ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Switching from Windows to Mac: The ROI case

By | July 23, 2007, 2:24am PDT

Summary: Auto Warehousing Co. CIO Dale Frantz says his decision to go from a Windows shop to one powered by Apple is based on time and labor spent maintaining Windows. A week ago, I noted that Auto Warehousing Co. was switching to the Mac platform. The move, first chronicled by Computerworld, left a few loose ends [...]

Auto Warehousing Co. CIO Dale Frantz says his decision to go from a Windows shop to one powered by Apple is based on time and labor spent maintaining Windows.

A week ago, I noted that Auto Warehousing Co. was switching to the Mac platform. The move, first chronicled by Computerworld, left a few loose ends on Frantz’s business case. The biggest loose end: I looked like Frantz was adding costs with an unclear return.

I emailed Frantz to get some more color on his decision. Without offering specific return targets he did tie up a the loose ends. Instead of interpreting his remarks and paraphrasing I thought it was best to let him tell it. Here’s his reply to my question about his business case for switching to the Mac on the front end of his infrastructure.

Our proprietary application (written and maintained in-house) is not Vista compatible. That was our first and foremost problem that we needed to solve. We have a client/server solution, with the client written in PowerBuilder, and Microsoft SQL Server on the back-end. There are no plans to move away from Microsoft SQL Server, only to rewrite the client app in Java.

That having been said, Vista is coming, and it is unclear how long we will be able to delay its introduction into our facilities. Our company is growing, and Microsoft says they will stop selling XP in any flavor no later than Jan 31, 2008. In any event, at some point in the next 6-12 months we will be unable to buy Windows XP pre-installed on a box anymore. This meant that we needed to develop a migration strategy for our application (which we have decided to recode in Java, which we anticipate taking 18-24 months).

All of our revenue-generating operations occur in an automobile shop environment, and the computers that run our application in the shop do not require any additional software (no Office, etc.). At this point it is only those PC’s (several hundred in the US/Canada) that we are looking at replacing with 17″ iMacs. There is no plan today to migrate our offices (HR, Finance, etc.) to Mac’s.

We did a study to analyze the actual cost of “Windows” maintenance and support. In part, we did this by asking our I/S Operations group to have their technicians log all support calls that were specifically “windows” related - windows crashed, locked up, driver errors, DLL failures, whatever. We also logged any additional time spent on any Windows maintenance. In other words, we tried to identify as best we could how many man-hours we were investing in simply the “care and feeding” of Windows to keep it up and running. When the analysis was complete, the results were unbelievable - simply unbelievable how much time, effort and money we were investing into the care and feeding of Windows on a PC. When you add that internal support cost into the ROI calculation for Macs the results were undeniable. There are those who would say that the Mac hardware is more expensive than a PC, especially when you add Parallels and a Windows XP OEM license, and if you stop there, that is true (but not a huge difference). However, when you throw the Windows support cost in to the matrix, the results fall drastically towards the Mac, based upon our estimates. Our proof of concept testing found that Windows running on a Mac in the Parallels virtual environment did not require the same degree of support as full-blown Windows PC’s - much less, in fact.

As part of my due diligence I have visited 2 companies that have between 10,000 - 20,000 Macs on their network. In both cases the companies have blended networks, supporting both Mac’s and Windows PC’s. In both cases Mac XServes were the controlling architecture. The network management tools and support software that Apple provides allows each of these companies to have fewer than five I/S support personnel. I have more than 5 just to support our fleet of Windows PC’s and related devices.

So, in summary, we found the true cost to support a single PC in the shop environment to greatly outweigh the minimal difference in hardware/software cost between a Mac and PC with Vista. It is our belief that we will achieve a significant savings with this move to Macs on the shop floor, as well as increase system reliability and user satisfaction.

Frantz added that his due diligence was the result of asking colleagues about their infrastructure. Few are actively documenting the results of a switch from Windows to the Mac so “industry networking is invaluable,” says Frantz.

