I was originally going to ask if this thread was ever going to die... but
then I read:

> And since you brought up ODBC on the Mac... :-)
>
> You can check the Apple Developer web site for MacODBC, which has been
> available since 1996, IIRC. However, IMO the reason most Mac developers
> don't use ODBC is because they have other, better tools to do the
> client-server thing on a Mac; but I'm not a developer so I haven't done
> it. And I'd bet the reason most PC developers don't write ODBC stuff for
> the Mac is that they're PC developers, and therefore don't know MacODBC
> even exists.

Actually, we DO know about MacODBC - and I've used it to get to various
database management systems.  There are some very nice tools for the Mac -
and if it wasn't for Alfredo pointing me into a direction where I needed to
test web applications with a Mac, I would never have gone out and bought the
G3 notebook.  (Thanks Alfredo :)

The problem is that there are no ODBC drivers which work under MacODBC for
Image/SQL and Allbase.  This leaves a gaping hole in the strategy of using
Macs.

OTOH, to get around it, one can use a web-based application, using a server
such as Cold Fusion on NT, and that Mac can now access data on the 3000
using ODBC - but that's about the only way other than writing some really
down and dirty code in C at the sockets level or the RPM level (on the
3000).

> I'm the first to admit that the Mac is not the pefect solution for
> everyone; some people like a challenge. ;-) Seriously, the only reason I
> can see for buying a PC for home use is if you have software you *must*
> run that isn't available for the Mac. And even then, you can get an
> emulator that will run Dos/Windows/NT, either hardware based from Orange
> Micro or software based like Virtual PC from Connectix, and that problem
> is solved without having to go out and buy a PC.

Another problem - there are just plain more apps for the Windows platform
than for the Mac platform.  Open any catalogue and count 'em.

Virtual PC is a good tool - and it works.  OTOH, it's also like OS/2 for
Windows though (remember that one?) - it does have it's limitations - not
many, but there are a few.

> Finally, with regard to persuading management to let people
> use Macs at their place of business, I think it's more a matter of
mindshare than
> anything else. (Hey, does any of this sound familiar? ;-) If people knew
> how easy it is to setup and maintain a fleet of Macs, without needing a
> corresponding fleet of gurus, they'd buy them in a minute. But they
> don't know or don't want to know (and the PC gurus certainly aren't
> going to tell them), so we get stuck with a system that's quirky, costly
> to support and has lots of down time.

It's a matter of *standards*, not mindshare.  If the application runs on
Windows, you get Windows workstations.  You don't buy Macs just because you
think that Macs are cool.  If it were a graphics arts company, I'd say that
one would be silly to buy a PC, because the Mac is so much better at graphic
arts.  For the majority of businesses though - there are more business
applications which run on the Windows platform than on the Mac platform.
It's just a plain fact.

Now, can we let this thread die?  The PC ain't gonna die --- and with the
iMac doing so well (it is, and it's nice :) --- the Mac ain't gonna die
either.  Neither will die, because each has its place, and each will fulfill
its rightful job.  (The right tools for the job, right?)

(I gotta say though - Adager's the only one I know of that uses their Macs
as web and mail servers --- I haven't gone that far - I use my HP3000!   OK,
and NT too, but the 3000 is the major gateway :)

Regards,
Joe