<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_2110212</id>
	<title>Why Apple Doesn't Market Squarely To Businesses</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265879400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise, Apple remains <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/mac/why-apple-wont-let-mac-and-iphone-succeed-in-business-907">lukewarm to any Mac and iPhone success in business environments</a>. 'Apple has intentionally created a glass ceiling it has no intention of shattering. My conversations with Apple employees over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of Macs in the enterprise. The company has had no intention of signaling any active plans to serve the enterprise,' InfoWorld's Galen Gruman writes. 'In a sense, Apple views enterprise sales as "collateral success" &mdash; a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus: individuals, developers, and very small businesses ... likely because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity Apple would have to deal with.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise , Apple remains lukewarm to any Mac and iPhone success in business environments .
'Apple has intentionally created a glass ceiling it has no intention of shattering .
My conversations with Apple employees over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of Macs in the enterprise .
The company has had no intention of signaling any active plans to serve the enterprise, ' InfoWorld 's Galen Gruman writes .
'In a sense , Apple views enterprise sales as " collateral success "    a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus : individuals , developers , and very small businesses ... likely because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity Apple would have to deal with .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise, Apple remains lukewarm to any Mac and iPhone success in business environments.
'Apple has intentionally created a glass ceiling it has no intention of shattering.
My conversations with Apple employees over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of Macs in the enterprise.
The company has had no intention of signaling any active plans to serve the enterprise,' InfoWorld's Galen Gruman writes.
'In a sense, Apple views enterprise sales as "collateral success" — a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus: individuals, developers, and very small businesses ... likely because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity Apple would have to deal with.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31143200</id>
	<title>Re:Esoteric in consumer vs enterprise? Riiiiight.</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1266243840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations say, "If a laptop breaks, we want someone to come in and fix it. And if you won't, we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts."  Apple a)won't let you order parts unless you're a reseller, b)won't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves.  Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $50M company because that was the best support option, and then arguing with some pimply-faced "Genius" who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead?</p><p>In big Apple-using companies I've worked at, we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones, because we couldn't get the goddamn parts from Apple, couldn't get service manuals, couldn't train CSRs.</p><p>Meanwhile, HP, Dell, IBM, Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop, I'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS.  They'll let almost anyone order parts, and happily train people in how to repair their products.  And if a laptop breaks, they'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan, so our CEO doesn't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS, the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it's anything remotely complicated (the Apple Store can do drive replacements, that's about it.)</p></div><p>This is the real issue. Support. We have a relatively large number of users (including the CEO) that like Mac's, mainly MacBooks (we have around a 100 Mac users). We can't get decent support from Apple. Period. At least not in the Netherlands, maybe somewhere else. The difference with Lenovo, Dell or HP is staggering. I also use a Nac myself, but I shudder at the idea it might break and I might be without it for days or weeks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations say , " If a laptop breaks , we want someone to come in and fix it .
And if you wo n't , we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts .
" Apple a ) wo n't let you order parts unless you 're a reseller , b ) wo n't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves .
Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $ 50M company because that was the best support option , and then arguing with some pimply-faced " Genius " who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead ? In big Apple-using companies I 've worked at , we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones , because we could n't get the goddamn parts from Apple , could n't get service manuals , could n't train CSRs.Meanwhile , HP , Dell , IBM , Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop , I 'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS .
They 'll let almost anyone order parts , and happily train people in how to repair their products .
And if a laptop breaks , they 'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan , so our CEO does n't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS , the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it 's anything remotely complicated ( the Apple Store can do drive replacements , that 's about it .
) This is the real issue .
Support. We have a relatively large number of users ( including the CEO ) that like Mac 's , mainly MacBooks ( we have around a 100 Mac users ) .
We ca n't get decent support from Apple .
Period. At least not in the Netherlands , maybe somewhere else .
The difference with Lenovo , Dell or HP is staggering .
I also use a Nac myself , but I shudder at the idea it might break and I might be without it for days or weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations say, "If a laptop breaks, we want someone to come in and fix it.
And if you won't, we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts.
"  Apple a)won't let you order parts unless you're a reseller, b)won't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves.
Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $50M company because that was the best support option, and then arguing with some pimply-faced "Genius" who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead?In big Apple-using companies I've worked at, we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones, because we couldn't get the goddamn parts from Apple, couldn't get service manuals, couldn't train CSRs.Meanwhile, HP, Dell, IBM, Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop, I'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS.
They'll let almost anyone order parts, and happily train people in how to repair their products.
And if a laptop breaks, they'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan, so our CEO doesn't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS, the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it's anything remotely complicated (the Apple Store can do drive replacements, that's about it.
)This is the real issue.
Support. We have a relatively large number of users (including the CEO) that like Mac's, mainly MacBooks (we have around a 100 Mac users).
We can't get decent support from Apple.
Period. At least not in the Netherlands, maybe somewhere else.
The difference with Lenovo, Dell or HP is staggering.
I also use a Nac myself, but I shudder at the idea it might break and I might be without it for days or weeks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107256</id>
	<title>Just Wait</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1265892120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once multitouch interfaces begin to replace the archaic desktop metaphor, Apple will be in a much better position to move into the enterprise market since they will be the major company pushing the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once multitouch interfaces begin to replace the archaic desktop metaphor , Apple will be in a much better position to move into the enterprise market since they will be the major company pushing the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once multitouch interfaces begin to replace the archaic desktop metaphor, Apple will be in a much better position to move into the enterprise market since they will be the major company pushing the technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107910</id>
	<title>Re:XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265895420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a few products for small businesses, and mostly web-centric ones at that. TFA was about the enterprise market, competing with Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a few products for small businesses , and mostly web-centric ones at that .
TFA was about the enterprise market , competing with Microsoft , Oracle , IBM , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a few products for small businesses, and mostly web-centric ones at that.
TFA was about the enterprise market, competing with Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108656</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1265901000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its harder to screw something up on a Mac than on Windows. In a small business (say, 5 computers) hiring a Windows admin may cost far more than buying some overpriced hardware and software and having your employees not break it. If you are hiring an admin, sure, go with Windows, but its easy to hire a one-time team to set up a system of Macs and it to work well, compared to hiring a full time Windows admin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its harder to screw something up on a Mac than on Windows .
In a small business ( say , 5 computers ) hiring a Windows admin may cost far more than buying some overpriced hardware and software and having your employees not break it .
If you are hiring an admin , sure , go with Windows , but its easy to hire a one-time team to set up a system of Macs and it to work well , compared to hiring a full time Windows admin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its harder to screw something up on a Mac than on Windows.
In a small business (say, 5 computers) hiring a Windows admin may cost far more than buying some overpriced hardware and software and having your employees not break it.
If you are hiring an admin, sure, go with Windows, but its easy to hire a one-time team to set up a system of Macs and it to work well, compared to hiring a full time Windows admin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108382</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265898600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Create it in Office 2000, move it to another Office 2000 machine, characters are screwed up. It's even worse with 2000/2003/2007"</p><p>Wow, you have weird problems in your company. Where I work we have several hundred PCs, and users exchange documents all day long, it is a huge part of what they do. Different versions of office also. I can honestly say that no one experiences these weird corruption problems you speak of. Sounds like you have something else going on, what makes you so sure it is the PCs and not something else? This is not a common problem at all....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Create it in Office 2000 , move it to another Office 2000 machine , characters are screwed up .
It 's even worse with 2000/2003/2007 " Wow , you have weird problems in your company .
Where I work we have several hundred PCs , and users exchange documents all day long , it is a huge part of what they do .
Different versions of office also .
I can honestly say that no one experiences these weird corruption problems you speak of .
Sounds like you have something else going on , what makes you so sure it is the PCs and not something else ?
This is not a common problem at all... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Create it in Office 2000, move it to another Office 2000 machine, characters are screwed up.
It's even worse with 2000/2003/2007"Wow, you have weird problems in your company.
Where I work we have several hundred PCs, and users exchange documents all day long, it is a huge part of what they do.
Different versions of office also.
I can honestly say that no one experiences these weird corruption problems you speak of.
Sounds like you have something else going on, what makes you so sure it is the PCs and not something else?
This is not a common problem at all....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105628</id>
	<title>Cleaner version of article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get a clean version of the article at http://infoworld.com/print/112907 and avoid having to flip through a half-dozen web pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get a clean version of the article at http : //infoworld.com/print/112907 and avoid having to flip through a half-dozen web pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get a clean version of the article at http://infoworld.com/print/112907 and avoid having to flip through a half-dozen web pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108460</id>
	<title>Re:XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses, then it probably does look like they don't market to businesses.</p></div><p>I'm a university professor and a heavy Mac user.  I like having my unix tools together with the sexy interface.  (Having wifi working without having to hunt for driver patches and recompile a kernel is nice, too.)</p><p>Last year, I bought an XServe so that I could manage a bunch of iMacs in labs.  But, to make everything really work right, I needed the OpenDirectory on the XServer to handle some user information but forward password authentication to the University's existing ActiveDirectory setup.  I don't have the time to twiddle with LDAP configuration, so I asked our Apple support representative to deal with it.  After all, we pay for university-wide support from Apple, so we might as well get something for it.  Well, one month later the "support" arrived... they sent me links to the on-line manuals (which I had already read).  I never did get it working.</p><p>I setup a similar system for our Linux machines in under a day.</p><p>So, I don't think Apple is ready for the enterprise, even with their "enterprise products."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses , then it probably does look like they do n't market to businesses.I 'm a university professor and a heavy Mac user .
I like having my unix tools together with the sexy interface .
( Having wifi working without having to hunt for driver patches and recompile a kernel is nice , too .
) Last year , I bought an XServe so that I could manage a bunch of iMacs in labs .
But , to make everything really work right , I needed the OpenDirectory on the XServer to handle some user information but forward password authentication to the University 's existing ActiveDirectory setup .
I do n't have the time to twiddle with LDAP configuration , so I asked our Apple support representative to deal with it .
After all , we pay for university-wide support from Apple , so we might as well get something for it .
Well , one month later the " support " arrived... they sent me links to the on-line manuals ( which I had already read ) .
I never did get it working.I setup a similar system for our Linux machines in under a day.So , I do n't think Apple is ready for the enterprise , even with their " enterprise products .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses, then it probably does look like they don't market to businesses.I'm a university professor and a heavy Mac user.
I like having my unix tools together with the sexy interface.
(Having wifi working without having to hunt for driver patches and recompile a kernel is nice, too.
)Last year, I bought an XServe so that I could manage a bunch of iMacs in labs.
But, to make everything really work right, I needed the OpenDirectory on the XServer to handle some user information but forward password authentication to the University's existing ActiveDirectory setup.
I don't have the time to twiddle with LDAP configuration, so I asked our Apple support representative to deal with it.
After all, we pay for university-wide support from Apple, so we might as well get something for it.
Well, one month later the "support" arrived... they sent me links to the on-line manuals (which I had already read).
I never did get it working.I setup a similar system for our Linux machines in under a day.So, I don't think Apple is ready for the enterprise, even with their "enterprise products.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108666</id>
	<title>Clash of the Titans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would  be the clash of the titans. Apple would NEVER allow control over their ecosystem (user experience) and IT Admins would never relinquish control of the ecosystem.</p><p>It will be nice to watch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be the clash of the titans .
Apple would NEVER allow control over their ecosystem ( user experience ) and IT Admins would never relinquish control of the ecosystem.It will be nice to watch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would  be the clash of the titans.
Apple would NEVER allow control over their ecosystem (user experience) and IT Admins would never relinquish control of the ecosystem.It will be nice to watch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109428</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>hydromike2</author>
	<datestamp>1265908740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its apples and oranges, pun intended. It is unreasonable to assume you have to buy an apple monitor with the mini, just buy a 125$ 20" from newegg, <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009158" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009158</a> [newegg.com] , and a keyboard/mouse combo for another 20$. Without question, out of the box, Macs are geared for creativity, aka iLife, which is just about useless in an enterprise environment. But also out of the box you have iCal, mail, address book, itunes, preview and time machine.<br>I will state upfront, i have used win7 for less than 15 minutes of my life so I am not up to date with windows. Also I learned just now that XP has an address book.<br>I think that for out of the box something that syncs your phone contacts, calendar and mail as well as macs do is pretty awesome. Also something(itunes) that can sync that with your email account(gmail, yahoo at least) with your contacts is very nice. Our of the box you have preview with opens pdfs, pretty much any type of images, also OS X makes previews of psds, docx, xlsx, etc available in the finder cover flow. To my knowledge windows does not do this without the help of adobe reader or the previews like OS X at all.<br>Time machine can backup locally(usb disk) or over a network to a server drive, and restoring after a HD crash or to new hardware is very simple and easy. I have upgraded the hard drive in my MBP and it was an amazing feeling when i just hit restore after installing snow leopard and a few hours later I was back to where I was when I last shut down my mac, its like nothing happened.</p><p>Nice to haves, but not out of the box are, iWork and mobile me. MS Office business edition(no student and home for enterprise which is still $150)for mac is $400, <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2008/shop-now.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2008/shop-now.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]. iWork is 80$, excuse the possible bias but ms office for mac is overpriced and crippled. It seems office 2007 small business($450) is closer to mac ms office business in features but office standard is the most comparable to iWork and matches the mac ms office cost at $400. Again you cannot use the cheaper home and student editions on windows, you have to go full versions in business. So for the average cubicle worker (non engineer/science type) word excel power point, pages, numbers, keynote will do just fine.<br>MobileMe: nice to sync on the go if you did not sync over usb before you left, or if you drop your iphone in a puddle after you added meeting times and contact information.</p><p>Worth noting, mac hardware is the same price in their business store, <a href="http://store.apple.com/us\_smb\_78313?cid=AOSA10000022131" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">http://store.apple.com/us\_smb\_78313?cid=AOSA10000022131</a> [apple.com], as their regular store. I will leave it to the parent author to provide a link to a 500$ system with windows, a 20" monitor from a business computer division of a company.</p><p>So out of the box all you have to install on a mac is iWork, which you can order preinstalled, not nearly the same case for windows.</p><p>So cost for average cubicle worker(excuse my lingo), windows = 500hardware + 400office = 900$, mac = 700+80+125+20 = $925, negligible difference IMHO, I leave the final score up to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its apples and oranges , pun intended .
It is unreasonable to assume you have to buy an apple monitor with the mini , just buy a 125 $ 20 " from newegg , http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824009158 [ newegg.com ] , and a keyboard/mouse combo for another 20 $ .
Without question , out of the box , Macs are geared for creativity , aka iLife , which is just about useless in an enterprise environment .
But also out of the box you have iCal , mail , address book , itunes , preview and time machine.I will state upfront , i have used win7 for less than 15 minutes of my life so I am not up to date with windows .
Also I learned just now that XP has an address book.I think that for out of the box something that syncs your phone contacts , calendar and mail as well as macs do is pretty awesome .
Also something ( itunes ) that can sync that with your email account ( gmail , yahoo at least ) with your contacts is very nice .
Our of the box you have preview with opens pdfs , pretty much any type of images , also OS X makes previews of psds , docx , xlsx , etc available in the finder cover flow .
To my knowledge windows does not do this without the help of adobe reader or the previews like OS X at all.Time machine can backup locally ( usb disk ) or over a network to a server drive , and restoring after a HD crash or to new hardware is very simple and easy .
I have upgraded the hard drive in my MBP and it was an amazing feeling when i just hit restore after installing snow leopard and a few hours later I was back to where I was when I last shut down my mac , its like nothing happened.Nice to haves , but not out of the box are , iWork and mobile me .
MS Office business edition ( no student and home for enterprise which is still $ 150 ) for mac is $ 400 , http : //www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2008/shop-now.mspx [ microsoft.com ] .
iWork is 80 $ , excuse the possible bias but ms office for mac is overpriced and crippled .
It seems office 2007 small business ( $ 450 ) is closer to mac ms office business in features but office standard is the most comparable to iWork and matches the mac ms office cost at $ 400 .
Again you can not use the cheaper home and student editions on windows , you have to go full versions in business .
So for the average cubicle worker ( non engineer/science type ) word excel power point , pages , numbers , keynote will do just fine.MobileMe : nice to sync on the go if you did not sync over usb before you left , or if you drop your iphone in a puddle after you added meeting times and contact information.Worth noting , mac hardware is the same price in their business store , http : //store.apple.com/us \ _smb \ _78313 ? cid = AOSA10000022131 [ apple.com ] , as their regular store .
I will leave it to the parent author to provide a link to a 500 $ system with windows , a 20 " monitor from a business computer division of a company.So out of the box all you have to install on a mac is iWork , which you can order preinstalled , not nearly the same case for windows.So cost for average cubicle worker ( excuse my lingo ) , windows = 500hardware + 400office = 900 $ , mac = 700 + 80 + 125 + 20 = $ 925 , negligible difference IMHO , I leave the final score up to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its apples and oranges, pun intended.
It is unreasonable to assume you have to buy an apple monitor with the mini, just buy a 125$ 20" from newegg, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009158 [newegg.com] , and a keyboard/mouse combo for another 20$.
Without question, out of the box, Macs are geared for creativity, aka iLife, which is just about useless in an enterprise environment.
But also out of the box you have iCal, mail, address book, itunes, preview and time machine.I will state upfront, i have used win7 for less than 15 minutes of my life so I am not up to date with windows.
Also I learned just now that XP has an address book.I think that for out of the box something that syncs your phone contacts, calendar and mail as well as macs do is pretty awesome.
Also something(itunes) that can sync that with your email account(gmail, yahoo at least) with your contacts is very nice.
Our of the box you have preview with opens pdfs, pretty much any type of images, also OS X makes previews of psds, docx, xlsx, etc available in the finder cover flow.
To my knowledge windows does not do this without the help of adobe reader or the previews like OS X at all.Time machine can backup locally(usb disk) or over a network to a server drive, and restoring after a HD crash or to new hardware is very simple and easy.
I have upgraded the hard drive in my MBP and it was an amazing feeling when i just hit restore after installing snow leopard and a few hours later I was back to where I was when I last shut down my mac, its like nothing happened.Nice to haves, but not out of the box are, iWork and mobile me.
MS Office business edition(no student and home for enterprise which is still $150)for mac is $400, http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2008/shop-now.mspx [microsoft.com].
iWork is 80$, excuse the possible bias but ms office for mac is overpriced and crippled.
It seems office 2007 small business($450) is closer to mac ms office business in features but office standard is the most comparable to iWork and matches the mac ms office cost at $400.
Again you cannot use the cheaper home and student editions on windows, you have to go full versions in business.
So for the average cubicle worker (non engineer/science type) word excel power point, pages, numbers, keynote will do just fine.MobileMe: nice to sync on the go if you did not sync over usb before you left, or if you drop your iphone in a puddle after you added meeting times and contact information.Worth noting, mac hardware is the same price in their business store, http://store.apple.com/us\_smb\_78313?cid=AOSA10000022131 [apple.com], as their regular store.
I will leave it to the parent author to provide a link to a 500$ system with windows, a 20" monitor from a business computer division of a company.So out of the box all you have to install on a mac is iWork, which you can order preinstalled, not nearly the same case for windows.So cost for average cubicle worker(excuse my lingo), windows = 500hardware + 400office = 900$, mac = 700+80+125+20 = $925, negligible difference IMHO, I leave the final score up to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107556</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... How many businesses still use XP? and how old is that? and even if they wanted to update to Vista or Win7 I think the machines won't handle the new OS very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... How many businesses still use XP ?
and how old is that ?
and even if they wanted to update to Vista or Win7 I think the machines wo n't handle the new OS very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... How many businesses still use XP?
and how old is that?
and even if they wanted to update to Vista or Win7 I think the machines won't handle the new OS very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111594</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1265981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients, since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras, WiFi, etc.</p></div><p>This is actually done by opening all devices and removing the hardware? Thus voiding the warranty?<br>You guys cannot handle that through S/W?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients , since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras , WiFi , etc.This is actually done by opening all devices and removing the hardware ?
Thus voiding the warranty ? You guys can not handle that through S/W ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients, since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras, WiFi, etc.This is actually done by opening all devices and removing the hardware?
Thus voiding the warranty?You guys cannot handle that through S/W?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108606</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265900460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) Price.<br>
2) Legacy (OS/applications).</p></div></blockquote><p>And the biggest reason of all to never use Apple equipment in a company:</p><p>0) Vendor lock-in.</p><p>No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor, when a multi-vendor option exists.  You can't competitively bid, you have fewer options on what to buy, and your risk is higher all-around.  Apple's clone plan in the 90s was intended to appeal to business, but by then the die was cast (your reason #2).</p><p>My analogy is to the car market.  There are two kinds of people:  Those who love cars, and those who think of cars as a way to get from A to B.  The former buy BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Corvette, etc., and the latter buy Toyota.  There is no right answer, just a consumer difference.  Apple is the Mercedes-Benz of computing, the only large premium brand left (excepting smaller niche vendors like Alienware).  It will never appeal to rational decision-makers who run businesses, for the same reason your company won't let you rent a Corvette when you go on a business trip.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Price .
2 ) Legacy ( OS/applications ) .And the biggest reason of all to never use Apple equipment in a company : 0 ) Vendor lock-in.No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor , when a multi-vendor option exists .
You ca n't competitively bid , you have fewer options on what to buy , and your risk is higher all-around .
Apple 's clone plan in the 90s was intended to appeal to business , but by then the die was cast ( your reason # 2 ) .My analogy is to the car market .
There are two kinds of people : Those who love cars , and those who think of cars as a way to get from A to B. The former buy BMW , Mercedes , Tesla , Corvette , etc. , and the latter buy Toyota .
There is no right answer , just a consumer difference .
Apple is the Mercedes-Benz of computing , the only large premium brand left ( excepting smaller niche vendors like Alienware ) .
It will never appeal to rational decision-makers who run businesses , for the same reason your company wo n't let you rent a Corvette when you go on a business trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Price.
2) Legacy (OS/applications).And the biggest reason of all to never use Apple equipment in a company:0) Vendor lock-in.No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor, when a multi-vendor option exists.
You can't competitively bid, you have fewer options on what to buy, and your risk is higher all-around.
Apple's clone plan in the 90s was intended to appeal to business, but by then the die was cast (your reason #2).My analogy is to the car market.
There are two kinds of people:  Those who love cars, and those who think of cars as a way to get from A to B.  The former buy BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Corvette, etc., and the latter buy Toyota.
There is no right answer, just a consumer difference.
Apple is the Mercedes-Benz of computing, the only large premium brand left (excepting smaller niche vendors like Alienware).
It will never appeal to rational decision-makers who run businesses, for the same reason your company won't let you rent a Corvette when you go on a business trip.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114370</id>
	<title>This is a simple question...</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1265995800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this question to be extremely easy to answer.  Whats worse is I only support 10 of them and come across things on a daily basis that I would never have to even think twice about answering if the same task can be accomplished in windows.  The answer is they simply aren't ready for business so they don't market toward business.</p><p>
&nbsp; Here's just one shining example:  Accounting on Xerox copiers isn't correctly supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this question to be extremely easy to answer .
Whats worse is I only support 10 of them and come across things on a daily basis that I would never have to even think twice about answering if the same task can be accomplished in windows .
The answer is they simply are n't ready for business so they do n't market toward business .
  Here 's just one shining example : Accounting on Xerox copiers is n't correctly supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this question to be extremely easy to answer.
Whats worse is I only support 10 of them and come across things on a daily basis that I would never have to even think twice about answering if the same task can be accomplished in windows.
The answer is they simply aren't ready for business so they don't market toward business.
  Here's just one shining example:  Accounting on Xerox copiers isn't correctly supported.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106178</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless your paying your workers in Haiti, your 'savings' will be gone in a few hours<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your paying your workers in Haiti , your 'savings ' will be gone in a few hours ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your paying your workers in Haiti, your 'savings' will be gone in a few hours ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;no full time admin - Macs save you a small fortune.</p><p>Well let's see.  I just bought an AMD X2 IBM PC-compatible for $300 plus 6\% tax == 318.  Out of curiosity I compared the equivalent Mac (3000 megahertz, 3 gig of RAM) to see what it would have cost - about $1500 plus 6\% tax == 1590.</p><p>So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy.  Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.</p><p>Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it???</p><p>Oh and I don't buy the argument that Mac are less crashprone.  That was true back in the days of Windows 3/95/98/DOS kludge, but since XP (NT 5.1) has become the standard, the PC-compatibles are as stable as any Mac.  My NT-PC typically stays on 2-3 months before it crashes.  That's as good as my OS X Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; no full time admin - Macs save you a small fortune.Well let 's see .
I just bought an AMD X2 IBM PC-compatible for $ 300 plus 6 \ % tax = = 318 .
Out of curiosity I compared the equivalent Mac ( 3000 megahertz , 3 gig of RAM ) to see what it would have cost - about $ 1500 plus 6 \ % tax = = 1590.So that 's about $ 1270 difference..... let 's say $ 1000 to keep the math easy .
Times 30 office workers ( small office ) yields $ 30,000 more money spent on the Macs.Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune , because I 'm not seeing it ? ?
? Oh and I do n't buy the argument that Mac are less crashprone .
That was true back in the days of Windows 3/95/98/DOS kludge , but since XP ( NT 5.1 ) has become the standard , the PC-compatibles are as stable as any Mac .
My NT-PC typically stays on 2-3 months before it crashes .
That 's as good as my OS X Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;no full time admin - Macs save you a small fortune.Well let's see.
I just bought an AMD X2 IBM PC-compatible for $300 plus 6\% tax == 318.
Out of curiosity I compared the equivalent Mac (3000 megahertz, 3 gig of RAM) to see what it would have cost - about $1500 plus 6\% tax == 1590.So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy.
Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it??
?Oh and I don't buy the argument that Mac are less crashprone.
That was true back in the days of Windows 3/95/98/DOS kludge, but since XP (NT 5.1) has become the standard, the PC-compatibles are as stable as any Mac.
My NT-PC typically stays on 2-3 months before it crashes.
That's as good as my OS X Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31112498</id>
	<title>It's About Roadmaps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enterprises love roadmaps. They need to plan their IT budgets and deployments and know what's coming down the pike in 12/18/24/36 months. Apple's business model has them keeping products as secret as possible until the day they're announced and go on sale and refusing to comment on future products.</p><p>Two completely different worlds. I don't see Apple ever getting into the enterprise.</p><p>Enterprise is also a crowded, mature field with companies who have been doing this for a long time. For Apple to compete, they'd have to build all of the infrastructure that Dell does - fleet sales, leasing arrangements, tiered support contracts with on-call and on-site support, and all of that. And they'd have to build up their server backend to support all of the enterprise features that Windows and Unix already do, like linking with SAP and Domino and interoperating with AD Group Policy Objects and all that crap. That's going to cost a fortune, and is completely outside of Apple's strengths (selling nicely-designed things to end users and consumers at a premium). Finally, Apple is a high-margin company, and enterprise is about delivering the lowest bids. Dell can afford to do this because their whole company is organized around volume and efficiency and squeezing nickels out of the supply chain at every opportunity. Apple can't play that.</p><p>Rather than spend the money to go toe-to-toe with Dell for individual percentage points of a market that's mature and completely outside their core competence. It makes perfect sense that they'd do the bare minimum to function in that market, and spend their capital on markets that are younger and growing and not as crowded and more suited for Apple's core capabilities - like the nascent media player market, or the online digital media market, or the non-enterprise smartphone market, or the tablet reader/browser market. Apple getting into enterprise sales makes about as much sense as Apple building its own search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprises love roadmaps .
They need to plan their IT budgets and deployments and know what 's coming down the pike in 12/18/24/36 months .
Apple 's business model has them keeping products as secret as possible until the day they 're announced and go on sale and refusing to comment on future products.Two completely different worlds .
I do n't see Apple ever getting into the enterprise.Enterprise is also a crowded , mature field with companies who have been doing this for a long time .
For Apple to compete , they 'd have to build all of the infrastructure that Dell does - fleet sales , leasing arrangements , tiered support contracts with on-call and on-site support , and all of that .
And they 'd have to build up their server backend to support all of the enterprise features that Windows and Unix already do , like linking with SAP and Domino and interoperating with AD Group Policy Objects and all that crap .
That 's going to cost a fortune , and is completely outside of Apple 's strengths ( selling nicely-designed things to end users and consumers at a premium ) .
Finally , Apple is a high-margin company , and enterprise is about delivering the lowest bids .
Dell can afford to do this because their whole company is organized around volume and efficiency and squeezing nickels out of the supply chain at every opportunity .
Apple ca n't play that.Rather than spend the money to go toe-to-toe with Dell for individual percentage points of a market that 's mature and completely outside their core competence .
It makes perfect sense that they 'd do the bare minimum to function in that market , and spend their capital on markets that are younger and growing and not as crowded and more suited for Apple 's core capabilities - like the nascent media player market , or the online digital media market , or the non-enterprise smartphone market , or the tablet reader/browser market .
Apple getting into enterprise sales makes about as much sense as Apple building its own search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprises love roadmaps.
They need to plan their IT budgets and deployments and know what's coming down the pike in 12/18/24/36 months.
Apple's business model has them keeping products as secret as possible until the day they're announced and go on sale and refusing to comment on future products.Two completely different worlds.
I don't see Apple ever getting into the enterprise.Enterprise is also a crowded, mature field with companies who have been doing this for a long time.
For Apple to compete, they'd have to build all of the infrastructure that Dell does - fleet sales, leasing arrangements, tiered support contracts with on-call and on-site support, and all of that.
And they'd have to build up their server backend to support all of the enterprise features that Windows and Unix already do, like linking with SAP and Domino and interoperating with AD Group Policy Objects and all that crap.
That's going to cost a fortune, and is completely outside of Apple's strengths (selling nicely-designed things to end users and consumers at a premium).
Finally, Apple is a high-margin company, and enterprise is about delivering the lowest bids.
Dell can afford to do this because their whole company is organized around volume and efficiency and squeezing nickels out of the supply chain at every opportunity.
Apple can't play that.Rather than spend the money to go toe-to-toe with Dell for individual percentage points of a market that's mature and completely outside their core competence.
It makes perfect sense that they'd do the bare minimum to function in that market, and spend their capital on markets that are younger and growing and not as crowded and more suited for Apple's core capabilities - like the nascent media player market, or the online digital media market, or the non-enterprise smartphone market, or the tablet reader/browser market.
Apple getting into enterprise sales makes about as much sense as Apple building its own search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014</id>
	<title>No Enterprise Offerings</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1265883300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses certainly run Macs but they really don't have any great centralized administration tools.  Apple Remote Desktop and Open Directory aren't nearly as powerful out of the box as Active Directory and its accompanying tools.  There's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of.  MacOS is to business desktop computing in much the same way linux is...you can use it, but you need to develop the tools for administering it (or use some open source tools, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses certainly run Macs but they really do n't have any great centralized administration tools .
Apple Remote Desktop and Open Directory are n't nearly as powerful out of the box as Active Directory and its accompanying tools .
There 's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of .
MacOS is to business desktop computing in much the same way linux is...you can use it , but you need to develop the tools for administering it ( or use some open source tools , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses certainly run Macs but they really don't have any great centralized administration tools.
Apple Remote Desktop and Open Directory aren't nearly as powerful out of the box as Active Directory and its accompanying tools.
There's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of.
MacOS is to business desktop computing in much the same way linux is...you can use it, but you need to develop the tools for administering it (or use some open source tools, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105160</id>
	<title>Avoiding docking stations</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple marketed to corporate america, they'd have to make docking stations... not the crappy third party ones that by pulling a handle, they plug in all your cables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple marketed to corporate america , they 'd have to make docking stations... not the crappy third party ones that by pulling a handle , they plug in all your cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple marketed to corporate america, they'd have to make docking stations... not the crappy third party ones that by pulling a handle, they plug in all your cables.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108594</id>
	<title>Troll article?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1265900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been making statements and observations similar to this article and time after time, I get modded -1 troll after about two or three hours... of course initially modded +5 insightful prior to that.</p><p>I think it has been plainly obvious that Apple doesn't care to be a business powerhouse at any level.  I think perhaps it is a responsibility (read: liability) they don't want to manage.  I tend to think of Jobs as the computer world's George Lucas.  Everyone loves what he can do, but every time we see something with serious potential, he throws some sort of Jar-Jar monkey wrench into the works that prevents the newest iProduct from being accepted by the largest consumer of PCs... business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been making statements and observations similar to this article and time after time , I get modded -1 troll after about two or three hours... of course initially modded + 5 insightful prior to that.I think it has been plainly obvious that Apple does n't care to be a business powerhouse at any level .
I think perhaps it is a responsibility ( read : liability ) they do n't want to manage .
I tend to think of Jobs as the computer world 's George Lucas .
Everyone loves what he can do , but every time we see something with serious potential , he throws some sort of Jar-Jar monkey wrench into the works that prevents the newest iProduct from being accepted by the largest consumer of PCs... business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been making statements and observations similar to this article and time after time, I get modded -1 troll after about two or three hours... of course initially modded +5 insightful prior to that.I think it has been plainly obvious that Apple doesn't care to be a business powerhouse at any level.
I think perhaps it is a responsibility (read: liability) they don't want to manage.
I tend to think of Jobs as the computer world's George Lucas.
Everyone loves what he can do, but every time we see something with serious potential, he throws some sort of Jar-Jar monkey wrench into the works that prevents the newest iProduct from being accepted by the largest consumer of PCs... business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108704</id>
	<title>Re:Not worth it for them</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1265901480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card, run Visicalc, and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer, they had to have them.</p></div><p>Actually Visicalc I think was originally designed natively for Apple II, it didn't need a Z80 card. Now, Apple did eventually realize that this market was important. Why do you think they created the failed Apple III that was targeted at business?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card , run Visicalc , and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer , they had to have them.Actually Visicalc I think was originally designed natively for Apple II , it did n't need a Z80 card .
Now , Apple did eventually realize that this market was important .
Why do you think they created the failed Apple III that was targeted at business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card, run Visicalc, and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer, they had to have them.Actually Visicalc I think was originally designed natively for Apple II, it didn't need a Z80 card.
Now, Apple did eventually realize that this market was important.
Why do you think they created the failed Apple III that was targeted at business?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106518</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprises don't like getting work done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265889120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modded as Funny.  That doesn't mean it's not true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded as Funny .
That does n't mean it 's not true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded as Funny.
That doesn't mean it's not true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107988</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265895900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;don't give me that "you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands" bullshit.</p><p>AGREED.   In my opinion if you HAVE to open a CLI to accomplish a task on your 2010 computer, then your GUI is a fail, and your OS is non-user-friendly.  That's one of my frustrations with Linux - you have to *waste worktime* memorizing a bunch of esoteric commands to do simple tasks like install RealPlayer.  Or find out how much memory your computer has.  Or what processor it's using.</p><p>Ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; do n't give me that " you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands " bullshit.AGREED .
In my opinion if you HAVE to open a CLI to accomplish a task on your 2010 computer , then your GUI is a fail , and your OS is non-user-friendly .
That 's one of my frustrations with Linux - you have to * waste worktime * memorizing a bunch of esoteric commands to do simple tasks like install RealPlayer .
Or find out how much memory your computer has .
Or what processor it 's using.Ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;don't give me that "you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands" bullshit.AGREED.
In my opinion if you HAVE to open a CLI to accomplish a task on your 2010 computer, then your GUI is a fail, and your OS is non-user-friendly.
That's one of my frustrations with Linux - you have to *waste worktime* memorizing a bunch of esoteric commands to do simple tasks like install RealPlayer.
Or find out how much memory your computer has.
Or what processor it's using.Ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262</id>
	<title>Apple needs to kick it into gear.</title>
	<author>cHiphead</author>
	<datestamp>1265884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't market squarely to business, then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons, 24GB ram, 3TB w/on board RAID, FC cards, XSAN (!) software, even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage, and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website.  A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business' kind of situation.  They took some big steps but it feels like Apple is dropping the ball on the business side beyond individual sales.</p><p>I went from the Windows world of all 'enterprisey' all the time to the Apple world of 'yeah it SHOULD work in your enterprisey solution unless you want reliable Active Directory/Open Directory integration without jumping through many hoops and crossing your fingers'</p><p>And don't get me started on the RAGE that occurred when I realized this spanking new MacBook Pro uses the magsafe connector and its patented with no third party options and NO DOCKING STATION.  I'm used to having options, now I'm stuck with a very linear choice.</p><p>I'm just having one of those weeks.  Apple needs to get it together and go full speed ahead on business oriented software systems, I'm running headlong into this in a business that is decidedly Mac but wants to expand greatly (and stay Mac).  The OS X Server tools feel unpolished and/or unresponsive at times, and the command line support and documentation is wholly inadequate.</p><p>I guess I'm just turning into an old bastard IT Admin.  Damn kids better stay off my lawn.</p><p>Cheers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't market squarely to business , then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons , 24GB ram , 3TB w/on board RAID , FC cards , XSAN ( !
) software , even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage , and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website .
A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business ' kind of situation .
They took some big steps but it feels like Apple is dropping the ball on the business side beyond individual sales.I went from the Windows world of all 'enterprisey ' all the time to the Apple world of 'yeah it SHOULD work in your enterprisey solution unless you want reliable Active Directory/Open Directory integration without jumping through many hoops and crossing your fingers'And do n't get me started on the RAGE that occurred when I realized this spanking new MacBook Pro uses the magsafe connector and its patented with no third party options and NO DOCKING STATION .
I 'm used to having options , now I 'm stuck with a very linear choice.I 'm just having one of those weeks .
Apple needs to get it together and go full speed ahead on business oriented software systems , I 'm running headlong into this in a business that is decidedly Mac but wants to expand greatly ( and stay Mac ) .
The OS X Server tools feel unpolished and/or unresponsive at times , and the command line support and documentation is wholly inadequate.I guess I 'm just turning into an old bastard IT Admin .
Damn kids better stay off my lawn.Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't market squarely to business, then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons, 24GB ram, 3TB w/on board RAID, FC cards, XSAN (!
) software, even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage, and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website.
A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business' kind of situation.
They took some big steps but it feels like Apple is dropping the ball on the business side beyond individual sales.I went from the Windows world of all 'enterprisey' all the time to the Apple world of 'yeah it SHOULD work in your enterprisey solution unless you want reliable Active Directory/Open Directory integration without jumping through many hoops and crossing your fingers'And don't get me started on the RAGE that occurred when I realized this spanking new MacBook Pro uses the magsafe connector and its patented with no third party options and NO DOCKING STATION.
I'm used to having options, now I'm stuck with a very linear choice.I'm just having one of those weeks.
Apple needs to get it together and go full speed ahead on business oriented software systems, I'm running headlong into this in a business that is decidedly Mac but wants to expand greatly (and stay Mac).
The OS X Server tools feel unpolished and/or unresponsive at times, and the command line support and documentation is wholly inadequate.I guess I'm just turning into an old bastard IT Admin.
Damn kids better stay off my lawn.Cheers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31130450</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever heard of IBM? There are thousands of people running Linux on the company supplied ThinkPad. In fact it's already an option to have Linux or Windows installed on the machine when you get it.<br>
But then again, technology companies have a different view of their infrastructure. A lot of tech companies don't have their Windows machines in a MS Windows Domain and have laxer rules over technological aspects of everyday use of employees machines.<br>
That said, there are non-tech companies that, due to legal reasons, will not allow any unauthorized device on their network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of IBM ?
There are thousands of people running Linux on the company supplied ThinkPad .
In fact it 's already an option to have Linux or Windows installed on the machine when you get it .
But then again , technology companies have a different view of their infrastructure .
A lot of tech companies do n't have their Windows machines in a MS Windows Domain and have laxer rules over technological aspects of everyday use of employees machines .
That said , there are non-tech companies that , due to legal reasons , will not allow any unauthorized device on their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of IBM?
There are thousands of people running Linux on the company supplied ThinkPad.
In fact it's already an option to have Linux or Windows installed on the machine when you get it.
But then again, technology companies have a different view of their infrastructure.
A lot of tech companies don't have their Windows machines in a MS Windows Domain and have laxer rules over technological aspects of everyday use of employees machines.
That said, there are non-tech companies that, due to legal reasons, will not allow any unauthorized device on their network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1265887260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree. Is windows really that bad to admin anymore? I mean when you get a good clean working install just make an image of it or something. Preferably with all your must have programs installed already. I mean is this so complicated? Save user data somewhere away from the machine and reimage when everything fux0rs up. See, the way I look at it, apple is charging $1000 over cost for the OS and the design aesthetic. I used to love the beauty of mac OS as a paradigm. Anymore it feels over 15 years old. The core has been greatly improved, but on the surface, it still feels very much like OS 7.5 in the end. To me windows is immediately so much more flexible, and don't give me that "you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands" bullshit. Its 2010. The whole original design of MacOS was the antithesis of the command prompt. (I must admit OS X is somewhat sexy and does quite a few things totally right.......)</p><p>They used to have really great hardware that was almost worth the huge prices they arrogantly charged for it (and some really crap hardware as well). I was pretty sad when they switched off the PowerPC. I always was a pretty big PPC fan. Who knows what would have happened if they had stayed their original course, but if you ask me the portability of darwin seemed to clearly point the way towards a break from ibm. intel cpus are certainly much, much cheaper.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Is windows really that bad to admin anymore ?
I mean when you get a good clean working install just make an image of it or something .
Preferably with all your must have programs installed already .
I mean is this so complicated ?
Save user data somewhere away from the machine and reimage when everything fux0rs up .
See , the way I look at it , apple is charging $ 1000 over cost for the OS and the design aesthetic .
I used to love the beauty of mac OS as a paradigm .
Anymore it feels over 15 years old .
The core has been greatly improved , but on the surface , it still feels very much like OS 7.5 in the end .
To me windows is immediately so much more flexible , and do n't give me that " you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands " bullshit .
Its 2010 .
The whole original design of MacOS was the antithesis of the command prompt .
( I must admit OS X is somewhat sexy and does quite a few things totally right....... ) They used to have really great hardware that was almost worth the huge prices they arrogantly charged for it ( and some really crap hardware as well ) .
I was pretty sad when they switched off the PowerPC .
I always was a pretty big PPC fan .
Who knows what would have happened if they had stayed their original course , but if you ask me the portability of darwin seemed to clearly point the way towards a break from ibm .
intel cpus are certainly much , much cheaper...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Is windows really that bad to admin anymore?
I mean when you get a good clean working install just make an image of it or something.
Preferably with all your must have programs installed already.
I mean is this so complicated?
Save user data somewhere away from the machine and reimage when everything fux0rs up.
See, the way I look at it, apple is charging $1000 over cost for the OS and the design aesthetic.
I used to love the beauty of mac OS as a paradigm.
Anymore it feels over 15 years old.
The core has been greatly improved, but on the surface, it still feels very much like OS 7.5 in the end.
To me windows is immediately so much more flexible, and don't give me that "you can pull up a terminal on it and run unix commands" bullshit.
Its 2010.
The whole original design of MacOS was the antithesis of the command prompt.
(I must admit OS X is somewhat sexy and does quite a few things totally right.......)They used to have really great hardware that was almost worth the huge prices they arrogantly charged for it (and some really crap hardware as well).
I was pretty sad when they switched off the PowerPC.
I always was a pretty big PPC fan.
Who knows what would have happened if they had stayed their original course, but if you ask me the portability of darwin seemed to clearly point the way towards a break from ibm.
intel cpus are certainly much, much cheaper.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109378</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1265908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is in support costs, and of course, we can fire the IT department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is in support costs , and of course , we can fire the IT department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is in support costs, and of course, we can fire the IT department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106434</id>
	<title>Re:XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Sorthum</author>
	<datestamp>1265888700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they'd done away with XSan?  TFA claims they did, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they 'd done away with XSan ?
TFA claims they did , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they'd done away with XSan?
TFA claims they did, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108442</id>
	<title>Professionals in general</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was told four years ago when I bought my first Mac that Apple wanted more professional customers. Since then I have noticed a definite move away from supporting professionals. I questioned an Apple tech last year about this. They claimed they still wanted professional customers. I cited numerous things they have done to drive away pros in recent years. They didn't have an answer they simply chanted the "we want your business" line. They want professional dollars but professionals expect support and Apple just wants to support people that can't figure out their iPod. Sad because pro business kept them afloat in the old days. Take away the pro business and Apple would have died 15 years ago and may never have gotten off the ground in the first place given how expensive the old Apples were. They turned their backs on the business and pro users. I'm normally pro Apple for hardware and OSs but there is no denying they don't want to be bothered with pros these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was told four years ago when I bought my first Mac that Apple wanted more professional customers .
Since then I have noticed a definite move away from supporting professionals .
I questioned an Apple tech last year about this .
They claimed they still wanted professional customers .
I cited numerous things they have done to drive away pros in recent years .
They did n't have an answer they simply chanted the " we want your business " line .
They want professional dollars but professionals expect support and Apple just wants to support people that ca n't figure out their iPod .
Sad because pro business kept them afloat in the old days .
Take away the pro business and Apple would have died 15 years ago and may never have gotten off the ground in the first place given how expensive the old Apples were .
They turned their backs on the business and pro users .
I 'm normally pro Apple for hardware and OSs but there is no denying they do n't want to be bothered with pros these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was told four years ago when I bought my first Mac that Apple wanted more professional customers.
Since then I have noticed a definite move away from supporting professionals.
I questioned an Apple tech last year about this.
They claimed they still wanted professional customers.
I cited numerous things they have done to drive away pros in recent years.
They didn't have an answer they simply chanted the "we want your business" line.
They want professional dollars but professionals expect support and Apple just wants to support people that can't figure out their iPod.
Sad because pro business kept them afloat in the old days.
Take away the pro business and Apple would have died 15 years ago and may never have gotten off the ground in the first place given how expensive the old Apples were.
They turned their backs on the business and pro users.
I'm normally pro Apple for hardware and OSs but there is no denying they don't want to be bothered with pros these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31112182</id>
	<title>Apple in our company network...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is grounds for immediate termination (and i'm not just talking empolyment).</p><p>".\_" files anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is grounds for immediate termination ( and i 'm not just talking empolyment ) .
" . \ _ " files anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is grounds for immediate termination (and i'm not just talking empolyment).
".\_" files anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108610</id>
	<title>Why I don't sleep with lingerie models</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise, I remain lukewarm to any success in scoring with lingerie models. 'I have intentionally created a glass ceiling that I have no intention of shattering. Conversations with myself over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of sex and beautiful women. I have no intention of signaling any active plans to serve incredibly hot girls,'. 'In a sense, I view sex with beautiful women as "collateral success" &mdash; a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus: sex and speading my seed, because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity I would have to deal with.'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise , I remain lukewarm to any success in scoring with lingerie models .
'I have intentionally created a glass ceiling that I have no intention of shattering .
Conversations with myself over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of sex and beautiful women .
I have no intention of signaling any active plans to serve incredibly hot girls,' .
'In a sense , I view sex with beautiful women as " collateral success "    a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus : sex and speading my seed , because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity I would have to deal with .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Despite feature enhancements that suggest otherwise, I remain lukewarm to any success in scoring with lingerie models.
'I have intentionally created a glass ceiling that I have no intention of shattering.
Conversations with myself over the past decade have always been off the record when it comes to the topic of sex and beautiful women.
I have no intention of signaling any active plans to serve incredibly hot girls,'.
'In a sense, I view sex with beautiful women as "collateral success" — a nice-to-have byproduct of its real focus: sex and speading my seed, because to do otherwise would greatly increase the complexity I would have to deal with.
'"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114724</id>
	<title>Re:Apple doesn't care too much about the enterpris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux, or Apple, or OLPC, must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated?</p></div><p>Bravo chap! Great point, their current business model (select users, select products) makes a few people a shitload of money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why potentially screw that up with enterprise support?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux , or Apple , or OLPC , must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated ? Bravo chap !
Great point , their current business model ( select users , select products ) makes a few people a shitload of money ... why potentially screw that up with enterprise support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux, or Apple, or OLPC, must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated?Bravo chap!
Great point, their current business model (select users, select products) makes a few people a shitload of money ... why potentially screw that up with enterprise support?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107346</id>
	<title>Re:Apple needs to kick it into gear.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/resources/documentation.html" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">This isn't enough documentation?</a> [apple.com]</p><p>That page has a nearly 60-page PDF manual specifically for command line administration, along with others for pretty much every service OS X Server can offer.</p><p>Hell, back in the Tiger days one of the certification exams I had to pass covered nothing but command line admin, and all I used to study was the PDF manual available at the time. What more do you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't enough documentation ?
[ apple.com ] That page has a nearly 60-page PDF manual specifically for command line administration , along with others for pretty much every service OS X Server can offer.Hell , back in the Tiger days one of the certification exams I had to pass covered nothing but command line admin , and all I used to study was the PDF manual available at the time .
What more do you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't enough documentation?
[apple.com]That page has a nearly 60-page PDF manual specifically for command line administration, along with others for pretty much every service OS X Server can offer.Hell, back in the Tiger days one of the certification exams I had to pass covered nothing but command line admin, and all I used to study was the PDF manual available at the time.
What more do you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109154</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1265905560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please tell me you don't seriously believe you need to have an Apple mouse, keyboard, and screen to be able to hook up a Mac...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please tell me you do n't seriously believe you need to have an Apple mouse , keyboard , and screen to be able to hook up a Mac.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please tell me you don't seriously believe you need to have an Apple mouse, keyboard, and screen to be able to hook up a Mac...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105752</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>TwiztidK</author>
	<datestamp>1265885940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I worded it particularly oddly, I meant to say that I don't know anyone who works at a large, or even midsize, company that primarily uses Macs. You are correct to point out that Apple computers used to dominate in the 80's, though I know a former Kaypro employee who would dispute that.<br> <br>
I agree that Macs tend to cost less over time, but I was trying to point out that the initial costs (computers, training, etc.) would be higher than if the company used PCs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I worded it particularly oddly , I meant to say that I do n't know anyone who works at a large , or even midsize , company that primarily uses Macs .
You are correct to point out that Apple computers used to dominate in the 80 's , though I know a former Kaypro employee who would dispute that .
I agree that Macs tend to cost less over time , but I was trying to point out that the initial costs ( computers , training , etc .
) would be higher than if the company used PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I worded it particularly oddly, I meant to say that I don't know anyone who works at a large, or even midsize, company that primarily uses Macs.
You are correct to point out that Apple computers used to dominate in the 80's, though I know a former Kaypro employee who would dispute that.
I agree that Macs tend to cost less over time, but I was trying to point out that the initial costs (computers, training, etc.
) would be higher than if the company used PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108066</id>
	<title>What's a "small business"?</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1265896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Doesn't market squarely to business, then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons, 24GB ram, 3TB w/on board RAID, FC cards, XSAN (!) software, even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage, and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website.  A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business' kind of situation.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, name some numbers as to what is "very small." I've been at businesses with 30-something employees where we had some pretty powerful hardware.  If you're an enterprise software ISV startup, you may very reasonably want this caliber of hardware, though you'd almost certainly do better to go with a Linux solution.  A small video production and CGI shop, on the other hand, sounds like a very good candidate for this level of Apple-branded hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't market squarely to business , then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons , 24GB ram , 3TB w/on board RAID , FC cards , XSAN ( !
) software , even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage , and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website .
A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business ' kind of situation.Well , name some numbers as to what is " very small .
" I 've been at businesses with 30-something employees where we had some pretty powerful hardware .
If you 're an enterprise software ISV startup , you may very reasonably want this caliber of hardware , though you 'd almost certainly do better to go with a Linux solution .
A small video production and CGI shop , on the other hand , sounds like a very good candidate for this level of Apple-branded hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Doesn't market squarely to business, then why the hell do they sell Xserves with dual quad core xeons, 24GB ram, 3TB w/on board RAID, FC cards, XSAN (!
) software, even reselling Promise vTrak raid storage, and Tandberg 80-tape storage libraries on the Apple store website.
A SAN deployment among XServes and Mac Pros is not exactly a 'very small business' kind of situation.Well, name some numbers as to what is "very small.
" I've been at businesses with 30-something employees where we had some pretty powerful hardware.
If you're an enterprise software ISV startup, you may very reasonably want this caliber of hardware, though you'd almost certainly do better to go with a Linux solution.
A small video production and CGI shop, on the other hand, sounds like a very good candidate for this level of Apple-branded hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108914</id>
	<title>Re:May be for desktops and laptops</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1265903280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What does it offer that any other *nix would not?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Adobe's whole suite and MS Office (don't tell me OpenOffice is good enough, I've had it mangle the styles used in several Word documents).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it offer that any other * nix would not ?
Adobe 's whole suite and MS Office ( do n't tell me OpenOffice is good enough , I 've had it mangle the styles used in several Word documents ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it offer that any other *nix would not?
Adobe's whole suite and MS Office (don't tell me OpenOffice is good enough, I've had it mangle the styles used in several Word documents).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106236</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprise Mac = War with Microsoft</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265887860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be so sure. Apple's iWork suite has pretty good compatibility with with MS Office. And you can bet that is Microsoft discontinued Mac Office then Apple would kick iWork development and marketing into high gear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so sure .
Apple 's iWork suite has pretty good compatibility with with MS Office .
And you can bet that is Microsoft discontinued Mac Office then Apple would kick iWork development and marketing into high gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so sure.
Apple's iWork suite has pretty good compatibility with with MS Office.
And you can bet that is Microsoft discontinued Mac Office then Apple would kick iWork development and marketing into high gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108152</id>
	<title>It has to be said:</title>
	<author>SmackTheIgnorant</author>
	<datestamp>1265897040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no such thing as an enterprise-level fart app.

There, I've said it, there's no unsaying it.  You were thinking it, mouthing the words, hov</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as an enterprise-level fart app .
There , I 've said it , there 's no unsaying it .
You were thinking it , mouthing the words , hov</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as an enterprise-level fart app.
There, I've said it, there's no unsaying it.
You were thinking it, mouthing the words, hov</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105532</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1265885160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple was a dying company for quite a while, and had to buy back Jobs and NEXT to breathe life back into it.  I'm inclined to believe that Apple's innovation is tied directly to one man more so than any other business.  This relationship would not exude confidence if I was an IT Director or CIO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple was a dying company for quite a while , and had to buy back Jobs and NEXT to breathe life back into it .
I 'm inclined to believe that Apple 's innovation is tied directly to one man more so than any other business .
This relationship would not exude confidence if I was an IT Director or CIO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple was a dying company for quite a while, and had to buy back Jobs and NEXT to breathe life back into it.
I'm inclined to believe that Apple's innovation is tied directly to one man more so than any other business.
This relationship would not exude confidence if I was an IT Director or CIO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105244</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1265884140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the <a href="http://www.apple.com/xserve/features/server.html" title="apple.com">Xserve</a> [apple.com] their attempt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Xserve [ apple.com ] their attempt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Xserve [apple.com] their attempt?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106384</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A huge waste of money compared to a linux server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge waste of money compared to a linux server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge waste of money compared to a linux server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108254</id>
	<title>Esoteric in consumer vs enterprise?  Riiiiight.</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1265897640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features</i>

</p><p>What?  Look at the enterprise-marketed laptop lines for a great example of what corporations want.  They're not "esoteric" by any stretch.

