PBS columnist: IT hates Macs because 'Macs reduce IT head count'

PBS's I, Cringely, the pulpit via MacDailyNews ^ | August 15, 2003 | Robert X. Cringely

[Swordmaker]

"Why aren't Apple Macintosh computers more popular in large mainstream organizations? Whatever the gigahertz numbers say, Macintoshes are comparable in performance to Windows or Linux machines. Whatever the conventional wisdom or the Microsoft marketing message, Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper. Nobody would argue that Macs are harder to use. Clearly, they are easier to use, especially on a network. So what's the problem? Why do Macs seem to exist only in media outfits," asks Robert X. Cringely for PBS?

Cringely writes, "Apple is clearly wondering the same thing because the company recently surveyed owners of their xServe 1U boxes asking what Apple could do to make them more attractive? For those who own xServes, they are darned attractive -- small, powerful, energy-efficient, easy to configure and manage, and offering dramatic savings for applications like streaming. Yet, Apple appears to be having a terrible time selling the things."

"I used to think it came down to nerd ego. Macs were easy to use, so they didn't get the respect of nerds who measured their testosterone levels by how fluently they could navigate a command line interface.  Now, I think differently. Now, I think Macs threaten the livelihood of IT staffs. If you recommend purchasing a computer that requires only half the support of the machine it is replacing, aren't you putting your job in danger? Exactly," writes Cringely. "Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job."

Cringely writes, "Now another question: Why are Linux computers gaining in popularity with large organizations while Macs, which are based after all on BSD Unix, aren't? While there is certainly a lot to be said for Linux in competition with various flavors of Windows (Linux is faster, more memory-efficient, more secure, has more sources of supply, supports many more simultaneous users per box in a server environment, and is clearly cheaper to buy), the advantage over Macintosh computers is less clear."

"Again, it comes down to the IT Department Full Employment Act. Adopting Linux allows organizations to increase their IT efficiency without requiring the IT department to increase ITS efficiency. It takes just as many nerds to support 100 Linux boxes as 100 Windows boxes, yet Linux boxes are cheaper and can support more users. The organization is better off while the IT department is unscathed and unchallenged," Cringely writes.

"I am not claiming that every organization should throw out its PCs and replace them with Macs, but the numbers are pretty clear, and the fact that more Macs don't make it into server racks has to be based on something, and I think that something is CIO self-interest," writes Cringely. "Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that."

Amen.

[Swordmaker]

I have not had any problems networking Macs, PCs and other computers, or with sharing printers or sharing files. I have networked both Macs and PCs... and the Macs are easier to set up, easier to maintain, and both Macs and Windows computers can access them as servers or vice verse.

As to legacy Mac applications, "classic" emulation under OS X.2.6 runs everything I have asked it to (some all the way back to the 1980s)... if there is a problem, which I have not encountered, I can boot into OS 9.2 and run it independently of OS X.

Carbonized applications are NOT OS X native; they are older applications that have been modified so they can work under both OS 9.2 and OS X. Applications written to the "Cocoa" standard are native OS X.

Costs occur when you upgrade any software... carbonized or not. UNIX does not really require ANY GUI to access Unix software and the Mac GUI has a command line interface to do whatever you want in UNIX... on the Mac. You can run any UNIX User interface you want.

Why should I need a driver for older SCSI components that are obsolete... but I have a SCSI interface on my Firewire bus that does that job quite nicely, thank you.

Linux is not the topic here... but it requires a lot more technical know how than using the Mac in a similar environment.

[cschroe]

I couldn't agree more. In this 'information age' the core competencies of a 'knowledge worker' must include the ability to keep a pc with essential apps running. I hate the 'let's keep them dumb and helpless' approach of most IT departments. I find it offensive.

That would be nice. Except when the end user fixes something to the point he can't recover, who's he going to call to fix it? IT. When IT deploys new server side software that also requires upgrades to desktop apps, who's going to install them, or troubleshoot a problem with the upgrade? And let's not forget the ogre of software licensing. How on earth can you police that if your end user has the ability to install anything?

[Phsstpok]

I loved OS/2 Warp

did you know David Barnes or hang out with the Team OS/2 boosters at Comdex? I have some very fond memories of hanging out with some very interesting people. I still have my "salmon" shirt from one Comdex (it's not pink, that would be ugly, it's salmon!).

Architecturally OS/2 is VM ported to Intel, while NT is VMS ported to Intel. Now that's the 8th and 9th layers of the 7 layer model... religious and political. That rivalry was way more fierce and ideological than Wintel vs Mac.

[Benrand]

Mac OSX IS Unix... and a particularly robust one at that.

Does it work on a plain jane box? I don't think it does. Did you read what I wrote? The bit about using Macs to manage a network? It *was* the point I was making.

In addition, my G4 has a three button, wheel track ball that works quite well, Thank you.

Well that's fine, so what...every Mac I've ever used has one stupid big button. That hinders productivity IMO...

How much money would it cost for me to put OSX on a box that I buy all the individual parts for and set up myself? Can I do this, or do I need to go through Apple to make this happen?

