LMAO? Anyone in the IT industry should know that macs are over-priced computers. Linux > Windows > Mac ($2k version of linux) And what is this time? The total time? of course windows would have more time then.. 100 users with windows, 10 min help = 1000 minutes 10 users with mac, 25 min help = 250 minutes wow, according to that, macs cost less time to troubleshoot!
The hardware does but that's really OT. I would love for you to find anywhere that Apple says that. Some (most?) of those are applications, not the OS I don't see where they say that but it's true. You seem oblivious to how Unix works. You seem to think applications are installed and executed the same way on Windows and Unix. I'd bet you think Unix uses a registry and couldn't tell me the difference between chmod and chown. Sure, there are virus and trojans out there for Unix. I heard the last effective one was in 2001. Or was it 1991? I forgot. In any case, in order to execute a program, the program must have permission to execute. To screw up the system, you need root access, but no one runs as root. You could screw up user space but the user would have to install it and you still need a password to become the user. Now, I haven't talked about the fact that once you're past all that, you still don't have the ability to execute but I'll leave that as an exercise for you. How did your original $7.3K machine become a $27K machine? You are again OT cause we're talking office machines but you are chasing the tail of high end units, something this whole thread is not about. In fact, it's not about new purchases at all. Huh? What are you talking about? Of course they did. That's what the subject is about. They surveyed the people who pay for the maintenance not the people who wait for the tech to come fix their machine. Why would they ask them? You're right cause the machine is dead in the water so there's nothing to do with it. The problem is you can't ignore those things because that's where a large part of the problem and expense lies and THAT is where Macs have it over Windows. If you don't have to spend time searching for drivers every year, waste time defragging your computer cause it's slowing down, and you can upgrade your OS for $29 instead of $300 for Windows, then the answer is yes. Congratulations! You're the first one to notice that. People on this board are so quick to quote Microsoft publications for "evidence" of how wonderful Microsoft says Microsoft products are that I was waiting to see if anyone would take the time to read it. Usually no one likes to read anything here...or most places for that matter.
Can you find where anyone says differently? Particularly in this thread? I mean, I know you'd have to read and understand the thread to figure that out but please try. Gee, you think that has anything to do with it? My gosh, I thought you would actually read the report but I know that's a lot of trouble and rather than commenting on what this thread is about I know it's a lot easier to knock out some random made up gibberish rather than dealing with the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 So you are saying that video/image that can give a hacker complete control over your Mac is not a security hole? You said that, in the post above mine, and again, you are ignoring hard fact that its security holes are as bad as Windows'. As I mentioned before, I own both Linux and Windows powered machines and your explanations weren't new to me. And it doesn't change the point I made about Mac security issues. So server machines don't count? That $7.3k machine was just a random example I found on some forum, probably made by some gamer who wanted to see what pays off more, $27k is just the ridiculous price Apple put for their highes-end machine, that is obviously meant to be a server machine. I think it is known to just about everyone that components for Mac and PC are made by same manufacturers. The only real difference is the OS and Windows 7 introduced us with UAC (user access control, Windows' equivalent to Unix's users and groups). Considering that most of those companies were probably using XP, that is now 7 years old, I think the question "where is the difference in support cost" will remain unanswered. Now you sound like you never owned a PC before. Defragging is now an autopilot process in Windows 7 and 90% of drivers come with OS itself. As for OS upgrade, I went to apple.com to see if it's really that simple. And guess what? "If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, purchase the Mac Box Set", which is 170$ and seems like those updates come out every year or so, pricing from 30$ each. Sounds about the same as Windows where you can "purchase a new PC that is pre-installed with an eligible Windows Vista OS to upgrade to Windows 7 OS" for free. And you just said that support is worth $500 to $5000 (for a good gaming machine). I think most wouldn't agree that "Macs are not expensive to own". Again, I don't think you can ignore the fact that purchasing price is not to be taken into consideration when talking about the owning price, which includes both purchase and support, but they probably missed that in their survey, probably because IT admins don't actually buy machines.
Nope. They say there are 114,000 viruses for PCs, not Macs. That's not the same as saying there are none of Macs. There's a difference between a security hole being available and a security hole being accessible. There are many security holes in Unix/BSD/Linux, and even Windows, that exist but are not accessible in normal operation. I can't comment on the one you link to cause there is no information given on it. In any case, again, no one said Macs are virus free. No one in their right mind would connect a PC to the internet without anti-virus protection. With any other OS, using anti-virus software is the question many ask if it is necessary. Security holes in Macs are NOT in the same universe as bad as Windows. You're reading too many forum postings. You didn't know about fragging and you claim Macs slow down the more programs you add. It's news to you. In a thread that talks about user workstations in a business environment, servers don't count. You are OT. Aha! I was right. You read too many forum postings. Again, a high end machine is not what a corporate environment will plop on some office workers desktop. And you are quoting some unknown person on some unknown forum about that price. If you want, I can show you a Windows configuration in the millions of dollars but that doesn't apply to this topic so I won't bring it up. You can buy coffee with the Starbucks label or you can buy coffee with the Seattle's Best label. Both are made by Starbucks but which one are you going to serve if the boss shows up at your house for dinner? If the same manufacturer that makes the radio in a Chevrolet also makes the radio in a Rolls-Royce, would you say the same two radios were equivalent? I can't believe anyone would say that. btw, it was introduced in Vista. Unix permissiosn have been around since the 70s. Remember how everyone hates UAC? And isn't the big security issue on Windows now that people turn it off? But you still need to do it. Oh, please. If you have to go and look around for some random numbers without knowing what you're looking for then I'll go to Microsoft's site and find those $300+ upgrades for Windows and throw that at you. Let's go with reality: last Christmas I paid for OS updates for the 3 freelance graphic designers I use at the cost of $29 each. There you go again. We're not talking about gaming machines at all but you insist on pulling that out of left field to try and make an exaggerated claim. If you don't think one service call in a corporate environment doesn't get billed to some department for $300+, well....I don't know what to say. I just looked at what Best Buy charges. Just to look at your computer is $130. It's $300 for anything else (and up). And we don't know the downtime cost. The survey figures that in. I've reached the point of boredom with this.
Well, you are completely ignoring all my points so we obviously can't lead a normal conversation. I could just do the same thing, quote every your sentence and twist it so I can counter it. And you don't know the 100th decimal of Pi. Your argument is invalid. And yet that info was off by $13. Also, that $1200 machine is the cheapest desktop machine you can get from Apple. So I will agree on that - if you need a $700 machine - get a $1200 Mac. It may pay off. Everything more than that is "not for corporate environments" but for regular users. So why not spend less on a PC? And yet again, you are closing your eyes in front of the truth. Still are Mac machines 180-500% more expensive. If you are aware of what happens in the backend it doesn't mean you have to do it. Sure, please do that and tell me the price of a Mac equivalent and I will take back everything I said. You don't do that on corporate machines. Same as you don't give Unix users superuser privileges turned on all the time. Don't make arguments like "if so many people say that Macs are overpriced why do you keep saying they aren't?". It was my mistake that I added the word "gaming", you could just omit it, but you just had to focus your argument on it. Again, I will agree on the cheapest machine - you may be better off with the cheapest Mac in a corporate environment. But after that claim, you can't say that "Macs are not expensive to own", it's too generalized and exaggerated statement. So you mean corporation that rely on Best Buy support and don't hire IT admins? Corporations with what, 3 PCs?
My argument is you don't know enough about this topic to argue it. Your example about Pi assumes I would argue that and I wouldn't, strawman. On a machine that does not apply to this argument. FINALLY you say something that's on topic for this thread! Well, there you go going off topic again and trying to put words in my mouth. That was your argument, not mine. You brought it up. But now you are making statements against the study. Your statement is a guess. Their statement is based on interviews and data. Who would be more correct? I'm saying that, rather than grab a number out of the air, you can look at what BB charges to get an estimate of what an IT department might charge in-house for a maintenance call. We know it's not going to be $25 but we know it's not going to be $3000. I guessed $300 and, as it turns out, that's what BB charges so, perhaps, that's a number to go on. Don't know. Like I said, I'm tired of this. Unless you can come up with something better than your wild guesses at numbers, like others in this thread have done, I'd like to move on. Some Windows people can't learn anything beyond what Microsoft tells them to think.
That was a configuration, not a machine. But I guess you are doing this on purpose now. And so on and so forth. Apple fanboy. I'm stating out crucial facts, that you mostly skipped in your responses. Some people will blindly follow survey results that were made by other Apple fanboys. So I guess that makes us all even.
lol. Have never owned any Apple products in my life. Then you should have typed them in here cause I didn't see any. End of discussion.
