[Swordmaker]

Some comments from MacDailyNews readers:

Comment from: pkradd

I used to work for a company that employed 150 people. We all had computers on our desks. The IT personnel at the company hated Macs. One of them told me that it was simply a matter of economics - for him. Macs didn't break down as much and they would have less to do and hence no job security. Oh yes, this was 5 years ago!

Comment From: mattmattbobatt

About ten years ago I was running a department computing facility at a university. We used to pool research money to maintain the computing infrastructure and support about 150 users. When researchers at other universities were caught by NSF using research money for junkets and yachts they clamped down and we couldn't pool our grant money anymore.

So we ended up needing to analyze how our resources were being used, by platform, so we could switch to a chargeback scheme instead of a per capita fee. We had VMS, unix, Windows and Mac users to support. (remember this was the early 90's). The results weren't too suprizing. The VMS machines required the most man-hours per machine. Followed by Windows, unix and way, way down were Macs. When a new machine arrived we had to get it set up, install an OS and get it on the network. VMS machines took a day while unix and NT took about six hours. How long for the Macs ? About 30 minutes. Really.

Eventually we had to cut IT staff and we cut out all the specialists and kept guys who could do a little unix, Windows and Macs. They spent most of their time on PC stuff. When a new faculty member arrived we pushed them to the Mac so they could spend more money on research and less on support.

I did some consulting at a large consulting firm for a while and when I would go talk to the IT guys I was supporting they would tell you flat out that they didn't like Macs because they feared for their jobs. They plugged them in and they never touched them again. That's why IT staffs hate Macs.

Comment from: trevor7578

My company is run entirley on Macs. CAD, Filemaker, Flexware, FastTrack, Photoshop, Palms, AppleWorks, MS Office, Digital Photo Archiving, Safari Web ordering. We are not an advertising company. We are a high end construction company with about 60 networked macs. We have no IT department. I am in charge of sales and I run IT in my very spare time. I spend hardly any time or $$$ mainting the network. It's awesome. Any company that dismisses Macs in business is out of their minds. The employess easily learn how to use the computers and they very rarely break down. It's a complete joke that Apple gets pushed out of business computing!

[mass55th]

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.

[wiseone]

I like Macs,but I don't like their sneaky management tricks ,like dumping extra fees,and costs for every flavor of OS every 6 mths,now online fees to access it's best features.Mostly I turned against them after Jobs stabbed the clone makers in the back.Unless they come out with a generic cheap G4 for $4-500 like Pcs,or Linux they wont be getting my vote,nor will i upgrade my 10yr old mac.

[KeyWest]

The real reason is competition and cost. Apple set itself up as a monopoly. IBM opened up its design. If I were a CEO of a company and I looked at going to a closed source or an open source, there would be no issue.

There are many exceptional products that died because of short-sightedness (Beta anyone?). Look at the way Apple goes after any innovation of the Mac outside its company walls. Microsoft is the same to an extent, which is why you see alternate server software as well as whole new OS's and open source programs (another reason that IBM clones will be dominant).

If you are satisfied to be spoon fed, Apple is for you. If you want to innovate and go beyond what Steve Job's says is adequate, then its an IBM clone.

[jimtorr]

I use PC's at work and I have a Mac at home.

There are 10 PC's used by 4 people in my office, and I know that 2 of them will break every year. That's quite a contrast with my Mac at home. It is 4 years old now, and I've never had any problems.

I would love to have a Mac on my desk at work. In spite of what most people say, it is easy to make a Mac fully compatible.

[CurlyDave]

When I met my wife about 6 years ago I was a Mac user and she would consider nothing but a PC.


She is a University Professor and consults on the side. Over the course of 5 years, we had numerous incidents where her PC would crash hard enough to require days of troubleshooting to get it back up & running. Meanwhile my Mac would just keep on ticking.

The problem with the PC crashes is that every once in a while she would have a major report due in the next day or two. Five time in 5 years this happend with so little time before the report was due that the only solution was to go out & buy a "fresh" PC so she could restore her data from a backup, reload software and continue working.

She never bought "junk" PCs, Sony, & HP were the only brands she would touch. The only good part of this is that the consulting fee for the reports was more than the cost of the new PCs. On the other hand, having to set up a new machine is an hours long job.

Bottom line is she was forced to try a Mac as part of a technology introduction program about a year ago, and now her PCs are dust collectors. With OS X you just cant make a Mac crash. Sometimes a program will quit, but you just open the program again & continue.

To me, the deciding factor is "what are you going to use a computer for?" If you are a home user and just want a machine for email and internet browsing a PC is cheaper & when it quits working you are not under a deadline to get it up & running again. If you have any kind of serious use for the thing, a Mac will cost you more up front but you will save money because they just work.

The final advantage is--no games. Macs are incredibly deficient when it comes to games. This means the kids will not ever try to take over your machine for their use.

[HamiltonJay]

Yea, IT managers are shipping jobs overseas to save money and but they would never institute MACs if it would save them large $$$? Be real. IT goes Linux to save $$, IT Does everything it can to save money. This author is just smoking some wacky tobaccee.

[aruanan]

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."

That's been my observation in a large university/hospital setting. The PCs required far more support far more often for much more minor things than the Macs did. Virtually all Mac problems, as seldom as they occurred, could be solved by a Mac user. The PCs and their Windows systems seem designed to keep the ordinary user in the dark and in thrall to an IT department.

[Wrigley]

FYI ping

[TC Rider]

I'm an IT Manager in a shop of around 30 computers. It was an all Mac shop till '97, then we changed everything to NT4, it wasn't all wine and roses. In 2001 we upgraded to Win2k and have had no regrets.

Why would I want to support another OS now? I had a Mac only support agency for 10 years after pulling tech support on Macs and being involved with them since '84. For an easy to support system, they sure kept me busy and my family fed.

In my experience, Mac owners were their own worse enemy. Who needs hackers when Mac owners are willing to put any new trash piece of software on their system themselves.

Macs are a niche system with a loyal owner base in graphics/publishing/university. I doubt they will ever be welcomed in corporate America again.

BTW, I can load W2K and get a box on the network in about 30 minutes, what's the big deal?

[norwaypinesavage]

It's clear to me. PBS is smart, all businesses are dumb. Why are you dummies reading this when you could be listening to "All things Considered"?

[11th Earl of Mar]

So what is the moral?

Buy PCs and save American jobs.

[Capt. Tom]

In the real world of the Internet Macs are pretty insignificant. Here is a breakdown of visits to my site for for August. That doesn't mean Macs shouldn't be a big player just that at present they aren't

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%

[B Knotts]

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.

[mrjeff]

This article is childish. There is a simple reason why macs failed in the business market. They had a closed architecture. By the time they opened up to clones in the mid-90's, it was too late. The fact is, large organizations are reluctant to go with a sole-source solution.

[MaryFromMichigan]

Haiku-

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

[Benrand]

Slow and expensive is what they are. We are pulling out the Mac we use for our network map maintenance and going to AutoCad. It's a case of the software for the Mac not being there and the Mac not being friendly with the majority of our machines.

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.

[sergeantdave]

PCs are great for target practice and make fine stools in the garden when picking cucumbers.

[John Lenin]

Maybe if Apple wasn't into gouging its customers they would sell more PC's. What do you think ? It is very shortsighted of Apple to price themselves out of the market, I'm sure Bill Gates laughs at Apple everytime he looks at his net worth.

[stripes1776]

Cringley leaves out the history of why Windows dominates in a business setting.

• Mac hardware was proprietary and expensive. PC hardware was cheap and available from many vendors.
• There were few business applications for Macs, but many for PCs.
• OS 9 and before was a weak operating system without a command line. At least DOS had a command line, and Windows still does.

The business world standardized years ago on the PC as the desktop computer for good reasons. Things have changed now that OS X is really a Unix-type operating system. The hardware is now cheaper and there are more applications available. But those changes may have come too late to make a difference.

[moehoward]

Ah the age old argument.

I use macs. Have since the old quads. My year old MDD G4 running Jag has literally never crashed.

The "no software or games" line is bull. All QUALITY games and applications eventually are ported for mac.

Like many things, you get what you pay for. As they say, "Want to work ON a computer, get a PC. Want to work WITH one, get a mac."