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
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
So here's a story that outright says "we have no idea, and the whole thing is bogus anyhow".
Well, at least it's honest.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such computer-battle movies as "Because I said so: Nyahh!" and "Microsoft vs the Smog Monster". The TCV (total cost of viewing) is a mere $9 at your local metroplex! Now that there won't be any damn hobbit movies, maybe the Troyster is up for an academy award in 2005? Let us see.
Is a Mac cheaper to run and does a Mac make a user more productive?
... just ain't gonna happen now.
If the answer is yes, does it really matter?
More importantly, does ANYBODY in corporate America consider this when buying their machines? I'll betcha, TCO means buying a "reliable" PC that's not made of crappy generic parts, and nowhere does a Mac come into the equation, even though it might very well be the better choice.
ROI means handing that machine down the line from programmers to office support, to milk as much out of it until it heads for a landfill, and nobody figures out how productive their people are on the thing during its lifetime.
Why? Because there's really no choice. Not in any practical sense.
So, it's really about how well a machine runs Windows, not how Windows compares to any other OS. That's because the market perception is that "the battle is over and Windows won." We feel enough anxiety about upgrading our machines, adding new software. To open up the decision process to worrying about entire platforms again
So Apple finds itself in a tough spot, appealing to those who want to "switch" in hopes that if it can gain enough market share and mind share, it can pry open the door of possibility eventually.
But it's going to be almost impossible, not because Apple can't offer a better product, but because people have become so shellshocked from the PC/Internet experience that they just want to settle down and go with the flow... the Windows flow.
So when I saw the above article, I thought to myself that even if Apple were to offer irrefutable truth to lower TCO/higher ROI, how much would it really, really matter?
Not much, unfortunately. Not right now. But perhaps, little by little...
You're right! There's no version of HotBar for the Mac. For some strange reason, the Klez worm has yet to sprout a Mac version. How can my users live without these vital applications?
But at my company, all people do is read email, write email, browse the web (including use of my custom web application), and create documents. Maybe 10% of our employees use a Windows-based accounting package my custom web application manipulates.
Since the Mac supports Microsoft Office, there's nothing our people don't do that couldn't be done with a Mac.
Most people don't need, use or want a huge amount of software.
Unless they have a HotBar addiction, that is.
D
I'm tired of all these slashdot stories that all have the same answer. The right tool for the right job. If you are screwing in screws you need a screwdriver. If you are hammering nails you need a hammer. If you want to buy hammers to screw screws it will probalby work, but with all the screws you bend it will cost more money and vice versa too.
There is a best selection of hardware and software under a given circumstance. There is no way to say that linux is cheaper than windows, period. There might be a guy who gets linux for free, but he runs weird hardware and would have to hire someone to write a driver. Windows might be cheaper for that guy. There might be an artist who already has a copy of photoshop for mac, but not for windows. A G5 might be cheaper for that guy. TOS can only be determined on a case by case basis.
The rule of right tool for the right job applies to so many slashdot stories I don't know if it's still worth posting it every time I see it. So next time someone says "my programming language is better than yours" or "this wireless protocol is better than that one" or "this software is cheaper/better than that one" point them here.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Yeah yeah. I knew of JWZ's rant, but thought (at the time) that he was mistaken. Remember, he was trying to discourage people from using Linux in favor of proprietary Unixes. My experience (going back to the early nineties) has always been that proprietary UNIX sucks more than anything.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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.
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.'
Yeah, and the article was no figures to support that claim.
"In this coooorner, Anecdote, ladies and gentlemen! And in the opposite coooorner, Another Anecdote! Truly this will be the inconclusive fight of the century! Roarrr! Yeaaaaarrg!"
Sure Microsoft sucks, but it doesn't suck so much that I'm going to sacrifice honestly reasoning from real evidence for the sake of becoming a zealot able to bash Microsoft even in the face of no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
But, uh, thanks for offering me the chance.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Apple hardware doesn't depreciate in value like windows stuff does. Companies could actually sell their old hardware, instead of chucking it in the garbage! However, I doubt most companies, when considering a hardware purchase, consider their next hardware purchase.
