Slashdot Mirror
Mac v. Microsoft TCO
NickFitz writes "MacWorld UK has some comments from industry analysts on the question of whether Total Cost of Ownership, Microsoft's favourite metric, is lower for Apple Mac versus Windows. The MS website has no figures to refute the claim that 'An Apple technician may cost twice as much, but he comes to see you half as often.'" Bottom line: neither platform is the clear winner.
Has anyone done a review of Linux TCO vs. the above competitors. It would be interesting to see how a "Linux Technician" stacks up with Windows and Mac techs.
~.Evanrude
From my bad old days as a Mactinosh Systems Manager, I can attest to at least one thing... the only visits I made were to systems running QuarkXPress (which is... or at least was... notoriously breakable if you let graphic designers install anything) and Adobe Type Reunion. The general business apps (mostly Office, ironically) and internet apps just didn't create issues. I'm not really blaming the apps, since it was usually the result of an installation that overwrote a system extention. But, supporting PCs running QuarkXPress had way fewer issues. And, I don't think I've ever seen ATR on a PC.
Hold down shift... Extensions off... problem solved! Now, just make an empty system folder, reinstall Quark and move the new extenstions back to the production folder... presto!
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Comments like yours, which *seem* insightful, have a pretty heavy assumption that everybody completely evaluates every tool available.
Think about this: if you don't *know* a better tool exists, how can you know you've got the best tool for the job?
I've opened a lot of people's eyes over the years by showing them mac and linux. Heck, I've even opened my own eyes, when I discovered that OpenOffice actually is *useful* now (bye bye windows).
Yes it's true, some people actually *do* have the best tool for their job (including functionality, *licensing*, and other intangibles), but some are living in blissfull ignorance.
Just something to keep in mind when using that tired phrase "best tool for the job".
At home, I use primarily Macs running OS X. (There is one PC running Linux.) Why? Well, no one pays me to work on my own computers, so I choose hardware and software that won't require me to fix it all the time.
Just an anecdotal data-point.
You're right! There's no version of HotBar for the Mac.
This is sort of a joke, but it gets right to the point of Apple's historic TCO advantage.
If a user does happen to find and install a dodgy piece of software on Mac (at least with the classic OS) even the dummy users can figure out how to open Extention Manager and disable it. There's also tasks such as connecting to servers or network printers that are much easier for Mac End Users to accomplish.
No Help Desk Call -> Lower TCO.
So, it's not really that Macs break less often, but that user's can and do perform Self Support. (and often have to, because the IT Dept is semi-hostile to Macs.)
It's also one of the big reason that low-level techs (DOS/Novell guys) fought against Macs back in the day -- they knew if the things caught on, it would eliminate much of their jobs.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I've owned a Mac since I was in high school in 1993. The only time I've ever needed Apple's help was when I got an early Powerbook G4 with an inverter that whined. It went back to Apple and was returned less than a week later.
In contrast, I've had to return my two most recent PCs numerous times due to heat issues. (And no, my work area isn't bad for heat... each time, it's been the CPU goo.)
Now, if you want to argue monitors, you'll have a much stronger point. I had several AppleVision 1710s blow out on me. Each time, a tech would come out and replace it. Apparently that model was cursed. I eventually got another just because I was tired of the smell.
TCO means buying a "reliable" PC that's not made of crappy generic parts
Oxymoronic, because there is no such thing.
But it goes farther than that, for while Apple support is not up to par for the enterprise, PC OEMs would generally fare better with no support at all, it's that bad.
Badge #43579, may I help you?
That just doesn't cut it either. The skinny: give admins Mac networks. Let everyone chill out a bit. The only people who don't want them are the bean counters - who never learned how to properly count beans anyway.
That's because the market perception is that "the battle is over and Windows won."
Uh - beg to differ. It's getting more and more Linux and Apple, and last week's events don't exactly slow this trend down. eWEEK writes 'Linux is everywhere - even on Mars'; several zines have declared 2004 the year of the Linux desktop; IBM, SuSE, Novell, Red Hat - they're all making massive inroads; Apache dominates like never before, with over two thirds of all web servers; if there is a battle, it is definitely not over, and Windows has definitely not won - in fact, Windows is looking more and more like the loser. Don't forget: the net may have whiskers, but the web does not. It's got about ten years of service to Harry Homeowner under its belt, that's all.
Reliability is more important than ROI anyway.
IBM support contracts? Who can charge more? And yet why do corporations sign with Big Blue?
Because they know Big Blue know their shit. Reliability.
Today every wannabe and their grandmother want to be online. MDs set up MS boxes with IIS configured and ready to run, and the next thing they know, all their records are out in the open and they're spreading Nimda all over the place. They don't have a clue.