More reading:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

344
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Switching from Windows to Mac: The ROI case
SAH59 30th Jan 2011
Macs are built for people who want to get something done. Not everyone can afford to become a tech. So, if that is what you mean by "smart", yes. But the really smart person is one who can spend more time doing what he does best and does not have to learn how to trouble shoot his PC ? because he is smart, and works on a Mac!!
... does not reflect the true costs involved. Hardly surprising.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, you can have purpose built machine.
No_Ax_to_Grind 23rd Jul 2007
And that is what he needed instead of a general computing platform. In this specific case it makes sense to switch, but a thin client would have been a much better choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes and No . . .
Basic Logic 23rd Jul 2007
Yes, thin clients (e.g. browser-based clients) may be better in this case, but ...

No, MACs are not "purpose built machines". They are every bit as flexible as Windows machines.

However; the most astonishing number is the 2000 to 4000 servers/FTE ratio. That far and away surpasses any initial added hardware expense.

.
0 Votes
+ -
CIO living in Dream World
tshinder@... 23rd Jul 2007
That CIO is going to learn a hard lesson. I've seen that running Macs is little different than PCs. They crash on a regular basis and need the same "care and feeding" because the problem isn't with the hardware or software, it's with the users, and if you introduce the same stupid users into the equation, it doesn't matter if you run Windows or Mac. Overall, MS is more cost effective because *you* own the hardware, unlike with Mac.
0 Votes
+ -
So are you
ITGuy04 23rd Jul 2007
Overall, MS is more cost effective because *you* own the hardware, unlike with Mac.

Huh? I OWN my Macs and have for years. I can and do run tons of programs on them.

And it's proven by every independent TCO study that Macs are lower TCO than Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Macs own you!
sackbut 23rd Jul 2007
...:-)
0 Votes
+ -
Don't be ridiculous
Dr_Zinj 23rd Jul 2007
Macs don't own you any more than Windows-powered PCs.

And the article fairly plainly states that the use the computers is being put to is a networked, special-purpose, inventory & production control environment without the need for office productivity software.

Microsoft clearly lost them as a customer due to their changing something in VISTA from the way it works in XP.
0 Votes
+ -
He is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous
intrepi@... 23rd Jul 2007
Mac is an OS and owns nothing but it's own non human rights and property. How ridiculous can one actually get by posting such silly tripe ? I'd be ashamed to make such a post in light of others reading it would know the person making such a ridiculous accusation has a very limited mental capacity or has altered it by some kind of drug inducement. My advice, post something constructive, negative criticism can be constructive if given with supported facts but this kind of nonsense is what it is, useless, nonsense.
I'm sure many here have built their own computer. That's all I do now. Think you can order up the pieces of a killer Apple from tigerdirect.com and customize it all for under $600. And that's one of the great joys of computing.

Mac is a gadget company who has some computers and fierce, albeit devoted little user group. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
0 Votes
+ -
Try ordering a tower...
jasonp@... 24th Jul 2007
and building a Dell. Not an option. Large companies don't build their own systems. Nice try though.
0 Votes
+ -
Plugging parts does not equal Building
comp_indiana 24th Jul 2007
You can buy a VERY FINE tower Mac, if you can afford it. I'm guessing you can't.
0 Votes
+ -
I used to. My time is too valuable
ITGuy04 24th Jul 2007
to waste chasing bad parts, incomaptibilities, etc.

And the last time I priced it out, the differences were negligible when comparing like for like.
0 Votes
+ -
Do you mean to tell me...
Stuka 23rd Jul 2007
...that I have been RENTING my hardware for the past 20 years?! wow... am I ever late on payments.
0 Votes
+ -
I look after all our Macs (and I'm self-taught at it) yet none of our friends can do the
same for their PCs. They have to go running to their dealers for techie support. And
it's not as though I'm super-intelligent. Many of our friends are far more intelligent
than I am. You'd have to be real dumb not to be able to look after a Mac (and even
dumber not to be able to learn to use one properly). And I certainly own my Mac
hardware, thank you very much. The only way I wouldn't own it is if I leased it.
0 Votes
+ -
I think you said it best!
xuniL_z 23rd Jul 2007
Macs are for dumb people.
0 Votes
+ -
I mean if it's smart to have to work to make your computer work and keep it working
then I'll be dumb and lazy any day of the week and twice on Sunday cause I'd rather
do a little as possible to get paid than to do as much as I have to just to get the
chance to work....

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I know you can.....
xuniL_z 23rd Jul 2007
But there are other people out there that want to make their computer work for them. It's these people that may work harder, but leave a larger mark on the world and provide much better for themselves and their families.

