By Andy McCue, 6 April 2006 15:05
NEWS
Apple this week released a public beta version of software that lets Microsoft Windows XP run natively on Intel-based Macs but IT bosses say they'd still rather stick with PCs for corporate desktop computing.
Only two out of silicon.com's 12-man CIO Jury IT user panel said that being able to run Microsoft Windows on Intel-based Macs would be more likely to make them try-out or switch to Apple desktop hardware in their organisation.
Christopher Linfoot, IT director at LDV Vans, said that Apple's move to allow Windows XP to run on Macs is aimed at "computer hobbyists" rather than business users.
He said: "It is possible to buy Windows PCs far more cheaply than equivalent Macs so why would any business buy Mac hardware just to have the option of running an operating system they don't need?"
For many the price of Apple's hardware remains an issue. Les Boggia, IT division head at insurance firm Carole Nash, said he would consider trying out Macs in the enterprise but said Apple would have to reduce the price of the hardware before it became a viable option.
Peter Pedersen, CTO at online gaming firm Blue Square, said he would only consider Apple Macs for use in design and creative departments and not in finance, IT or commercial divisions.
But Apple's decision to not offer any support for Windows on the Mac is another issue for business users.
Nick Clark, director of IT services at Tower Hamlets College, said: "It sounds like a total support nightmare. The only reason I might try it is where we already use Macs to give access to corporate software and educate the users while still allowing them to run their essential Mac-only software."
Phil Young, head of IT operations at Amtrak Express Parcels, said Windows on the Mac would have to be competitive in pricing terms with PCs.
He said: "To be honest the Apple Macs just become another make or model of PC for us to choose from. Yes they will be considered but, like other PCs, selection will be based on price, performance and not particularly aesthetics."
Today's CIO Jury wasÂ…
Neil Bath, IT director, Brewin Dolphin Securities
Alastair Behenna, CIO, Harvey Nash
Peter Birley, IT director, Browne Jacobson
Les Boggia, IT division head, Carole Nash
Ben Booth, European CTO, Mori
Chris Broad, IT director, UK Atomic Energy Authority
Nick Clark, director of IT services, Tower Hamlets College
Michael Elliot, IT director, Hasbro
John Keeling, director of computer services, John Lewis
Christopher Linfoot, IT director, LDV Vans
Peter Pedersen, CTO, Blue Square
Phil Young, head of IT operations, Amtrak Express Parcels
If you are a CIO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and you want to be part of silicon.com's CIO Jury pool, or you know an IT chief who should be, then drop us a line at editorial@silicon.com
Comments
There are 26 comments. Join the discussion
1. Kenneth E. Lamb
Congratulations on this excellent decision. I have commented upon this on my blog "Staying CyberSmart! with The CyberMeister" in an article entitled "We are The Borg - resistance is futile."
You'll find it at:
http://cybersmart.blogspot.com
2. anonymous
This just goes to show the ignorance that exists in the upper tier of the IT marketplace. Some of the statements have merit, some are blatant mischaracterizations of the facts. e.g. macs cost more. A new ROI and productivity study shows Macs significantly make (i.e. save) money over time and other studies now show Macs can be cheaper than some comparable PCs. Even if what they say holds true, I'd gladly pay a few dollars more for machine that could dual boot (think of the disaster, virus and security recovery implications here, assuming a windows attack) than skimp in the long run. Out today are new numbers that show from a laptop performance perspective that an Intel Mac running Windows XP and windows software, espeically running photoshop trounces (in a big way) machines from the likes of Dell and others. If these numbers are true, it's amusing to me that after all these years, Dell and the others haven't figured out how to best use Intel yet. Again, it would take Apple to show them the way. Keep in mind, Macs can not run Windows by default, which means that there has to be a bottleneck somewhere to get Windows to run correctly on new Intel Mac hardware. That in mind, even with a minor performance hit, it's possible that an Intel Mac blows the doors off standard PCs. Sounds like a good IT buy all around to me.
3. Stan Lukken
Nonsense. By the time that Boot Camp gets rolled into the next general release of OSX, most remaining peripheral driver issues will be resolved. When this jury comes to recognize that within one single desktop system they are also getting an enterprise-quality videoconferencing system, fully wireless communications, etc., etc., etc., they will see otherwise. The term "Apples to Apples comparison" now takes on a whole new meaning.
