Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are they getting the reach around discount? I seriously doubt that IBM is willing to pony up the roughly $300 premium over a Windows laptop -- makes no sense.

I think Apple would have to seriously rethink their strategy to make significant inroads into the business market. I love my Macbook, but I just can't justify telling my organization to spend an extra $400 per computer just to use OS X.
 
Last edited:
The only complete twaddle in this thread is your participation. So I guess going to the Walmart hq and sitting in lawn chair furniture samples (which are used as office furniture) tells one nothing of the expectations of the culture?

Or maybe you can go to a Toyota factory and look at the tooling and setup and think, nah, this has nothing to do with the quality of the product?

I don't know what planet you're living on but it ain't earth.

No one has agreed with you.... what does that say?

You are linking culture to purchases, culture is not directly about purchases but purchases do tell you something about the liquidity and the mindset of the company. Cheap means just that. IBM like all companies do, have looked at the market, done a deal and changed supplier - does that mean the company has a new culture? Its a simple financial transaction, not a culture shift.

Google have lots of bean bags, better or worse than Walmart lawn chairs?
Strange - bean bags are no doubt cheaper, but the bean bags or office ball chairs say much more about the culture than the price of the item itself... (starting to make sense to you yet?).

The tooling at Toyota has nothing to do with culture (not that you said it did) either and quality is based on the materials used as well as the engineering applied to the problem (including the tooling)! If i followed your logic the unsightly plastic strips on the iPhone 6 would mean apple is cheap and nasty...? Oh wait, maybe its just part of a solution....
 
I think Apple would have to seriously rethink their strategy to make significant inroads into the business market. I love my Macbook, but I just can't justify telling my organization to spend an $400 per computer just to use OS X.
You're looking at only one small part of the cost of ownership.

What if that $400 on the up-front cost results in 5 hours per week less downtime? What if it means 30% fewer calls to your IT department's help desk? What if it means people don't have to wipe their hard drives and reinstall everything after 1-2 years? Don't you think those cost savings might be more than $400?

I don't have concrete numbers here, and even if I did, they'd be different for every corporation, but I can say that the cost of a computer is far higher than the amount you pay the manufacturer to buy it.
 
You're looking at only one small part of the cost of ownership.

What if that $400 on the up-front cost results in 5 hours per week less downtime? What if it means 30% fewer calls to your IT department's help desk? What if it means people don't have to wipe their hard drives and reinstall everything after 1-2 years? Don't you think those cost savings might be more than $400?

I don't have concrete numbers here, and even if I did, they'd be different for every corporation, but I can say that the cost of a computer is far higher than the amount you pay the manufacturer to buy it.

Their point was that it's difficult to convince the company to spend the extra money. Also, a lot of companies have proprietary software that runs in Windows only, so you'd likely have to also buy licenses for that on top of the Mac.

You won't save 5 hours a week in downtime though. I also don't think you'd have many fewer calls for IT. You might even have more since most people aren't familiar with OS X and aren't as computer savy as we like to think. You'd get a lot of people struggling to make the switch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
Hmmm...not sure if IBM realy knows what they are getting into...as there are no more Mac-Servers, they will be forced to deploy a mixed network...and due to the secrecy that apple keeps around it's OS-Developement in combination with those realy short support lifecycles...it may give some pain...let's keep fingers crossed for those techs that will have to get things going after the financial departments have gone through with this...I realy would not like to be in their position...
</random thopughts>
 
"shoehorn"?

If I ran a large IT department, I would standardize on Macs loaded with Boot Camp & Windows and let folks pic between OS/X & Windows on the fly as it best suited their needs.


Possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard in my entire life. You would be laughed out of a meeting if you seriously suggested that. I’m not kidding
 
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One
It is not because of where I've worked, it is because i understand that a companies culture is fundamentally not the same as religious or regional based culture. Its more dynamic, open to change and without historic prejudices.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You see a difference in types of culture. I don't. I do see a difference in tools though, so it might be arguable how much a computer would affect its user. For me though, the difference between Macs and Windows machines is huge. But, as you say, to each his own.
 
You don't see a difference in types of culture - really!
Well that last sentence says it all - they both do the same thing, in pretty much the same way..

Also shouts something else, but I'm not going there..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
You're looking at only one small part of the cost of ownership.

What if that $400 on the up-front cost results in 5 hours per week less downtime? What if it means 30% fewer calls to your IT department's help desk? What if it means people don't have to wipe their hard drives and reinstall everything after 1-2 years? Don't you think those cost savings might be more than $400?

I don't have concrete numbers here, and even if I did, they'd be different for every corporation, but I can say that the cost of a computer is far higher than the amount you pay the manufacturer to buy it.