Since I can run in X11, Unix-based apps that number in the thousands, Windows 2000 in VPC, dozens of Mac OS 9 apps in Classic, and dozens of high and low-end apps in OS X with access to many thousands more, doesn't that mean that I use the Mac exactly as often as I intend making you completely full of shit and a hopeless, pathetic troll without a leg to stand on? (end rhetorical question mode)
No, the parent is right. I have no good software for my Mac, and neither do you.
It's about time we faced the cold, hard truth and got on with our lives. And to think, before I read the comments on this article, I thought OS X was a viable platform! If only his comments had been available sooner, I could've saved months of despair and just bought an eMachines instead of a Powerbook...
I wonder if JWZ ever tried MacOS X. The ideas behind it seem like a very nice answer to his "The X-Windows Disaster" chapter.
I guess he did - I read a few of his comments where he apparently got his xscreensaver application to work, and he mentioned in a few places that he was thinking of switching.
I wonder if he ever did, and what sort of problems he found.
D
The test is biased by the presence of Microsoft's Office software. Are their any similar studies for Mac sites where Office is not a factor? It seems to me that more than half of support questions usually involve application software, so I'd like to see a study where Microsoft Office was not a factor.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
My point was that you pay for this with productivity-killing applications like Hotbar and Klez, both of which exist and are viable only on the PC.
To me, the Mac is a happy medium. In the PC world you have lots of software and malware. On the Mac, you have lots of software, including Office, but next to no malware. On Linux, I think you actually have more malware (but still not much), and for Office you have only "compatible" near-clones of Office which in my experience are not really compatible.
I would say there are few software needs that cannot be met with a Mac in some way or the other. What I need, and I don't have, I simply write myself.
I suppose not everyone has that option, but it works for me.
D
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.
if you actually normalized their numbers by number of machines they support I suspect that the mac techs would win. Hard to say about the linux techs. Linux techs tend to support giant computer farms. They have huge problems getting them all working nicely but they arent running around putting out virus and worm fires every week or searching for some stupid third pary driver.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Doing it myself produces the best ease of use since I can simplify things to the point that every feature that exists is there because someone really needed it.
The custom software I write is a lot simpler than a typical accounting application, and much easier to use because it's far less complex.
My personal use of computers includes heavy use of motion video software and graphics, all of which is available in massive profusion on the Mac. There are more applications of this type available on the PC, but all the best ones are on the Mac.
That's not so true of accounting software, but it still exists on the Mac - there are just not the overwhelming number of choices you see in the PC world.
I'd take the lack of software in exchange for the lack of malware any day, since the malware decreases productivity so much and is almost impossible to get rid of.
At the end of the day, I think perceived cost and the herd instinct (Jenny uses a PC, so I should too) are the main things that cause people to select PCs over Macs.
D
Trust me, my Wiha tools are FAR better than the "junk drawer" tools I lend to my neighbors. As both a Mac fan and woodworker, I've learned that it does not pay, in terms of time, hassle or quality of work to use "any old tool." If I'm shaving a piece off the bottom of a door, I'll grab a decent Stanely hand plane. For fine furniture, nothing beats my Lie-Nielsens, which at over 8x the cost, are well worth it.
Mac and Windows PCs do essentially the same things. There are a jillion more crappy games available for WIndows, but the good ones are on both. My G4 is an excellent gaming platform, plus it lets me talk to my friends, family and even get work done. My G4 Powerbook, even more so. I could do the same things my Dell, but the experience just isn't the same. Ergo, the Mac is a "better quality tool" for me.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
It's funny that this debate still rages on and I'm sure it will for some time to come. While some may say "ok, it's time to stop talking about it", I disagree. I'm sure the TCO race is much closer now than it was a decade ago when Macs were rather flaky and there's wasn't as much hard core business and research software for the Mac, thus making it rather useless for non-creatives and such.
