# Is this true about Macs?



## gphillipk (Apr 9, 2008)

I came across this blog on Techrepublic http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=331 and I'd like people's opinion  on point nr. 8. How true is that?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 9, 2008)

And for not having to check the statement 



> #8: Don&#8217;t put Mac and Windows users on the same network
> 
> If Mac and Windows users share the same network and experience problems, establish a separate network for database users. Macs are extremely noisy, and typical Mac applications generate vast amounts of network traffic when moving large graphics files and printing. In a shared environment, use only high-quality network components.
> 
> It&#8217;s best to keep the database traffic separate from the graphics traffic, as much as possible. You can accomplish this by allowing administrative workstations to connect directly to the server with the shared database via a local switch.



That is the opinion of the blogger who wrote that. 
Access is not the only database out there, and I'd choose other tools depending on what I need to use - SQL, MySQL, Oracle, FMP ....


----------



## wraith (Apr 9, 2008)

I would argue that any problems a person runs into with Access is that THEY'RE USING ACCESS! ;-)

It is true that Mac OSX could be considered "noisy" because of Bonjour, iTunes and iPhoto sharing but I don't see how it'd be any noisier than NETBIOS.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 9, 2008)

I believe Bon Jour can be disabled if it's not used.  Bon Jour can also be a security problem since it makes your systems easily available on the network.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 9, 2008)

If you have ANY Mac on a windows domain then you should bookmark the System Administrator site that specializes in putting Mac in Windows Domains, MacWindows.com. Bookmark it! It will be filled with reader reports/fixes putting Macs into Windows Domains. A lot of the reports will have fixes for certain situations, you just have to read ALL the reports to learn the fixes.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 10, 2008)

This is utter shite. How about securing your network? and using a mac properly?
The functionality to disable these types of outgoing packages is all done by a simple firewall.
Plus. If this huge, really important database is so important WHY STORE IT ON WINDOWS!



Rant over.


----------



## Viro (Apr 14, 2008)

1) Don't use MS Access for anything other than toy databases. 
2) ...
3) Profit


----------



## ksv (Apr 14, 2008)

*None* of the reasons mentioned in that article should cause corruption to any proper database. MS Access would definitely not get FCC approval if it was a radio device.

Simple solution, as already mentioned: use another database


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Thank you to Satcomer and nixgeek for constructive comments.

The other commenteers could learn from these two who obviously have real life experience with the issues and actively work for solutions.

Note please, that we don't write that macs are sh.t, neither that Access is God, neither that Macs and Access can't coexist, just that some (few) know how to handle this combo - pros like Satcomer and nixgeek - and some (most) - lack this knowledge or refrain from obtaining it.
The advice we give is for the situation where the Mac people are ignorant - the typical attitude is that "if this Windows/Access/Evil Empire crap doesn't work in our Mac environment as is, it is .. crap. Those win geeks are not coming telling us to do anything". All Mac people are friendly, you say, but then read the comments here again. Time has learned me that this discussion is not worth five minutes and, in that case, you just have to take your own precautions like those described.

Note too, that we don't claim that Access/JET is the answer to anything. It is a file based database which is extremely good for what it is designed for. It is not comparable with server based database engines.

Finally, Access/JET does run mission critical applications around the world wether you like it or not - and at just about zero cost. We have clients here running different applications with Access/JET as the backend database experiencing 0 (zero) failures for more than 10 years. This is a fact.
Still, from case to case, we may very well advice clients to use some other database for their specific task if we can see Access/JET won't fit the bill.

/gustav


----------



## fryke (Feb 11, 2009)

Well, apparently your article only generated some traffic about a year ago. Your reply is a tad late. Your article describes Macs as being "noisy". They're not, of course. You mention Mac users transferring large graphics files. That's not noisiness, that's network useage. If your network can't handle the traffic, you need a router that controls the traffic and keeps enough bandwidth for your database functions. That's not something that has anything to do with Macs being noisy. What if your Windows users start saving or transferring large files? The network doesn't care whether it's graphics or movies or zipped archives or anything. It just handles the traffic.
And: Coming here now after several months to tell us whom you find interesting or, as you put it, "professional", seems a bit tacky. Even more so since you yourself say it's not worth five minutes of your time. Just accept that it kinda sounds funny if a list for Access mentions keeping Macs away. It ignores the actual problem. Sounds racist, even.


