Why enterprise networks run Windows, not the Mac

By | June 5, 2009, 11:25am PDT

Have you ever considered why the Mac is so well suited to the home environment? Has it ever occurred to you why the Mac is great with multimedia, with fun stuff like graphics and movie editing, but not so great at the serious stuff? With these, have you ever pondered as to why you very rarely see a bunch of Macs in an enterprise, corporate setting?

My esteemed colleague and friend, Chris Dawson, asks whether universities should be gently weaned off Microsoft products; Office and Windows included. Open source should be included in universities, and indeed they are. They are free, they are malleable and edited according to each institution’s needs provided they have the time and money, and they promote entrepreneurship.

Apple have won awards for their “interesting” approach at advertising, winning the 2007 Grand Effie Award, with over 70 adverts to their name. They work in non-sequential continuity by comparing a Mac to a PC - or rather, Mac computers running Mac OS X vs. any other device running any other operating system, but always taking a petty jab at Windows. But what they have inadvertently done by pointing out that, even though Macs are more fun, “easier to use”, more exciting to use and are great for the aforementioned multimedia items, it’s not serious operating systems.

That to me, makes it sound rather unsuitable for an office, corporate, enterprise or university environment. They haven’t just shot themselves in the foot, they’ve executed the Mozambique drill on themselves.

It’s not to say that they haven’t made some headway in the last few years. My university has a dedicated Mac lab on the Medway Campus, aimed primarily at the music and multimedia technology students. However there’s only one reason why I can possibly comprehend why they have done this - equality. It’s almost like segregation of a “race” of students not having a single Mac on campus. A fair number, no where near a majority though, of students use Macs and the majority of those have some design inclination.

The other, clearly obvious issue, is compatibility. No matter which way you look at it, even though Microsoft (on occasion) release software which is Mac compatible, the two companies just epically fail at making anything competitor-compatible. Steve Jobs once said:

“iTunes on Windows is like giving someone a glass of ice water in Hell.”

Maybe so, Steve, but when the user interface is almost unreadable and when a sporadic blue screen of death comes out of nowhere, I would call that a gross screw-up on your part. Microsoft aren’t exactly brilliant at designing/converting software for Mac but at least they get it half right.

But even still, most of the university-applicable applications do not run on a Mac machine. Boot Camp would allow you to use Windows on a Mac machine but then that would defeat the entire point; licensing issues are confusing and the hefty costs of the Mac hardware would render the entire project unfeasible, especially in this economic climate.

Windows has been around for decades, and took the early lead with ordinary lay consumers early in the computing market to ensure people started using it in the first place. Ever since Windows 98 came out, the marketing push had geeks nursing a semi and almost wetting themselves with excitement. With the cheap costs of Windows and the even cheaper and more economical cost of the PC in the late 90’s meant schools were snapping them up faster than a fatty buying cakes in a bakery.

As a result, we have been forced to use Windows. Those who have gone their separate ways, parted with Microsoft and converted to the Church of Apple have done so with anxiety but eventually found their true calling. We all know how to use Windows and have been taught to do so since we were little nippers, so we automatically use what we are more comfortable with. This hasn’t changed at all, even at university level.

One last thing, Mac has the fashion vote. Nobody outside the personal four walls of their home office or even their house cares about fashion, especially in the workplace. You want something that works, something that can be upgraded without lengthy deals or excessive costs. The fact of the matter is Apple put more money than sense into their Mac devices to make them look nice, rather than suitable in terms of costs for working or studying environments.

So, without going into the technical details of hardware specifications or in depth into licensing and building costs, it’s clear to me why the Mac won’t work in the enterprise. The iPhone does, and will continue to, but Windows and the two-decade old PC has firmly taken the seat at the top and won’t be shifting until Microsoft cuts support for the last ever Windows operating system.

