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.

Comments

My snappy comeback

[Fished]

My snappy comeback to those who claim Macs are more expensive is:

That's right, they are more expensive if your time has no value.

That usually elicits at least a thoughtful look. With that line as a starting point, I've converted three organizations over to Macs in the past 2 years, so it's got something going for it.

Re:My snappy comeback

[prockcore]

That's right, they are more expensive if your time has no value.

Your time does have no value. You're sitting here posting on slashdot. Fact is, your time is worth nothing.

great.

[pb]

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.

You might remember me....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Lower TCO, higher ROI?

[rqqrtnb]

Is a Mac cheaper to run and does a Mac make a user more productive?

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 ... just ain't gonna happen now.

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...

Re:Lower TCO, higher ROI?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is amazing is the dichotomy. In so many facets of corporate america we always hear how "bottom line" oriented today's corporations are.

Yet, when it comes to computers, it hardly seems that the lower bottom line cost matters. Almost as if computers have a different yardstick.
But why should they? The current "standard platform" only means one kind of PC which translates into lower costs since there is one company to look to for support, the OEM of your computers. But it still is not the most cost effective solution.

It is as if you had Chevy's in your corporate fleet and to lower costs, you standardized on something else, that cost less to buy, but got 1/3 less gas mileage and more maintenance.

Re:Lower TCO, higher ROI?

[rixstep]

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.

Tired...

[Apreche]

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.

Re:Tired...

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Tired...

[Golias]

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.

Except the problem is that Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows are all screwhammers. The whole point of the "personal computer" is that it is not a specialized tool that does one or two things incredibly well, but a multi-function Finite State Machine for All Your File Processing Needs.

Since just about any application can be written to run on just about any modern OS, the only two things that set them apart are 1: Application development for the platform, and 2: The user experience.

Factor 1 is quantifiable, but arbitrary, based mostly on traditional market segments for the platforms. (Most of the best media software is written for the Mac because media people use Macs, because most of the best media software is written for the Mac, because...)

Factor 2 is where the OS designers have control, but are very difficult to quantify, becuase almost any user with any real experience will ultimately be biased by those same experiences which qualify them to form their opinions. Put a Linux user in front of the legendary Mac OS, and he will complain about the lack of middle-click text pasting. Put the Mac user in front of a Linux desktop and they will complain just as loudly about the lack of universal drag-and-drop text pasting.

Unless QuarkXPress or Type Reunion is involved...

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

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!

Bashing MS isn't worth my intellectual integrity

[orthogonal]

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.

Re:Linux TCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux technicians may be cheaper, but you have to endure their bad hygiene and bad breath while they're working at your shop. I know from experience. I'd rather have a well-dressed Mac guy that impresses the clients around than a pear-shaped star-trek t-shirt wearing loser.

hardware value too!

[quandrum]

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.

Re:You just do less with a Mac

[cbiagini]

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...

Test Bias

[stuffduff]

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.

I fix PC's by day... and use Macs at home.

[dbirchall]

Some people might consider me a "PC technician" as various people pay me good money to take care of their beleaguered (Apple in-joke) PC's. I don't have A+ or Network+ certifications, but I've got 15 years of IT experience and familiarity with a good bit of hardware and more OSes than most people would ever want to touch.

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.

Techincian count

[goombah99]

At my 10,000+ employee facility, we have loads of overworked microsoft techs and way too few linux techs. Whenever our institution tires to force us to standardize on a platform the techs vote and of course windows always wins because there are so many techs.

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.

Re:Techincian count

[goombah99]

The MS techs run around putting out virus fires, and unsnarling people's windows desktop machines. They dont actually do anything useful in terms of producing products. They just allow others to work. They are over worked because they worm-hole is an endless sucking vortex of time and paranoia. No matter how many people we hired we could not get ahead of it--always reactive. Sure we do the firewalls and have policies about clicking on e-mail messages but guess what, they dont stop the problems.

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.

But I have many brands of tools...

[csoto]

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.

TCS (Total Cost of Sanity)

[chia_monkey]

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.

Re:Unless QuarkXPress or Type Reunion is involved.

[burns210]

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.

Fishing?

[microcars]

Take a look at this catalog looks like plenty of stuff available there to me.

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:

"And the default choice for their new Vespa dealership was a PC-based software package, "because that's all the manufacturer had to offer,"

"When we talked to other dealers about the Vespa software package, everyone complained of horrible setup problems, errors, crashes. We checked the software vendor's update schedule, and every few weeks there was a new update. Not to mention the huge investment -- a seven or eight thousand dollar setup cost, plus an annual fee of several thousand dollars. And that didn't even include hardware! "

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.

Corporate America Spending

[customjake]

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.

Re:giving up

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:If you have an orchard, Apple is rotten.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:giving up

[MoneyT]

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"

Re:Mac: almost no software.

[Mr12inch(Powerbook)]

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.

Re:Mac: almost no software.

[Mullmusik]

You're right. Windows is the best platform for specifically running a flower shop. If someone's going to buy a computer for that, go Windows.

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.

Sigh...

[Mildew Man]

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:

Macs Shine In Total Cost Of Ownership
"The TOC (total operating cost) for the Wintel machines amounts to $253.86 per year, every year until it is retired," Canterbury told Sellers. "The Macs run us $53.25 per year. Quite a difference and one our board and parents heard loud and clear."

Return On Investments between the Macintosh and Windows platforms.
[NOTE: of course this is where the Mac shines but I think that it translates to other areas of general productivity]
"This benchmark supersedes a common but misleading bench-mark: cost-of-ownership. An ROI benchmark correlates the cost of ownership and productivity of media producers to revenue and profit. Detailed ROI analysis reveals that a Macintosh-using creative professional produces $26,441 more annual revenue and $14,488 more net profit (per person) than a Windows user of comparable skill engaged in similar work."

Why most people should buy a Macintosh rather than a Windows PC
A study from technology research company, Gartner has found Apple Macintosh computers to be up to 36 percent cheaper to own and run than competing PC products. The study utilised Gartner's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) methodology, which takes into account the direct and indirect costs of owning IT infrastructure.

And there are just so many other ones that I grow tired of providing the information

What TCO?

[claudebbg]

Like other people here, I know windows quite well and can easily "support myself". I can even make Ms products work well together on a complex corporate architecture (I think it's the reason why they interviewed me on their site:-).
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?

An older study from 1988:

[bob_calder]

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

Linux, Mac, & Windows

[PhoenixK7]

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.

Re:Linux TCO?

[NateTech]

If that was a joke, cool.

If that was serious -- you guys obviously don't know how to hire people.

Plenty of well-dressed, hygenic, Linux folk out of work these days... no need to put up with smelly-boy.

Oh wait this is /. -- I was supposed to say:

"I know how to bathe you insensitive clod!!!"

Or...

"Imagine a beowulf cluster of smelly Linux admins."

Or maybe...

"In soviet Russia, the system admins smell neat and clean."

Heh.

110 macs == less work than 15 ms boxes

[SgtChaireBourne]

I find it hard to believe that there is any speculation. I've seen two technicians take care of 110 macintoshes with less time than they spend repairing the 15 windows machines remaining.

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.