----------



## ora (Feb 11, 2009)

Wow, reading the comments on the article is kinda funny, and Gustav seems as irritated there as here:

Some quotes from Gustav.



> But the remarks on the noisy Macs are based on experience. We have several advertising agencies and TV/film production companies among our clients all of them running an Access based time/billing/ERP application, and the list of "issues" we have seen is endless. Main problem is that Mac tech people (not users, they don't know anything) believe they understand networking. As a general rule and warning (exceptions exist of course) they don't. Worse, when (not if) something misbehaves regarding the network, they blame _everything else_ connected to the network for being the source of trouble.





> It is possible to make Macs and their users to coexist with pc users and Access but it requires a top-notch network which Mac people typically neither do or will understand not to say are willing to allocate the money for. It is more fun to spend money on a 30" flat screen or a new stack of RAID disks for a NAS.



Lets just say people on both side of the Mac/Windows fence are guilty of shouting insults across to the other side.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Better late than never!

You certainly don't add much to the knowledge base, so I'll only spend a minute more on this.

I think we all would benefit from working with the issues that do exist in mixed environments in a constructive way. Many Mac people think likewise but some don't for no apparent reason.

Anyway, thank you for your comment.

/gustav


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Thanks Ora! You are absolutely right.

Well, you have to draw some sharp lines in an article to gain attention. Editors requests clicks to attract advertisers.

However, these divined Mac people with this "Mac only" attitude do exist. They are not prepared to make any compromise as an attempt to solve a problem. 
For some years we have worked with a local Mac house with skilled people and we call them to resolve such cases. We know what to be done, but it is much easier for our Mac friends to persuade a Mac admin.

/gustav


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 11, 2009)

CactusData,

With all due respect, you're making some bold claims about the members of this forum that are stellar contributors and have been for many years.  You've only recently signed up and you're basing your conclusions on a few comments posted in this thread.  Many of these same people work with multiple platforms on a daily basis in various functions.

Welcome to the Internet. Not everyone is going to agree with whatever you posted on your blog, but reacting in the same fashion will not garner much support in your favor.

Also, expect there to be some bias towards the Mac on a Mac-centered forum.  The same would happen on any other forum that is of particular interest to a particular platform.

In earnest, it does seem as though you were looking for hits to the site (which can be deduced by your reply to ora's comment here).  Considering that it's been close to a year since today's post, I have to wonder if you're looking to generate more visits in order to "refresh everyone's memory" about this blog post.  I can only hope that you don't paint the Mac and the users here with a very broad brush, as it would be an injustice not just to the people here, but to yourself as well.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Well nixgeek, didn't I exclude you from the crowd?

And no, I don't earn from clicks, but if you visit that page again - which I did today - you will find near the bottom a link to this forum which I didn't know about. That twist made me curious and I signed up. 

To my disappointment, to a simple and polite question put by gphillipk only two comments contained useful information. You are right, I may be very wrong about the skills of the other commenteers, but I think you will agree that bashing Access is not to demonstrate a stellar status.

What I write about establishing a (logical) separate network for users of a shared Access/JET database is a zero discussion and fast solution with a success rate of 100% which _will_ work in those cases where other solutions cannot be obtained for whatever reason. To repeat myself, other solutions do exist but they require active and open-minded cooperation from people like you and - sadly - in some cases that may be hard to find.

/gustav


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Charlie,

> .. why store it in Windows?

Access (JET) is a shared file based database. The file is stored on a shared network drive which can be hosted by just about any OS, including Linux, Solaris, Novell NetWare, Mac OS, and any newer version of Windows.

/gustav


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm going to have to chime in here and express my opinion that the blog on the Access database shows several misunderstandings about Macs, Windows machines, and databases in general.

It's quite clear from the blog entry that the author has little-to-no experience with Mac computers and is operating off of hearsay.  Macs are no more "chatty" on a network than Windows computers are.  The quip about the fact that Macs transfer large graphic files shows that the author is still under the decades-old assumption that Macs are used for graphics and Windows computers are used for other things.

I don't want to go into depth about this as I feel it's been discussed in detail already, but I do feel the need to stand up and say, "Hey, there are a lot of inaccuracies, misunderstandings and half-truths in the article, and the article as a whole should be taken with a grain of salt."

I would be glad to elaborate greatly, point-by-point, if the author of the blog entry would so desire.

