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.
Perhaps this is the layman's experience where he puts his PC through literal hell - in the ten plus years of using a 33 MHz 386(w/copro)-based Win 3.1 machine dedicated to running an established suite of design/development tools from the same era as the PC I've got *no* complaints ...
About 3 years ago my company issued an edict that everyone had to use a PC. I managed to bootleg a Mac & now I have one of each on my desk.
Every morning when I turn on the PC there is a message that the IT department is going to "push" yet another update onto the PC. This always takes 5-10 minutes and maybe one day out of 5 requires a restart.
Now I turned the machine on because I wanted to use it, not update it. I guarantee you the company looses 30 minutes a week for every computer on this update thing. That is 25 hours per year. Given what they bill my time for, our customers should be clamoring to donate a Mac to me.
Real costs of professional employees are $100 to $200 per hour. You can not justify saving $500 to $1000 on a computer when you are going to throw away twice that much per year on lost productive time because of the choice you made.
And I haven't even begun to think about how much Sobig and Blaster cost us. Whole company email system down for several days. My Mac was immune to both.
OK, "no games" is an exageration, but none of my kids has ever wanted to use my Mac for anything. On the other hand, they were always whining to use my wife's PC, back in the days she used one, so they could play an important game of Doom or some such nonsense while she was trying to use it to earn money.
And, they all had their very own computers, but somehow if you load enough games on a PC it stops working. The only surefire way to get it up and running again is to re-install Windows, which wipes out all of their vital saved games, so they hate that like sin.
I'm calling you on it. How many upgrades have you had to pay for with OS X? Stop whining.
I have 3 Macs, including 2 Powerbooks and a G4 1.25 dualie. I also have a Dell Latitude, a Linux server, and a hand built W2K screamer I use as a test server for work. In addition, I have an AS/400 I use for testing. MSDN costs me $900/year so I can maintain my test environment.
If you can't afford the few bucks it takes to stay current, then get your Abacus back out, shut off your 2400 baud dial up line and go back to paying the post office to send your mail.
It's as much of a pain in the ass to use as anything anyway. I have yet to meet a serious network manager who uses a Mac in his daily work. It's Linux or some variant of Unix.
I've been an Apple developer since 1989, and a user since 1984. Not particularly impressed with Apple's latest toolsets. (Very, very, primitive environment.) But as you don't appear interested in a rational discussion, I'll let you have the last word.
I am a Mac user too , I will never own a PC. Macs are tanks, They run and they run . There are ten year old macs still operating without a problem .
In a way I hope they do not become more popular because one of the real perks are with such a small market share no one bothers to make worms or viruses for them. So while the rest of the computing world was trying to fix their PC last week , Mac users just chugging along
BTW Gamers can have the benefit of the Linix system and the games of the PC
One can purchase a "virtual PC" program that allows the use of any PC software
I have not had a problem with OSX , have had with Safari though , it goes down once a day . Safari is a great browser and I do not want to return to Express.
Any Mac users have any ideas?
I'm a Mac User and most of the reasons I've heard that others don't use Macs is the lack of games to play on them. I've never had any problem finding games I like to play, but then, I don't spend all my time playing games either. Umm my bad:>)
Have you got the latest version of Safari? I have had minimal problems with it.
Two things to try: Try the empty cache option under the Safari menu, and get a hold of MacJanitor and run it.
Also, if you don't normally do it, run fsck occasionally and use the disk utility to repair permissions whenever you update system software.
Good luck
With the G5, Macs are fast and expensive.
I have yet to meet a serious network manager who uses a Mac in his daily work. It's Linux or some variant of Unix.
Erm, Mac OS X is a rather nice Unix.
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.