You see the idea of computing isn't to have the computer dictate what you can do, and operate only in those boundries, but to make the computer work for you and at the end of the day provide the best ROI and value for your personal use or company's bottom line.

Obviously you alwasy exaggerate a Windows experience into an all day adventure just to boot it up, like everyone here is a moron. But in reality, I've never had a day my PC didn't boot up XP, very quickly I might add, and provide me with a great interface to do my work. And the ability to do many more various tasks than OS X so that I have the choice to either just get my work done with least effort, like you (do you use Microsoft Office as well to make your life easier on that Mac?) or I can choose to be more enterprising and develop power shell scripts to automate network tasks, or build prototypes of a messenging queue that handles client and server sides requests on/off line and stuff like that. The possibilities are endless, beyond what you can do and only left to the imagination.
0 Votes
+ -
Funny.......
Laff 23rd Jul 2007
No don't use MS Office. Now what exactly did you mention that I can't do on OSX?

Personally I'm in the support/repair end of the buisness so no I'm not all that
interested in a lot of what you listed out but I can't see where if I choose to do said I
could not? OSX is Unix based after all.....

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Maytag repairman then? Must be a long lonely day with those Macs that never give a bit of trouble.

I don't know, you tell me what you can do with OS X. What development environment do you have loaded on yours? Can you control your Macs with a few clicks and take users from full access to extremely limited access on your Apple network? What is the Mac server equivelent of active directory? Does you Mac support group policy?

You don't like Office? Ever take a look at Office 2007? What is Apple's answer for Flash or silverlight? Can you even run Office 2007 w/o booting up into Windows? Ever hear of MOSS? What's Apple got going in that regard? What database server do you run on your Mac? Does OS X come with an Apple built webserver as part of the OS?

I know you can run these things but do you have to load them? Are they integrated with the Mac OS?

Why does Apple charge so much for OS X when they didn't have to put any resources into building the Unix OS? At least Microsoft has a reason to charge for XP or vista etc. What's Apple's reasoning? Why do service packs cost you 130 bucks? Why do you say OS X is cheaper? I've run XP for 6 years now. I bought this Toshiba with XP professional installed. It was around 130. bucks...something like that. Since then I've had 2 service packs, one of them a completely new OS for the most part and have never paid a dime for those or any of the literally thousands of free tools and apps for XP. In 6 years time, how much as the average Mac owner spent on their OS? Huh, huh? Be honest now. You know you buy the updates. So after 6 years your OS has cost you in the neighborhood of 850.00 bucks. Wow!!! vista is less than half the cost of OS X at FULL RETAIL!! when you compute your ROI over time. And Macs are famous for lasting, so your OS might end up costing you in the thousands by the time you are done. I could buy 6 brand new Vista machines and still not pay as much for the OSes as ONE Mac over the next several years. And I can load my copy of Vista on any machine I want w/o buying yet another license.
0 Votes
+ -
A couple points here...
Laff 24th Jul 2007
I'm not a developer or a network administrator I've dabbled slightly in both but
hardly even close to an expert so hoestly I don't know...

As for Office ever since it came out I've never found it to be all that in fact I'd say
it's too much. Way to much stuff that I don't need nor do I want to pay for.
Generally here at work we use MS Office 2004 and for now that's fine. I myself
don't need it or use it....again too much stuff that I simply have no use for.

As for FLash and what is that again Silverline? What do they do? If I know that
much I might be able to answer you.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Jim
xuniL_z 24th Jul 2007
you makingn funny with me.
with your boundless free time, ever hear of Microsoft Live Search. Perfect place to get your answers before responding.
0 Votes
+ -
z_xuniL Low even for you
MacCanuck 24th Jul 2007
Forever the hypocrite, you lambast others for insults and then you start this "moron" nonsense, along with exposing more of your delusional megalomania.

>>> Macs are for dumb people >>>

No, Macs are for people who like to work smart. Why is it dumb (moronic) to just want to use your computer (it is a tool after all) rather than fight with and fix it much of the time? (send your already negative credibility even lower by trying to claim little or no Windows maintenance/support issues)

>>> But there are other people out there that want to make their computer work for them. It's these people that may work harder, but leave a larger mark on the world and provide much better for themselves and their families. >>>

Think a lot of yourself and your Windows "brethren" don't you? Everybody else (read "non-MS users") are useless and non-contributors? Well, well ,well...