Now for the sanity issue...time definitely has a value that nobody seems to take into account here. Same with sanity. For instance, with the PC you're constantly looking for drivers and DLLs that you need, that break, that disappear, that need to be updated, etc. With the Mac...it just WORKS. Any of you have a girlfriend that has a PC and it's constantly not working and YOU get all the abuse because of it? Then you suggest using a Mac because it simply works ("Look, all you gotta do is plug in your digital camera, and it works. And now you can view the pictures with no additional software. And check this out...you can burn them onto a CD now with no additional software..."). It really is that easy. I know if my gf had a PC, I would be a lot more sane from not having to listen to "great, I can't use my camera now because it changed the settings to HP instead of Sony and I can't find the software..."
Sanity...it's a good thing. Just as "goodwill" isn't a concrete number to put on a company's spreadsheet, it still has a value. Same with the value of time and sanity. Let's not forget that.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
In my tests, Quark XPress was stable if you didn't use Mac IE (or the Word filter distributed with XPress). Microsoft software put stuff in the Extensions folder that would make Quark crash. Often. Remove all MS stuff from the System Folder, no Quark crashes.
If I put on my tinfoil hat, I saw Mac IE as a trojan horse. MS specifically designed Mac IE to crash the program most Mac holdouts used. That way they would think the Mac was unstable, and switch to Windows.
So what is missing?
If there is a lack of overall interest in the platform, why does Microsoft Office exist for the Mac OS?
What exactly ARE these unmet software needs that "the majority" is clammoring for?
The latest first person shooter?
Your generalizations are completely unfounded.
I like microcars
not only is that fix easy, it is impossible to do with windows. there is no 'extensions off' in windows. There are always two sides to the argument, but having mac be so dynamic in install/uninstall/extentsions and system folder 'stuff' is just awesome... no registry or similar crap to deal with.
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.
plus, you might want to read the story here about the NY Vespa dealer that decided to go with Mac and Filemaker Pro rather than deal with the Windows software that was "offered" by the Manufacturer.
Why did they choose to use Macs and Filemaker Pro when an existing Windows package was available?
Here's a quote from the story:
It appears this shop looked very closely at TCO and even though a Windows package was available, they chose not to use it!
My wife works in Real Estate, she uses a Mac. She has no problems.
The other agents are constantly hit up to buy all these little Windows apps that will "help" them work better and more efficiently, but mostly these apps just line the pockets of the IT guy who is recommending them.
Her TCO by using her iBook is MUCH lower than that of the agent in the next station who was told she had to buy a $2000 sub-notebook in order to be competitive.
I'm not even going to mention all the time everyone ELSE wastes patching their Windows computers while my wife just keeps working.
"...Next thing I tried: Fishing? Fishing is not the most obscure hobby. You are out of luck using a Mac to enhance it: 15 titles for Pc, NONE for Mac.
No Fishing apps for the Mac? How sad.
I like microcars
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.
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?
Now while i don't work in the corporate scene, my experience with them shows me why they choose windows. Corporations don't really care about saving money, they care about making it look like they're saving money.
A recent engineering department of a corporation cost reduced a a bearing, that will save them $6 on every $30 bearing. While this sounds like a good idea, the new bearing fails about 3 times under the warrenty period while the old bearing lived well beyond the warrenty period.
Corporations wouldn't care if it costs $1000 per machine to set up and maintain for the first year, as long as they can say they're buying a $600 dell and saving a fortune.
I truely believe that macs have a lower TCO, as i support all the windoze machines in my house. The only work my mac requires is the occasional software update. Windows requires updates weekly, reinstallation every 6-12months with heavy use. And i'm probably going to have to reinstall my mothers copy of XP home and my dads XP pro, as both are becoming incredibly glitch in recent weeks.
Linux probably beats windows in the long term, but loses in the short term, which is the only place where businesses care about. Linux takes longer to install, setup and get running smoothly, especially in a custom environment.