Don’t hold back, you know you want to say something…

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

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

250
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Why enterprise networks run Windows, not the Mac
danielsutton@... 19th Aug
Many people criticize Apple because they remember the 80s and 90s, when the Apple system was very isolated, and would not work well with other systems. However, all that changed with the iMac (introduction of USB ports and CD-ROM drive) and OS X (a fully-compliant UNIX foundation). Especially in business, there are open-source alternatives that can be downloded, and if necessary, compiled and built on the OS X system. Such programs run natively on OS X, and any UNIX program can be built on OS X, as long as it does not target a particular OS's APIs or other specific features.
Apple and OS X are made for business. Many businesses, LinkedIn and Google being just two examples, are installing Macs on their desktops. Apple should release a new dedicated server system so that these companies can round out their technology ecosystems, and use a great patform that can connect to everything: Apple and OS X.
0 Votes
+ -
Here's an asbestos suit.
Sleeper Service 5th Jun 2009
Because, boy, are you going to need it.

Anyway...

The reason they don't succeed is down to three things:

1) TCO - ripping out your infrastructure to replace it with someone else's gear doesn't make sense unless you have to. Since good PCs and Macs have the same lifespan on average (no surprise since they use the same components) and most corporate arrangements tend to favour three to five year leases MS would really have to balls up to open the door to other providers.
2) You have a choice of precisely one hardware vendor. Bang goes any competitive leverage there then!
3) All the good business applications - well, all the ones that are actually used anyway - are geared to Windows,

This kind of sucks but it's really Apple's own fault - they had their chance and blew it.
0 Votes
+ -
Here's why
LBiege 5th Jun 2009
Corporate customers need a sound DB system, M$ has one (Sql Server). Apple has none.

Strike 1.

Corporate customers want document automation system. M$ has one (Office + Sharepoint). Apple has none.

Strike 2.

Corporate customers don't wanna overpay IT charges under this economy. Windows machines are easily 300 or 400 less expensive.

Strike 3, Apple is out.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Very logical reasoning
zwhittaker 7th Jun 2009
I think the databasing is a very important point. SQL is used for so much in an enterprise environment, that MySQL just cannot contend with.
Ive been noticing lately everyone seems to be mainly sql server 2005, or both db platforms...

im a contractor, so i move around alot.
0 Votes
+ -
Considering most IT...
ShadowGIATL 8th Jun 2009
learn Visual Studio in college, and that generally is linked with MSSQL, it's what they are more familar with. At least, that is how it has been most places I've been.

At one place I worked at we actually considered Oracle, but after comparing prices and learning curve, we ended up just going with SQL.
0 Votes
+ -
Very silly reasoning
RealNonZealot 31st Mar 2010
Oracle runs very nicely on Mac OS X, as so a number of other enterprise-
quality SQL servers. It's silly to contend that the MS SQL server is the
only one on the market, therefore Macs aren't ready for the enterprise.

Are you guys listening to yourselves? happy
0 Votes
+ -
You mean $teve Job$
Crestview 8th Jun 2009
Get$ no $$$$? LOL!
0 Votes
+ -
I think you nailed it with #2
John Zern 5th Jun 2009
You have a choice of precisely one hardware vendor. Bang goes any competitive leverage there then

And that's the scary part. What if after you converted your entire company (or stated up your company) with Apple products, they could turn around and double the price of their hardware next year.

It's not like you could tell them to take a hike, you'll now run your OSX and business apps on a Dell, or HP, or Acer, or Compaq, ect.
0 Votes
+ -
you mean like Microsoft has done
someitguy79 6th Jun 2009
With Windows and Office lock-in is hardly Apple only. You can switch hardware, but software drives the business and Windows and office is difficult to break free of.
Have a problem? The OEM tells you to go to Microsoft. Call Microsoft, they tell you to contact the OEM. Often because nobody wants to take the time to listen either... You might be lucky if an actual fix comes along, but both sides will play innocent.

Such "delegation" (let's try "shifting responsibility because we're all rich and fat greedy wankers") is the attitude of an indolent toddler.

0 Votes
+ -
You've never called an OEM.
rtk 6th Jun 2009
They are fully aware they are responsible for offering help desk support for their machines, and the quality of that support varies wildly between the OEMs.

"delegation", "shifting responsibility", or the more commonly quoted "vendor fingerpointing" occurs in help desk support regardless of vendor. Call up Canonical and demand a fix for having to run windows only programs from Adobe in wine, watch them point you to Adobe for your request.