As to your other points... they're set up to match what you do and what your needs are. As Laff said, many are not features/functions relevant to the average computer user. You know, all those low-life "moron" non-contributors.

As much as NBMers bash Apple for being "closed", it's MS that has created the proprietary closed system that works best or only with like-MS technologies, thus the continued monopoly position and power (and barriers to change).

Where open standards exist, Linux and OS X can work very well thank you, but in the "exclusive" MS-based world, only MS "solutions" need apply (ie, can many/most MS technologies be developed/programmed without MS-based tools? (ie, Visual Studio for asp, net, Silverlight, etc development)).

>>> You see the idea of computing isn't to have the computer dictate what you can do, and operate only in those boundries, but to make the computer work for you and at the end of the day provide the best ROI and value for your personal use or company's bottom line.>>>

What a load of crap. What boundaries? The artificial ones imposed by an MS-only world?

You can make a Mac "work for you" and any independent TCO/ROI study to date shows the Mac beats Windows re ROI. (still waiting to be shown the contrary)

>>> The possibilities are endless, beyond what you can do and only left to the imagination.>>>

You just described the Mac... thank you.

Unlike the mis- and un-informed, the Mac does much more than artsy fartsy graphics. Macs are used in genetic/scientific research (next time they show video of any scientific lab, there''s a good chance (better than the so-called 95/5 market share numbers) you'll see Macs), NASA has them, many universities use them (maths & sciences... even the "mathematically renown" U or Waterloo uses Macs and has Mac labs), etc, etc. For a time, off-the-shelf Mac G5s (cluster, running OS X) placed 3rd in the supercomputer listing. No Windows-based machines to be found.

With it's UNIX underpinnings, it's as, if not more, powerful than Windows, except perhaps in a deliberately crippled, proprietary MS-only world.

So keep telling yourself that (Windows = power; Macs = useless) if it makes you somehow feel better and/or validated.

Wouldn't want to bruise or crush that overblown ego.

...
0 Votes
+ -
You've got to lighten up
xuniL_z 24th Jul 2007
I was repeating what the prior poster said. I said it as a joke. Sorry I didn't flag it that way, but I figured you would just know that.

sheesh. Of course Macs are decent machines. I argue with the analysis here however. to compare a Mac at 2500 to his admittedly less expensive PCs is totally bogus and the Mac community does it all the time. But you know there are Dells, Toshibas, HPs in the same price range built by the exact same ODM. So why that crock? It's getting old MacC.
0 Votes
+ -
I am in limited agreement with you
intrepi@... 23rd Jul 2007
Microsoft has had more problems from 3rd party software issues like drivers causing blue screens than users. Windows has a lot of problems and a lot of issues related to 3rd party software and hardware. Mac PC's are built by Mac so all the hardware and it's OS is installed, checked and maintained by Mac. These extra quality controls alone would subject anyone to believe it would be a better product. The same holds true in the auto industry which is why Honda, Toyota and others have pushed the US automakers to massive cuts and layoffs. Mac just has more control over their PC's and there are less problems because of it
If that's not enough, Mac doesn't try to run god knows how many different versions and base them on two different platforms. It
based on a single OSx using a single 64 bit platform. What is Microsoft doing, they want to carry the 32 bit platform all the way past 2010. You need to sit down and take a look at the reasons Windows has so many problems. The issues won't be all fixed with SP1 so when will they start to focus on one OS on one platform ?
0 Votes
+ -
Actually you do own the hardware
voska 23rd Jul 2007
Funny thing too. Macs actually hold there value, you can sell for a decent amount of money 3 years later. Try that with a Dell.

As for crashing. I can't say they crash much at all then again Windows is pretty good that way too now. I've worked with both and can't say I even seen a Mac crash once. I've seen users do stupid things but the computer didn't crash. Lost data was the only problem I've seen.

There was one case where a person lost an excel file. For some strange reason they named the excel file picture0.jpg and stored in the pictures directory. Then when they loaded the pictures from the camera they loaded and picture0.jpg, piture1.jpg and so on. They wanted me to figure out where their excel document kept going.
0 Votes
+ -
The crash myth
SpaceCowboyNJ 23rd Jul 2007
Look, MS Windows is required to run a TON more software than Mac, which is not compatible with much out there. Windows "crashes" more simply because virtually ninety-nine percent of the computers out there are pushing Microsoft. Walk into the local bank, the hospital, any corporation, any law firm, most homes by far...they're pushing Microsoft.