So far the PCs we've purchased since I've been around have been working fine (knock on wood). That could change of course, but we have 6 year old Dells that I put SSDs in and they are humming along on Windows 7.
 
Different cultures do tend to use different tools and different kinds of people also. In reality, tools have everything to do with culture.


Uhmm, no. That is not what culture would be. Actually, you are the one linking things together in some strange way. Culture influences tools and tools influence culture. Also, people using PCs in general are indeed different from those using Macs. Why would people buy Macs otherwise? If we agree that there are differences, then certainly from a certain perspective, one type of people is better than the other. Of course, this shouldn't be construed (like you are doing) as being a better person. There's nothing arrogant to think that someone is smarter, if they are, and that doesn't make them a better person, just a smarter one.


Thinkpads have been getting worse and worse over the years and frankly the only thing special about them was the good build quality and some features, such as Wacom digitizers.


No. Not at all. You are trying too hard to make links between people and the types of computers they use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
Well, that is precisely where we disagree - a Mac environment is more efficient. I am constantly bewildered by how people can find Windows to be any good. In my experience, MacOS has been consistently better for everything, from writing and design to building a network and coding. I have always had less problems with the Macs. Heck, Microsoft can't get two consecutive versions of Windows right.

Also, how is an iMac a ton of money and not good for 3D? When we compare spec for spec, Macs are hardly that expensive and when you throw in the resale value it evens out pretty nicely (if not being cheaper).

I wish people like you didn't own Macs. Your arrogance from all your posts makes all of us Mac users look bad.

As for Mac vs PC, it is a matter of preference. Your "experience" is not reality. A Mac is not more efficient than a Windows machine and a Windows machine is not more efficient than a Mac. It all comes down to who is using it and what they are using it for. Both have their pros and cons.
 
Their point was that it's difficult to convince the company to spend the extra money. Also, a lot of companies have proprietary software that runs in Windows only, so you'd likely have to also buy licenses for that on top of the Mac.

You won't save 5 hours a week in downtime though. I also don't think you'd have many fewer calls for IT. You might even have more since most people aren't familiar with OS X and aren't as computer savy as we like to think. You'd get a lot of people struggling to make the switch.
All I can say is that I have friends who work in IT tech support, and they all tell me that their Mac users don't produce nearly as many support calls, and there are far fewer Mac users who require hardware replacement as a result of those calls.

You can say I'm lying if you like, but do you have any evidence to the contrary?
 
Their point was that it's difficult to convince the company to spend the extra money. Also, a lot of companies have proprietary software that runs in Windows only, so you'd likely have to also buy licenses for that on top of the Mac.

You won't save 5 hours a week in downtime though. I also don't think you'd have many fewer calls for IT. You might even have more since most people aren't familiar with OS X and aren't as computer savy as we like to think. You'd get a lot of people struggling to make the switch.

If my nearly completely computer illiterate mother (who never could do ANYTHING in Windows for more than an hour or two before she whined on the phone about it) can adapt to OSX, just about anyone can. She even installs updates on her own and spends hours a day surfing and following Facebook.

OSX isn't hard to use and the lack of constant and I mean CONSTANT NAGGING you get on a typical Windows machine about Windows Updates (which can now FORCE themselves to reboot your machine on Windows 10 Home with ZERO input from the user to stop it whenever the hell it feels like doing it), Security Updates, Virus/Malware checker updates (many requiring restarts over the years as well), and in her case HP "we can clean up your computer" updates, the whole Windows7 thing was just too much garbage for her to even hope to figure out. All those things popped up constant nag windows that were always in her way and always asking to reboot the machine any time she got on it. They don't stop because Malware is RAMPANT on Windows machines. Yes, you can avoid it by constantly updating your security and running a malware checker and letting M$ reboot your machine every other stinking day. WTF wants to do that every other day? It's the #1 reason I switched to a Mac. I can leave this running for MONTHS at a time and most updates can wait because they aren't critical and even then the vast majority of them don't require a reboot. Even the EFI one that did recently wasn't an actual threat to my computer because someone would have to break into my house to infect it physically with a Thunderbolt dongle.

The problem with Windows has never been a more complex user interface (dock with App folder = Old Start Menu; Command-X = CTRL-X, etc.), but asinine things like a registry file that grows over time and slows down the computer as it gets junked up (and was part of many malware attacks as well, let alone just plain file corruptions by programs that screwed it up somehow) and Windows "Installers" that take 20 minutes in some cases to install and especially to REMOVE a single game/application/program when in OSX the vast majority of programs are just "drag to trash can and delete" and "drag to any desired (or app) folder to install) are just night and day in terms of day-to-day usability and time savings. Every time I cold boot my one remaining Windows only machine, which gets used sparingly, it wanted to do update after update after update and if I didn't set the malware checker to NOT do auto-scans, it would have either delayed bootup by tens of minutes or started doing it in the middle of a game or something equally awful.

