digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at infoworld.com —

Why 'no Macs' is no longer a defensible IT strategy

infoworld.com — Why more users are demanding Macs in the Enterprise.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • tluskie, on 04/23/2008, -65/+24Damn right! It's about time.
    • Amiga500, on 04/23/2008, -6/+17You just get laid?
    • mem2, on 04/23/2008, -15/+4Whats a mac, didnt they die out of the PC market in the 80's and swap to selling phones ?
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -8/+6You know, those people who are handing Microsoft their ass in multiple markets MS has been in for oh.......8+ years now?

        Yea, those people
      • iainc, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3Oh you must be a Windows developer, mem2. What's up? You seeing your source of employment dry up before your eyes? Thought so.
    • theOster, on 04/23/2008, -3/+6i don't like the "no Mac" policy. that's why i've implemented a "no Smugness" policy - the best of all worlds...
    • bob12321, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Sorry for abuse but:
      All on one page:
      http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R ...
  • Lochshen, on 04/23/2008, -30/+74Many larger shops have been quietly supporting tiny populations of Mac's for years. They are not very difficult to support and really don't require much in the way of skill to manage. That being said, I wouldn't count on a big population of Mac's in your front office. Aside from just not being the best fit for an office environment, there simply isn't a good business case to go there.
    • pr1me4, on 04/23/2008, -43/+5You didn't say you loved macs! dugg down by default.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 04/23/2008, -1/+12Its seems lately that OS fanbois of all breeds are dugg DOWN on digg. Which is about the only good development on digg in the last year.
        • mem2, on 04/23/2008, -8/+2yer its great to see digg flooded with ignorant white trash
      • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3you merely commented on him not saying it; you didn't either.

        So default it is ; )
    • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -17/+40I just went to a brokerage firm that uses a MS2k3 server and changed ALL their desktops to macs. They use the web for all their apps and wanted a safer environment. I connected them ALL to AD.. added the shares... turned on VNC for management from a PC if needed.. added all printers... added Office 2008 for Outlook connection... for the macbook pro's I added MS Remote Desktop. Guess what? It all worked.. it was easy... and it's all managed.

      Their next purchase is a Mac Server to replace the MS one... we talked of virtualizing but there isn't an OS X server virtualization product equivalent of ESX yet.

      Using the Unix side of things I added specialized folders to share between certain members, creating drop boxes with chmod 300.. if you don't know what that means.. it just says write/execute to a folder. Meaning you can see it.. you can add things to it.. you just can't browse it.
      • Lazydriver, on 04/23/2008, -14/+2Why didn't you just use a LAMP for the server and get the office on Mint (Ubuntu with plugins, should be good for office use)? Cheaper and even more secure.
        • KibibyteBrain, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6It can be a real pain to get Linux to work with Bonjour/AFP in an audit proof secure manner. That might be a good reason, and overall the way OSX server sort of easily integrates with apple's applications, but overall I'd still use a LAMP server over OSX Server as OSX's pros for the desktop almost act as pure cons on the server. There are a million reasons why Ubuntu flavors are not equal to Macs, so I don't see your point there.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3If you had said Suse or Redhat i would have said yea those make great workstations, but yea, not Mint.
      • theOster, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6i know a firm that is running an all windows env but with all mac workstations (they're architects and they like "the look" of the mac better. so they've got a bunch of macs running vista... o_O
      • SoundScape, on 04/23/2008, -0/+10That's pretty impressive. How successful have you been using Group Policy?
      • EvolutionTheory, on 04/23/2008, -9/+15That's awesome work! All for 3x the time it would have taken to set up an manage the windows PCs. Great job! Now all you have to deal with are the bugs in vmware on macs, the lack of upgradeability and application support in that new office environment and oh.. the fact that you actually did spend quite a bit more. But hey, your macs are cool!
      • Gregd, on 04/23/2008, -2/+13I would have to concur with SoundScape above. I cannot imagine life in the enterprise now without GPOs. What you're talking about with the Macs is basic networking, but for anything a bit more complicated, the move to all Macs begins to fall apart. You say you have Outlook 2008 but how are you sharing calendars and free/busy search without Exchange? When you say you added all printers, did you do that locally on each workstation or centrally from a single location? Are you able to push updates/patches from a single location? How well does Applescript work versus vbs? Does Apple have the equivalent of WMI?

        Your definition of "managed" and my definition of managed aren't the same. After saying all this, I am an Apple fan and have replaced all of my Windows machines at home with Macs. But when it comes to managing an enterprise, Microsoft has Apple beat by a mile.
      • t3hbagel, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6The Apple OS is an inferior platform for content delivery; there is a reason you see tons of cheaper Sun, SuperMicro, or even Dell servers in data centers.

        Apple doesn't sell many Xserves (especially compared to the above companies' server businesses) for a number of reasons, of which, rice-to-performance ratio is probably the biggest.
    • cliffzdude, on 04/23/2008, -18/+11Even the article stipulates the populations demanding macs are creatives, who have used macs in the past and want to go back. If you support creative employees, it makes sense to have macs in your environment. That said, a business with little or no creative employees would have a very difficult time trying to sell macs to management, for good reason. The enterprise environment needs centralized management. Windows has such infrastructure, and if you want to there are a bizillion 3rd party vendors offering alternatives, and upgrades to the MSFT only enterprise management tools. From installing/imaging new machines, patch management, software upgrades, it can all be done out of the box with a windows infrastructure.
      Linux too... Linux is great for cenrtralized management. Due to Linux's far reaching success in the data center, update management can be and is centralized, via home-grown apps with a huge community of support, and many-many 3rd party vendors playing in the space as well.
      Then comes the mac. Great at its job, but not a good fit in the enterprise environment. Limited enterprise 3rd party support. Limited in all the arsenal one is accustomed in a Windows or Linux environment.

      I'm not flame baiting, just spelling out how it works in the real world.
      • cubicledrone, on 04/23/2008, -2/+13Are you actually going to state with a straight face that UNIX doesn't support centralized management? Really?
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -2/+11No centralized management? You have no goddamned clue what you're talking about. OS X can talk to Active Directory pretty damn well, so it can fit into an existing environment. You can manage patches, updates, etc with OS X Server through SUS and you can use Remote Desktop to push them. On top of that, OS X Server is about a thousand times easier to administer than Win2k3, which likes to spread everything way out and bury ten layers deep. Add full UNIX compatibility and you have a pretty powerful server that can integrate very well into a Windows environment. Not the best solution for everything, but please be sure you know what you're talking about before posting.
      • nycmac247, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3I have plenty of OS X laptops with mobile homes on AD.

    • Audacitor, on 04/23/2008, -2/+4My local veterinary office uses Macs for their entire system.
      They're old emacs running OS 9.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4Good lord. Time to upgrade. My boss works with a company that does payroll processing. They're using old B&W G3s and some ancient payroll software that is not even officially compatible with OS 9. The owner refuses to budge. Makes support so much fun.
    • cubicledrone, on 04/23/2008, -14/+8Standard conference room middle-management *****. Not one solid reason why Macs won't work, just that they "aren't a good fit" and that there's no "business case" which is a fancy way of saying "the establishment supports the status quo." This is the same non-reasoning that leads to smart, good, qualified people getting fired. They just weren't a "good fit," which means "I don't like him because I'm a ***** and he isn't."

      Reason #3509735103983 on the list of 30573150913853109481359013431 reasons not to work in an office.
      • philhatesyou, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3Look, someone get's dugg down because he has actual experience working for a company!
    • staticneuron, on 04/23/2008, -5/+3It's great and all... but what is disturbing is that there is trend of IT professionals as well shamelessly promoting macs..... why? Because they are better. Something sets off an alarm when one tech asks another tech a question of that nature and all you can get is a "Just because." I really don't care what I am supporting. I prefer to work on a PC because of familiarity but have no qualms about using a Mac again but one thing that I've noticed is that macs do not play nice with the proprietary software my large company uses. Because of that it fragments our machines. The real reason Macs are growing is because of the average user and their ability to get into malware and other performance eating hijinks on the PC. That is worth it alone.
      • Tufriast, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4If your company is relying on proprietary software strictly to get by, then you can just run Windows inside of a window. As far as familiarity goes - my mother is a 56 year old accountant who used windows for 20 years. She switched, and uses Calyx Software to close real estate deals on a Mac. If she can learn (read: computer illiterate nearly) anyone can. And no, she had no fancy training. Just patience and willpower.
        • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2So your suggesting that a company should buy a Mac AND buy a Windows license just to run their application software. Why buy the Mac in the first place when a cheap Dell will do the same job with the Windows license you had to buy anyway?
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -4/+4Mac sales in the consumer market are growing because the applications available for OS X are well written and easier to use than apps on Windows with few exceptions. Thats why PEOPLE choose to buy Macs, there are 100 other more obscure reasons people don't factor in to buying decisions so they don't really count.

