Posted: 7/9/2003 3:04:14 PM EDT
|
Hey Guys, At work there is a Mac they want to add to the network. We are running SUSE Linux with Samba on our server for all of our PC's which is what I need it on. Well since I know absolutley squat about Mac's and the other guy there doesnt seem to really want to do it. Is there any where to find good information on this? I have searched the net for hours and havent come up with anything I have been to Samba.org and nothing there tldp.org and the same thing. Any help would be great. Thanks KC |
|
You may have to give us a bit more information about your network though. For now, I'll be speculatin and assume that the Mac runs OSX, and the network is a standard LAN with a DHCP server. Read here: corelli.new.ox.ac.uk/it/conn/macs/osxinst/osx-instructions.html (Apply your own settings, obviously.) |
|
Thanks Kar98 I think that info will help. Right now the network doesnt have a DHCP server until we get our new modem in. But I have the list of IP's. One more question. So once I put in all of that information it doesnt say anything about joining the Domain or workgroup. How do I go about that? or does it just automatically do it? Thanks Again. KC |
right.... right.... Or so they think. I say run Unix or a variant of it. Now that I like. KC |
Apple, Control Panel, TCP/IP. You can't connect to samba file servers using a mac (i duno about osx). You need to run Appletalk AFP on the Server for the mac to hit it. |
I agree BenDover but it isnt my choice. They think they need it for video editing. I keep trying to tell them they could do it just as well if not better with a PC. Yup Realfast is right I was just coming here to post this when I seen he allready had it posted. Mac's wont talk to samba. KC |
|
If there is one thing the Mac does really well is in the video editing arena. The friends I have that work in the local TV stations moved away from Windows/Adobe Premier to OSX/FinalCutPro. They acknowledge it was more expensive but it cuts down on the amount of time they can get a story to 'print', and the amount of equipment between the story and the broadcast equipment is also reduced (aggregate cost savings to them). That said, here's the skinny: OSX will connect to a CIFS / SMB fileservers, or printservers. This is built in. OSX also supports connectivity to lesser-used-in-the-PC-world NFS (v2, v3 and v4 is upcoming). If all you want to do is connect to a printserver, this link shows how to allow a Mac running CUPS or SAMBA to hook up: homepage.mac.com/william_white/print_to_windows.html To connect your Mac to a CIFS/SMB fileserver for file exchange, simply select Go -> Connect To File Server then enter smb://<IP address of the file server> you will be asked the usual credentials in order to connect. Hope that helps. |
|
you might want to look into thursby's dave product. it may allow you to do what you need. www.thursby.com/products/dave.html also, for higher end video editing and if your hardware will support it, you may want to consider upgrading to osx. the editing tools are far superior to anything available for os9. plus it would solve your samba problem. |
|
Begin Soapbox It is so lovely to hear such varied, informed, and sage opinions from people who know basically d^&k about Macs and scarcely have touched one. End of soapbox rant. For MAC OSes earlier than OS X, this is going to be a bloody nightmare. For OS X and later, a piece of cake. MAC OS X and later support Samba and just about every other network protocol natively (as evidenced by the two PCs and two macs networked in the room right now!). Mac OS X is basically a pretty face on BSD Linux, so finding plug ins for nearly every network is a snap. I use Samba/SMB to send files back and forth frequently. Solution: wipe hard drive, install Mac OS X, never look back. If you need any further assitance, e-mail me privately. |
|
I agree with torstin, you'll need DAVE if your running anything but OSX. There are some others out there to support cifs on macos, but dave is the most popular(I have never personally used it). OSX has really nice integrated networking. cifs, nfs, etc.... right outa the box. Cyoung, alittle correction it's not BSD linux. BSD and linux are 2 different things. BSD is pure unix like operating system, with excellent quality control, alot of dedicated people paid to write it. Linux is a redheaded stepchild written by foreigners in 3rdworld nations on 386's, with no quality control in the source whatsoever, to many dickbeaters in the circlejerk if you ask me. But you are right. OSX is just a pretty face on BSD You can get it's BSD base from apple for both pc and ppc processors. It's called darwin, It lacks the pretty face, but I do believe there is an aqua clone for darwin, it's not as fancy however. Darwin(the OSX core) is mostly taken from FreeBSD and alot of MACH architectured stuff with alot of Apple rewrites and changes. As for formatting and installing OSX, it's not that simple in a lot of cases. Most older applications have not been rewritten for OSX, and alot of them do not run right under classic mode, if they even work at all. And in a business enviroment, people bitch about every little thing(icons moved and the likes) an OS upgrade is a huge thing for a user, in thier mind anyways. Most people/departments/seagull managers/ will demand training on this new fangled way of doing things. Trust me I deal with it every day, a simple change of putting in a different number in box can get hundreds of people in an uproar. |