</p><p>Way to prove you don't work in IT, much less corporate level.  We care about things like price, TCO, parts availability, interchangeability of accessories (within reason), and management.

</p><p>Meanwhile, consumers want just about everything under the sun.

</p><p> <i>and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible.</i>

</p><p>Purchase price is not the ultimate concern, no- ballpark is important, yes.  Again, way to prove you don't work in IT.  I've never had a boss that said "well, this $3000 server is $300 cheaper than the other one, so we're going to get that, even though it doesn't have IPMI and we have no in-house experience with this brand, and their support contract is 8hr, not 4hr."

</p><p> <i> They have no desire or tolerance for "cool" Completely not the market Apple is going for.</i>

</p><p>It's not a matter of "cool".  It's a matter that Apple likes consumers because they're easily pushed around and they CONSUME.   And if you think companies don't want "Cool", you haven't seen a CEO of a million dollar company get handed his new Blackberry (hell hath no fury if it works more poorly than the old one, however.)

</p><p>Corporations say, "Hey.  Why did you just change the display port AGAIN?  Now half of our 2000 member sales force have a different display port from the other half."  Or, "why are all of our iMacs developing vertical lines?  Our CEO's secretary has gone through two machines in a month and he's raising hell because they can't work.  Don't you people have any quality control?  Send us some goddamn WORKING computers or we buy Dell from now on.  That's straight from the CEO's mouth."

</p><p>Corporations have legal departments, so that when machines die, lawyers say "give us our money back or we seek damages."  Consumers just bitch and moan on online forums- and purchase decisions are more rational in corporations (heh, I can't believe I just said that, but I mean they're not *emotional*.)

</p><p>Corporations say "Oh, Macbook Pros are $2k?  Well, we're buying 100 of them this month, and we've given you $500k in business this quarter.  So, how about $1700?".  Consumers just hand over their CC.

</p><p>Corporations say, "If a laptop breaks, we want someone to come in and fix it. And if you won't, we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts."  Apple a)won't let you order parts unless you're a reseller, b)won't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves.  Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $50M company because that was the best support option, and then arguing with some pimply-faced "Genius" who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead?

</p><p>In big Apple-using companies I've worked at, we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones, because we couldn't get the goddamn parts from Apple, couldn't get service manuals, couldn't train CSRs.

</p><p>Meanwhile, HP, Dell, IBM, Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop, I'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS.  They'll let almost anyone order parts, and happily train people in how to repair their products.  And if a laptop breaks, they'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan, so our CEO doesn't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS, the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it's anything remotely complicated (the Apple Store can do drive replacements, that's about it.)

</p><p>I had to replace two failed drives on an HP server once (one system drive, one data array drive.)  I said "I have red lights, they were kicked out of the array by the controller."  We had a 4 hour support contr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features What ?
Look at the enterprise-marketed laptop lines for a great example of what corporations want .
They 're not " esoteric " by any stretch .
Way to prove you do n't work in IT , much less corporate level .
We care about things like price , TCO , parts availability , interchangeability of accessories ( within reason ) , and management .
Meanwhile , consumers want just about everything under the sun .
and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible .
Purchase price is not the ultimate concern , no- ballpark is important , yes .
Again , way to prove you do n't work in IT .
I 've never had a boss that said " well , this $ 3000 server is $ 300 cheaper than the other one , so we 're going to get that , even though it does n't have IPMI and we have no in-house experience with this brand , and their support contract is 8hr , not 4hr .
" They have no desire or tolerance for " cool " Completely not the market Apple is going for .
It 's not a matter of " cool " .
It 's a matter that Apple likes consumers because they 're easily pushed around and they CONSUME .
And if you think companies do n't want " Cool " , you have n't seen a CEO of a million dollar company get handed his new Blackberry ( hell hath no fury if it works more poorly than the old one , however .
) Corporations say , " Hey .
Why did you just change the display port AGAIN ?
Now half of our 2000 member sales force have a different display port from the other half .
" Or , " why are all of our iMacs developing vertical lines ?
Our CEO 's secretary has gone through two machines in a month and he 's raising hell because they ca n't work .
Do n't you people have any quality control ?
Send us some goddamn WORKING computers or we buy Dell from now on .
That 's straight from the CEO 's mouth .
" Corporations have legal departments , so that when machines die , lawyers say " give us our money back or we seek damages .
" Consumers just bitch and moan on online forums- and purchase decisions are more rational in corporations ( heh , I ca n't believe I just said that , but I mean they 're not * emotional * .
) Corporations say " Oh , Macbook Pros are $ 2k ?
Well , we 're buying 100 of them this month , and we 've given you $ 500k in business this quarter .
So , how about $ 1700 ? " .
Consumers just hand over their CC .
Corporations say , " If a laptop breaks , we want someone to come in and fix it .
And if you wo n't , we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts .
" Apple a ) wo n't let you order parts unless you 're a reseller , b ) wo n't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves .
Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $ 50M company because that was the best support option , and then arguing with some pimply-faced " Genius " who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead ?
In big Apple-using companies I 've worked at , we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones , because we could n't get the goddamn parts from Apple , could n't get service manuals , could n't train CSRs .
Meanwhile , HP , Dell , IBM , Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop , I 'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS .
They 'll let almost anyone order parts , and happily train people in how to repair their products .
And if a laptop breaks , they 'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan , so our CEO does n't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS , the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it 's anything remotely complicated ( the Apple Store can do drive replacements , that 's about it .
) I had to replace two failed drives on an HP server once ( one system drive , one data array drive .
) I said " I have red lights , they were kicked out of the array by the controller .
" We had a 4 hour support contr</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features

What?
Look at the enterprise-marketed laptop lines for a great example of what corporations want.
They're not "esoteric" by any stretch.
Way to prove you don't work in IT, much less corporate level.
We care about things like price, TCO, parts availability, interchangeability of accessories (within reason), and management.
Meanwhile, consumers want just about everything under the sun.
and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible.
Purchase price is not the ultimate concern, no- ballpark is important, yes.
Again, way to prove you don't work in IT.
I've never had a boss that said "well, this $3000 server is $300 cheaper than the other one, so we're going to get that, even though it doesn't have IPMI and we have no in-house experience with this brand, and their support contract is 8hr, not 4hr.
"

  They have no desire or tolerance for "cool" Completely not the market Apple is going for.
It's not a matter of "cool".
It's a matter that Apple likes consumers because they're easily pushed around and they CONSUME.
And if you think companies don't want "Cool", you haven't seen a CEO of a million dollar company get handed his new Blackberry (hell hath no fury if it works more poorly than the old one, however.
)

Corporations say, "Hey.
Why did you just change the display port AGAIN?
Now half of our 2000 member sales force have a different display port from the other half.
"  Or, "why are all of our iMacs developing vertical lines?
Our CEO's secretary has gone through two machines in a month and he's raising hell because they can't work.
Don't you people have any quality control?
Send us some goddamn WORKING computers or we buy Dell from now on.
That's straight from the CEO's mouth.
"

Corporations have legal departments, so that when machines die, lawyers say "give us our money back or we seek damages.
"  Consumers just bitch and moan on online forums- and purchase decisions are more rational in corporations (heh, I can't believe I just said that, but I mean they're not *emotional*.
)

Corporations say "Oh, Macbook Pros are $2k?
Well, we're buying 100 of them this month, and we've given you $500k in business this quarter.
So, how about $1700?".
Consumers just hand over their CC.
Corporations say, "If a laptop breaks, we want someone to come in and fix it.
And if you won't, we want to be able to train our own IT staff in how to fix them and be able to order parts.
"  Apple a)won't let you order parts unless you're a reseller, b)won't do on-site service of anything except Mac Pros and Xserves.
Ever spent your day standing in line at the Genius Bar with a laptop belonging to a CEO of a $50M company because that was the best support option, and then arguing with some pimply-faced "Genius" who is used to talking to grandmas about why their gumdrop iMac is dead?
In big Apple-using companies I've worked at, we kept every single machine that died and cannibalized them for parts for the other ones, because we couldn't get the goddamn parts from Apple, couldn't get service manuals, couldn't train CSRs.
Meanwhile, HP, Dell, IBM, Sun will all happily take our precious dollars and promise that if anything breaks in my shiny server or desktop, I'll have a replacement part sitting on my desk in FOUR HOURS.
They'll let almost anyone order parts, and happily train people in how to repair their products.
And if a laptop breaks, they'll come out and service it on the spot if you bought that support plan, so our CEO doesn't have to be without his laptop while it gets shipped to fucking TEXAS, the only place you can get a Macbook Pro repaired if it's anything remotely complicated (the Apple Store can do drive replacements, that's about it.
)

I had to replace two failed drives on an HP server once (one system drive, one data array drive.
)  I said "I have red lights, they were kicked out of the array by the controller.
"  We had a 4 hour support contr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109036</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>hydromike2</author>
	<datestamp>1265904360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>somehow i doubt apple will be changing the hardware architecture every 3 years. This is a one time only valid argument in reference to snow leopard and G5's, but since you went down that road, at least apple sells hardware that runs the operating system it is advertised to run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>somehow i doubt apple will be changing the hardware architecture every 3 years .
This is a one time only valid argument in reference to snow leopard and G5 's , but since you went down that road , at least apple sells hardware that runs the operating system it is advertised to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>somehow i doubt apple will be changing the hardware architecture every 3 years.
This is a one time only valid argument in reference to snow leopard and G5's, but since you went down that road, at least apple sells hardware that runs the operating system it is advertised to run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107466</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And getting back to the cost, I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse for about $500. A mini with 4 gigs, no monitor, and no mouse starts at $700. Apple wants another $50 each for a mouse and keyboard. Each. Don't even ask what they want for monitors. </i></p><p>Well, you are right about the price difference. However, do those Windows systems come with Win7 Pro or Enterprise. Add $129 there. And, you can just use the same commodity Keyboard/Display/Mouse as that PC for a LOT cheaper than what Apple charges. Add Bluetooth ($30) and Wireless N ($60) and the price difference kind of just fades away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And getting back to the cost , I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20 " flat panel , keyboard , and mouse for about $ 500 .
A mini with 4 gigs , no monitor , and no mouse starts at $ 700 .
Apple wants another $ 50 each for a mouse and keyboard .
Each. Do n't even ask what they want for monitors .
Well , you are right about the price difference .
However , do those Windows systems come with Win7 Pro or Enterprise .
Add $ 129 there .
And , you can just use the same commodity Keyboard/Display/Mouse as that PC for a LOT cheaper than what Apple charges .
Add Bluetooth ( $ 30 ) and Wireless N ( $ 60 ) and the price difference kind of just fades away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And getting back to the cost, I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse for about $500.
A mini with 4 gigs, no monitor, and no mouse starts at $700.
Apple wants another $50 each for a mouse and keyboard.
Each. Don't even ask what they want for monitors.
Well, you are right about the price difference.
However, do those Windows systems come with Win7 Pro or Enterprise.
Add $129 there.
And, you can just use the same commodity Keyboard/Display/Mouse as that PC for a LOT cheaper than what Apple charges.
Add Bluetooth ($30) and Wireless N ($60) and the price difference kind of just fades away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109346</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~100 Macs, they employed one half-time Mac guy. Same level of support.</i></p> </div><p>I work for a college at a large, public research university.<br>
<br>
In our college, we have 200 Macs, and one tech for them (Me).<br>
<br>
We have 2000 PCs (Yes, that's an extra zero), and we have two techs for those. And I'm one of those two.<br>
<br>
Sorry, but your PC admins must SUCK.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~ 100 Macs , they employed one half-time Mac guy .
Same level of support .
I work for a college at a large , public research university .
In our college , we have 200 Macs , and one tech for them ( Me ) .
We have 2000 PCs ( Yes , that 's an extra zero ) , and we have two techs for those .
And I 'm one of those two .
Sorry , but your PC admins must SUCK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~100 Macs, they employed one half-time Mac guy.
Same level of support.
I work for a college at a large, public research university.
In our college, we have 200 Macs, and one tech for them (Me).
We have 2000 PCs (Yes, that's an extra zero), and we have two techs for those.
And I'm one of those two.
Sorry, but your PC admins must SUCK.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105370</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>1729</author>
	<datestamp>1265884560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.</p></div><p>I work in a large research institution, and nearly every scientist or programmer I've met here uses a Mac on their desktop (though the HPC resources are mostly Linux/UNIX variants).  One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients, since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras, WiFi, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.I work in a large research institution , and nearly every scientist or programmer I 've met here uses a Mac on their desktop ( though the HPC resources are mostly Linux/UNIX variants ) .
One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients , since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras , WiFi , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.I work in a large research institution, and nearly every scientist or programmer I've met here uses a Mac on their desktop (though the HPC resources are mostly Linux/UNIX variants).
One thing that would be great is if Apple would customize their computers for their corporate and government clients, since all of our Macs have to be modified to remove cameras, WiFi, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</id>
	<title>I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1265883240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's not very big on jumping into crowded markets.  I'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server business, but they look at how much it would cost to try to push their way in, versus what they can make if they put the same resources into something like the iPad.   So far, Apple's growing like crazy without doing much about the business market.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's not very big on jumping into crowded markets .
I 'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server business , but they look at how much it would cost to try to push their way in , versus what they can make if they put the same resources into something like the iPad .
So far , Apple 's growing like crazy without doing much about the business market.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's not very big on jumping into crowded markets.
I'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server business, but they look at how much it would cost to try to push their way in, versus what they can make if they put the same resources into something like the iPad.
So far, Apple's growing like crazy without doing much about the business market.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105462</id>
	<title>One print page.</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1265884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://infoworld.com/print/112907" title="infoworld.com">http://infoworld.com/print/112907</a> [infoworld.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //infoworld.com/print/112907 [ infoworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://infoworld.com/print/112907 [infoworld.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265884440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I think a big part of it has to be that they still don't want to get into a direct fight with Microsoft.  In some ways, it's probably smart for them to keep to specific (sometimes niche) markets and nibble around the edges, building up their strength.  By introducing products like iWork and the iPhone and slowly improving their server offerings, they can slowly erode Microsoft's markets over years while improving their technology.  iTunes alone did Microsoft a lot of damage without declaring open war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I think a big part of it has to be that they still do n't want to get into a direct fight with Microsoft .
In some ways , it 's probably smart for them to keep to specific ( sometimes niche ) markets and nibble around the edges , building up their strength .
By introducing products like iWork and the iPhone and slowly improving their server offerings , they can slowly erode Microsoft 's markets over years while improving their technology .
iTunes alone did Microsoft a lot of damage without declaring open war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I think a big part of it has to be that they still don't want to get into a direct fight with Microsoft.
In some ways, it's probably smart for them to keep to specific (sometimes niche) markets and nibble around the edges, building up their strength.
By introducing products like iWork and the iPhone and slowly improving their server offerings, they can slowly erode Microsoft's markets over years while improving their technology.
iTunes alone did Microsoft a lot of damage without declaring open war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094</id>
	<title>May be for desktops and laptops</title>
	<author>CSHARP123</author>
	<datestamp>1265883600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does it offer that any other *nix would not? GUI (On server side it do not make that much sense). Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources (people mainly) are available and the same cannot be said Apple OS.
<br>
Quite a lot of laptops are making inroads into the business environment which used to be just Windows Shop. But if you still see, they are runnig Windows OS on it for majority of the cases.
I think Apple would face the same compitition like MS from Linux and other Open source OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it offer that any other * nix would not ?
GUI ( On server side it do not make that much sense ) .
Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources ( people mainly ) are available and the same can not be said Apple OS .
Quite a lot of laptops are making inroads into the business environment which used to be just Windows Shop .
But if you still see , they are runnig Windows OS on it for majority of the cases .
I think Apple would face the same compitition like MS from Linux and other Open source OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it offer that any other *nix would not?
GUI (On server side it do not make that much sense).
Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources (people mainly) are available and the same cannot be said Apple OS.
Quite a lot of laptops are making inroads into the business environment which used to be just Windows Shop.
But if you still see, they are runnig Windows OS on it for majority of the cases.
I think Apple would face the same compitition like MS from Linux and other Open source OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111466</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah fucking right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah fucking right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah fucking right</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105010</id>
	<title>Consulting division</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1265883300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gotta have a stomach to run such an outfit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta have a stomach to run such an outfit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta have a stomach to run such an outfit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105906</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1265886420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Apple could do a wonderful job of building enterprise servers, if they wanted to do it.</p><p>But that's the rub - why would they want to? Most companies that have specialized in proprietary servers have ended up being bought out by either IBM or HP. Well, then there's Oracle...</p><p>But the point is, it's a brutal market that's already well served. Much as I'd love to see Apple in the enterprise, there's nothing in it from Apple's perspective, so I'm gonna bet that It Just Ain't Gonna Happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Apple could do a wonderful job of building enterprise servers , if they wanted to do it.But that 's the rub - why would they want to ?
Most companies that have specialized in proprietary servers have ended up being bought out by either IBM or HP .
Well , then there 's Oracle...But the point is , it 's a brutal market that 's already well served .
Much as I 'd love to see Apple in the enterprise , there 's nothing in it from Apple 's perspective , so I 'm gon na bet that It Just Ai n't Gon na Happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Apple could do a wonderful job of building enterprise servers, if they wanted to do it.But that's the rub - why would they want to?
Most companies that have specialized in proprietary servers have ended up being bought out by either IBM or HP.
Well, then there's Oracle...But the point is, it's a brutal market that's already well served.
Much as I'd love to see Apple in the enterprise, there's nothing in it from Apple's perspective, so I'm gonna bet that It Just Ain't Gonna Happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107394</id>
	<title>Docking station? Who cares?</title>
	<author>Bassman59</author>
	<datestamp>1265892720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is with the need for a docking station? Seriously, I don't get it. And I have both a ThinkPad (now mostly retired) and an MBP and I've never felt the need to plug either into a docking station.</p><p>I shlep the MBP to work, and I plug in one USB cable which connects to a keyboard (the mouse connects to the keyboard's hub), the Ethernet cable and the power supply. When it's time to go home, I unplug. At home, I do the same thing (I have two power supplies).</p><p>I used to do the same thing with the ThinkPad, 'cept I shlepped the power supply because I only had one.</p><p>I really don't get the docking station thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is with the need for a docking station ?
Seriously , I do n't get it .
And I have both a ThinkPad ( now mostly retired ) and an MBP and I 've never felt the need to plug either into a docking station.I shlep the MBP to work , and I plug in one USB cable which connects to a keyboard ( the mouse connects to the keyboard 's hub ) , the Ethernet cable and the power supply .
When it 's time to go home , I unplug .
At home , I do the same thing ( I have two power supplies ) .I used to do the same thing with the ThinkPad , 'cept I shlepped the power supply because I only had one.I really do n't get the docking station thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is with the need for a docking station?
Seriously, I don't get it.
And I have both a ThinkPad (now mostly retired) and an MBP and I've never felt the need to plug either into a docking station.I shlep the MBP to work, and I plug in one USB cable which connects to a keyboard (the mouse connects to the keyboard's hub), the Ethernet cable and the power supply.
When it's time to go home, I unplug.
At home, I do the same thing (I have two power supplies).I used to do the same thing with the ThinkPad, 'cept I shlepped the power supply because I only had one.I really don't get the docking station thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109764</id>
	<title>Re:XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a whole galaxy of difference between business and enterprise. I work support for enterprise and have done so for years. You're just going to have to trust me when i say apple is ill-suited to the enterprise environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a whole galaxy of difference between business and enterprise .
I work support for enterprise and have done so for years .
You 're just going to have to trust me when i say apple is ill-suited to the enterprise environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a whole galaxy of difference between business and enterprise.
I work support for enterprise and have done so for years.
You're just going to have to trust me when i say apple is ill-suited to the enterprise environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31115078</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprises don't like getting work done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.</p><p>Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.</p><p>Polar opposites in agendas really.</p></div><p>Let me guess -- your "work" involves masturbating in front of a full-length mirror.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you ca n't get any work done.Polar opposites in agendas really.Let me guess -- your " work " involves masturbating in front of a full-length mirror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.Polar opposites in agendas really.Let me guess -- your "work" involves masturbating in front of a full-length mirror.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109236</id>
	<title>What it would take at my employer...</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1265906220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to replace my POS HP cheap as dirt laptop with my sweet MB Pro. I would even furnish the computer myself, so they would save the $1000 on the laptop. And in fact there is a few brave souls using Macs, some of them even dual booting when required (see below). I am seriously considering joining them when my lease is next up. I have seen the next generation laptops that are coming in to the corporation and the machine is not faster and has an annoying refresh entire screen every 30 seconds.<br> <br>
This company is standardized on XP and explorer 6 with Lotus Notes. We are in a "tight controlled" network. You get software patches 3x week and you have to accept. We have virus software that prevents us from using our science instruments any more without an IT intervention. The computer takes 8 minutes to boot up and 5 minutes to shut down. All internal "paperwork" requires IE6, not even Firefox allowed. Telcons require you "see" the screen of others, requiring IE6... you get the picture. We are considering Win7 (never got to Vista, in fact we removed the preloaded Vista and put on XP) but will still need a year to work on the bugs. <br> <br>
If the lack of IE6 was not enough there are some specialized software that is not on the Mac. This is where dual booting would work, but I would have to become the dual boot expert, don't expect any help. Lotus updates Notes on the Mac so slowly that there would be periods of goofiness during the lag time. Also, they like the straight jacket they can put on our computers, I wonder if the Mac and even be constrained in a similar manner?<br> <br>
In their minds this is the cheapest solution, maybe so as they would screw up a Mac installation as they have screwed up the XP computers . It would require switching completely to Mac to regain the comfort level. But that seems unlikely. But then h-e-l-l is close to freezing over outside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to replace my POS HP cheap as dirt laptop with my sweet MB Pro .
I would even furnish the computer myself , so they would save the $ 1000 on the laptop .
And in fact there is a few brave souls using Macs , some of them even dual booting when required ( see below ) .
I am seriously considering joining them when my lease is next up .
I have seen the next generation laptops that are coming in to the corporation and the machine is not faster and has an annoying refresh entire screen every 30 seconds .
This company is standardized on XP and explorer 6 with Lotus Notes .
We are in a " tight controlled " network .
You get software patches 3x week and you have to accept .
We have virus software that prevents us from using our science instruments any more without an IT intervention .
The computer takes 8 minutes to boot up and 5 minutes to shut down .
All internal " paperwork " requires IE6 , not even Firefox allowed .
Telcons require you " see " the screen of others , requiring IE6... you get the picture .
We are considering Win7 ( never got to Vista , in fact we removed the preloaded Vista and put on XP ) but will still need a year to work on the bugs .
If the lack of IE6 was not enough there are some specialized software that is not on the Mac .
This is where dual booting would work , but I would have to become the dual boot expert , do n't expect any help .
Lotus updates Notes on the Mac so slowly that there would be periods of goofiness during the lag time .
Also , they like the straight jacket they can put on our computers , I wonder if the Mac and even be constrained in a similar manner ?
In their minds this is the cheapest solution , maybe so as they would screw up a Mac installation as they have screwed up the XP computers .
It would require switching completely to Mac to regain the comfort level .
But that seems unlikely .
But then h-e-l-l is close to freezing over outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to replace my POS HP cheap as dirt laptop with my sweet MB Pro.
I would even furnish the computer myself, so they would save the $1000 on the laptop.
And in fact there is a few brave souls using Macs, some of them even dual booting when required (see below).
I am seriously considering joining them when my lease is next up.
I have seen the next generation laptops that are coming in to the corporation and the machine is not faster and has an annoying refresh entire screen every 30 seconds.
This company is standardized on XP and explorer 6 with Lotus Notes.
We are in a "tight controlled" network.
You get software patches 3x week and you have to accept.
We have virus software that prevents us from using our science instruments any more without an IT intervention.
The computer takes 8 minutes to boot up and 5 minutes to shut down.
All internal "paperwork" requires IE6, not even Firefox allowed.
Telcons require you "see" the screen of others, requiring IE6... you get the picture.
We are considering Win7 (never got to Vista, in fact we removed the preloaded Vista and put on XP) but will still need a year to work on the bugs.
If the lack of IE6 was not enough there are some specialized software that is not on the Mac.
This is where dual booting would work, but I would have to become the dual boot expert, don't expect any help.
Lotus updates Notes on the Mac so slowly that there would be periods of goofiness during the lag time.
Also, they like the straight jacket they can put on our computers, I wonder if the Mac and even be constrained in a similar manner?
In their minds this is the cheapest solution, maybe so as they would screw up a Mac installation as they have screwed up the XP computers .
It would require switching completely to Mac to regain the comfort level.
But that seems unlikely.
But then h-e-l-l is close to freezing over outside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106606</id>
	<title>Re:Because they'd have to become like their custom</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265889480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Case in point, Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise</i> </p><p>Microsoft has always been serious about the enterprise market.</p><p>In July of 76 Microsoft was selling its microcomputer BASIC to corporate clients like General Electric.</p><p>In April of 79: Microsoft 8080 BASIC was the first microprocessor product to win the ICP Million Dollar Award, "traditionally dominated by software for mainframe computers."</p><p>The single most important decision Microsoft ever made was to negotiate a non-exclusive license for MS-DOS. That would permanently alter the landscape. Apple is the lone survivor of the era when hardware and software was tightly bundled.</p><p>In 1983 Microsoft Multiplan spreadsheet the company's first application product, was ported across many platforms. "While Lotus 1-2-3 surpassed Multiplan in domestic markets, Multiplan was the winner in almost every other country in which it appeared." </p><p>In September of 83 Microsoft introduced Word for MS-DOs 1.0. <a href="http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft\_company.htm" title="thocp.net">Microsoft Timeline</a> [thocp.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point , Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise Microsoft has always been serious about the enterprise market.In July of 76 Microsoft was selling its microcomputer BASIC to corporate clients like General Electric.In April of 79 : Microsoft 8080 BASIC was the first microprocessor product to win the ICP Million Dollar Award , " traditionally dominated by software for mainframe computers .
" The single most important decision Microsoft ever made was to negotiate a non-exclusive license for MS-DOS .
That would permanently alter the landscape .
Apple is the lone survivor of the era when hardware and software was tightly bundled.In 1983 Microsoft Multiplan spreadsheet the company 's first application product , was ported across many platforms .
" While Lotus 1-2-3 surpassed Multiplan in domestic markets , Multiplan was the winner in almost every other country in which it appeared .
" In September of 83 Microsoft introduced Word for MS-DOs 1.0 .
Microsoft Timeline [ thocp.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Case in point, Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise Microsoft has always been serious about the enterprise market.In July of 76 Microsoft was selling its microcomputer BASIC to corporate clients like General Electric.In April of 79: Microsoft 8080 BASIC was the first microprocessor product to win the ICP Million Dollar Award, "traditionally dominated by software for mainframe computers.
"The single most important decision Microsoft ever made was to negotiate a non-exclusive license for MS-DOS.
That would permanently alter the landscape.
Apple is the lone survivor of the era when hardware and software was tightly bundled.In 1983 Microsoft Multiplan spreadsheet the company's first application product, was ported across many platforms.
"While Lotus 1-2-3 surpassed Multiplan in domestic markets, Multiplan was the winner in almost every other country in which it appeared.
" In September of 83 Microsoft introduced Word for MS-DOs 1.0.
Microsoft Timeline [thocp.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113414</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1265992200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, no.  Maybe when you're talking about single machine administration, sure.  But when I have to do the same thing to twenty-five or 1000 machines, you better make sure your interface is scriptable.<br><br>Until WMI came out with Windows 2000, that just wasn't possible in the Windows world, but has been in the Unix world since the invention of telnet (~1983).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , no .
Maybe when you 're talking about single machine administration , sure .
But when I have to do the same thing to twenty-five or 1000 machines , you better make sure your interface is scriptable.Until WMI came out with Windows 2000 , that just was n't possible in the Windows world , but has been in the Unix world since the invention of telnet ( ~ 1983 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, no.
Maybe when you're talking about single machine administration, sure.
But when I have to do the same thing to twenty-five or 1000 machines, you better make sure your interface is scriptable.Until WMI came out with Windows 2000, that just wasn't possible in the Windows world, but has been in the Unix world since the invention of telnet (~1983).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296</id>
	<title>Enterprise Mac = War with Microsoft</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1265884380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK, Microsoft makes the bulk of its money by selling to the big corporations. By entering the enterprise market, Apple would attack Microsoft biggest and safest money source. If they do that, Microsoft will stop selling MSOffice for Mac and will prevent Macs from interacting with the AD. This way, Apple will lose more trying to enter the enterprise market than ignoring it altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , Microsoft makes the bulk of its money by selling to the big corporations .
By entering the enterprise market , Apple would attack Microsoft biggest and safest money source .
If they do that , Microsoft will stop selling MSOffice for Mac and will prevent Macs from interacting with the AD .
This way , Apple will lose more trying to enter the enterprise market than ignoring it altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, Microsoft makes the bulk of its money by selling to the big corporations.
By entering the enterprise market, Apple would attack Microsoft biggest and safest money source.
If they do that, Microsoft will stop selling MSOffice for Mac and will prevent Macs from interacting with the AD.
This way, Apple will lose more trying to enter the enterprise market than ignoring it altogether.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108120</id>
	<title>Esoteric, like docking stations?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, whats up with that?</p><p>The biggest feature of my work laptop is that I have docking stations at home and work for it.  Exactly how hard is it to do?  Is Apple afraid of a connector blemishing their cases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , whats up with that ? The biggest feature of my work laptop is that I have docking stations at home and work for it .
Exactly how hard is it to do ?
Is Apple afraid of a connector blemishing their cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, whats up with that?The biggest feature of my work laptop is that I have docking stations at home and work for it.
Exactly how hard is it to do?
Is Apple afraid of a connector blemishing their cases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105134</id>
	<title>Apple's doing the right thing</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their market is consumers / end-users (ie, B2C).<p>
Doing B2B sales is completely different (longer attention spans, bigger deals, but much more demand for customization/configuration).
</p><p>Needless to say, Apple's image and culture is focused completely away from B2B type sales.  Furthermore, they are focusing on what they're successful at.  I wish other companies would take Apple's lead, and do something *really* well and only venture into other markets when they have aligned their brand with that market audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their market is consumers / end-users ( ie , B2C ) .
Doing B2B sales is completely different ( longer attention spans , bigger deals , but much more demand for customization/configuration ) .
Needless to say , Apple 's image and culture is focused completely away from B2B type sales .
Furthermore , they are focusing on what they 're successful at .
I wish other companies would take Apple 's lead , and do something * really * well and only venture into other markets when they have aligned their brand with that market audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their market is consumers / end-users (ie, B2C).
Doing B2B sales is completely different (longer attention spans, bigger deals, but much more demand for customization/configuration).
Needless to say, Apple's image and culture is focused completely away from B2B type sales.
Furthermore, they are focusing on what they're successful at.
I wish other companies would take Apple's lead, and do something *really* well and only venture into other markets when they have aligned their brand with that market audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109966</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can also mention that the keyboards and mouse pointers provided by Apple for their current machines are pretty bad when it comes to ergonomics. (major thumbs down)</p><p>Meanwhile, on the PC side you can get <i>excellent</i> keyboards and mouse pointers with very good ergonomic feel. I use the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Desktop 7000 with its ergonomic wireless keyboard and mouse pointer and I could use the mouse pointer and keyboard all day without tiring out my hands and wrists.</p><p>In short, if Apple were to jump "whole hog" into supporting the enterprise market with large-scale iMac and Mac Pro installations, they need to provide <i>standard</i> keyboards and mouse pointers with good ergonomics. Maybe Apple should team up with Logitech to do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can also mention that the keyboards and mouse pointers provided by Apple for their current machines are pretty bad when it comes to ergonomics .
( major thumbs down ) Meanwhile , on the PC side you can get excellent keyboards and mouse pointers with very good ergonomic feel .
I use the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Desktop 7000 with its ergonomic wireless keyboard and mouse pointer and I could use the mouse pointer and keyboard all day without tiring out my hands and wrists.In short , if Apple were to jump " whole hog " into supporting the enterprise market with large-scale iMac and Mac Pro installations , they need to provide standard keyboards and mouse pointers with good ergonomics .
Maybe Apple should team up with Logitech to do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can also mention that the keyboards and mouse pointers provided by Apple for their current machines are pretty bad when it comes to ergonomics.
(major thumbs down)Meanwhile, on the PC side you can get excellent keyboards and mouse pointers with very good ergonomic feel.
I use the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Desktop 7000 with its ergonomic wireless keyboard and mouse pointer and I could use the mouse pointer and keyboard all day without tiring out my hands and wrists.In short, if Apple were to jump "whole hog" into supporting the enterprise market with large-scale iMac and Mac Pro installations, they need to provide standard keyboards and mouse pointers with good ergonomics.
Maybe Apple should team up with Logitech to do this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110484</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprise Mac = War with Microsoft</title>
	<author>JimBobJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265966640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking your post one step further, perhaps there is an unwritten gentlemens' agreement between Apple and Microsoft, going back to when MS invested in Apple and promised to continue developing software for the Mac.</p><p>MS would do the above, as long as Apple stayed away from the Enterprise.</p><p>I like this idea a lot (your post and/or mine), because I think it does a better job explaining why Apple is choosing to leave money on the table than anything else mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking your post one step further , perhaps there is an unwritten gentlemens ' agreement between Apple and Microsoft , going back to when MS invested in Apple and promised to continue developing software for the Mac.MS would do the above , as long as Apple stayed away from the Enterprise.I like this idea a lot ( your post and/or mine ) , because I think it does a better job explaining why Apple is choosing to leave money on the table than anything else mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking your post one step further, perhaps there is an unwritten gentlemens' agreement between Apple and Microsoft, going back to when MS invested in Apple and promised to continue developing software for the Mac.MS would do the above, as long as Apple stayed away from the Enterprise.I like this idea a lot (your post and/or mine), because I think it does a better job explaining why Apple is choosing to leave money on the table than anything else mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106284</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265888100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll give you the mini pricing issue. But Apple's mouse and keyboard and monitors are premium products. The 24" display is an IPS panel with LED backlighting. You spec a Dell monitor with that, and you'll get a similar price. And Apple's mouse has multitouch. Whether or not it's useful is moot point, it's clearly a more advanced product than a two button + scroll wheel Logitech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give you the mini pricing issue .
But Apple 's mouse and keyboard and monitors are premium products .
The 24 " display is an IPS panel with LED backlighting .
You spec a Dell monitor with that , and you 'll get a similar price .
And Apple 's mouse has multitouch .
Whether or not it 's useful is moot point , it 's clearly a more advanced product than a two button + scroll wheel Logitech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give you the mini pricing issue.
But Apple's mouse and keyboard and monitors are premium products.
The 24" display is an IPS panel with LED backlighting.
You spec a Dell monitor with that, and you'll get a similar price.
And Apple's mouse has multitouch.
Whether or not it's useful is moot point, it's clearly a more advanced product than a two button + scroll wheel Logitech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</id>
	<title>XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses, then it probably does look like they don't market to businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses , then it probably does look like they do n't market to businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses, then it probably does look like they don't market to businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105152</id>
	<title>KNow your strength</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple sells fashionable gadgets and a small number of Unix based computer systems.    Entering the "enterprise" market would increase the quantity and variety of software and hardware they would have to support.  Add in a dozen server form factor systems that have to cater to a wide variety of potential business needs and say goodbye to your reputation of being a company that sells products that "just work".  That reputation is only just barely deserved as it is, and they only sell a handful of unique products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple sells fashionable gadgets and a small number of Unix based computer systems .
Entering the " enterprise " market would increase the quantity and variety of software and hardware they would have to support .
Add in a dozen server form factor systems that have to cater to a wide variety of potential business needs and say goodbye to your reputation of being a company that sells products that " just work " .
That reputation is only just barely deserved as it is , and they only sell a handful of unique products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple sells fashionable gadgets and a small number of Unix based computer systems.
Entering the "enterprise" market would increase the quantity and variety of software and hardware they would have to support.
Add in a dozen server form factor systems that have to cater to a wide variety of potential business needs and say goodbye to your reputation of being a company that sells products that "just work".
That reputation is only just barely deserved as it is, and they only sell a handful of unique products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105442</id>
	<title>on managagement apps</title>
	<author>mehemiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265884800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in the ITS of my university and whenever the faculty and staff using macs consider or even hear about management apps like puppit or how if they have a PC they MUST install (novell) zen they cringe. They HATE the idea of the IT department invading their computer because their PC(Linux, Mac or Windows ) still feels personal. Even the sub-departments of our IT infrastructure HATE it when our the central sysadmins push updates to computers without telling the departmental support teams.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in the ITS of my university and whenever the faculty and staff using macs consider or even hear about management apps like puppit or how if they have a PC they MUST install ( novell ) zen they cringe .
They HATE the idea of the IT department invading their computer because their PC ( Linux , Mac or Windows ) still feels personal .
Even the sub-departments of our IT infrastructure HATE it when our the central sysadmins push updates to computers without telling the departmental support teams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in the ITS of my university and whenever the faculty and staff using macs consider or even hear about management apps like puppit or how if they have a PC they MUST install (novell) zen they cringe.
They HATE the idea of the IT department invading their computer because their PC(Linux, Mac or Windows ) still feels personal.
Even the sub-departments of our IT infrastructure HATE it when our the central sysadmins push updates to computers without telling the departmental support teams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111742</id>
	<title>Re:Apple needs to downsize Enterprise</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1265982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I mean is, that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development, you have to have an employee base of 500 people.  Seems fair enough at first...<br>But the trouble is, although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.</p></div><p>That sounds like an unusual situation to me.</p><p>Basically, you're saying. I have a business with less than 500 employees. But I need to distribute an iPhone app to more than 100 employees. What kind of business is that? Suppose you're creating an app for sales people. I cannot think of a situation where the sales dept. consists of more than 20\% of the workforce.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I mean is , that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development , you have to have an employee base of 500 people .
Seems fair enough at first...But the trouble is , although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.That sounds like an unusual situation to me.Basically , you 're saying .
I have a business with less than 500 employees .
But I need to distribute an iPhone app to more than 100 employees .
What kind of business is that ?
Suppose you 're creating an app for sales people .
I can not think of a situation where the sales dept .
consists of more than 20 \ % of the workforce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I mean is, that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development, you have to have an employee base of 500 people.
Seems fair enough at first...But the trouble is, although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.That sounds like an unusual situation to me.Basically, you're saying.
I have a business with less than 500 employees.
But I need to distribute an iPhone app to more than 100 employees.
What kind of business is that?
Suppose you're creating an app for sales people.
I cannot think of a situation where the sales dept.
consists of more than 20\% of the workforce.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111512</id>
	<title>Re:Apple has no clue how to do enterprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if I may ask, which vendor do you prefer for the hardware and replacement components for your Linux server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if I may ask , which vendor do you prefer for the hardware and replacement components for your Linux server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I may ask, which vendor do you prefer for the hardware and replacement components for your Linux server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972</id>
	<title>Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if you have a couple of people in an office and no full time admin Macs save you a small fortune.</p><p>So, fit for business? Yes.</p><p>Ready for the enterprise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if you have a couple of people in an office and no full time admin Macs save you a small fortune.So , fit for business ?
Yes.Ready for the enterprise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if you have a couple of people in an office and no full time admin Macs save you a small fortune.So, fit for business?
Yes.Ready for the enterprise?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105116</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1265883660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That didn't work, let me try it again:

Advertising/marketing/(insert creative field here) businesses frequently use heterogeneous OSX+Windows environments. I've been with a couple of organizations like that, and it works surprisingly well from an admin viewpoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That did n't work , let me try it again : Advertising/marketing/ ( insert creative field here ) businesses frequently use heterogeneous OSX + Windows environments .
I 've been with a couple of organizations like that , and it works surprisingly well from an admin viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That didn't work, let me try it again:

Advertising/marketing/(insert creative field here) businesses frequently use heterogeneous OSX+Windows environments.
I've been with a couple of organizations like that, and it works surprisingly well from an admin viewpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106496</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1265889060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple found a little corner of those markets that wasn't so crowded and grew from there.</p><p>Pre-iPod mp3 players, there's a famous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. quote about what geeks thought about the iPod. They were clunky to use and really only made for the geeks. iPod went for the not-so-geek segment.</p><p>Sure, the iPhone is a smartphone but Apple isn't taking BB or whoever head on. Apple is doing what Apple does. Find a space for themselves that no one else wants.</p><p>Safari? Really? Who markets web browsers these days?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple found a little corner of those markets that was n't so crowded and grew from there.Pre-iPod mp3 players , there 's a famous / .
quote about what geeks thought about the iPod .
They were clunky to use and really only made for the geeks .
iPod went for the not-so-geek segment.Sure , the iPhone is a smartphone but Apple is n't taking BB or whoever head on .
Apple is doing what Apple does .
Find a space for themselves that no one else wants.Safari ?
Really ? Who markets web browsers these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple found a little corner of those markets that wasn't so crowded and grew from there.Pre-iPod mp3 players, there's a famous /.
quote about what geeks thought about the iPod.
They were clunky to use and really only made for the geeks.
iPod went for the not-so-geek segment.Sure, the iPhone is a smartphone but Apple isn't taking BB or whoever head on.
Apple is doing what Apple does.
Find a space for themselves that no one else wants.Safari?
Really? Who markets web browsers these days?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107656</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265894100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other question is, how well used are the macs?  On my campus, the windows labs are always full while the mac labs are ghost towns.  When I want to do a quick print or web search, I can wait for a pc for 20 minutes, or just hop into the mac lab and be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other question is , how well used are the macs ?
On my campus , the windows labs are always full while the mac labs are ghost towns .
When I want to do a quick print or web search , I can wait for a pc for 20 minutes , or just hop into the mac lab and be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other question is, how well used are the macs?
On my campus, the windows labs are always full while the mac labs are ghost towns.
When I want to do a quick print or web search, I can wait for a pc for 20 minutes, or just hop into the mac lab and be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105218</id>
	<title>Re:May be for desktops and laptops</title>
	<author>omkhar</author>
	<datestamp>1265884020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources (people mainly) are available</p> </div><p>sorry to be pedantic, but this is a common and incorrect assumption regarding Linux TCO. If you're running a production server, you get a production license/support agreement. You can't, and shouldn't expect there to be zero cost in a production environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources ( people mainly ) are available sorry to be pedantic , but this is a common and incorrect assumption regarding Linux TCO .
If you 're running a production server , you get a production license/support agreement .
You ca n't , and should n't expect there to be zero cost in a production environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux license cost is free and there are lots of resources (people mainly) are available sorry to be pedantic, but this is a common and incorrect assumption regarding Linux TCO.
If you're running a production server, you get a production license/support agreement.
You can't, and shouldn't expect there to be zero cost in a production environment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105126</id>
	<title>if you're pleasing the high-value individuals</title>
	<author>scbomber</author>
	<datestamp>1265883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people who value apple's simplicity + power and have the $$ to indulge are extremely likely to be thought leaders in their organizations...instant word-of-mouth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people who value apple 's simplicity + power and have the $ $ to indulge are extremely likely to be thought leaders in their organizations...instant word-of-mouth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people who value apple's simplicity + power and have the $$ to indulge are extremely likely to be thought leaders in their organizations...instant word-of-mouth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080</id>
	<title>Not worth it for them</title>
	<author>UndyingShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1265883540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible. They have no desire or tolerance for "cool"

Completely not the market Apple is going for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible .
They have no desire or tolerance for " cool " Completely not the market Apple is going for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses demand a lot of esoteric features and are concerned with getting the cheapest hardware possible.
They have no desire or tolerance for "cool"