4. Dave Burton
Interesting to see that the IT guys still believe a mac is that much more expensive than a PC. There have been many studies into money for performance and the mac is often a cheaper alternative to a PC because even tho the specs are "lower" the processor is still faster than an equivalent PC.
worth bearing in mind. schools often choose macs because they have a lower overall cost. not sure that IT panel are really very clued up on macs. Perhaps that is the problem.
5. anonymous
I think what the CIO's fail to realize is that by having their staff move to Macintosh they will reduce their overall support costs because the Mac is a more stable, secure, and user-friendly system. The fact that you can dual-boot to Windows is nice because there will always be 1 or 2 apps that people need Windows for, but for the most part general day-to-day office work can get done in OSX (word processing, spreadsheets, email, powerpoint, etc).
6. Dennis Verhoff
Looks like some one forgot to run their spell checker for "organisation", but then if you had used a MAC to compse this article the spell check is integrated into the O/S and it would appear more professional. I worked as an IT guy for many years and have used PC's for over 15 years. I switched to MACs 2 years ago and it's the best thing since the wheel on the mouse was developed. I will never switch back but I may run XP on my MAC it's a nice feature to say run MS Map Point - for which there is no MAC version.
7. anonymous
A company should be open minded towards Macs.
One word : Virtualization
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/?www.reghardware.co.uk
8. PB
Congratulations to these obviously brilliant CIOs, every single one of whom chose to totally ignore the multiple studies that measured the TCO of Macs vs. Windows as heavily favoring Macs. Now that the barriers that provided a reason (excuse?) not to "pollute" their Windows platform consistency are being dramatically lowered, we hear that they are mostly concerned with the cost of buying cheap PCs vs. Macs.
Brilliant!
....NOT!
9. Martin Lukes
Users would have too. If I'd known how pathetically slow OS 10.4 and a 2G Intel chip is to open a spreadsheet I would have gone back to XP.
Except we weren't asked. I've used Macs for the last four years. I switched because the OS was much, much, much more stable than Windows. The OS froze about once every six months, instead of once a week with XP. When the Microsoft applications froze on a Mac they didn't take the OS with them and you always got your data back intact.
Thankfully, Apple has woken up and joined the 21st century. Now my brand new 2G Intel-inside OS10.4 iMac freezes at least once a week, yesterday three times! It's so much more like Windows. I really can't tell you how happy this makes me. Now my daily work experience is just like everyone else's and I feel so much more a part of things.
Apple seem to feel that thanks to the iPod they can put any old crap on the PC market. And don't even talk to me about Dashboard - is that the temperature in London, Wisconsin? Because it certainly wasn't 72 degrees last week in London, London.
Never mind, it's just another "God told me to do it" self-referential insistence that what they're doing is best, that is so palpably, visibly, laughably, uselessly downright WRONG. And I'm just talking about OS 10.4 and Intel chips.
10. B Shah
I think we need to think in terms of Total Cost of Ownership that includes the hidden costs of using Microsoft software. Having been an IT Manager for a while I was very surprised about the lack of stability of Microsoft software, especially for mobile users.
11. Julian Sharp
This evaluation is perhaps a little premature. The 'Boot Camp' facility is a beta of a function that is intended to be a part of the next iteration of OS X, 10.5 Leopard.
I think many would agree that a public beta is not ideal for businesses, but the functionality of beta apps can change substantially by the time they are relased as integrated products in an OS. This would seem to be a more suitable time for an evaluation to take place.
Finally, perhaps Apple are not expecting such a feature to cause a mass migration of enterprise customers ... but it might be a catalyst for small businesses who, despite having smaller spend than an enterprise, have a combined spend which is not inconsiderable.
12. j b
Apple's superior hardware will make it the support costs for running Windows lower. A dual core mac mini is a screaming fast machine for Windows or OS X, for a really low price. I think the cost of ownership for a top of the line pc just came way down.
I suspect these CIO's have not really looked into this issue deeply.
13. Simon
All I can say about the article is that it proves how blinkered upper management often are. Forget whether something is good/bad/indifferent/better/worse - it seems to come down to "does it run Windows" !
It makes as much sense as insisting that the company cannot use any vehicle that didn't come from Ford, or a copier that didn't come from Xerox, ...
These people who openly admit that they ignore potential options for no other reason that "it isn't Windows" are not fit to be in the positions they're in - though it's not the first time they've demonstrated that.
And as for Mr Lambs blog of total ignorance - all I can say is that he is clearly in the 97% of the population that's been taken in by the spin merchants from Redmond. If he actually knew the slightest thing about what he writes about he would realise that Apple is still around because they've been building products that people actually want - as opposed to buying stuff "because it's the only option given".
