| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Opinion: Mac vs. PC: Which is better for business? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:59 EST/13:59 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
One of the hazards of having written a book about switching from Windows to Macintosh is that people ask me questions. Recently, I've heard the one above from two friends, as well as a guy I met while doing a "Meet the Expert" visit at a local Apple store. My response? You have to want to. I say so because your business will have to make some trade-offs if it goes all-Mac. All three of my questioners operate small businesses, either by themselves or with a staff of only a few people; all three had plans to grow their businesses to a dozen or so employees. Oddly enough (or perhaps tellingly), one of these companies does tech support for Windows systems. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:04:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 5/27/2003 9:13:37 AM |
| Bwaahahah.... give me a break. Ok, there might be some question as to which is better for Joe Schmoe at home, but which is better for business was answered a long time ago. |
| #2 By 14158 (170.12.2.132) at 5/27/2003 10:54:27 AM |
|
This is an easy question to answer. Windows is better for business for the simple matter that most people who have PC experience have used and are familiar with Windows. Training costs are lower, hardware costs are lower, support costs are lower.
Lower cost = good for business |
| #3 By 442 (65.33.163.218) at 5/27/2003 12:26:26 PM |
|
"Taining costs are lower, hardware costs are lower, support costs are lower."
Clearly you do not understand the total cost of ownership. 1. Training costs are lower for a Mac because they are generally easier to use. 2. Hardware costs, while upfront maybe a bit more expensive, last much longer than your average PC. Therefore, you actually spend less money on a Mac in teh long run which is a very important facotr in purchasing. Keep in mind that a lot of the hardware -- I/O ports, wireless buil-in, etc. -- are standard on a Mac and extra on a PC. Then you're prices are almost even for a similarly configured PC. 3. Support costs, as study after study has proven, are significantly lower with a Mac. No viruses, no gaping security holes, no crashes, no freezes, and so on. People get more done because the computer gets out of their way and just works...as has always been the case with a Mac. For example, a friend of mine manages a large number of computers at the Walt Disney Company. They recently switched an entire division from Windows 9X and 2000 to Mac OS X. Their support calls and costs have gone DOWN by about half. That figure alone certainly tells you something. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/27/2003 1:29:27 PM |
|
"Clearly you do not understand the total cost of ownership."
No need to go that far, jared. Clearly, they didn't read the article. Hell, I doubt they read the synopsis. "All three of my questioners operate small businesses, either by themselves or with a staff of only a few people; all three had plans to grow their businesses to a dozen or so employees. Oddly enough (or perhaps tellingly), one of these companies does tech support for Windows systems." "My response? You have to want to." So, Coursey says "no" if you need industry specific software not on the Mac, "no" if you want to use Exchange and don't want a mixed enviro, and only "yes", if you are a very small business who wants to. Oooh, so crazy and controversial. It's hilarious that a MS tech support company is asking the question. Firstly, because they, even as Supporters (both technically and abstractly) are considering the switch for themselves, but secondly and most importantly, a company that provides Windows tech support isn't savvy enough to answer the question for themselves. Pathetic. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 13:33. |
| #5 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 5/27/2003 2:35:22 PM |
|
#3 jaredbkt...
"Training costs are lower for a Mac because they are generally easier to use" With a statement like that, it is obvious you've never been responsible for an IT budget that included end-users. I AM... and your statement is absolutly ludicrous. "Hardware costs, while upfront maybe a bit more expensive, last much longer than your average PC" Again, completely wrong. I mean, your artists are NOT using 7100s for PhotoShop. Don't for a second, expect me to believe that. And the up-front costs are not a "bit" more expensive. They are ALOT more expensive... to the tune of 50%. "Support costs, as study after study has proven, are significantly lower with a Mac. No viruses, no gaping security holes, no crashes, no freezes, and so on" Please provide links to a couple of these studies. And no freezes? ON A MAC? You cant be serious? No crashes? ON A MAC? No way! |
| #6 By 442 (65.33.163.218) at 5/27/2003 2:53:44 PM |
|
Read these web sites for additional info to those who wanted it. They have info on studies done and links to other sites with even more data. You'll find it a good read.
