Macs Landing on Corporate Desks, Led by iPhones and iPads

[Steve121178]

A MacBook Air is not expensive compared to a quality PC laptop. And it will last longer. However, _some_ businesses recognize that it make business sense to keep your employees happy. Sure, it depends on which employee, but to some degree it always good for business (obviously, some businesses don't feel like that and end up wondering why all good employees try to leave). For the price difference between a PC and an MBA you make an employee feel enormously valued, and that alone will benefit the business. Having an employee who feels the company cares about employees vs. an employee who thinks they don't give a **** will make a difference in productivity and quality of the work.


I couldn't say if they are vain, but they make tons of profit every year. So I guess they are doing something right.

MBA's are "closed" so PC support people are not able to do a simple task like a HDD swap.

MBA's are great for individual use, but as a business tool in the corporate world, they are useless. Also, because Apple do not publish roadmaps of future products & refreshes, you can never plan ahead. Sure, you can use a MBA for business, but you'd have to be bloody stupid to do so in a corporate environment.

As for making people "feel better about themselves" by issuing MacBook's, I've never heard such nonsense. I wouldn't hire people who had that kind of mindset.

We have 50,000 ThinkPad's out there, the vast majority running Windows 7 and we can control everything from policies to software deployments to all of them. Bliss.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

While I've been a Mac guy for years, Windows server beats Mac OS server hands down

Man, really. I love my Mac as well but the Macs at our office are nothing but headaches for our IT guys. From Outlook incompatibilities to macro scripting issues with Excel to having to deal with Parallels issues with AutoCAD and Revvit.

 

[linuxcooldude]

A MacBook Air is not expensive compared to a quality PC laptop. And it will last longer.

In our case yes. In some of the places I've worked in we stopped using consumer grade budget laptops because they simply did not last very long. We constantly moved to different job sites in industrial environments and needed something a bit more rugged.

I suppose if you used the same consumer laptop in an office environment and never moved it off the desk it would last longer. But in cases like that it would probably better using a desktop anyway.

 

[longpath]

Considering that in the mid-90s I was interviewed at GE Corporate in Fairfield specifically for a job of removing the Apple products and convincing the end-users that the Windows95 PCs they were being replaced with were "just as good", I can't help but smirk at the irony. For the record, no, I did not take that job.

 

[KnightWRX]

I still don't understand what you are arguing about.

Nothing, I found your characterisation of IT "refusing" Macs to be awkward and misrepresentative of the realities of IT.

And I don't consider solution Architects to be a part of IT per se (that's just a pet peeve of mine, they are really, but when us implementors, operators and administrators all do at their stuff, you're left wondering about their actual IT competency levels), and they are they ones meeting with customers and drafting requirements for the bidding process. We only get to put in place what Gartn^H^H^H^H^Hwhat the bidding process gives us after the fact.

 

[shaunp]

Not ready for the enterprise

My mac's are great as individual desktops and together with iCloud and my IOS devices are a joy to use. However I feel that they are very much designed to work as single-user environments. When connecting to network shares on my Linux NAS, or shares on another MAC (AFP) for that matter things start to get clunky - very slow to authenticated to network shares compared to Windows.

Add that together with Apples' lack of interest in server products, slow remote management and comments others have made about lack of management tools I think Apple needs to start concentrating on the back-end a lot more. Let's face it they buy linux servers for iCloud, does that not tell you something? Do they use their own servers internally? If not, why?

 

[submarine89]

Nothing, I found your characterisation of IT "refusing" Macs to be awkward and misrepresentative of the realities of IT.

And I don't consider solution Architects to be a part of IT per se (that's just a pet peeve of mine, they are really, but when us implementors, operators and administrators all do at their stuff, you're left wondering about their actual IT competency levels), and they are they ones meeting with customers and drafting requirements for the bidding process. We only get to put in place what Gartn^H^H^H^H^Hwhat the bidding process gives us after the fact.

I originally stated that once the business has made the decision, IT doesn't necessarily have a right of refusal. Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), we (as my IT group) have everyone rolled into one group. It's good in some ways, but bad in others. I really think we are saying the same thing.

 

[KnightWRX]

I originally stated that once the business has made the decision

Maybe I misunderstood you're "the boss" asks for something then. Because frankly, "the boss" doesn't dictate business or corporate policies in the level of businesses we're talking about, it's all done at the CEO/CFO/CIO/Board level. And they frankly don't really care enough about Macs to make it corporate policy.

Usually, a "the boss" coming in and asking to get something out of the IT standards is just a small time employee that happens to be in the managerial branch, not someone in an actual position to affect corporate policies.

 

[steve2112]

A lot of Enterprise businesses are now realising the value of the "Bring your own" model. Basically, why should IT bother with your client workstation ? Most everything can be done with the thin client model nowadays except for very specialised apps that few departments need.

I've been in the "cloud" business (thin client computing) for about 8 years now, first doing it for SOHO and medium businesses back in 2003 or thereabouts and now on to enterprise grade infrastructure.

As long as your computer is fit enough to run an RDP, ICA or Web client, you have very low needs for the client portion side of things.


But that's only related to the fact that we run everything that isn't desktop support or authentification Unix.

IT professionals have job security not because of a particular platform, but because contrary to popular belief, IT is actually hard to pull off. Most uninformed people think IT is a cost center and that IT folks just invent solutions to non-existing problems to get their foot in the door. I'd like to see them 1 day in my shoes holding it together so that the business can concentrate on its primary mission and be productive about it.

BSODs don't regurlarly happen anymore. Most of it comes down to bugs in drivers (and if you're running an enterprise, you're running WHQL certified drivers and have strict adherance to HCLs from vendors) or faulty hardware (which Apple is not immune to).

OS X, Windows, whatever, it's all pretty much "rock solid" these days.

Preach it, brother!

I have been shot down multiple times trying to convert places to thin clients. In reality, the vast majority of users would be fine using a thin client. They are cheap, easy to manage and replace, and can still do the job. Sadly, in most cases I have seen, they have been shot down because people think they need the local storage on a desktop, or the portability of a notebook. And I haven't seen a BSOD in years. I've never had one in Win7, and have used it since it was in beta.

This is why the "technical people" have a job. The users do not exist to make your life pleasant. You exist to make the "next thing" work. Deal with that or find another profession.

First of all, it was a joke playing on the whole clueless user stereotype. I fully realize that without users, there would be no network for me to support. Here's the problem: As KnightWRX said, IT is too often viewed as a cost center, and therefore isn't given the support needed, yet we are expected to just "make it work". Too many times, I have had people from a CTO/CIO position down who have zero technical experience, and simply don't understand the technical issues we present to them.

As an example: I have been a network admin most of my career. At one place I worked, our entire network infrastructure was Cisco. We ran Cisco equipment, Cisco proprietary routing protocols, and other proprietary software. Other vendor equipment would not work with our setup. We submitted an request to buy some new equipment, and at several steps along the way, we were asked if we could go with another vendor's equipment, because it was cheaper. No matter how many times we explained it, we were questioned. In another example, our CTO got dazzled by a sales pitch and bought some network monitoring software that was still in beta. We were later told that it was very expensive and we needed to make it work.

It's give or take in IT. Sometimes, it's not even a matter of technical "can-do", but corporate policies in place for information privacy, secrecy and security. Some devices/software just cannot be made to comply with the policies sometimes and users need to understand that's out of IT's hands.

This. Granted, my perspective is a bit warped, since I am in security and work for the government, but security is our driving motivator. That is why we don't like the "bring your own" approach. If we can't control what is on a machine, then it could be compromised. It has happened way too often already, without even having that type of policy. Thankfully, there are tools become available to help manage such issues.

Over time VDI, and similar will negate any client platform specific need. Granted it's in the infant stages, but it's growing rapidly. Even Microsoft sees it, and is changing their way of business...