As far as resale value, I don't buy it. And it would be moot anyway because a Mac cost a load more than a PC in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll take the Pentagon's network choices any day over that of MTV.
0 Votes
+ -
Try reading...
jasonp@... 24th Jul 2007
assessments of our military systems, especially on the security side. Areas where we get a C grade or higher are considered great success stories. For the most part, we get F's. You want to follow that example, go right ahead.
0 Votes
+ -
Not all
ITGuy04 24th Jul 2007
The critical stuff most definitely does nor tun on Dell/MS.

And different branches use different stuff. Last time I worked (contracted) @ the US Navy they were PULLING the DELLS cause they were GARBAGE.
0 Votes
+ -
Ancient history
xuniL_z 25th Jul 2007
Today's supercomputers are measured in petaflops.

So what is your point?
0 Votes
+ -
Point? You can't handle the truth
MacCanuck 26th Jul 2007
Even with this so-called "ancient" history, off-the-shelf Mac G5s running OS X made the top 3 supercomputers (network also assembled at the time by faculty and students, unlike most/all the other systems (requiring highly training tech teams)) and at a fraction of the cost of the other systems (IIRC, supercomputer #1 (over $300 million (approx 35 teraflops)) & #2 (over $200 million (approx 25 teraflops)), 3rd place Mac system ( $5 million (approx 17 teraflops)).

Lets' see... 35 tf @ $300 million ($8.57 mil/tf)... 17 tf @ $5 million ($294,000/tf). Not bad but NBMers probably wouldn't know about or appreciate the economics happy.

Kind of shoots down the opinion and myth about Macs being "just a toy" and good for nothing but graphics.

BTW... Windows was no where to be found in the supercomputer list. Which one's the "toy" again?

But believe whatever floats your boat and makes you feel good.

Denial can be great for mental health, but delusion, no.

...
0 Votes
+ -
Here's my point McCanuck
xuniL_z 26th Jul 2007
The day you show appreciate, rather than contempt and arrogance, the feat of gaining almost the entire desktop market, in a relatively short period of time, I'll give Apple a nod for the server cluster (even though the MACH technology is not Apple technology per se. You are really looking at classic apple rebranding technology actaully made by someone else. That is all Apple really does. They are a reseller, not an innovator).
Anyhow, the day you show just one tiny bit of objectivity about Windows and it's 90+% marketshare, it's ability to run on computers kids making minimum wage can afford(the quality of the "mac is meaningless to hundreds of millions worldwide), the efforts of Gates to extend Norman Borlaug's (one of only 5 to earn the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal) efforts into Africa. Borlaug, although barely known (compare other 4 people with his distinction!) is credited with feeding and saving over 1 billion lives, is happy about the Gates foundation taking his work into Africa to save millions more. Oh wait, aren't you one of those who believe Gates is only giving a tiny bit of his wealth just to make it look good so they can sell more licenses of Windows? I believe you are. Forget it then.



Seem fair enough to you? You start giving Microsoft credit where the credit is due, and show it's users the respect they deserve, and I might give in and say something nice about Apple.


You ABMers think it's a one way street and you are always going the right way, don't you. Funny part is you don't recognize it and soon it becomes reality and "truth" to you.
0 Votes
+ -
If only you had a clue
MacKeyser 25th Jul 2007
Uh...the US Navy stripped a Military secure version of Unix to put Windows on a
Destroyer to run not just propulsion, but Command and Control and the whole
works...the damn thing crashed so hard that the boat just floated like a bobber in
the middle of the ocean for THREE DAYS and had to be towed to dock. Mission
completely blown.

You think the Military is in love with Windows? Think again. They've procured
windows systems based on political maneuvering and lobbying, sure. But you
won't typically see windows systems on battlefront or mission critical servers
because they just aren't reliable enough. And when you do (as happens in many
Army deployments with support personnel), they are constantly fubar from the get
go and there's always a reason why it won't work. Good thing there aren't any
Windows rifles out there...LOL.

And, fyi, the US Military has one of the most diverse networks in existence. It does
not "run on Dells". It runs on just about every piece of hardware out there
including Dell, HP, Apple, Sun, Cisco, and many more.