Far more often than not, the indolent toddler in the equation is the customer, not the vendor.

Google funny help desk calls for countless examples across the industry.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh dear...
Sleeper Service 7th Jun 2009
...Hypnotoad has absolutely no idea what he's talking about as usual.

Remember we're talking about commercial arrangements, not individual users. We have defined contracts with BOTH HP (our current hardware supplier) and MS with defined SLAs and penatly clauses for failure to adhere to those SLAs. This is an industry wide practice.

People like Hypnotoad obviously do not and have never worked in IT, particularly a desktop support environment, or they wouldn't be making such stupid and unfounded statements.
0 Votes
+ -
whatever ~
pcguy777 Updated - 8th Jun 2009
tell me why macosx is the only os on earth, where they wont let people run it on vmware, etc.

or allow outside devs to tackle it, without the threat of lawsuits.
0 Votes
+ -
Steve Jobs.
nix_hed 8th Jun 2009
That's probably the only reason why.

BTW, if Jobs was smart, he would have thrown his pride out the
window when OS X Tiger came out and sold it for anyone with a
Pentium 4 or better, or AMD64-based PC. Then two things might hold
true - Intel would have VR enabled on all the Core 2 based processors,
and the OS X netbook would have already happened. I'll agree that OS
X wouldn't have the kind of marketshare that Windows has, but had it
been legal to install on Dells, HPs, Lenovos, and other computers, the
OS X marketshare would probably be somewhere around 20% today,
instead of just under 10%.

As brilliant as the man is in marketing and getting his people to
combine 3 or 4 technologies to make what he calls a breakthrough
device, he just doesn't have the best business sense. Bill Gates was
right in saying Apple should have licensed Mac OS to other
manufacturers back in the 80's. Hindsight is 20/20 however.
0 Votes
+ -
If..
mojorison67@... 8th Jun 2009
If he had allowed OSx to be installed on all these different types of computers, they Macintosh wouldn't have the reputation for stability that they have now. The reason that Macs are so stable is because they control the hardware that it is installed on. They don't have to deal with near the amount of driver issues that MS does.
0 Votes
+ -
You miss Apple's main selling point
Spuddrok 8th Jun 2009
Because OSX only runs on Apple hardware, the x-compatibility problem is non-existent.

People who want the ease of computing without the BSDs associated with DLL failures will choose Apple and gladly pay extra for it.

Besides---corporate America was never a part of Apple's marketing strategy.
0 Votes
+ -
Err...
Sleeper Service 7th Jun 2009
...Apple hardware can run Windows and Office comfortably enough. You can't run OS X on third party hardware in a commercial environment at all.

Not the same.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You can...
zwhittaker 7th Jun 2009
But it's not official - I believe they call it a "hackintosh", but you can't really use it because it defies licensing agreements. For the home user, yes - for the office, not so much so.
0 Votes
+ -
Which is the point...
Sleeper Service 7th Jun 2009
...as we're talking about enterprise networks after all.
0 Votes
+ -
Virtualization of OS X
nix_hed 8th Jun 2009
wasn't allowed until recently as well, except that you can only do it on
Apple hardware and only with OS X Server.

As for the whole hackintosh thing, the lawsuit and EULA haven't stopped
our good friends at Psystar from making machines running OS X targeted
specifically at business, such as a rack-mounted unit running desktop OS
X. I hope the people that buy those machines for production use enjoy
having to deal with updating a hackintosh, however - it's possibly one of
the most nerve-racking things you can do.
0 Votes
+ -
Hard but not impossible, and still...
ShadowGIATL 7th Jun 2009
with MS, at least you can choose your hardware. Including Apple hardware if you really want to.

Macs are good in their own niche market, and that is all there is to it. Why fight it, they don't.
0 Votes
+ -
WHAT Office Lock in?
Wolfie2K3 8th Jun 2009
Last I checked, OpenOffice 3.0 can read pretty much every format out there - including the Office 2007 DOCX format. I would imagine even the latest WordPerfect suite can do the same.