I actually agree with this. Like I said earlier, I'm a big believer in virtualization and thin clients. Funny you should mention mainframes, though, as thin clients are just a prettier version of the old WYSE terminals.

If he insists, I'll go through change control with all the documentation on the change he wants me to implement, as is the proper procedure for a deployment and I'll have them tell him no instead. If he still doesn't get it, then I can tell him I tried and that it's out of my hands and needs to go higher up himself to get his change approved.

All I've wasted in about 60 minutes of my time documenting the change and submitting it for approval.

----------




Sure I will, because you won't find me (if all the levels of security we have here is any indication, including massive clusters to do security auditing in real time with log consolidation and automated analysis). It's all about the stealth.

(never challenge a Unix sysadmin into hiding a Unix box).


Look, I'm as much a Mac user as any other guy and I would like to see Apple embraced more in the corporate world, but you need to keep a level head here, you seem to have a rather negative view of IT, which I find quite strange for a self-claimed IT worker.

And as the network security guy, you'll find it hard to pass traffic with no network connectivity.

Ugh. Change control boards. Thanks to crap like Sarbanes-Oxley, that has become an administrative nightmare. Truthfully, THAT is why we are all reluctant to change anything, because you have to spend hours on documentation and presenting to a CCB.

 

[pondosinatra]

Good thing they canned Apples Professional Division...

 

[submarine89]

Maybe I misunderstood you're "the boss" asks for something then. Because frankly, "the boss" doesn't dictate business or corporate policies in the level of businesses we're talking about, it's all done at the CEO/CFO/CIO/Board level. And they frankly don't really care enough about Macs to make it corporate policy.

Usually, a "the boss" coming in and asking to get something out of the IT standards is just a small time employee that happens to be in the managerial branch, not someone in an actual position to affect corporate policies.

"The boss" in the context of "the business". And I must disagree about the CEO/CFO/CIO class not making these demands. They most certainly do. Everyday users do not have the ability to adjust corporate direction without first running it through the normal process to the appropriate level (C-level, usually). The mail-room clerk can make a suggestion, but only management can change course.

 

[powers74]

As a college student, one of my biggest fears is entering the PC dominated corporate world.

Let me tell you. It's LAME.

 

[submarine89]

Preach it, brother!

First of all, it was a joke playing on the whole clueless user stereotype. I fully realize that without users, there would be no network for me to support. Here's the problem: As KnightWRX said, IT is too often viewed as a cost center, and therefore isn't given the support needed, yet we are expected to just "make it work". Too many times, I have had people from a CTO/CIO position down who have zero technical experience, and simply don't understand the technical issues we present to them.

As an example: I have been a network admin most of my career. At one place I worked, our entire network infrastructure was Cisco. We ran Cisco equipment, Cisco proprietary routing protocols, and other proprietary software. Other vendor equipment would not work with our setup. We submitted an request to buy some new equipment, and at several steps along the way, we were asked if we could go with another vendor's equipment, because it was cheaper. No matter how many times we explained it, we were questioned. In another example, our CTO got dazzled by a sales pitch and bought some network monitoring software that was still in beta. We were later told that it was very expensive and we needed to make it work.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the C-levels should listen to the technical experts before making these decisions, but all too often they do not. When they don't, all we can do is our best. Sometimes, cost be damned, they want what they want. I've heard that "reason" many times over the years: "It's expensive so it has to be good. Make it work".

Ugh. Change control boards. Thanks to crap like Sarbanes-Oxley, that has become an administrative nightmare. Truthfully, THAT is why we are all reluctant to change anything, because you have to spend hours on documentation and presenting to a CCB.

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

 

[mijail]

That's impossible on the basis that you can't prove a negative. And frankly, Aiden's not the one who made the claim of "BSODs!", so he has nothing to prove.

Wrong. What you can't usually prove is non-existence.

