[zimbop]

You lose nothing.

[charliechan]

Madawson, Seriously!

I love Apple. MBP, iPhone, Time Capsule. Wife has iPhone too. MobileMe. I give Apple my money. I truly truly love them. And your G5 story is absolutely compelling. I agree with you. Completely.

But this insistence on Mac being the obvious choice for enterprise falls flat for me. We live in a free market. (we used to anyway) Every time over the last 200 years that someone said something could not be done, if it could be done, somebody found a way. Trains started out as an expensive novelty and ended up being a pillar of infrastructure. Electric cars are finally becoming viable alternatives of transportation. Do you think Alexander Bell thought a phone could fit in your pocket.... and read PDF's? (granted.... he may not know what PDF's are....)

Putting an Apple computer in an insurance salesman's office does not require blasting dynamite through a mountain or making batteries tinier. He just has to purchase one and use it. Or to be more fair to what people refer to as enterprise, then IT at Geico just has to put several hundred Macs in their corporate offices.

Since all you have to do is purchase the thing and put it on a desk (as opposed to exploding chunks off of a mountain), then why are Macs not gaining more headway? Really. If they're so cost effective, why has no one figured this out? Macs have servers. They link up with printers. Hell... they even run WINDOWS if you think you have software that will only run on Microsoft. So why are Macs still failing in this regard?

Even if the IT community wants to keep it's job. (which it would... I've worked with IT for a long time, and they do more than fix bule screens.... that's pretty far down on their to do list) But even if IT accross the world all got together in Vegas and agreed to pretend Microsoft was the only choice, some a$$hole would come and mess it up. Some IT guy somewhere would put 200 Macs in an office and spend the next year showing how flawless Macs are. (btw... macs ARE in some companies by the hundred already) And after seeing how AWESOMELY the company did over that one year, word would start to get around.

Even if there is an IT conspiracy to keep Mac out of Enterprise, it would be unraveling right now. Do you know how many of these corporate hot shots have Apple? How many have iPhones? Have Macs at home? Or in their OFFICES at work? (those ceo hypocrites... As a matter of fact.... MDawson, you were writing these same claims in the Macworld article that discussed businesses that used BOTH Mac and Windows in the very same offices)

I'm just sayin.... If you have a company that ALREADY has Macs in it. And even the top brass find Macs to be of value. Don't you think that if they figured out that putting MORE Macs in their office would save money, that they would do it?

They already like Mac. Already have Mac in their building. Already pay IT to service two seperate operating systems. Why not go down to ONE operating system? Why not SAVE MONEY by going with all Mac.

[Joe2005]

We agree to disagree .

[mdawson]

Quote

charliechan wrote:

>

Quote

But this insistence on Mac being the obvious choice for enterprise falls flat for me.

First of all, joe2005 turned this into a corporate IT issue, my point was about the real meaning of cost. I used the GISTICS findings as a point, because cost considerations are the same whether you are buying for a company or yourself, GISTICS report simply focused on enterprise.

Quote

charliechan wrote:

>

Quote

Putting an Apple computer in an insurance salesman's office does not require blasting dynamite through a mountain or making batteries tinier. He just has to purchase one and use it. Or to be more fair to what people refer to as enterprise, then IT at Geico just has to put several hundred Macs in their corporate offices.

The statement above and the following paragraphs indicate an extremely high degree of naivete or ignorance. It was well established that corporate IT has historically an overwhelmingly anti-Mac mindset. It is also well established that the Mac?s presence in creative markets is the result of backdoor purchases and entire departments having to support themselves. You may not have been keeping up with IT purchasing behaviors for the past 20+ years, but I have.

Yes, there are companies that are Mac-centric, but they are mostly creative businesses and they are in the minority compared to businesses overall. I am fully aware that IT does more than fix Windows problems, but it is also established that IT staff in businesses that are more Windows-centric spend a great deal of time dealing with Windows and the same is not true where Macs are predominant. As others have often stated, IT has a mechanics approach to platform choice, but with the increasing popularity of Macs on campus and increasing problems with Windows, a new more open-minded generation of IT workers is entering enterprise.

Quote

charliechan wrote:

>
But even if IT accross the world all got together in Vegas and agreed to pretend Microsoft was the only choice, some a$$hole would come and mess it up.

Obviously, you know nothing about Groupthink. How many times has the statement, ?No one ever got fired choosing Windows,? come up in these discussions? Falling in line is what enterprise rewards, bucking the horse ends careers or at the very least stalls them. I have all too often watched IT pros do the Bush Administration Iraqi Shuffle every time one of their points for not getting Macs is disproved with facts. The high-ups have their minds made up and the people under them fall in line.

charliechan wrote:
>
Some IT guy somewhere would put 200 Macs in an office and spend the next year showing how flawless Macs are.

It has been done and there are in fact companies where entire departments are Mac-only despite the Windows-only nature of the rest of the company. Clearly you underestimate the human penchant for changing their ways. Hybrids are known to be more fuel efficient and Japanese cars in general are known to be both more fuel efficient and reliable. Yet, a great many Americans still insist on buying unnecessarily large, gas guzzling and unreliable American behemoth mobiles. People finally started turning away from pickup trucks and SUVs when gas prices hit $4/gal?as if sedans from GM, Ford or Chrysler are any better?then went right back to buying SUVs in droves once gas prices fell below $2/gal.

We have acquired more knowledge through methods of de rigueur in the past 500 years than we had gained in some 6000+ years of recorded history, yet a great many people, in the Unites States in particular, still believe thousands year old fairy tales and historical dramatizations to be absolute truth. In the 1970s we learned that we needed to stop relying on petroleum, particularly from foreign sources, in order to maintain our national viability and security. Yet, the second the OPEC embargo ended we went right back to our old ways, ceased researching alternative energy sources and are now more dependent on oil and foreign industry in general than the US has ever been in its entire 233 year history.

You either choose to ignore or seriously underestimate the human penchant for recognizing a problem, seeking solutions, choosing the worse and implementing it. As one of my professors stated about dealing with clients for whom he does analytical consulting, there is a right answer and an easy answer. Guess what most people choose.

charliechan wrote:
>
Do you know how many of these corporate hot shots have Apple? How many have iPhones? Have Macs at home? Or in their OFFICES at work?

And what makes you think for one second that what a corporate officer opts to buy for themselves has anything to do with what is purchased for the company. By your logic, if the corporate officer own Ferraris, Lexus?, BMWs, Mercedes?, Infinitis, et al., and are satisfied with their experience then the company motor pool will consist of these luxury cars. Corporate officers have disposable income that would take us years to earn as overall salary and they do not make their personal buying decisions the same as they do corporate purchases.

charliechan wrote:
>
I'm just sayin.... If you have a company that ALREADY has Macs in it. And even the top brass find Macs to be of value. Don't you think that if they figured out that putting MORE Macs in their office would save money, that they would do it?

Again, you underestimate human stubbornness. I have personal experience in this area and I still have a copy of the 80+ page memorandum from when I tried to get a Mac to do my job as the graphics analyst when I worked for my alma mater?s library. Despite all the facts presented such as,

* the GISTICS report I cited previously;
* the testimonial from our on campus service bureau stating that they would only accept pre-press files generated from a Mac and that we would otherwise have to continue sending our own soft-proofs that cost more to process for the final forms;
* the testimonials from every other creative and media professional on campus that used and justified having Macs, and;
* a testimonial from our off-campus service bureau that stated that we could cut our costs by nearly half if we sent Mac generated Postscript versions of the cards we had printed

the Assistant Director for Library Information Services forced me to use a Wintel PC. One frelling computer; it was not as if I was asking him to convert the entire library or even an entire unit to Macs, I was simply requesting the best tool for my job justified by statements from those outside of the library with whom I needed to interact. The AD was a typical anti-Mac IT zealot. The fact that a Mac was the best tool for the job and would reduce production costs for the forms I created did not matter to him. All that mattered was that I had the audacity to request something other than a Wintel PC; as is typical in such situations, it was as if I held a gun to his head and told him that he must use a Mac. My experience is far from isolated.

charliechan wrote:
>
Why not go down to ONE operating system? Why not SAVE MONEY by going with all Mac.

Because doing so would be just as boneheaded as being a Windows-only operation. (Computer) Biodiversity is a key component to survivability. The best way for a company to reduce costs is to get the best tools for the job and everyone in a company, at least on the departmental level, is not the same. In small businesses it may come down to one platform or another. Many companies have allowed themselves to get locked into Windows so now they either have no choice or face a daunting conversion task in order to switch that few are willing to take on.

As I stated in my original post:
bq. ?...it must be recognized that Apple is just one company and does not make the ideal machine for everyone.? ?...there are areas where Windows is the better operating system choice...?
So do not try to pigeon hole my posts as an ?insistence on Mac being the obvious choice for enterprise (emphasis added),? as I stated no such thing.

[cav2108]

One thing IS certain. No one in their right mind is going "to pay dearly" for any Windows operating system.
I used to peg the maximum number of Windows computers in my household at 5. Considering the number of hours that each of those computers took to keep running the least bit smoothly, I felt that I would have no free time remaining to myself if there were more than 5 windows computers in the house. Frankly, the time required to keep an Apple OS computer running smoothly is a full order of magnitude lower than with Windows machines. I could easily keep 50 Apple computers running smoothly and still have plenty of time for myself.
I actually used to LIKE tinkering with my (one) Windows machine.... What a tinker-toy. I have a lot better things to do with my time than screwing around with Windows junk. It started to become a chore with two, and a complete pain with three. I realized that I had always spent more time tinkering with the Windows machines than I actually spent DOING something, either productive or just a game. 10 hours of maintenance for every hour of operation. I'll never allow another Windows machine in my house again. I value my free time and productivity too much to use Windows for anything.
What's YOUR time worth?

[Krewtonz]

I would have to say, comparing a Windows computer to an Apple computer is like comparing McDonalds to a higher quality "fancy" restaurant.

One could point out the obvious that McDonalds costs 1/3 the price for the same amount of food, and that you will be just as full. Then go on to talk about how you have to spend money on new fancy clothes, tips, and refills. And at the same time, your portions are smaller than at McDonalds. The only reason we go to the fancy place anyway is because of the "coolness" factor. And with McDonalds increasing the quality of their food the "Diner Experience" gap will soon very much evaporate.

Now Steve is just your average 23 year old, living by himself. He has been eating at McDonalds for the past year, and plans to continue doing so. But he has heard from his friends that a new "fancy diner" has opened down the street, and he has heard how good it is. He is thinking of eating there tonight. But being the smart man he is, he decides to compare the price of eating at the new "cool" place to the price of McDonalds. Here is what he comes up with.

McDonaldsFancy Place
Food$5.50$12.00
Bevrages$0.90$5.50
Clothing$------_$25.00
Gasoline $1.50$6.00 (huge fancy car)
Parking$-------_$2.50
Tips$------_$1.50
"Other Costs"$------_$2.00
Total Cost$7.90$54.50

Now the fancy diner is pretty "cool", but at just under $47 for the same amount of food? Now thats not cool.
Message was edited by: Krewtonz
Reason: Fixed formatting with table.

[mdawson]

Obviously you have absolutely no clue about anything where Apple is concerned or how businesses operate in general.

[OldManDotes]

The McDonalds/Fancy Rest. comparison falls pretty flat too. You can have sawdust and fat at McD's, and it will fill you up and make you sluggish and stupid (and probably cause bowel trouble), or you can go to a good sit-down restaurant for about half the amount you say (around here, anyhow) and have real food, made fresh, with wholesome, natural ingredients, and get good nutrition and an enjoyable experience.
This is the Windows PC tech telling you that the Mac is my personal system of choice. I sold another Windows PC today. Pretty soon I can buy a Mac.

[mafmusic]

I have always used macs at home and pcs at works.
And historically using the mac has been a much more enjoyable experience.
Plus I do music as a hobby and Logic is awesome and mac only.
I work from home on a pc using XP, and I still have all kinds of issues with it.
However, having said this, Apple should really take notice now.
For example, I paid almost $3,000 for a dual quad core mac pro about 9 months ago and, as always, Apple then comes out with a newer model faster with a different architecture for about the same price.
At the price point the mac pro should have been state of the art when it came out early last year (I believe that the faster memory, etc were all available at the time).
After a bunch of silly ads, Microsoft has finally struck a nerve, and a big one at that.
If Windows 7 is a success (after having learned from Vista) Apple will be in deep doo doo if their attitude continues.
For example: yes Blu Ray is becoming very important, and a $3,000 computer does not include that.
And did you see what Apples used to charge for RAM until recently?
Taking everything into, except for the operating system, you absolutely DO get much more for the money with a PC.
And if Windows 7 levels the playing field in that area, Apple will be suffer tremendously. Especially with the aftermath of the current economy.
I have always loved macs and will continue to use them for fun.
However, Apple had better see the light soon, or there will be a return of the "dark days" I predict.
I hope I am wrong.

[WarrenS]

My question is why doesn't Microsoft show someone buying a mac to run windows. Since they don't make computers, why are they so bothered by Apple machines. Mac users are users of Microsoft Office, why not say that in a commercial?
Mostly i agree with you about the cost of the newer and increasingly better Win-tel machines. If a better OS comes along, there will be fewer switchers, but not fewer Mac users. It is the brand that gets the big bucks. You can buy new jeans anywhere, but there are still GAP stores in every mall.

I, to, have been guy that bought a Mac at the wrong time. If you fuss at them for a while, they will give you something.

[mdawson]

Quote

mafmusic wrote:

>

Quote

For example, I paid almost $3,000 for a dual quad core mac pro about 9 months ago and, as always, Apple then comes out with a newer model faster with a different architecture for about the same price.

Welcome to the reality of personal computers that has existed for 20+ years. Something new is always around the corner.

Quote

mafmusic wrote:

>

Quote

At the price point the mac pro should have been state of the art when it came out early last year (I believe that the faster memory, etc were all available at the time)

No, the price point should be where Apple needs it to be to maintain their very successful business model of designing and selling complete systems and not just boxes like other PC OEMs.

Quote

mafmusic wrote:

>
After a bunch of silly ads, Microsoft has finally struck a nerve, and a big one at that.

Yes, Microsoft has struck a nerve for people that do not know how to properly make a big ticket purchase.

mafmusic wrote:
>
If Windows 7 is a success (after having learned from Vista) Apple will be in deep doo doo if their attitude continues.

If Windows 7 is a success it will still be behind OS X just as Vista is, problems notwithstanding.

mafmusic wrote:
>
For example: yes Blu Ray is becoming very important, and a $3,000 computer does not include that.

While Blu-Ray?s time may come, most people are content to save content to CDs or DVDs if they use optical media for storage at all given that a large capacity portable hard drive is more cost effective these days. Secondly, why would Apple bother adding a device that the operating system currently does not support? Blu-Ray has not even made major inroads where its primary purpose is concerned beyond beating out a competing HD format.

mafmusic wrote:
>
And did you see what Apples used to charge for RAM until recently?

Apple has always charged a premium for RAM. So what? No law exists that states that you cannot buy additional RAM elsewhere, so what is your point?

mafmusic wrote:
>
Taking everything into, except for the operating system, you absolutely DO get much more for the money with a PC.

No you do not and the PC press has eaten crow and admitted as much. In order to get a PC that is comparable to any given Mac you will pay as much if not more that you have to for that Mac. Also, you will pay more in cost of ownership no matter how much of a bargain you get on the selling price for the Wintel PC. Price does not equal cost and the real cost of a computer is incurred after you buy it.

mafmusic wrote:
>
And if Windows 7 levels the playing field in that area, Apple will be suffer tremendously. Especially with the aftermath of the current economy.

Apple is still doing better than any other PC OEM by a significant margin and has been doing so for more than five years. So as things stand now, Apple has little to worry about. Apple does not cater to cheap people, period.

[mafmusic]

Thanks for the response.
You are kinda preaching to the choir. :-)
However, I still do not like how Apple treats updates to their products.
Yeah I have a zillion times that you buy when u need to, and it will be obsolete soon thereafter.
It sounds cool but it does not HAVE to be that way.
At least NOT the way Apple does it.

To be fair to consumers they should be more open about when a new update is imminent, and offer discounts for some period of time to clear inventory before the updated version comes out.

One can literally go into an Apple store, buy a $4000 computer, and find out that the next day a new version is out with much better specs for the same price. The people and the company will tell you NOTHING about what is about to happen.

This does NOT leave a very good taste in one's mouth.

Just ask the first iPhone buyers, who basically payed a hefty price to be first, and to be guinea pigs.

Of course, no one in their right mind would do that unless you have lots of money to blow off.

But Apple has this panache, so the humble bite.

Also Apple's pricing does not MEAN that it is better, although often it is.

For example: I compared the performance of a Samsung $400 monitor and Apple's $800 display.
I could not see any significant difference.

In their PCs, in my opinion Apple is fairly competitive (taking everything into account) except for their laptops.

In that category the differential can be huge. It was an extremely hard cell to convince my wife to spend almost $2000 for a macbook pro rather than $900-$1200 for other laptops with more ram and a bigger hd.

The only way I won out (at Best Buy) was that the store person owned a MAC himself, and supported my contentions after I mentioned them.

But in most cases that will not happen.

And I DO believe that Windows 7 will be much improved and will attract a lot of attention and new customers. Eventually the Vista image may dissipate, and they will have something to brag about.

Whether or not it is quite as good as OSX remains to be seen. I think the jury is still out.
Certainly OSX will have the advantage of being less prone to viruses, etc. Not apparently because it is inherently more secure but because it's market share is still very small.

Anyway, I am happily using my 8 core mac pro to run logic.
All mac, all beloved. A happy camper.

Rock stable, and a joy to use. :-)

MACLand is a truly wonderful place!

Take care.

[zimbop]

mdawson said:

Obviously you have absolutely no clue about anything where Apple is concerned or how businesses operate in general.

You might like to explain how making Macs more affordable brings about the complete demise of the iPhone, OSX etc. before you start saying anyone else hasn't a clue. What are you - 12 years old?