Time and time again, Apple leads, breaks new ground, and a few years later the rest of the computing world copies them - except that the copiers just "don't get it". It's not about the hardware design (though it is generally aethetically pleasing), it's not about the user interface (it ain't perfect), it's not about the logo (while I find cool). In fact it isn't about any single thing, it's about the whole. Lots of small things go together to make something bigger than the parts - things supporting standards because it's 'the right thing' vs deliberately trying to subvert standards to lock users in; doing things because it's what real users actually want rather than doing things because it will make things difficult for the competition.
Yes, they get things wrong, the user interface isn't perfect, I don't like their closed attitude to DRM with iTunes/iPod.
The real reason for their success ? People WANT to buy and use their stuff ! Yes, it's strange isn't it - MS users typically use it because it's what they HAVE to use or because that what came on the PC the clueless shop sold them. Apple users usually choose to use it.
14. Dick Vinegar
Hey, Denis, "organisation" is British English, not American English. But you're right about the Mac, and the CIOs are wrong.
15. Mickael Behn
I really wonder who are on this CIO Jury. They seem to be a little behind the times in all aspects of computing. There is a new generation of IT workers out there, that looks for flexibility rather then conformity.
How else do you explain the raise of Open-source and Multi-platform use? If the CIO jury had there way we would all be using Microsoft for desktops use and UNIX servers.
I have no problem with that, but using old preconceptions as a reason, show’s their lack of computing evolution. Maybe, it is true ….. You can’t teach old dogs new tricks.
Now that one system can boot up in Windows, OS X, and Linux and cost the same as the cheapest PC box (Mac Mini) there is no reason not to get. Unless, of course you wouldn’t know what to do with it and don’t know how to learn new tricks.
CIO Jury please allow for the New generation to take over if you cant move the industry forward, sometimes it not just about the 60k or 120k figures you earn sometimes its about the end user and efficiency. Let Generation IT X lead your future, it seems you cant do it anymore.
16. Greg Royal
Many of these decisions are not made by the IT organization but by other business groups as well as senior executives personal preferences. You would be amazed at how many C level use Macs at home and that preference moves into the corporation. Bottom line is that if the C level people want Macs then thats what happens. This just makes the decision easier to make.
17. Glenn Batuyong
The Windows option allows businesses to run the one or two legacy apps that doesn't yet exist on the Mac, while providing the stable, intuitive Mac OS X to run everything else.
IT people who scream about support nightmares actually fear that this will lessen their role since Mac-based systems traditionally require less troubleshooting and FAR LESS security babysitting than Windows setups.
18. Mark Schofield
Apple hardware far more expensive? Take the specifications of the Mac Mini or an I-Mac and find an equivilent Wintel computer made by a reputable manufacturer. I think you will be very suprised. You may even find the Apple hardware is cheaper. Granted, this has not always been the case.
Also, my experience has been that Apple hardware lasts longer or is used longer the wintel hardware. (due in large part to Microsoft's ever-bloating OS and the hardware requirement to run it.) But, I also believe the Apple hardware is just built better.
19. Mark Saysell
Apple machines are still commercially too expensive to replace current windows based PC’s in large based corporate roll outs.
Apple’s slow exit strategy from the PC market also raises’s uncertainty about the future of the Mac strategy and therefore could potentially raise hardware compatibility risks going forward.
The only market windows based Macs might reach is the small boutique creative agencies where style always wins over price.
20. Wise Man
Any of you “MAC” people ever wondered why these guys are on the CIO Jury and not you?
Exactly!
Rub your eyes and try to see outside the plastic white overrated/overpriced waste paper bin!
Why is it “MAC” users seem to think PC’s are so over run with errors, virus’s and system faults that it’s daft to buy PC instead of Mac?
Sensible & knowledgeable people are able to use a computer without falling foul of these easily protected against problems. PC’s are not always crashing, getting infected etc. Those of us with brains know how to use and protect our PC’s! Perhaps Macs are really computers for the simple minded: easy to use and pleasing on the eye.
Price:
It’s the most basic business model: Competition!
When upgrading a “DELL” PC, we are not limited to buying “DELL” parts. We can shop the competition for the best price and spec. PC parts are available on every street corner so, in the UNLIKELY event that a part should break, or we want to upgrade, we can replace it ourselves and at very low cost. Why would anyone want to spend so much on upgrading to a MAC and have to purchase a whole new system when they can upgrade their PC by buying individual parts that cost a fraction of the price? It just doesn’t make sense.
