IBM says it will offer an open desktop software system for businesses that puts the cost of managing Apple or Linux computers on a more equal footing with Microsoft’s Windows software, improving the economics of Windows alternatives.
The product — which the company calls its “Open Client Offering” — pulls together software IBM has developed in-house and with partners Novell and Red Hat to answer questions over the cost-effectiveness of managing Linux or Apple desktop PCs alongside Windows PCs.
International Business Machines Corp. said the new software makes it feasible for big businesses to offer their employees a choice of running Windows, Linux or Apple Macintosh software on desktop PCs, using the same underlying software code. This cuts the costs of managing Linux or Apple relative to Windows.
IBM’s Open Client software chips away at long-time rival Microsoft’s Windows franchise by making it unnecessary for companies to pay Microsoft for licenses for operations that no longer rely on Windows-based software. The move comes as corporate decision-makers have begun to mull when it makes sense to upgrade to Microsoft’s Windows Vista.
Apparently Europe’s 2nd-largest carmaker, Peugeot-Citroen will be using this Open Client as the underpinning to their new deal with Novell to run Linux on 20,000 pc’s and 2,500 servers. Sounds like a corporate version of Parallels.
Sounds cool, but how would they get Apple to go along with it? I kinda doubt you can get OS X to run on a non-Mac platform. Should be interesting to watch, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RIRZLTjxS0
This guy got OSX (PPC), DSLinux (X86) and Windows to run on a Dell Laptop together, Grub booting. lenthy but … first.
I’m curious about this “that puts the cost of managing Apple or Linux computers on a more equal footing with Microsoft’s Windows software, improving the economics of Windows alternatives.”
doesn’t that sound like a benefit for Windows? Hasn’t Windows been more costly? Can someone explain this to me?
What! no DOS.
DOS! of course! Quad Booting!
and OS/2, Amiga and SNES!
Sept-booting!
Wait until the clients get ahold of IBMs “You should be grateful to be our client and deserve to pays us more while we treat you like a servant” customer support attitude.
xwing – “Sounds cool, but how would they get Apple to go along with it? I kinda doubt you can get OS X to run on a non-Mac platform. Should be interesting to watch, though.”
Sounds to me like it’s just some client software that you run on OS X or linux. You’d still have to buy the Apple hardware int he OS X case.
I haven’t worked with IBM in over a decade. Are they still the company that you hire if you want your Tech support to wear really really nice suits?
Looks to me like they still haven’t recovered from the mini-computer crash in the 90’s.
It does sound like Parallels (which I use on a Linux machine to run Windows). You still need a license to run Windows though, and I recall reading here or somewhere that the Vista disallows running it in a virtual machine. That’s on top of what I’ve read is a performance-sapping level of DRM and license-checking and so forth.
Such restrictive licensing kinda reminds me of the RIAA’s attacks on the Zapster music-fanatic community, or Wal-Mart seemingly going out of its way to alienate its best customers (people who can afford big-ticket goods but started choosing to buy them elsewhere). By refusing to let people on other OSes run a VM with Vista, aren’t they taking aim at the types of people to whom others go when seeking computing advice? Maybe it’s too tiny a niche of people to count in the grand MS scheme of things.
TJGeezer,
Is that VM policy by mirosoft more or less restrictive then apples VM policy?
OIC, you are just FUDding again.
GregA – nah, not FUDding, just commenting on what I read. I still think being overly restrictive on users, whether you’re RIAA or Microsoft, would work against your own longer term interests. As for what constitutes “overly restrictive,” well, that’s subject to debate. I know if I can’t run Vista in a VM I won’t feel inclined to install it at all, because I like to switch between OSes. Linux, in my personal experience, hosts a VM the best because there’s less rebooting required and it’s lots faster and easier to reboot Windows inside a VM than when the hardware linkage is “real.”
YMMV. And I know very little about macs, never had an opportunity (or a sufficiently thick pocketbook) to buy one. If you say they’re better, I’m sure you’re right. They’re just too expensive for me. Sorry. No FUD.
TG, you need to stop being Rip Van Winkle. Contemporary Macs are pretty competitive with similar Wintel machines. In some high end configurations, Macs are actually less expensive.
Apple has been supportive of two different companies who allow XP to run on Mactels, in addition to providing Boot Camp free. That is rather liberal.
Rest assured people..
No good sofware will ever be lost..
Unless you still use cassette backup for storage