Just some background so that no one misunderstands or misconstrues my experience: I use Macintosh computers, Windows computers, and Linux (as well as UNIX) computers in my career, all about equally.  I have over 20 years of experience with all three platforms (including other platforms such as BeOS, and limited Rhapsody/OpenStep/NextStep).  I am highly educated by a well-respected university (UTexas, baby!) in the realm of computer science -- specifically software development, networking, database theory and implementation, and computer architecture.  I do not limit myself to loving one platform and hating another (which seems to be prevalent with Windows users biased against Mac users, and Mac users biased against Windows users).  I use, and, if I may say so myself, _rock_ each platform individually and spectacularly.

I know what I'm talking about, I'm educated on the topics on which I speak, and I don't claim to know anything that I do not know.  The blog entry, while helpful and informative in some respects, is largely inaccurate and, plainly, gives some very bad advice and perpetrates "old wives' tales" about both the Macintosh and Windows platforms as well as databases and Access in general.

As I said before, I would be glad to elaborate greatly on any point in the blog or any point that has been discussed here... I felt it necessary to make these points so that other readers can (and should) question the information put forth by those who claim to know what they're talking about.  There's nothing more damaging than purporting to be an expert in an area that you are not an expert in -- while less experienced people may not be able to see through the smoke and fog, all it takes is someone more experienced and knowledgeable to come along and call the bluff.

I'm calling the author's bluff.  It's clear that they are indeed experienced, but are overstepping their comfort zone and perpetrating myths and half-truths.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 11, 2009)

Please Jeff (that is Jeff, right), step forward - it sounds like you know what you are talking about.

However, you don't talk much about Access, so please keep in mind that you will talk to someone who does.

Just to clarify, let me stress that the advice given in the article about Macs has nothing to do with how Macs can and should behave, it's about how some handle their Mac environment and how to circumvent that situation. I'm happy to learn about people like you and the other contributors and I wish you had been present at some of the cases we've seen.

Also, you are right about Windows workstations running graphic applications as Macs do. It is just so, that this situation is not common here; advertising agencies (which is where we meet the Macs) _is_ Mac country here.

Finally, please have in mind that editors don't leave much room to this-and-if-and-that; articles have to be brief and to the point and the finer details have to go. That said, not much can be added to the nine other advices given based on real-life experience as they are.

Thanks for stepping in. That made me spend more than five minutes on this thread.

/gustav


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 11, 2009)

Yes, Jeff is correct.

I understand completely about "editorial decisions" and that the author, many times, does not have much control nor say about what goes in and what gets axed from an article due to length constraints and audiences and other factors.  I realize that sometimes it is difficult to summarize a point of view and limit it to a certain number of words or sentences -- and when this does happen, sometimes the point trying to be made is "lost in translation."  Some things just need lengthier explanations and cannot be explained accurately when they're limited by space.  Perhaps some of the ideas and concepts expressed in the blog were misconstrued by myself due to this.

I do have experience with Access -- perhaps not as much as to go writing blog entries about it, but I do know it quite well.  The points that I took issue with were concerned with the storage of certain datum (for example, "images") and the assumption that storage of a specific data type inherently causes or is a factor in database corruption.  My experience says that this is impossible -- an integer is no more likely to corrupt a database than a floating-point value, and a BLOB is no more likely to corrupt a database than an image (which are basically the same thing, anyway).  What _can_ corrupt a database with the use of these data types is improper use of them -- unsafely writing, modifying or adding data to a database that could cause some or all of the data to be written incorrectly or incompletely.  This is more user behavior, though, than the binary data itself causing the corruption, and I agree -- it happens more frequently with those data types (simply because writing _integers_ is closer to being an atomic operation than writing a much larger data type; in some cases, binary image data).

At any rate, perhaps we can swing back to some middle ground here and have ourselves a nice conversation about the pros and cons of this or that.  We all have our opinions here, and because of the fact that they're opinions, that means that neither you nor I are "right" or "wrong;" in fact, there is no "right" or "wrong" -- simply "this view" and "that."  I love a good debate, as long as it stays friendly and does not venture too far into the personal realm (hell, check out our nice little ditty in the "Viruses on OS X thread" -- fun conversation!).

