Is this true about Macs?

[CactusData]

Fryke, it's only a question of network traffic.

To clarify, the scenario is a set of workstations (typically Windows) sharing an Access/JET database hosted on some SMB host, typically a Windows Server or a general purpose NAS.
Bringing this into a very busy network _will_ not but _may_ cause issues for the database users. A well-designed network will, as you correctly state, cause zero problems for the database sharing but the world is not ideal - any of you pros must have met such a network which typically has grown wild from a few workstations to something which calls for a total make-over.

<quote>
In a shared environment, use only high-quality network components.
</quote>

If issues are experienced and a make-over of the network is requested but not possible for whatever reason, the suggested (and quick and very cheap) solution is to establish a separate network for the database users.

Heavy load on a network is not specific to the Macs; it is just so, that in this part of the world such networks are nearly always dealing with "media" in a broad sense and populated with Macs. I'm sorry, that due to the obtuse nature of the article such finer details are lost.

I believe this should answer the question.

/gustav

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I think some of the issues taken here have to do with the mention of the presence of Macintosh computers in a networked environment where an Access/JET database is being shared, and the implication that somehow the Macs themselves are a potential cause of database corruption.

That implication and assumption is just flat-out wrong. The Macs themselves have nothing to do with potential corruption -- any computer on the network is just as likely to cause corruption as a Mac is... it doesn't matter what operating system is running. A Linux computer (or even another Windows computer) is just as likely to cause problems as a Mac is. The comment about that assumption being "racist" is spot-on in my opinion, and the article demonstrates an unfounded and incorrect bias towards Mac computers -- which I believe stems from lack of knowledge about Macintosh computers, not some real-world observation.

It's the same as saying that there is a rumor going around that a 12-year-old girl robbed a convenience store at gunpoint somewhere, sometime, and so we should never allow 12-year-old girls into convenience stores anymore. While that may (or may not) have occurred, it does not imply nor does it warrant a blanket statement that all 12-year-old girls have the potential to rob convenience stores. It demonstrates an unjust bias toward them, and causes people to be wary of the inclusion of 12-year-old girls in their convenience stores.

Replace "12-year-old girl" with "Macintosh" and "convenience store" with "network" and that last paragraph sounds eerily similar to some of the statements made in the article.

Ignorance of a platform is no reason for an unjust bias. Without real information and many examples of a Mac causing network troubles for Access/JET clients, the scientific method dictates that the statements referencing Macs on a network should never have been made. If those statements were simply speculation, then it should have been mentioned that there is no real data to back up the statement and that the statements about Macs causing database troubles were all conjecture.

Conjecture is hardly a platform on which to base an article about database stability and "good practice" rules, especially from someone who purports to be an expert on the subject. It only perpetrates more bias and is largely unhelpful -- I can see a situation where many people out there who read the blog post are now scrambling to unnecessarily remove any trace of Macintosh computer for their network out of fear that they're somehow doing something devious to their networked environment.

I fear that even given unlimited space in which to blog that this point would not be lost in translation -- I do feel that the author would have taken more lines, words and paragraphs to perpetrate the myth about "large graphic files" and Macs, and that limited space is not the reason that this statement could be misconstrued. I do believe the author intended to convey the point that Macs are a potential cause of network congestion and database corruption, no matter how much literary space they had to work within.

I worked in the graphic design industry for the better part of 10 years, and while "graphics" and "Mac" went together like peanut butter and jelly in 1995, during my time spent in that industry, I saw a heavy swing toward more platform-independent desktop publishing. I saw the proliferation of Macs in the industry dwindle, and by the time I left the industry, Macs made up no more of the desktop publishing tools than Windows computers, and, dare I say, even started to become a minority. Today, with my continuing ties to that industry, I can wholeheartedly and honestly say that Windows computers now completely dominate the industry (although Macs are still used and will continue to be used), partly due to popular desktop publishing software being largely produced for multiple platforms (e.g., Adobe Creative Suite, QuarkXPress, Creator, Suitcase, etc.) and is, feature-for-feature, indistinguishable regardless of platform.

I am zeroing-in on this point simply because this is a Macintosh-centric forum, and that is our main area of expertise.

[CactusData]

> .. which I believe stems from lack of knowledge about Macintosh computers, not some real-world observation.

I'm astonished. It's exactly opposite and I have nowhere stated otherwise.

/gustav

[fryke]

We're all astonished, you see. Because you mention the traffic of graphics files. Nothing to do with Macs, then. If you'd take two PCs and transfer graphics files between _them_, the same network traffic happens. If it's a network traffic problem, as you state, you need to monitor and regulate network traffic. Again: Nothing to do with the Mac per se.

[CactusData]

Ok then, thanks - now we are talking - I could not follow the free-flying fantasy of Jeff:

<quote>
Heavy load on a network is not specific to the Macs; it is just so, that in this part of the world such networks are nearly always dealing with "media" in a broad sense and populated with Macs ..
</quote>

Have a nice weekend!

/gustav

[fryke]

Okay, then. Now you can adjust the blog article and take out or edit point 8 to reflect that it's not about Macs. I'm glad this is settled.

[CactusData]

Ha, yes that could be great fun.

But the article is read-only ...

/gustav

[ElDiabloConCaca]

Originally Posted by CactusData

Ok then, thanks - now we are talking - I could not follow the free-flying fantasy of Jeff...

Nothing about what I wrote was free-flying nor fantasy, and I do not believe that I wrote what I did in such a way that it was difficult to follow. Sure, it was lengthy, but I did not contradict myself nor use terminology that would be difficult to understand or have ambiguous meaning.

I simply meant to make the following points:

1) Macs on a network have no more or less impact than other computers running other operating systems, and that the correlation between database corruption and "Macs" and "graphic files" is flat-out wrong.

2) The assumption made in (1) perpetrates a bias -- and it is my opinion that the author has this bias based off of stereotypes that were perhaps true at one point in time but have no relevance today.

3) That if the author is not experienced with the Macintosh platform and how Macs operate on a network that the word "Macintosh" or "Mac" should not have been used at all in the article -- that hearsay does not translate into fact nor knowledge.

4) That the apparent bias in the article is not due to size or length restrictions and that the size/length restrictions did not contribute to anyone's misunderstanding of what the author was trying to say in certain points -- that, given an unlimited amount of space in which to write, that the author would have still conveyed the sense that Macs interfere/congest/misbehave/cause excessive amounts of network traffic more commonly than other computers.

I do believe the author has an unfounded bias against Macs (or at least worded the article in such a way that perpetrates a bias, whether held by the author or not), and I think that other members of the forum that have read the article (and, perhaps, other readers of the article that are not members here) have seen the same bias.

If I was unclear in my previous post or it was too wordy to be understood or if the length of it muddled or somehow made my points less clear, I would be glad to reword them in a fashion that is easier to understand.

None of it was free-flying fantasy, though... speculation based upon real-world experience, observations and knowledge? Perhaps... but not in the least bit fantastical.