And anyway in this case the discussion is pretty concrete:
Renzatic: "It happens roughly as often as BSODs in any well built post Win9x machine".
BernardSG: "No."
AidenShaw: "Proof?"
Me:"Which one do you want, and which one could you give that it isn't so?"

So: the thing to be proved is that BSODs are as frequent in each platform. They either are, or they either aren't. If one thing can be proved true, the other is automatically proved false.
And if one thing can't be proved, then the other automatically is unprovable too.

So: in case AidenShaw is asking for a doable proof, I am asking which one would be good. It'd be interesting.

And if he is asking for an undoable proof, I am asking for the same from him.

If BernardSG wants to run around and claim "BSODs!" are a fact of life, then according to MacRumors rules he has to provide evidence when asked for it.

MacRumors rules asking for evidence? What? [Citation needed]. Pretty please. I would LOVE that.

But we know that things aren't like that because, amusingly, you and me have already had some discussion in which I pressed you for sources or reasonings, not even proofs, and you failed (or even didn't try) to provide any.

BSODs don't regurlarly happen anymore ... drivers ... blah ...

Besides the point.

 

[firewood]

MBA's are "closed" so PC support people are not able to do a simple task like a HDD swap.
....
We have 50,000 ThinkPad's out there, the vast majority running Windows 7 and we can control everything from policies to software deployments to all of them. Bliss.

Long ago, big companies would have their own support and service departments for custom ordered company cars, rebuild engines, etc. Bliss for the corporate auto repairmen. Like those company automotive jobs, your job may become extinct sooner than you think.

 

[Confuzzzed]

Add to this OS/X being a consumer-oriented OS with no enterprise features to speak off

I think this is a serious issue. But the more Mac penetration into corporate world there is, the more 3rd party software designers have to provide for OS-X.

it's clear that any increase in iMac sales is a result of iOS halo effect that won't last.

This I don't agree with. I have a PC desktop at work. Pretty good spec. Windows 7. Works well most of the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out some time. But I still look forward to going home to my apple stuff. If I had the option of having an iMac at work, I would jump at the chance. But it won't happen for 3-4 years because most enterprise software is so aligned with microsoft platforms. Unstable. Yes. But, sadly, Mac incompatible.

----------

Considering that in the mid-90s I was interviewed at GE Corporate in Fairfield specifically for a job of removing the Apple products and convincing the end-users that the Windows95 PCs they were being replaced with were "just as good", I can't help but smirk at the irony. For the record, no, I did not take that job.

You probably were not offered said job!!! I have been using Macs since 1994 (uninterrupted) and mid-1990s was not a great batch of apple products! Not that Windows 95 was much better BUT at least you didn't have to worry about software compatibility with the rest of the (working) world around you

 

[Renzatic]

So: the thing to be proved is that BSODs are as frequent in each platform. They either are, or they either aren't. If one thing can be proved true, the other is automatically proved false.
And if one thing can't be proved, then the other automatically is unprovable too.

Prove to me kernel panics rarely happen on Mac OSX. You could base your claim on personal experience, and I could turn around and say it's anecdotal. Just because you don't see kernel panics all that often doesn't mean they don't happen all the time to, say, some guy over in Milwaukee. Then you'll reply back with something else, and I'll respond in turn, and in the end, nothing will have been proven other than the fact we like to argue.

The simple fact is that Windows is only as stable as the hardware you put it on. If you slap 7 on a nice, expensive, well built machine, and use WHQL certified drivers, you won't see any blue screens.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wrong. What you can't usually prove is non-existence.

The non-existence of BSODs ? How am I wrong when we're saying the same thing.

MacRumors rules asking for evidence? What? [Citation needed]. Pretty please. I would LOVE that.

I aim to please :

http://guides.macrumors.com/Help:Rules_for_Appropriate_Debate

Sources. If you make claims of fact but don't cite sources when requested, the posts may be removed. If you started the thread then the thread may be closed or removed.

Citation provided. I won't wait for the apology, because frankly I don't expect it from you.