I welcome any knowledge I can leech off of you as I'm sure you do me.    I mean, that's why we're here, right?  "The more you know..." as they say, and I am a believer that knowledge of and familiarity with a subject breeds convenience.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 11, 2009)

To get back to the Access portion is to say why hasn't Microsoft added Access to OS X? The author should have talked about that. Plus the "noisy" Mac portion drop off the radar since macs went to TCP/IP back in the day (probably before the author was born) and Apple drop AppleTalk as a network language. so the author is just grasping at very old arguments and probably never touched a Mac since 1983.  

Now getting a Mac onto a windows domain is easier and than it has ever been. Just read the thread (that I started - shameless plug) called [HOW TO] Bind Leopard to Active Directory.

Lastly IMHO anyone who claims to be a System Administrator and that person only know Windows (badly most of the time) should never be called a System Admin. If that can't support even another computer than Windows then they are no expert it anything and are just posers.


----------



## drhouseman (Feb 11, 2009)

Please do at least try to be professional in your postings.  You say "called a System Admin. If that can't support even another computer than Windows then they are no expert it anything and are just poser"  Well, they didn't say they were an export they said the were a System Admin! or do I read English somewhat different from you?  A System Admin needs to know the system he is supporting and no other.  If their experience extends to other areas then that is fine, but if it is limited to to Windows then that is no reflection on them, but it does reflect badly on you for making purile statements.  Take care and please do try to adjust your professional standing.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 12, 2009)

drhouseman said:


> Please do at least try to be professional in your postings.



What? As a long time helper at this site you are telling me I'm not being professional? Who are you coming to this site telling me (who happens to work at all levels of networking) that I am not helpful? I wasn't pointing any finger at you, just the author of the stupid article that tried to tell a lie about Apple Networking.


----------



## fryke (Feb 12, 2009)

The thread is close to being closed because of flamebait and trolling. drhouseman & cactusdata: please read the board rules about those things. I'd be sorry to ban you two, but I wouldn't hesitate if the behaviour stays consistent.

drhouseman: Creating an account on this forum just to blame an old-time member seems like perfect trolling. Take this as a first warning. There won't be a second.

cactusdata: Again - it's you who revived a year-old thread. I've mentioned that there is no interest in you deciding who's "good" and who's "bad" among our members.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 12, 2009)

Jeff, corruption in Access databases for image and memo fields is a topic for discussion; some tell they experience it regularly, some (like me) experience it never or seldom. In fact, we have had the issue at one single client only. But when some have reported about it, I felt it should be mentioned.
The reason for the possible issue is that these data objects are stored in a different matter than other fields due to their potentially large size. If a record has such a field, only a pointer is stored with the record while the actual data are saved at separate "pages" which can be located anywhere in the database file. Creating such a record represents no problem - however, issues may arise when multiple users start editing such a record. The result can be that the pointer doesn't get updated correctly, and the record looses track of its memo/image/blob field. Quite often, text stored in memo fields are nothing special, just more than the 255 chars that a text field can hold. If so, and if corruption is experienced, the method described is quite simple to implement.

Satcomer, why Access is not available for the Mac is a very good question. It has been requested by many, indeed when MS Office is available. An answer has never been given. In fact, the JET database which Access uses is not even available for 64 bit native Windows (must run in a 32 bit subsystem) and will not be, so one might wonder what database MS will use for Office should it arrive in a 64 bit version. I doubt they will push everyone to install a SQL Server 2008 Express 64 bit, and the single-user SQL Server 2008 Compact Edition (much like JET but SQL Server compatible) won't fit the bill. Time will show.
That said, today it is nearly a non-issue to bring a Windows app to a Mac user. We use the Terminal Client (Apple download) and a terminal server like that from Microsoft or - more often - ThinSoft WinConnect XP which is cheaper, much easier to set up, and much easier to administrate licenses for. Highly recommended.
As you can figure out, this has the advantage that we can mix Mac users and Windows users with a very predictable result. Windows users and the terminal server are connected on a separate network, and the Mac users need only to gain access to the terminal server. The Mac admin relax because no traffic is brought into his net, and the Windows users live quietly with their own network printer and servers.
Again, I'm not saying that a totally integrated network can't be established, of course it can as you and Jeff know, but this is a simple and pragmatic solution with a success rate of 100%. If no one else then the CFO loves such.

It seems as you regard age as a qualification - thank you - so let me just put, that my former company did networking with Luxor workstations before the IBM PC was brought to market, and I have been with pc networking since Novell NetWare version 2.0 (running on ArcNet which you may recall).