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/computer/mac_advantages.htm http://www.netspace.net.au/~corourke/Mac/cost.html http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/03.html http://www.xvsxp.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Melbourne University counts the savings with Apple from David Frith's article in "The Australian" SYDNEY 12 June 2002. 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. Direct costs include all hardware and software costs for desktop and mobile computers, servers and peripherals as well as upgrades, technical support and annual depreciation. Indirect costs cover the costs of end-users supporting themselves and each other, end-user training time and non-productive downtime. The report compares the TCO for the University's Mac environment with its PC environment. It also compared the University's Mac environment with similar sized PC installations around the world. The research was conducted at Melbourne University in the Faculty of Arts which included 4676 Apple computers and 5338 Windows based machines. The relevant cost comparisons were $ 14.1 million and $ 18.9 million respectively. Apple systems cost just $ 1953 per year to support, Gartner found, compared with annual costs for Windows based machines of $ 2522. Apple Computer Marketing Director, Arno Lenior, said the findings illustrated how medium to large sized organisations like Melbourne University could save time and money by investing in Macs over PCs. There is a perception that Macs are more expensive than PCs but this report proves what we've long believed - Macintosh is the most cost effective and efficient platform available, said Marketing Director, Apple Computer, Arno Lenior. In examining direct costs, Gartner found that Macs required less technical support and the hardware and software costs were lower. Gartner found that this translated into direct savings of 25 percent over similar sized organisations using personal computers. University of Melbourne IT staff were able to manage more Macintosh systems per person servicing 30 Apple computers for every 23.2 Windows based computer. Macs are designed to be easy to use. The report highlighted this, proving that Mac users at the University required less formal training and didn't rely as heavily on technical staff as PC users. When something did go wrong, the technical staff solved the problem faster on Macs than PCs, said Lenior. The Gartner report found that the Mac's efficiency and ease of use resulted in additional indirect savings of 43 percent. When combined, the Total Cost of Ownership for Melbourne University's Macs was 36 percent lower than similar PC environments elsewhere. Perhaps even more importantly, when questioned on how they felt about their networks Mac users at the University were happier than their PC counterparts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are some facts for you. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/27/2003 6:08:16 PM |
|
We're looking at this all wrong.
The Apple Macintosh is clearly better because it means support departments will have to hire additional people. That will help offset the jobs lost under the Bush economic plan. It will also increase the costs to produce goods, which may then offset the deflationary aspects of the economy Greenspan has been concerned about. See, it's a win/win for everybody involved! |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/27/2003 6:26:05 PM |
|
parker, macross, that press release was also not approved by Apple. It was Apple Australia that mistakingly released it. Gartner I would think would vouch to their OWN research if it was used for its intended purposes, which were internal, which is how Apple intended it.
Anyway, as I pointed out previously, and unfortunately, you and mooresa still don't know how to read: these are businesses of one to three people with max expansion to 12. If you don't think that a Mac environment can be cheaper in this scenario, you are simply crazy. Once you begin to address a network and mail server, the MS network will be more expensive. Throw in support and you have to hire an IT staffperson. Not necessary in the small Mac environment. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 18:27. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/27/2003 7:09:31 PM |
|
parker, still doing an excellent job of reading, buddy. I applaud you.
(1-12 employees) (1-12 employees) (1-12 employees) By the way, I suspect you are looking at a yearly IT expenditure budget which doesn't include the cost of paying and insuring you and many other costs which are in fact a part of the IT budget. But that's just a guess. 2500 Aussie Dollars per machine doesn't sound all that astronomical to me. In fact, I don't understand your own numbers--are they two examples? One you have $20,000,000 / 10,000 desktops which is $2000 per. Sounds about right, doesn't it? Say $1600 for the Macs, and $2500 for the PCs. So your own example is potentially in line with these estimates. Or are you saying that your example is 1,400,000 / 3850 desktops? If so, I can tell you for a FACT that you are ignoring a lot of the costs you put into yout IT infrastructure--whether or not it's in your yearly budget. Macross, you don't need email if you run a company? No web server? No network but the expectation of counting on your wireless router to find everything? No print server? Please. Try to run exchange on your PDC and see what trouble you hit. Try to run a DC without a backup. Try to troubleshoot a choked print queue that isn't going to interfere with any other network function... "there are just some questions that are universal regardless of platform." Yes, too bad the ANSWERS are vastly different. And the part that matters. And what the hell is this: "we can make it neutral and use open source on both platforms so the cost of software is eliminated"... Ha, ha, ha... Once you realized the software costs you ran away from the idea that Windows is cheaper than a Mac environment and went straight for a hardware only comparison. Great, buddy. You are now running an Open Source based businesss. Ha, ha, ha! You make me laugh. Did you forget the question wasn't: if you didn't need software, technical support, uptime, ---HELL--- work to be accomplished, PC hardware is cheaper than Apple hardware. But rather the question was: should a small business consider running a Mac or PC environment and what factors should they consider. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 19:24. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/27/2003 7:54:04 PM |
|
No, macross, you've descended into complete idiocy--the question was which is the right choice for a small business: Windows or the Mac environment. This is a question that considers hardware, software, technical support, and productivity.