No, people who try to tell us that Windows is better stick to "more software/games" and "faster fps in games" and "nothing wrong with the GUI" type arguments. Windows supporters/fans also used to point out they could run Blu-Rays easily, but things have changed there now that M$ isn't subsidizing it any longer (Windows 10 doesn't even come with a DVD player anymore, let alone Blu-Ray support, which you can now get just as easily for OSX despite Apple's disinterest; I have a Blu-Ray USB3 drive and both a FREE software player and software to rip/encode it to M4V for AppleTV playback).

Windows fans don't often venture into the fragmented hard drive discussion (less relevant with SSDs, but still there with regular HDs as NTFS still frags the hell out of files over time and M$ has never updated the file system to avoid it). They don't like to talk about malware except when one of these "worms" comes up in a OSX news article and then they act like Macs have just as much malware as they do when it's not even in the same galaxy by comparison. They dont like to talk about how much time they waste installing and un-installing apps. They don't like to discuss the registry at all except when trying to help each other clean theirs up. They only now praise they can get Windows on a USB stick (but would like to forget the whole registration serials they must never lose and still have to call M$ if they upgrade their hardware as M$ assume they're pirates).

Many Windows users are ecstatic that Windows 10 is "free" (for people that already paid hundreds for Windows 7 or 8), yet don't like talk about how Windows now even pushes ads through the ancient game of solitaire (something even Windows 3.1 users didn't have to put up with). Most are blissfully unaware that a standard install key-logs every single thing they do to M$'s "Cloud" and Cortana keeps track of every verbal request all to sell more ads. Your privacy means literally nothing at this point. Who needs pirates to key log your computer when M$ does it for them now? It's like the organized crime going "legit" since it's a "feature" now not a hack. How long before your "free" Windows 10 demands a subscription for future major version updates??? We know that "10" is the last version of Windows so it will be Windows 10 V2.0, etc. like OSX has, except I doubt those future major revisions are going to be free. No, like a drug dealer, they're giving you the first version/sample free to get your hooked then it's time to demand $$$ for future versions. It's an offer you won't be able to refuse since no version of Windows 10 except the Enterprise one will ALLOW you to refuse that update. Perhaps they'll update you to V2.0 automatically and then inform you that you have 30 days to send in payment or you won't be able to use your computer for more than 5 minutes a day or something equally horrible like no security updates until you agree to a $15 monthly fee for their "protection". It's an offer you can't refuse.

Plus i don't believe OS X is any easier/cheaper to support or even more stable these days.

I don't know about Yosemite since I don't like the visual changes and still use Mavericks, but I have literally NEVER had Mavericks have a kernel panic or otherwise "lock up" on me even ONCE. I generally run it 24/7 since it's a whole house server in addition to the primary home computer and even gaming. I have seen an occasional OpenGL glitch (color flash) in games after being up for months at a time that a reboot fixes, but I'm certain if I knew its exact cause, I could just restart that service. It doesn't lock anything up and has little or no effect on other applications, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shamino
All I can say is that I have friends who work in IT tech support, and they all tell me that their Mac users don't produce nearly as many support calls, and there are far fewer Mac users who require hardware replacement as a result of those calls.

You can say I'm lying if you like, but do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Of course I won't say you're lying... but there are a ton of factors to consider even in your friend's case. For example, is anyone forced to use Macs, or are the only people getting them the ones who opted for them (ie might already be comfortable in OSX). Or perhaps they are familiar with Linux, or are tech-literate people, etc. The only evidence to the contrary I have is of course anecdotal as well: I've had to fresh-install OS X on my girlfriend's laptop twice now in around 1.5 years, which may be an exception... or an indication that OS X, like iOS, isn't quite as problem-free as it was in recent years.

My point is simply that there are a lot of people who will struggle with simply having different keyboard shortcuts, let alone a different file management system and window environment. Heck, most companies seem to avoid changing versions of Windows as much as possible (ie. went from XP to 7, and still haven't updated from there since).

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, either. I'm simply saying you likely won't save 5 hours of downtime per week, per employee, and there is the chance that people could struggle with the changeover -- both in transferring platforms and in adapting to OS X. Combine that with the additional hardware cost, the potential cost of licensing Windows if you need it still, and dealing with proprietary software, and the switch isn't as straight-forwards as all that.