[July 4th]

I agree with you, and this is the reason I will never use Macs for my own personal use. Crashes can be unexpected, ugly, and very messy. I've seen several, both on one that I used to have, and ones belonging to others. (I compare this to my arsenal of Windows machines which have never had one major problem. If there was, I could get software or parts in a flash.)

Additionally, there is much out there in terms of freeware and shareware that you just can't get on Macs. This includes a variety of unique DVD file editors written for specific purposes, audio compression and processing software, and various controllers for my LCD display. There's also a fair amount of stuff out there on the Mac that's available, but doesn't work as well. The bottom line is that I can't get a Mac to do what I want it to do, so it's pointless for me to ever consider purchasing one.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I love the way Mac owners try to say that mac sare easier to use, especially considering that they compare 15 year old PC to the Mac. Windows XP is far easier to use than Mac's OS X.

[Chief_Joe]

I have not had any problems networking Macs, PCs ... Macs are easier to set up, easier to maintain...

As to legacy Mac applications, "classic" emulation under OS X.2.6 runs everything I have asked it to...

Ok, I'll bite. How many steps are required to map/mount a Windows share on a Mac OX.. desktop? Now how many are required to map/mount the same share on a Windows' desktop, and could you explain to what makes the makes Mac OX.. system easier and better to work with? Legacy apps running under classic, virtual Mac, mode run "better" than applications on PCs with Windows??? Again, I beg to differ.

[wiseone]

CoreComputers ,another “ clone”choked out of business by apple!

http://www.2khappyware.com/

[ThinkDifferent]

Windows XP is far easier to use than Mac's OS X.

I disagree, as do many who have tried both.

[ThinkDifferent]

How many steps are required to map/mount a Windows share on a Mac OX.. desktop?

"Connect to Server" from Finder, select machine, enter username/password. Or "mount_smbfs" from the command line, very useful for working remotely. Next?

[CheneyChick]

LOL - my preferring to use a Mac is as logical a choice as being a conservative.... Using a pc makes about as much sense as being a steenkin' liberal. Just my humble opinion, of course.

Cheers, CC :)

[PatrioticAmerican]

""Connect to Server" from Finder, select machine, enter username/password."

Same in the XP world. Simple select-n-click.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Two reasons PC dominates Mac:

Modularity. A PC can be tailored far more exactly to what each user needs, simply because there are more and a greater variety of producers of PC hardware than Mac. And that tailoring means less money is wasted on resources that are not needed.

Software development. The great albatross of the old Mac was the lack of anything to run on it. So producing software on a Mac became a niche business. Nowadays, despite more software availability, this means that the number of places I can go to get software developed for my Mac is less than for my PC. So if a small business needs a particular eclectic software constructed, it has very few and much more expensive options if it is running Mac hardware. I can't throw a rock out my window without hitting a PC software engineer.

Oh, and as far as games are concerned, the 1400+ different games that someone's search found are the newest and most modern. This is just a syptom of point 2. It doesn't pay to expend the resources to develop games for the Mac, especially now that the average top-shelf game costs $2-$4 million to develop. There aren't enough Mac users/gamers to recoup those development costs. So the problems with Mac games are a good window into the reasons that Mac will never be commercially viable in most businesses....

[Swordmaker]

"Windows XP is far easier to use than Mac's OS X."

I disagree, as do many who have tried both.

I work everyday on Windows XP, 2000, 98, NT, ME, and even a few 95s... and none of them are as easy to use, configure, set-up, network, as Mac OS X.

Those Windows users who blythely state that "XP" or any wintel OS is easier to use have not USED OS X...

[Sofa King]

I agree. Really, I have had my PC for a little more than 3 years now. I've had to replace the CD-ROM (this can hardly be blamed on Windows, as it was made by a third party), I installed a new hard drive (again, not Windows fault, the old one just wasn't big enough anymore to install all of my PC games) and once had to deal with a virus. I did all of this on my own without, pretty much by simply reading the instruction manuals. I'm still running Windows 98, by the way.

My father runs his own company. He's been using PCs since as far back as I can remember and he's never had a serious problem. Some of the computers at the office ran for at LEAST 5 years without failing.

If your PC breaks every year, or even every 2 years, then you are doing something wrong. If all you ever do with your computer at work is use Powerpoint, Excel, and MS word, and IE then there's no reason for your computer to be having any problems that you can't fix yourself on a regular basis.

[Swordmaker]

Legacy apps running under classic, virtual Mac, mode run "better" than applications on PCs with Windows??? Again, I beg to differ.

I note that another freeper has already listed the simple steps required to map a network PC drive to the Mac desktop on OS X... I would add one last step to his: make an alias of the mapped drive and leave it on the desktop to make it a one-step connection or no step if an application needs it on another session.

I am afraid you are mis-reading what I wrote... What legacy app did I state ran better under classic than an app under a PC with Windows? Are you, perhaps, refering to my comment that MS Office X is a superior implementation to the XP implementation? MS Office X IS not a "legacy application," it is completely "carbonized" (although not completely "cocoa"ized), and it runs as an OS X application with no need for "classic mode."

As a matter of fact, Macintosh legacy applications DO run faster and load faster under the OS X "classic emulation" than they do under a native OS 9 on the same computer.

[Swordmaker]

Well that's fine, so what...every Mac I've ever used has one stupid big button. That hinders productivity IMO...

The point is that the Mac can have whatever type of input device the user wants... one button, two button, three, wheel, trackballs... any USB pointing device, whatever. Your opinion is un-informed. YOUR limited experience has shown you only one-button meese does not qualify you to hold that opinion.

[Swordmaker]

...this is the reason I will never use Macs for my own personal use. Crashes can be unexpected, ugly, and very messy. I've seen several, both on one that I used to have, and ones belonging to others. (I compare this to my arsenal of Windows machines which have never had one major problem. If there was, I could get software or parts in a flash.)

Hmmmm... I have made a lot of money repairing "unexpected, ugly, and very messy" crashes on various incarnations of Windows computers... and a ton of money resurrecting them from various virus attacks which, generally, do not happen on Macs.

Your very limited Macintosh experience obviously includes absolutely no experience with OS X... which is brand new, completely different, from all previous Macintosh operating systems. My OS X installation has now been running continuously, without a crash for 15 months, 24/7. The only restarts required have been those when I updated OS X. Software installations do not require a restart.

I have a number of business clients. About 3/4s of them use networked PCs and the other quarter use networked Macintoshes, sometimes with a PC tossed in to the mix. I can asssure you that real world experience on both platforms tells me that PCs break down more oftenrequired more maintenance, and much more attention, than Macs. Several times I have had to rebuild entire networks of PCs when they were invaded by PC viruses before McAfee or Norton had provided the anti-virus for that particular virus (or because the network owner had gotten lax in following the procedures I set up to keep the virii definitions updated). Not once have I had a Macintosh network fail.

I have had individual Mac computers develop minor problems... but most were solved with a short visit. Hardware problems are no more difficult on a Mac than on a PC... and are less frequent.

[Benrand]

Ok, so what...stock Macs come with a one button mouse, I don't like it...

No run away to your idiosyncratic Mac and enjoy yourself.

Slow, expensive and weird is no way to market a computer.

[HamiltonJay]

Ah yes, the guy WRITING about a field is more knowlegable than the people doing the work? Be real. Macs lost the IT battle years ago.

So, your solution is that IT, which you claim is already too expensive, should support 2 different platforms for N years while the whole organization slowly changes OS and hadware, and that this will save money?????? Obviously you've never planned an IT budget.

Sure its PCI, but whos got the drivers? Eh? You know what MS's single biggest competitive edge is? DRIVERS, pure and simple... I may be able to plug some obscure PCI card into a mac, but that doesn't mean I can use it effectively... Also, how many PCI's can I get in your best MAC? Do I have countless options like PC, or a limited subset of whatever the heck APPLE decides I need? In PC land I can get whatever I want, if I am willing to pay, countless manufacturers fill the gaps that the mass producers avoid.. .Mac has not the ability nor the budget to ever offer some of the hardware configurations I can find off the shelf for PC motherboards....

Macs are nice machines, and I am glad they went to a unix based OS, but they aren't going to take over the corporate desktop... I've walked through apple headquarters hallways, I know people who work there, they do some really neat stuff, but they are not going to become the Enterprise desktop computer.... that's just reality.

Sorry, Mac has lost the battle, its been over for close to 20 years... anyone thinking MAC is even a player in Enterprise desktop is dillusional.

IT decisions are made by inertia... what will give us the biggest improvement with the least pain! Period. To justify PAIN or potential pain in any way shape of form the payoff has to be huge, or it doesn't happen, and guess what, MAC's don't offer nearly a big enough pay off.

Less software, less supported hardware/drivers, less installed base, less developers, less trained administrators, higher acquisition cost, retraining costs, non standard costs and issues... you just won't get it.

Mac is a nice dorm room porn downloader, and "niche" egalitarian fringe toy... and it has some limited adoption in specialized areas in organizations, but its not now, nor any time going to be the desktop of the enterprise.... I've been listening to MAC fanatics make claims like this for about 20 years now, and I counter them all by one simple proven fact.... NAME ME 1, just 1 fortune 1000 company that has in the past 20 years made a corporate wide change of its entire desktop operations to Macintosh? In 20 years of computers, if the benefit were so great, at least 1 company would have done it... and none have, and none will.

I have worked with companies still running software written before I was born! No one even knows exactly what it does, they know they have to execute it to perform a neccessary action, but in terms of the line by line execution no one in the company can tell you... and they are going to just eat the redevelopment costs to go to MAC? Please.

MS moves 17 Million copies of XP in less than 2 months after its release... Macintosh's entire installed base is maybe 2 Million and that's being generous! In fact unit sales have been decreasing consistantly and significantly according to their 10k filings.

Macs are fine machines, and the company does some neat stuff, but arguing that MAC will ever own the desktop enterprise market is humorous.