You introduced the OS argument to avoid the issue of software costs--i.e. when considering server licensing (and going by best practices most every service you should put on a different box) Windows IS more expensive. But now you are deflecting your great big silly mistake of trying to make it JUST a hardware cost argument by bringing up a software availability argument. Boy, let's say it one more time: READ THE ARTICLE. Coursey says this is a choice to consider ONLY if all of the software you need IS AVAILABLE. I have no freakin idea where the hell you are going with the idea of buying Apple hardware to run OS software rather than Mac software--are you just trying to prove that you would be capable of extremely stupid decisions, or are you once again avoiding the issue of considering an ENTIRE PLATFORM and how it would factor into a small work environment? |
| #11 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 5/27/2003 7:56:42 PM |
|
The turd in the punch bowl is why aren't small business people buying crapples if they are demonstrably better? The author nor crapple ever seem to get around to answering this question.
If there is any place in our economy where business people know how to squeeze that nickel it has got to be small business. Also, I think that we can all agree that small business in this country is the engine of our economy. So, the smart money uses Wintel. Any questions? And by the way, how many small business owners have ever seen let alone read CNET? The FACT is that crapple has lost worldwide market share for years. Some reports have them at under 3% and counting. crapple is irrelevant heading to oblivion. (What I find amusing in these comparisons sites is that they are always somebody's web course homework assignment web site! What a joke. LOL) |
| #12 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 5/27/2003 8:05:18 PM |
| This just in - of the four comparison sites posted by "jaredbkt" only 1 - the third one - is running on a crapple. That third one must be one of the small business types! LOL |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/27/2003 9:06:24 PM |
|
So you have one tech administering 100 computers. If it's $300 a box, that employee is making about $14,000 tops (not $30,000) because of the other non-salary HR costs (Salary is typically between 35-50% of the cost of an employee). So your tech support figure is completely off.
Do you have ANY server software? CALs for any server products? How 'bout user support and training? Is that zero? Is there ANY additional costs for administering and maintaining the backend? Any network storage? Is there an internet connection at all? Any telecom charges? Any ethernet cable? How did it get cabled? What connects these cables? Is there any outside suport from telecom or service providers? Is there a server room? What are its HVAC costs? Does electricity power these boxes and servers? Do you only have operating systems and no other software on these machines. These numbers aren't insane. Let's point out that you said your budget was 1.4 million for 3850 machines. Which is $363.63 per machine. Yet by your own calculations (and buying the cheapest, newest boxes--are you sure everyone of those 3850 machines you 're talking about was only $850 bucks?), and not including the REAL major costs of running an IT infrastructure, you are starting out at $600 bucks. Does whoever creates your budget know they are running at greater than 40% OVER budget? Come on, parker. You have no clue. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 21:10. |
| #14 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 5/27/2003 10:32:06 PM |
|
You can't compare PC's vs Mac's in educational environments. Apple basically gives their stuff away to non-profit educational organizations. In those circumstances, Apple will almost always come out on top as far as TCO.
In pretty much every other scenario, it's not even close. |
| #15 By 14158 (170.12.2.132) at 5/28/2003 12:55:34 PM |
|
OK, for those who empasized 1 to 12 people, let's just look at this pratically. It's a business. The basic concept of business is to GROW and make MORE money. Now with that in mind, why would a business use buy 1 to 12 Macs knowing if they need to expand they will have to replace everything and learn a new way of doing things.
And for training... Most high schools now use PCs instead of Macs, so basic PC training is becoming less of a consideration. If anything, the Mac is becoming more foreign since most people will buy the cheaper PC over the Mac for home use. BTW, I read the article. My first comment was on the basic question "What"s better for business?", not the article itself. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:04:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
