department, turns out in marketing they all need their monitors to be bigger then everyone else’s, white and have pictures of fruit on the back, because, you know, they update twitter better…
This post has been deleted by its author
Oh, I’m sorry, what colour are they? “off-white-shiny?” “lightning-white?” “Gloss-light-silver-cream?” whatever, they are not matt black.
Is that a typical response from an apple lover, so obsessed with their ‘shiny’ they get pissed off when people get the colour wrong they resort to swearing, while ignoring the point?
They are unnecessary overpriced bits of kit for the job, adding an extra support function as the guys in desktop now need to double up and make sure everything also works on Macs.
Also I’m pretty sure that should read – “at least get your facts fucking straight”, unless of course you were referring to my facts about fucking?
If you are going to use unnecessarily course language in your butt-hurt fan-boi response at least use it correctly…
This post has been deleted by its author
Erm, it's made of aluminium, so aluminium? Overpriced? Apple's 27" ThunderBolt display isn't even the most expensive in it's class. NEC, HP, and LG all have SKU's that are more expensive. Or are you commenting on Macs in general? Unnecessary? Depends on what you do with it. If you are going to troll, have the decency to be correct *while* you troll.
"Out of curiosity I noticed that the spend on new hardware for the marketing department was higher than the IT department, turns out in marketing they all need their monitors to be bigger then everyone else’s, white and have pictures of fruit on the back, because, you know, they update twitter better…"
Mmmmm... yes... Because we all know that Adobe will give away new copies for free of their $2000 software suites (...more if you do both document AND video work...) if a customer switches computing platforms. I hope that you're in accounting or something, because any of the IT people at MY workplace would factor in the cost of replacing software AS WELL as hardware when talking about switching platforms.
Besides -- why does IT need faster computers...? As long as you've got an OS and a basic word processor you can write code. Job done. (NB: I'm being sarcastic here. The difference between us is that, unlike yours, MY sarcasm actually has some small basis in fact.)
Your (apparent) argument that marketing people don't do "real" work, needing real computers that run real software that costs real money to replace is, at best, ignorance or, at worst, intentional trolling.
This post has been deleted by its author
1st, Thank you for backing up the point I was making, to be honest I had not factored in the software, It was a blasé comment on something I had noticed, yet I had not invested much thought into it.
I saw two types of new hardware coming into the floor of the office I work in over a couple of days, a load of same make Matt black laptops to replace our old ones, as we have that makes dock stations (you know, that way we save money) and a case load of shiny new Macs to the marketing team, personally I don’t work in purchasing or have anything to do with the installation, let alone budget so I was only aware ‘we’ were getting new laptops.
2nd point, IT doesn’t need faster computers, IT needs newer computers, don’t tell me your office is full of pristine BBC Micros?
3rd Point, I didn’t say marketing doesn’t do ‘real’ work, the attempt at humour, which it seems most people understood, is they don’t need huge shiny new Mac’s to do their work, if they do, I have to wonder what they have been doing the last few years when they were using the same basic build as everyone else, or did I miss something and Adobe no longer works on Windows?
4th point, who said I was being sarcastic?
The change to SMB/CIFS was already well documented elsewhere.
I also fail to see how the change in the preferred network filesystem stack implies that AFS is less secure than SMB2. I think your headline is deliberately provocative and the article does not back up your claim.
"SMB2 is the new default protocol for sharing files in OS X Mavericks. SMB2 is superfast, increases security, and improves Windows compatibility."
Finally! Incredibly it's still a ball ache to connect Mac OS X up to various Windows and Linux VMs, this will be a very good step in the correct direction. This has only taken them about 12 years since the OS release...
Great news, our 250+ Macs are bound to AD and work 'perfectly' in that respect, but we have had to retain Mac OS X Server-hosted AFP-shared Home Directories due to poor application compatibly when using SMB Windows 2003/2008R2/2012-hosted Homes (Even iPhoto doesn't work).
While Windows Server 2012 works well enough to seriously consider a move to unified Home Directories regardless of client platform, there are a few niggles which I hope Maverick will address.