So where's the lock in again?
0 Votes
+ -
The lock in is here
gnesterenko 10th Jun 2009
Shockingly, Office isn't used to solely navigate spreadsheets and write Word docs. There is a LOT under the hood which enterprises need to cope with daily tasks of extracting, analyzing, manipulating, and outputting mountains of data - all automated, all integrated with proprietary systems (to a lesser or greater extent). THATS why Open Office can't compete. Has nothing to do with being able to open that letter to your granny you wrote in MS Office.
0 Votes
+ -
And ideologically driven
Patanjali 6th Jun 2009
Apple has a demonstrated track record of ditching customers for ideological reasons.

1. The Newton - here one day, gone the next - developers and customers out in the cold.
This basically led to many developers taking up Windows CE instead, due to MSs long term support.

2. Apple purchases eMagic, maker of the Logic music sequencer, and immediately announces there will be no future PC versions in two months, ditching 10,000s of customers with a 'get a Mac or get lost' approach.


I think this highlights why MS succeeds in enterprises - long term support for business.
Consumers may go for the latest and greatest, but a business works on a much longer time-scale, substantially lagging general consumer interest patterns.
0 Votes
+ -
... gave Apple more ability to say "if you're going to record music, get a
Mac." The thing is though, I've used both the PC and Mac versions of
Logic while I was in high school, on equivalent hardware (G3/350 and
P3/450, both with 512 MB of RAM), and the sound latency Mac had was
maybe 1 ms on a bad day, where the PC would average about 5 or 6 ms
running either Windows 98SE or Windows NT4. I know 5 ms doesn't seem
like much, but when you're recording 2 or 3 things at a time, it's much
easier to deal with a 1 ms time shift than a 5 ms time shift.
0 Votes
+ -
@Patanjali
Axsimulate 11th Jun 2009
"2. Apple purchases eMagic, maker of the Logic music sequencer, and immediately announces there will be no future PC versions in two months, ditching 10,000s of customers with a 'get a Mac or get lost' approach."

This the same thing MS did in the 90's. Apple and SGI were kicking the PCs butt in 3D, so MS bought up some companies that wrote 3D software and dropped the Mac and SGI versions. I think Softimage was one of them. I don't remember for sure.
0 Votes
+ -
I can cite an actual example.
TheWerewolf 9th Aug
@John Zern

I was hired by a major cable company to replace it's aging Amiga-based TV listings channel system. After looking at the choices at the time (this was back in the early 1990s) the ONLY system that worked was the Mac 660AV. So we built a hybrid system - the Macs did the actual channel graphics and video out, a PC handled all the data collection and construction.

Less than two years later - no more 660AVs. In fact, no more Macs with TV video out. They were right back to where they were when they started - with nothing that could fill in.

I learned my lesson not to put my eggs in one Apple basket. Now I make absolutely sure that any critical component is sourced from at least two manufacturers.

Which generally leave Apple out.
0 Votes
+ -
Not needed
Fred Fredrickson 6th Jun 2009
Apple doesn't need to be king of the enterprise. They are a very
profitable company with a great future, why would they want to take
on Microsoft and the Windows OEM vendors?

Most commodity PC vendors run on razor thin margins, most
enterprise desktop PCs are crappy boxes that are just good enough to
do the job. Why does Apple want to enter that market?

I'm sure most Windows PC vendors envy Apple's position in the
market. Some have tried to make better boxes with higher margins,
but they just can't make money from them - maybe it's marketing,
maybe it's features, maybe it's quality, but whatever it is, Apple has it
and they don't.

And yes, most enterprise networks run Windows because of #2 - they
can get cheap, crappy Windows boxes from a number of vendors who
are prepared to churn out bargain basement junk. More power to
them.
0 Votes
+ -
Incorrect. Again.
Sleeper Service 7th Jun 2009
Large scale organisations do not but 'cheap, bargain basement boxes' because the expectation is these boxes will last the leasing cycle. If the hardware vendor supplies too many duff units ten they get penalised under our contractual terms. Therefore we buy/lease good, mid-range hardware that is robust and dependable.

