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.

[bwteim]

Glenn wrote to MrsEmmaPeel: "I'm calling you on it. How many upgrades have you had to pay for with OS X? Stop whining."

People paid to move from 9 to OS X, now they have to pay to get Panther.

[Phsstpok]

I'm a software developer.

ah, that explains our different perspectives (g). Never trust a software developer with a screw driver, a hardware type with a software patch or a user with an idea...

It happens all the time. With new technologies and productivity gains, a small group can outperform the earlier work of a much larger one.

nice generalization, but we have a policy to buy not build, so right or wrong it's moot. We can't buy the Mac stuff. I know, I've been looking for years. I've got millions to spend. If there were viable candidates I'd have come across them. There are some elegant solutions for the things that have been built, but the field of things to choose from is a fraction of the choices in the Wintel world. For good or ill, it's reality.

and I didn't provide my industry for a reason. I'm skating very close to the edge on this.

[HAL9000]

Again $800 for what you can get for $500 or less, and be locked to proprietary hardware and odd man out

When businesses realize how much money they're wasting on Wintel administration and security issues compared to Mac, the initial cost difference is trivial. The $800 Mac is a much better value than a $500 Wintel computer.

The amount of proprietary hardware in a Mac is about the same as a Wintel machine.

[pageonetoo]

actually, I use old programs all the time, that were created for Macs' older systems... some quit working due to conflicts with other outside vendor software, but most are working just fine...
thanks for being one of the few honest users... I, too, buy stuff, often to be disapponted, but I paid for the right to find out!
I bought my first Mac in 1984, and used MacDraft originally, to do 2-D drawing, and scaling (I was a General contractor) ... I now use other stuff (DenabaCad) for 3D modeling, but more than anything, I use my Mac for video and music editing, and internet/email, of course!...mostly with Apple provided software!
I just wish I could get my copy of Fly2! to still function!
MS FS2000, et al, are not the same on an emulator!
Does anyone have a good mac Flight Sim recommendation?

[pageonetoo]

btw, how much is a high end p4 right now? I see them advertised for around 1500+...
You can buy a G5 for under 2k... It is faster! It is more stable! It is better! and you can buy one today!

[pageonetoo]

"Where did you bury all your old MAC stuff?"
I use one of them as a doorstop, and conversation piece!
I donated the rest of them... and they still work, at the senior center!

[RnMomof7]

Yeas I have the latest version of both .If you have a 2 click Hamilton Mouse there is a great spell check feature. (too bad it also does not pick up typos that spell something :>)

I really like safari better than Explorer .The mac wizard at the apple store told me to trash the safari and reinstall but I will lose my mail list etc i think so i am holding tight:>)

[avenir]

"Apple sells a computer called "eMac" that starts at $795."

Please HAL, who wants that stinker? Why push the off-off Broadway Macs when you're responding to the price-point complaint?

If I'm going to get a Mac I want this

and this

for starters.

I'll be fair and take the "cheap" G5 for $1999 and the cheapest Studio Display for $699.

Bare bones sys for $2698. Not bad, huh?

[Glenn]

Bare bones sys for $2698. Not bad, huh?

Some people drive Yugos (I think?!?!). Some drive Hummers.

[avenir]

"Some people drive Yugos (I think?!?!). Some drive Hummers."

True, but who wants the YugoMac? I honestly don't know a single person who owns a Mac, and THEY don't know anyone who owns a Mac.

To be enticed over to the Mac side one needs a little more incentive than Apple's crappiest sys. And any Mac sys comparable to a PC is just flat out more $$$.

If anyone doubts me, check it all out for yourself starting at Apple's website.

[general_re]

...one even complaining that Apple is mis-defining the $3000 Dual G5 as a desktop computer and not a "workstation."

That's not an entirely unfair complaint - for the same price as that dual G5, I can get a single-processor 900 MHz Itanium2 workstation from HP that runs within 90% of it, performance-wise. For as much hype about the G5 as there's been, I'm surprised it's not faster - a single 1.5 GHz I2 box is significantly faster than that dual 2 GHz G5 box. Wonder what that means for the "megahertz myth" ;)

[jimtorr]

MTBF is meaningless when applied to such a small sample. What is relevant is that when my computer doesn't work, I can't get things done, and the projects I support miss deadlines. Some of these missed deadlines could cost the company tens of millions of dollars. We need more realiable machines, such as the current crop of Macs, with truly superior engineering.

My company buys top-of-the-line Compaq and Dell desktop computers, in the hope that they will still be useable in three years.

My primary computer is now about three years old. In the past three years, I have had to replace the HD twice, the CD burner twice, the flopply drive three times. One of my office mates just had to get a new computer because it was doing strange things that a software rebuild and a new HD did not fix.

I have used a MAC in the office in the past. My company was at one time the largest industrial user of Apple products (so Apple told us, at least). We never had the problems we've had since we switched to PC's. The IT department became so large that we outsourced IT to CSC. It didn't help.

I keep hearing the myth about software and peripherals being more expensive. In my experience, and that of a former housemate who was a computer consultant, the Mac and the PC use pretty much the same peripherals. In fact, in many cases one doesn't need to look for a peripheral that says it is Mac compatible.

A hard drive doesn't care what flavor of computer it's hooked up to. Printers come with multiple ports for USB and Ethernet, and don't know the difference. USB mice or keyboards the same. The price is identical, since in many cases its the same piece of hardware.

The same applies to the software that most people use. Most software is readily available for MacIntosh, and at the same price as for Windows.

[MaryFromMichigan]

It's probably difficult to upgrade a 10 year old Anything except a hammer handle...

:)

[bwteim]

Great pic (Mac fish tank?)

Answer to your tag line... Yes.......

[Glenn]

I honestly don't know a single person who owns a Mac, and THEY don't know anyone who owns a Mac.

Ah. Such is the life of a monk.

[tangerine]

Can you find a bigger picture of that G5?

[aruanan]

True, but who wants the YugoMac? I honestly don't know a single person who owns a Mac, and THEY don't know anyone who owns a Mac.

I guess this just demonstrates how provincial you are, huh?

[HAL9000]

If I'm going to get a Mac I want this

I want to get a G5 too, but you're missing the point. We're talking about which solutions are best for businesses, and unless every employee is doing things like video editing or genetic research, deploying G5s to every employee is probably not feasible.

For the average employee who need basic functionality like e-mail and web access, word processing, database access, etc., the eMac is an excellent, economical choice. If most employees are equipped with eMacs, the company's IT departments can be downsized and improve the bottom line.

[avenir]

"Can you find a bigger picture of that G5?"

LOL! I was shocked myself.