Mac are far more universal, as you can run X11, OS9, windows via VPC in addition to the Native OS X apps. This does not mean that Macs do not have their downfalls. Internet browsing still lacks the 'snap' that IE has on Win2k. But as i don't see MS doing much to innovate their os, i will stick with mac.
Personally, when i have to use windows, i use Win2k as i find it much better in the long term for stability. But unless i have to use windows, i keep linux and os x running on everything i can, as my time is worth more to me than a few hundred dollars now.
Apple limited the places that sell Macs because so many of them did it so badly. Put one old Mac up on display that doesn't run, and all the sales people steer people away from them, if not insulting you if you insist on a Mac. That's worse for sales than having them available in few places.
But I do wish they weren't so picky about where they open their Apple Stores. Many US states don't have one yet, and the one that's local to me is in an upscale mall filled with yuppies and high priced stores that I'll never set foot in. That sort of thing reinforces the stereotype that Macs are the playthings of the rich and stupid.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
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
You'll find this "something on the PC, nothing on the Mac" situation to hold true for almost anything you try.
Yeah, you're right-- I've got a few more where this holds true:
Viruses.
Worms.
Spyware.
You can be sure that if there were Mac clones being sold (non-Apple), they'd have these ports because the users want them.
Clones were sold. They didn't have them. Customers didn't want them.
No, it hardly runs any software unless you run an emulator. That shows a problem.
We have ONE example so far of software that it will not run without the emulator. I don't call that "hardly running any software"
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
First of all, Miscrosoft didn't bail out Apple, they settled a longstanding lawsuit concerning how M$ blatantly copied the "windowed" point and click environment of the Mac. A lawsuit that they of course knew they would lose. Do your homework. Secondly, there are thousands of free open source applications that are available for OSX that you cannot even find a commercial solution for on a Windows PC. Hmm you couldn't find much Mac software at download.com, a overtly windows fanboy site, try a Mac software site, like versiontracker.com or macupdate.com. Again, do your homework. I use both PC's and Macs in Educational and Corporate settings and there is nothing I can do on a PC that I cannot also do on a Mac. The reverse cannot be said. As far as terminal applications, you have got to be smoking crack. And lastly, sheer numbers of programs does not equal superior programs. If windows has 300 programs to handle midi files I would be willing to bet that none of them does it worth a shit. And that several Mac programs work marvelously, thus there is no need to have 217 different programs that do the same damn thing. But you know what, keep using your windows machine, you and your kind keep me paid handsomely:) If the world switched to Macs I would be out of a job.
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
For most people however, (i.e. 'the majority of software needs' as opposed to the majority of programs) their needs can be met with existing software on the Mac or Linux, or for that matter more obscure OSs.
This lack of specialized apps thing is a tired old red herring, since there are (IMO anyway) specific apps on the Mac which are not available on other platforms, or are the best apps of that type on any platform. This doesn't mean it's not possible to do something as well on Windows, Linux, or whathaveyou, and this situation is constantly shifting, but it continues to be true for some specialized field or another. I'm sure we could all come up with specialized apps which are the best of their type which only run on defunct platforms, but that doesn't mean that going on ebay and finding that ancient box is the best choice. There are many other factors.
Actually, the clones very selling very nicely... at Apple's expense. Which is a big part of the reason they were killed off.
I don't know how this can be debatable.
Everything that I have heard and read show that Macs are cheaper when factoring in TCO. In addition to less support (how many times have heard "...my company has 1000 PCs with 100 PC support techs and 2000 Macs with 3 Mac support techs...") and longer lasting hardware ("...we have a SE/30 that we still use as a mail server...") to increased productivity ("...virus? What stinking virus?...It just works!)