Once again your obviously someone who doesn't work in this environment or you would be aware of this.
0 Votes
+ -
Incorrect? Not really.
rsherrane 8th Jun 2009
Actually you are both correct. One of the differences in running a business in the U.S. vs. the U.K.
0 Votes
+ -
One company I worked for was still using Pentium 166 and 200 MHz
boxes with 64 MB of RAM and Windows NT4 for call center boxes, in
2007. Slow was an understatement, and the machines weren't slated
to be replaced any time soon (they had a supply closet full of AT
power supplies and 4 GB hard drives ready to go). And it's not that
this IT department had a lack of funds - there was usually a new Sun
with a price tag of over 1.5 million purchased every 3 years. It was
just the fact that the guy running the show felt that if Pentiums
running Windows NT4 could still run a modern browser and still had
anti-virus support, then it was good enough.

Another company I worked for had an upgrade cycle of every 2 to 3
years, and would usually get the latest (but not fastest) hardware they
could afford. It was still interesting, however, to see a brand new dell
with a GeForce 6800 GT in a PC used for the call center, when the
computer's onboard GeForce 6150 graphics would have sufficed,
including for the Vista upgrade they did right after I left.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry----he's right
Spuddrok 8th Jun 2009
They DO buy inexpensive boxes that will do the job they're asked and nothing more.

HP/Compaq, Dell and IBM/Lenovo churn out standard "business PCs" with just enough RAM to run XP.

And I know this because I am an "IT specialist".
0 Votes
+ -
good point
pcguy777 8th Jun 2009
it would be like 100's of companies still using 40 lb orange, yellow and blue imacs LOL, and wondering why some of their apps are so slow.

money is an issue in the real world.
0 Votes
+ -
Okay...
HypnoToad72 6th Jun 2009
1a. Same CPU and northbridge chipset. Not the same system board, quality of capacitors, integrated monitor, et cetera. Macs are still quite different despite the shared CPU maker.

1b. Given how flimsy and bloaty Windows is, companies HAVE to have a 3 year "policy" to help keep maintenance costs down, which they really don't because Windows (especially Vista) is such dilettante garbage to begin with.

2. Yup. Which is why Apple's costs are higher and why their reputation has to be maintained. Any old PC maker can sell plastic crap and get away with it. My impression is, Apple has a responsibility. Especially when Consumer Reports, TIME AND AGAIN, ranks Apple's computers at the very top. wink

3. Apart from Office 2007, which are you referring to that don't have Mac versions? (I know there's Office 2008 for the Mac, but everybody gives it bad remarks for being slow and buggy... hmm, there's a shock... (not).)

Apple blew nothing. And I recall the days when I said the same things. Perspective and reality can be beautiful things - thanks for reading; this article needed some reality... grin
0 Votes
+ -
further reality
rtk 6th Jun 2009
1a. For all the manufacturers including Apple, the specific system board and quality of capacitors can vary even within different machines with identical models and technical specs, often requiring nothing less than the specific serial number to reference internal production databases.

Apple has not been somehow insulated from bad capacitors, battery recalls, cheap screens (causing a class action lawsuit), etc.

Macs seem more like PCs than you're willing to admit.

2. Any good CEO, through their CFO and CIO and their staff, have knowledge of the Consumer Reports advertisements and scattered favorable TCO studies, has judged them amongst themselves and have not switched.

You decide what that tells you, just don't think that only online Apple pushers have read the articles and reports.

3. Despite your opinion that everyone should hate Office 2008 for Mac, Amazon reports it's the top selling software suite to Apple's users and had four times the adoption rate of 2004. Either of two possibilities explain this disconnect:

a. You really don't have your finger as firmly on the Apple community's pulse as you're claiming, and the majority like 2k8.

or

b. It really is horrible, yet still better than iWork or Open Office.

You decide. Either way to MS's Office division, every Mac sold is still a probable customer.
0 Votes
+ -
Stupid Stupid Stupid.
SimonUK2 7th Jun 2009
Apple have always used "similar" components to those found in PC's. You
think because they are using Intel processors now that has changed?
Idiot. Mac's are desktop computers. There are a finite number of
component manufacturers. Ergo Apple use components in their
electronics that HP and Dell also use. However, in my experience Apple
tend to have a much higher level of quality control.
0 Votes
+ -
@Bored
rtk 7th Jun 2009
Apple have always used "similar" components to those found in PC's

Congrats, you've managed it restate exactly what I said. Apple uses "the same" components found in every PC. A Seagate STxxxxx drive is a Seagate STxxxx whether it's in a PC running Windows, OS X or Linux.