But we know that things aren't like that because, amusingly, you and me have already had some discussion in which I pressed you for sources or reasonings, not even proofs, and you failed (or even didn't try) to provide any.

Like usual, you just didn't accept the evidence and citations I gave. Like you probably won't again this time. There's a difference between me not providing sources, and you just outright dismissing them because they prove you wrong.

 

[uknowimright]

I really wonder where some of you get your "oh so terrible" PCs

both PCs and Macs have issues occasionally

I know my corporation was testing iPhones for employee use in 2010 but as of now I have not seen one issued to anyone of the SVP/VPs I work with, many of them have a personal iPhone of course but have to carry around the issued BB

It would be cool to be able to choose between PC or Mac for work but at the moment that won't be happening anytime soon, seems we are very pleased with everything HP provides for us (no problems with my Elitebook)

 

[kingtj]

re: thin clients

Thin clients? Ick.... You just lost me here.

I was involved in a thin client deployment, including traveling to the manufacturer's site to learn all about their centralized control software and how to write scripts to auto-upgrade software on them.

I went from initially being excited with their prospects to despising the entire thing.

First of all, each one of those thin clients requires a server on the back end, serving up the whole environment to them. What environment is that going to be? For *most* companies, it's Windows. That means spending a big chunk of change for a "client access license" for each user. Then, thanks to all the complexities of printer drivers in Windows, performance issues of all those remote sessions, etc. -- many places opt for a "farm" of servers running Citrix Metaframe on top of it. Now we're REALLY into some serious dollars. After all that's accounted for, where's the cost savings? A decent thin client is STILL effectively the same thing inside as a regular PC workstation, except it deletes the hard drive and gets by with a slower processor chip, plus maybe some RAM. All those things can be purchased for less than the software costs of going the thin client route!

Then, you've got reliability questions too. I had a lot of thin clients that were rendered useless when something was sent to them as a firmware flash update and it failed. Maybe some are a lot better about that now -- but it was definitely an issue on the Wyse units I saw.

The *real* costs are in the server room or network infrastructure (including costs for broadband circuits, etc.). The cost of deploying workstations to users is a relatively fixed amount, no matter how you slice it.

I'd rather put the money towards giving each employee a fully capable computer on their desk than a crippled one.....

Preach it, brother!
I have been shot down multiple times trying to convert places to thin clients. In reality, the vast majority of users would be fine using a thin client. They are cheap, easy to manage and replace, and can still do the job. Sadly, in most cases I have seen, they have been shot down because people think they need the local storage on a desktop, or the portability of a notebook. And I haven't seen a BSOD in years. I've never had one in Win7, and have used it since it was in beta.

 

[KnightWRX]

First of all, each one of those thin clients requires a server on the back end, serving up the whole environment to them.

Well, that's the whole idea behind thin client computing. If you were expecting something different, I don't know what to say.

What environment is that going to be? For *most* companies, it's Windows. That means spending a big chunk of change for a "client access license" for each user.

CALs are much cheaper than Windows licenses however. Also note, Windows clients automatically come with integrated CALs, so if you're leveraging existing Windows licenses, you get your CALs for free.

Then, thanks to all the complexities of printer drivers in Windows

Having setup both RDP and ICA in multiple instances, I can tell you that printer drivers are far from complex and quite easy to get imported to the server and exported back to the RDP/ICA client. You just have to know how.

performance issues of all those remote sessions, etc. -- many places opt for a "farm" of servers running Citrix Metaframe on top of it. Now we're REALLY into some serious dollars. After all that's accounted for, where's the cost savings?

In the maintenance costs. It's much easier to support and maintain a 20 server farm than 300 desktops. This is from personal experience.

A decent thin client is STILL effectively the same thing inside as a regular PC workstation, except it deletes the hard drive and gets by with a slower processor chip, plus maybe some RAM. All those things can be purchased for less than the software costs of going the thin client route!