Completely not the market Apple is going for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109366</id>
	<title>Mac Mini is easy to open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with most of your post, and it would be nice if it were more obvious how to open the Mac Mini.</p><p>On the other hand, the Mac Mini isn't hard to open...if you know how. It takes me about fifteen seconds, which is pretty competitive with almost any other computer I've ever opened; the G4 towers were easier to open since you just had to lift a latch and the entire motherboard swung down. With the Mac Mini you do need two tools, but if you have them it's very, very easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with most of your post , and it would be nice if it were more obvious how to open the Mac Mini.On the other hand , the Mac Mini is n't hard to open...if you know how .
It takes me about fifteen seconds , which is pretty competitive with almost any other computer I 've ever opened ; the G4 towers were easier to open since you just had to lift a latch and the entire motherboard swung down .
With the Mac Mini you do need two tools , but if you have them it 's very , very easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with most of your post, and it would be nice if it were more obvious how to open the Mac Mini.On the other hand, the Mac Mini isn't hard to open...if you know how.
It takes me about fifteen seconds, which is pretty competitive with almost any other computer I've ever opened; the G4 towers were easier to open since you just had to lift a latch and the entire motherboard swung down.
With the Mac Mini you do need two tools, but if you have them it's very, very easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107348</id>
	<title>The REAL reason Apple can't target the enterprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft would drop MS Office for Mac OS.</p><p>Probably the best reason you should be cheering Oracle buying Sun:  Larry Ellison is all too likely to ramp up work on Open Office just because he wants to horse fuck Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft would drop MS Office for Mac OS.Probably the best reason you should be cheering Oracle buying Sun : Larry Ellison is all too likely to ramp up work on Open Office just because he wants to horse fuck Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft would drop MS Office for Mac OS.Probably the best reason you should be cheering Oracle buying Sun:  Larry Ellison is all too likely to ramp up work on Open Office just because he wants to horse fuck Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105678</id>
	<title>It tried in the '80s</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1265885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those with unusually long memories will remember that, in the '80s, the Macintosh (and while it lasted, the Lisa) were Apple's Serious Business Computers. The Apple II was the home/education line.</p><p>The Mac had networking built-in from the beginning. (Not very useful for home users, essential for offices.) It had a black-and-white screen. (Not very useful for games or creative work.) Advertising almost exclusively focused on how a Mac could make businesses more efficient by reducing training and support costs. Watch:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MaDXt30xSo" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MaDXt30xSo</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqLT0UBPx0" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqLT0UBPx0</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcuSOfjR6w" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcuSOfjR6w</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Print ads, too:<br><a href="http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad1.jpg" title="macmothership.com">http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad1.jpg</a> [macmothership.com] and <a href="http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad2.jpg" title="macmothership.com">http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad2.jpg</a> [macmothership.com]</p><p>For about fifteen years, Apple <b>desperately</b> wanted to be taken seriously by business users, who dismissed Macs as incompatible and expensive (with good reason.) Apple lost loads of money during this period. Meanwhile, Apple's sales were coming entirely from home users, artists, and education sales.</p><p>One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned was shit-can that approach and release the cute, cuddly, home-student oriented iMac. And whaddya know, the company suddenly started making money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those with unusually long memories will remember that , in the '80s , the Macintosh ( and while it lasted , the Lisa ) were Apple 's Serious Business Computers .
The Apple II was the home/education line.The Mac had networking built-in from the beginning .
( Not very useful for home users , essential for offices .
) It had a black-and-white screen .
( Not very useful for games or creative work .
) Advertising almost exclusively focused on how a Mac could make businesses more efficient by reducing training and support costs .
Watch : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 1MaDXt30xSo [ youtube.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4dqLT0UBPx0 [ youtube.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = iwcuSOfjR6w [ youtube.com ] Print ads , too : http : //www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad1.jpg [ macmothership.com ] and http : //www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad2.jpg [ macmothership.com ] For about fifteen years , Apple desperately wanted to be taken seriously by business users , who dismissed Macs as incompatible and expensive ( with good reason .
) Apple lost loads of money during this period .
Meanwhile , Apple 's sales were coming entirely from home users , artists , and education sales.One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned was shit-can that approach and release the cute , cuddly , home-student oriented iMac .
And whaddya know , the company suddenly started making money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those with unusually long memories will remember that, in the '80s, the Macintosh (and while it lasted, the Lisa) were Apple's Serious Business Computers.
The Apple II was the home/education line.The Mac had networking built-in from the beginning.
(Not very useful for home users, essential for offices.
) It had a black-and-white screen.
(Not very useful for games or creative work.
) Advertising almost exclusively focused on how a Mac could make businesses more efficient by reducing training and support costs.
Watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MaDXt30xSo [youtube.com]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dqLT0UBPx0 [youtube.com]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcuSOfjR6w [youtube.com]Print ads, too:http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad1.jpg [macmothership.com] and http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads10/Macad2.jpg [macmothership.com]For about fifteen years, Apple desperately wanted to be taken seriously by business users, who dismissed Macs as incompatible and expensive (with good reason.
) Apple lost loads of money during this period.
Meanwhile, Apple's sales were coming entirely from home users, artists, and education sales.One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned was shit-can that approach and release the cute, cuddly, home-student oriented iMac.
And whaddya know, the company suddenly started making money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31178740</id>
	<title>Re:XServe, OS X Server, XSan?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1265031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses...</i></p><p>For pretty much all businesses, that is a very smart decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses...For pretty much all businesses , that is a very smart decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the products that they market to businesses...For pretty much all businesses, that is a very smart decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110280</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy. Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.</p><p>Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it???</p></div><p>Um, because they can FIRE your lazy ass, and SAVE $75K PER YEAR, PER "LAZY ASS" FIRED.</p><p>And, since Macs generally last at least 2-3X as long as equiv. Windows (or Linux) boxen, and even have a decent resale value, that "extra $30k" is as nothing...</p><p>It's called TCO. And YOU are a BIG, BIG, BIG part of that cost.</p><p>Tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's about $ 1270 difference..... let 's say $ 1000 to keep the math easy .
Times 30 office workers ( small office ) yields $ 30,000 more money spent on the Macs.Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune , because I 'm not seeing it ? ?
? Um , because they can FIRE your lazy ass , and SAVE $ 75K PER YEAR , PER " LAZY ASS " FIRED.And , since Macs generally last at least 2-3X as long as equiv .
Windows ( or Linux ) boxen , and even have a decent resale value , that " extra $ 30k " is as nothing...It 's called TCO .
And YOU are a BIG , BIG , BIG part of that cost.Tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy.
Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.Remind me again how Macs will save a fortune, because I'm not seeing it??
?Um, because they can FIRE your lazy ass, and SAVE $75K PER YEAR, PER "LAZY ASS" FIRED.And, since Macs generally last at least 2-3X as long as equiv.
Windows (or Linux) boxen, and even have a decent resale value, that "extra $30k" is as nothing...It's called TCO.
And YOU are a BIG, BIG, BIG part of that cost.Tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108468</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1265899320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, there are definitley machines out there that can't run XP. Most noticeably, XP's pre-install environment doesn't seem to support booting from a SATA optical drive; it will BSOD while loading drivers. While some machines still use IDE drives, it's becoming less common, and on a laptop you can't even just swap out the drive.</p><p>Of course, you're talking about an OS that is more than 8 years old (even counting service packs, it's still older than any version of OS X that Apple still supports). I suppose I should be happy it supports SATA hard drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , there are definitley machines out there that ca n't run XP .
Most noticeably , XP 's pre-install environment does n't seem to support booting from a SATA optical drive ; it will BSOD while loading drivers .
While some machines still use IDE drives , it 's becoming less common , and on a laptop you ca n't even just swap out the drive.Of course , you 're talking about an OS that is more than 8 years old ( even counting service packs , it 's still older than any version of OS X that Apple still supports ) .
I suppose I should be happy it supports SATA hard drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, there are definitley machines out there that can't run XP.
Most noticeably, XP's pre-install environment doesn't seem to support booting from a SATA optical drive; it will BSOD while loading drivers.
While some machines still use IDE drives, it's becoming less common, and on a laptop you can't even just swap out the drive.Of course, you're talking about an OS that is more than 8 years old (even counting service packs, it's still older than any version of OS X that Apple still supports).
I suppose I should be happy it supports SATA hard drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105306</id>
	<title>A load of bunk</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1265884380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of bunk. If they thought they could be competitive they would be in there grabbing the cash with both hands. The fact is that they have done it internal reviews and concluded they would get slaughtered in that market. "We chose not to" just sounds better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bunk .
If they thought they could be competitive they would be in there grabbing the cash with both hands .
The fact is that they have done it internal reviews and concluded they would get slaughtered in that market .
" We chose not to " just sounds better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bunk.
If they thought they could be competitive they would be in there grabbing the cash with both hands.
The fact is that they have done it internal reviews and concluded they would get slaughtered in that market.
"We chose not to" just sounds better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105414</id>
	<title>Training, Training, Training</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the dirty little secret we all know:</p><p>Schools (and easy piracy) train people to use Windows and Windows-based software. If you're at home, who cares if you have to spend a few hours to learn the OS, or a new email system, or a paint program.</p><p>Go into a business office, and an employee costs $100/hr or more to train. With, say, 12 desktop apps the typical employee might use - half of which have no direct port - and maybe a dozen hours to get "fully productive" on the custom apps, you've got a $7000 price you have to add to every mac you put on a desk. (that's why corps also are loathe to upgrade within windows)</p><p>Of course, that's not the whole of it - there's the app side, too...</p><p>What about the custom s/w written for PC that the in-house foo group uses.  Tack on another 5 (if you're lucky) to 7 figures to rewrite that app. How about apps that have no direct analog in the Mac world?  You're fucked if you have to interact natively with businesses that use AutoCAD or Pro/Engineer.  What? There are translators? Sure - but how much productivity will be lost (and now we're into higher paid workers - maybe $80-$150/hr in opportunity cost) if the translation isn't perfect - and it never is.</p><p>When you're at home, it may never matter - the embedded apps are "good enough". When you're in business, there's more in play.</p><p>I know some of you will cry that management is easier, so it's cheaper. Really? Is it actually cheaper to hire a competent Apple admin (do they even exist in significant quantity?). If you're a small to medium business, you've only got an IT staff of 1 anyway, so 1 Win admin isn't going to cost you more than 1 apple admin.  Sure, you might outsource it, but if you have more than a dozen employees do you really want your whole office dependent on an outside firm with hundreds of other (larger) clients? You're still paying a retainer every month, and you know you'll take it up the ass (at $125-$200/hr) if anything does go wrong (and it will).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the dirty little secret we all know : Schools ( and easy piracy ) train people to use Windows and Windows-based software .
If you 're at home , who cares if you have to spend a few hours to learn the OS , or a new email system , or a paint program.Go into a business office , and an employee costs $ 100/hr or more to train .
With , say , 12 desktop apps the typical employee might use - half of which have no direct port - and maybe a dozen hours to get " fully productive " on the custom apps , you 've got a $ 7000 price you have to add to every mac you put on a desk .
( that 's why corps also are loathe to upgrade within windows ) Of course , that 's not the whole of it - there 's the app side , too...What about the custom s/w written for PC that the in-house foo group uses .
Tack on another 5 ( if you 're lucky ) to 7 figures to rewrite that app .
How about apps that have no direct analog in the Mac world ?
You 're fucked if you have to interact natively with businesses that use AutoCAD or Pro/Engineer .
What ? There are translators ?
Sure - but how much productivity will be lost ( and now we 're into higher paid workers - maybe $ 80- $ 150/hr in opportunity cost ) if the translation is n't perfect - and it never is.When you 're at home , it may never matter - the embedded apps are " good enough " .
When you 're in business , there 's more in play.I know some of you will cry that management is easier , so it 's cheaper .
Really ? Is it actually cheaper to hire a competent Apple admin ( do they even exist in significant quantity ? ) .
If you 're a small to medium business , you 've only got an IT staff of 1 anyway , so 1 Win admin is n't going to cost you more than 1 apple admin .
Sure , you might outsource it , but if you have more than a dozen employees do you really want your whole office dependent on an outside firm with hundreds of other ( larger ) clients ?
You 're still paying a retainer every month , and you know you 'll take it up the ass ( at $ 125- $ 200/hr ) if anything does go wrong ( and it will ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the dirty little secret we all know:Schools (and easy piracy) train people to use Windows and Windows-based software.
If you're at home, who cares if you have to spend a few hours to learn the OS, or a new email system, or a paint program.Go into a business office, and an employee costs $100/hr or more to train.
With, say, 12 desktop apps the typical employee might use - half of which have no direct port - and maybe a dozen hours to get "fully productive" on the custom apps, you've got a $7000 price you have to add to every mac you put on a desk.
(that's why corps also are loathe to upgrade within windows)Of course, that's not the whole of it - there's the app side, too...What about the custom s/w written for PC that the in-house foo group uses.
Tack on another 5 (if you're lucky) to 7 figures to rewrite that app.
How about apps that have no direct analog in the Mac world?
You're fucked if you have to interact natively with businesses that use AutoCAD or Pro/Engineer.
What? There are translators?
Sure - but how much productivity will be lost (and now we're into higher paid workers - maybe $80-$150/hr in opportunity cost) if the translation isn't perfect - and it never is.When you're at home, it may never matter - the embedded apps are "good enough".
When you're in business, there's more in play.I know some of you will cry that management is easier, so it's cheaper.
Really? Is it actually cheaper to hire a competent Apple admin (do they even exist in significant quantity?).
If you're a small to medium business, you've only got an IT staff of 1 anyway, so 1 Win admin isn't going to cost you more than 1 apple admin.
Sure, you might outsource it, but if you have more than a dozen employees do you really want your whole office dependent on an outside firm with hundreds of other (larger) clients?
You're still paying a retainer every month, and you know you'll take it up the ass (at $125-$200/hr) if anything does go wrong (and it will).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105302</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1265884380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's basically Linux-designed apps running with the ultimate control panel. If you know what you're doing it's a waste of money. However, if you don't know Linux, then OSX Server can save you a ton of time showing you around with Mac-designed interfaces leading the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's basically Linux-designed apps running with the ultimate control panel .
If you know what you 're doing it 's a waste of money .
However , if you do n't know Linux , then OSX Server can save you a ton of time showing you around with Mac-designed interfaces leading the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's basically Linux-designed apps running with the ultimate control panel.
If you know what you're doing it's a waste of money.
However, if you don't know Linux, then OSX Server can save you a ton of time showing you around with Mac-designed interfaces leading the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108040</id>
	<title>Complexity?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1265896200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've got almost everything except security down.  Add a few more ways to lock down the systems, and add real WOL (that wakes from off state, not just sleep), and they're good to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've got almost everything except security down .
Add a few more ways to lock down the systems , and add real WOL ( that wakes from off state , not just sleep ) , and they 're good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've got almost everything except security down.
Add a few more ways to lock down the systems, and add real WOL (that wakes from off state, not just sleep), and they're good to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110166</id>
	<title>strategies</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1265918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about strategies. For many years (before it started with its entertainment division), MS essentially followed the opposite strategy. It made windos so obiquituous in business that people were expected to know it if they wanted a job, so lots of people bought a computer for home, which of course (thanks to OEM deals) came with windos. Closed ecosystem.</p><p>Apple approaches the same thing from the opposite direction, it assumes that even corporations are made up out of humans and that it is humans who make the decisions. So people who enjoy Macs at home bring them into the company - I've seen that happen on many occasions.</p><p>btw: You <b>can</b> get enterprise support for Mac hardware and software. Just not from Apple directly, but many of their partners will be happy to fill that niche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about strategies .
For many years ( before it started with its entertainment division ) , MS essentially followed the opposite strategy .
It made windos so obiquituous in business that people were expected to know it if they wanted a job , so lots of people bought a computer for home , which of course ( thanks to OEM deals ) came with windos .
Closed ecosystem.Apple approaches the same thing from the opposite direction , it assumes that even corporations are made up out of humans and that it is humans who make the decisions .
So people who enjoy Macs at home bring them into the company - I 've seen that happen on many occasions.btw : You can get enterprise support for Mac hardware and software .
Just not from Apple directly , but many of their partners will be happy to fill that niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about strategies.
For many years (before it started with its entertainment division), MS essentially followed the opposite strategy.
It made windos so obiquituous in business that people were expected to know it if they wanted a job, so lots of people bought a computer for home, which of course (thanks to OEM deals) came with windos.
Closed ecosystem.Apple approaches the same thing from the opposite direction, it assumes that even corporations are made up out of humans and that it is humans who make the decisions.
So people who enjoy Macs at home bring them into the company - I've seen that happen on many occasions.btw: You can get enterprise support for Mac hardware and software.
Just not from Apple directly, but many of their partners will be happy to fill that niche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114960</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1265997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bullshit. The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped. That's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out, which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations. Also, 10.5 is still getting security updates.</p></div><p>Four years is indeed more than three years, but hardly the point where any sane business is going to accept that their workstations are so aged that they should require total replacement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped .
That 's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out , which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations .
Also , 10.5 is still getting security updates.Four years is indeed more than three years , but hardly the point where any sane business is going to accept that their workstations are so aged that they should require total replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped.
That's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out, which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations.
Also, 10.5 is still getting security updates.Four years is indeed more than three years, but hardly the point where any sane business is going to accept that their workstations are so aged that they should require total replacement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108064</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Actually, your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricing</p><p>Which is what a small business is likely to be running.  Your secretary or HR rep doesn't need anything more than the  AMD X2 with 3 gigabytes DRAM computer, which I used in my example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Actually , your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry 's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricingWhich is what a small business is likely to be running .
Your secretary or HR rep does n't need anything more than the AMD X2 with 3 gigabytes DRAM computer , which I used in my example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Actually, your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricingWhich is what a small business is likely to be running.
Your secretary or HR rep doesn't need anything more than the  AMD X2 with 3 gigabytes DRAM computer, which I used in my example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104954</id>
	<title>A more important question to answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Rob Malda have a baby penis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Rob Malda have a baby penis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Rob Malda have a baby penis?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105994</id>
	<title>Re:May be for desktops and laptops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What does it offer that any other *nix would not?</p></div><p>Among other things, <a href="http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/ical-server.html" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">iCal Server</a> [apple.com] and <a href="http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/addressbook-server.html" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Addressbook Server</a> [apple.com] which, when combined with a *nix LDAP/IMAP/SMTP setup, become a credible replacement option for Exchange.</p><p>I'd be happy to be informed otherwise, but I don't think FOSS and *nix have applications that offer equivalent functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it offer that any other * nix would not ? Among other things , iCal Server [ apple.com ] and Addressbook Server [ apple.com ] which , when combined with a * nix LDAP/IMAP/SMTP setup , become a credible replacement option for Exchange.I 'd be happy to be informed otherwise , but I do n't think FOSS and * nix have applications that offer equivalent functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it offer that any other *nix would not?Among other things, iCal Server [apple.com] and Addressbook Server [apple.com] which, when combined with a *nix LDAP/IMAP/SMTP setup, become a credible replacement option for Exchange.I'd be happy to be informed otherwise, but I don't think FOSS and *nix have applications that offer equivalent functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110796</id>
	<title>Simpler reason than that</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265970600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't get that the Mac with OS X saves you time and money and increases productivity compared to a PC with Windows by now then that's your problem. You can help the ignorant but not the stupid, not the completely disfunctional. There are thousands of examples like Genentech where Mac minis replaced Dell towers and millions of dollars were saved and productivity soared. The message has been sent. Many simply are not listening.</p><p>I'm working in the I-T group for a huge multinational that is 98\% Windows, and me and my co-workers all have Macs at home, and so do most users. But the guy making the buying decisions only knows Microsoft. He does not even know anything about the Web. He's a middle manager guy, not a technologist. Nobody is home. There is no decision-making about I-T except when do we roll out the next Microsoft patch? They still run IE6. They spend months deciding what icons will appear on a user's desktop when they get it. They have no idea what their users do or how to help them be productive. The big issue now is how to convince users they want Windows 7 enough for them to learn it. They're not rolling out better tools, they're propagandizing the next Microsoft thing. You can't help people like that.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't get that the Mac with OS X saves you time and money and increases productivity compared to a PC with Windows by now then that 's your problem .
You can help the ignorant but not the stupid , not the completely disfunctional .
There are thousands of examples like Genentech where Mac minis replaced Dell towers and millions of dollars were saved and productivity soared .
The message has been sent .
Many simply are not listening.I 'm working in the I-T group for a huge multinational that is 98 \ % Windows , and me and my co-workers all have Macs at home , and so do most users .
But the guy making the buying decisions only knows Microsoft .
He does not even know anything about the Web .
He 's a middle manager guy , not a technologist .
Nobody is home .
There is no decision-making about I-T except when do we roll out the next Microsoft patch ?
They still run IE6 .
They spend months deciding what icons will appear on a user 's desktop when they get it .
They have no idea what their users do or how to help them be productive .
The big issue now is how to convince users they want Windows 7 enough for them to learn it .
They 're not rolling out better tools , they 're propagandizing the next Microsoft thing .
You ca n't help people like that .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't get that the Mac with OS X saves you time and money and increases productivity compared to a PC with Windows by now then that's your problem.
You can help the ignorant but not the stupid, not the completely disfunctional.
There are thousands of examples like Genentech where Mac minis replaced Dell towers and millions of dollars were saved and productivity soared.
The message has been sent.
Many simply are not listening.I'm working in the I-T group for a huge multinational that is 98\% Windows, and me and my co-workers all have Macs at home, and so do most users.
But the guy making the buying decisions only knows Microsoft.
He does not even know anything about the Web.
He's a middle manager guy, not a technologist.
Nobody is home.
There is no decision-making about I-T except when do we roll out the next Microsoft patch?
They still run IE6.
They spend months deciding what icons will appear on a user's desktop when they get it.
They have no idea what their users do or how to help them be productive.
The big issue now is how to convince users they want Windows 7 enough for them to learn it.
They're not rolling out better tools, they're propagandizing the next Microsoft thing.
You can't help people like that.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106386</id>
	<title>they like to make you pay over a $1000 more for a</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they like to make you pay over a $1000 more for a desktop pc then one you can get with the same cpu power + X2 ram and better video card and the imacs are not a good fit as Businesses like to reuse the displays.</p><p>Also the hard to get to HDD's in the Imacs and some what with the mini are a trun off for data security. You do not want to ship out a system with data on it for warranty work. Also the build in web cam is a BIG no for some Business in the imac as well.</p><p>The mini will be a good system if they dropped the price to $500 with a good sized HDD and 2-4gb of ram as make easier to open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they like to make you pay over a $ 1000 more for a desktop pc then one you can get with the same cpu power + X2 ram and better video card and the imacs are not a good fit as Businesses like to reuse the displays.Also the hard to get to HDD 's in the Imacs and some what with the mini are a trun off for data security .
You do not want to ship out a system with data on it for warranty work .
Also the build in web cam is a BIG no for some Business in the imac as well.The mini will be a good system if they dropped the price to $ 500 with a good sized HDD and 2-4gb of ram as make easier to open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they like to make you pay over a $1000 more for a desktop pc then one you can get with the same cpu power + X2 ram and better video card and the imacs are not a good fit as Businesses like to reuse the displays.Also the hard to get to HDD's in the Imacs and some what with the mini are a trun off for data security.
You do not want to ship out a system with data on it for warranty work.
Also the build in web cam is a BIG no for some Business in the imac as well.The mini will be a good system if they dropped the price to $500 with a good sized HDD and 2-4gb of ram as make easier to open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106210</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265887800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are businesses still using Windows XP with Internet Explorer 6. I don't that enterprise really cares about being on the bleeding edge. It's not like Tiger stopped working as soon as Snow Leopard was released. And besides, the transition from PowerPC to Intel was a special case. Any business that bought a PowerPC Mac just before the announced transition to Intel would have expected a quicker time to obsolescence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are businesses still using Windows XP with Internet Explorer 6 .
I do n't that enterprise really cares about being on the bleeding edge .
It 's not like Tiger stopped working as soon as Snow Leopard was released .
And besides , the transition from PowerPC to Intel was a special case .
Any business that bought a PowerPC Mac just before the announced transition to Intel would have expected a quicker time to obsolescence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are businesses still using Windows XP with Internet Explorer 6.
I don't that enterprise really cares about being on the bleeding edge.
It's not like Tiger stopped working as soon as Snow Leopard was released.
And besides, the transition from PowerPC to Intel was a special case.
Any business that bought a PowerPC Mac just before the announced transition to Intel would have expected a quicker time to obsolescence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108654</id>
	<title>Apple waiting for the enterprise to catch up</title>
	<author>dcavanaugh</author>
	<datestamp>1265901000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My employer has one of those "Enterprise class" IT departments.  I use the phrase in quotes, because if Captain Kirk had this type of IT support on the Enterprise, Star Trek TNG would be entirely in Klingon.  My wife and kids have better, more reliable networks and PC applications -- running from my HOME.  At work, we suffer along with an Exchange server that takes a day off every so often.  File servers are a hit-or-miss proposition.  We have measurable packet loss on our own LAN!  Websense blocks us from legitimate business sites.  Meanwhile, the computers are locked down in such a way that half the time the automatic updates to corporate-supplied software die for lack of privileges -- but spyware plays right through.</p><p>When corporate IT simplifies its approach and cuts the MS-inspired complexity, they will discover the appeal of Macs.  But not until.  If Apple were to try and make the Mac as "administrator-friendly" as a PC, it would be no better than a PC.  It is not easy to justify premium pricing if your product suffers from the same disease as lowball competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer has one of those " Enterprise class " IT departments .
I use the phrase in quotes , because if Captain Kirk had this type of IT support on the Enterprise , Star Trek TNG would be entirely in Klingon .
My wife and kids have better , more reliable networks and PC applications -- running from my HOME .
At work , we suffer along with an Exchange server that takes a day off every so often .
File servers are a hit-or-miss proposition .
We have measurable packet loss on our own LAN !
Websense blocks us from legitimate business sites .
Meanwhile , the computers are locked down in such a way that half the time the automatic updates to corporate-supplied software die for lack of privileges -- but spyware plays right through.When corporate IT simplifies its approach and cuts the MS-inspired complexity , they will discover the appeal of Macs .
But not until .
If Apple were to try and make the Mac as " administrator-friendly " as a PC , it would be no better than a PC .
It is not easy to justify premium pricing if your product suffers from the same disease as lowball competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer has one of those "Enterprise class" IT departments.
I use the phrase in quotes, because if Captain Kirk had this type of IT support on the Enterprise, Star Trek TNG would be entirely in Klingon.
My wife and kids have better, more reliable networks and PC applications -- running from my HOME.
At work, we suffer along with an Exchange server that takes a day off every so often.
File servers are a hit-or-miss proposition.
We have measurable packet loss on our own LAN!
Websense blocks us from legitimate business sites.
Meanwhile, the computers are locked down in such a way that half the time the automatic updates to corporate-supplied software die for lack of privileges -- but spyware plays right through.When corporate IT simplifies its approach and cuts the MS-inspired complexity, they will discover the appeal of Macs.
But not until.
If Apple were to try and make the Mac as "administrator-friendly" as a PC, it would be no better than a PC.
It is not easy to justify premium pricing if your product suffers from the same disease as lowball competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119748</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>chasd</author>
	<datestamp>1265970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple had an enterprise server that was PPC-based and ran AIX called the Apple Network Server. It only was offered for a short time because few people purchased them. Yeah, before the Xserve. Yeah, before the " G " series PPC processors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple had an enterprise server that was PPC-based and ran AIX called the Apple Network Server .
It only was offered for a short time because few people purchased them .
Yeah , before the Xserve .
Yeah , before the " G " series PPC processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple had an enterprise server that was PPC-based and ran AIX called the Apple Network Server.
It only was offered for a short time because few people purchased them.
Yeah, before the Xserve.
Yeah, before the " G " series PPC processors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108380</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>bongey</author>
	<datestamp>1265898600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is windows really that bad</p> </div><p>
You must be new here.
<br>
<br>
(A little out of context but hey I couldn't pass it up)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is windows really that bad You must be new here .
( A little out of context but hey I could n't pass it up )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is windows really that bad 
You must be new here.
(A little out of context but hey I couldn't pass it up)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106408</id>
	<title>Re:No Enterprise Offerings</title>
	<author>EXrider</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if you've ever actually administered a Mac OS X Server in the last 5 years on a regular basis, but it has done all of those things quite well since the 10.4 days back in '05.  Can you cite an example of something you do in AD that you can't do in OD?  Exchange has definitely got some more features and way more 3rd party support, but OS X Server does provide IMAP, group calendaring, address lists, chat and wiki collaboration tools; that are all integrated with OD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 've ever actually administered a Mac OS X Server in the last 5 years on a regular basis , but it has done all of those things quite well since the 10.4 days back in '05 .
Can you cite an example of something you do in AD that you ca n't do in OD ?
Exchange has definitely got some more features and way more 3rd party support , but OS X Server does provide IMAP , group calendaring , address lists , chat and wiki collaboration tools ; that are all integrated with OD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you've ever actually administered a Mac OS X Server in the last 5 years on a regular basis, but it has done all of those things quite well since the 10.4 days back in '05.
Can you cite an example of something you do in AD that you can't do in OD?
Exchange has definitely got some more features and way more 3rd party support, but OS X Server does provide IMAP, group calendaring, address lists, chat and wiki collaboration tools; that are all integrated with OD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1265885280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I used to - and one of the biggest. We switched to PCs and nothing has worked quite right since, and really no serious attempt has been made to fix it for 12 years. Document control, in particular, has completely broken down. We still have a few Macs around (OS8.6 and OS X) to try to correct document corruption problems caused by PCs. Even on PC to another can't correctly read, render, or print a document correctly. Create it in Office 2000, move it to another Office 2000 machine, characters are screwed up. It's even worse with 2000/2003/2007 and NT/XP/Vista (for those poor saps who got stuck with it). Put them on the Mac, using Office 98/2001/VX/2004, and frequently, no problem, and/or you can fix it and have it work with any of the PC versions. But reports created on 2003 two days ago, into Windows-based document control, and try to extract them today, completely hosed.</p><p>
&nbsp; For critical items, we print it out (however we can get a correct version, PC or Mac) then scen them in as TIFF files. This was suggested by the senior Microsoft tech working the Platinum trouble ticket as the most reliable way!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs .
      I used to - and one of the biggest .
We switched to PCs and nothing has worked quite right since , and really no serious attempt has been made to fix it for 12 years .
Document control , in particular , has completely broken down .
We still have a few Macs around ( OS8.6 and OS X ) to try to correct document corruption problems caused by PCs .
Even on PC to another ca n't correctly read , render , or print a document correctly .
Create it in Office 2000 , move it to another Office 2000 machine , characters are screwed up .
It 's even worse with 2000/2003/2007 and NT/XP/Vista ( for those poor saps who got stuck with it ) .
Put them on the Mac , using Office 98/2001/VX/2004 , and frequently , no problem , and/or you can fix it and have it work with any of the PC versions .
But reports created on 2003 two days ago , into Windows-based document control , and try to extract them today , completely hosed .
  For critical items , we print it out ( however we can get a correct version , PC or Mac ) then scen them in as TIFF files .
This was suggested by the senior Microsoft tech working the Platinum trouble ticket as the most reliable way !
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.
      I used to - and one of the biggest.
We switched to PCs and nothing has worked quite right since, and really no serious attempt has been made to fix it for 12 years.
Document control, in particular, has completely broken down.
We still have a few Macs around (OS8.6 and OS X) to try to correct document corruption problems caused by PCs.
Even on PC to another can't correctly read, render, or print a document correctly.
Create it in Office 2000, move it to another Office 2000 machine, characters are screwed up.
It's even worse with 2000/2003/2007 and NT/XP/Vista (for those poor saps who got stuck with it).
Put them on the Mac, using Office 98/2001/VX/2004, and frequently, no problem, and/or you can fix it and have it work with any of the PC versions.
But reports created on 2003 two days ago, into Windows-based document control, and try to extract them today, completely hosed.
  For critical items, we print it out (however we can get a correct version, PC or Mac) then scen them in as TIFF files.
This was suggested by the senior Microsoft tech working the Platinum trouble ticket as the most reliable way!
        Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108866</id>
	<title>Re:May be for desktops and laptops</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1265902800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I administer all three types of systems occasionally (Linux, OS X, various BSD).  Of them, if I want to carefully tweak things, I like BSD best, because the BSD systems tend to have a more coherent design.  If I want something that'll run on whatever hardware I have lying around, I like Linux best, because it has nearly all the software and will probably just run out of the box.  If I want something to handle basic stuff without much attention, I like OS X best, because it takes the least time by far... IF all I want is the basic/sane setups.  Which sometimes it is.</p><p>The $500 or so I spent on an OS X Server license for my house was one of the best $500 I ever spent.  It's saved me time worth much, much, more than $500.  (And I'm running it on a mini I had lying around, so hardware cost was trivial.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I administer all three types of systems occasionally ( Linux , OS X , various BSD ) .
Of them , if I want to carefully tweak things , I like BSD best , because the BSD systems tend to have a more coherent design .
If I want something that 'll run on whatever hardware I have lying around , I like Linux best , because it has nearly all the software and will probably just run out of the box .
If I want something to handle basic stuff without much attention , I like OS X best , because it takes the least time by far... IF all I want is the basic/sane setups .
Which sometimes it is.The $ 500 or so I spent on an OS X Server license for my house was one of the best $ 500 I ever spent .
It 's saved me time worth much , much , more than $ 500 .
( And I 'm running it on a mini I had lying around , so hardware cost was trivial .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I administer all three types of systems occasionally (Linux, OS X, various BSD).
Of them, if I want to carefully tweak things, I like BSD best, because the BSD systems tend to have a more coherent design.
If I want something that'll run on whatever hardware I have lying around, I like Linux best, because it has nearly all the software and will probably just run out of the box.
If I want something to handle basic stuff without much attention, I like OS X best, because it takes the least time by far... IF all I want is the basic/sane setups.
Which sometimes it is.The $500 or so I spent on an OS X Server license for my house was one of the best $500 I ever spent.
It's saved me time worth much, much, more than $500.
(And I'm running it on a mini I had lying around, so hardware cost was trivial.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107966</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265895720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or, Amazon. One can choose either Mac or Windows laptop, and IT actually even supports Macs.</p><p>But as much as I like my MacBook in theory, in practice it is a Royal PITA -- commonly (as in, more often than Windows) locks up, that spin-wheel of death (maybe stuck on some networking related thing, who knows? as long as it works, it's nice, when it don't, god only knows what's going on). And all problems are supposed to go away by reimaging, new OS versions etc. etc.</p><p>So no, I think Apple probably doesn't try very hard in enterprise space, regardless of whether it's by choice or consequence of labor intensive nature of supporting enterprise style systems.</p><p>Me? I do my work on linux desktop, and use laptop for office documents, outlook meetings, printing and occasional email reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or , Amazon .
One can choose either Mac or Windows laptop , and IT actually even supports Macs.But as much as I like my MacBook in theory , in practice it is a Royal PITA -- commonly ( as in , more often than Windows ) locks up , that spin-wheel of death ( maybe stuck on some networking related thing , who knows ?
as long as it works , it 's nice , when it do n't , god only knows what 's going on ) .
And all problems are supposed to go away by reimaging , new OS versions etc .
etc.So no , I think Apple probably does n't try very hard in enterprise space , regardless of whether it 's by choice or consequence of labor intensive nature of supporting enterprise style systems.Me ?
I do my work on linux desktop , and use laptop for office documents , outlook meetings , printing and occasional email reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or, Amazon.
One can choose either Mac or Windows laptop, and IT actually even supports Macs.But as much as I like my MacBook in theory, in practice it is a Royal PITA -- commonly (as in, more often than Windows) locks up, that spin-wheel of death (maybe stuck on some networking related thing, who knows?
as long as it works, it's nice, when it don't, god only knows what's going on).
And all problems are supposed to go away by reimaging, new OS versions etc.
etc.So no, I think Apple probably doesn't try very hard in enterprise space, regardless of whether it's by choice or consequence of labor intensive nature of supporting enterprise style systems.Me?
I do my work on linux desktop, and use laptop for office documents, outlook meetings, printing and occasional email reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105488</id>
	<title>IT companies' sales people advise against them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's not much markup to be had before you've outpriced yourself with Apple itself, at least in New Zealand anyway (I've worked for one of NZ's larger IT providers in the past) and a lot of IT companies also prefer to get cheap labour - which generally means people that only know Windows.  MCSA / MCSE is more likely to land you a job than a degree, I know this from personal experience.</p><p>It's actually quite a shame considering the over all experience of using a Mac running OS X is relatively easy and maintenance free bar the occasional update that becomes available every now and then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not much markup to be had before you 've outpriced yourself with Apple itself , at least in New Zealand anyway ( I 've worked for one of NZ 's larger IT providers in the past ) and a lot of IT companies also prefer to get cheap labour - which generally means people that only know Windows .
MCSA / MCSE is more likely to land you a job than a degree , I know this from personal experience.It 's actually quite a shame considering the over all experience of using a Mac running OS X is relatively easy and maintenance free bar the occasional update that becomes available every now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not much markup to be had before you've outpriced yourself with Apple itself, at least in New Zealand anyway (I've worked for one of NZ's larger IT providers in the past) and a lot of IT companies also prefer to get cheap labour - which generally means people that only know Windows.
MCSA / MCSE is more likely to land you a job than a degree, I know this from personal experience.It's actually quite a shame considering the over all experience of using a Mac running OS X is relatively easy and maintenance free bar the occasional update that becomes available every now and then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109122</id>
	<title>Re:Docking station? Who cares?</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1265905200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good docking station (one that isn't just one that hangs off a USB port) is a very excellent thing to have.  It allows you to not just have a good monitor and keyboard ready as soon as you push the machine in, but also provides security (a lot of docking stations are lockable to the desk, and can lock the laptop in docked mode.)</p><p>More advanced docking stations even offer items like PCI (and IIRC, PCI-E) slots, ability to offload onboard video, additional disk storage (which can be used in combination with a backup utility to have a secure place of documents and make bare metal restores easier), and more network ports.  The nice thing is the ability to completely disconnect with a press of a button and a tug of a laptop, and not have to worry about unplugging a tangle of cables.  However, laptops progress so fast, that very advanced docking stations are rare.  Usually in most cases, the best one will find when it comes to a docking station is a port replicator or a monitor stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good docking station ( one that is n't just one that hangs off a USB port ) is a very excellent thing to have .
It allows you to not just have a good monitor and keyboard ready as soon as you push the machine in , but also provides security ( a lot of docking stations are lockable to the desk , and can lock the laptop in docked mode .
) More advanced docking stations even offer items like PCI ( and IIRC , PCI-E ) slots , ability to offload onboard video , additional disk storage ( which can be used in combination with a backup utility to have a secure place of documents and make bare metal restores easier ) , and more network ports .
The nice thing is the ability to completely disconnect with a press of a button and a tug of a laptop , and not have to worry about unplugging a tangle of cables .
However , laptops progress so fast , that very advanced docking stations are rare .
Usually in most cases , the best one will find when it comes to a docking station is a port replicator or a monitor stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good docking station (one that isn't just one that hangs off a USB port) is a very excellent thing to have.
It allows you to not just have a good monitor and keyboard ready as soon as you push the machine in, but also provides security (a lot of docking stations are lockable to the desk, and can lock the laptop in docked mode.
)More advanced docking stations even offer items like PCI (and IIRC, PCI-E) slots, ability to offload onboard video, additional disk storage (which can be used in combination with a backup utility to have a secure place of documents and make bare metal restores easier), and more network ports.
The nice thing is the ability to completely disconnect with a press of a button and a tug of a laptop, and not have to worry about unplugging a tangle of cables.
However, laptops progress so fast, that very advanced docking stations are rare.
Usually in most cases, the best one will find when it comes to a docking station is a port replicator or a monitor stand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105012</id>
	<title>Why Apple Doesn't Market Squarely To Businesses</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1265883300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . because you can't bullshit bullshitters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
because you ca n't bullshit bullshitters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
because you can't bullshit bullshitters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114014</id>
	<title>In my experience...</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1265994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple courting IT people is a losing battle for a couple of reasons.  First, a large number of IT people drink daily at the Kool-Aid fountains of Microsoft so to them, anything else is an "also ran".  Second, the IT support requirements of Windows environments are far more than that of Apple environments but the heads of IT departments don't care about saving money as much as they do about increasing their headcount.  Running a larger department gives the department head more clout in the company.  This has been my experience working for a Fortune 500 company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple courting IT people is a losing battle for a couple of reasons .
First , a large number of IT people drink daily at the Kool-Aid fountains of Microsoft so to them , anything else is an " also ran " .
Second , the IT support requirements of Windows environments are far more than that of Apple environments but the heads of IT departments do n't care about saving money as much as they do about increasing their headcount .
Running a larger department gives the department head more clout in the company .
This has been my experience working for a Fortune 500 company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple courting IT people is a losing battle for a couple of reasons.
First, a large number of IT people drink daily at the Kool-Aid fountains of Microsoft so to them, anything else is an "also ran".
Second, the IT support requirements of Windows environments are far more than that of Apple environments but the heads of IT departments don't care about saving money as much as they do about increasing their headcount.
Running a larger department gives the department head more clout in the company.
This has been my experience working for a Fortune 500 company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105474</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how much money do you think your company spent, beyound the cost of windows, to ensure that you have never been infected with a virus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much money do you think your company spent , beyound the cost of windows , to ensure that you have never been infected with a virus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much money do you think your company spent, beyound the cost of windows, to ensure that you have never been infected with a virus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31112002</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265985120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Optus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Optus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Optus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110924</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1265972760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor, when a multi-vendor option exists.</p> </div><p>And yet, they continue to flock around MS Office and Exchange (platform with only one software vendor). when multi-platform, multi-vendor options exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor , when a multi-vendor option exists .
And yet , they continue to flock around MS Office and Exchange ( platform with only one software vendor ) .
when multi-platform , multi-vendor options exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No CIO in their right mind would sign up for a platform with only one hardware vendor, when a multi-vendor option exists.
And yet, they continue to flock around MS Office and Exchange (platform with only one software vendor).
when multi-platform, multi-vendor options exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105136</id>
	<title>Apple needs to downsize Enterprise</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mean downsize in the sense of "fire".</p><p>What I mean is, that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development, you have to have an employee base of 500 people.  Seems fair enough at first...</p><p>But the trouble is, although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.</p><p>Now you probably are not going to need one device per employee.  You can kind of work around that with multiple accounts, but that's a pain - it would thus be way better if they made the step clear, by supporting 500 devices on any developer account OR dropping down Enterprise requirements to 100 employees.</p><p>To me what separates "small business" from Enterprise is a clear delineation of worlds... a small business does not mind having data exist all over the place, whereas an "Enterprise" studiously guards data and wants to keep as much of it in-hous as possible (and then send it all to India as an afterthought).</p><p>That's why the enterprise iPhone program is useful, because it keeps your business apps off the store.   Basically anything Apple can do to support self-isolation helps the enterprise, and they've actually been much better about this in recent years (along with adopting ActiveSync all over and adding in good VPN support, which again goes back to that "separate world" thing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean downsize in the sense of " fire " .What I mean is , that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development , you have to have an employee base of 500 people .
Seems fair enough at first...But the trouble is , although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.Now you probably are not going to need one device per employee .
You can kind of work around that with multiple accounts , but that 's a pain - it would thus be way better if they made the step clear , by supporting 500 devices on any developer account OR dropping down Enterprise requirements to 100 employees.To me what separates " small business " from Enterprise is a clear delineation of worlds... a small business does not mind having data exist all over the place , whereas an " Enterprise " studiously guards data and wants to keep as much of it in-hous as possible ( and then send it all to India as an afterthought ) .That 's why the enterprise iPhone program is useful , because it keeps your business apps off the store .
Basically anything Apple can do to support self-isolation helps the enterprise , and they 've actually been much better about this in recent years ( along with adopting ActiveSync all over and adding in good VPN support , which again goes back to that " separate world " thing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean downsize in the sense of "fire".What I mean is, that right now if you want to do enterprise iPhone development, you have to have an employee base of 500 people.
Seems fair enough at first...But the trouble is, although you can have a normal developer account and distribute applications via AdHoc to your employees - where the limit is 100 separate devices.Now you probably are not going to need one device per employee.
You can kind of work around that with multiple accounts, but that's a pain - it would thus be way better if they made the step clear, by supporting 500 devices on any developer account OR dropping down Enterprise requirements to 100 employees.To me what separates "small business" from Enterprise is a clear delineation of worlds... a small business does not mind having data exist all over the place, whereas an "Enterprise" studiously guards data and wants to keep as much of it in-hous as possible (and then send it all to India as an afterthought).That's why the enterprise iPhone program is useful, because it keeps your business apps off the store.
Basically anything Apple can do to support self-isolation helps the enterprise, and they've actually been much better about this in recent years (along with adopting ActiveSync all over and adding in good VPN support, which again goes back to that "separate world" thing).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31125362</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266054000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without windows there would be no Itunes. They need each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without windows there would be no Itunes .
They need each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without windows there would be no Itunes.
They need each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106094</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprises don't like getting work done.</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1265887260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure which is worse - your comment or those who give you mod points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure which is worse - your comment or those who give you mod points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure which is worse - your comment or those who give you mod points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114022</id>
	<title>Macs are for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a-holes who do not live in the real world</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a-holes who do not live in the real world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a-holes who do not live in the real world</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Sorthum</author>
	<datestamp>1265888460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricing.  Enterprise pricing is ballpark 1000-1500 bucks for the unit, which includes 3 years of support and a roadmap that assures replacements of the same system will be available for the duration.</p><p>Pricewise, it's not that far off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry 's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricing .
Enterprise pricing is ballpark 1000-1500 bucks for the unit , which includes 3 years of support and a roadmap that assures replacements of the same system will be available for the duration.Pricewise , it 's not that far off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, your pricing is bargain basement computers-at-Fry's-to-get-you-in-the-door pricing.
Enterprise pricing is ballpark 1000-1500 bucks for the unit, which includes 3 years of support and a roadmap that assures replacements of the same system will be available for the duration.Pricewise, it's not that far off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109930</id>
	<title>Toy vs Equipment</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1265914620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been the differentiating factor of Macs vs PCs for pretty much ever.</p><p>Why is this news now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been the differentiating factor of Macs vs PCs for pretty much ever.Why is this news now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been the differentiating factor of Macs vs PCs for pretty much ever.Why is this news now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109786</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>dcam</author>
	<datestamp>1265912940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But reports created on 2003 two days ago, into <b>Windows-based document control</b>, and try to extract them today, completely hosed.</i></p><p>There is your problem. I'm not sure Microsoft has ever made a good document/source control program. Ever. Their source control programs are only good when compared the the previous Microsoft release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But reports created on 2003 two days ago , into Windows-based document control , and try to extract them today , completely hosed.There is your problem .
I 'm not sure Microsoft has ever made a good document/source control program .
Ever. Their source control programs are only good when compared the the previous Microsoft release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But reports created on 2003 two days ago, into Windows-based document control, and try to extract them today, completely hosed.There is your problem.
I'm not sure Microsoft has ever made a good document/source control program.
Ever. Their source control programs are only good when compared the the previous Microsoft release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105238</id>
	<title>Re:No Enterprise Offerings</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265884080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of.</p></div><p>Well Apple does have mail, calendaring, and address books built into their server software.  It's <i>comparable</i> to Exchange but not as well fleshed out.  They don't have as great control of delegation, for example, no ActiveSync support, and frankly the webmail isn't too hot (it's just Squirrel Mail).
</p><p>The webmail thing is pretty frustrating to my mind.  MobileMe has decent web applications for mail, calendaring, and address books, and meanwhile the included webmail in their server software stinks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of.Well Apple does have mail , calendaring , and address books built into their server software .
It 's comparable to Exchange but not as well fleshed out .
They do n't have as great control of delegation , for example , no ActiveSync support , and frankly the webmail is n't too hot ( it 's just Squirrel Mail ) .
The webmail thing is pretty frustrating to my mind .
MobileMe has decent web applications for mail , calendaring , and address books , and meanwhile the included webmail in their server software stinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing comparable to Exchange server that I know of.Well Apple does have mail, calendaring, and address books built into their server software.
It's comparable to Exchange but not as well fleshed out.
They don't have as great control of delegation, for example, no ActiveSync support, and frankly the webmail isn't too hot (it's just Squirrel Mail).
The webmail thing is pretty frustrating to my mind.
MobileMe has decent web applications for mail, calendaring, and address books, and meanwhile the included webmail in their server software stinks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105330</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265884500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server business</p></div><p>Then what was the Xserve &amp; OS X Server?<br>Do you not recall their extensive ad-campaign?</p><p>Apple is still trying to increase their marketshare, this time by using Quad-Core Xeons to provide the performance their offerings should have had all along.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server businessThen what was the Xserve &amp; OS X Server ? Do you not recall their extensive ad-campaign ? Apple is still trying to increase their marketshare , this time by using Quad-Core Xeons to provide the performance their offerings should have had all along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see them take a good shot at unseating Windows in the server businessThen what was the Xserve &amp; OS X Server?Do you not recall their extensive ad-campaign?Apple is still trying to increase their marketshare, this time by using Quad-Core Xeons to provide the performance their offerings should have had all along.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109714</id>
	<title>Button aversion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh... I can see it now.  Imagine if you will when your average, everyday "clueless" user wants to eject a disc from their iMac drive, or better yet simply wishes to turn the damn thing on!</p><p>Omission of such fundamental hardware features for clashing with the cool, minimalist design aesthetic alone would preclude Apple's hardware from penetrating the business market where flexibility, inexpensive, and pragmatism dominate.</p><p>Let alone Apple's choice of exotic, non-upgrade friendly hardware and flaky support of products outside of the latest release cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh... I can see it now .
Imagine if you will when your average , everyday " clueless " user wants to eject a disc from their iMac drive , or better yet simply wishes to turn the damn thing on ! Omission of such fundamental hardware features for clashing with the cool , minimalist design aesthetic alone would preclude Apple 's hardware from penetrating the business market where flexibility , inexpensive , and pragmatism dominate.Let alone Apple 's choice of exotic , non-upgrade friendly hardware and flaky support of products outside of the latest release cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh... I can see it now.
Imagine if you will when your average, everyday "clueless" user wants to eject a disc from their iMac drive, or better yet simply wishes to turn the damn thing on!Omission of such fundamental hardware features for clashing with the cool, minimalist design aesthetic alone would preclude Apple's hardware from penetrating the business market where flexibility, inexpensive, and pragmatism dominate.Let alone Apple's choice of exotic, non-upgrade friendly hardware and flaky support of products outside of the latest release cycle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</id>
	<title>Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>TwiztidK</author>
	<datestamp>1265883540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs. The company I work at uses PCs exclusively, and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so. My work PC has never crashed, has never had a virus, runs relatively fast, and was probably quite cheap. I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then, and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.

