[LGddDU10]

I will be moving to Apple, and a Sony PlayStation for games. I've lost faith in Steve Ballmer and Microsoft as a result of Windows 8

[jazzy007]

Quote

This is just an update of the age old argument of which operating system/equipment is best. Microsoft has office/business environment; and Apple has the entertainment equipment/educational equipment systems, etc. When I was in business and financial world, I used the Microsoft systems out of necessity; I have always preferred the Unix operating systems for all activities other than business, etc. I have even explored Linux, Unix, etc as a hobby and have enjoyed them very much. I am no longer in the the business etc world so I have a choice to make. I did purchase the professional version of Windows 8 and installed it on several of my computers. In sum, I did not like it and found it not meeting my computer needs. I did purchase an Apple Powermac (IBM Chip sets) and have spent a little time learning the OSX operating system. All my machines over the next several years will be replaced by Apple Mac Pro Desktop and related laptop/notebook equivalents. The present machines (two/three) have been converted to Ubuntu which allows them to provide service over the coming years. With the Apple Equipment/OSX systems (Ubundu attached) I will install a complete wireless/server/communcations/home theatre. It will meet my computer needs for the forecoming decade. My thoughts in summary.

I am not quite sure if you are telling the true or lying. You bought Windows 8 Pro for many of your computers. Wouldn't make sense you buy one and tested before deciding you like it or not? Also, you can buy one OS per computer. You cannot use one to all your computers.

Also you bought a Apple Powermac. What year or decade was that? Many things you mention does not make sense. Apple and Ubuntu done play along well. Maybe as a Linux expert you might had made it work, but as general it does not play along well.

[jazzy007]

Tony, I know you are pro Apple for a long time, so this article is worthless. But less point out the obvious.
1- OS X is not OSi. They are not compatible, you cannot do in the IPad the same thing you do on Mac. So saying SMB are changing to Mac because of the Ipad, is ridiculous. Next time think before writing.
2- Mac Emulator. Guess why many Mac owners feel the need to run Windows XP or 7 on the Mac. It's not because they love Windows, but they cannot run their software to work and play and they want to look cool with the crowd but still work in Windows world.
3-Windows 7 already surpass Windows XP is business use. The rest are testing their old software to be compatible with Windows 7 and are ready to change over. Why will they drop all this investment to test now on OS X? If they have not done it on the past it won't happen and even less on OSi.
4-Microsoft is very good at hearing their customers. Why, do you think they have extended the support ot XP to beyound it's life cycle? Do not mentiion the 45,000 pro Apple from the survey. A few that always complaining about Microsoft is not their customers. Those that complain will always do, including you. Many corporation just switch to Windows 7, and they are not going to switch any time soon. Microsoft knows that. Microsoft have 94% of the world PC market. There is very few market space to grow, but the mobile market is the new grounds to grow. That is the market Microsoft have set their site with Windows 8.

All the Apple fans and Microsoft haters are afraid. They know Microsoft have come with a superior solutions into integrating the PC with the mobile market and that scare them. Will Microsoft take over the mobile market just like they did with the PC platform? Will Google, Android and Samsung kill Apple? That is the question you should be making now. The lukewarm of Windows 8 (if you call 40 million in 4 weeks, lukewarm) is not what Apple should be thinking. It's how Samsung with Galaxy III is taking the phone market by storm. Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, Nexus and now Surface are slowly but surely taken over Apple bread and butter devices. The Ipad Mini was a response to those 7" tablets.

So, Tony, if you value your career, forget your bias for Apple and really look into the real tech world. There is more than Apple.

[jazzy007]

Quote

Apple machines are more expensive because they are beautifully designed and always made with the top current technology. They are designed to be the best in performance, and aesthetics. That appeals to me as a consumer, but as a business owner... Not so much. Take the iMac starting at $1299.99 equipped with corei5, 8gb ram, 21" screen. For my employees? Compare it with a Vizio all-in-one, core i5, 6gb ram, 24" screen running at $899. A 30% difference is huge to a business owner purchasing 20 machines. For him or her, the computer is simply a tool. Just a cost of doing business and the point is to be at maximum productivity, minimum cost. Why would any business owner pay $8000 more in a scenario like this? Their is zero gain in productivity for an employee who is using Office, email, web and basic applications. Also, the Vizio is an all-in-one, you get more savings in the traditional desktop + 3rd party monitor. Which is why this article is silly. It weighs factors that business owners don't think about and leaves out what we do make decisions on. Apple simply doesn't design for business, it'll never happen This almost makes sense if you ignore the very real costs of managing and cleaning up malware. In actual dollar costs, not to mention lost productivity, the malware menace is one of the top reasons many of my consumer and small business clients are switching away from Microsoft (and usually to Apple). Besides malware, the less reliable Windows computers do cost more to maintain. And historically, Macintosh computers last longer than Windows computers. Responsible business owners look at Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), not just initial purchase price. In that regard, small business can't afford not to buy Macintosh (or increasingly, iOS devices where they make sense).