The only difference is the markup.

You think because they are using Intel processors now that has changed?

Obviously not, this suggestion doesn't even make sense. Suddenly after finally accepting that their powerpc offerings were not keeping pace with Intel/AMD and making the big switch, they decide to start using dissimilar components for everything else?

And you call me the idiot. That's rich.

Mac's are desktop computers

Yup, they sure are. They could even be called Personal Computers, but I don't expect you to put those together in a sentence.

There are a finite number of component manufacturers.

Yup, there sure are, and yet you'll still hear iSheep tell you how somehow Apple magically throws out the F in MTBF of bog standard components.

Ergo Apple use components in their electronics that HP and Dell also use.

You are ON today shparky! Another gold star for restating what is not only plainly obvious, but what I just said.

However, in my experience Apple tend to have a much higher level of quality control.

Of course they do, the glowing logo and cool case throw that F right outta there.

0 Votes
+ -
'Similar' is not 'The Same'
vulpine@... 8th Jun 2009
Congrats, you've managed it restate exactly what I
said. Apple uses "the same" components found in every
PC.


No. While they look the same and even perform the
same functions, personal experience with an Apple
supplier says that Apple rejects what other brands
accept. When Apple puts a specification out to a vendor
for a component, they tend to require 100% verification
that the components received are within those specs.
At the time I worked for a vendor, if anything over 0.5%
of the shipped components fell outside of that
specification, the entire shipment was returned for
replacement. These rejected components were then
happily accepted by our other manufacturing
customers. I repeat, "Similar is NOT the same."
0 Votes
+ -
The same, the exact same
rtk 8th Jun 2009
Again, a Seagate STxxxxx is a Seagate STxxxxx whether it's got Linux, OS X or Windows on it. It will have the same access rate, seek time and MTBF, accounting for differing environments (hot dusty warehouse vs. air conditioned clean room).

I had an Apple fan tell me one day (right here on ZDnet) that Apple gets to pick through the component pile first, and whatever they reject gets sold to the HP and Dells of the world. The flights of fantasy amongst the iFaithful are interesting to watch sometimes.

When Apple puts a specification out to a vendor for a component, they tend to require 100% verification that the components received are within those specs.

Apple and it's fans swap effortlessly between "apple is 100% responsible, and that's why they are so great" to "the blown caps and exploding batteries weren't their fault, Apple's not responsible".

At the time I worked for a vendor, if anything over 0.5% of the shipped components fell outside of that specification, the entire shipment was returned for replacement

Standard practice throughout the manufacturing industry, spot tests are done, and entire shipments are accepted or returned.

These rejected components were then happily accepted by our other manufacturing
customers.


Unless you also worked for the supplier, you've nothing beyond suspicion of what happened to the rejected components. To suggest that only Apple rejects components, and when they do the automatically go into HP and Dell systems is just plain wrong.

It's naive to think that only Apple shills on blog and forum posts have read, understood and judged the scattered favorable TCO studies and Consumer Reports advertacles. The fact that they have not switched tells you what that judgment was.
0 Votes
+ -
Consumer Reports
kfan 8th Jun 2009
Especially when Consumer Reports, TIME AND AGAIN, ranks Apple's computers at the very top.

Basic statistics: Self-selected samples (which is what Consumer Reports uses- I get their surveys all the time but never answer them) are not valid for statistical inference.

In laymans terms, Consumer reports ranking can never be used to infer the satisfaction of the population as a whole.

0 Votes
+ -
Customer Satisfaction Ratings
vulpine@... 8th Jun 2009
In laymans terms, Consumer reports ranking can
never be used to infer the satisfaction of the
population as a whole.