|
I just love it when people running Windows call Macintosh "proprietary". How is an open sourced operating system "proprietary" when compared to a closed source piece of crap like Windows? I respect people who choose Linux or *BSD, but if you're running Windows and bashing the Mac you're either ignorant or an idiot. These days Macs are cheaper, faster and far more reliable and easier to use and more productive than Windows machiens. Windows is not even competitive-- except for people who never bother to consider anything but windows. |
|
BaNo- You are exactly right, my mistake. BSD is a Unix flavor. That said, my experiences with Mac OS X have been very positive so far. The idea of Apple moving away from its antiquated OS and instead embracing an open source, stable, and high-performance package is way cool to me. That said, I wish their Novell support was a bit better. |
How do you get cheaper? You can only rarely find a Mac for less than $1000, most are more like $2000. You can get an equivalent PC for half the price of a Mac. As for reliability, I use a Mac, a Win98, Win2K PC and a Win XP every day, the only one that is less reliable than the Mac is the Win98 (98 sucks). The speed issue has been much debated, lets just say that both systems have their points but neither seems to have a significant edge in speed. |
|
Since about 1996 Macs have been significantly cheaper than comperable windows machines. There's reasons behind this-- Apple makes the OS, and Microsoft charges for thiers. Additionally, the RISC architecture of the PowerPC line is much cheaper (Because the die is much smaller) than the CISC architecture Intel processors... The CPU is a major component of the price of a given computer. Thus when you have a much faster CPU that costs half as much, you get a price-performance advantage. Most the of the rest of the machine is commodity components. Yes, Apple does sell Macs for less than $1,000. You cannot get a PC that has the performance of a high end Mac, (they don't exist) and when you look at the mid-range, you spend a lot more money for a comperable PC. The problem with these comparisons is usually that two things are not taken into account in them: Performance and quality. Comparing a Mac to the average POS Cobbled together from cheap-ass parts PC (like those from Dell, Gateway, and un-named companies) is like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo and pointing out that they both go 60 MPH and the Yugo is much cheaper. The Mac, will last much longer, provide a much higher quality experience and have much lower repair costs. The other problem is most people think a 3GHz Intel machine is twice as fast as a 1.5GHz PowerPC machine, when in actuallity the reverse is closer to being the case. People are free to use whatever machines they like. Good for them. Being a fan of windows is perfectly fine if you really actually love that operating system. But unfortunately, most people never bother to actually look at the alternatives out there. Go to any forum, even this one, and look at people complaining about problems with windows-- worse, they usually don't even realize its a problem WITH WINDOWS. They think everyone has to deal with these issues. (Two examples from this forum: Popups constantly bothering the person, and the worm thats been going around-- both of which are due to deliberate security holes in Windows.) You want to talk about reliability, note the fact that OS X is secure by default, doesn't crash-- two important features Windows lacks. Like I said, anyone who freely chooses to run Windows has my support. But the constant insistance that Macs suck is just pure ignorance. I'm not some random kid, I worked for Microsoft on NT back in the 90s. |
|
And of course, OS X never crashes, unless you have faulty hardware. Unlike even current versions of windows, which crash regularly.... True, they've got it down to once a week or once a month even, from multiple times a day. But that's not close to the level of stability of OS X. |
|
Used to have a PIO that made the same claims about only being able to do desktop publishing on a MAC. Real funny how she ditched the Mac and started using a PC when a new 1.2 gig Gateway was put into her office. Half of the problem dealing with MAC users - is getting them do ditch the "only a MAC can do this job" attitude. With the proper hardware and software for most applications there isn't that much difference. |
|