Malware will always be there, be Windows or OS X. If Mac becomes the dominant player, there will be more malware for Mac than Windows. It's already proven that Mac have more open holes than Windows. As a hacker, will you put your effort to break a 96% of Windows market or 4% of Apple market? So your mention of this is nonsense. Most companies have a life cycle to replace their hardware evey 3 to 5 years. Paying an extra $300 to $500 for each computer they replace is very expensive. The cost of ownership is mostly control by the IT department and like you said, there is more than buying hardware.

Beside, on what proof you have that Mac last longer the Windows? Mac's a build to look cool using the same parts as Windows. Windows are use more, more software are install and remove than Mac and let me repeat this again, Mac have a 4% of the computer market vs 96% of the Windows market. Guess where you are going to see more broken PC.? Do you know there is a difference between business PC and consumer PC? Check for example the HP line of PC. There is a business PC that cost a little more than the consumer PC and guess what corporation buys?

So, don't go for your love for Apple products, but read a little more about the PC. Get out of the wall garden and see what's beyond that wall. You might see the real world, not the fantasy world Apple fan live.

[jazzy007]

Quote

I don't foresee enterprises or large businesses going Apple for business critical machines and operations unless some major changes happen on Apple's end. Currently, Apple devices are difficult to manage in a domain style environment since they don't play nice with group policies and the "consumer centric" nature of an Apple device. They're just not geared for businesses with exception of media editing work. Wait, so they do play nice with domain style environments when they're doing media editing work? Or IT departments make exceptions because they're so much better and media editing work? If IT can make exceptions for them, they can make exceptions for other kinds of work. And if they are making exceptions in the first place, then how important are domain style environments and IT policies as they exist today. Doesn't Apple use Macs throughout their company? It's odd how people say Macs can't be used in enterprise when the one of the most valuable enterprises in the world uses them exclusively. They seem to have no issues in the Education arena when it comes to Domain environments. Universities and other schools do it.

Which University is that? My daughter goes to the biggest University in the US. A bought her a Mac for school. Had to buy a Windows laptop for her school work, because the Macbook did't cut it. University of Central Florida. UCF.

[chip651]

Interfaces are in a state of flux, and mobile is becoming more important all the time. There are advantages to having 'one size fits all' for an interface across all devices. Less to learn. Skills you have on your phone translate to the desktop.

It is not only Windows that is having this issue. There has been huge resistance in the Linux community to Gnome 3 and Unity -- both touch-oriented interfaces. However, like it or not, this is the wave of the future. Adapt or die.

I'm no lover of MS (haven't used Windows since Win98), but they are just now going through the teething problems that are afflicting all OS's intended to operate on devices from phones to workstations.

People don't like change. Inertia is a powerful force.

[karthiq]

Quote

karthiq said
My guess....both microsoft and apple know that mass migration of enterprises from windows to osx wont happen......well atleast this decade. Thats why MS  took a chance with win8 and apple isnt even aiming for the enterprise with its OSX. Mobile devices are another matter altogether, but in the pc space....not gonna happen. To be honest, even if Microsoft hadn't TRIED to screw up Windows 8 like they did, businesses likely wouldn't have upgraded since many have just barely upgraded to 7. I'm still not sure why they decided that they might as well piss off the consumers though, who also don't seem to be liking metro, and DO have the ability to switch to a Mac (more easily than businesses do).

They would have ....cuz win8 costs less than win7. Well atleast those businesses that havent migrated to 7, could have gone to win8. The possibility exists and MS in my opinion dint want to take that chance Even that would have numbered in atleast a couple of hundred million copies. Now they have no choice but to go to win7, if they decide to upgrade.

As for the consumer side, since its believed that the app store model is becoming a more popular technique to keep users invested in a platform and earn additional revenue from them, MS is more likely trying to shoehorn consumers into its app store by playing its part (making it default and such). They must have thought that if more consumers become more deeply invested in ios and android, it might be harder to attract them towards its app store.