For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people, retraining of employees, and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs .
The company I work at uses PCs exclusively , and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so .
My work PC has never crashed , has never had a virus , runs relatively fast , and was probably quite cheap .
I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then , and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled .
For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people , retraining of employees , and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.
The company I work at uses PCs exclusively, and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so.
My work PC has never crashed, has never had a virus, runs relatively fast, and was probably quite cheap.
I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then, and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.
For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people, retraining of employees, and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105848</id>
	<title>I can never use Apple in the enterprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because their service level agreements are just not good enough.</p><p>I standard "business" laptop from Dell comes with next business day on-site service, wherever you are in the world (well, within reason.)</p><p>i don't care how attractive Apple's laptops are, unless they can give me that sort of coverage for USD$1500, I'm not interested. I continually hear horror stories from my friends with Apple laptops about what they need to go through for it to get fixed.</p><p>When you travel, and travel a lot, you discover that stuff does have a finite lifetime - especially hard drives. There's only so many bumps from being wheeled around or bouncing through air pockets that they will take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because their service level agreements are just not good enough.I standard " business " laptop from Dell comes with next business day on-site service , wherever you are in the world ( well , within reason .
) i do n't care how attractive Apple 's laptops are , unless they can give me that sort of coverage for USD $ 1500 , I 'm not interested .
I continually hear horror stories from my friends with Apple laptops about what they need to go through for it to get fixed.When you travel , and travel a lot , you discover that stuff does have a finite lifetime - especially hard drives .
There 's only so many bumps from being wheeled around or bouncing through air pockets that they will take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because their service level agreements are just not good enough.I standard "business" laptop from Dell comes with next business day on-site service, wherever you are in the world (well, within reason.
)i don't care how attractive Apple's laptops are, unless they can give me that sort of coverage for USD$1500, I'm not interested.
I continually hear horror stories from my friends with Apple laptops about what they need to go through for it to get fixed.When you travel, and travel a lot, you discover that stuff does have a finite lifetime - especially hard drives.
There's only so many bumps from being wheeled around or bouncing through air pockets that they will take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109386</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprise Mac = War with Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Apple still hasn't cornered the consumer market so there's heaps upon heaps of room to grow before Steve even has to think about enterprise products.</p><p>Office for Mac has always been Microsoft's best application, but when and if it's ever required (just like IE) I've got no doubt that Steve will gladly pump money into iWork or an Open Office clone to be able to wave goodbye to it. I don't think Steve makes decisions based on fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Apple still has n't cornered the consumer market so there 's heaps upon heaps of room to grow before Steve even has to think about enterprise products.Office for Mac has always been Microsoft 's best application , but when and if it 's ever required ( just like IE ) I 've got no doubt that Steve will gladly pump money into iWork or an Open Office clone to be able to wave goodbye to it .
I do n't think Steve makes decisions based on fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Apple still hasn't cornered the consumer market so there's heaps upon heaps of room to grow before Steve even has to think about enterprise products.Office for Mac has always been Microsoft's best application, but when and if it's ever required (just like IE) I've got no doubt that Steve will gladly pump money into iWork or an Open Office clone to be able to wave goodbye to it.
I don't think Steve makes decisions based on fear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110084</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>korean.ian</author>
	<datestamp>1265916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just curious where you got your prices from , cause the apple store's cheapest iMac goes for 1,200. That's 3GHz processor with 4GB RAM and a (pretty damn good) 21" monitor. Plus the OS.<br>Where did you get your $300 machine from that has 4GB of RAM, a good 21" monitor and the latest OS from Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just curious where you got your prices from , cause the apple store 's cheapest iMac goes for 1,200 .
That 's 3GHz processor with 4GB RAM and a ( pretty damn good ) 21 " monitor .
Plus the OS.Where did you get your $ 300 machine from that has 4GB of RAM , a good 21 " monitor and the latest OS from Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just curious where you got your prices from , cause the apple store's cheapest iMac goes for 1,200.
That's 3GHz processor with 4GB RAM and a (pretty damn good) 21" monitor.
Plus the OS.Where did you get your $300 machine from that has 4GB of RAM, a good 21" monitor and the latest OS from Microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106822</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>rocket97</author>
	<datestamp>1265890380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If things are as bad as you say they are in the windows environment, I think it is time for you to find a new IT staff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If things are as bad as you say they are in the windows environment , I think it is time for you to find a new IT staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If things are as bad as you say they are in the windows environment, I think it is time for you to find a new IT staff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105858</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the business market is as important as it used to be.  Computers have become like appliances, which people use for their entertainment, and Apple's goal should be to put one Mac into the hands of every person.  If they do that, they will sell FAR more units (~110 million homes times 2 adult per home) than what business would buy.</p><p>That's what made the Commodore=64 the world's number one selling computer.  It flopped in the business world, but it still managed to sell 30 million units by focusing on providing entertainment for the home user.  Apple is wise to keep its focus on that home market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the business market is as important as it used to be .
Computers have become like appliances , which people use for their entertainment , and Apple 's goal should be to put one Mac into the hands of every person .
If they do that , they will sell FAR more units ( ~ 110 million homes times 2 adult per home ) than what business would buy.That 's what made the Commodore = 64 the world 's number one selling computer .
It flopped in the business world , but it still managed to sell 30 million units by focusing on providing entertainment for the home user .
Apple is wise to keep its focus on that home market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the business market is as important as it used to be.
Computers have become like appliances, which people use for their entertainment, and Apple's goal should be to put one Mac into the hands of every person.
If they do that, they will sell FAR more units (~110 million homes times 2 adult per home) than what business would buy.That's what made the Commodore=64 the world's number one selling computer.
It flopped in the business world, but it still managed to sell 30 million units by focusing on providing entertainment for the home user.
Apple is wise to keep its focus on that home market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108140</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1265896980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a Chair of a math department of one of the largest schools in the united states. They switched from mostly wintel/linux machines to macintosh for staff and any professors who don't specifically request otherwise and it cut their IT maintenance down to almost nothing and after a period of retraining most have expressed being much happier with the Macs. The Chair has 4 or 5 Macs (which synchronize using Mobile Me, which seems to be enough for him) and he swears he will never go back to Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a Chair of a math department of one of the largest schools in the united states .
They switched from mostly wintel/linux machines to macintosh for staff and any professors who do n't specifically request otherwise and it cut their IT maintenance down to almost nothing and after a period of retraining most have expressed being much happier with the Macs .
The Chair has 4 or 5 Macs ( which synchronize using Mobile Me , which seems to be enough for him ) and he swears he will never go back to Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a Chair of a math department of one of the largest schools in the united states.
They switched from mostly wintel/linux machines to macintosh for staff and any professors who don't specifically request otherwise and it cut their IT maintenance down to almost nothing and after a period of retraining most have expressed being much happier with the Macs.
The Chair has 4 or 5 Macs (which synchronize using Mobile Me, which seems to be enough for him) and he swears he will never go back to Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you've never heard of it, hardly means it doesn't happen.
</p><p>Companies in creative industries (e.g. like R/GA) are typically a mix of Macs and PCs, but you probably knew that. But in 30+ years of supporting computers, I've seen plenty of mixed organizations.  Usually they'll have 90\% PCs with a handful of Macs for either (a) the creative types in the design department, or (b) the people who demanded one because it was "better" in some way.  Heck, nearly 20 years ago I came across a lab full of heavily-used Mac IIci's and IIfx's at an IBM research facility, and that was in the old Motorola 680x0 heyday (e.g. before the IBM-Motorola PowerPC developments).
</p><p>And your estimation of cost is not quite correct.  Training and migration, yes.  But overall total ownership cost is generally less over a Mac's lifetime than with a Windows computer, even if the original purchase price was significantly more.  I have seen this over and over.  A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~100 Macs, they employed one half-time Mac guy.  Same level of support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you 've never heard of it , hardly means it does n't happen .
Companies in creative industries ( e.g .
like R/GA ) are typically a mix of Macs and PCs , but you probably knew that .
But in 30 + years of supporting computers , I 've seen plenty of mixed organizations .
Usually they 'll have 90 \ % PCs with a handful of Macs for either ( a ) the creative types in the design department , or ( b ) the people who demanded one because it was " better " in some way .
Heck , nearly 20 years ago I came across a lab full of heavily-used Mac IIci 's and IIfx 's at an IBM research facility , and that was in the old Motorola 680x0 heyday ( e.g .
before the IBM-Motorola PowerPC developments ) .
And your estimation of cost is not quite correct .
Training and migration , yes .
But overall total ownership cost is generally less over a Mac 's lifetime than with a Windows computer , even if the original purchase price was significantly more .
I have seen this over and over .
A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~ 100 Macs , they employed one half-time Mac guy .
Same level of support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you've never heard of it, hardly means it doesn't happen.
Companies in creative industries (e.g.
like R/GA) are typically a mix of Macs and PCs, but you probably knew that.
But in 30+ years of supporting computers, I've seen plenty of mixed organizations.
Usually they'll have 90\% PCs with a handful of Macs for either (a) the creative types in the design department, or (b) the people who demanded one because it was "better" in some way.
Heck, nearly 20 years ago I came across a lab full of heavily-used Mac IIci's and IIfx's at an IBM research facility, and that was in the old Motorola 680x0 heyday (e.g.
before the IBM-Motorola PowerPC developments).
And your estimation of cost is not quite correct.
Training and migration, yes.
But overall total ownership cost is generally less over a Mac's lifetime than with a Windows computer, even if the original purchase price was significantly more.
I have seen this over and over.
A university I previously worked at had roughly 600 PCs and employed one full-time computer technician for every 50 PCs... and for their ~100 Macs, they employed one half-time Mac guy.
Same level of support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</id>
	<title>I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just off the top of my head:</p><p>1) Price.<br>2) Legacy (OS/applications).</p><p>The first one is pretty obvious.</p><p>The second, I need to define better.  Apple generally limits new hardware to the version of the OS that was in production when the machine was built.  So I can't work out all of the kinks in 10.4.11 relevant to my environment and load up all new systems with an image of that same OS.  The most recent PowerMacs I've bought won't run 10.4.  I had 10.4 locked tight and all of our software runs great on it.  10.5 gives me font cache problems similar to the ones I'd already ironed out of our 10.4 systems long ago.  To me, that's not an upgrade.  I don't want bleeding-edge in production.  I want stable and reliable.</p><p>OTOH, every PC I've bought since Vista came out has been able to run XP just fine.  In fact, I just got some new systems last week pre-loaded with XP.  (Win7 license with XP downgrade.)  This means the environment my company's been grooming and tweaking for years can be applied to brand new installations and I don't have to deal with, "I've never seen THAT before."</p><p>And getting back to the cost, I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse for about $500.  A mini with 4 gigs, no monitor, and no mouse starts at $700.  Apple wants another $50 each for a mouse and keyboard.  Each.  Don't even ask what they want for monitors.</p><p>Those are the two main reasons Apple won't be making it beyond the Creative departments in my company.  And I'm actually a bit annoyed that we're still purchasing Macs for those departments since they're running Adobe suites that are available on the PC.  If one of my hats wasn't "the only mac tech in the company", I'd consider making strong arguments against the continued waste of money.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just off the top of my head : 1 ) Price.2 ) Legacy ( OS/applications ) .The first one is pretty obvious.The second , I need to define better .
Apple generally limits new hardware to the version of the OS that was in production when the machine was built .
So I ca n't work out all of the kinks in 10.4.11 relevant to my environment and load up all new systems with an image of that same OS .
The most recent PowerMacs I 've bought wo n't run 10.4 .
I had 10.4 locked tight and all of our software runs great on it .
10.5 gives me font cache problems similar to the ones I 'd already ironed out of our 10.4 systems long ago .
To me , that 's not an upgrade .
I do n't want bleeding-edge in production .
I want stable and reliable.OTOH , every PC I 've bought since Vista came out has been able to run XP just fine .
In fact , I just got some new systems last week pre-loaded with XP .
( Win7 license with XP downgrade .
) This means the environment my company 's been grooming and tweaking for years can be applied to brand new installations and I do n't have to deal with , " I 've never seen THAT before .
" And getting back to the cost , I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20 " flat panel , keyboard , and mouse for about $ 500 .
A mini with 4 gigs , no monitor , and no mouse starts at $ 700 .
Apple wants another $ 50 each for a mouse and keyboard .
Each. Do n't even ask what they want for monitors.Those are the two main reasons Apple wo n't be making it beyond the Creative departments in my company .
And I 'm actually a bit annoyed that we 're still purchasing Macs for those departments since they 're running Adobe suites that are available on the PC .
If one of my hats was n't " the only mac tech in the company " , I 'd consider making strong arguments against the continued waste of money .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just off the top of my head:1) Price.2) Legacy (OS/applications).The first one is pretty obvious.The second, I need to define better.
Apple generally limits new hardware to the version of the OS that was in production when the machine was built.
So I can't work out all of the kinks in 10.4.11 relevant to my environment and load up all new systems with an image of that same OS.
The most recent PowerMacs I've bought won't run 10.4.
I had 10.4 locked tight and all of our software runs great on it.
10.5 gives me font cache problems similar to the ones I'd already ironed out of our 10.4 systems long ago.
To me, that's not an upgrade.
I don't want bleeding-edge in production.
I want stable and reliable.OTOH, every PC I've bought since Vista came out has been able to run XP just fine.
In fact, I just got some new systems last week pre-loaded with XP.
(Win7 license with XP downgrade.
)  This means the environment my company's been grooming and tweaking for years can be applied to brand new installations and I don't have to deal with, "I've never seen THAT before.
"And getting back to the cost, I can get a decent C2D windows machine with 4 gigs and a 20" flat panel, keyboard, and mouse for about $500.
A mini with 4 gigs, no monitor, and no mouse starts at $700.
Apple wants another $50 each for a mouse and keyboard.
Each.  Don't even ask what they want for monitors.Those are the two main reasons Apple won't be making it beyond the Creative departments in my company.
And I'm actually a bit annoyed that we're still purchasing Macs for those departments since they're running Adobe suites that are available on the PC.
If one of my hats wasn't "the only mac tech in the company", I'd consider making strong arguments against the continued waste of money.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109802</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265913060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll add another one. My company uses iMac G5's for the people that kicked and screamed for a Mac. We've recently had one of those Macs ethernet port die. We had to replace the whole damned thing. Another one was complaining that he had too many dead pixels. After explaining to him that we'd have to take his whole machine away for repair his exact words were "Screw it, chuck that in the bin and get me a pc" (it's actually sitting on my desk now so I can play with it).</p><p>I personally don't mind Mac's, but they have no place in an enterprise environment where all people really need is MS Office. Generally, people who think Mac's are the way to go in an enterprise environment aren't thinking of the big picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll add another one .
My company uses iMac G5 's for the people that kicked and screamed for a Mac .
We 've recently had one of those Macs ethernet port die .
We had to replace the whole damned thing .
Another one was complaining that he had too many dead pixels .
After explaining to him that we 'd have to take his whole machine away for repair his exact words were " Screw it , chuck that in the bin and get me a pc " ( it 's actually sitting on my desk now so I can play with it ) .I personally do n't mind Mac 's , but they have no place in an enterprise environment where all people really need is MS Office .
Generally , people who think Mac 's are the way to go in an enterprise environment are n't thinking of the big picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll add another one.
My company uses iMac G5's for the people that kicked and screamed for a Mac.
We've recently had one of those Macs ethernet port die.
We had to replace the whole damned thing.
Another one was complaining that he had too many dead pixels.
After explaining to him that we'd have to take his whole machine away for repair his exact words were "Screw it, chuck that in the bin and get me a pc" (it's actually sitting on my desk now so I can play with it).I personally don't mind Mac's, but they have no place in an enterprise environment where all people really need is MS Office.
Generally, people who think Mac's are the way to go in an enterprise environment aren't thinking of the big picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105558</id>
	<title>Apple doesn't care too much about the enterprise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bulk of enterprise space wants cheap whitebox farms of GateDellPaq machines interchangeable and uninspiring of possessiveness enough that the IT guy can drop by your desk and switch out your box four times a year and you won't care.</p><p>Apple, meanwhile, has a farm full of insanely loyal customers willing to pay premium prices to avoid precisely the GateDellPaq style of non-shiny nuts-and-boltism.</p><p>To get the part of enterprise space that they can't get with their current business offerings, they'd have to do things that would alienate a tremendously loyal, premium-paying customer base. And for what, exactly? To enter the tremendously crowded, cutthroat space of GateDellPaq where everyone competes on price and has to ensure compatibility with a massive ecosystem of devices and ISVs?</p><p>Why exactly would they do this?</p><p>Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux, or Apple, or OLPC, must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated? I suspect many businesses would be more than happy to be in Apple's shoes right now, and I also suspect that their investors aren't too upset with them for not going out there trying to get every MBA farm on the block buying an Apple line of cheap-and-dirty-ware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bulk of enterprise space wants cheap whitebox farms of GateDellPaq machines interchangeable and uninspiring of possessiveness enough that the IT guy can drop by your desk and switch out your box four times a year and you wo n't care.Apple , meanwhile , has a farm full of insanely loyal customers willing to pay premium prices to avoid precisely the GateDellPaq style of non-shiny nuts-and-boltism.To get the part of enterprise space that they ca n't get with their current business offerings , they 'd have to do things that would alienate a tremendously loyal , premium-paying customer base .
And for what , exactly ?
To enter the tremendously crowded , cutthroat space of GateDellPaq where everyone competes on price and has to ensure compatibility with a massive ecosystem of devices and ISVs ? Why exactly would they do this ? Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux , or Apple , or OLPC , must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated ?
I suspect many businesses would be more than happy to be in Apple 's shoes right now , and I also suspect that their investors are n't too upset with them for not going out there trying to get every MBA farm on the block buying an Apple line of cheap-and-dirty-ware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bulk of enterprise space wants cheap whitebox farms of GateDellPaq machines interchangeable and uninspiring of possessiveness enough that the IT guy can drop by your desk and switch out your box four times a year and you won't care.Apple, meanwhile, has a farm full of insanely loyal customers willing to pay premium prices to avoid precisely the GateDellPaq style of non-shiny nuts-and-boltism.To get the part of enterprise space that they can't get with their current business offerings, they'd have to do things that would alienate a tremendously loyal, premium-paying customer base.
And for what, exactly?
To enter the tremendously crowded, cutthroat space of GateDellPaq where everyone competes on price and has to ensure compatibility with a massive ecosystem of devices and ISVs?Why exactly would they do this?Why does every other Slashdot poster seem to imagine that the goal of Linux, or Apple, or OLPC, must be to dominate the world and arrive in every home and business everywhere with all competition eliminated?
I suspect many businesses would be more than happy to be in Apple's shoes right now, and I also suspect that their investors aren't too upset with them for not going out there trying to get every MBA farm on the block buying an Apple line of cheap-and-dirty-ware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106244</id>
	<title>Re:Enterprises don't like getting work done.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265887920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.