There are ignorant statements and then there's what you wrote. Seriously, do you
actually believe what you write?
"Our proprietary application (written and maintained in-house) is not Vista compatible. That was our first and foremost problem that we needed to solve. We have a client/server solution, with the client written in PowerBuilder, and Microsoft SQL Server on the back-end. There are no plans to move away from Microsoft SQL Server, only to rewrite the client app in Java.

That having been said, Vista is coming, and it is unclear how long we will be able to delay its introduction into our facilities. Our company is growing, and Microsoft says they will stop selling XP in any flavor no later than Jan 31, 2008. In any event, at some point in the next 6-12 months we will be unable to buy Windows XP pre-installed on a box anymore. This meant that we needed to develop a migration strategy for our application (which we have decided to recode in Java, which we anticipate taking 18-24 months)."


So your app is not Vista compatible, but seeing as you are recoding it you COULD have recoded it in .NET, Java, or simply recoded it natively to make it Vista compatible. None of this is a reason to switch to another hardware / software platform.

"All of our revenue-generating operations occur in an automobile shop environment, and the computers that run our application in the shop do not require any additional software (no Office, etc.). At this point it is only those PC’s (several hundred in the US/Canada) that we are looking at replacing with 17″ iMacs. There is no plan today to migrate our offices (HR, Finance, etc.) to Mac’s."

Seeing as you are recoding the app as Java, you COULD have replaced all these PC's with thin-client diskless terminals. This would have given you a much reduced hardware initial cost and future maintenance, furthermore remote admin is much less and issues with lockups would be virtually nil (just reboot the terminal), certainly FAR less than either a WinTel or a MacTel option.

"We did a study to analyze the actual cost of “Windows” maintenance and support. In part, we did this by asking our I/S Operations group to have their technicians log all support calls that were specifically “windows” related - windows crashed, locked up, driver errors, DLL failures, whatever. We also logged any additional time spent on any Windows maintenance. In other words, we tried to identify as best we could how many man-hours we were investing in simply the “care and feeding” of Windows to keep it up and running. When the analysis was complete, the results were unbelievable - simply unbelievable how much time, effort and money we were investing into the care and feeding of Windows on a PC. When you add that internal support cost into the ROI calculation for Macs the results were undeniable. There are those who would say that the Mac hardware is more expensive than a PC, especially when you add Parallels and a Windows XP OEM license, and if you stop there, that is true (but not a huge difference). However, when you throw the Windows support cost in to the matrix, the results fall drastically towards the Mac, based upon our estimates. Our proof of concept testing found that Windows running on a Mac in the Parallels virtual environment did not require the same degree of support as full-blown Windows PC’s - much less, in fact."

Note my added emphasis. He doesn't actually say that the cost will be LOWER by using Macs, rather that it will fall TOWARDS the Mac (suggesting it could still be higher, but much less higher than before).

As for the PoC testing that Windows in Parallels VM requires less support, this maybe true as far as the hardware consideration because Windows would be seeing the same Parallels VM emulated hardware across the board, however the issues of remote admining all these Windows PC's will not change (unless they are not using AD), however the diskless thin-client option would still be the far better option.

This reads like a quick, hurried explaination of what is, in essence, a grudge / revenge swipe at MS for the licensing argument.

Nothing in that email actually makes the case for switching to Macs. They could have kept their existing hardware and gone to Linux, they could have gone the diskless option (terminal server), they could have simply recoded the app to run on Vista. All of these options would have been FAR better than the knee-jerk of ripping all the hardware out and replacing it with Macs (unless there has been a HUGE Apple sweetener - remember the Apple logo on the nice crisp shirt?).

I smell BS.
0 Votes
+ -
gestapo licensing tactics
frgough 23rd Jul 2007
is not a valid business consideration?
0 Votes
+ -
Well if it is...
Scrat 24th Jul 2007
then so be it, but be a man and stand up and say it like it is. Making excuses like "ROI" to cover up the real agenda here is just laughable.
0 Votes
+ -
.CRAP = Tied to MS
ITGuy04 23rd Jul 2007
This is good stuff. Rewrite your Java to .NET and you're still at the mercy of MS for everything - Dev tools, Web platform, OS. And this is better how?

With Java you can at least be vendor neutral on the app side.