And much less hard to manage. A Wyse breaks down ? Just throw a new Wyse on the secretaries' desktop and in minutes, she's back up and running with all her applications, data and settings intact vs having to install a new PC, load it up with her software, redo her profile, etc.. etc..

Then, you've got reliability questions too. I had a lot of thin clients that were rendered useless when something was sent to them as a firmware flash update and it failed. Maybe some are a lot better about that now -- but it was definitely an issue on the Wyse units I saw.

Wyse is only 1 vendor. There are a lot more, and frankly, again, just swap out the defective thin clients for spares and in minutes you're up and running. Now consider what an update to PCs that would hose them would require to get your shop back up.

The *real* costs are in the server room or network infrastructure (including costs for broadband circuits, etc.). The cost of deploying workstations to users is a relatively fixed amount, no matter how you slice it.

Desktop support is quite expensive and more complicated that you paint it out to be.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Hum... because IT is just going with corporate policy. If you have a problem, take it up with HR and acquisitions. We don't even get decide on our vendors, it's all done through bidding processes. Apple or other Mac centric vendors are quite free to bid for conracts when client workstation contract renewals are up, and as long as they fit in the requirements for the bid offer, they will be considered.

It's not a question of better per se. It's a question of what technology the company has invested in. If 90-100 percent of your enterprise is on one platform - and/or running legacy systems - it's simple math - it's way too expensive (most of the time) to switch. IT doesn't have to justify giving PCs over Macs because right now - in Enterprise - PCs are the status quo. Justification is needed to change the status quo - not to maintain it.

It was more of a philosophical point than logistical. I understand the difficulty of overcoming the long-established entrenchment of PCs in enterprise. My point is - if THAT is the real reason, then the IT person should be willing to say that, not "laugh them out of the room". But I've never heard an IT person say, "Yeah, it would be great if we could switch to Macs, but purchasing just won't let us." The fact is, most whom I've encounterd in IT are stuck in the past, they love PCs, they don't understand Macs, and they don't want to. So, regardless of the logistics, they wouldn't replace the PCs with Macs even if they could. Hence they actually enjoy refusing user requests for Macs.

 

[KnightWRX]

It was more of a philosophical point than logistical. I understand the difficulty of overcoming the long-established entrenchment of PCs in enterprise. My point is - if THAT is the real reason, then the IT person should be willing to say that, not "laugh them out of the room". But I've never heard an IT person say, "Yeah, it would be great if we could switch to Macs, but purchasing just won't let us." The fact is, most whom I've encounterd in IT are stuck in the past, they love PCs, they don't understand Macs, and they don't want to. So, regardless of the logistics, they wouldn't replace the PCs with Macs even if they could. Hence they actually enjoy refusing user requests for Macs.

Well, I'm in IT and I just told you "Yeah, it would be great if we could switch to Macs, but purchasing won't let us". I would never laugh someone out of the room, again, I think I made that point quite clear in my exchange with that poster that I felt his comments were rushed and painted IT in a bad light with no good reason to do so.

 

[LordVic]

IT professionals have job security not because of a particular platform, but because contrary to popular belief, IT is actually hard to pull off. Most uninformed people think IT is a cost center and that IT folks just invent solutions to non-existing problems to get their foot in the door. I'd like to see them 1 day in my shoes holding it together so that the business can concentrate on its primary mission and be productive about it.

the more I've read this thread, The more and more I realize that the general population has absolutely no clue what a true IT department at a medium to large firm actually does.

most people from what i see, believes it's the simple, File sharing, print sharing, and maybe throwing word on a computer.

I agree entirely with you that I would like to see most of these "I'm the it guy at a 5 person company" actually step into the shoes of someone who's dealing with entire server farm backends, running specifically designed systems for their purposes, try and attempt to "allow macs" whenever they want, or "let people bring in their own machiens" or whatever has been spewed in here.

