Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Gaining Ground In Corporate Environs
nonsuchworks writes "MacWorld quotes a Jupiter Research report on the increasing penetration of Mac OS X in the business world. From the article: 'The report found that in businesses with 250 employees or more, 17 percent of the employees were running Mac OS X on their desktop computer at work. In Businesses that had 10,000 or more employees, 21 percent of employees used Mac OS X on their desktop work computer.' Analyst Joe Wilcox adds, 'Companies that were considering Linux are now buying Mac OS X instead.'"
Is it perhaps that in those businesses, 17% and 21% had people using Macs?
I'm a Mac user, and at my company we have about 10% Mac users.
I'm not saying it's impossible that TWENTY ONE PERCENT of the businesses out there exclusively use Macs... I think it's unlikely, and that the article is misrepresenting the data...
But then, I haven't read the Jupiter report.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
"in businesses with 250 employees or more, 17 percent of the companies had one or more employees who were running Mac OS X on their desktop computer at work. In Businesses that had 10,000 or more employees, 21 percent of the companies had one or more employees who used Mac OS X on their desktop work computer."
That sounds more likely.
Most evil is done by good people, and not by accident, but deliberately; motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.
You are exactly right.... so for all you out there who hate Apple you should think about this: If Mac's gain more market, Microsoft has to work harder FOR YOU to make a better operating system than it had before. Competition is a wonderful thing.
The only thing that surprises me about this statement is that companies are willing to spend 2x as much on the hardware and the additional money on the OS.
The perception is that the extra money up-front is worth it in the long term especially when compared to the Virus maintenance required for Windows boxen.
Also, the perception in businesses is that it's worthwhile to pay extra as compared to running Linux on cheap PCs because they don't believe that Linux will be cost effective to maintain when compared to OS X (this may or may not be true, like I said it's a perception). While Linux has made huge strides toward the desktop in recent years, it's still got a ways to go to be as usable as OS X.
Exactly. 90%+ of the cost of running my business is employees. Hardware and software, while not cheap are significantly less expensive over time.
For example:
12K Server estimated lifespan = 3 years = 4K/year
36K Support Person 1 year at 3 years runs you 108K. Not to mention the extra 6K/year in Payroll Taxes & FICA Matching or the 6K/year in insurance coverage by the company bringing the 3 year total to 144K.
Keeping hardware and software up to date to make certain your *expensive* employees can do their job is the best investment a company can make.
Or at least the report of the report.
On the face of it, if that large a percentage were using Macs, Apple would have shown tremendous market share gains in its past several quarterly announcements, and its share would now be somewhere in the neighborhood of HP/Compaq. (The ~33% gain of this last announcement was Apple's own year over year--terrific, and I'm glad I own stock--but not against the industry as a whole.)
I agree with an earlier post, that the percentages must be the amount of businesses that have at least one Mac, not the percentage of employees using Macs.
Maybe because every user doesn't want to fight with 8 configuration files dealing with graphics, two to get a network card running, and be responsible for ensuring every piece of hardware works correctly right after being installed.
;).
Face it, Linux is difficult. It's getting better, but OS X is already where Linux needs to be (though artificially; you control the hardware, you control the software). And it's worth it to us to pay the premium to get a machine that works.
Oh, and the eye candy's definitely better
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
It helps you feel more comfortable because you start out with something that is completely working, and you aren't always doing system administration using it. First, it's good because you aren't depending on your shell skills to run the system. It's a comfortable way to experiment because, if something isn't working or you can't figure it out, you can always go back to the GUI. Second, it's good because system administration doesn't have to be done in the shell. I run Gentoo, and I've b0rked my system a couple times by doing something dumb like downgrading glibc. On Mac OS X, that's not really a problem because administration tasks like software updates are done in the GUI. In other words, using a shell is not essential to administrating the system. What Mac OS X provides you with is a fully-functional GUI layered on top of a Unix core that you can directly access at your own leisure. It lets you tinker without asking anything in return.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Right...
That's why those built-in Dell wireless network cards work so well. Or maybe those great Linksys ones so many people already have that "just work" with Windows.
Oh wait, they don't. Sure, it's Broadcoms fault, but that doesn't make it work. The point is there is always an excuse and nothing ever works right the first time or stays working.
A *lot* of stuff doesn't work, looks crappy (love those Linux fonts -- what? steal the MS ones?), use different widget sets (how come firefox doesn't match the theme I just installed. Oh wait, neither do any of the gnome apps!), and on and on.
I love Linux for servers, but if you can't admit Mac OS X "just works", you aren't being honest. If price is a factor, then its a factor, but don't BS everyone about it being a PITA.
As for those interested in Mac OS X, look into the "Missing Manual, Tiger Edition" book. It has a lot of useful information you might not figure out on your own.
And before you say "don't use it then", already been there done that. I use Linux for servers and am moving to Mac OS X for the desktops.
"If the average user could have a fully configured Linux system that "just worked" placed in front of them I think they would forget Windows and OS X rather quickly." I think you may be a bit out of touch with the "average user". If a Linux system "just worked" then yeah, maybe they'd choose it over OS X or Windows. But Linux is never going to "just work" that way. The mere existence of multiple windowing systems means that applications will be targeted at one of them. Sure, if the average user decides he likes Gnome best, he can still use KDE applications, but the little inconsitencies in the interface will start to wear on him. Why is that? Because the inconsistencies lead to things not "just working". Users don't want to have to know 3 different ways to paste something based on what toolkit the app is based on. They just want to go to Edit -> Paste (the more savvy ones may know Control+V) and have it work. I'm not saying choice is a bad thing. It's a great thing when you know what you're doing. When you don't know what you're doing, you want the simplest thing that will get the job done. Linux still needs a lot of work to be that thing.
Maybe because you can get use out of a Macintosh without any Unix knowledge and then learn Unixy things at your own pace.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I will preface this post by saying that I have +20 years of computing experience as both a developer and administrator. I have developed or administered almost every kind of UNIX out there (including NeXtStep and OpenStep) and every edition of Windows. While the Macintosh was not the greatest in the 1990's, Mac OS X changed everything. I have used Linux as both a desktop and a server since Redhat's Mother's Day release in the early 1990's.
Linux is perfect for background servers and special cost sensitive, in-house specially developed projects where licensing fees are important. Mac OS X is the perfect UNIX for the desktop and is beginning to make in-roads into enterprise rack servers.
The Linux community brings it on themselves. Linux will always be a niche in the desktop computing world. And while it is sometimes fun and interesting to try Linux on the desktop, Mac OS X is what Linux will always wish it could be.
Mac OS X is all the UNIX you could want with a simply brilliantly designed, fully featured, and consistent user interface, exceptional ease of use and administration with an excellent unified package management system. Everything you always wish you could have had on UNIX is now here on Mac OS X. Absolutely brilliant.
If you bash on Mac OS X it is because you have never used it before or you are too afraid to admit it kicks Linux's ass on the desktop. Linux zeolots are afraid to admit that Linux on the desktop sucks. All of the Linux zeolots I have listened to over the years all live in their own little world. And if they never realize it and never change their views, and if they don't get their act together and all work towards a common unified platform for desktop computing, Linux on the desktop will always suck. And they will continue to live in their own little world. End of the story.
And for most people, Linux is only a hobby OS and nothing more. Something to play with when you have spare time to tinker around with it.