It is a PROVEN FACT TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT WINDOWS HAS THE HIGHEST TCO OF ALL OS'S! This company is not the first to publish this. The only studies that say different are those funded by MS.
obscure your vision?

I recommended either:
a) Code to Java - in which case the OS is taken out of the equation
b) Code to .NET - in which case it would run on Vista
c) Code natively to run on Vista.

If the app is being recoded anyway, then why spend all the additional money on new hardware? Plus, if you are going to switch to Macs + Parallels (XP) then why recode the app at all?

It simply doesn't make sense.
0 Votes
+ -
and the future?
ivor.boaz@... 23rd Jul 2007
you fail to make a simple extrapolation of his argument, being beholden to MS-crapware in the past has got him in the pickle he is today. why would he want to follow up a bad investment with more money?

sure, he could employ any of the options you provided, but why should he when he can be confident that in terms of solving the 'care and feeding' issue of a large OS-install base, MAC's will do the job just fine?

besides, what's wrong with making a decision regarding Microsoft based on a grudge? Microsoft deserves nothing for the crap they make the rest of us suffer for, all the while tying our hands, taking more and more of our money, and demanding we enjoy the ride, or else.
0 Votes
+ -
Read much?
Scrat 24th Jul 2007
"...being beholden to MS-crapware in the past has got him in the pickle he is today. why would he want to follow up a bad investment with more money?"

So I guess the alternatives like switching to Linux, or maybe thin clients (which would probably be Sun based) also makes him tied to MS does it?
0 Votes
+ -
Crock
stanralph 23rd Jul 2007
that makes two of us. I have never read such a MS biased crock such as yours. I have programmed and built computers for 20 plus years. I have used ms technology for the last 5 as Visual Studio was a good platform for producing results. Imagine my disdain when my new Dell Laptop, that ONLY came with Vista, wouldn't run Visual Studio 2003? So I have to buy VS 2005 and rewrite all my .Net 1.x to .Net 2.x. I suppose in a couple more years my new computer will come with Windows 7, that will require Visual Studio 2008, that will only be compatible with .Net 5.

That is Bull ****. If MS can't write software that is compatible with their OS and if they can't write OS's compatible with their software then I surely don't want their crock of sht in my shop.

Compatability, is the key. It seems MS has ignored this rule. I wonder if on purpose or just due to their continued disregard for me.

Java works, Tibco works, Linux works, xmlhttp works, soap works, facebook works, google works, Ruby on Rails works, Dojo works, MS doesn't. Until I get my websites moved I will write the .asp .net 1.x code to access my data and I won't have this situation again.

Linux, Ubuntu and Open Office serve my needs just fine. And as well the price is right!.

MS's price; that's a crock.
0 Votes
+ -
Gotta be a joke...
Marty R. Milette 23rd Jul 2007
You must be a piss-poor developer from the sounds of it.

Obviously never compared the performance of .net or the reduced development time/effort with any of the lame alternatives you are spouting off about.

It seems the article conveniently omitted the cost of re-developing the software. Of course, if some lamer had built the software so 'fragile' that it couldn't be ported between one windows version and another -- that's a whole different problem.

Please, stick with Linux, Ubuntu and Open Office. They are great for 'home users'.
0 Votes
+ -
Gotta be a joke...
aussieblnd@... 23rd Jul 2007
Piss and poor go hand in hand!
Here was me concerned that Mono only supported some .Net 2 functions but it seems you'd be better off moving to Linux if you want your code to work in future.

Of course, it's probably more complicated than that and I'm not sure there's any kind of free ASP supporting server, but damn.
0 Votes
+ -
Fully compatible.
xuniL_z 26th Jul 2007
the wisest route moving forward is to use XP compatibility mode for apps that don't run on Vista, and the IT head doesn't want to rewrite for Vista quite yet.

If it doesn't work on vista, it won't run on Linux either. this is custom code that I'll bet simply can't handle the new security structure. I would be it's so weak, it's only a problem of them writing settings and data to the program files directories. sounds like that kind of shop.

If i plan on keeping a SQL Server backend and Microsoft in the offices, i would personally have run the old app in XP mode and rewritten it for Vista. Afterall, Vista has hit the 60 million copy milestone, so it's only a matter of time before the Vista floodgates open all the way and everyone is porting to vista.