So you are just quoting others? Apple maybe? Or some corporations that work with Apple? Working on, I don't know, "integration of Macs in Windows-centric IT deployments"? And you are entering into this discussion without any first hand experience? And telling everyone they are making stuff up? Talk about hypocrisy. They are all over my previous posts, but as I said, you probably missed them by some chance. In short - your topic title says that "Survey shows Macs cost noticeably less to support". Ok. Your first post said "For those who think Macs are too expensive to own". To own something you must first buy it, then pay for support. Owning = buying + supporting. They surveyed IT admins - they do not provide companies with computers, only administer them, and lets say Macs are cheaper to support. We also came to a conclusion that new Mac machines are 2-5 times more expensive (depending on the configuration) than PCs with same specifications, and that ranges from $500 to $20.000. Again, PC is not equal to Windows. Windows is an OS. Same manufacturers make those parts - so why are they so much more expensive in a Mac machine? And when you put those two things together ($500-$20.000 difference in price for same specification Macs/PCs) - what pays off more? Who would buy a product that takes 200-500% of its price to support when it's not really consuming anything? And if you think I made those numbers up - check it out for yourself on Apple.com. Yes, check those "made up" numbers. Quote from your linked blog post: "Responses included in EDA's analysis include those from environments with a mix of Macs and PCs that had a total of 50 servers". 50 servers. I will now quote one of your responses: "In a thread that talks about user workstations in a business environment, servers don't count. You are OT". So who is now OT, you, me or that blog post you linked? So there you have it . I will say that Macs are cheaper to support (topic title). Are they cheaper to own (first post text)? Not in this universe. OT conclusion that is actually most important: Do they pay off? You decide. Calculate the difference in price (which is $500-$20.000 or more, depends on your requirements, you can check those numbers on apple.com) and think if you're prepared to give that much per Mac for support. End of discussion.
Most people don't need a mac since it's meant more for business, but pc's do things just fine most of the time. Unless your graphic heavy Macs aren't that much better if at all. I can do anything I want on my PC that a mac can do and my PC is much cheaper and hasn't blue screened ever or fallen apart. I just got done owning a 4-5 year old dell that worked fine, but I really clean computers every few months to make them like new.
Now I almost jumped on your case for not remembering I already stated in this thread that I don't own a Mac but I also stated I used them at two different companies in the past. I just never owned one. I also deal with freelance designers who use nothing but Macs. So, iow, I have far more experience with them than you. The rest of your post has degraded to BS so I'll leave you to play with that yourself.
lmao. I dont need to find a "different source" to backup my claim. Its not "random gibberish" I work in the IT field 8 hours a day, I dont need to make shit up... Looks like all you do is scour the net for someone else's articles and assume its correct, from a non-biased source. Stop making yourself look like a fool.
The only fool is the one who sits in his office, looks around and claims to be the master of his domain. He can conquer all as long as he stays within his small corner. He doesn't have to listen to anyone cause there's nothing to know. He never expands beyond that and he never grows. But he's the master of his domain. You have a lot of opinion for someone who's never used a Mac and never listened to anyone about how they work and never read anything about them. So how did you get your facts?
I like the new macbook pro's but idk, Id say PC's are cheaper in the long run as long as you maintain them to prevent a virus. Or crashing the HD. Seems like macs are used to run business from mostly. I will stay far away from a DELL though. never had so many issues with a PC til i bought a dell...
I think the original point about higher TCO on Windows vs Mac was based on a couple of major factors in corporate IT environments: cost of supporting users and maintaining their machines (consistently higher demand for support from Windows users on both counts) and the vastly increased OS licensing costs - both client and server. Let's see ... now, whilst I realize most large companies won't pay retail or list prices, here's what that'd cost you for 25 computers. Windows 7 - Business edition client license = 25 x $299.99 = $7499.75. 2008 Server Enterprise with 25 client licenses = $3999.00. Mac - 10.5 retail = $129.00 (and yes, I know they come with it, but I'm trying to do like-for-like) x 35 = $4515.00. Or you could always get 10.6 and pay ... $29 x 35 = $1015.00 (or $49 for a 5-pack license = $343.00). Server 10.6 (unlimited clients) = $499.00 (x1!!). Total cost Windows = $11498.75 Total cost Mac = $5014.00. You can pay an extra $185.00 for every Mac you buy and STILL come out ahead. And that's before you start talking about tech support. Then again, we could use real costs (10.6, family licenses): Total cost Windows = $11498.75 Total cost Mac = $842.00. Hmm, now you have an extra $304.00 and change for each Mac. And we haven't even started on terminal services ($749 for 5-license pack, or $5243.00 for our 35 little machines. Mac ... $0, which would then give you another $149.00 per machine ... oh wait, that, plus the $304, means you could actually just about go and BUY 35 mac minis retail with the amount you've saved on the OS licenses). Gosh, Macs are soooooooo expensive ...