For years, fans have told us that Macs are easier to use, result in less tech support, are more stable and have fewer virus issues than their Windows counterparts. As such, some people believe, Macs should be the logical first choice when it comes to an enterprise deployment, especially since they can run Windows software. I've worked in organizations with people who were very pro-Apple who pushed very hard to expand the Mac presence in the organization based on the reasoning above.
Although Macs do have their place, there are a lot of reasons that they have yet to supplant their Windows-based counterparts. Before I get started, I will tell you that I like Macs; in fact, my home laptop is a MacBook and it goes absolutely everywhere with me and I wouldn't have it any other way. Of course, I run both OS X and Windows XP on it, so it's not the 100% Apple experience.
So why has there not been a major Mac uptake in the enterprise?
Apple hardware is darn expensive. Last year, we purchased well-equipped (2 GB RAM, 2 GHz processor, 160 GB hard drive, DVD burner) business line desktops from Dell, each with a 19" monitor. The total cost per machine was less than $675. That price included a 3 year onsite warranty. A similarly configured Mac Mini, Apple's least expensive desktop offering lists at $924 without a monitor. Say that Apple was willing to knock off 20%; that brings the price down to around $780 per machine plus a couple of hundred dollars for a monitor, so you're looking at about $1,000 per desktop. Oh, yeah, that price doesn't include AppleCare. For cost-conscious businesses, it's hard to ignore that $325 savings per machine!
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
jfruh
Apple syncing patent can't come soon enough
pasmith
New Twitter features borrow from 3rd party clients
Esther Schindler
Open Source Changes the Software Acquisition Process
mikelgan
How to set up continuous podcast play on the new iTunes
David Strom
Five important Windows 7 mobility features
sjvn
Guard your Wi-Fi for your own sake
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Grepping on Whole Words
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Its a pity they dont
Mac is not more expensive for the same wintel. The hardware is just better, see the monitors for example, they cost roughly double, but if you have worked with one then you will love it.Started with Mac some 15yrs ago, switched to Windows95, then last year converted back to Mac and will stay there. I was fed up with crashes and incompatibilities of XP, never switched to vista.
The thuth is that CFOs compare the bottom line, they buy the cheapest, full stop. this is a pity, as there are no measures of ROI for office equipment.
I was wondering what it takes for Macs to get into the offices. One huge advantage was Vista. It would be a pity of Apple to reduce quality in order to make up the cost difference. If more macs get into the office, client ERP SW will be developed its not a big deal.
Bull
The hardware is the same. The OS is different, not necessarily better. Vista is resource intensive, but very stable (by my own experience only). Plus, you can't get macs comparable to pcs for certain tasks, such as engineering or even photoshop (find my a mac w/ the nvidia CX card). I think the main reason artists prefer macs is culture, the same reason enterprises look at windows first. Apple's quality is not so much higher, just their control and premium. I use macs all the time, but I hate your ignorance.subject
I am addressing mac fan, not the author.