Here's a few examples I found when googling for info on Mac vs. Windows TOC:
And there are just so many other ones that I grow tired of providing the information
When it came to my own personal computer, I bought a Mac, just because I don't want to make support@home! Obviously I use nearly the same tools I could run on a dual boot Windows-Linux PC (DVDPlayer/VideoLan, iTunes, jEdit, MsOffice, JBoss-PHP-Apache, tcsh, Mozilla/kHtml). But it works find, nothing more than drag/drop to install an application, no OS upgrade issue, a perfect statefull firewall included). In two years, I had no system or software issues. When came the day I wanted a laptop, I took another Mac, because I liked the first one, because it was cheaper than the same class of computer from Dell.
I understand I overvalue my $/hour (I'm a bit more expensive than a 1st level support guy), but what can be compared to nearly $0? I helped some friends with their Macs (switchers, newcomers) and they were amazed how simple it was, how useless I could be for them (I love that because phone support at 10PM isn't my preferred friendliness).
I also worked at my office with Macs (Os9), and of course when a user had a problem, and the support team answered, "oh, it's a Mac", they called me. It's not a statistical study (5 samples), but each problems were solved in 5 minutes and were caused by "not connected" or "not switched on the VLAN", things that can exist on a PC and that really should not happened. The "no-support" reason was always "I don't know macs" which shouldn't happen with MacOsX (open a Terminal, remember your Unix for beginners 1st class, solve the problem). Still the $0 comparison.
With OsX, I believe there is a really good office alternative:
- a real user/admin isolation
- a realistic user rights limitation (you can install an funny screen saver with no possible impact on other users/ system files). Yes, don't tell me you plan to use the "no rights to the user" policy on windows, it's just not the job of sysadmins to forbid everything.
- a good multitask behavior (I'm ripping a DVD right now and don't feel any slowlyness on a 2 years old entry-level computer)
- all the classical usefull applications (Mozilla, Office, Mail, Calendar, Images management...) plus all the open-source world apps/tools.
- a wide adoption of standards and a real work on Windows connectivity
But a lot of people just don't compare anymore, are just too scary of innovation/new solutions (which is a real problem concerning technology). Too many people a ready to lie by not comparing Windows/Linux/Mac/Other before saying to the boss "here is the way". The scariest thing is the best way is certainly somewhere between those choices.Isn't it the entire "keep with the standards to keep the choice in your hands" lesson in first year of CS grade?
ClaudeBBG
He meant customers didn't want the ports. Not that they didn't want the clones.
Incidentally, the main reason for this was that most of the clones were direct copies of Apples' motherboard designs (liscensed of course). Part of the reason clones were undercutting Apple is that they weren't paying for the R&D. I guess the liscensing fees were supposed to cover it, but Apple aparrently decided that they didn't.
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
Right, because that $300 copy of photoshop makes the difference between a $1200 and $2500 machine. Nice math.
Also, the problem with your analogy, is that all these tools perform the SAME JOB, largely. So it's basically asking which screwdriver is better. Certainly, in some cases, you'll have to buy a Phillips head, because your shop deals only with Philips screws. But if you have the choice of platforms, you can still compare them - screwdrivers or computers. So these stories are fine.
And yes, I own a powerbook.
quote found here:
University of Wollongong
In 1997, Gistics, Inc. published the following*:
Macintosh users:
spend 38 fewer hours per year 'Futzing" with files
save US $4,950 annually on support and training
use more tools (14.3 versus 8.3)
Save US $2,211 in three-year cost of ownership
Earn US $5.01 more per hour
Earn US $12.22 more revenue per hour of labor
Create US $14,550 more profits per year per person
Earn 32 percent more net profit per project and
Achieve platform payback in 7.2 months (versus 13.9)
*Page 56 Vaughan, T. 1998. Multimedia, Making it Work, Osborne McGraw Hill, Berkeley
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
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.