Having said that, I'd love if my company gave me a 15" MPB... but at double the price (of the crappy Dells) and being incompatible with a bunch of software I use, it isn't going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
Still wouldn't give up my Thinkpad with Trackpoint which is much better than any touchpad.
 
My point is simply that there are a lot of people who will struggle with simply having different keyboard shortcuts, let alone a different file management system and window environment. Heck, most companies seem to avoid changing versions of Windows as much as possible (ie. went from XP to 7, and still haven't updated from there since).

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, either. I'm simply saying you likely won't save 5 hours of downtime per week, per employee, and there is the chance that people could struggle with the changeover -- both in transferring platforms and in adapting to OS X. Combine that with the additional hardware cost, the potential cost of licensing Windows if you need it still, and dealing with proprietary software, and the switch isn't as straight-forwards as all that.

Having said that, I'd love if my company gave me a 15" MPB... but at double the price (of the crappy Dells) and being incompatible with a bunch of software I use, it isn't going to happen.
I don't disagree with you, but I think you missed my point. You latched onto my hypothetical example and assumed that it was my point.

I'm not saying that you are guaranteed to save 5 hours downtime for every user every week. That would be a crazy thing to claim.

What I am saying (and all I've been saying for this thread) is that the total cost of ownership goes far beyond the purchase price of the computer. Unless you're getting an extremely high-end system, it is likely that the cost of maintenance and support for any computer will overshadow the purchase price to the extent that the purchase price is almost irrelevant.

Companies that are saying that they refuse to spend an extra $400 on a computer are either so strapped for cash that they probably shouldn't be purchasing anything, or they are ignoring all of the other costs. IT support staff costs a lot. Replacement parts (especially for older equipment) can be expensive. Lost productivity due to downtime is a massive cost. Pushing software updates onto your users (and having some of your IT people act as enforcers for those users who refuse to upgrade) is pretty substantial.

This is in addition to things like training (which you mention), which come in to play whenever anything changes. And given the recent changes from Microsoft in Windows 8 and 10, there are going to be pretty substantial costs even if you stick with Windows. One could easily argue that the training cost of users switching from Windows XP/Vista/7 to 8/10 is more than switching to Mac OS X.

My point in my reply to your original post is that there are plenty of studies out there which will clearly spell out all of these costs, and compare the cost of ownership for Windows PCs, Macs and even Linux PCs. If you want to try and convince your IT department to let you buy a Mac, with a higher up-front pricetag than a bargain-basement PC, you're going to need the figures that these studies provide. My comment about 5 hours was merely an example - if the studies show that you save $1000 in support and overhead costs over the lifespan of the computer, will they still refuse to pay $400 for the computer? Maybe they will, but any argument with bean counters is going to be in terms of total cost, and you shouldn't assume you know what those costs are before you actually read the studies.

BTW, one could easily make the same argument that they should be buying higher-end PCs from Dell instead of the cheapest models available. The better models (more memory, faster CPU, more storage, higher reliability) will (up to a limit, of course) yield higher productivity. You can (for example) process more customers if each transaction can be processed 30 seconds faster. If you're doing software development, speeding up build times means you can complete more edit/compile/debug cycles during a day. And so on (come up with your own examples based on what you use the computer for.) But if the company ignores these ongoing savings and only looks at the one-time sticker price of the computer, they are only hurting themselves. And the way to convince them to change is to do the research needed to show them the actual savings that will result from buying better equipment.
 
If I was offered jobs at Company A that used Macs, and Company B that used Windows; the salary was the similar, similar benefits, the commute was the approximately same, the job description was approximately the same, the company size was approximately same, and the leadership style was approximately the same, I would choose Company A that used Macs.

Even if the difference seems silly, the computer I stare at for 8+ hrs/day is as important as the comfort of my shoes and the comfort of my mattress - the other things I use for 8+ hrs/day.

Plus, I bet the company culture and culture of employees would be better at Company A that used Macs.

Not a choice
 
And for a short while they made the PowerPC G5 chips for Apple, but then couldn't deliver the quantity that Apple wanted as well as the chips for the Powerbooks and that romance fizzled.

And, Intel was on a meltdown path with their CPUs (power-hogs) as well. I'd be curious if it was Apple that convinced them to head down the 'core' path of lower power, or if that had been in the plans before Apple started down that path. It was widely believed, at the time, that speed was the problem, but actually the last G5s were ahead of the Intel counterparts. Apple just saw the writing on the wall about that not being sustainable.

And, it will be interesting to see where this goes in the future, as it seems the old RISC debate is surfacing again concerning the future for speed gains, while maintaining power consumption.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.