RE: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
RE: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
- Subject: RE: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
- From: "Lamer, Chris CL (IHS/NAS)" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:42:27 -0400
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
Title: RE: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
To clarify, the IHS is considered revolutionary, not for it's computer system or MUMPs programming language, but for it's ability document and retrieve data and information that enhances and improves health care services. It is the process of information technology, not necessarily the hard/software that is great. As Mike points out - the systems are old and the Windows based computers are far from optimal.
I fear the movement of IHS to a one PC vendor system. As a Mac user since the 80s, I refuse to use anything else; and to use anything else only results in reduced productivity. What is the current status of FIPS? I recall that this was being used as ammunition against having Macs in the IHS. Fortunately, I have been "under the radar" enough not to take the kind of slack others have received for using my Mac. Unfortunately, this also creates problems in working within the system (I'm a non-techie, and it is difficult to find answers to questions on integrating into the windows based networks).
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: fed-talk-bounces+chris.lamer=email@hidden on behalf of Michael Pike
Sent: Tue 4/10/2007 3:03 AM
To: Molloy, Bruce bkm (IHS/NAS); FedTalk
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Cost of Ownership Data
Kevin:
I am all too aware of this "movement". HHS is above IHS... and someone I
will call "clueless Robert" and other IHS people who are calling the shots
insists on saying "there is a no mac policy in HHS"... there is no policy
like that.
As we all know, it's a crock of crap... every agency in HHS uses Macs...
includiing agencies outside of HHS.. you know, the small agencies that have
no technical know how (NSA, FBI, CIA).... they all use Macs, but IHS feels
they are above these pitiful little agencies (BTW, I am being sarcastic..
the NSA, FBI, CIA are very prestigious agencies and use Macs.. but IHS feels
they are above Macs and have all the answers, as is referenced by their
STILL FAILING network of windows machines).
IHS is proud of what they call a revolutionary patient management system
called RPMS, infact, the IHS CIO won an award for how great RPMS is.... RPMS
is a 20+ year old MUMPS based CHUI application that runs in a VT100 terminal
emulator... yes... very revolutionary. The IHS "EHR"... which is touted in
the agency as "the very first electronic medical record" is 15+ years behind
other EMR's (which aren't even on the cutting edge)... and well...
nevermind... I can go on and on about this. The Apple/IHS thing almost sent
me to the nuthouse (literally)...
If you want to change the world and make a difference, IHS is not the place
to be, and that's why I left it.
mik
On 4/9/07, Kevin Molloy <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> And as I am sure Mike knows, there is an effort in the IHS to eliminate
> all Macs (and basically everything but one PC vendor), even though time and
> time again they (Macs) prove they keep working in instances such the one he
> mentions. We really need Apple to give us some good strong ammunition to
> open up the minds of those who do not see the benefits of these superior
> machines!
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On 4/6/07 3:46 PM, "Michael Pike" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> IHS is currently experiencing a Windows based virus that is wiping out the
> entire agency's router infrastructure (the whole country).
>
> I know Minis are cost effective, but even if we bought every person in IHS
> a MacPro with 20 inch display, it would be less than the millions of dollars
> this virus will surely have cost by the time it's resolved.
>
> The Primary AD PDC controllers were wiped out.... needless to say, Mac
> systems that may or may not be on the network were unaffected.
>
> The great thing about one active directory compromise is the ability for
> one person to inherit admin on every machine in the country....
>
> I already did a memo about this a few years ago... didn't seem to help.
>
> mike
>
>
> On 4/6/07, *email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden> <email@hidden> * <
> email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Mr. Lemson:
>
> I don't have an "official" report available, but I can tell you my
> facility elected to deploy 15 Mac Minis at a cost of $555.00 per
> system instead of purchasing Windows based machines at a cost of
> $1,200 per comparable system. The minis allowed me to comply with my
> agency's requirement to operate Windows OS which I did with bootcamp
> as well as continue to utilize existing videos, keyboards, and mouse
> (s) or perhaps mice. And this only demonstrates the costs savings
> regarding the system itself. I haven't reported the savings by not
> having to dump working displays in a land fill because I replaced
> them with a "package" deal that almost always includes a display nor
> have I reported the savings of not having to remove viruses or other
> problems on any of these minis. Although you could take this
> information and create charts, graphs, etc to argue your case, the
> scale of deployment is probably too small to serve your needs but I
> am willing to share what information I have with you, just email me
> directly.
>
> P/S. Of course everything in this email is my opinion and does not
> represent the opinion or procedures of the agency for which I am
> employed.
>
> -----tom
> email@hidden
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Sean Lemson wrote:
>
> > At the Mac Networkers Retreat last year, I posed the following
> > question to the sound of crickets:
> >
> > We do a lot of talking as Mac admins about how much more it costs
> > an organization to operate in a Windows environment than a Mac
> > environment. I intuitively know this because throughout my 20+
> > year Mac career, every place I've ever worked that has begun
> > bringing Windows into the environment has doubled its staff size.
> > Patch Tuesday can cause quite a stir here, while I and my other Mac
> > admins sip coffee and get on with our days. There's an entire
> > committee analyzing Vista. I can't imagine that any such committee
> > will be necessary with Leopard.
> >
> > So my question is, has *anyone* seen or commissioned any kind of
> > recent (OS X days) report of a Mac's cost of ownership vs.
> > Windows? Management speaks in the form of bar charts, pie graphs,
> > etc. If I'm to make any attempt to slow the migration to Windows
> > here, I need hard numbers and there are political obstacles to
> > getting them here so I'm wondering if anyone "out there" can help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sean Lemson
> > LLNL
> > _______________________________________________
> > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> > Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden> <email@hidden> )
> > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> >
> > This email sent to email@hidden
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Fed-talk mailing list ( email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden> <email@hidden> )
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
>
>
>
>
--
Michael Pike
iChat/AIM: email@hidden
Jabber / GoogleTalk: email@hidden
Windows Live Messenger: email@hidden
Yahoo Messenger: email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden