By Jo Best, 2 October 2009 15:14
NEWS
...is likely in my organisation."
And it seems the perception that Macs are just for design and publishing continues to hold it back from more mainstream enterprise adoption.
"Apple has for a long time been associated with producing the best OS system so long as you're a creative artist or designer. Until it shakes off that image, very few IT heads are likely to carry out a wholesale replacement of their Windows XP/Vista operating systems to the Snow Leopard OS," Turning Point's Adebayo said.
While CIOs may be content to keep Macs in the departments they've always occupied, end users have other ideas, gradually introducing Apple machines into enterprises by the back door.
A screenshot from Snow Leopard
(Photo credit: Jason Parker/CNET)
Writing last month for silicon.com, Michael Silver, research VP and distinguished analyst at Gartner, revealed that average workers are bringing Macs into their companies themselves.
"Macs are appearing in more and more organisations. But this does not signal a major change in organisations' buying habits. In fact, while Apple is still popular in some niches in business, the IT department does not purchase or sanction many of the Macs that are gaining use in businesses. Instead, end users or businesses are buying them themselves," he said.
It's a phenomenon that's only set to snowball - but IT managers need not fear: Snow Leopard is the most enterprise-friendly OS that Apple has produced.
"Apple has made each new release of Mac OS X easier to integrate with corporate resources. With the arrival of Snow Leopard, Apple added perhaps the most important feature users need to participate on their corporate network - native support for Microsoft Exchange email to mail, calendar, and address book. This will likely lead to an increase in the number of Macs IT managers will find on their networks," said Silver.
Are you a company that has converted from using PCs to Macs? Let us know your experiences by emailing editorial@silicon.com.
Comments
There are 69 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
I suspect that cost is a red herring. Lots of firms moved to Office 2007, which entailed a steep learning curve with little return on the investment for most users, and a Mac desktop doesn't cost that much more than a Windows desktop, especially if only the Windows box is replaced with a Mac Mini. The real issue, I think, is that corporate IT staff don't want to have to learn a new operating system, are afraid that their investment in learning Windows will be devalued, and perhaps recognize that in the long run Macs don't generate as much need for tech support: self-interest, pure and simple.
2. anonymous
Seems to me that a lot less tech support staff would be required if businesses switched over to the MAC O/S so the switch is not so much a matter of initial cost but the loss of jobs in the IT department
3. A. Lloyd Flanagan
If you're going to switch to a UNIX-based system anyway, why go to Apple instead of Linux? For the privilege of paying an extra $1000 a system?
4. Jeff Barbose
Their lame arguments about replacing PCs with Macs implies that the only strategy available to a company is a one-step 100% replacement of PCs with Macs. Companies don't even replace 100% of their PCs with new PCs all at once, so why would they do this with Macs?
Years and years ago it was demonstrated that it costs no more to support a heterogeneous environment of Macs & PCs than it does to support a PC-only environment (and, by the way, it was cheaper to support a Mac-only environment), and by this time that can only be an easier to demonstrate proposition.
As far as retraining people to use Macs instead of PCs, I guarantee you than there are people in every organization, people outside of graphics and design departments, who'd rather have Macs on their desks than Windows machines. Those are the people who are already Mac users and--wait for it--they don't require retraining to become Mac users because *they already are Mac users*.
So imagine an organization with both Macs and PCs--an environment which costs no more to support than a PC-only environment--with those who already know how to use and prefer to use Macs with Macs on their desks and people who know PCs having PCs on their desks.
How shocking!
And if the IT dept is having trouble getting their Windows boxes running right to support Macs, why not try Mac OS X Server? It runs $500 and has no per-client licensing fees and no problem serving files to Windows clients.
CIOs can blather on all they like and throw obstacle-buzzwords in the way in hopes that reporters meet their word quotas before getting to any substantive justification for their fear of change.
Wait, CIOs actually DO do that.
Fear of change is a desperate thing.
5. anonymous
The interesting enterprise computing battle isn't for the the desktop but on the mobile phone. People's additional hours of productivity will come because they use their phones on their off hours to move the corporate agenda forward. Corporate investment will move toward making employees more productive with their mobile phone of choice. The investment in Windows laptops will flatten and decrease over time. The corporate desktop is not a meaningful battle for Apple when they are moving everyone to the next computing device.
6. Jefe Balzerdanglin
Apple computerss are toys
7. David Gillam
In my opinion as a business owner, these CIOs are not not seeing all the options when evaluating desktop refresh solutions.
The Mac as a piece of hardware is no different from other desktops, save that it tends to be built to higher quality standards. This means that a Mac running Windows will outlast a similar PC running windows.
A Mac with Windows can boot into either Windows or OSX. The shock of a new OS is therefore mitigated, since those less willing to convert don't have to immediately. As their coworkers convert to OSX, they themselves become familiar with the new OS vicariously.
A conversion to Macs running OSX can therefore be done as a normal matter of desktop refresh attrition. Service backends do not need to change. As time goes on, experience shows me that help desk calls decrease (those with Macs tend to have fewer problems than those with PCs).
There simply does not need to be any sizable upfront cost with converting to Mac. Phase it in through the normal refresh cycles, and increase the cycle from 3 years for a PC to 5 years for a Mac. You begin to see cost benefits almost immediately, and these benefits increase over time to significant savings.
8. B. Scott Andersen
Costs are often cited in these discussions and the arguments are often specious. It is difficult to determine whether the Macintosh platform would be more expensive than Windows because most IT departments and companies have no idea how much Windows is costing them in lost productivity, excessive training costs, costs due to lost data or compromised data because of the faulty/nearly-non-existent Windows security model, and so on.
Compare, for example, my most recent experience migrating to a new Windows box. By the time I moved my data over, reinstalled all my software, recovered and reset all my settings, and so on, it cost my company 2 days of my productivity. A similar migration, which I have done many times, on the Macintosh takes roughly 2 hours.
I believe CIOs are saying no to Macs and to other initiatives not because they have hard data that helps defend those decisions, but instead precisely because they DO NOT have data on their current approach and are loath to highlight that shortcoming in any major platform discussion.
9. Mansoor Nooruddin
Why can't they use the power of volume purchase. Maintenance on Macs is so much easier and they are a illion times faster than WIndows.
10. McDave
CIOs are unlikely to adopt Macs for the same reason car mechanics are unlikely to recommend a car that doesn't need servicing.
Until ownership & definition of productivity is wrestled back from IT by the business Macs will not make sense. Shoe-horning a Mac into a technical (or functional) Windows environment is never going to be cost-effective but wholesale or hybrid-virtualised adoption is. The fact of the matter is that most IT shops are ignorant of OSX technologies and will pay $100Ks to implement 3rd-party Windows equivalents, then there's the absence of CALs, the reduction of sys admin & support staff costs, the ability to run more than one app per server reliably & on & on. Even acknowledging that every MacBook Pro ships with two spare 9-cell-equivalent batteries built in might be a good start.
Around 70% of the switchers I know are automatically more productive on OSX, it just makes more sense to them, the rest take a little time & some will never be able to make the change.
McD
11. anonymous
No to apples not only because of the price: yes the price is a big factor. But productivity should be looked at as well. Did the stability of an OS ever motivate workers to work smarter, efficient, or give out more effort...? I don't believe so. Yes..apples are esthetically pleasing but let us leave it at that. apple advertise their OS as simple to navigate as a simpleton should but keep fattening the OS up by adding extra features like compatibility with exchange servers and other Microsoft products that pretty soon the OS itself will be burdened. Therefore I agree that there were really no reason for Big Corp/Businesses to shell out big cash to migrate to apples. Unless it came with a personal trainer to whip up the employees to work more effectively.
12. Andy D
A company I worked for in the 90s was Mac only. They went PC in a big bang and it was chaos. It must have cost a fortune too.
The same story is true with Novell to NT.
Funny how CIOs can always make this justification when moving to windows...
13. Realist
The idea that a full-scale switch is even possible is laughable. Our CIO asked about the proposition and our response was "If all the expenses you know about don't bother you, keep in mind that we have over 1,500 business critical applications in use, and just under 200 of those are web-based or otherwise cross platform.
14. Matthew Boehm
I believe he is quite incorrect when he says "and more calls to my service desk team whilst staff come to grips with a system that is reportedly 'quite easy'"
What he doesn't realize is that those people that are requesting Mac's at their desk are the ones that already know how to use Mac and thus wouldn't be calling help desk with issues.
15. anonymous
Most privately owned computers are not even allowed in a corporate environment due to restrictions on network access. So to think that the "back door" introduction of Macs is actually changing corporate stance on OS X is incorrect.
16. Bill Davenport
I think this article misses the mark. To give an example, at my own company (25 users), 3 years ago we had 1 Mac user who wanted their work computer to be the same as their home computer. Now, a few years later, we have 5 Macs and will soon have 6. The adoption is coming from the most senior people at the company and what's facilitating the adoption is Bonjour / fairly easy networking, a good Mac Office suite, and the recent Snow Leopard native support for Exchange. So I don't think it's a case of all computers need to be PCs or Macs at a given location, and the question for any given user is does the incremental cost of Mac over PC (plus any additional support costs) produce enough ROI to warrant the move.
17. Mike Pearson
I have a simpler explanation. CIOs have a sunk investment in their hardware. The investment is more than the equipment, it is also the training and support material. This creates a built-in inertia effect that has to be overcome. Hype is what overcomes inertia - whereby new technology is oversold - creating sufficient energy to shift the company.
Swapping a hardware platform with another hardware platform is UNLIKELY to ever succeed - why would I change things for a 5% cost saving, or a 5% productiviyt gain.
I make a similar argument about Open Office
18. kkraz
I'd love to switch to Apple, but the competition has a service level that brings and installs replacement parts anyplace in the US within 1 business day. I've used it in some odd locations, so I know they're serious. Apple doesn't offer anything comparable. Until they do, I don't think they're really chasing the corporate demographic.
19. anonymous
you should learn to spell organizations if your going to be a writer for your career.
"Macs are appearing in more and more organisations. But this does not signal a major change in organisations' buying habits. "
20. anonymous
Glad my work hasn't forced me to learn a Mac yet. If they ever do I'll probably be looking for work elsewhere as I'm more accustomed to running a 50/50 Linux/Windows setup which is far more efficient when it comes to regulating servers and such other nonsense.
21. Ben Harris
You should learn that outside the us words are spelt how they were originally intended and that organisations is quite appropriate to a large percentage of the worlds population.
Anyway, nearly everyone missed the point that it isn't about hardware lock-in - it's software. Apple lacks support for far too much mission-critical software.
I know you could just boot into windows, but if that's the case why switch at all?
22. anonymous
There are two large problems with adopting Mac's in to an enterprise. In Our organization, we have 800+PC’s and 1 Mac. Our Marketing department requires it to run Photoshop and to work with a specialized Fiery Printer.
1. Lack of software support. While Mac's work great with web based applications, we have several critical applications that are use to support the products that we sell and they are windows only; the manufacturer of the products does not make a version of the software for Mac and probably never will.
2. Lack of centralized management. One of the main reasons windows is so popular with IT pro's is the fact that if can be controlled from a central location with Active Directory. the most common cause of windows problems is end users playing with setting they should not mess with, or installing 3rd party software that has not be tested by the IT department. There are a lot of programs out there that are badly written and will cause problems. This is not Microsoft’s fault, But the Mac guys love to point the finger at them for it. With AD we can keep users form installing things we have not tested, and lock them out of settings they should not be playing with. I cannot do that to the one Mac that our marketing department has and my staff always has to undo whatever problems the user has created. This one Mac is the most burdensome PC in our entire enterprise. Not because of the OS, but because we can’t keep the end user for changing the settings without disciplinary action.
With the advances in the PC over the last few years and with Mac now moving to an Intel base platform, the marketing departments can no longer justify the Mac as being superior for graphics and design. that is simply a mith that holds over form the Motorolla/PPC based Mac's. now they both run Photoshop equally well. When our next hardware refresh for the Marketing Department takes place we will be replacing the Mac with a PC.
23. Foo Bar
This article is simply not true -- at least in Europe, I see lots of Macs, specially between software developers. I can tell that from my own experience in two countries - Portugal and Netherlands.
The truth is that the demand from staff is huge, and many companies are adopting Macs.
24. anonymous
Good points, but a couple of issues in actual usage--Snow Leopard still has some issues with AD integration. Leopard was better at it, which makes that disappointing. Also, Exchange integration for Mail is for Exchange 2007 only. With the glacial speed that large organizations have for system upgrades, it may be awhile before they make that move. That keeps Mac users stuck using the atrocious Entourage.
As a note, I am an MCSE running a mixed environment (50/50 PC and Mac) on a Windows server network. These are real-life observations.
25. Bruce
I work in IT at a real IT shop: *nix as far as the eye can see with some Windows stuff. If I was asked to use a PC, my productivity would certainly drop due to the lack of utility software.
Given the open document support of office, by 2011, there will be no compelling reason to purchase a PC other than perceived cost differences and fear.
26. anonymous
Funny how the CIOs underestimate human intelligence to such an extent ... and end up with a solution that is awkward, painful, and cumbersome for the people to use, who nevertheless get used to it anyway.
If you create a welcome video that can be played on demand, that includes a tutorial for starting/stopping, using MSOffice, Inserting/Removing USB drives, Configuring/using Mail and Printing, they do not need anything else.
Cost is not such a big differentiator any more. A similarly configured Dell PC costs pretty much the same.
Try configuring a 13.3" Dell Studio XPS 13 with the slowest processor 2.13ghz and with bluetooth - without even a slightly faster processor and the 7hour battery, it costs pretty much the same as a comparable macbook pro. Ignore other benefits as green machine, ilife software, sleek looks, firewire port etc.
And of course the vista downgrade costs are not included either :)
We have many macs in our office we changed up last year and have not had any issues in the transition. Agreed the off question about how to eject a cd may come up - but that is resolved not with tech support but with colleague level talk with peers.
27. Jake Whiggling
Hardware is only part of the equation.
Software is the primary concern. If you are a PC shop, you know, with reasonable amount of certainty, your software is going to work to the next platform. The total amount of software usually exceeds the cost of PCs.
Few would choose to start over with with a non-compatible platform for the massive investment made in software. Don't forget training your users.
You could argue that MACs can run PC software. Why do this if you already have PCs.
What are you really getting with changing a platform? Is a platform change worth what you think you're getting?
28. Dave
fanboys.
29. anonymous
Seems typically short-sighted: "...but probably more daunting a prospect to the millions who have grown up with a PC and Windows products all their life."
How about the lost productivity of all the workers who grew up using Macs and find using Windows to be daunting and challenging? Companies that realize putting the system that makes their works the most productive will ultimately be more successful than the ones that box their workers into a single system.
30. mrgjr
LOL, are you serious? The cost is HUGE. You have to repurchase every copy of office, and what about those applications productivity applications that don't have a MAC equivalent. The majority of businesses have at least 1 if not multiple apps like that. The upfront cost of purchasing MACs vs. equivalent PC's is huge. How do I administer the clients in a comparable way to the group policy setups? The training issue is big. I'm not sure how many sales people, admins, data entry people you have dealt with, but switching them from Outlook Express to Outlook 2003 took multiple training classes and increased calls to the help desk. I can't imagine switching them from a windows environment to a OSX environment. Their heads would explode. Not to mention the lost productivity while they re-learned how to perform functions they have been doing for years a certain way. The question is what would the payback for doing all this be? Would the ROI be worth it?
31. anonymous
It's not just the end users OS you have to look at when doing a OS upgrade or change. Look at the other business applications. Do you have a piece of software that will work on the new OS to replace the one you are currently using. I know in my work environment the critical ERP software interface is not available for Mac and in Vista it errors out about 50% of the time. People thinking that IT wants to stay on Windows for job security always makes me think of the quote "You can't see the forest for the trees."
32. Mark
This seems perfect for any company. Want a mac, pay for it yourself. Just think of the cost savings for the company. Not to mention if they added the whole "you bought it you support it" mentality.
33. smacdonald
How about companies not wanting to be tied to a single supplier of their computer technology.
Can't really get competing bids from Apple against Apple.
34. D Shue
While it seems that most people commenting on here are Mac fans. I would like to point out several things.
1. Most Corporations, over 100 employees, have too many apps that require Windows to work. There is parallels but that is not really an answer for replacing the OS.
2. Currently Apples OS X is one of the most secure available. But part of this is due to the small usage in the OS world. Once that increases they will not be able to maintain that security level. Any please don't forget that the largest security hole in any OS is sitting in front of the keyboard.
3. While in a small office environment, less than 100 system, the change over would work well. Some people are just not willing to learn a new OS, mostly the older employees. While some may see this as not a problem, try and replace them with people willing to change. Will not be as easy as you might think.
I for one would love to see Apple's OS take a lager portion of the over all OS world. This would put every one on a much fairer playing field. It would also make Apple reduce their prices to compete in the market.
35. Citizen.Anon
I switched after 15 years of bad experience with Windows. It took me about 15 minutes to be productive on OSX. Really, I was shocked. Every day that goes by since then, I'm pleased with new discoveries and capabilities that I simply couldn't have done so easily on Windows. It takes a real idiot to not be productive on an OSX. Or, one that is counting on keeping themselves employed in maintaining the fragile Windows platform.
36. Galvin Green
I love my mac it has changed the way I work, but I am a one man band. Changing a huge company would just cost so much. Shame because the mac is so much better.
37. Red Right
kicker...
before making petty and smart-arsed (yes, we spell 'ass', 'arse' in the rest of the English-speaking world) comments around spelling, perhaps you should consider that your lack of worldliness probably precludes your views from having any genuine insight...
38. anonymous
One month ago I gave my 76 year old Mother-in-Law an Imac when her windows98 PC came to an end. People that say learning curve is a problem for companies to remain productive, but if a 76 year old can switch, it's not a big problem. Also my brother is an IT admin for a 300 person dept in a University. He has switched 50+ users to macs and there is no loss in productivity. As well, these users also bought macs for home through Apple's educational employee discount program.
I know that people are afraid to change, but MSoft Certified professionals that I know do not like to go outside of the Borg territory.
It's your choice to ask your CIO to look into Mac OSX.
39. Mike
I have to laugh at this. Replace the word "Macs" in the title with "Linux", change the year to 2000 and you'll find that you've seen this article before.
In 1999, I was working as a system administrator at a large telecom company. We were pushing IT management to allow the use of Linux servers in the datacenter and they kept pushing back for various reasons.
Now that same company's datacenter is 90% Linux. And guess what? They're replacing their Windows desktops with Macs, slowly but surely. Management has woken up to the concept of interoperability between platforms, and they're buying the right tools for the right job.
Sure, you're not going to replace every single Windows PC out there with a Mac or Linux box. However all but the staunchest of Microsoft IT departments are waking up to the idea that diversity is a *good* thing.
40. anonymous
The issue is not the direct cost, it is the ability and infrastructure to centrally manage the systems. Automated software deployment, centralized management of patching and updates, a predictable road map for the hardware/OS platform & third party vendor/application support all contribute to make the PC the preferred choice for the enterprise business. Apple has shown no indication that they are working to remediate these shortcomings. Instead the focus on the consumer markets and until open up communication of their future plans and design tools like Microsoft has for centralized management PCs will continue to be the choice for business.
41. Larson
I hope that enterprises considering moving to OS X know about JAMF software's Casper Suite. We use it at my 2,500 node environment and it is the only Mac client management software I would recommend.
42. YourITguy
The organization I work for gets a mass influx of help desk calls when we roll out a few Windows Updates or push the yearly password change. I can't imagine the amount of phone calls we get from people screaming at us because Outlook "looks different". At least where I work now, not in a million years would we be willing to switch.
43. anonymous
Apple will never make it into the enterprise world unless they start using a different tactic.
Microsoft is deep inside the company I work for (+20.000 employees). Their 'consultants' only consult (preach) 1 thing; Microsoft solutions
Unless Apple invests in an equal (aggressive) approach to the enterprise market, they'll never convince the decision makers where I work to invest in apple hard- / software.
44. anonymous
Even the laptop users are a mixed group, as some laptops are for specific applications/groups, and others are for general population users, so creating a Mac solution for them would almost be impossible.
We do not just use base XP installs, instead, we have custom images preloaded with our apps, security settings, group policies, etc. I think the cost to build a similar solution on a Mac would be too high, and factoring in the user base, almost not worth it. The user training alone would be a huge cost, and the support for them would be worse. For base users, (office apps, web-based solutions, etc.), a Mac would work just as well as a PC, but from a security and policy implementation standpoint, I don't think it would be feasible. The majority of the clients I have dealt with in my years have never used a Mac, and though some have considered buying one as a personal device, many still would not embrace one if it was provided by their job.
I believe the hardware cost would be higher, based on initial purchase pricing. For example, a base Macbook costs $1000, and that does not include any hardware support. As far as I know, Apple does not negotiate with companies for onsite repair/support. Now, a similar business class laptop from a PC vendor costs the company $850, and includes 3 years of full warranty, break/fix included, and these laptops are made for field service, and can be disassembled and reassembled with very little effort. If a laptop is broken today, the vendor will provide us all parts needed to repair the laptop in field, including casing, motherboard, etc, all without cost to the company, all shipped overnight.
Don't get me wrong, I really believe that Macs have a future in the business/enterprise world, but maybe in smaller companies, and in specific industries. I know I would purchase one for personal use, but for Enterprise, not really.
45. anonymous
Agreed! Apple is not looking at the desktop as a frontier to conquer.
And the real truth is that it is the "old guard" i.t. managers who keep Apples out of the work place because they don't understand them. They are also threatened by the thought of losing their control/jobs by bringing any into their environment. They kill projects involving Macs with 20 year old fantasies built on mis-information.
As you see younger college graduates entering MIS director and Management positions, you will see PC's fade from glory. And they may not be making way for Macs but instead for Linux machines.
46. anonymous
No, I do believe that Macs are more expensive than PCs per dollar with little return on performance.
An $800 PC is most likely more powerful than an $800 Mac.
Price definitely has something to do with it.
There is also a lot more software options with Windows than a Mac (but less so than in previous years).
Also, it's easier to upgrade a PC considering you don't need Apple's own pieces.
I also don't feel that these people would be buying Mac OS to "paste" over previous OSes on computers already purchased.
47. anonymous
It's always about the applications. Make the decision to invest in applications that are platform agnostic. Obviously many things can use web based systems. But they need to run in standards compliant browsers. Then if you want to switch to Mac OS, Linux or some future BeOS resurrected, you can. Any straggler apps can always use Terminal Services, Citrix or desktop virtualization environments. It won't happen overnight, but the only one locking you into one vendor's environment is your own purchasing decisions.
48. anonymous
It would be wise of CIOs to go for a mix of Windows and Macintosh. The monoculture that exists at many workplaces, where all workstations, all laptops, and all (or most) servers are Windows machines, makes them all susceptible to the same threats from viruses, worms, malware, etc. By mixing in Macs (or even Linux, if you have users that want it) you are protecting yourself from a complete attack, as it is unlikely that any single virus, or virus family, will be written that is effective on such different platforms. Diversity is good.
p.s. as for Macs being "toys" none of the Consumer or PC magazines seem to agree. Nor do individual laptop purchasers.
49. Peter Evans-Greenwood
Why do we even own the desktop? With most (all?) applications virtualized, there's little dependence between the hardware our employees use and the applications they access. Some firms are even setting short term goals--around 2 years--to make employees to being their own laptops as part of the employment contract.
50. anonymous
No, I do believe that Macs are more expensive than PCs per dollar with little return on performance.
An $800 PC is most likely more powerful than an $800 Mac.
Price definitely has something to do with it.
There is also a lot more software options with Windows than a Mac (but less so than in previous years).
Also, it's easier to upgrade a PC considering you don't need Apple's own pieces.
I also don't feel that these people would be buying Mac OS to "paste" over previous OSes on computers already purchased.
51. NtroP
Many users are asking for macs (and iPhones). The CIO's are "management" who's hands-on IT skills are old and stale - allowing an alternative to Microsoft in is a risk and demands they learn something new.
Besides, they have a vested interest in keeping Microsoft in their businesses because it's job security and perpetuates the status quo.
52. Karl
We use macs in my department, and while they're a joy to use, reliability is a pain in the ass.
At least with a pc if something breaks you can go out to the local computer store and buy a replacement part. With a mac you need to send it back to apple, wait 3 to 4 weeks only to be told it's not covered by warrenty and you've got to pay for whatever it is that needs replacing.
I've had this happen 6 times with my current macbook, and several co-workers have had similar experiences.
53. Yves De Billoëz
Hardware cost is about 5% of total cost. That argument does not hold. In a corporate environment, a PC costs about 6000$/year for maintenance.
In my organisation, replacing 60000 PC's with Macs would mean a long period of testing and maintaining a lot of applications on 2 different platforms for a number of years. Until we are all using on-line applications without ActiveX, no way a superior OS would end up in the organisation. If an organisations would undertake this, costs of machines will go down after the transition is complete.
A mac/pc specialist....
54. mrgjr
I've been following this thread and I still haven't seen the people advocating companies switch address the issue of the cost of switching, the applications that will only run in windows that most organizations use, I did see something about using browser based apps, but a company is going to purchase the application that does the job most effectively regardless of platform not based on if it's browser compliant, Network management with group policies, etc.. Terminal Services, user training. I did see some people saying that it took them 15 minutes to become productive with OSX. Well, that is not the typical user. Users get confused with small changes, this would be a huge change. Using excel for windows is different than using excel for the MAC. You can't just say switch because the MAC is better. Give us some ROI reasons to switch. Not comments about how the old people are resistant to change. When I want to buy any new software or hardware I have to submit a business case that lays out why we are switching, what the benefits are, what the ROI is, etc... I can't just say I want to switch because the MAC is cool. And no, I won't be able to reduce my help desk staff, more than likely I would need to have the work more hours to facilitate a huge change like this.
55. anonymous
A few people have spotted the real issues.
I have direct experience working in a company that went from nearly all Mac on the desktop to 80% Windows. A lot of the drive was driven by the ignorant IT manager using arguments like "Office on Mac won't open documents" - err, that's because we were running 9 year old machines and never updated the software ! The suggestion that we simply update Office wasn't considered.
As other have said, the biggest issue is software support - and that's a catch 22 situation. Unless people start asking for it then it'll never happen - so if you are a CIO, start asking, and if you don't then you are basically saying that you are happy writing blank cheques (checks to our US friends) to Microsoft for them to fill in the value and cash when they feel like it. Doesn't have to be Mac, can be Linux as well - your first question should be "what platforms does this run on", and the second should be "what OPEN standard are supported" (and make sure this really does mean that it's files are using an open standard rather than something they've made up).
It is true that Apple are weak in the management side of things. It isn't true to say there is no management (if you think that then it's equally true that a desktop Windows install not linked into AD with all the GPs set is unmanaged).
Again, next time you are talking to vendors about management stuff, ask about their Apple and Linux support.
Having watched things first hand (I now work in a place where I'm *the* Mac expert - and Cisco and Linux and Networking) I can say that most small businesses don't use the stuff built into Windows - Macs would be no less managed anyway. Yes that's different in larger outfits, but small businesses actually employ more people in total.
It's not going to happen overnight, but if people keep asking the right questions, then it will come. Lets face it, only a few years ago it was "acceptable" to build an IE6 only website. Now people are waking up to the fact that the broken **** they made now needs to be updated to work with anything else. The same can happen on the desktop IF enough people want it to.
56. karen challinor
lots of handwaving arguments on both sides here
everyone is convinced they are right and the CIO is an idiot for ignoring their views
but no one seems to want to build a business case giving TCO versus benefits relative to staying with the current equipment and presenting that to the board
you are the one who benefits, so you work out the numbers, you build your case and you fight your corner with the board
no one else is obliged to do this for you no matter how much you complain
57. anonymous
"Prohibitive up front costs" - RUBBISH. The number one reason Office IT Directors do not upgrade to Macs is because they know which side their bread is buttered on - most workplaces I've seen that run on Macs don't require "around the clock" IT support like Windows ones - an on site consultant a few times a week is enough, and most simple questions can be answered by email support.
IT Guys are not about to do themselves out of a job.
58. Renzo Miletich
Macs force people to change their mentality from right to left rather than the inverse. Left to right activities make us look busy (creating spreadsheets, ppt and other documents) but the end result is may not be as important. Macs; by design force you to think of the end product first and then start the busy work.... that allows you to work on what's really important and make an impact...
59. anonymous
"The power of Apple's 64-bit processing is very attractive," Spire Healthcare IM&T director Marc O'Brien said. "
Um, Windows has had 64-bit for years. Linux too.
60. anonymous
The real reason is they are not trained in Apple networking and this is job security.
61. Stephen Vermillion
Yes cost is a factor, but Apple's server leaves a lot to be desired. I manage a network of over 1200 macs and open directory is nothing compared to active directory. Quite simply Mac OS is not an enterprise operating system.
62. anonymous
I've worked in all mac environments and hybrid environments and what it really comes down to is the same reason people chose to go away from Novell to MS servers.
The Mac server platform is lacking sorely. They are at least 3 years behind the PC environment. Each business/industry has its own needs but just look at the things missing from the Mac Enterprise environment:
1. No Sharepoint
2. No Resource Booking in Entourage
3. No Exchange - Apple does not even use its own mail server.
4. Office for Mac lacks key features like full pivot table support in Excel
5. No ASP support in Web Browsers
6. Limited third party app support.
7. Limited warranty options (you can buy 3 years or nothing)
These items are more barriers to entry in my opinion versus hardware cost. App support (or lack thereof) separates the PC from the Pack.
Its funny how a lot of people using macs now spend a majority of their business day in a windows VM.
63. Alister
To the poster who queried the spelling of organisation/organization: rather than telling someone to learn how to spell, _you_ should learn that in other parts of the English-speaking world, spellings can be different.
So don't be so patronising -- or as you might say, patronizing.
64. Benny Placido
I think you guys are just very bad people. It's grossly unfair to print stories like this when you know full well that the Apple junkies and Mac lovers are going to go apoplectic with rage. Happens every single time. Keep it up.
65. kuyachan
I don't think Macs are near being an enterprise computer very soon. Unless everything is done in the internet then you will have PCs dominate the enterprise market. And if anyone will say that maintaining a Mac costs less than doing the same for a PC kindly present evidence or statistics. Taking someone else' words without any data to back it up is pretty unlikely to be believable.
66. McDave
CIOs are unlikely to adopt Macs for the same reason car mechanics are unlikely to recommend a car that doesn't need servicing.
Until ownership & definition of productivity is wrestled back from IT by the business Macs will not make sense. Shoe-horning a Mac into a technical (or functional) Windows environment is never going to be cost-effective but wholesale or hybrid-virtualised adoption is. The fact of the matter is that most IT shops are ignorant of OSX technologies and will pay $100Ks to implement 3rd-party Windows equivalents, then there's the absence of CALs, the reduction of sys admin & support staff costs, the ability to run more than one app per server reliably & on & on. Even acknowledging that every MacBook Pro ships with two spare 9-cell-equivalent batteries built in might be a good start.
Around 70% of the switchers I know are automatically more productive on OSX, it just makes more sense to them, the rest take a little time & some will never be able to make the change.
McD
67. Code Monkey
Basically, the answer seems to be: "No, we're too committed/incompetent/poor/stodgy to change!"
I understand inertia and the Devil-You-Know syndrome, but I have to say that since I switched to Apple (OS X was the key, previous systems were not worth the effort) both at work and at home I have been able to work much more effectively with much less downtime. Yes, Apples do cost more but support is superb and they really do make life easier.
68. anonymous
Its just a shame this debate has to take place at all.
We all know Windows creates jobs for the IT boys and girls, jobs which in a Mac dominated world, probably wouldn't even exist!
Surely in a world dictated to by "bottom lines" that's all the argument you needed.
69. Listohan
This has been the motivation since the dawn of time. If cost is such an issue (bugger productivity) why not standardise on Trabants for the car pool? These fancy, well paid CIO types backed the wrong horse in the beginning and would lose face to admit it to their boards now.