However, Customer Satisfaction ratings can. And Apple
has consistently held an 80-85% rating for the last
several years, averaging 25% higher than their nearest
competitors.
0 Votes
+ -
Doesn't matter
kfan 8th Jun 2009
Self-selected samples are self-selected samples and no inferences made beyond the sample population itself have statistical validity.
0 Votes
+ -
Some real-world reasons not to go Apple
r.j.thomas 8th Jun 2009
1) Years ago, I needed a disk enclosure + disks to provide direct attached storage. Compared Dell with Apple. Apple were competitive. Hmmmm...? Well, lets's look at the spec. Oh I see- Apple were using IDE drives (IDE !) against Dell's SCSI U320...
2) OS X is- in my experience- much harder to use for network admin than a lot of *nix distros. If you wanted to roll out *nix, get it for free rather than pay a premium for hardware.
3) When I've seen reviews of Apple hardware blowing non-Apple hardware "out of the water", it's because it's a vastly higher specification- a few years ago, PC Pro (UK)- in all fairness to it- rated a new Apple PC above any other manufacturer ? Why ? It had a massive specification- to read it visit this link:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/96001/apple-mac-pro.html?searchString=Mac

There's no mention of XP/ vista being run against similar hardware, so it's hardly a fair comparison ("in our lab, it beat an old Atari hands down..."... happy

What Apple do best is "prettyfy" hardware and their OS, and market their stuff like Demons- which has undoubtedly made a lot of people rich, but I find it to be all smoke and mirros.
0 Votes
+ -
Why we use windows
jburt@... 8th Jun 2009
AutoCAD
CADWorx

We would be crippled by Macs because the tools we use on a day to day basis does not exist for them.
0 Votes
+ -
AutoCAD
Jkirk3279 8th Jun 2009
And yet the rumors abound that AutoCAD for Mac is in the works.

Amazing, isn't it?

I suppose it's too much to hope they simplify the interface...
0 Votes
+ -
@jburt
Axsimulate Updated - 15th Jun 2009
It is my understanding that AutoCAD is going to be discontinued and replaced by Revit.

http://resources.autodesk.com/Architecture/Revit_Architecture/Request_Free_Trial?mktvar001=113829&mktvar002=&rid=

Besides AutoCAD isn't the only CAD in town. It's not even the best, just more popular.
0 Votes
+ -
Macs and Business
Crestview 8th Jun 2009
I can vouch for Macs being crap for high power high production after 15 years on the in the printing industry. The problems are far more then can be described here. Give me Windows any day.
0 Votes
+ -
@Crestview
Axsimulate 15th Jun 2009
Yeah, right. I spend 18 years in printing and there are still things Windows can't do or difficult to do that Macs can and easier.

i.e. Ligatures, easy access to special characters, and don't forget Applescript.
I see your point, than when it comes to seriousness Linux
should win, for-example Debian. Its one serious operating
system, hell forget linux, Why don't they all run BSD, forget
the GUI altogether lets just all run inline BSD.

I don't think companies upgrade their computers as much
as you think they do. And i do find macs in many non
digital settings for example in the hands of my Universities
chem researchers who are using apps involving their
research that are Mac linux only. And why can't an Office
be elegant. Frustrating your workers does not produce
better results. And Mac maintenance is faster and cheaper.
For example cloning computers in the Network, in my
school its done through two Applications that are both free
on the Mac hence we have few hundred Macs always
updated and ready for use. I understand that Nortan Ghost
does something similar to that, but at what cost.

Bottom line i think in networks Macs are much more usable
than Wintells.
Google ImageX.

Free OS imaging tool for Windows XP, 2003, 2008, Vista, 7 etc.
0 Votes
+ -
Many people criticize Apple because they remember the 80s and 90s, when the Apple system was very isolated, and would not work well with other systems. However, all that changed with the iMac (introduction of USB ports and CD-ROM drive) and OS X (a fully-compliant UNIX foundation). Especially in business, there are open-source alternatives that can be downloded, and if necessary, compiled and built on the OS X system. Such programs run natively on OS X, and any UNIX program can be built on OS X, as long as it does not target a particular OS's APIs or other specific features.
Apple and OS X are made for business. Many businesses, LinkedIn and Google being just two examples, are installing Macs on their desktops. Apple should release a new dedicated server system so that these companies can round out their technology ecosystems, and use a great patform that can connect to everything: Apple and OS X.

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