It's true, Mac has had their share of problems recently. But "parts" in general are less dependable now than they were years ago. From RAM to hard drives to logic and graphics boards, they're much more complex than ever before. And at the same time, the cost of a new Mac has actually decreased-- don't forget that the 8500 you may have running in the corner, that's run without a problem since 1996 cost more than its G5 equivalent now (and that's with two years of Applecare included.) The 12" iBook G4 with Applcare is about $1250-1300... I seem to remember paying at least 1 1/2 times that for a 5300 Powerbook (and don't get me started on the problems THAT thing had...)
Then there is the Total Cost of Sanity that many have mentioned. The Macs just work, but more importantly they are pre-installed. At a conference spanning several days, the first day and a half it looked any participant with a note book computer was runing either an iBook or a PowerBook. By the end of the week the ratio of Mac to Windows had droped to about 1:1 -- the Windows users had averaged about 20 minutes each with a technician to get the wireless cards working.
Mac just work, but more importantly they are pre-installed. The common Linux distros are very easy to install and maintain since about 4 years ago, especially compared to Windows. But having OS X work out of the box beats even Linux and really creams Windows. When you start talking about corrective maintenance, then you couldn't pay me to put up with the garbage that I've had to watch Windows technicians deal with. However, the end user, not the technician is the real benefactor of OS X. They can use the computer for their job rather than having to call twice a week about problems which prevent daily activities.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Apple limited the places that sell Macs because so many of them did it so badly.
The only place around here that stocks Macs is the local PC World. I was browsing down there the other day and noticed a G5 was out on display, so I went over to take a look - there was also a 12" G4 iBook and a 15" PB, which I was interested in checking out. All three were running the Simple Finder, with no Applications present and no files in the Documents folder. In short, nothing; the only thing you could do was log out and log back in again. The G5 also seemed to have some kind of Japanese installation of OSX, judging by the menus (this is in the UK). Meanwhile, the assorted Vaios and HPs were running Deus Ex II, DVD players, music jukeboxes, etc. etc. People came over to the Macs, admired the design briefly, and moved on...
Just because the Extron Button Label Generator doesn't work on the Mac does not mean my staff should all have to use Windows. 99% of them do the things that can be done on Mac just as well, if not better than Windows (or Linux or Solaris, for that matter).
VERY limited examples of providers of Mac software to your specific areas of interest:
Business-oriented - Microsoft, Intuit, AEC, Nametschek
Development tools - GNU, Borland, Sun, IBM
Databases - MySQL, PostgreSQL, Sybase, IBM, Oracle
Except for extremely limited examples of very specific software (like turning in certain IRS forms), platform is irrelevant (which makes their platform-specificness all the more appaling).
Mac is a better tool for the things that most users do most of the time.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
- Apps that are installed just by dragging them off their distribution media
- Apps that have an installer
Apps in the first category (like Mozilla) are great, you just drag the application icon to your disk (or to the trash to "uninstall"). This is because an appliction on the mac is really a directory/folder containing the things the app needs.Apps in the second category often update system folders (having first asked for your administrator password - we have Unix privillege separation here) or need to copy to a number of folders, but if you can determine what the installer did you can reproduce the installation just by copying the same files - there is no magic here. (There are also tools for windows that will "observe" an installation, including registry updates, so that the app can be "deployed" to thousands of desktops in a corporate by automated distribution software.)
Amazingly Microsoft Office X for Mac is a "drag and drop" install - just drag the folder off the CD onto your hard disk. The "service packs" for Office X are installer based however - they need to check for pre-requisitve Office versions and copy selected files.
That says it all for me. I recently switched to Macs for that exact reason. I spent several years running linux (as a desktop for personal productivity), and before that OS/2 with a brief side trip running Windows (that didn't last very long, was way too unstable compared to what I was used to). When you count the time I spent adminning/fixing/configuring other operating systems verses what I spend on my powerbook, Apple and OS/X are hands down winners for me.
Linux is unix training wheels, while BSD *is* unix.
I believe that as a part of CHRP, nearly all of PowerComputing's clones had PS2 and serial ports. I know for sure that a clone I used had both PS2 and ADB for keyboard/mouse, and they were each equally plug-and-play compatible.