</p><p>Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Ahhh, that explains the popularity of the iPhone with businesses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done .
Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you ca n't get any work done .
Ahhh , that explains the popularity of the iPhone with businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.
Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.
Ahhh, that explains the popularity of the iPhone with businesses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31118500</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265967840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly have network problems.... I'm no fan of Word (it's a wordprocessor entirely optimize for simple 1-25 page documents and memos), but I've been forced to use it at many companies over the course of my 27 year career, and have not once found anything remotely close to the issues you're describing. Even between mixed versions of Word, and quite often, Open Office.</p><p>With that said, I really have problems with the idea of Word Documents being used as the company standard for document distribution. And yet, it's often the standard.</p><p>Back in the 90s, while leaving a company to form another, I was writing up a formal document (150+ pages) describing details of the 100,000 line-or-so program I had written during my three years there. I was forced to use Word (our documentation group had revolted and moved to something else, everyone else still used Word), and it was a heinous boondoggle.. barely functional. I would have been better writing it on the Commodore 64... I'm not being satirical. One assumes they have fixed it.</p><p>But the proper in-house standard for documentation is PDF. That's the rule I set when I get to make those decisions. Otherwise, individuals or groups use their wordprocessor of course, though these days, I'd demand an ODF file checked in to match that PDF. In the past, as long as the company owned a license for your WP of choice (I found buying you your favorite, versus forcing Word on you, was a no-brainer cost savings, at least where engineers were concerned).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have network problems.... I 'm no fan of Word ( it 's a wordprocessor entirely optimize for simple 1-25 page documents and memos ) , but I 've been forced to use it at many companies over the course of my 27 year career , and have not once found anything remotely close to the issues you 're describing .
Even between mixed versions of Word , and quite often , Open Office.With that said , I really have problems with the idea of Word Documents being used as the company standard for document distribution .
And yet , it 's often the standard.Back in the 90s , while leaving a company to form another , I was writing up a formal document ( 150 + pages ) describing details of the 100,000 line-or-so program I had written during my three years there .
I was forced to use Word ( our documentation group had revolted and moved to something else , everyone else still used Word ) , and it was a heinous boondoggle.. barely functional .
I would have been better writing it on the Commodore 64... I 'm not being satirical .
One assumes they have fixed it.But the proper in-house standard for documentation is PDF .
That 's the rule I set when I get to make those decisions .
Otherwise , individuals or groups use their wordprocessor of course , though these days , I 'd demand an ODF file checked in to match that PDF .
In the past , as long as the company owned a license for your WP of choice ( I found buying you your favorite , versus forcing Word on you , was a no-brainer cost savings , at least where engineers were concerned ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly have network problems.... I'm no fan of Word (it's a wordprocessor entirely optimize for simple 1-25 page documents and memos), but I've been forced to use it at many companies over the course of my 27 year career, and have not once found anything remotely close to the issues you're describing.
Even between mixed versions of Word, and quite often, Open Office.With that said, I really have problems with the idea of Word Documents being used as the company standard for document distribution.
And yet, it's often the standard.Back in the 90s, while leaving a company to form another, I was writing up a formal document (150+ pages) describing details of the 100,000 line-or-so program I had written during my three years there.
I was forced to use Word (our documentation group had revolted and moved to something else, everyone else still used Word), and it was a heinous boondoggle.. barely functional.
I would have been better writing it on the Commodore 64... I'm not being satirical.
One assumes they have fixed it.But the proper in-house standard for documentation is PDF.
That's the rule I set when I get to make those decisions.
Otherwise, individuals or groups use their wordprocessor of course, though these days, I'd demand an ODF file checked in to match that PDF.
In the past, as long as the company owned a license for your WP of choice (I found buying you your favorite, versus forcing Word on you, was a no-brainer cost savings, at least where engineers were concerned).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105188</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John, are you seriously saying that the personal music player market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPod?</p><p>Are you seriously saying that the cell phone market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPhone?</p><p>Are you seriously saying that the web browser market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released Safari?</p><p>Or are we only considering the "hipster-targeting" markets, which Apple basically created?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John , are you seriously saying that the personal music player market was n't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPod ? Are you seriously saying that the cell phone market was n't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPhone ? Are you seriously saying that the web browser market was n't already a crowded market when Apple released Safari ? Or are we only considering the " hipster-targeting " markets , which Apple basically created ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John, are you seriously saying that the personal music player market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPod?Are you seriously saying that the cell phone market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released the iPhone?Are you seriously saying that the web browser market wasn't already a crowded market when Apple released Safari?Or are we only considering the "hipster-targeting" markets, which Apple basically created?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108104</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1265896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy.  Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.</p></div><p>And if the Apples can indeed save you having to employ a $50,000 per year full-time admin, how would that *not* result in significant savings?

</p><p>That said, I've rarely ever even touch a Mac, and have no idea whether or not what the GP claims is true.  But I have enough IT experience to know that if you only look at sticker prices and don't consider implementation costs for your business systems, whether hardware or software, you can be in for a world of unexpected hurt.

</p><p>And just as an aside, I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today, and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs.  I'd never seen that in a healthcare provider's office before, so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's about $ 1270 difference..... let 's say $ 1000 to keep the math easy .
Times 30 office workers ( small office ) yields $ 30,000 more money spent on the Macs.And if the Apples can indeed save you having to employ a $ 50,000 per year full-time admin , how would that * not * result in significant savings ?
That said , I 've rarely ever even touch a Mac , and have no idea whether or not what the GP claims is true .
But I have enough IT experience to know that if you only look at sticker prices and do n't consider implementation costs for your business systems , whether hardware or software , you can be in for a world of unexpected hurt .
And just as an aside , I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today , and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs .
I 'd never seen that in a healthcare provider 's office before , so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's about $1270 difference..... let's say $1000 to keep the math easy.
Times 30 office workers (small office) yields $30,000 more money spent on the Macs.And if the Apples can indeed save you having to employ a $50,000 per year full-time admin, how would that *not* result in significant savings?
That said, I've rarely ever even touch a Mac, and have no idea whether or not what the GP claims is true.
But I have enough IT experience to know that if you only look at sticker prices and don't consider implementation costs for your business systems, whether hardware or software, you can be in for a world of unexpected hurt.
And just as an aside, I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today, and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs.
I'd never seen that in a healthcare provider's office before, so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109996</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit. The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped. That's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out, which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations. Also, 10.5 is still getting security updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped .
That 's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out , which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations .
Also , 10.5 is still getting security updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
The last Power Mac G5 was released 2005 and Leopard was the current release of OS X until August 2009 where PPC support was dropped.
That's a bit more than three years and it certainly came after the AppleCare agreements ran out, which means that most businesses with a sane strategy has already began looking at replacing the aging workstations.
Also, 10.5 is still getting security updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1265885520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs. The company I work at uses PCs exclusively, and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so. My work PC has never crashed, has never had a virus, runs relatively fast, and was probably quite cheap. I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then, and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.</p><p>For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people, retraining of employees, and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.</p></div><p>Ever heard of Cisco? We are free to run a Mac that the company will pay for, as long as IT doesn't have to support it. We have an internal user community that provides its own support in lieu of IT. There are thousands of Mac users here. I switched about four months ago thinking that the worst-case scenario is that I could still run Windows on the hardware if switching to a new OS didn't work out. So far, I'm still running OSX, but am also still running Outlook under virtualization; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very good.</p><p>Obviously this type of solution is not for everyone, but it works for us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs .
The company I work at uses PCs exclusively , and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so .
My work PC has never crashed , has never had a virus , runs relatively fast , and was probably quite cheap .
I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then , and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people , retraining of employees , and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.Ever heard of Cisco ?
We are free to run a Mac that the company will pay for , as long as IT does n't have to support it .
We have an internal user community that provides its own support in lieu of IT .
There are thousands of Mac users here .
I switched about four months ago thinking that the worst-case scenario is that I could still run Windows on the hardware if switching to a new OS did n't work out .
So far , I 'm still running OSX , but am also still running Outlook under virtualization ; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very good.Obviously this type of solution is not for everyone , but it works for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard of anyone who works at a company that uses Macs.
The company I work at uses PCs exclusively, and probably saves quite a bit of money by doing so.
My work PC has never crashed, has never had a virus, runs relatively fast, and was probably quite cheap.
I do have to have an IT person mess with computer every now and then, and thats usually because a poorly written application fails and needs to be reinstalled.For most businesses switching to Macs would require new IT people, retraining of employees, and finding applications that function in OS X. The computers would also likely cost considerably more than PCs.Ever heard of Cisco?
We are free to run a Mac that the company will pay for, as long as IT doesn't have to support it.
We have an internal user community that provides its own support in lieu of IT.
There are thousands of Mac users here.
I switched about four months ago thinking that the worst-case scenario is that I could still run Windows on the hardware if switching to a new OS didn't work out.
So far, I'm still running OSX, but am also still running Outlook under virtualization; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very good.Obviously this type of solution is not for everyone, but it works for us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111600</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Businesses Don't Want Macs</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1265981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>am also still running Outlook under virtualization; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very good</p></div><p>Why not use MS Entourage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>am also still running Outlook under virtualization ; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very goodWhy not use MS Entourage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>am also still running Outlook under virtualization; enterprise messaging on the Mac is currently not very goodWhy not use MS Entourage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107288</id>
	<title>Why should Apple adapt to business?</title>
	<author>bangthegong</author>
	<datestamp>1265892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The product they sell is so good, businesses are adapting to Apple - using open standards rather than developing for IE,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, etc, making things work cross-platform, etc. Apple just needs to keep doing what they do well already and "the enterprise" will catch up. It's already happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The product they sell is so good , businesses are adapting to Apple - using open standards rather than developing for IE , .NET , etc , making things work cross-platform , etc .
Apple just needs to keep doing what they do well already and " the enterprise " will catch up .
It 's already happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The product they sell is so good, businesses are adapting to Apple - using open standards rather than developing for IE, .NET, etc, making things work cross-platform, etc.
Apple just needs to keep doing what they do well already and "the enterprise" will catch up.
It's already happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554</id>
	<title>Apple has no clue how to do enterprise</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1265885220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I maintained an OS X Server box for 4 years.  Very nice hardware, but the OS had a lot of issues (10.3 and 10.4) and support from Apple was non-existent.  We struggled with a race condition in Apple's directory services architecture (the glue between the system and LDAP) for years.  Apple really wouldn't do anything about it until some guy on a forum managed to come up with step-by-step instructions on how to trigger the condition.  finally Apple acknowledged the problem and, to my amazement, said, "we've fixed it in our new OS, please upgrade."  We're talking a full OS upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4.  I tried to explain to them that OS's are upgraded in an enterprise normally with the hardware cycle and that we cannot take a production server down for a full system upgrade. Even MS understands that.</p><p>Additionally, the lifespan of Apple's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS.  So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS, apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only.  Even within major versions, updating was a real pain.  Each and every OS update required a reboot.  It was just silly.  Of course the bug brought our system down every month or so, so I guess that worked out.</p><p>Another time a disk died in our XServe RAID.  So we called to get a warranty replacement.  The guy on the phone said, "are you sure it has died?  Put it back in the array and see what happens."  Dumbfounded, I told him this was a production array with mission-critical data on it and that I simply could not trust any disk that had been kicked out of the RAID.  The risk was too great for data loss.  Had to go through a local rep to lean on apple to just replace the disk.</p><p>After I finally figured out how to make my OpenLDAP server on Linux look and act like Apple's OpenDirectory (making Mac client access seamless with no custom ldap mappings required), I ditched the OS X server and will never go back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I maintained an OS X Server box for 4 years .
Very nice hardware , but the OS had a lot of issues ( 10.3 and 10.4 ) and support from Apple was non-existent .
We struggled with a race condition in Apple 's directory services architecture ( the glue between the system and LDAP ) for years .
Apple really would n't do anything about it until some guy on a forum managed to come up with step-by-step instructions on how to trigger the condition .
finally Apple acknowledged the problem and , to my amazement , said , " we 've fixed it in our new OS , please upgrade .
" We 're talking a full OS upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4 .
I tried to explain to them that OS 's are upgraded in an enterprise normally with the hardware cycle and that we can not take a production server down for a full system upgrade .
Even MS understands that.Additionally , the lifespan of Apple 's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS .
So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS , apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only .
Even within major versions , updating was a real pain .
Each and every OS update required a reboot .
It was just silly .
Of course the bug brought our system down every month or so , so I guess that worked out.Another time a disk died in our XServe RAID .
So we called to get a warranty replacement .
The guy on the phone said , " are you sure it has died ?
Put it back in the array and see what happens .
" Dumbfounded , I told him this was a production array with mission-critical data on it and that I simply could not trust any disk that had been kicked out of the RAID .
The risk was too great for data loss .
Had to go through a local rep to lean on apple to just replace the disk.After I finally figured out how to make my OpenLDAP server on Linux look and act like Apple 's OpenDirectory ( making Mac client access seamless with no custom ldap mappings required ) , I ditched the OS X server and will never go back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I maintained an OS X Server box for 4 years.
Very nice hardware, but the OS had a lot of issues (10.3 and 10.4) and support from Apple was non-existent.
We struggled with a race condition in Apple's directory services architecture (the glue between the system and LDAP) for years.
Apple really wouldn't do anything about it until some guy on a forum managed to come up with step-by-step instructions on how to trigger the condition.
finally Apple acknowledged the problem and, to my amazement, said, "we've fixed it in our new OS, please upgrade.
"  We're talking a full OS upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4.
I tried to explain to them that OS's are upgraded in an enterprise normally with the hardware cycle and that we cannot take a production server down for a full system upgrade.
Even MS understands that.Additionally, the lifespan of Apple's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS.
So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS, apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only.
Even within major versions, updating was a real pain.
Each and every OS update required a reboot.
It was just silly.
Of course the bug brought our system down every month or so, so I guess that worked out.Another time a disk died in our XServe RAID.
So we called to get a warranty replacement.
The guy on the phone said, "are you sure it has died?
Put it back in the array and see what happens.
"  Dumbfounded, I told him this was a production array with mission-critical data on it and that I simply could not trust any disk that had been kicked out of the RAID.
The risk was too great for data loss.
Had to go through a local rep to lean on apple to just replace the disk.After I finally figured out how to make my OpenLDAP server on Linux look and act like Apple's OpenDirectory (making Mac client access seamless with no custom ldap mappings required), I ditched the OS X server and will never go back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107712</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265894340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Just out of curiosity... what's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server?</i>
</p><p>An uninspiring low-end dual-socket server with a big pricetag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity... what 's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server ?
An uninspiring low-end dual-socket server with a big pricetag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Just out of curiosity... what's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server?
An uninspiring low-end dual-socket server with a big pricetag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111150</id>
	<title>Re:Apple has no clue how to do enterprise</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1265976120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Additionally, the lifespan of Apple's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS. So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS, apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only.</p></div><p>Um, for example, Tiger Server was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_OS\_X\_Server#Mac\_OS\_X\_Server\_10.4\_.28Tiger\_Server.29" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">first sold in April, 2005</a> [wikipedia.org], and a quick (30 seconds) check of Google shows that <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/DL933" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">this update</a> [apple.com] was posted on September 10, 2009, so I'd say it was supported for over four years. I didn't even look for a later update.<br> <br>
Tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , the lifespan of Apple 's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS .
So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS , apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only.Um , for example , Tiger Server was first sold in April , 2005 [ wikipedia.org ] , and a quick ( 30 seconds ) check of Google shows that this update [ apple.com ] was posted on September 10 , 2009 , so I 'd say it was supported for over four years .
I did n't even look for a later update .
Tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, the lifespan of Apple's server OS was tied exactly to their consumer OS.
So instead of 5-6 years that we expect from RH and MS, apple supports their server OSs for about 2 years only.Um, for example, Tiger Server was first sold in April, 2005 [wikipedia.org], and a quick (30 seconds) check of Google shows that this update [apple.com] was posted on September 10, 2009, so I'd say it was supported for over four years.
I didn't even look for a later update.
Tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113398</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today, and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs. I'd never seen that in a healthcare provider's office before, so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Or maybe your doctor charges too much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today , and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs .
I 'd never seen that in a healthcare provider 's office before , so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there .
Or maybe your doctor charges too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had my first appointment with a new doctor today, and was surprised to see all their desktops were Macs.
I'd never seen that in a healthcare provider's office before, so maybe Apple is gaining some ground there.
Or maybe your doctor charges too much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108344</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1265898240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  Apple's monitors are identical to everyone else's, afaik.  I know the displays themselves are all produce by the same people, Apple's just uses nicer glass and cabling.  Also, Apple's multi-touch mouse does not well fit the human hand, just like all their previous mice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Apple 's monitors are identical to everyone else 's , afaik .
I know the displays themselves are all produce by the same people , Apple 's just uses nicer glass and cabling .
Also , Apple 's multi-touch mouse does not well fit the human hand , just like all their previous mice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Apple's monitors are identical to everyone else's, afaik.
I know the displays themselves are all produce by the same people, Apple's just uses nicer glass and cabling.
Also, Apple's multi-touch mouse does not well fit the human hand, just like all their previous mice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119106</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to see Apple make a move, but...</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1265969280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple may even cede the desktop market to MS. Looking down the road, while desktops will still be around, at the business level, they may evolve back in to thin or thick clients running whatever OS on a VM layer, with users never touching the actual hardware. It looks like they're going for real growth, as opposed to just upgrades and replacements, in mobile entertainment/data access.</p><p>Still waiting for them to re image an a/v receiver or pre-amp type device to tie home media together. I could see them releasing a small white box with 1 TB of storage, that's also an iTunes/iPhoto/iLife media server, wireless router and has some kind of hdmi like all-in-one cable output for connecting to a surround sound receiver. Or they may try releasing their own amplifier with support for multiple speakers but that really doesn't seem like their kinda' thing. Jobs hates wires, after all. Hmmm... maybe a wireless hdmi box that hangs off the back of a receiver? Sounds more like Apple. Or they get Sonos or Griffin Tech to make it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple may even cede the desktop market to MS. Looking down the road , while desktops will still be around , at the business level , they may evolve back in to thin or thick clients running whatever OS on a VM layer , with users never touching the actual hardware .
It looks like they 're going for real growth , as opposed to just upgrades and replacements , in mobile entertainment/data access.Still waiting for them to re image an a/v receiver or pre-amp type device to tie home media together .
I could see them releasing a small white box with 1 TB of storage , that 's also an iTunes/iPhoto/iLife media server , wireless router and has some kind of hdmi like all-in-one cable output for connecting to a surround sound receiver .
Or they may try releasing their own amplifier with support for multiple speakers but that really does n't seem like their kinda ' thing .
Jobs hates wires , after all .
Hmmm... maybe a wireless hdmi box that hangs off the back of a receiver ?
Sounds more like Apple .
Or they get Sonos or Griffin Tech to make it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple may even cede the desktop market to MS. Looking down the road, while desktops will still be around, at the business level, they may evolve back in to thin or thick clients running whatever OS on a VM layer, with users never touching the actual hardware.
It looks like they're going for real growth, as opposed to just upgrades and replacements, in mobile entertainment/data access.Still waiting for them to re image an a/v receiver or pre-amp type device to tie home media together.
I could see them releasing a small white box with 1 TB of storage, that's also an iTunes/iPhoto/iLife media server, wireless router and has some kind of hdmi like all-in-one cable output for connecting to a surround sound receiver.
Or they may try releasing their own amplifier with support for multiple speakers but that really doesn't seem like their kinda' thing.
Jobs hates wires, after all.
Hmmm... maybe a wireless hdmi box that hangs off the back of a receiver?
Sounds more like Apple.
Or they get Sonos or Griffin Tech to make it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107898</id>
	<title>Re:Not worth it for them</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1265895360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, except you have one thing backward. It's not that big business isn't a market they want. On the contrary, they've made many attempts to penetrate this market. Why even bother to have a <a href="http://www.apple.com/xserve/" title="apple.com">rack mount server</a> [apple.com] if you don't care about business customers? Or <a href="http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/CoreFoundation/Reference/WebServicesReference/Reference/reference.html" title="apple.com">sophisticated internet technologies</a> [apple.com]?</p><p>It's the other way around. Apple <i>tries</i> to sell to big business, but they pretty thoroughly suck at it. So a sort of economic Darwinism guarantees that the only Apple products that succeed are ones that sell well to individuals and small organizations. In other words, the person who uses the product is either the same person who makes the purchase decision, or has a lot of direct influence over that person.</p><p>That tends to slant their product line towards kewlness. But not always. Apple's first really successful product was the <a href="http://oldcomputers.net/appleii.html" title="oldcomputers.net">Apple ][</a> [oldcomputers.net]. Note that this is not a proto-Mac, it's a proto-PC. Note the open bus, which encouraged the creation of third-party hardware extensions. This is the basic design paradigm that almost all desktop computers (and a lot of servers) follow to this very day. It's a good utilitarian system, like <a href="http://www.maximumpc.com/files/u17625/dell192.jpg" title="maximumpc.com">something from Dell</a> [maximumpc.com], not a sleek, sexy proto-iMac.</p><p>Geeks know the ][ because it was a great hacking platform. But geeks didn't drive its success, business did. When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card, run Visicalc, and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer, they had to have them. It pretty much created the business PC market.</p><p>But if the ][ created the market, why didn't it create the market lock-in that the IBM PC did a little later? Because the biggest consumer of computing is big business, and Apple simply didn't know how to sell to them. I don't mean bad salesmanship, I mean they literally didn't have the ability to integrate and distribute them in the quantities large business would have needed. So Fortune 500 companies would go to Apple and say, "please sell us 1,000 Apple ][s with Z80 cards, disk drives, and monitors" and Apple would simply have no way of filling the order. All they knew how to do was to ship out job lots to their wholesalers, none of whom were set up to integrate systems this way.</p><p>Apple did develop better business-oriented sales channels eventually, but their ability to create stuff that businesses want is still pretty limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , except you have one thing backward .
It 's not that big business is n't a market they want .
On the contrary , they 've made many attempts to penetrate this market .
Why even bother to have a rack mount server [ apple.com ] if you do n't care about business customers ?
Or sophisticated internet technologies [ apple.com ] ? It 's the other way around .
Apple tries to sell to big business , but they pretty thoroughly suck at it .
So a sort of economic Darwinism guarantees that the only Apple products that succeed are ones that sell well to individuals and small organizations .
In other words , the person who uses the product is either the same person who makes the purchase decision , or has a lot of direct influence over that person.That tends to slant their product line towards kewlness .
But not always .
Apple 's first really successful product was the Apple ] [ [ oldcomputers.net ] .
Note that this is not a proto-Mac , it 's a proto-PC .
Note the open bus , which encouraged the creation of third-party hardware extensions .
This is the basic design paradigm that almost all desktop computers ( and a lot of servers ) follow to this very day .
It 's a good utilitarian system , like something from Dell [ maximumpc.com ] , not a sleek , sexy proto-iMac.Geeks know the ] [ because it was a great hacking platform .
But geeks did n't drive its success , business did .
When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card , run Visicalc , and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer , they had to have them .
It pretty much created the business PC market.But if the ] [ created the market , why did n't it create the market lock-in that the IBM PC did a little later ?
Because the biggest consumer of computing is big business , and Apple simply did n't know how to sell to them .
I do n't mean bad salesmanship , I mean they literally did n't have the ability to integrate and distribute them in the quantities large business would have needed .
So Fortune 500 companies would go to Apple and say , " please sell us 1,000 Apple ] [ s with Z80 cards , disk drives , and monitors " and Apple would simply have no way of filling the order .
All they knew how to do was to ship out job lots to their wholesalers , none of whom were set up to integrate systems this way.Apple did develop better business-oriented sales channels eventually , but their ability to create stuff that businesses want is still pretty limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, except you have one thing backward.
It's not that big business isn't a market they want.
On the contrary, they've made many attempts to penetrate this market.
Why even bother to have a rack mount server [apple.com] if you don't care about business customers?
Or sophisticated internet technologies [apple.com]?It's the other way around.
Apple tries to sell to big business, but they pretty thoroughly suck at it.
So a sort of economic Darwinism guarantees that the only Apple products that succeed are ones that sell well to individuals and small organizations.
In other words, the person who uses the product is either the same person who makes the purchase decision, or has a lot of direct influence over that person.That tends to slant their product line towards kewlness.
But not always.
Apple's first really successful product was the Apple ][ [oldcomputers.net].
Note that this is not a proto-Mac, it's a proto-PC.
Note the open bus, which encouraged the creation of third-party hardware extensions.
This is the basic design paradigm that almost all desktop computers (and a lot of servers) follow to this very day.
It's a good utilitarian system, like something from Dell [maximumpc.com], not a sleek, sexy proto-iMac.Geeks know the ][ because it was a great hacking platform.
But geeks didn't drive its success, business did.
When business people discovered that they could pop in a Z80 card, run Visicalc, and do really sophisticated financial projections without hiring a programmer, they had to have them.
It pretty much created the business PC market.But if the ][ created the market, why didn't it create the market lock-in that the IBM PC did a little later?
Because the biggest consumer of computing is big business, and Apple simply didn't know how to sell to them.
I don't mean bad salesmanship, I mean they literally didn't have the ability to integrate and distribute them in the quantities large business would have needed.
So Fortune 500 companies would go to Apple and say, "please sell us 1,000 Apple ][s with Z80 cards, disk drives, and monitors" and Apple would simply have no way of filling the order.
All they knew how to do was to ship out job lots to their wholesalers, none of whom were set up to integrate systems this way.Apple did develop better business-oriented sales channels eventually, but their ability to create stuff that businesses want is still pretty limited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105092</id>
	<title>Different markets</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1265883600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has traditionally had two target markets.  Those markets are education and "creative professionals".  Creative professionals aren't going to turn out enterprise applications, but they can sure come up with some spiffy product literature.  The education culture is focused on learning, not application development.  In the past decade Apple has expanded their focus to include the consumer market.</p><p>Apple is so far behind the curve in the business market that they'd run themselves out of money trying to play catchup.  They can't compete in the desktop space.  I've heard that their X-Serve boxes are nice, but even in the SMB market they'd get clobbered by HP and Dell.  They don't have anything close to what IBM and Oracle/Sun are putting out for enterprise customers.  Beyond that, there aren't enough developers targeting the platform to develop the accounting packages, ERP systems, groupware servers, etc. that businesses run on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has traditionally had two target markets .
Those markets are education and " creative professionals " .
Creative professionals are n't going to turn out enterprise applications , but they can sure come up with some spiffy product literature .
The education culture is focused on learning , not application development .
In the past decade Apple has expanded their focus to include the consumer market.Apple is so far behind the curve in the business market that they 'd run themselves out of money trying to play catchup .
They ca n't compete in the desktop space .
I 've heard that their X-Serve boxes are nice , but even in the SMB market they 'd get clobbered by HP and Dell .
They do n't have anything close to what IBM and Oracle/Sun are putting out for enterprise customers .
Beyond that , there are n't enough developers targeting the platform to develop the accounting packages , ERP systems , groupware servers , etc .
that businesses run on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has traditionally had two target markets.
Those markets are education and "creative professionals".
Creative professionals aren't going to turn out enterprise applications, but they can sure come up with some spiffy product literature.
The education culture is focused on learning, not application development.
In the past decade Apple has expanded their focus to include the consumer market.Apple is so far behind the curve in the business market that they'd run themselves out of money trying to play catchup.
They can't compete in the desktop space.
I've heard that their X-Serve boxes are nice, but even in the SMB market they'd get clobbered by HP and Dell.
They don't have anything close to what IBM and Oracle/Sun are putting out for enterprise customers.
Beyond that, there aren't enough developers targeting the platform to develop the accounting packages, ERP systems, groupware servers, etc.
that businesses run on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392</id>
	<title>Enterprises don't like getting work done.</title>
	<author>Kyle</author>
	<datestamp>1265884620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.</p><p>Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.</p><p>Polar opposites in agendas really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you ca n't get any work done.Polar opposites in agendas really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple builds OSs that largely get out of your way so you can get work done.Enterprises like OSs that can be locked down until you can't get any work done.Polar opposites in agendas really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105308</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265884380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because macs are for free thinkers - it's squares that use PCs, man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because macs are for free thinkers - it 's squares that use PCs , man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because macs are for free thinkers - it's squares that use PCs, man!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114898</id>
	<title>Your a Consultant arn't you?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265997600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had a meeting the other day for a threat risk assessment for an app we are trying to build. I ask the guy "Your a consultant. Are you aware of the corporate security protocols? They are currently causing us some problems." He wanted to know why I knew he was a consultant. I said "Your using a Macbook."</p><p>No one in a corporate setting would be using a Macbook. Also when setting up to the projector he made a big deal about it having HDMI ports, to which my response was, "You know it is the exact same thing as DVI except with sound right?"</p><p>Funny enough there was no sound in the presentation.</p><p>Anyway he did a good job, I am just being smarmy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had a meeting the other day for a threat risk assessment for an app we are trying to build .
I ask the guy " Your a consultant .
Are you aware of the corporate security protocols ?
They are currently causing us some problems .
" He wanted to know why I knew he was a consultant .
I said " Your using a Macbook .
" No one in a corporate setting would be using a Macbook .
Also when setting up to the projector he made a big deal about it having HDMI ports , to which my response was , " You know it is the exact same thing as DVI except with sound right ?
" Funny enough there was no sound in the presentation.Anyway he did a good job , I am just being smarmy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had a meeting the other day for a threat risk assessment for an app we are trying to build.
I ask the guy "Your a consultant.
Are you aware of the corporate security protocols?
They are currently causing us some problems.
" He wanted to know why I knew he was a consultant.
I said "Your using a Macbook.
"No one in a corporate setting would be using a Macbook.
Also when setting up to the projector he made a big deal about it having HDMI ports, to which my response was, "You know it is the exact same thing as DVI except with sound right?
"Funny enough there was no sound in the presentation.Anyway he did a good job, I am just being smarmy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109638</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>torkus</author>
	<datestamp>1265911140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enterprise pricing?  Only if your purchasing dept is really bad at negotiating.  You can easily get a good, solid enterprise PC with 3yr warranty for about 750.  This is without cutting corners and buying clearance/used stuff.</p><p>People like to compare Apple's offering to some other fancy PCs and with a bit of fudging make the numbers about equal.  They never take into account that Apple's discount tier is minimal while other major providers (Dell, HP, etc) offer substantial discounts when you start buying in the $100k+ range a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprise pricing ?
Only if your purchasing dept is really bad at negotiating .
You can easily get a good , solid enterprise PC with 3yr warranty for about 750 .
This is without cutting corners and buying clearance/used stuff.People like to compare Apple 's offering to some other fancy PCs and with a bit of fudging make the numbers about equal .
They never take into account that Apple 's discount tier is minimal while other major providers ( Dell , HP , etc ) offer substantial discounts when you start buying in the $ 100k + range a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprise pricing?
Only if your purchasing dept is really bad at negotiating.
You can easily get a good, solid enterprise PC with 3yr warranty for about 750.
This is without cutting corners and buying clearance/used stuff.People like to compare Apple's offering to some other fancy PCs and with a bit of fudging make the numbers about equal.
They never take into account that Apple's discount tier is minimal while other major providers (Dell, HP, etc) offer substantial discounts when you start buying in the $100k+ range a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105346</id>
	<title>Because they'd have to become like their customers</title>
	<author>mileshigh</author>
	<datestamp>1265884500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To properly cater and market to faceless corporations, you have to become one. There are no shortcuts, it takes a machine to relate to a machine.