Mac OS hasn't used resource forks for what 10 years...apart from on SMB shares, so hopefully that can be addressed somehow. It is also interesting that things like the file versioning feature - Versions are not currently supported on Windows Shares (probably due to volume format) so if they address all this I will be pleased.
Stops it for .DS_Store files on network drives but you still get .AppleDouble directories. Removable storage still gets .DS_Store and ._* splattered everywhere.
Only if you have a limited Microsoft filesystem on your removable media. Put a MacOS filesystem on your media and it will behave as Steve Jobs intended.
You mean Apple turns to Free Software, not Microsoft, when they want speed and security. I'm nearly certain that it's the Free Software SMB2 implementation called Samba, not Microsoft's proprietary implementation, that they'll be using.
Apple has a long history of using Free Software components for all the bits that were too tricky or expensive to reimplement yet another time in proprietary fashion.
Actually, it's highly likely Apple is using MSFTs code under license given that they released their own implementation a few years ago.
Otherwise, building your own SMB implementation from scratch would be a nightmare (as the SAMBA team found out early on...).
Which would also explain why they are favoring SMB over NFS or AFP. After all, they already have a license and a dev team dedicated to it.
Now if shares would just auto-remount after my Mac goes to sleep, it would be perfect.... (yes, I know all the ways this is supposed to work, but they just don't...)
To think that if the Samba People hadn't go through the hellish experience of reverse-engineering the SMB protocol to the great danger of sanity and of forcefully meeting lawyers, it would still be a proprietary crawling networking horror of squamous yet ruguous nethermost blasphemous sophomoric programming. That you have to pay for.
This is good news for me, since in every working environment of mine in the last 12 years I have had to force the IT department to connect my Macs to the servers via Samba, which has a tendency to kill the default search capabilities of OSX on your own Mac, but is in other respects essential to get any goddamned work done.
I run XP on a VM running on Slow Leopard (10.6). The Mac's drives are accessed by XP using network shares. All worked fine until I upgraded to Lion on the first day it was available. Then I had nothing but trouble, with intermittent access and long delays. I found out that I was testing Apple's new networking code, and paying the price of being a beta tester. After struggling to improve matters for days, I rolled back to Snow Leopard and cursed Apple. I've avoided upgrading the OS ever since.
Maybe Apple simply gave up trying to fix their own code. Not all in-house projects work out well. Just ask the maps team.
Now, I think XP doesn't work with SMB2, so support for SMB1 is still needed. How will Mavericks handle that? Will that use Apple's own code, as with Lion? Since I use two screens, the better handling of those in Mavericks is attractive, but I do need some assurance that SMB1 will work as well as it does on Snow Leopard.
Whilst the FAT patent is likely one of the MS Android patents, there are many others. Whilst we don't know what they are, it is known that a significant number have been cited by Microsoft, and that a large number of very big / rich companies have rolled over and paid up, so I would expect that the claims must be pretty solid...
I don't have any problem moving away from Apples ancient filing protocol, but I find it very distasteful to make Microsoft a hero in Apple's arena. Microsoft has blown it big time with their software. The constant stream of CERT notifications, all of which say the same thing, identify Windows, IE, and Office as vulnerable to a world of viruses. Always subject to account promotion, and remote execution, Microsoft's products are a netbot writers dream.
So is it good that Microsoft is becoming technically involved with Apple's OS product? Not in my eyes.
Apple, with a pile of money larger than anyone else in view, is the success story. Good hardware, good software.
Was this story real, or just troll bait?
Mac OS X are Unix, and all Unixes uses Samba to provide access to Windows resources in network .
Some mounths ago Samba team ( www.samba.org ) released a much needed Samba 4 suite, that provide full support do SMBv2 protocol ...
It is just that, Apple are using Samba 4 in the next OS X Release ...
The title of this article is conflagrative, in giving an explosive but false and deceptive impression about Apple's connect with Microsoft in regard OS X "speed and security", which was specifically and only for OS X integration into Microsoft 'exclusive' networks and business environments. Nothing else.
The instances of columns in the tech media from Microsoft dupes has become troublesome for the lack of clear, fact based ' dissemination of information and developments regarding modern technology. These Redmond worshipers need to get a grip on life and reality.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019