This was a no win situation for microsoft. To move ahead with security, they had to purposely break old programs.

Damned if you do, as you've illustrated and damned if you don't.."it's just XP with all it's security issues with a new paint of coat". Seems to me serious IT folks would be inviting the challenge of making their code work on a new better Windows. I know that's true for me. Not that I do much coding anymore actually. My sites don't want me taking my time to code their custom...they retain me as an SP, not a code head.

anyway,
Apple is not a move for compatibility but they are rewriting it in java. Couldn't have made a more expensive move.
1. upgrade the 700 pcs in question to current 1500.00 dells that are built with exact same components Apple has the Mac built with. That saves at least 500 to 1000 per PC. * 700.
2. install server 2003 and restrict end users as necessary. Apparently they only need the ONE program. Lock the PCs down with group policy so there is no random web surfing etc. Take all other network precautions and install WSUS for free and patching is fully automatic and no more malware issues.
3. rewrite the program using .net 3.0 framework and VS 2005. ADO.NET is the best possible fit for SQL Server in terms of coding to your back end. Now you have full use of the WCF, WPF framework to make the custom program as robust as possible.
.NET is being used heavily in industry, so no lack of "networking" or information.

Solves all of his problems, gives him great security with Vista on top of win2K3 server and cuts the cost by at least 1/4 but more likely 1/3 to 1/2 when measured over the next 5 years.

700 PCs with the yearly 130.00 upgrade is just another cost they will probably take. Although this guy is easy enough to see he was doing absolutely nothing to secure his network. If so, they didn't include that part. And they gave no numbers of "Windows" specific care and feeding. It's obvious he doesn't know the difference between aging hardware issues and windows issues. For instance, when did you last get a .dll error on your XP box?


I'm not speaking as a Windows user but trying to be objective. I don't see what this buys him down the road. Especially if Mac marketshare grows and suddenly his "malware" problem has reverted back 3 or 4 years in time. The Mac exploitable vulnerabilities reported heavily over the last year, probably more, can only mean it's only a matter of time till the barrel is pointed their way. Mac cultists however believe there is another secret layer of protection the holes that have been found by third parties don't take into account. Some Job's force field.....oh, yeah, it's the JRD
I suggest that Linux could be the way forward and yet you call me MS biased?

"...Nothing in that email actually makes the case for switching to Macs. They could have kept their existing hardware and gone to Linux..."

Spoken like a true MS salesman, huh?
When you quoted, "the results fall drastically towards the Mac, based upon our estimates."

You apparently missed the next sentence, "Our proof of concept testing found that Windows running on a Mac in the Parallels virtual environment did not require the same degree of support as full-blown Windows PC?s - much less, in fact."

Frankly, Microsoft's incessant drive to force an OS change/upgrade on their customers every 5 years forces companies to jump through hoops to keep their own functions running. Add to the attitude that MS doesn't care if the change/upgrade breaks someone's applications; and it becomes evident that companies need to find a way to break the MS dependent financial life cycle.

The subject company just happened to switch to Macs. They could just as easily have switched to something else.
0 Votes
+ -
Every 5 years is a problem for you?
Marty R. Milette 23rd Jul 2007
Good god -- 5 years in the software industry is a LIFETIME.

Some people get way too comfortable using the same command line for 30 years I guess and forget that the world keeps moving.
0 Votes
+ -
You say 5 years is a lifetime in the software industry, well that may well be but the reality is the cost of doing business with Microsoft every five years was, is and will continue to be too high and there is only so much money in the well and MS has been to the well too often, too many times, in too many ways which are becoming more and more at neverending levels. MS OFFICE software is just one of many reasons why Corporations are moving out of MS's OS and server applications. This isn't the end of Microsoft but it may be the beginning of the end in how they do business if they want to stay in business with those who are supporting them now. MS makes no concessions with anything and want too much for everything which is why Mac, Linux and Sun Office are becoming the choice for many out there. Do you get this ? If not, it won't matter as Microsoft will sooner or later and personally, I could care less if or when they do but they will, make no mistake in this forecast.
Macs are built for people who want to get something done. Not everyone can afford to become a tech. So, if that is what you mean by "smart", yes. But the really smart person is one who can spend more time doing what he does best and does not have to learn how to trouble shoot his PC ? because he is smart, and works on a Mac!!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix