Posted on 08/31/2003 3:15:26 AM PDT by 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.
On the topic of Windows complexity and bugginess, I have often heard allegations that were Microsoft to clean up its act, then the market for Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (MCSEs) would dry up. That is a lucrative market and great incentive to keep Windows the way it is. Now if I were a conspiracy theorist...
Platform Visits %
1. Windows 2000 10,894 56.32%
2. Windows 98 5,615 29.02%
3. Others 1,240 6.41%
4. Windows NT 591 3.05%
5. Macintosh PowerPC 574 2.96%
Subtotal 18,914 97.78%
Total 19,343 100%
It managers are not the ones sending the jobs overseas. It's SENIOR management that is issuing the mandate, as in "make it work, or you will be replaced by somebody who will"
Senior management doesn't get involved much in decisions of what kinds of PCs to get, it relies on their IT nerds, who can put up all the smoke they want without fear of being contradicted. It's a whole different story when mgmt hears about Indian CS PhD's going for $20K. THAT they understand.
Personally, I think IT should run only the servers and network. An individual PC is like an infantryman's rifle. If the infantryman can't take care of his rifle he is screwed. So it should be with laptops and individuals' desktop PCs.That might be practical in 20 to 30 years. Not now. The gradient of computer knowledge is tremendous (being about in the middle, I see that from both directions) and the powers-that-be are typically at the lower end. Yet they are hooked on the information access.
What will increase is the marketability of those who have some PC troubleshooting/repair skills in addition to their primary skills. There's two or three of us at my company that probably mean one less person is needed in MIS.
-Eric
Except for their love affair with all things Microsoft. A little competition would have been healthy, except Microsoft was allowed to use predatory practices to become a monopoly. At the time when this could have been prevented, those who could have prevented it looked the other way until it was too late.
Or a whole host of user-written freeware, shareware and even 'open source' *utilities* and applications that made (or still make) an EE's or a "junior designer's" life easier?
Sadly, no.
Cringley needs some math classes. Xserves are way overpriced, and they have IDE hard drives. You can get a comparable machine from Sun with SCSI for less.My components supplier will sell me a Western Digital 20G IDE hard drive for $60, a 120G for a $120, and a 250G for $287. Seagate SCSIs cost $174 for a 36G and $799 for 147G. Fujitsu SCSIs are even more expensive.
It sounds like the motherboards that sound cheap until you find out what the special memory chips cost.
-Eric
That's my point. You pay more for an Xserve with cheaper, inferior components.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.