[larry1135]

Nice to see Apple's popularity and the chance of it making its way to big Corp. there have been a lot of Apple adopters already, especially school districts.

What is NOT nice to see is the lack of schools such as 2 year colleges NOT offering Apple cert. programs. I can self teach but, I prefer a classroom environment and structure which none of our local schools offer. I have not seen any articles from PC World addressing this lack of resources when it comes to Apple.

The more I think about the lack of Apple certification options for techs the more I'd like to see it fail because I feel like they are failing the tech community that provides IT support.

[Kadidelhopper]

Quote

I don't foresee enterprises or large businesses going Apple for business critical machines and operations unless some major changes happen on Apple's end. Currently, Apple devices are difficult to manage in a domain style environment since they don't play nice with group policies and the "consumer centric" nature of an Apple device. They're just not geared for businesses with exception of media editing work. Wait, so they do play nice with domain style environments when they're doing media editing work? Or IT departments make exceptions because they're so much better and media editing work? If IT can make exceptions for them, they can make exceptions for other kinds of work. And if they are making exceptions in the first place, then how important are domain style environments and IT policies as they exist today. Doesn't Apple use Macs throughout their company? It's odd how people say Macs can't be used in enterprise when the one of the most valuable enterprises in the world uses them exclusively. They seem to have no issues in the Education arena when it comes to Domain environments. Universities and other schools do it. Which University is that? My daughter goes to the biggest University in the US. A bought her a Mac for school. Had to buy a Windows laptop for her school work, because the Macbook did't cut it. University of Central Florida. UCF.

UCF? one of the biggest colleges in the US? That is a joke.

[gothemall]

Quote

Apple machines are more expensive because they are beautifully designed and always made with the top current technology. They are designed to be the best in performance, and aesthetics. That appeals to me as a consumer, but as a business owner... Not so much. Take the iMac starting at $1299.99 equipped with corei5, 8gb ram, 21" screen. For my employees? Compare it with a Vizio all-in-one, core i5, 6gb ram, 24" screen running at $899. A 30% difference is huge to a business owner purchasing 20 machines. For him or her, the computer is simply a tool. Just a cost of doing business and the point is to be at maximum productivity, minimum cost. Why would any business owner pay $8000 more in a scenario like this? Their is zero gain in productivity for an employee who is using Office, email, web and basic applications. Also, the Vizio is an all-in-one, you get more savings in the traditional desktop + 3rd party monitor. Which is why this article is silly. It weighs factors that business owners don't think about and leaves out what we do make decisions on. Apple simply doesn't design for business, it'll never happen This almost makes sense if you ignore the very real costs of managing and cleaning up malware. In actual dollar costs, not to mention lost productivity, the malware menace is one of the top reasons many of my consumer and small business clients are switching away from Microsoft (and usually to Apple). Besides malware, the less reliable Windows computers do cost more to maintain. And historically, Macintosh computers last longer than Windows computers. Responsible business owners look at Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), not just initial purchase price. In that regard, small business can't afford not to buy Macintosh (or increasingly, iOS devices where they make sense). Malware will always be there, be Windows or OS X. If Mac becomes the dominant player, there will be more malware for Mac than Windows. It's already proven that Mac have more open holes than Windows. As a hacker, will you put your effort to break a 96% of Windows market or 4% of Apple market? So your mention of this is nonsense. Most companies have a life cycle to replace their hardware evey 3 to 5 years. Paying an extra $300 to $500 for each computer they replace is very expensive. The cost of ownership is mostly control by the IT department and like you said, there is more than buying hardware. Beside, on what proof you have that Mac last longer the Windows? Mac's a build to look cool using the same parts as Windows. Windows are use more, more software are install and remove than Mac and let me repeat this again, Mac have a 4% of the computer market vs 96% of the Windows market. Guess where you are going to see more broken PC.? Do you know there is a difference between business PC and consumer PC? Check for example the HP line of PC. There is a business PC that cost a little more than the consumer PC and guess what corporation buys? So, don't go for your love for Apple products, but read a little more about the PC. Get out of the wall garden and see what's beyond that wall. You might see the real world, not the fantasy world Apple fan live.

From my companies perspective Macs clearly last longer. In our environment they are about 20% of our systems (about 40 Macs and 200 total). They age of our average PC is about 3 years. The age of our average Mac is 4.5 years. With the PCs we generally have a failure rate of 30%-40% over their lifetime. The Mac Failure rate is probably 5%-10% over a longer lifespan.

