« On the Lighter Side.. | Main | Speed »

created 19 April 2000
As a network administrator I am often asked, "What's the best computer?" Unfortunately, my answer tends to be a long series of questions starting with, "What do you want to do?" This question is a side effect of the computer industry, and for the network admin, the start of what is often a long series of headaches. People, (often having titles like "CEO"), want the BEST computer. What I have found however, is that there isn't one. Unlike a single task tool, such as a shovel, computers are designed to do, well, almost anything you can think of. With that kind of scope, it is impossible to pick one CPU, one operating system, one application and say "This is the BEST". But still the question persists.

What is really being asked here is, "What should we standardize on?" If you are running a network that makes use of almost any number of Macs, the follow up to this is "I think we should get rid of all the Macs because..." There is then a list of various reasons, some well thought out, some encouraged by certain other press outlets. In any case, the person has decided that somehow, having Macs on the network is a "bad thing". They have also decided that the only way to avoid the "bad thing" is to completely move to an 'industry standard computing platform'. Meaning Windows in 99.999% of these cases.

The problem for an admin, who has a network full of Macs that is running smoothly, and users who are getting their job done, is how to point out that standardization has much more to do with the work you are doing and less to do with the hardware you are doing it on.

One of the first things to do is find out why there is a push for standardization. Often times, you may find out about problems that users are having, but hadn't reported. In any event, sit down with the people behind the standardization push, talk to them. You can't counter arguments until you know what they are.

In many cases, the reason can be data exchange. Considering the misconceptions about what Macs can or cannot do that are endemic in my profession, do not be surprised if the same misconceptions are held by folks who aren't technically oriented. Make sure to point out that it is far easier to standardize on a document format for a given type of information transfer, than to completely rebuild a network. One of the best I have found is Adobe's PDF. Because it is content neutral, it can be an excellent final format for any kind of data, from word processing files to presentations. Other standards that are easier to implement are things like Word 8, or even HTML for word processing documents, Excel for spreadsheets, etc. These are not only areas that the Mac can meet or beat Windows in with ease, but it also concentrates the standards process on the output of work, not the process of work. In the scientific arena, the Mac versions of products such as Mathematica, and IDL are just as capable as their Windows counterparts, and with the speed boost these products get from the Altivec units in the G4, quite often a good deal more capable. (At the 1999 Apple WWDC, the Research Systems rep demoing IDL on a G4 said it was the fastest single-cpu version of that product in the company.)

If the reasons given are based on security, point out that there are viable, current, standards-based security solutions for the Mac, in such areas as VPNs, and SecureID systems. Be able to show that the Mac plays with internet standards such as IPSec as well as any other platform. Also, point out that in areas such as safety against cracking attempts, the MacOS is consdered to be one of the most secure platforms available. Point out specific real - world examples, such as the U.S. Army's MacOS - based web server being the only one that hasn't been successfully hacked in their recent round of troubles.

If one of the points to go to an all Windows network is because Macs are the cause of too much network overhead due to AppleTalk, show them that AppleTalk is no longer the necessity it once was. Macs are very capable of functioning in a 99% pure TCP/IP environment, without losing capabilities. You can bypass AppleTalk for printing, and use TCP/IP printing via LPR in all OS versions since 8.1 . In MacOS 9.0, the Network Browser not only does AppleTalk, but can function as an FTP client, and an LDAP client. Products such as MacNFS and DAVE, from Thursby Systems allow the Mac to connect to almost any other computer system in a TCP/IP environment. WIth MacOS 9, even personal filesharing is TCP/IP - based, and has less overhead than AppleTalk did. Again, the Mac has a definite architectural advantage here, as getting a Windows PC to deal with not only its native SMB networking, but things like NFS or other protocols is a more complex process than for a Mac. From the manageability standpoint, with the addition of SNMP in OS 8.5, and products such as Netopia's netOctopus, you can easily show that Macs are capable of being run in a coherent, centralized manner.

If there is still a push for 'standardizing' on Windows, don't be afraid to point out the costs of 'standardization'. Point out that forcing users to switch platforms is going to cost a lot of money. Not just for the initial hardware purchases, but for things like servers, network equipment, IS staff training and support, application replacement, user training and support. I have found that a lot of the folks who push for a 'Mac dump' are imagining replacing them with $400 computers, and when the real numbers are shown to them, are often quite willing to rethink the idea. Having to hire two or three more full-time IS people just to support an all-windows network is another cost that will never go away, and again, probably wasn't considered in the initial decision. Bring along a catalog showing the training costs involved in bringing your staff up to speed so that they can properly run an all-windows network.

Standardization, when used correctly, can be a time and money saver. As a Mac administrator, you have the obligation to be up to speed on the areas where the Mac is able to comply with industry standards, and where it is not. This is no different than any other platform. Make sure that someone from the IS group is a part of any standards body at your company, so that technical issues with changing or updating standards are adequately explained. Sometimes it can be a real bear to have to play the advocacy game, but if you consider the alternative, it's a small burden indeed.

Comments