I feel like mine still has a lot of years in it but it is dependent on OS updates and I need to update to get security patches.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM Says Macs Are Up to $543 Less Expensive Than PCs Over Time
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Neither Windows nor Apple Fan boy, but what IBM did not release was details about the users.
IBM does not only use Macs but Windows PCs as well but the question is what kind of user gets/uses what type of computer. Important questions would be who group of people use Macs at IBM, I could guess that they are mostly devs and engineers,... which are less likely to ask for support for trivial things. On the otherhand jenny from accounting gets a windows pc because of ms office etc. and has no clue how to open the settings....
IBM does not only use Macs but Windows PCs as well but the question is what kind of user gets/uses what type of computer. Important questions would be who group of people use Macs at IBM, I could guess that they are mostly devs and engineers,... which are less likely to ask for support for trivial things. On the otherhand jenny from accounting gets a windows pc because of ms office etc. and has no clue how to open the settings....
Someone didn't get the memo that Macs are outdated and no use for real work and that Apple is only interested in "iToys"
I completely agree with you though. They probably did give these to savvy users (pending them actually saying what the mix was). The example of Office thoughI'm not sure about. Microsoft have done a pretty damn good job at making Office (With the exception of Outlook) look and feel the same everywhere, Mac, Windows, Web, iOS, Android etc. and I'm not sure much retraining would be required for the average user. I've said it before and I'll say it again but the Office apps are probably the best ones on my iPad and ain't half bad this year on Mac either.
When they came up with this figure. I wonder if they just include IT costs to sort out employee problems. I'd be curious how much more money is saved due to less down time. Time the employee isn't working is lost revenue for the company from their productivity and wasted payroll expenses.
I'd also be curious to see if they monetized overall employee productivity. When both Macs and Windows computers are functioning properly. Are employees any more productive on the Macs?
I'd also be curious to see if they monetized overall employee productivity. When both Macs and Windows computers are functioning properly. Are employees any more productive on the Macs?
Just read the last article, and couldn't help noticing all the laughable comparisons. Take for instance, the writer claims:
Macs are not overpriced versus Windows PCs
There's no question that Macs are expensive, easily $2,000 for a business-class iMac, MacBook, or Mac Mini setup. That's usually cited as a reason to pooh-pooh Mac adoption. However, a comparable business-class PC from Dell, Hewlett-Packard, or Lenovo costs about the same -- maybe $200 less, maybe $100 more, depending on configuration and level of portability.
Comparing the cost of Macs to cheap PCs is misleading, as enterprises don't buy cheap PCs that home users do. It's a dishonest argument.
Macs are also more durable than PCs, so over time, you'll spend less on repairs and replacements. That's certainly my company's experience, where about a quarter of all computers are Macs, and I've heard the same from Cisco, Intel, and others.
The writer compares Macs vs cheap Home PC's when durability is in question, but Macs vs expensive business-class PC's when price in question. Hm.. I wonder why he would make such skewed comparison? The article doesn't reveal any empirical data, the source of saving, actual spending, from Cisco, Intel, etc, just like this IBM's supposed saving backed up with no data.
At my last job, MIS folks replaced/refreshed all their desktops for about $40M. HP eventually outbid Dell by not so negligible margin. They didn't even bother with Apple -- Macs would have cost at least 60% to 80% more for what amounts to nothing more than thousands of glorified web browsing/word processing machines.
I have yet to see any hardware failure rates between Mac's and PCs, but based on my personal experience, my two cheap Dell laptops (around $600) lasted forever (5+ years) while two iBooks I owned in college lasted 1 year each (over $1,000). Now I use a rMacBook Pro (over $2,300) for personal stuff, but it wasn't always so smooth -- first year, I wasn't able to use any of my bluetooth devices because of Mac's Wifi + Bluetooth interference problem; then came the defective GPUs on rMacBooks Apple refused to acknowledge and I had to pay $320 for repair (Apple did finally acknowledge it in 2014 after customers filed a class-action lawsuit); finally, last month, Sierra crippled my 32" external monitor. Lenovo X1C, company issued laptop (hopefully soon Dell XPS), is what I use for work.
Last edited:
I personally save money longterm. I got 3 years from a Dell that cost $1100. I've gotten 4 years from a MacBook that cost $2000... I could easily get another 2-4 years from it (or sell it for a good chunk of change).
They don't guarantee 5-6 years. In fact they have cut updates significantly earlier than that whenever there's any kind of sharp break, G5-> intel, 32->64, minimum OpenGL version. When not much work is required, it goes on a bit longer. 5 years refers to the point of vintage status, which seems to relate to the availability of hardware service options. They have dropped things around 5-6 years lately, but that's partly due to the lack of changes comparable to those listed.
I guess metal could be the next thing, but it's unlikely that they'll be able to drop OpenGL support anytime soon.
Fingers crossed new Mac Pro announcement this Thursday. Probably won't buy it, as I'm using a rMBP 15" full time and it's good enough. *Only* reason I'd want a Mac Pro or even iMac is for 32gb of RAM. If the new MacBooks has an option for 32, I'm beyond happy and can finally move away from desktops.
Yep, should certainly be a like for like when comparing.
Me, I don't see a significant durability difference between Apple and similar tier HP hardware (can't comment on recent Dell's).
The big cost savings are in support and possibly longevity due to MacOS. (but, again, we've seen Microsoft reverse this trend with Windows 10). Provided they don't return to their former ways of bloating their OS, you could see similar lifespans for PC's. I know lots of businesses simply didn't update their OS's. They were running XP for a very long time. (which is why MS kept extending support for it, as so many corporate customers refused to upgrade).
This does cost you more in the long run though - having the hardware fail out in the field, when it should have been replaced as part of a routine refresh cycle costs a lot in terms of impact to staff and processing an urgent, last minute replacement.
Isn't Apple on v2 and everyone else already on v4? Same architecture, I don't even know what's different. No TB3 for those chips, so you are probably right...Mac Pro announcement is doubtful. Maybe a gfx boost or something.
Not based on my experience. Again, at my last work, there were a couple dozen 6 year old Macs thatwere mainly used by video/audio/image engineers and there was no Mac OS X (10.9) for broken/unreliable SMB/NFS stacks they desperately needed to transmit TB of data in a heavily distributed network. They were eventually forced to upgrade/refresh some of their hardware at great cost. It'd be fine to keep older Mac OS if all they were doing is browsing webs or typing stuff on word processing, but where Mac's were legitimately needed for serious work (eg, big enterprises), there was no longevity support. Do you remember when MS discontinued support for Win XP a couple of year ago, there were still millions of gov't agencies, companies relying on MS for updates? It doesn't work that way in Apple's ecosystem -- wether you think Macs are more durable doesn't really matter, Apple would just cut you off. It's no wonder that you get more calls from older PC hardwares vs newer Apple Macs.
Last edited:
When you're getting to the point of being unsupported, those systems should have been part of a refresh cycle. You should be keeping all of your systems up to date with the latest OS updates (failing that, you're not getting the security updates).
I'm not comparing old PC's vs new Mac's - your words, not mine.
Win 7 was a good replacement for XP...that's when all of these companies and agencies should have been migrating off of XP.
Apple doesn't have enterprise reps like Microsoft does. They don't support corporations in the same way. You really need to be working with your reseller to have an extended support model with them (and if they don't have the capability, then you picked the wrong reseller).
They have had three years of waiting, I'm sure they could find some CPU to put in the Mac Pro that would be an improvement over what they have now
I think them releasing a Mac Pro is predicated on Apple offering a brand new 4k or 5k display that's compatible with a new Mac Pro (and ostensibly the new MacBook pro). Having a new display is reason enough to hype a new Mac Pro, even if it's 3-6 months away from shipping... but if there's no new display, no rush to announce a tiny-volume product like the Mac Pro. Also they can pre-announce a display even if it's months away from availability or just "2017" for the release date... there's no other currently selling Apple product it'll cannibalize.
I think they largely gave up on the Mac Pro. I don't see how a display is causing the lack of updates, after all these years.
Sells in such small amounts I suspect that might be so - or they've unwisely decided to outright skip a full generation of Xeon chips...
I don't have an answer, I do like the design of it, the price tag, how its aimed, doomed it for me.
It used to be something that was more powerful then the iMac and more expandable with lots of drive bays and options for GPU.
There's been plenty of GPU options since 2013 which Apple has ignored, and offering more than 1TB of storage might have salvaged some sales. At work I'm replacing nearly 50 Mac Pros with a like number of Windows-based workstations because there's no way to justify buying new 2013-era computers at this point. The Mac Pros cost more than twice as much and still don't offer equivalent graphics performance.
Wait, what is your opinion of Taylor Swift? For the record, I think she's the bomb.
Last edited:
Sure, but if enterprises have to upgrade/refresh their Mac's every 4-5 years like they are mission-critical servers, why does longevity even matter, just to poke a logical hole in your argument? Most companies don't need to upgrade their desktops every 4-5 years like they used to unless there is some dire need for the bleeding edge GPU or high-disk ops SSD drives. I've worked at many large banks in NYC and, even there, they all repurposed their older PCs -- things don't just get thrown away after 5 years.
If there is a Apple reseller who could support something that Apple failed to provide (networking/data sharing), please let me know. It would have saved intolerable years many videos/data engineers suffered in enterprise environment. My last employer has about 1PB of backlogged data.
Depreciation cycle doesn't need to absolutely mirror when the gear is removed from service, but you need to look at your failure rates to determine when those costs are going to exceed the value of leaving old equipment in the field. It gets pretty pricey when you start impacting the users.
Pretty sure the resellers we have here don't exist south of the border. Your vendor relations folks should be looking for VAR's that can offload a lot of the work your IT department would need to do in provisioning new Apple gear. In terms of clients to integrate them - we used enterprise directory software to integrate the credentials of our *nix/Mac and AD systems.
" It would have saved intolerable years many videos/data engineers suffered in enterprise environment. My last employer has about 1PB of backlogged data."
You'd need to be a bit more specific on this use case for me to provide some feedback.