I have access to Macs on two Windows networks that I visit regularly. All are running MacOS X, and all are able to work well with the networks in question - from the Mac end, that is. I have never been able to authenticate to any of the Mac from any of the Windows computers, despite following all the rules, until very recently. The solution, and as far as I can make out this is undocumented, involves the following: Make certain the Macs are part of the Windows domain (use Directory Access (in /Applications -> Utilities) to change from WORKGROUP to match the Windows domain name) This is the key step. Rename the account to which you are logging in to DOMAINUsername (you'll probably need Root access to do this). For example, if your username is John Doe and the Domain Name is Foo, rename the Mac account to FOOJohn Doe. The short login name stays unchanged, but that's OK. Log into the Mac from a Windows machine using the short name and password you have always used for the Mac account. I haven't seen this trick mentioned anywhere else, but the standard approach of simply checking the "Allow User to log in from Windows" in the User Preferences pane has never worked for me on either of the Windows networks I visit. I'd love to hear of a better solution, since the limitation of this approach being that it allows access only to the resources in the account in question, not other general-access folders on the hard disk. But hey, it works. [robg adds: I access my Mac from my work XP box regularly, and I didn't have use step #2; I did have to set the domain to match, but once that was done, I can login as my standard user with full admin privileges to see the whole hard drive ... can anyone shed any light on why this doesn't seem to work in all cases?] |
I work with lots of graphic designers (probably the most devoted Mac users out there) and even they agree that setting up a Mac system is more expensive than an equivalent PC system. Post a couple price quotes to prove this statement.
and I can buy a PC for $150, that doesn't mean its very good though. Even IMacs are about $1200 for a lower end system.
Thats completly untrue. for the price of a midrange Mac ($1500-$2000) you can get a loaded PC that will outperform the Mac.
As I said in my earlier post, I use Macs and PCs with several different OS's. The idea that Macs don't crash is a myth, and Win2k & XP are as reliable as any Mac I've used (maybe I'll give a slight edge to the Mac though)
Macs don't suck, they are very nice computers. The problem with Macs is the users most of the time. Mac users just can't accept that while there was a time that they had the hands down best machine for graphic/video work, there is now very little, if anything, that a Mac can do that a PC can't do just as well if not better. Go to a Mac board, it's like Glocktalk. They just can't accept that Macs are not the end all- be all computer.
Cool, you do sound pretty well versed on the technical stuff. I work with Photoshop, Quark, etc. They are one of the normal benchmarks when comparing Macs to PC's & I'm here to tell you, Macs are not superior. Honestly, both systems work fine and are more than capable of what they are designed for. It normally boils down to what OS you like & are most familiar with (one of the reasons so many designers still use Macs) |
|
I understand why many people prefer PCs... its what they are used to, and in some cases, people prefer the tweakability (eg: JOB SECURITY) of windows. But Macs are, hands down, a better computer. They are faster. You cannot get PCs as fast as the top of the line Macs. They simply aren't made. (And I'm not counting $10,000 8way processor systems) A $1,000 iMac is a better machine than $2500 PCs from quality manufacturers. As to there being things that Macs can do that PCs cant' do, there still are quite a few-- mostly in the Video / Audio production arena these days (Rather than graphics design) but the major problem for PCs is the instability and insecurity of them. Notice this recent worm problems... PCs have been having problems with worms/viruses every year.... and yet you have to go back to the 80s to find the last outbreak of a Mac virus. There's a reason for that. Yes, you can get video editing software for PCs, and spreadsheets and photoshop and all that. But your total, as well as initial, cost of ownership is much higher, and you get a slower machine for the additional money. Until Intel or AMD migrate to a RISC processor, this is going to remain the case... the Intel chips are really expensive because they are really big, and they are too complex, meaning they pull a lot of heat. So, tehy crank up the MHz (now GHz) to make them useful, but they do far less per clock cylce than superscaler RISC processors. End result, is that you pay far more for your Intel or AMD processor, and thuse the machine, than you do for a Mac and get less performance. All the other parts are the same between quality manufacturers. (Macs us PCI, etc.) Anyone who prefers PCs has a legitimate reason for buying them-- they simply prefer them. IF you want to play a lot of different mainstream game,s then your choices are more limited on the Mac. But if raw performance, and quality OS are your criteria, or if you're price sensitive, you should get a Mac. PCs can't (or, more correctly, don't) compete in this regard. Price / performance wise, Macs have been a better deal since 1996. The only reason people don't know this is that they think a 500MHz pentium is the same speed as a 500MHz PowerPC, when in fact, the PowerPC is 2-8 times faster. |