        I've been using windows since 3.11, and before that i used DOS. I'm tired of Windows, sure most things "work" but I expect more at this point.
        • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Sorry but that's just nonsense. Would you care to explain what it is that makes third-party Mac developers do such a good job of their apps compared to Windows developers?
      • directrix13, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3I am far from a Mac zealot, but its your proprietary software not playing nicely with the Macs. Its not the other way around. Put blame where it belongs.
        • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2So, for example, a company has been using a particular Windows-based finance system for 10 years and somebody suddenly buys a Mac and complains that the software doesn't run on it. Why is that the fault of the software?
          • directrix13, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Well, the fault that a certain piece of software does not run on a certain platform lies with the developer thats why. The fault with deploying a technology which will not work is the fault of the Network Administrator. I'm not attacking the devs, they made a decision on what platforms to support (whether directly or through ignorance) and that is their choice. But it is they who have the responsibility to determine what platforms to develop for.
    • smrekar, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2We are 75% macs at my work. There are some proprietary win32 databases that need to be accessed and those are the remainder of the PCs. The macs are future-proofed in a way. They can go linux, unix, windows or OS X. Meaning if Vista continues in it's trend then Leopard might not be the last OS X that we use.
    • jscnet, on 04/23/2008, -5/+1If you're a Mac person, you'll LOVE this -- heck, I'm a Windows / Linux guy and I love it !

      Probably the coolest Apple Moment (Introducing Macintosh)
      http://digg.com/apple/Probably_the_coolest_Apple_M ...
      • jscnet, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1digg won't allow url... search ALL STORIES for "INTRODUCING MACINTOSH" without quotes. Should be a video titled "Probably the coolest apple moment (introducing macintosh)". I remember that day, Jan 24th 1984 -- I was working for a computer retailer at the time and we received a small inventory of them. Great moment indeed.
        • larsalan, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1actually to search for digg articles, including this one, I have found google to be a more effective mode. Just add the word "digg" to whatever key title words you can remember. Also since you already submitted that link is it really necessary for you to try to link to your submitted link to a 1984 video on youtube?
    • GreenMike, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3I am afraid I agree with Lochshen, Apple are nice, very fashionable but defiantly not good for office as much as Vista. Have you ever received an excel file from someone with Vista and your office is onXP? No Apple is not good and more so the fact that the are the least ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly company in IT. So not practical for day2day activity and not a green choice. Problem is that they are a fashion company and that will result on the long term as a significant issue for the environment. What do you all think?
      • Dedpoet, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Did you mean, "Have you ever received an Excel file from someone on Office 2007 and you're using Office 2003?" OS shouldn't matter.
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/y5w78r (link goes to Office 2007 compatibility pack)
    • cybrguy, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7I am an IT manager in a mixed environment and I can say from my experience, this articles statements holds false on two big accounts. When a PC breaks on average it costs us an average of 1.5 hours of labor, when a mac breaks it costs us 4 hours of labor(average). This is largely due to the level of avaliable knowledge online, software differences, and quality of troubleshooting related feedback and tools on the mac vs the pc.

      Hardware costs: New Macs cost 20% more than our new PCS, and the PCs have higher specs, better screens, etc.

      Regarding hardware problems, our macs break less often than our cheaper PCs, and more often than our high end PCs. (considering apple uses moderately good quality components this should be a given.) If a PC breaks we can replace the component quickly with off the shelf parts, if a MAC breaks, we often have to cross ship a whole system...(ugh) In honesty, I have no problems with Apple hardware other than its proprietary nature, which is the nature of the beast.

      My biggest two MAC complaints are Microsofts crappy office software on the MAC, and the lack of enterprise management tools across the board for macs.

      Do I hate macs? No
      Do I hate supporting macs? Yes I do.
  • Miamifan1354, on 04/23/2008, -40/+13More and more of the businesses I work with are using them, and I have been recommending them to anyone I talk with. Lets just hope that the virus's don't start showing up
    • Audacitor, on 04/23/2008, -7/+8The viruses are inevitable.
      • Tenoq, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6Sure, but not for a while yet. And we've been saying the viruses will come for a long time now - and we haven't got much past proof of concept. I think Macs would need to surpass 20% market share before a virus writer even considered aiming at a Mac.
    • xgambetx, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2lol funny how people can actually think virus will never exist for macs....
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2They will exist, they just won't be the huge problem they are on Windows. At one time i thought Vista had changed things, but nope just this week another privilege escalation exploit that took advantage of the Windows service model, which wasn't supposed to be a problem anymore in Vista.
        • 4pple5auce, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Viruses don't need to use the OS to gain escalated privileges, poorly written or vulnerable 3rd party applications usually work just fine.
        • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1The vulnerability you referred to was exposed by Microsoft and there are no reported cases of any exploit in the wild that's actually using it. Microsoft will patch it shortly. In the meantime, don't forget that MBA that got hacked in 2 minutes. I'm sure a lot of people will want to digg me down for mentioning that but don't forget that vulnerabilities exist for all operating systems.
    • 4pple5auce, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6I still don't understand which "businesses" are using Macs for anything relevant to their business unless they require software that only runs on Mac. Will someone please shows me a Terminal Services, Remote Installation Services, or Active Directory equivalent for Mac's? Will Someone please direct me to a place where I can download Sharepoint Server for my Xserve? Ah yes, let me just setup an certification server on my Xserve... oops. Businesses need inexpensive machines that can be easily repaired/replaced and easily integrate into the corporate network. Linux and Windows do that quite well together today. If you're a consultant and you're telling companies to use Macs because of VIRUSES, you're a ***** consultant and need to find a new job.
  • tatercakes, on 04/23/2008, -62/+46I was so happy to see my new company switch to a "no windows" policy. God bless San Francisco :)!
    • lohphat, on 04/23/2008, -22/+74Nothing like switching from a software monopoly to a software AND hardware monopoly.

      I see there are no grown-ups watching the finances nor those who know how businesses scale. The reality is there are more enterprise-class apps for PCs than macs. Period. The cost overhead of supporting multiple platforms is lost on those who don't have to pay the bills.
      • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -28/+7name one lohphat!!! Name ONE enterprise class app...

        not to mention, the hardware/software monopoly doesn't work if you can run Windows on your Mac. They are a hardware company period.

        The support of supporting Windows is lost on those who aren't intelligent and know a new platform will expose them for IT frauds.
        • giantsfan134, on 04/23/2008, -13/+11Mac charges insanely more than what the hardware is worth, so if that is all they are doing - price gouging - than I think I will keep my distance.
          "Name ONE enterprise class app.."VMWare
          • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -11/+6VMWare runs on a Mac.. ESX is even being finished as we speak.

            As for your hardware argument. It's negligible and not worth my time to argue about it. Enterprise class Virus protection is expensive too.
          • Tenoq, on 04/23/2008, -9/+7Not from a business point of view they don't. You're thinking like a consumer, and consumer pricing. Businesses are thinking TCO, warranty, support, etc, etc. :P Macs often end up a lot cheaper.
          • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -7/+4@Tenoq, yes.. yes they do.. but for those that used Testking and got their MCSE and a job without really understanding anything are afraid of a new platform.. it will expose them..

          • bradleyland, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8Here are three that many of my attorney clients use:

            PCLaw
            TimeMatters
            Timeslips

            There are easily 20:1 PC apps to Mac apps available in the Legal market vector alone. I love my Mac, but I'm not so deluded that I can't see the barriers to adoption in markets that rely on specialized software.
          • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -6/+2@ bradleyland:

            Maybe you need to research things since TimeMatters and Timeslips have OS X versions.

            PCLaw I am not familiar with. I think it's a SQL backend so I'm sure there's an OS X front end somewhere.

            there are easily 19 of those 20 that are absolute crap or alternatives too.
          • Nesh, on 04/23/2008, -1/+9"PCLaw I am not familiar with. I think it's a SQL backend so I'm sure there's an OS X front end somewhere."

            So your sale goes like this: "If you buy the Mac, you can still run your apps, but you'll either have to use a 3rd party emulation software, which means purchasing a Windows license and pay a consultant to configure it, or you can pay to have a custom front end developed which will cost you XX Hours at $XXX per hour."

            Or you can use Windows like you always have
          • threemagic, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2@nesh: no.. you could just virtualize windows for that very purpose unless there is a better piece of software available.

            Most custom PC apps are just re-designed front ends. I get dugg down because the masses are stupid.
        • lohphat, on 04/23/2008, -7/+23You still fail to understand economics. Uncessary diversity for a business == wasting money. There's a reason SOuthwest only flys one type of aircraft. Supporting different hardware RAISES COSTS in spare parts and support.

          Macs are a SINGLE SOURCE supplier. One at a 20% premium.

          Add to that the wasted time in supporting equivalent apps on multiple platforms and the support overhead to diagnose and fix ideosyncratic problems inherent to all platforms.

          Any solution has problems and the economics of low-cost intel hardware and business apps for PCs is a no brainer -- you didn't get the memo. Anything else is an irrational circle-jerk by people without the responsibility to work within a budget.

          30 years of APple and how many BILLIONS spent in R&D and marketing and 9% market penetration?

          EPIC FAIL.
          • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -15/+4No one said you had to be diverse. You can change over, period. You have to change OSes (Soon Vista will be necessary to run on all desktops). You have to upgrade and change hardware. If you can do it with a Mac and LOWER your long term TCO, then you will.