Though somewhat off topic (neither Access nor JET nor the article originally referred to is dependant on AD) I'll certainly make a note on your link to Macs on AD, though that's the kind of work we normally leave to our Mac friends.

Fryke, the super moderator, sorry to disturb you, that was not my intention, but the original questioneer as well as readers who later might look up this thread - I guess you regard your forum as a knowledge base as well - deserved a little more in favour of his modest and polite question. He could have left a note by the article, then I would have been notified right away - sorry to have caught attention to the thread at a later moment.

/gustav


----------



## drhouseman (Feb 12, 2009)

drhouseman: Creating an account on this forum just to blame an old-time member seems like perfect trolling. Take this as a first warning. There won't be a second.

Thank you - I will disbar myself.  I have no wish to remain in a site where SATCOMER (long time poster or not) can abuse people and not be asked to behave more professionally.  In fact, why did you as moderator not pick up on it.  SATCOMER's rant as a reply says it all, doesn't it!.

Thank you.
drhouseman


----------



## fryke (Feb 12, 2009)

He didn't pick on anyone. He picked on sysadmins who claim to be sysadmins but have limited (or no) knowledge of systems outside their own. I'm usually against metaphors, but if your knowledge about catholicism is vast, yet you don't know anything about other religions or about religion in general, you shouldn't call yourself knowledgeable in "religion", but "catholicism". I'd say I agree that a sysadmin with knowledge only about Windows (or Mac OS X or SuSE Linux, pick one) should be called a "Windows administrator" (or Mac OS X administrator etc.). If you take a look at my badges in my signature (I've added those half-jokingly, btw., although I _do_ have them), I don't call myself a system administrator. I know a _lot_ about Macs. I've used (and administered) Windows and linux machines in the past, but I don't consider myself proficient in those systems. So I wouldn't call myself, this generally, a system administrator, although that was my job title in the past.

But again: Why didn't I pick up on Satcomer's post? I didn't consider it a rant. But even if: Rants are okay. The question is how much, what tone, how wrong. Satcomer's post, in my not so humble, personal opinion, was perfectly okay.


----------



## g/re/p (Feb 12, 2009)

CactusData: thank you for clarifying your points, and for sharing your knowledge on the subject.

drhouseman: you will not be missed! 

(and btw - your namesake, the prestigious dr house, can back his bad attitude up in spades.
You, however, have failed in that area. I suggest some remedial work)


----------



## ksv (Feb 12, 2009)

CactusData, you still haven't justified using Access, but I realize maintaining faulty databases makes for a good living&#8212;the problems just appear by themselves and can be explained with erroneous theories for a hefty hourly price tag ^^


----------



## CactusData (Feb 13, 2009)

Oh, a new anonymous troll has arrived.


----------



## ksv (Feb 13, 2009)

He he.

But really, if you think any of the points mentioned in your article causes database corruption, you should either be recommending your clients to immediately switch to another RDBMS to avoid data loss, and/or base your conclusions on empirical research rather than presumptions.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 13, 2009)

Leo, why didn't you behave and put these relevant comments in your first post? 

The answer is empirical research since version 1.0.

You seem to have the faulty assumption that Access/JET databases turns corrupt all the time. I guess you have read the word "prevent" in the title of the article as if the 10 advices given are not followed, any Access/JET database will corrupt. The title is not mine. 
However, that is not the case, on the contrary. They don't:
<quote>
.. Access/JET does run mission critical applications around the world wether you like it or not - and at just about zero cost. We have clients here running different applications with Access/JET as the backend database experiencing 0 (zero) failures for more than 10 years. This is a fact.
</quote>

But - as with any other technology/software - issues may be experienced, and to keep these at zero or at least at a minimum some guidelines exist of which the 10 mentioned are some.

Have in mind too, that Access (the application) is used by many normal or super users which don't have much experience as db admins. It is easy for pros like me and (I guess) you to point fingers playing the clever guy. You gain much more by helping and guiding.

As for choosing another RDBM, you are right, indeed when so many high-quality server based engines are available for free like FireBird, PostgeSQL, MySQL, MaxDB, and (with their limitations) the "express" versions of DB2, Oracle, and SQL Server, even though these often require skilled maintenance:
<quote>
.. we may very well advice clients to use some other database for their specific task if we can see Access/JET won't fit the bill.
</quote>

In many cases, though, Access/JET as an backend database will fulfill the task, indeed for single user applications. Even though, MS pushes the use of SQL Server 3.5 Compact Edition which is a file based database very much like JET but for one concurrent user only. It has only one thing in common with its likely named server based big brothers, the SQL language, or rather a subset of the language. This means that you can design an application with the CE as the backend, and if or when you feel the need, the data can easily be moved to a server based engine, and the application can use this with minimal tweaking. Not a bad combo.