 My $1200 Dell/Win/Intel 3.06 GHz sure seems faster than my $3500 Mac. But it's not as pretty but $2300 can buy a lot of plastic and neon lights to make it look pretty. If I could get my graphic artists and producer/editors to leave the Apple behind I'd save $100,000 a year in hardware expenses easy. |
|
Yeah, you'd save $100,000 that year, maybe, and then loose $4,000,000 because you couldnt' get any work done. The idea that PCs are faster than Macs is just absurd... but its common because most people think the MHz is the speed of the computer, and really all it is is a clockrate. In reality, you're probably wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased costs with PCs because you're stuck with crappy software and crappy hardware. And there's no way you can get a PC thats' faster than a Mac for the same price or lower--- a G5 Mac is faster than every PC on the market, and a midrange Mac is faster than PCs in the same price range. Frankly, the only reason people persist in insisting PCs are faster is that they are simply ignorant, and there are a lot of PC users out there to agree with them, who are also ignorant. Go study the technology and you'll see this is the case-- Macs have been cheaper and faster than PCs for almost a decade (and probably were cheaper before then too, I just started keeping track in 1996.) |
that's a dubious claim at best, look it up, the advertisement that Apple made was disproven pretty quickly.
I'm not ignorant about speed, try this: spend 1K on a Mac (which probably means a used one) and 1K on a PC, open an image in Pshop (a large one so that you can see the difference), the PC is quite a bit faster at the same cost. I get to see this every single day at work. I have more problems from the Mac than from any of the PC's I use. Here's a few links I found on my first search regarding speed: www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/39381/39381.html |
|
Uh, no, that add was not "disproven" The people complained that it was really a workstation, not a desktop. In other words, the conceded the point. The "benchamarks" you linked to are blatently absurd. Frankly, you're just ignorant of the technology and bigoted about the platform. Its unfortunate that you are not in the minority-- most people are kept stupid-- they are easier to control. And so you spend far too much money and get far less computer, and have to put up with your crash-o-matic. Funny thing is every time you turn around there's another virus or vulnerability found in Microsoft code, and yet, they are rarely found for macs.... But hey, that's why I have intel stock! There's a sucker born every day.... |
|
Quoted: Since about 1996 Macs have been significantly cheaper than comperable windows machines. There's reasons behind this-- Apple makes the OS, and Microsoft charges for thiers. Additionally, the RISC architecture of the PowerPC line is much cheaper (Because the die is much smaller) than the CISC architecture Intel processors... The CPU is a major component of the price of a given computer. Thus when you have a much faster CPU that costs half as much, you get a price-performance advantage. Most the of the rest of the machine is commodity components. Yes, Apple does sell Macs for less than $1,000. You cannot get a PC that has the performance of a high end Mac, (they don't exist) and when you look at the mid-range, you spend a lot more money for a comperable PC. The problem with these comparisons is usually that two things are not taken into account in them: Performance and quality. Comparing a Mac to the average POS Cobbled together from cheap-ass parts PC (like those from Dell, Gateway, and un-named companies) is like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo and pointing out that they both go 60 MPH and the Yugo is much cheaper. The Mac, will last much longer, provide a much higher quality experience and have much lower repair costs. The other problem is most people think a 3GHz Intel machine is twice as fast as a 1.5GHz PowerPC machine, when in actuallity the reverse is closer to being the case. People are free to use whatever machines they like. Good for them. Being a fan of windows is perfectly fine if you really actually love that operating system. But unfortunately, most people never bother to actually look at the alternatives out there. Go to any forum, even this one, and look at people complaining about problems with windows-- worse, they usually don't even realize its a problem WITH WINDOWS. They think everyone has to deal with these issues. (Two examples from this forum: Popups constantly bothering the person, and the worm thats been going around-- both of which are due to deliberate security holes in Windows.) You want to talk about reliability, note the fact that OS X is secure by default, doesn't crash-- two important features Windows lacks. Like I said, anyone who freely chooses to run Windows has my support. But the constant insistance that Macs suck is just pure ignorance. I'm not some random kid, I worked for Microsoft on NT back in the 90s. I hate Macs. Windows is not my favorite, but it works great for me. My favorite is Linux. |