            Your IT dept. will be the only one's to complain? Why? Because they know nothing.. they get all their information from google. They have no skills and if a new platform comes in, they won't be able to reproduce the steps they used to set up their windows box that they've memorized. It's not that they know what they are doing. Funny thing, you probably can lower you total IT dept too.

            Mac are a single source.. you are correct. I know many businesses and colleges who order from HP.. or just Dell.. a single source. I fail to see your point.

            Apple had the market share MS had.. they became fat cats and failed to produce better. Sound familiar?
          • grumpyrain, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4One thing you touched on in your first post is the hardware monopoly. TCO is only part of the picture. If you wanted a lower TCO for your car, don't get insurance. Of course, that is not acceptable to most people. Simply put, most enterprises don't want hardware vendor lockin. The push from enterprise to *nix is largely driven by the desire to move away from software vendor lockin. As is the push towards web based software. Why on earth would an enterprise want to lockin their hardware too?

            If we have a service contract with Dell, and their hardware becomes measurably less reliable across the enterprise, we can cancel their contact and look at HP/Compaq, Asus, Sony, or any other PC manufacturer. You can't do that if you are vendor locked into an OS X ecosystem. If Apple licensed OEMs (no, they won't), then more enterprises may consider it, but if they are going through an effort to migrate, it is still less likely to migrate to an environment with just as much vendor lockin as they currently have.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -11/+7WRONG! I worked at Central Washington University. Take a look at their IT department vs the number of computers per platform. They had ONE certified Apple tech for all 700-800 Macs on campus. By contrast, there were 8 techs for the 2200 or so Windows boxes on campus. This does not include servers and other such things. The head of the Computer Support Services department (with over 20 years in that position) wished that the campus would get more Macs. Why? Because the TCO IS LOWER. Spout off your reasons all you want, but in many environments, experience says you're flat out wrong. The initial investment can be high, but once you get them integrated, the Macs suddenly become much cheaper in the long run. All you really need is a Mac tech (which means you may be able to shed a PC tech if enough are moved, or retrain a PC tech) and you can get the issues smoothed out.

            Apple spends a lot in R&D and is now gaining market share at an increasing pace thanks to it. Sorry, but you're the one with the epic fail here.
          • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -6/+61. You say it like it is a small number. Mac is not aiming to gain more market share than Windows, and they don't need to. They dominate with their OS/Hardware, iPod and iTunes. I think you might underestimate what Apple has achieved in the last few years. They are one of the few companies that have their product turned into a verb (everyone thinks a mp3 player is an iPod).

            2. Vista is a utter and complete flop, to the consumer and enterprise market.

            3. Low cost? Take the cost of Mac OSX and OSX Server and compare it to the likes of Windows Vista Premium/Ultimate, Win2k7, and Sharepoint, the latter options which can easily go for hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement.

            So maybe you didn't get the memo.

            Furthermore, concluding that you are buying into a monopoly is a ridiculous notion, no more intelligent than saying Automobile makers force you to buy their stock audio system with their product, therefore it is a monopoly. If anyone has a monopoly on the market, it is Windows, and since prices for Macs for the most part do not change, and software is relatively inexpensive compared to Windows software, a Mac company has much more bargaining power for either platforms.

            
    • JimmyIkon, on 04/23/2008, -7/+1That's the one "progressive" policy that came from SF that I agree with. My best memory of that city is when I had dinner with some co-workers at one of the piers, decided to run through china town on the way back to the W and got diarrhea on the way. Great city despite that.
    • Amiga500, on 04/23/2008, -5/+6I hear they use Macs in 9 out of 10 bath houses.
      • chevyorange, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3Yeah, they switched to Apple from Amiga.
  • mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -19/+139When saying your company or a company in general that's switching to Mac, please specify the size by number of employees. AFAIK the REAL major companies aren't even or never will they contemplate switching to Mac if nothing else because of the investment they have in in-house developed apps for Windows. I'll start off, my company has over 300,000 employees - no Macs.
    • colincornaby, on 04/23/2008, -37/+9I don't understand why that would matter. If you're using .Net, your apps can run on the Mac using Mono. .Net may actually help Mac adoption, not hurt it.
      • Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -12/+56Two words: group policy. When an IT department isn't a dude in shorts who makes in-person visits and instead is a tightly-knit team that deploys IT changes onto tens of thousands of machines across multiple timezones, you don't pander to people who want to use a Mac because it's hip.
        Macs are fine in small shops but an intelligent enterprise will never run two completely different platforms - there is far too much expense in getting people who have the proper amount of expertise in both systems and in plotting hardware upgrade paths for both trees.
        It's analogous to someone coming to a voting station and saying they brought their own voting card that is slightly different from the ones everyone else punches - no, sorry, there are thousands of people filing through here and you just gotta go with the flow.
        • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -18/+4If the IT department is truly up to snuff, they should be able to roll out changes for both Mac and Windows, as long as they know what works and what doesn't work, which even basic amateurs in cross-platform networking could even understand.

          And when most of the people in the design field (including things like Television, Movies, Internet, Marketing) prefer Macs as their design/development environment, you BETTER be sure that you can support it.

          Try telling someone using CS3 on a mac that they have to switch to using it on Windows; Not only do they have to go back to a clunky interface that is CS3 on windows, but they also forfeit added features and usability that only exists on CS3 for Mac.

          Add learning to use ctrl instead of alt for all those shortcuts (some of them are not that simple as interchanging the two) and you have a design team that is spending time dealing with ***** instead of being creative. Oh and try telling someone using Final Cut Pro 2 in their workflow that they have to use something else; 8:1 odds they laugh right in your face.
          • Dedpoet, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0Somehow, I doubt that mobilehavoc's 300,000 employee company gives a ***** about CS3. What percentage of the world's workforce needs to use Photoshop for their jobs?
        • joshcxa, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3'cause mac designers are snooty! I used CS3 on a mac for a while being a multimedia designer. I never liked the CS interface on a mac. Looked too cluttered
      • Tyr7BE, on 04/23/2008, -2/+14No, unfortunately, they can't. They can, in theory, but they can't.

        Plus, nobody is actually using .NET for in house development - when you have a massive piece of software that you've been developing in COM+ or whatever the devil it is for the last 10 years, you don't just drop everything and start from scratch because MS put out a new VM. You keep using COM until you can't.
        • directrix13, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I partially agree with you. But at the same time I think the rate of change in the technical landscape makes that less and less relevant. Technologies get deprecated, and people adapt new ones all the time. And people that keep bleeding old tech for as long as possible usually end up working their way into a corner.
    • lujoko, on 04/23/2008, -20/+12i can think of one 22,000+ employee company that uses Macs exclusively.
    • DouglasScott, on 04/23/2008, -15/+13How about IBM piloting a mac program in their own offices, something that IBM pass on to their own clients:
      http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/16/ibm-launc ...
    • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -22/+91. When you say REAL major companies, exactly what are you trying to infer? Heres a tip; next time your going to bother making a comment like that, don't go the hint hint Real companies only use Windows wink wink route, just say what you mean and save us the *****

      2. in-house developed apps for Windows can be ported over to Mac.

      3. 300,000 employees... exactly what are all of them doing? If all one of your fellow associates does is occasionally check Outlook or Word and sits on the phone (or on their ass) for the rest of the day, of course they don't need an expensive mac.

      3. For a company like mine, which only has about 15 employees, but every employee being a critical part of the company, for which company do you think it's more critical to have the better performing desktops? The comments about "Real major companies" and "over 300,000 employees" hold absolutely no water with me, sorry.
      • mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -2/+10How about Fortune 50?

        I'm happy that your 15 person company uses Macs....what I'm saying is until they break into the large enterprise things will remain status quo...Windows in the enterprise, Macs at home. Simple as that.

        I can't believe you honestly believe porting Windows apps to Mac is a valid option - again economies of scale play a part into that. When you've spent millions on developing a app, you don't port it to Mac because you like the Apple commercials.

        • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1A business or an enterprise be large or small, and still be an enterprise. Most design companies can be small, because when it comes to computers, intelligence in a small group dominates over very large number of people on a group, that doesn't discount the smaller group. Keeping that in mind, large enterprises with that amount of people do not NEED Workclass desktops. Most of these people can function on 6 year old Dells with 128 mb of ram, and if that's the case, the more power to you.

          And if said company has dumped millions and millions into developing a proprietary piece of ***** program on the Windows platform that a group of people that develop for Macs could of did 10 times better and 10 times cheaper, that falls squarely on the companies shoulders. Not to mention in the long run, Macs can be cheaper than Windows because of cost to roll out updates.

          I think anyone in the IT department can tell you that Microsoft loves to nickel & dime the enterprise, just look at the offerings just for the licensing of Sharepoint, which can easily skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a couple of licenses to get it up and running. I don't think you fully grasp the reality of it all.
          • kryptobs2000, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5So anything developed for Windows is 10 times more expensive to code and 10 times more badly written? Is that a rule of thumb or something? I'll go tell my employers and have them switch over to macs right away, I'm sure once I tell them the TCO is cheaper after they retrain the IT Staff and rewrite all their BS sloppy written Windows garbage they'll gladly jump on the idea.
          • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -7/+1Mac is obviously the better platform being built on UNIX kryptobs2000, I mean let's not mince words here. Take 2 softwares on both platforms and compare them, odds are the software on the Mac dominates over the other (Take CS3 for example). Good programmers can program for many platforms, but they prefer to develop on their favorite platforms, which is why you see a lot of programs just for the Mac, and the developer refuses to develop it for Windows (take Textmate for example).