Now I also have to also add that the Windows computers we buy are not just cheaper but a lower value point than the Macs. So their cost is significantly cheaper than the Mac computers. So our result is the Windows boxes fail by the pallet and the Macs one dies infrequently. We have a room full of PCs for spare parts.

[LiveBrianD]

gothemall, on 24 December 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Quote

Apple machines are more expensive because they are beautifully designed and always made with the top current technology. They are designed to be the best in performance, and aesthetics. That appeals to me as a consumer, but as a business owner... Not so much. Take the iMac starting at $1299.99 equipped with corei5, 8gb ram, 21" screen. For my employees? Compare it with a Vizio all-in-one, core i5, 6gb ram, 24" screen running at $899. A 30% difference is huge to a business owner purchasing 20 machines. For him or her, the computer is simply a tool. Just a cost of doing business and the point is to be at maximum productivity, minimum cost. Why would any business owner pay $8000 more in a scenario like this? Their is zero gain in productivity for an employee who is using Office, email, web and basic applications. Also, the Vizio is an all-in-one, you get more savings in the traditional desktop + 3rd party monitor. Which is why this article is silly. It weighs factors that business owners don't think about and leaves out what we do make decisions on. Apple simply doesn't design for business, it'll never happen This almost makes sense if you ignore the very real costs of managing and cleaning up malware. In actual dollar costs, not to mention lost productivity, the malware menace is one of the top reasons many of my consumer and small business clients are switching away from Microsoft (and usually to Apple). Besides malware, the less reliable Windows computers do cost more to maintain. And historically, Macintosh computers last longer than Windows computers. Responsible business owners look at Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), not just initial purchase price. In that regard, small business can't afford not to buy Macintosh (or increasingly, iOS devices where they make sense). Malware will always be there, be Windows or OS X. If Mac becomes the dominant player, there will be more malware for Mac than Windows. It's already proven that Mac have more open holes than Windows. As a hacker, will you put your effort to break a 96% of Windows market or 4% of Apple market? So your mention of this is nonsense. Most companies have a life cycle to replace their hardware evey 3 to 5 years. Paying an extra $300 to $500 for each computer they replace is very expensive. The cost of ownership is mostly control by the IT department and like you said, there is more than buying hardware. Beside, on what proof you have that Mac last longer the Windows? Mac's a build to look cool using the same parts as Windows. Windows are use more, more software are install and remove than Mac and let me repeat this again, Mac have a 4% of the computer market vs 96% of the Windows market. Guess where you are going to see more broken PC.? Do you know there is a difference between business PC and consumer PC? Check for example the HP line of PC. There is a business PC that cost a little more than the consumer PC and guess what corporation buys? So, don't go for your love for Apple products, but read a little more about the PC. Get out of the wall garden and see what's beyond that wall. You might see the real world, not the fantasy world Apple fan live.

From my companies perspective Macs clearly last longer. In our environment they are about 20% of our systems (about 40 Macs and 200 total). They age of our average PC is about 3 years. The age of our average Mac is 4.5 years. With the PCs we generally have a failure rate of 30%-40% over their lifetime. The Mac Failure rate is probably 5%-10% over a longer lifespan.

Now I also have to also add that the Windows computers we buy are not just cheaper but a lower value point than the Macs. So their cost is significantly cheaper than the Mac computers. So our result is the Windows boxes fail by the pallet and the Macs one dies infrequently. We have a room full of PCs for spare parts.

If you bought business machines at a price similar to Macs, you'd probably get much better results. Just saying...

[DotKhan]

Quote

Malware will always be there, be Windows or OS X. If Mac becomes the dominant player, there will be more malware for Mac than Windows. It's already proven that Mac have more open holes than Windows. As a hacker, will you put your effort to break a 96% of Windows market or 4% of Apple market?

The flaw in claiming that a bigger market share will lead to more viruses ignores that Apple's pre OSX operating system of 15 years ago had more exploits with an even smaller market share. Remember they were on the verge of folding.
Potential flaws or holes are one thing, the number of computers actually adversely affected is another. I forgot whether the ratio is 10,000 or 1,000,000 the ratio of a chance a PC getting cracked. (Cracking is the more accurate word for what most call hacking.)

[RdmAdmiral]

Citation, please. I certainly remember that if you ran System 8 or System 9, you definitely needed anti-virus protection. And I can remember all kinds of viruses that spread by iomega drives or optical drives. But I read all the trade magazines at the time, and I don't remember anyone saying that MacOS had more exploits than Windows did. Both were regarded as fairly prone.