US University Dumps Windows to go All Mac

MacKeyser passed us a link to a MacWorld article about a University doing things a little differently. Instead of sticking with their inefficient mix of Apple and PC systems, the college is doing a 'total technology refresh', and adopting an all-Mac policy on the campus. Previously, a class at Wilkes University would be outfitted with something like 20 Macs and 20 PCs, to allow for individual preferences in software and OS use. With Boot Camp students at the Pennsylvania liberal arts college will be able to switch between Windows and OSX, choosing which applications and OS to use at any given time. "[Scott Byers, vice president for finance and the head of campus IT said] 'We think it will save $150,000 directly, in buying fewer units - even though the Macs cost more per unit than PCs.' The school, which enrolls about 4,000 undergraduate and graduate students, will reduce its inventory from nearly 1,700 computers to around 1,450 after the change over. Other costs savings, however, will be harder to measure. 'By standardizing, the IT department should be more productive,' Byers said."

Comments

Re:Good for them!

[omeomi]

The same can be said for windows relative to linux... People are still using it because they always have.

Not at all. I'm all for Linux, but in art or digital audio, the tools available in Linux just don't stack up (yet) with ones available for Windows and OSX. Yes, there's the Gimp for graphics, and Audacity for audio (among a few others), but there's nothing that comes close to competing with ProTools, or any of the other major audio software applications, and I don't think there's much on Linux that competes with Illustrator or Quark, either.

Re:Because that's what they've always used

[Kjella]

And in no small part: Because they've never grown dependent and/or highly skilled in any Windows-only software. How often do you hear "Yes OS X is great, but as long as it doesn't run $foo it's not usable to me". Or about Linux, for that matter. And a lot of those really creative types I've met, well... their minds seem "jumpy". I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's probably what makes them creative, but I think they're prime targets for Apple's "just works" marketing because they wouldn't stay focused long enough to get technical problems fixed. Of course you have a whole class of basicly "graphics engineers" in the same way you got software engineers, but they tend to follow the creative guys' lead.

Re:Because that's what they've always used

[Anonymous Coward]

creative examples on windows:

1. typefaces:
a designer uses a 'faux bold' and 'faux italic' in there design, when printed, those are reverted to the normal face of the font
reason: extended windows features that are not typographically correct, and do not translate correctly in postscript

2. colors:
a designer makes a design with very vivid colors on it screen, when printed those colors look dull
reason: standard windows gamma is too high (higher then mac), resulting in more vivid colors, allthought those colors are outside the cmyk range, and therefore are not printed as they are shown on screen
(test yourself: try to differenciate 80% and 100% black on a pc screen, you cannot)

these 2 examples illustrate that designers, who do not have a clue about technical aspects, are experiencing issues with there design-workflow on windows.
offcourse, a designer could avoid using those 'faux' typefaces, and adjust his screen gamma, windows is able to do it all, and has even more options then a mac, but that is not what is required by a designer

about 'people don't like changes': (to stay in the creative environment) how comes that quarkxpress, the leading page-design tool for ages in the graphic industry (even from before windows95 existed), has been dumped in the course of 1 year in favour of indesign? could this be explained in any creative or non-creative way?

Re:Because that's what they've always used

[admactanium]

Well, many people don't like change, thus they stick with Macs because that's what they've always used. The other justifications usually come from the fact that they either just tend to listen to the marketing hype, or because they feel a need to try and justify the more expensive purchase.

what a wonederfully condescending post. first off, why do people who don't work in graphic arts care what graphic artists do with their computers? if it has no relevence to you, then why even argue the point. most of the people i know in graphic and visual arts have been using macs for a long time. much longer than any perceived "hype" of recent os x macs.

has it occurred to anyone that graphic designers prefer using macs and that they might actually have good reasons to use the hardware that they do? i have a windows box that sits on the floor next to my mac. i use it once every couple months to double-check a website design or somesuch other little thing. when i switch to an intel-based mac, i suppose i'll bootcamp into windows for those occassions and not much else.

nobody questions the choices of people in other fields to standardize on particular platforms or apps, but for some reason people really enjoy debating the graphic artists/mac connection. why do people feel the need to question a professional's choice of tools. do you also debate why certain mechanics use snap-on versus milwaukee tools or why one doctor might use a different brand of stethoscope than another? i don't see how anybody in graphic arts has to justify their hardware choices to anybody.

the argument seems to generally stem from the "macs are too expensive" crowd. well, when you bill by the hour, having a computer that works perfectly 99% of the time counteracts that argument. i bought a quad core g5 with 4.5 Gb of RAM, a terabyte internal RAID0 setup and 2 24" monitors. how long did it take me to pay off that rig with work? about a week and a half. why would i, or should i switch to save a few bucks when i already know what i'm using works perfectly for my needs. it's not expensive in the world view, only when you compare it to crap pcs.

seriously, keep your "ooh shiny" and "hype from apple tv ads" and "designers are too dumb to use windows" comments to yourself. it's incredibly insulting. i could choose to learn any platform and could probably get my work done on windows or linux, but why should i? to satisfy the curiousity of some random slashdot posters? or perhaps so i could save $800 on a box and hope that i can transfer all my files, get app crossgrades and generally get up to speed with a different plaform in the 8 hours it would take me to justify the cost savings. anything over 8 hours and i'm losing money. i'd rather just make an educated decision to use macs for my own reasons. but thanks for caring.

Re:Good for them!

[ktappe]

In response to the three posters who say their Mac labs go unused, that is probably because those who prefer Macs have one. People who use a computer lab anymore are those who probably aren't that computer literate and therefore have only ever been exposed to PC's a few times and will therefore gravitate towards the only thing they've ever seen. PC costs have dropped such that anyone with an interest in computers can buy what they want (PC or Mac).

A student there

[reav]

I'm in their master program for school admin. I can report that their technology in education courses stress interoperativity and are not OS specific. Students are encouraged to submit projects in open formats which promote open standards. I don't have a handle on their engineering or math departments but there are numerous penguins posted conspicuously on some professors' doors. re-v