            These are the cream of the crop programmers, not the team 30 odd programmers who are way past their prime and learning
          • daengbo, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1I was following you right up until you said "could of did." Everything else after that got piped to /dev/null.
        • mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5I think it's obvious you will never understand the reality and will live in your Apple-tastic virtual world...more power to you. Sorry but you're clueless in regards to what people in a large enterprise NEED as you state it. If you honestly think people can function on 6 year old Dells with 128MB of RAM...well, you're just wrong.
        • p0tent1al, on 04/23/2008, -9/+2!! Are you kidding? I think the more pertinent question, is if you honestly think people can't function on 6 year old Dells with 128MB of RAM. Seriously let's think about this, I have worked in a Windows dominated environment. Take the 1 or 2 proprietary programs used in the company, add in Microsoft Office to the mix, and if the profession calls for it, add whatever program the profession calls for (for accounting, Quicken, etc). If that's all you do, you don't need a really good computer, especially if you don't find yourself using shortcuts, diving into terminal, heavily multi-tasking, or doing other things.

          Believe me, I have been there, I have only been an Apple User for 3 months, I have used Windows for a good portion of my life. Yes I know there is a stereotype about Apple Computers, but if you would look past those stereotypes, you will find a very good product to integrate into a corporation. If you only need computers for the simple things, get whatever is cheaper and what will work, I agree with you on that part, but just like the article title says, a no Mac policy is definitely not acceptable in todays world, especially with the amount of people in design (which spans many positions in a company) who use them as their platform of choice.

          If your IT can't handle them, then what exactly are you paying them for? Just answer me that mobilehavoc. I already know the answer, but are you saying it's not possible to support Macs, or that the IT isn't up to par?
          • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3"I have only been an Apple User for 3 months" Real world experience? get back to us after the warranty runs out.

            Lots of name calling, with out much experience to back it up.
          • mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Try running real-time trading applications or compute backbones or batch processing or stat arbitrage, etc. on a 6 year old Dell with 128MB of RAM. Like I said, much to your surprise there is a world outside Photoshop and Aperature...it's called the real world.
          • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Sorry p0tent1al but you just don't know what you're talking about and the examples you're giving prove it. A small business with 15 employees is not a corporation and corporations don't use Quicken to run finance departments. That's the equivalent of suggesting that a large advertising firm uses MS Publisher to do all their graphic design work.
            You haven't provided a single reason why even a small business would want to switch to Macs let alone a corporation. Real businesses don't do things because it might be a nice idea, that's no way to make money. Changing hardware or software is a massive big deal and you'd need to have unbelievably compelling reasons to change an entire platform. Even switching a small firm from Windows to OS X will lead to lost productivity while your users are retrained on how to work with all the new software, keyboards, etc. so imagine what that would mean to a large corporation. At the end of the day, businesses will only switch to Macs if they have no choice and that day will probably never come.
      • staticneuron, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Better performing desktops? I see where this is going. The mac elitist are just as bad as the PC snobs. I don't care what OS you bring into my environment I know ultimately performance will rely on the hardware and the techs know-how about the OS in question.
        • B1663r, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Sooo now that Macs are a very main stream thing and fortune 500 companies are adopting them.... Any alternative "think different" credibility they had is now gone and diggers can ignore them forever....
    • Janizzary, on 04/23/2008, -6/+10I'm not sure, but don't small businesses employ 70% of the US workforce? If so, then your point is moot.
      • daftman, on 04/23/2008, -1/+8what part of that 70% use computers? Your point is also moot.
        • Orng, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1I work for a small business, and I use six computers. But I'm not in the US, so my point is moot.

          Meh, I just like to say "moot"

          The six computers I use at work are: 2 G4s with Mac Os X Tiger, 2 Windows XP boxes, 1 Windows 2000 (although it's mostly used for testing and printing these days), and one formerly-formidable Windows NT workstation (soon to be retired for a kick-awesome Mac Pro with Leopard box, Booyah!)

    • omnibahumut, on 04/23/2008, -6/+7Any company that has an in-house design team is going to have at least a few macs, you also have a lot of college students adapting Macs, which is going to rub off in at least some part on some companies
      • mobilehavoc, on 04/23/2008, -6/+7Best comment thus far...you really think companies give a ***** what college students used when they were in college? Hysterical.
        • fangorious, on 04/23/2008, -5/+6no, but the IT departments full of people who learned everything on Macs in college are going to promote Macs in the office.
          • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3They won't even get through the interview if they don't know how to work in a Windows world.
    • selkie, on 04/23/2008, -3/+5Not true mobilehavoc... lots of large companies have been considering Macs. IBM has recently launched a pilot program for switching users. 86% of the users who were in the first phase have responded favorably. You can read the details here:
      http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/16/ibm-launc ...

      So... they have 386,558 employees worldwide. That's not a bad Mom 'n Pop shop.

    • teebird, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3With so many business apps running on Web-based interfaces, and standard communication protocols, the Mac seems likely to make some inroads into the enterprise, at least for "road warriors," but I don't see a mass move to the Mac coming any time soon at my company (aprx 180k employees worldwide) either. One problem is that if you've been running a Wintel shop, switching to the Mac platform would require significant new investments in software and cross-training support personnel. The Mac might be easy to maintain, but there's nothing magical about the Macintosh...users still goof up their computers, parts still wear out and break and software and systems still develop errors, just like any other computer and the Mac a different platform from the PC so the support staff would have to spend time (that is...money) to learn how to maintain it or you'd have to hire additional people just to manage the Macs in your shop.
      • vinny, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2"you'd have to hire additional people just to manage the Macs in your shop"

        But, you would need fewer people to manage your PCs, so what' the problem? Most the data I've seen shows that it takes far fewer support staff to maintain the same number of Macs. That is certainly true in my company where we have 1 Mac support person (who does PC support also) and 4 PC support people for about equal numbers of both systems.
  • 5hocker, on 04/23/2008, -41/+12It is laziness pure and simple. They don't want to learn a new platform

    • ClockworksNine, on 04/23/2008, -8/+5Of course it has nothing to do with training people on a brand new platform and making sure all the software/hardware works with this lock-down policy that Apple has.

      Don't forget the lack of interchangeability when a part dies out (very little standard with Apple).
      • Forsakenmantra, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Why are you being dugg down? Hit a nerve w/ apple people?
    • RandomGuySteve, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3Right... Cause getting 20,000 employees all set up on macs would just be a wonderful experience for the 100s of clients you service.
    • culbeda, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3No, it has more to do with the fact that the vast majority of line-of-business applications are written for Windows and that Outlook/Exchange is the de facto messaging solution in most corporate environments. Every client we have that starts to go down the Mac road quickly discovers that they will be required to put in terminal servers and turn their $1500-2500 Macs into $300 terminals and pay a few grand extra for the privilege. (This excludes design firms, of course. )
      • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Exactly, or pay for an additional Windows license and run that on the Mac. This whole debate is ludicrous.
    • unitedatheism, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1do you have any idea on how expensive is to hire an full-time architect just to support macs?
  • jessechan, on 04/23/2008, -25/+20It seems a lot of startups and new businesses are moving over. Now that Macs can run Windows, Linux, and Unix it is pretty common to see Macs in newer business. However, older businesses will continue to have a more difficult time switching -- due to management, maintenance, and administration. I guess that's just human nature to not want change??
    • giantsfan134, on 04/23/2008, -10/+10How does changing to Macs help company productivity? Not at all.
      And if your argument is that it can run windows, sorry to say but PCs can run windows too, and at about half the price at least.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -8/+7It helps with less total downtime and less overall maintenance. You can't do much when your computer isn't working, now can you?
        • Synchro, on 04/23/2008, -6/+7My wife's small business is run totally of macs after I had her switch. When i come home from my job supporting servers all day long, the last thing I want to do is work on her computer. when she was running windows i had to do something ll too damn often. Since i switched her almost 2 years ago, we have had zero problems. If we grow this thing larger like we are planing, any new people who might come on board will also get a mac.
        • adml_shake, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3Ok, I've been working IT for years. And the only times I've ever seen a constint problem with windows PC's is when the user installs crap they aren't supposed too and messes it up, or there is some sort of conflict between windows and some other third party app that some of them need. The people who use their computers to just do their work and don't screw around with it rarely have any problems. At least no more then the few mac's we have on our network.
      • smrekar, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1automator, smart folders & hazel. I'd say they are more productive for basic file management.
    • plr4ever, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1Ya know, hardly anyone really runs STRAIGHT UNIX anymore.
      Idk if it is even possible...
    • EvolutionTheory, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3newer businesses are switching to macs because they are trendy and they aren't concerned with upgrading or using advanced applications for the office world.
    • antechinus, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3Only if the startups are hairdressing salons.
  • flipmeat, on 04/23/2008, -48/+69Most arguments against Macs are based upon out of date information.
    • pintomp3, on 04/23/2008, -20/+10so when did their laptops get docking stations?
    • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -17/+31So their hardware isn't actually priced as though it were diamond-studded? Dang, I swear it was just the other day...
      • DouglasScott, on 04/23/2008, -11/+12It's TCO.
        A site license of iWork is $250, that's $1 a seat. XServe comes with 10.5 Server unlimited license.
        • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -7/+15What if they don't want to use iWork?