All the while the Dells and Gateways try to entice you with amazingly low costs.
But the major players will never go that route - and if they do, they'll regret it and get out. For when one's business is important enough, it's not ROI - or, rather, ROI is measured differently, more realistically.
By taking reliability into account.
The NewsFactor article it links to is a little bit more informative, but still falls along the same lines. It would be nice if we could *see* the results of these studies that they keep mentioning and were really able to get out the vague performance details they keep alluding to. Where is the real information?
cost a lot less
aren't we talking about TCO here? Seems like an invalid argument for this. Or do you mean cost less initialy.
run a lot faster
Because farmer joe really needs those extra 3 Ghz out of his computer. Let's stick to the same set of apps here. No farm management software is going to use even close to half of a modern day processor.
likely will have standard hardware interfaces missing on most Macs
Like...... USB? Nope got that. Firewire? Nope got that too. PCI? Got that too. IDE? got that. Standard RAM? got that. AGP? got that. Ethernet? Got that. 802.11? got that. A modem? Got that.
you won't have the kludge of running an emulator to get it to be useful.
The computer is perfectly useful, it's the user who is stuck on using a certain App, and it's perfectly useable under VPC.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It's true that one long time Mac-only reseller around here was closing as early as 3 pm on Fridays and closing on weekends. But then I guess that's one reason they aren't allowed to sell new Macs anymore, and they're mainly a repair shop.
Wal-Mart? If they treated Apple like some of their other manufacturers, they'd be trying to make Apple cut corners to reduce their prices.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Agree: UT2004 Sucks computing power like a specially designed computing power sucker, and doesn't run really smoothly on anything but the current lineup of PowerMacs.
Disagree: "Mac Gaming is Awful". Mac gaming is not awful, sure we do have a less extensive library, but the games that are available are good, and some of them ported extremely well - such as Halo. Halo runs absolutely fantastically smoothly in 1600x1200 on my Dual 1Ghz G4 w/ GeForce 4. I had heard the game is a hog, but I was very impressed with its performance.
Sure, Windows X86 machines are better at gaming. The hardware marginally cheaper, the games library bigger, and theres no port-time delay for the game to get to the platform. But is all you do on your machine game? Consider the tradeoffs you make when you actively choose a Windows machine over an OS X machine.
Incidently, while Apple is going around buying up eMagic and Shake, and other cool tools, why not spend some of that $5bn on a top games company, just Like MS did with Bungie for the XBox?
Just imagine how sales would fare, if Apple announced tomorrow that they were purchasing Valve, and Half-Life 2 would only be available for OS X.
This sig has been deprecated.
The sys admins that dont get sucked into the widows vortex and do linux still have to deal with network probelms and shared disk space with rooted windows machines. But they actually do work that produces products so they are too few in the sense that every time we get someone good they seem to get drawn into the latest Worm crisis management is panicing over, and we lose them.
as for what kind of management allows techs to vote? its the same kind that is everywhere and buys windows because its cheaper. If they understood the problem they would not be listening to the Windows people. But they are management. THe CIO is came from within so its a windows turd that floated to the top. But locally out CIO does get it. But windows is entrenched. the same secretary that cant keep her comuter virus free is also the one that would have to retrain to use a mac. Plus we have crap like "meeting maker" that runs best on windows. The Windows tech mafia picks software standards without regard to cross platform issues because all they are trained on is windows.
see the point I'm making is that thw windows tech mafia rises to the top in sheer numbers and is guided by perpetual crisis management. They make the decisions because they are their and visible and numerous.
there's an old managment adage that says the BEST manager is the one that builds an operation that does not need him: Make yourself dipsensible. But the manager that gets kept is the one that makes himself indespensible. That's mac versus windows techs in a nutshell.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You know what, I've had a box with WinXP on it, which was dual boot with linux. While Win2K and XP are far better in many ways than previous versions of windows, I still spent way too much of my time tweaking the hell out of it to keep it running efficiently. It seemed like weekly I was spending some serious time tweaking either one, or every month or so I was saying screw it, it'll take less time to just reinstall all this crap than fix it properly. Well, guess what, I've got a PowerBook with Panther on it and I haven't spent ANY time tweaking the OS on the command line, with utilities, or anything else and my last install was in November to upgrade the machine to Panther. It just works, no messing around, no tweaking. On top of that, there's no spyware and it doesn't get slower over time. I now forget the last time I rebooted my machine, it doesn't crash!
OK, I've got my rant out. My name is James, and I'm a member of the Cult of the Apple.