They're in for a rude fanboy awakening when they come to the realization that holding true and fast to ONE OS (heck, this applies to even windows) is not the true IT ideal.

the simple fact is right now, back end systems, Apple does not have the tools in place to rival what is available for Un*x and Windows environments.

----------

With over 10,000 employees, my organization NEVER calls out onsite repair services from a vendor! PCs are commodities. When your toaster or desk phone breaks, you swap it out for a new one. Same thing with PCs - it just doesn't make financial sense to pay $100 an hour plus parts to repair a $300 PC.

As far as Macs go, I have owned at least 8, and have never needed a repair on any of them. Pretty much the same with PCs. The hardware just doesn't "break" that often.

sometimes a necessary evil.

Lone IT guy, supporting 400 users in 11 branches accross Canada.

user in branch in winnipeg has computer go down. I'm in Toronto.

it's quicker and cheaper to use 4hour onsite dell technician than to fly me out there to replace the computer

I found the biggest part of IT wasn't knowing the tech. But making the appropriate decisions given tools to minimize the downtime and increase the productivity of users of the company.

Some of the simplest fixes that a non techie could do were often the right ones, Even if it took me in the IT department to figure them out.

Well, I'm in IT and I just told you "Yeah, it would be great if we could switch to Macs, but purchasing won't let us". I would never laugh someone out of the room, again, I think I made that point quite clear in my exchange with that poster that I felt his comments were rushed and painted IT in a bad light with no good reason to do so.

ya. I think we were being facecious with "laugh out of the room".

Any one who's worth their weight (or dollars) in IT will always look into any recommendation.

the base question remains for any IT decision

What is REQUIRED (this is key word) for the end user to complete the task at hand, efficiently, and cost effectively.

once these criteria are solved, if you start asking for more, that costs more, and requires more maintenance, overhead, work and what not. You need to somehow justify that what you're asking for is a Requirement.


Quit honestly. if I'm putting a workstation on the desk of a data entry technician, who's primary job is to sit in some green screen terminal to punch in timesheet data all day. And they turn around and ask for a Macbook Air. I'm not likely going to go for it, regardless if it would work perfectly for the task, when, there are cheaper alternatives that are also completely capable of the task.

And quite honestly, if that data entry person's life and happiness is going to be elevated by getting her an imac for her desktop vs that Dell, I'm going to seriously start questioning exactly what it is she's doing at the office, when the majority of her task is in a green screen anyways

 

[samcraig]

It was more of a philosophical point than logistical. I understand the difficulty of overcoming the long-established entrenchment of PCs in enterprise. My point is - if THAT is the real reason, then the IT person should be willing to say that, not "laugh them out of the room". But I've never heard an IT person say, "Yeah, it would be great if we could switch to Macs, but purchasing just won't let us." The fact is, most whom I've encounterd in IT are stuck in the past, they love PCs, they don't understand Macs, and they don't want to. So, regardless of the logistics, they wouldn't replace the PCs with Macs even if they could. Hence they actually enjoy refusing user requests for Macs.

I don't think something like this can be generalized. I hear what you're saying - but there are just as many IT professionals that would love to switch to Macs ans there are that love their PCs and wouldn't. A true professional wouldn't laugh at a user anyway for REQUESTING a Mac. At the end of the day, a PROFESSIONAL would listen to the needs of the user and either follow corporate policy and/or attempt to do what's best for the user. But right now - it's hard(er) for IT to justify costs in changing legacy systems. It's expensive.

And - for example - I work for an IT firm. A lot of the people in my company (on the executive, management, etc) side have switched to Airs. For form factor/battery life/etc. They still use it primarily as a PC via VMFusion though because the software, etc that's used is either not available on the Mac or it's lacking.

I'm in Marketing and PR. I have a MacBook Pro - and use both a VM of Windows and OSX. I need to be compatible with other members of my team while also being able to edit videos with my preferred program FCP 7.

I was one of the first (I think I was #2) that got a Mac at my company. And I wasn't laughed at. I did need to explain why I preferred FCP over Adobe, etc - but that's about it.