          Besides, if Apple in the workplace ever goes mainstream, do you really think they'll keep it that low?
          • timusca, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2What if I don't want to use MS Office where I work? Huh?

            Tough *****.
          • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2@timusca
            Yeah, tough *****... guess you'll have to buy diamond-studded Apples then, huh? Since OpenOffice.org can do all the same stuff for free?

            Oh wait, no, that doesn't make any sense...
        • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -14/+4@gameforge: what if they don't want to run office?

          same arguement
          • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1If they don't want to use Office they don't want to do business.
        • LemmingJesus, on 04/23/2008, -1/+18Not the same argument when nobody uses iWork.
        • fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -2/+16Except people actually want Office.
      • peestandingup, on 04/23/2008, -19/+6Mac OS X Leopard "Premium" - $130
        Windows Vista Ultimate - $320

        Apple iWork '08 - $80
        MS Office Home '07 - $150

        Who's software is overpriced again?? I forgot.
        • Amiga500, on 04/23/2008, -8/+18Apples and Oranges. You should compare Premium to Premium. Also, iWork blows ass even compared to Open Office, so try again.
        • dezman2003, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12You must have also forgot he was talking about hardware not software, might be time to make a doctors appointment to get that forgetfulness check out.
        • LemmingJesus, on 04/23/2008, -3/+11You're an idiot. You are replying to a guy with software prices when he's asking about hardware. You would also end up buying Office anyway, and your prices are for single personal copies which have nothing to do with what businesses purchase. Then there's the part where the operating systems are already on the machine.
        • grumpyrain, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7You seriously need to learn to shop around if you are paying $300 for Vista.
          $169 at newegg.

          Although most enterprises would use Vista Business rather than Ultimate, which is $139 and home users would use Home Premium which is about $120.

          I don't expect you to follow windows pricing to the cent, but come on, try and get within $100 of right.
          • fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7Big businesses have volume licensing agreements with Microsoft, so retail prices are irrelevant.
          • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1lol... I paid $65 for Home Premium Upgrade at a Comp-USA going-out-of-business sale.

            Still $64.99 too much IMO... best damn DX10 driver loader they ever made though. (ugh)
      • mizike, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4thanks for proving his point...
      • fangorious, on 04/23/2008, -3/+5not really, they just don't compete in the low-margin bargain PC market. A comparably equipped Dell/HP/Sony typically costs the same.
        • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5you've got it backwards. Apple can't provide a machine to compete against a very usable $500 Dell /HP that most businesses put on hundreds of desks at a time. Apple isn't the measuring stick, Dell is.
    • Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -5/+37When did MacOS get MS group policy support?
      • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -12/+5The day you could use directory services to bind to AD...
        • fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -2/+12That isn't group policy.
          • Cerebral, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3I think that the majority of MAC users have not done admin work on a domain that uses GPOs. I think that if they could do something with GPOs then you would see a larger acceptance.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4I fail to see how it could as Group Policy ties into many MS-specific and proprietary technologies.
        • jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Then you are not apt to give an opinion then are you?
          GP allows admins. to update folders, directories, reg edits to programs, which could be redirection to network folders, default printers, certain tweaks to programs, and definitely security settings,....and the list goes on and on.
      • norcalscan, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2Silly people. Macs are for AD too!
        http://www.centrify.com/
        • gerryk, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4AD != Group Policy
          Pretty much any modern OS has some sort of LDAP/Directory support, but it's the granular access control that GP provides that makes it so useful.
        • PhillyMJS, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2@gerryk:
          You clearly did not read anything on that site. Centrify's DirectControl product CAN manage Macs using Group Policy.
          http://www.centrify.com/directcontrol/mac_os_x.asp ...
    • antechinus, on 04/23/2008, -8/+2I don't think so. When did the Mac user base get an IQ boost?
    • zongamin, on 04/23/2008, -5/+7Exactly - retarded comments about 1 button mouse make me want to smash peoples faces in.
      • antechinus, on 04/23/2008, -4/+4Why should something like the brand of one's computer make you want to smash people's faces in? Wierd...
      • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2How about comments about mice that you can't right click if your finger's resting on the left mouse button? And they have the cheek to call it Mighty.
    • NeoCortex, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1I must have missed when those competing Mac producing companies showed up. I'm sure the price competition will now allow bargaining.
    • 4pple5auce, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3Apple released a SAP/Dynamics equivalent? Apple released a Sharepoint equivalent? Mac's work with Active Directory? Xserve can be a Quickbooks server? Macs aren't the most expensive machines anymore? What are these "out of date" arguments?
      • PhillyMJS, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Uhh, Macs can effortlessly authenticate to Active Directory out of the box since 10.4 came out. Third party products are available that offer additional functionality with AD, up to and including managing Macs via Group Policy.
        • 4pple5auce, on 04/23/2008, -2/+4Thats exciting, totally switching our entire division to Macs now. Wait, wait... no I'm not because authenticating with AD is something PC's already do and supports all the features of AD... like GP and certificate authentication without 3rd party applications that I have to pay MORE for on top of the over-priced macs. Then I cross my fingers that these 3rd party software providers don't go under like half of the businesses today. Get a grip, Apple is almost a decade behind in this game.
      • TonyTones, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2Sharepoint??? I can get more use and functionality and sharing out of a piece of papyrus an inkwell and pen. Active Directory? Yes, infact you can even authenticate against kerberos. But why are people argueing AD? when Open Directry and LDAP exist? All the deployments I set up now use LDAP and Open Directory.

        And last certainly least, Quickbooks server ... shoot, ever try setting up that pragmatically programmed piece of crap to run even on it's native homeland? [Vista and the like?] Not every company that wants their quickbooks file available over file sharing has a server box. Intuit is extremely short-sighted. I have my customers avoid Quickbooks server at all costs.
        • 4pple5auce, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2Good, like to hear you're opinion on Sharepoint. See, we have these standards set in place by the EPA, HIPPA, and many other regulatory bodies that require companies to keep document version histories among many other things and many corporations use Sharepoint as a way of streamlining the business processes. Secondly, I'm not bashing open source products, just the Apple cult. Third, the examples I used above only scratch the surface. There's Project and Project Server, Remote Installation Services, Terminal Services (which in Server 2008 maps local devices to remote machines), certificate authentication, I mean come on, the list could go on forever of the services Apple doesn't provide to the business environment. Finally, OD and LDAP are great competitors for AD, but only if you're simply authenticating users with AD... it does a lot more than authenticate, however.

          I'm sure the people at Apple are terrified of such boring and mundane software that they can't market to teenagers anyway.
      • jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Great now it can be on the network and share folders.... BUT OTHER THEN THAT IT CANT DO *****!!
    • unitedatheism, on 04/23/2008, -3/+5So what? Most arguments in favor of Mac are based purely on marketing!
      "Secure" (pwn2own anyone??) "Just works" (as long as you don't run any software, they mean..) or "it's cool" (if you like to give your soul for Apple)
      Macintosh owners need to watch more Fight Club
    • jabberwolf, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3MOST ARGUMENTS FOR MACS ARE BASED ON LACK OF REALITY AND IGNORANCE OF NETWORK SETUPS.
    • Heathor, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2Really? I use them every other day at my college, and I absolutely hate them. The Mac OS is designed around the assumption that their users can't do simple things like starting up a program (remember the old commercials? "I couldn't figure out how to turn on my PC! Thank goodness for Apple!"). I've never seen a company make something so idiot-friendly that the rest of us who actually know how to use a computer are so endlessly frustrated by it. Not to mention the elitist attitude the company shows off like a badge of honor with its commercials.
  • DavidMoyle, on 04/23/2008, -23/+4I believe I just read recently that IBM is allowing people to pick whatever computer they want to use for their laptop. And may are picking MACs.
    • DeathJux, on 04/23/2008, -7/+17Pet Peeve:

      MAC = Media Access Control, not a computer. "Mac" is short for "Macintosh"; it is not an acronym, so capitalizing it is incorrect.
      • dullnation, on 04/23/2008, -9/+4Look at his face. He knew. You can just tell. Yea, he totally knew.
      • ufia, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2DeathJux is a good example why 'no Macs'. Most people only use a computer to get the job done and get back home at the end of the day. Mac fanatics are trying to teach us the meaning of life. No thanks.
        • DeathJux, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3You obviously don't care about properly using terms and not conflating abbreviations and acronyms.

          Go back to Fark.
        • PoopOnPaul, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2The meaning of life is proper capitalization of abbreviations?

          *****, I've wasted my life thus far.
  • sk11, on 04/23/2008, -37/+138I don't mean to be anti-mac, but aren't they more expensive than pcs?
    • jessechan, on 04/23/2008, -50/+20Well, the Mac comes with a lot of software, just works, and currently doesn't require you to have to invest in security software -- anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc. So it may end up saving you money and time (no virus scans and removing spyware, etc.). At least, that's how I look at it. It just works. And that peace of mind is worth it to a lot of people.
      • sk11, on 04/23/2008, -18/+36But linux has all those advantages and it's even cheaper.
        • jessechan, on 04/23/2008, -18/+8Linux is cheaper, and most of those advantages, but doesn't necessarily "just work." There are often major driver issues (or no drivers available), less commercial software available, etc. but it is getting much better for Linux! There are trade-offs between choosing between Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and Unix.
          • sk11, on 04/23/2008, -4/+13Drivers aren't an issue any more. Dell ubuntu computers come with a full set of drivers out of the box, just like macs do. The Asus Eee pc and that gos computer were a huge success. IBM and HP plan to release their own linux ranges. So there'll be plenty of interest and competition in linux computing.

            There is plenty of good, open source software available for free. Besides, in future I foresee web apps becoming more and more popular. They may take over from the current inefficient and expensive method of storing software locally on each computer. So, perhaps such platform independent software will, one day, give linux the edge.
          • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -4/+9Whatever hardware support Linux doesn't have can be multiplied by 10 for OS X. There's a very good chance that at least one major component (sound card, video card, network card or motherboard/CPU) will be only marginally supported or (more likely) not be compatible at all with OS X.

            Obviously the argument doesn't stand for Apple-built machines; but it's incredibly easy to build a PC that Linux runs flawlessly on out-of-the-box, and your hardware selection is huge. There's also the pre-build PCs as sk11 mentioned; the Eee PC I believe starts at $400.

            What new Mac has ever cost $400? No, iPhone/iTouch doesn't count...
          • fjc8, on 04/23/2008, -1/+10In a corporate environment, driver support is unimportant. IT picks systems with supported hardware, configures images for that hardware, and they're done.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4Large IT departments don't build PCs..........ever. They buy 1000's of machines, all identical, from a COMMERCIAL SUPPLIER. If Dell or Apple or anyone else can sell them machines they can manage easily, that will run the apps they currently use, they will buy them. They are also more likely to buy Linux, if they use it at all, from someone like Redhat.

            Apple doesn't really make workstations though, at least not the kind IT shops use, Apple makes the Mac Pro as a design workstation, no one in their right mind would buy 10,000 of them to shove under the desks of drone workers.
          • jakem1, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Actually, large corporations tend to lease their PCs from commercial suppliers.
        • jessechan, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3Ah, I was not aware that Ubuntu was that far along. That's great! However, I think it will be some time before Linux is adopted by the mainstream such as Windows and Linux. I prefer Mac OS X to Windows, but use both and have used Linux as well in the past. I'm glad to hear that Linux is really picking up steam! Thanks for the information.
      • estvir, on 04/23/2008, -16/+13Unless you have Mac Pros, you have to upgrade the whole PC (As the screens are built into the iMacs), there's few upgrade choices, expensive cost, you have to deal with Apple's secretive updates which is horrible for businesses (They like to plan years in a head.. not just sit there reading Apple rumour sites and hope for the best), etc.

        For most companies, Macs would be a bad choice. Also, if you have a sysadmin with the slightest, and I mean slightest, clue you wouldn't really have to worry about having to remove spyware and the like.

        There's also training costs, updating documents, buying new software or developing new software, etc. Macs are fine for some things, but for businesses (Especially ones outside of 50 employees), not so fine.
        • hotdamn, on 04/23/2008, -6/+11I love how we pretend the mac mini does not exist sometimes.

          • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4you don't REALLY consider the Mini suitable for corporate use, do you? Ever tried to service one? When that little drive dies, and they do, you can swap out drives in 10 Dells in the time it take to do 1 Mini.
        • gameforge, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3I believe they call Mac for business "NeXTSTEP".

          (lol)
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3You hit the nail on the head for the most part. Apple doesn't make workstations, the mac pro isn't intended to be bought by the 1000 and shoved under someones desk, its a design workstation for specific purposes.

          iMacs are a poor choice too, they're consumer machines, at best they are kiosks for customer service departments etc.

          Minis would be an option i suppose, most IT departments aren't upgrading video cards, and most everything else in a Mini can be upgraded or replaced by technicians for the company.

          Apple isn't targeting the enterprise market with the current lineup, if and when they do it will be something new entirely.
      • Xihix, on 04/23/2008, -15/+5Stopped reading at "just works". *****.
      • buenit, on 04/23/2008, -6/+6Like the article said, just wait till macs are more popular and hackers starting targeting them with virus and or spyware. The reason macs immune to it now is because they're a minority. But honestly, if it gains enough market share, the mac os will suck just as bad as any windows os. Not trying to bash or piss off anyone by saying that, I just think it's the truth.
        • ryananger, on 04/23/2008, -5/+5Not exactly true. The Mac OS is very tightly secured being Unix based, and is set up in a way that prevents viruses from being as effective as they are in Windows.
          • buenit, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2And you don't think someone will find a way to exploit that one day? Hackers don't want to waste their time if it won't affect the masses. It the Mac OS was the majority, there would be similar problems in terms of malware. The Mac OS isn't as invincible as everyone thinks.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -4/+2Just this week VISTA was targeted with a privilege escalation exploit that took advantage of the flawed and highly insecure service model in Windows that was supposed to be fixed with Vista.

          This same attack isn't possible on OS X because services are highly restricted and all run separately.

          Whats really funny is both Vista and Leopard have sandboxing built in to their kernels, apparently Vistas isn't being used because it would prevent stuff like that.
        • Dabacle, on 04/23/2008, -4/+9@ ryananger: Maybe I'm missing something, but who lost the PWN 2 OWN hacker contest again? In what? Two minutes? Yep, was a Mac. Didn't vista fall because of an Adobe bug (not their own software)? Clearly OS X is very tightly secured!
        • Burn, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4I believe you'll find that was a Java exploit which would very likely affect Linux and Windows as well.

          Get your facts straight.
        • Dabacle, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3Ah I stand corrected. Thanks for the info :).
      • unitedatheism, on 04/23/2008, -5/+4Yeah, we all have testified that Mac don't need software protection in that pwn2own contest.... in fact, they don't need software protection because by the time you installed the protection your computer will already have been compromised, so why care?
      • gcauthon, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2Every time someone asks for the price, someone tries to bring up total cost of ownership. Apple fanatics are like used car salesmen. He simply asked which one is more expensive. Macs are more expensive, end of story. You can throw on a layer of Tru-Coat (TM) if you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact that Macs are more expensive.
    • Scottievm, on 04/23/2008, -40/+35Not so much since the switch to Intel. For example, at $1100, you'd find it difficult to find a PC comparable to the Macbook.
      • Syphon8, on 04/23/2008, -11/+41No you wouldn't.
      • Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -18/+11$1100 for a WORKSTATION? I can build an overpowered core duo workstation that I won't have to upgrade for 4 years and throw in dual widescreen monitors for less than $1000. It just doesn't make any fiscal sense to go Mac. Macs are hip and neat but beyond the flash they don't make sense for a business environment.
        Don't forget that "real" work PCs (these are the computers in corporations across the world - most of us are IT-types and generally manage to get ourselves better hardware and can do more because we set our own security policies) don't do much: they do word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, email, and possibly even a piece of two of third-party business software.
        • Laiden, on 04/23/2008, -4/+7PC can mean Notebook and Desktop, dumbass. Scottievm meant $1100 for a notebook.
        • threemagic, on 04/23/2008, -6/+6I love how you complain about lack of structure as the reason Macs can't be in a business and use the lousy argument of building a non-supported white box as a cost fight. It's hypocritical!

          Besides, The Mac Pro is the workstation.. it sports Xeon processors and Dell's and HP's comparable models actually cost more.
          • gudnbluts, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3I've seen people put together higher specced boxes for hundreds of dollars less than the Mac Pro.
          • krische, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4gudnbluts, you're missing the point. What company is going to want a self-built box? None. They want supported hardware from companies like Dell, HP, or in this case, Apple.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5Really gudnbluts? So they had Xeons, FB-DIMMs, and faster PCIe slots? You know, the things that a real workstation user would demand? A Core 2 Quad whitebox is NOT a serious workstation setup.
          • gudnbluts, on 04/23/2008, -2/+0"Really gudnbluts"

            I'd better qualify it, the one I'm thinking of, there were more slots for just about everything, and it had a better graphics card. The other specs were about the same, so to be fair, the gains weren't that earth shattering, but it was considerably cheaper.

            "What company is going to want a self-built box?"

            Then again, what company is going to want to spend $1100 for a workstation for most of its employees?
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -2/+4Workstations and drone PCs are 2 different things, Apple makes workstations and home machines, they don't make white boxes you can cheaply buy by the 1000 to shove under a desk somewhere and use for data entry.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4"The other specs were about the same"

            Translation: Core 2 Duo/Quad CPU. In other words, NOT A SERIOUS WORKSTATION. If you're a gamer/hobbyist, the Core 2 will be fine. If you want to do serious multimedia/scientific computing, you don't get a Core 2, you get a Xeon with FB-DIMMs. End of story.

            And a company that needs lots of horsepower for multimedia will spend well over $1100 for workstations.
        • estvir, on 04/23/2008, -4/+5Than don't build them yourself, use HP, Dell or someone else to build a comparable/faster PC for less than the cost of an iMac (Most places would not need Mac Pros).
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3Most USERS don't need a Mac Pro in the first place, FB-DIMM and all the rest of that crap aren't necessary, certainly not for people who are only running word processing or specific business apps.

            And Apple doesn't make a machine for that sort of market.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Apple doesn't make a machine for the enthusiast/heavy gamer market, but that market is not as big as you think. The biggest market is novices, in which Apple is doing just fine with their current lineup. The Mac Pro is targeted at a specific market that DOES need those things. If you don't need them, then don't buy the Mac Pro.
        • aszymczyk, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Alright Steve Ballmer
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2What enterprise is going to build whiteboxes? Generally they look for a prebuilt so they can have one-stop shopping for support.
      • Coolspot420, on 04/23/2008, -4/+45yeah, and at $700, you won't find any mac notebooks.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -10/+8Most of those $700 notebooks user celeron processors, which Apple refuses to use. The closest they came to using that sort of processor was the core solo in the mini, and they quit that ***** quickly to move every machine they sell to dual core.

          In short, Apple is not in the bargain basement laptop market.
          • locojones, on 04/23/2008, -7/+7Maybe because Apple's bloated OS can't run on the celeron.
        • norcalscan, on 04/23/2008, -4/+2And in my Enterprise, you won't find any $700 laptops
          • cr3ative, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Holy *****, it's Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
      • jonathandyer, on 04/23/2008, -4/+5Your comment fails.
      • CAPITALLETTERS, on 04/23/2008, -4/+11Enjoy your $1100 13" screen, 1GB ram, 120GB 5400rpm HD, integrated graphics and 2.1Ghz cpu.
      • PabloIV, on 04/23/2008, -5/+9To add to capital letters. I just bought this Compaq, at Best Buy of all places, (don't ask) that beats that description for $429
        • shuffle, on 04/23/2008, -9/+7No you didn't. Your Compaq doesn't have integrated bluetooth, draft N, integrated webcam and microphone, and a truly multi-threaded commercially supported graphically superior OS for that price.
          • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -3/+5No, but for corporate users (which is what this article is about), none of that ***** matters, when we can outfit 5 users with PCs, instead of 3 users with Macs. And still have to buy a windows license for the Macs.
          • jstearns, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4Haha..buying windows..
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5We buy our workstations from dell 10 at a time at 300 dollars a piece. Vostro 200's. You're not going to get a new mac for 300 bucks.
    • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -7/+4you might have just started a huge argument…
    • shank2001, on 04/23/2008, -15/+43For $2,800 you would be hard pressed to find a PC comparable to the Mac Pro. I am a PC user... and after LOTS of research, I could not get an 8 core PC with the same stock/base features as the Mac Pro anywhere close to $2,800. Surprised me too, believe me. So I bought a Mac. I run windows on it, for the most part, but OSX is really impressing me!!! DONT buy RAM or hard drives from APPLE though!!!!! Buy the base Mac Pro and upgrade everything yourself... and you cannot beat the price then! One of the best PCs I have ever owned LOL. And so quiet!
      • mizike, on 04/23/2008, -9/+22wait a minute, you did actual research to back up your claims....this may be the wrong thread for you, this is the logically baseless mac bashing thread of the day, take your logic someplace where people will care....

        btw, my first mac buying experience was almost the exact same as yours, I was shopping for a laptop and someone told me to consider a mac....the though had simply never crossed my mind, but after pricing it out, it was the cheapest option for what I wanted (light, very long battery life, durable, etc., etc., I have a desktop for playing games, I needed a laptop that wouldn't keep me chained to an outlet all the time)...i've never regretted the decision....
      • Ouze, on 04/23/2008, -2/+28Most workplaces are not buying a couple of $2,800 machines. They are buying thousands of $600 machines.
      • xgambetx, on 04/23/2008, -10/+7if this is true wow... you really don't know where to look searching for parts do you?
        • triskele, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3If you think a business is going to be building their own computers then I want some of what you're smoking.
        • shank2001, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Prove me wrong. Build a Xeon workstation class computer with dual 2.8ghz E5400 processors and 2gb of RAM (and the rest of the standard features of the Mac Pro, shoot even leave off some, for all I care, like bluetooth, firewire 800 etc etc. just leave HD and equivalent video card and RAM.. and see what you get) for less money! Go to Newegg, go to Dell, go to HP go to TigerDirect. You can't do it! In fact Apple is not just a couple hundred dollars cheaper here, it is at LEAST $1,000 dollars cheaper, and most of the time more!! Not to mention the enclosure is second to none, ,and doesnt sound like a jet engine like most other Xeon workstations out there! ;) It is so quiet I cannot even tell it is on most of the time. (except when the DVD drive spins up... then it is louder than a jet engine haha!)
      • Coolspot420, on 04/23/2008, -8/+19Haha no.

        My friend just purchased a new mac pro. For $2100, he got:

        (1) 2.8ghz Quad Core Processor
        2gb RAM
        320gb HDD
        8800GT

        I built my PC 4-5 months ago, and for $1200 I got:

        2.4ghz Quad Core (now overclocked stable at 3.4ghz)
        4gb RAM
        500gb HDD
        8800gt
        • xgambetx, on 04/23/2008, -5/+7thank you

          i was just about to post something very similar to that but you did good.
        • Markie1006, on 04/23/2008, -10/+9And I'm sure you used the same quality of parts.
          Your memory is ECC DDR2 6400 I take it?
          I bet even the dual-core cpu isn't even in the same league (xeon 5400 with 12mb L2 cache)
          You didn't include Bluetooth, keyboard, mouse, dual-layer dvd writer or even the mainboard.
          • mebob, on 04/23/2008, -5/+5Exactly! The point I made below in the when replied to the wrong message :) Doing a real 1 to 1 comparison makes the Mac Pros look like a bargain.
          • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -8/+4What makes you think that Macs use higher quality parts? The price?

            Spend some time looking at the people waiting in line at the genius Bar.
          • Ouze, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2I was looking at the "bargains" available at the mac store. Apparently moving from 2gb of DDR2 6400 to 4gb adds $500 to the price. For normal PC's you can get the same at Newegg for $69, and there is a $29 rebate atop that I didn't factor in. So far as the "quality being better", apple uses the same hynix chips every other good supplier uses. The only difference is the the Mac has poorer thermal management, so uses larger heat dissipaters on what is otherwise the exact same *****. But if you're OK with paying $900 for a $40 keyboard, a $15 mouse, a $200 motherboard, and a $40 burner, then don't let me (or good financial sense) stop you
          • Coolspot420, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1I didn't include those parts in the list, but they are in the price. I have a dual layer drive, bluetooth, wifi, etc.
          • shank2001, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Ouze, that is why I said very plainly in my comment that DONT BUY RAM OR HARD DRIVES FROM APPLE!!!! Buy the base Mac Pro, and upgrade yourself with parts from Newegg! You also should look up why the Mac Pro has those heat sinks on its RAM. It isnt poor thermal management, I'll tell you that. In fact it is one of the coolest, and quietest PCs I have ever owned. The reason the Mac Pro has those heat sinks on the RAM is because the RAM is not your everyday ordinary RAM. It is Serial RAM rather than Parallel RAM (what is in normal PCs that are not Xeon workstations) and thus generates a LOT of heat. However, because of this, you can put 32GB of dual channel RAM with 256bit wide path to it in the Mac Pro. Try to find a PC for less than $2,800 that can do this! Seriously, try it!
        • tnoy, on 04/23/2008, -5/+11Now try to build your own using a couple 2.8GHz Xeons, a 5400-based motherboard and DDR2 800MHz FB-DIMMs.

          Or try to configure a HP, Lenovo or Dell machine the same. I hate Apple, but the Mac Pro is a ***** good deal.
        • triskele, on 04/23/2008, -2/+3You're neglecting the fact that businesses usually aren't in a position to build their own workstations.
        • Forsakenmantra, on 04/23/2008, -4/+2For $1,600 I built a PC with

          (1) Duel Core Pentium 3.0 Ghz (overclocked to 3.4 atm)
          2 GB 1333Mhz DDR3 memory
          (1) 150 GB 10,000 Raptor HDD
          (1) 500 GB secondary HDD
          (1) Audigy X-Fi
          (1) 8800 GTX 768Mb

          So don't tell me you need a PC for $2,800. And for an extra 200 I could have gotten the Quad Core but I couldn't justify needing it.
        • shank2001, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3This is a reply to ForsakenMantra. I need a computer much more powerful than the computer you list for $1,600!! I have 8 2.8ghz cores, which is pretty much 4 times faster than your computer on 3D rendering, which is what I bought this computer for. Yes a 4 hour render on your computer would take 1 hour on the Mac Pro. Yet I paid no where near 4 times as much as your computer. Still think you got a good deal? Yes I actually need 8 cores, wish it was 16, and yes your $1,600 computer would be a complete waste of money for me! Just because YOU dont need the power of an 8 core computer, does not mean no one else does. And the Mac Pro is the price champ in the 8 core Xeon workstation class of computers out there! Look it up for yourself!
      • mebob, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6You are not even coming close to making a fair price comparison! I would never recommend buy a monitors, servers or ram from apple but... Take a look what processors and chipsets are actually in those Mac Pro towers!
        You're not getting Xeons in that $1200 box you built! Price out a truly comparable parts and you will be blown away by how much you get from Apple. Even just trying to build something similar in a 'workstation' on Dell's small business site will make your jaw drop.