Case in point, Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise. Those MS guys used to laugh at the "old" IBM; they howled derisively when the IBMers tried to become cooler by switching from blue suits to sport jackets. Now Microsoft have become them and the enterprise customers love 'em -- they're on the same wavelength. They made lots of money but lost their soul.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To properly cater and market to faceless corporations , you have to become one .
There are no shortcuts , it takes a machine to relate to a machine .
Case in point , Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise .
Those MS guys used to laugh at the " old " IBM ; they howled derisively when the IBMers tried to become cooler by switching from blue suits to sport jackets .
Now Microsoft have become them and the enterprise customers love 'em -- they 're on the same wavelength .
They made lots of money but lost their soul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To properly cater and market to faceless corporations, you have to become one.
There are no shortcuts, it takes a machine to relate to a machine.
Case in point, Microsoft started losing its juice when it got serious about enterprise.
Those MS guys used to laugh at the "old" IBM; they howled derisively when the IBMers tried to become cooler by switching from blue suits to sport jackets.
Now Microsoft have become them and the enterprise customers love 'em -- they're on the same wavelength.
They made lots of money but lost their soul.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31118766</id>
	<title>The more interesting question</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265968440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple never did business/enterprise correctly, or well.</p><p>But they used to be a powerhouse in education. And they're not just losing that market, they're intentionally walking away.</p><p>The future trend is one computer per student. They've been doing that at my kids' high school recently. This was completely enabled by the rise of Netbook PCs. Every kid in school borrows a Netbook for the year.... that's possible with $300 Netbooks, impossible based on the lower Apple iBook prices. In fact, Apple's prices are all over crazy... the average price paid for a laptop, excluding netbooks, was about $550, 4Q09. Where is Apple's $500 laptop, much less their $300 laptop. Without they, they're walking away from one of their traditional markets.</p><p>My guess is that Apple just doesn't care.. they like the high margins on the Apple laptops.. they're getting twice as much money per computer as Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, etc. That's got to feel good, but also, I think Apple doesn't quite believe that the Mac is their future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple never did business/enterprise correctly , or well.But they used to be a powerhouse in education .
And they 're not just losing that market , they 're intentionally walking away.The future trend is one computer per student .
They 've been doing that at my kids ' high school recently .
This was completely enabled by the rise of Netbook PCs .
Every kid in school borrows a Netbook for the year.... that 's possible with $ 300 Netbooks , impossible based on the lower Apple iBook prices .
In fact , Apple 's prices are all over crazy... the average price paid for a laptop , excluding netbooks , was about $ 550 , 4Q09 .
Where is Apple 's $ 500 laptop , much less their $ 300 laptop .
Without they , they 're walking away from one of their traditional markets.My guess is that Apple just does n't care.. they like the high margins on the Apple laptops.. they 're getting twice as much money per computer as Dell , HP , Lenovo , Sony , Toshiba , etc .
That 's got to feel good , but also , I think Apple does n't quite believe that the Mac is their future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple never did business/enterprise correctly, or well.But they used to be a powerhouse in education.
And they're not just losing that market, they're intentionally walking away.The future trend is one computer per student.
They've been doing that at my kids' high school recently.
This was completely enabled by the rise of Netbook PCs.
Every kid in school borrows a Netbook for the year.... that's possible with $300 Netbooks, impossible based on the lower Apple iBook prices.
In fact, Apple's prices are all over crazy... the average price paid for a laptop, excluding netbooks, was about $550, 4Q09.
Where is Apple's $500 laptop, much less their $300 laptop.
Without they, they're walking away from one of their traditional markets.My guess is that Apple just doesn't care.. they like the high margins on the Apple laptops.. they're getting twice as much money per computer as Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, etc.
That's got to feel good, but also, I think Apple doesn't quite believe that the Mac is their future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200</id>
	<title>Support</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1265883960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They would have to provide and support their products longer then a consumer product cycle. Things like releasing a $3000 workstation then 3 years later releasing an OS update that doesn't support it don't fly well in enterprise environments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They would have to provide and support their products longer then a consumer product cycle .
Things like releasing a $ 3000 workstation then 3 years later releasing an OS update that does n't support it do n't fly well in enterprise environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They would have to provide and support their products longer then a consumer product cycle.
Things like releasing a $3000 workstation then 3 years later releasing an OS update that doesn't support it don't fly well in enterprise environments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106534</id>
	<title>It would ruin their marketing.</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1265889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Justin Long doesn't work in the enterprise! He's too hip to work for the man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Justin Long does n't work in the enterprise !
He 's too hip to work for the man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justin Long doesn't work in the enterprise!
He's too hip to work for the man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31117450</id>
	<title>It's a simple answer</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is counting on user and group demand to get into business.</p><p>For example, they have good traction in some media content departments. Most professional media organizations standardize on a set of tools, and stick with them for decades. If you go to video production houses, you'll generally find they're "Sony shops" or "Panny shops".. they don't mix and match camcorder gear. Same applies to video editing suites and at least OS platforms if not necessarily (on the PC side) PC vendors.</p><p>In short, Apple keeps their adherents, and they have virtually no chance of selling Macs to a PC/Vegas, PC/Newtek, or PC/Grass Valley shop, and not a very good chance of selling to PC/Avid or PC/Adobe shop. Similar things in audio work.</p><p>Outside of content creation, it's even more difficult. There's lots of talk of corporate email and maybe even desktop apps, and if that's all you're doing throughout your organization, maybe Apple stands a chance. If you're doing software development, sure, you might be able to run on the Mac... at least as a Linux replacement. But once you get to non-FOSS development, you probably can't get that special compiler for a NXP ARM or TI DSP on Mac. Windows may the only target.</p><p>Going on to hardware development, it gets even more severe... there are no good hardware tools for MacOS, and for any reasonable hardware development environment, you don't just need one, you need dozens of tools. This is the same reason peopl use Windows and MacOS for media content creation over Linux.. it's not just one tool, it's potentially dozens (I do hardware development, software development, video and music... the PC is the only possible answer).</p><p>Now, get back to larger companies.. you have to hire a sysadmin. He may not need to do much in the engineering group, but his department is going to manage computers in marketing, sales, finance, office support, documentation, etc... definitely all the non-tech departments. Unless you can do each and every one of those things on the Mac, the PC wins by default.</p><p>And then there's the smart business decision. If I'm building a new company, I need gear. I'd like to establish a relationship with a hardware vendor for any medium sized company or larger. If I pick Apple, I have no recourse... I take what they give me, and that's that. It's an expensive platform shift to move to another platform. If I buy a PC, regardless of the software platform. I can change hardware suppliers any time I like. Which gives me much more leverage with them. So Apple would never be the right answer, from this aspect of the business perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is counting on user and group demand to get into business.For example , they have good traction in some media content departments .
Most professional media organizations standardize on a set of tools , and stick with them for decades .
If you go to video production houses , you 'll generally find they 're " Sony shops " or " Panny shops " .. they do n't mix and match camcorder gear .
Same applies to video editing suites and at least OS platforms if not necessarily ( on the PC side ) PC vendors.In short , Apple keeps their adherents , and they have virtually no chance of selling Macs to a PC/Vegas , PC/Newtek , or PC/Grass Valley shop , and not a very good chance of selling to PC/Avid or PC/Adobe shop .
Similar things in audio work.Outside of content creation , it 's even more difficult .
There 's lots of talk of corporate email and maybe even desktop apps , and if that 's all you 're doing throughout your organization , maybe Apple stands a chance .
If you 're doing software development , sure , you might be able to run on the Mac... at least as a Linux replacement .
But once you get to non-FOSS development , you probably ca n't get that special compiler for a NXP ARM or TI DSP on Mac .
Windows may the only target.Going on to hardware development , it gets even more severe... there are no good hardware tools for MacOS , and for any reasonable hardware development environment , you do n't just need one , you need dozens of tools .
This is the same reason peopl use Windows and MacOS for media content creation over Linux.. it 's not just one tool , it 's potentially dozens ( I do hardware development , software development , video and music... the PC is the only possible answer ) .Now , get back to larger companies.. you have to hire a sysadmin .
He may not need to do much in the engineering group , but his department is going to manage computers in marketing , sales , finance , office support , documentation , etc... definitely all the non-tech departments .
Unless you can do each and every one of those things on the Mac , the PC wins by default.And then there 's the smart business decision .
If I 'm building a new company , I need gear .
I 'd like to establish a relationship with a hardware vendor for any medium sized company or larger .
If I pick Apple , I have no recourse... I take what they give me , and that 's that .
It 's an expensive platform shift to move to another platform .
If I buy a PC , regardless of the software platform .
I can change hardware suppliers any time I like .
Which gives me much more leverage with them .
So Apple would never be the right answer , from this aspect of the business perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is counting on user and group demand to get into business.For example, they have good traction in some media content departments.
Most professional media organizations standardize on a set of tools, and stick with them for decades.
If you go to video production houses, you'll generally find they're "Sony shops" or "Panny shops".. they don't mix and match camcorder gear.
Same applies to video editing suites and at least OS platforms if not necessarily (on the PC side) PC vendors.In short, Apple keeps their adherents, and they have virtually no chance of selling Macs to a PC/Vegas, PC/Newtek, or PC/Grass Valley shop, and not a very good chance of selling to PC/Avid or PC/Adobe shop.
Similar things in audio work.Outside of content creation, it's even more difficult.
There's lots of talk of corporate email and maybe even desktop apps, and if that's all you're doing throughout your organization, maybe Apple stands a chance.
If you're doing software development, sure, you might be able to run on the Mac... at least as a Linux replacement.
But once you get to non-FOSS development, you probably can't get that special compiler for a NXP ARM or TI DSP on Mac.
Windows may the only target.Going on to hardware development, it gets even more severe... there are no good hardware tools for MacOS, and for any reasonable hardware development environment, you don't just need one, you need dozens of tools.
This is the same reason peopl use Windows and MacOS for media content creation over Linux.. it's not just one tool, it's potentially dozens (I do hardware development, software development, video and music... the PC is the only possible answer).Now, get back to larger companies.. you have to hire a sysadmin.
He may not need to do much in the engineering group, but his department is going to manage computers in marketing, sales, finance, office support, documentation, etc... definitely all the non-tech departments.
Unless you can do each and every one of those things on the Mac, the PC wins by default.And then there's the smart business decision.
If I'm building a new company, I need gear.
I'd like to establish a relationship with a hardware vendor for any medium sized company or larger.
If I pick Apple, I have no recourse... I take what they give me, and that's that.
It's an expensive platform shift to move to another platform.
If I buy a PC, regardless of the software platform.
I can change hardware suppliers any time I like.
Which gives me much more leverage with them.
So Apple would never be the right answer, from this aspect of the business perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224</id>
	<title>Re:Macs are great for small business though</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1265884080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity... what's your take on <a href="http://www.apple.com/xserve/features/server.html" title="apple.com">Xserve with Mac OS X Server</a> [apple.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity... what 's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server [ apple.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity... what's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server [apple.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31120250</id>
	<title>Re:I can think of two reasons</title>
	<author>aibrahim</author>
	<datestamp>1265972580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe products on Windows don't give the same level of critical color performance as Adobe products on OS X.</p><p>If you are a creative, Macs really are the very best computing solution in the market right now.</p><p>You can't solve every user problem with a $500 Dell. That's why Dell makes more expensive machines.</p><p>That said- one way to really increase availability of those Macs running creative applications is to sit a Windows machine in the same cubicle to handle "routine" business email web etc. I'm actually setting that up in my home studio today. I'm actually using a 2GHz Pentium 4. I think thats more than enough for office, mail and web browsing. (Although I am thinking about increasing RAM to 1GB from 512 for that machine... and eventually replacing it with Mac Mini/iMac and an iPad. I expect to replace my Powe Mac G5 with a Mac Pro and a Macbook Pro by the same token.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe products on Windows do n't give the same level of critical color performance as Adobe products on OS X.If you are a creative , Macs really are the very best computing solution in the market right now.You ca n't solve every user problem with a $ 500 Dell .
That 's why Dell makes more expensive machines.That said- one way to really increase availability of those Macs running creative applications is to sit a Windows machine in the same cubicle to handle " routine " business email web etc .
I 'm actually setting that up in my home studio today .
I 'm actually using a 2GHz Pentium 4 .
I think thats more than enough for office , mail and web browsing .
( Although I am thinking about increasing RAM to 1GB from 512 for that machine... and eventually replacing it with Mac Mini/iMac and an iPad .
I expect to replace my Powe Mac G5 with a Mac Pro and a Macbook Pro by the same token .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe products on Windows don't give the same level of critical color performance as Adobe products on OS X.If you are a creative, Macs really are the very best computing solution in the market right now.You can't solve every user problem with a $500 Dell.
That's why Dell makes more expensive machines.That said- one way to really increase availability of those Macs running creative applications is to sit a Windows machine in the same cubicle to handle "routine" business email web etc.
I'm actually setting that up in my home studio today.
I'm actually using a 2GHz Pentium 4.
I think thats more than enough for office, mail and web browsing.
(Although I am thinking about increasing RAM to 1GB from 512 for that machine... and eventually replacing it with Mac Mini/iMac and an iPad.
I expect to replace my Powe Mac G5 with a Mac Pro and a Macbook Pro by the same token.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106296</id>
	<title>X Serve</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1265888100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the X Serve isn't aimed at Enterprise users, I don't know what is. I use both X Serves and Dell Linux servers, and rate them about equal overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the X Serve is n't aimed at Enterprise users , I do n't know what is .
I use both X Serves and Dell Linux servers , and rate them about equal overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the X Serve isn't aimed at Enterprise users, I don't know what is.
I use both X Serves and Dell Linux servers, and rate them about equal overall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31118500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31143200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31125362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31178740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31130450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31115078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31120250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31112002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2110212_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31114960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31112002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31118500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31130450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31111600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31178740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31115078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31125362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31119106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31143200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31104972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107988
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31113414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31105364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31106284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31110924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31108468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31107466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31120250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2110212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2110212.31109236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