Also, I think were all getting carried away with the need for ULTIMATE POWER! What are you all trying to run on your computers??? Your own personal universe wide search for E.T. ??
Spec wise, a P4 2.5 with 512mb ram is enough power to comfortably run most “business” applications. 5% - 10% of a most business’s computer needs are low spec. Only a small proportion – design / network management need high spec.
21. anonymous
Hmm....
For some time it has been argued that CIO actually means "Career Is Over". These idiots have clearly demonstrated that they know little or nothing about Information and Communications Technology (ICT) investment appraisal (either ex ante or ex post). Most of these guys have never really understood anything about BUSINESS issuse, being dazzled by sharp-suited sales types rabbitting on about clock speeds, number of USB or other poirts and all the other barely relevant FEATURES of Wintel Platofrms, rather then the BENEFITS TO USERS.
One of the reasons for th emassive failures in e-commerce Phase 1 (1995-early 2001) was that the processes had been technology driven. Phase 2 has bee business objective driven, with the techies taking a back seat. (Thank God). The CIO brigade favours PCs because these High Priests of the technology can continue to pull the wool over th eyes of neophytes, and maintain thei rpower and control. Macs encourage people to EXPLORE AND LEARN. What an intersting and challenging notion...
The overwhelming empirical evidence is that TCO of Macs is far less than that of PCs, and always has been. We use both platforms, and have conducted studies of both. Our results are unambiguously in favour of Macs.
Oh, and we don't have to worry about viruses, Trojan Horses and other malware as much as the Wintel group.
Try opening your minds, guys. It might make a nice change.
Busienss School Professor in IS and e-commerce.
22. Rob Partridge
Hardly surprising they think that. If I remember rightly, it was here that I read that businesses shun using Linux on business pcs. I'd have to say that your CIO jury isn't particularly informed or forward thinking. As expected really. Why mess with what works (sort of).
23. anonymous
Hmmm...
I am afraid that PC's are not really that much cheaper - remember Macs run faster because of the pipeline, so a 1.5Ghz Mac is equivalent to a 3.0 Ghz PC in layman's terms.
Also, it is false economy anyway, because businesses have to spend a fortune on anti-virus/security software and also network administrators.
With a mac, the yearly cost of the above is zero - since networking is so easy on a Mac a 5 year old can do it, and also there is no need for huge amounts for security software.
As viruses and Malware are passed via networks, this necessitates the need for network administrators on Windows machines which is very expensive - on a Mac the likelihood of the above happening is close to never - saving thousands of pounds a year.
24. Mark Saysell
A few points:
1. The argument to say that OSX is more secure than XP is floored. Hackers will always target the biggest target i.e. MS. If OSX takes the lead then Apple are the target. Good luck.
2. Apple h/w will never compete with Dell for Corp deals. Different strategies
3. Apple should focus on the Disney JV & Home Ent content, which is what they are doing.
25. Mickael Behn
I work for 3 companies based on the same network. what i have found dealing with 60 Windows machines for 2 of the compnaies and the 3rd company only using Mac's that my time is spent raely if every with the Mac based compnay. now if that isnt proof in the pudding i dont know what is.
I spend more time making sure Anti-virus systems and anti-spyware systems are running correctly then anything else on my network. Oustide of the fact that those are things things taht slow Pc's down the most. something that i dont have to do for the macs. this all comes down to more time for me and more important matters.
Mac mini cost the same if not cheaper then most stand alone PCs (which dont have half the power). Im fine using crap dell pc because there cheap but then it just means me doing more it support for them. I stick to More expensive stable PC's to avoid doing the old IT Phone call issue "my Pc is slow can you make it faster" and this comes from people that only use Excel,word and internet. I want my company to run faster and my users to be happier. Its something i find that lacks from a lot of IT support staff ... care for the user. oh and by the way i have less hardware failures as well with Mac then Pc's so i dont have to do that much replacement power supply issues. one less cost for your cheap Pcs which seems to get more expensive as you have to fix then. you buy cheap you get expensive. you buy expenive you get working. simple facts of nature. no one gets a free ride no matter how you think you justify it.
26. Phil Young
Good to read the comments here. I agree that I may be a little out of touch with Mac's and as I said I will take a look at them to asses them, including cost of ownership when we carry out a refresh.