        For Example a quick dirty comparison:
        Apple's current $2700 8 core offering includes TWO 2.8Ghz quad core Xeons, and by default comes with 2GB DDR2(support up to 32), a DVD burner and a 320GB SATA drive. Even if you add AppleCare you barely break $3000.

        A similar workstation from Dell with only an 80GB drive, DVDROM and lesser video card is over $3700 after "instant savings!!!!"
        Dell is nice enough to throw in a free 19inch monitor for that price, but rather keep that extra $900.
    • Amiga500, on 04/23/2008, -15/+14You are paying for Steve Jobs personal blessing.
    • BossKey, on 04/23/2008, -8/+14Macs may be more expensive than PCs, but come on, how many of the people repeating this mantra will turn around and buy the least expensive car? I don't see everybody running out and insisting on Hyundais and Kias.

      It's perfectly acceptable in this society to pay an extra $15,000 for a better car than your requirements dictate. Why, then is it such a blistering taboo to spend just a few hundred more on a Mac, when most people spend more time with their computer than their car?

      This ridiculous "but PCs cost less" prejudice makes no sense in context.
      • dcook32p, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8The reason is very simple. The article references enterprise-level deployment of Macs. When you are buying 5,000+ systems at $200 extra per unit, that adds up. This isn't an article trying to convince home users to switch. It's reporting on the increasing trend of users demanding Apple-branded products in their office.
        • enicholas, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2True in the context of this article, but you know perfectly well that the exact same comments crop up in EVERY Mac article. People act like spending an extra $200 to get a nicer machine is insane.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -6/+4PCs cost less because all Dell has to do is throw together parts and then preinstall crapware to knock off another $50-100. Thats about the end of their responsibility and cost for each machine.

        Apple has to finance the cost of operating system development on hardware alone, its factored in. They also take more than 4 seconds to design products, which also costs money.
        • turbodiesel, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2You forgot to add in the ungodly profit margins. But, hey, if people are willing to pay.....
        • jamesdew, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1apple are just throwing together parts too. The only difference is they are putting OSX on the thing. Basically you are paying about $400 for an operating system
      • xgambetx, on 04/23/2008, -4/+2woah woah in no way can you compare a mac and a pc to a car in such a way that costs an extra 15,000

        thats just like wanting to compare a hyundai to to a BMW...
      • grumpyrain, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4The analogy fails you there.

        There are very good reasons to avoid Korean built cars. Although they have improved immeasurably over the past 10 years, they are still trailing a long way behind Japanese and German build quality. Of all the reasons I can think of that you would work against Enterprise adopting Mac, hardware pricing is probably the least of them.

        I put it to you that your Mac contains very little hardware to distinguish from a vanilla PC. Every major component comes out of the same factories that produce every other OEM (the biggest difference is probably EFI and the position of the screw holes on the motherboard). From an enterprise level, Apple has nothing competitively priced to replace the usual $500 - $800 workstation. You can get AD to work on OS X, but not most group policy settings. You are committing yourself to purchasing hardware made by a single OEM, instead of having a choice if for whatever reason you don't think the current hardware line meets your needs.
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -3/+1They aren't in that market, thats why they don't sell anything to compare to sub-$400 crap boxes.

          The mini is 599 i think, but its a home machine, thats why its so tiny
          • grumpyrain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I never spoke about the sub 400 boxes, you are really looking at the Eee and a handful of celerons. The 500 to 800 price bracket is your typical enterprise workstation.

            They have nothing (decent) below the iMac. The Mac Mini is comprehensively beaten by vanilla boxes nearly half its price. The iMac struggles performance-wise against vanilla boxes three hundred dollars cheaper. Feature-parity, the iMac is reasonably priced, but enterprise doesn't care for integrated webcams or bluetooth. The Mac pro is well priced, and you will have trouble configuring a vanilla PC for too much cheaper (possible, but you really have to shop around). But as I said this is a high end workstation for encoding video or rendering, entirely overkill for running excel, outlook and one or two apps.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1The mini uses laptop parts, its expensive and tiny, and not for business use.

            Your post just confirmed my point, Apple doesn't make enterprise machines, even the mac pro.
          • grumpyrain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2If I missed your point, then perhaps you missed the whole point of the article - that enterprise has no defensible excuse for not considering Macs. If Apple doesn't make enterprise machines, then someone ought to tell that guy.
      • BossKey, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5OK. You guys are right that my analogy wasn't accurate. I was thinking more at a personal level, the car/computer someone would buy for themselves. For corporate/enterprise, the Mac makes less sense, generic PC boxes are more appropriate.

        However, I will still stand by what I said at the personal level. The additional cost of a Mac, for individual use, is often balanced by easier maintenance and long practical service life. My friends and I have been installing the newest, latest OS (10.5 Leopard) on Mac laptops that are almost 5 years old and it actually performs well. If a PC user must replace a 5-year-old laptop to run the latest OS (Vista) and a Mac user does not, then the Mac can turn out cheaper on the long run. That's not even counting the marked lack of Mac malware, despite a nontrivial and rising user base.
        • jamesdew, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1thats purely an OS advantage and says nothing for apple hardware. I've said it before and i'll say it again, you are paying $400+ for an operating system.
    • BossKey, on 04/23/2008, -5/+5PCs cheaper than Macs? Not always.

      In this article referenced on Digg, the cheaper Mac performed faster than the more expensive PC!
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews ...

      And the Mac laptop had far longer battery life than the PC laptop at the same price.
      • jamesdew, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5wow a mac compared against a single computer from a poor and overpriced PC manufacturer PROOF!!!!

        And what an exhaustive and detailed set of tests. time to load an app, yes that is something you might be interested in but hardly the be all and end all of how fast your computer is.
    • shitton, on 04/23/2008, -4/+5One thing a lot of people don't consider is the time spent maintaining, updating, installing, managing, etc. the machines - I think in the mac vs. pc debate this factor is often overlooked. Time is money, and when you have to spend time defragging, updating antivirus programs, heck, even running windows updates (which is way too time-consuming, in my opinion), you really begin to appreciate the time you save by not messing with those issues.
      • adml_shake, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1Yet...

        Because if you were to make Mac's more main stream you would be face with most of those problems more and more. And of course you have to pay to train all your employees on how to use the new OS and apps that come with it, which is going to cost you a small fortune depending on the size of your user base.
    • JesusHatesYou, on 04/23/2008, -7/+6Dell is following Apple's footsteps. It's better to look good than to be good. It's all image, baby. Fashionistas and fruity boys have to have the pink iPhone and Air Macs.
      • mexretroshore, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Translation: Only queers use Macs, not manly men like me.
    • hiddendragon715, on 04/23/2008, -5/+6http://i27.tinypic.com/2i9194k.png

      adding 139.00 for Win XP 64 brings this total to 2.725.89

      and this system would violate your 2,800.00 mac

      (2) 2.5ghz Quad Core Xeons (why pay for the 2.8ghz model when these can be OC'd well over 3ghz on stock cooling)
      8 GB RAM
      1 TB of storage
      Blu-Ray burner
      8800 GT
      1200 W PS
      Nice Case

      Mac fanboys keep telling yourself how smart you are for getting such a great deal.
      • shank2001, on 04/24/2008, -1/+2Nice try, BUT YOU FAIL!!!. First of all the RAM you picked is not FB-DIMM, it is regular DDR2 ram (rememeber this is a Xeon workstation here), which the motherboard you have above requires.. .same as the Mac Pro, which is $600 for the DDR2 667.... not even the DDR2 800 the Mac pro has, by the way, which is even more. Also, the Mac Pro motherboard has 1600MHz, 64-bit DUAL independent frontside buses (vs 1333MHz FSB above), can handle 32 gigs of DDR2 800 FB Dimms RAM (VS 24 Gigs of DDR2 667 above), 2 E-Sata ports on motherboard (above motherboard has none) mouse and keyboard are included, firewire 400 and 800 ports front and back, bluetooth (none of which the motherboard above has), and 2 16X PCI-e slots (VS, 1) all PCI express slots are PCI express 2.0 (Vs.PCI-e 1.1 above)... also, a much better case that does not sound like a jet engine ;) And when you buy RAM and Hard drives away from APPLE you get a better computer for about the same price that you dont have to build yourself OR send any annoying rebates in either! AND although you chose the 2.5Ghz version of the processors which sure, could be overclocked.... that is not really an apples to apples comparison, is it!!!!! The 2.83Ghz chips are quite a lot more expensive on Newegg, try on the order of TWICE as expensive! $719 each, and it really would have thrown the prices towards Apple! Hmmmm... still looks like the Mac Pro is a steal to me! Even with build it yourself components discounted on Newegg with rebates. Plus I can run Mac OSX, which has impressed me as a PC guy, even!