So - for databases as for so much else - one tool doesn't fit all purposes.

/gustav


----------



## fryke (Feb 13, 2009)

And again, I repeat: If the database can be corrupted by a couple of Macs sharing files with each other via SMB or AFP, then there's something wrong with the network or the database, not the Macs. And that's the only interesting point about that article from a Mac user forum point of view, which this is.

To answer the thread's OP (or rather the question in the thread title) once and for all:

No, it isn't.


----------



## CactusData (Feb 13, 2009)

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 (Feb 13, 2009)

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 (Feb 13, 2009)

> .. 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 (Feb 13, 2009)

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 (Feb 13, 2009)

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 (Feb 13, 2009)

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 (Feb 13, 2009)

Ha, yes that could be great fun.

But the article is read-only ...

/gustav


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2009)

CactusData said:


> 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.


----------



## fryke (Feb 13, 2009)

You asked us to "Replace '12-year-old girl' with 'Macintosh'", and I think many 12-year-old-girls would find the very thought of being replaced by iMacs and MacBooks a little disturbing. Maybe that's what he's picked up on...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2009)

Heh... whether literal or figurative, no matter -- just tell them it's the first step toward a cyborg society, and everyone will be better for it.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 13, 2009)

This is still going on?  Sheesh!  It's been fun reading the back-and-forth, though.  But should we just let this beaten-to-a-pulp horse rest in peace?


----------



## CactusData (Feb 13, 2009)

Thanks nixgeek, I think that's just about it. 

It really is not that complicated and anyone in doubt can read the few clear sentences I wrote with an open mind. They are brief and some corners are cut which I have explained in full. I would repeat myself going further into this.

I admit I got lost when Jeff brought in 12 year old girls in his semi-paranoid assumptions on what I can, mean, have experienced or have not experienced (of which he knows nothing), have not written, or did intend to say behind the lines - all of which nothing is true.

Though experienced and approaching "elder", I have yet to learn what good an unfriendly tone can bring. I'm a decent man, expert in my field, and there is no reason to insult me or anyone else this way.

/gustav


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2009)

I don't feel I was insulting.  I may not have sugar-coated it, but I didn't mean to nor did I write anything that could be construed as insulting.  Sometimes it may take some thick skin to have a conversation with me -- there are many here who probably know that, and many more that require thick skinned participants too, but that's not meant as  insulting.  If my words were taken that way, I sincerely apologize.  It's all just good, fun debate here.

I'm not going to purport to know what you do or don't know or have experienced.  I only know you from the blog post, so that's the information I have to respond to and that's the information I've been going off of.  I'm all ears for the rest of the story, if you feel something's been misunderstood.

At any rate, I would love to continue this conversation, but I can't promise to be any different than I already have, and I surely do not intend for any of this to be taken personally.  It's all in the spirit of good debate, and if you feel I've taken a crack at your expertise or something, by all means, crack back.  I mean no offense by it.  I don't want this thread to die because there is more to be discussed -- you wrote a blog entry intending for the general public to read it, and now the general public is taking issue with the information contained.  Let's discuss.  I would very much like to hear about the real-world experience you have with Macs on a network and JET database corruption.


----------



## ora (Feb 14, 2009)

AAAAAARRRRRGGHHHH  <head explodes from length of this thread>.

I fear there is no agreement to be reached here any more. It has stayed mostly friendly but everyone has passed on as much information as they can, and everyone has listened as much as they are going to by now.

If you agree with me please _*don't*_ reply to this thread again. Lets just all go on about our business of helping people with their mac issues. 

ora

[edit - sorry about the shouting!]


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 14, 2009)




----------



## fryke (Feb 14, 2009)




----------



## Doctor X (Feb 15, 2009)

--J.D.


----------



## g/re/p (Mar 12, 2009)

Confucious say: "he who stir pot may get contents splashed back on him".


----------



## fryke (Mar 12, 2009)

Wah! It's aliiiiiiive!


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 13, 2009)

No not again.


----------

