Why not go Mac?

Post by **lajackson** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:39 pm

Kaz wrote:How does the $600 price compare to a price from Dell if someone were to purchase 5,000 systems?

I do not know how much the Church pays (and I do not believe they will, or should, tell). But, when my company buys computers in volume (more than 1,000), the discount starts at 20%, so that would be $480 or less.

russellhltn · Post by **russellhltn** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:03 pm

lajackson wrote:I do not know how much the Church pays (and I do not believe they will, or should, tell). But, when my company buys computers in volume (more than 1,000), the discount starts at 20%, so that would be $480 or less.

And that's not factoring in a possible discount for non-profit. I've been told by a school IT guy that he has been able to get very generous discounts from a certain first-tier level company.

Kaz-p40 · Post by **Kaz-p40** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:13 pm

Okay, now I understand. It seems like the church would have less computer issues if it made the transition despite the issues of developing the software for Mac.

jbh001 · Post by **jbh001** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:06 am

GarysTurn wrote:We would have to write each application for two platforms to use Apples in some markets and not in others.

Does anyone know if the current Intel-based Macs are able to install Desktop 5.5? If they can, then the software issues are a moot point because the Macs would then be natively running Windows XP via Desktop 5.5. No emulation. No virualization. No coding for Mac OS X.

mkmurray · Post by **mkmurray** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:18 am

jbh001 wrote:Does anyone know if the current Intel-based Macs are able to install Desktop 5.5? If they can, then the software issues are a moot point because the Macs would then be natively running Windows XP via Desktop 5.5. No emulation. No virualization. No coding for Mac OS X.

Not that this really helps though. You still have Windows XP running on just a different set of hardware. There would be no added stability nor hardware support. I would be the same situation we have now.

I believe most who make this recommendation are suggesting that a change in OS would be more secure and stable.

Kaz-p40 · Post by **Kaz-p40** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:58 am

I agree, Mac is so much more stable, secure, and has less problems than Windows. Mac is known to be virus free, which is what got me to ask why we aren't already using it. The systems are a lot more compact than the general desktop tower, allowing more room that would probably be nice to have for the FHC workers' desk space.

If you were to run Windows inside the Mac OS, then most likely the only program you would need to install would be Desktop 5.5 and the church's genealogy program. The genealogy program is written in Java though (or at least for the computers in my ward's Family History Center) so that could probably be ran in the Mac OS. All other computer activities could be executed inside the Mac OS (internet, word processing, etc.)

Post by **Mikerowaved** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:36 pm

Although it makes for an interesting discussion, I believe the Church is firmly committed to the MS platform. We've discussed Linux alternatives here as well (numerous times), for many of the same reasons, but the answer always comes out the same: Windows. The fact that the Church recently switched (and greatly consolidated) all their internal email servers from Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange, at least in part, shows their commitment to MS products.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, it's just the decision they went with and I'm sure after much consideration.

Mike

jbh001 · Post by **jbh001** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:34 pm

mkmurray wrote:I believe most who make this recommendation are suggesting that a change in OS would be more secure and stable.

Yes, but developing an OS X native version of MLS makes no sense to me. Then next evolution of MLS logically is to keep moving more towards platform independence via making it entirely a Java, Adobe Flex, or Internet based application. When MLS getts to that point, it will make little difference what the underlying OS is.

I see the Church trending this way as evidenced by the direction new.familysearch.org has taken. Right now, it seems only natural for MLS to evolve towards something similar to NFS. The roll-out of meetinghouse internet is a major step in making it possible for MLS to even go that direction.

russellhltn · Post by **russellhltn** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:10 pm

jbh001 wrote:Does anyone know if the current Intel-based Macs are able to install Desktop 5.5? If they can, then the software issues are a moot point because the Macs would then be natively running Windows XP via Desktop 5.5. No emulation. No virualization. No coding for Mac OS X.

What would be the advantage? I don't know of many people who claim that Apple hardware is superior. If you're going to run Windows, then you have all the problems of Windows.

Mikerowaved wrote:Although it makes for an interesting discussion, I believe the Church is firmly committed to the MS platform.

Actually, I think the church is firmly committed to enterprise-class computing. The changes in the email system are simply a reflection of the changes in mainstream enterprise-class IT management.

And as far as my observation: At this time enterprise computing rules the computer universe. Before IBM there was a mix of incompatible systems. When IBM came along, suddenly the PC was "blessed" from on high to be a part of business. To be something more then a word processor for the secretary to use. The architecture of that first machine was copied and expanded to get what we have today. Likewise the operating system.

Yes, other operating systems exist. One was created by scientists to harness the power of the computer. Another was created by an ex-hippy to empower the individual. Both good OS, but neither really aimed at the demands of the enterprise. Outside of nitch applications they haven't been widely adopted in business even though some flavors of them can be had for free.

Only in the most recent years do we see a rise in individuals willing to move away from what the enterprise uses to fulfill their own needs. It's hard to predict where that will end up. On one hand greater computer literacy helps people be bi-lingual. But the ability to bring work home, the ability to share what's learned at work at home, and use what's learned at home to advance a career will always be a powerful incentive to stay mono-lingual.</editorial>

I think this quote from another thread bares repeating:

jbh001 wrote:In the tech arena, it seems that the Church is (usually) a follower instead of a leader, probably because they have other more important priorities than to try to influence technology trends.

The Church is here to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and save the souls of men. Not to spread the gospel of technology and save machines.

Anyone wanting to change how things are done should probably start with their own employer.

mkmurray · Post by **mkmurray** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:05 pm

jbh001 wrote:Yes, but developing an OS X native version of MLS makes no sense to me. Then next evolution of MLS logically is to keep moving more towards platform independence via making it entirely a Java, Adobe Flex, or Internet based application. When MLS getts to that point, it will make little difference what the underlying OS is.

I see the Church trending this way as evidenced by the direction new.familysearch.org has taken. Right now, it seems only natural for MLS to evolve towards something similar to NFS. The roll-out of meetinghouse internet is a major step in making it possible for MLS to even go that direction.

I believe 100% every word you said. I was merely stating what I believed the reasoning is for those who make this suggestion to switch OS's.