#3 - Should more businesses start using Mac’s?
Steve Giunto - Bark at the Moon Graphics - This question obviously can’t be generalized to all businesses. Application demands as well as IT support capabilities, would govern this final answer.
Though there’s not much cooler than walking into an office and seeing a sleek shiny imac sitting at a receptionists desk. You automatically get a certain feel for the company before you even talk with anyone.
With the new intel chips I foresee many more apps coming to the MAC over the next couple years. So if the apps and support is there, I see no reason why company can’t make the switch.
Eric Smith - Mind Architecture - I’m pretty ambivalent about this - right now I wouldn’t recommend it unless you’re sure the software necessary to run the business is available on a Mac, but I don’t think there’s a reason to choose one over the other apart from software availability.
Given the ubiquity of current hardware, operating system (Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux) is more of a vanity or familiarity issue rather than a performance issue so I don’t think changing operating systems would provide much bottom-line benefit for most businesses.
Bob Moreland - H2 Studios -
I would be more than happy to switch back to a Mac. Cost aside, it has less intrusions than a PC. The architecture is more compatible with modern needs with regard to the processor’s library format.
I remember, as a joke, an AU professor and I ran a test in the late 90s. We installed Minitab 10.5xtra - using the same CD - onto an 80 Mhz Mac and onto a Gateway 333Mhz processor. They both had the same amount of RAM [256MB?].
We then opened the exact same Minitab Worksheet and ran an analysis on some huge database. Running the same MultiVariate Test on this same database took up 20 minutes worth of processing time on the 80 Mhz Power Mac; after
24+ hours, the 333 Mhz PC crashed with nothing to show for all of the
whirring, humming and waiting. Two more attempts finally yielded a result [25+ hours on the successful attempt].
So, you may wonder, why am I typing this on my Dell [to which, I’d like to take a sledge hammer]?
1. Mac does not offer the wide range of software that I need; 2. Compatibility issues.
I realize that #2 is the result of user issues and that the Mac is fully compatible. The fact is that the constant battle against the Blue Screen god and the army of Spybots has not annoyed me more than listening to the average person say, “I can’t open this,” and “my PC won’t recognize your file.” 98% of the market view the web through a PC; it’s just easier to build the website for a PC knowing this.
There is a solution which will change all of this. There have been companies who make processors small enough to plug into a slot in a computer - as far back as the ISA slot era. Sooner or later, it will dawn on these people [or the blackberry makers] that not much of a processor is needed to surf the web. When this happens, a company will offer a limited capability mini-PC for web surfing. This will be its own complete system, networked to your main system. In essence, you will be able to torch the mini hard drive and reload the OS in very little time. Your main system will be then unaffected by spyware since the only files that you’ll move onto your main hard drive will be ones that have been disinfected. This separate web mini PC may even be removable for wireless, mobile use. Some of you may be chuckling and have seen this, I haven’t but it just seems logical. I realize that webphones and blackberries play a similar role, but they do not yet function on the level that I’m describing. When they do, it will simply be a matter of Mac resolving issue #1 [without using a clunky, problem-riddled emulator] before they will be able to increase their market share and win back customers like me.
John Dowling - iSite Design - I agree, mainly for the reason of virus protection. Mac are not effected by most or all viruses out there and I also think macs are more stable than a pc. I very seldom crash or lock up on my mac but I always do on my pcs. The disadvantage to going to Macs is the cost, they cost 2 to 3 times more and not all software is compatible.
Stephen Schneider - Mind Architecture - I’m of 2 minds on this, and it depends on what hat I’m wearing at the moment. From the geek techy perspective, this could be good for all the normal and quoted reasons. Competition means lower costs and more innovation. But on the other side it can become a web developers nightmare. Most web sites have clients that run IE. If we have a small problem with safari most of the time they don’t care and we don’t worry about it. When any business has Windows, Mac and Linux all running, now that small problem will be a bigger problem. So in this case, my earnings would go down as I’d have to spend more time to get things working with each browser. Why does that make my earnings go down? Because most people have no concept of the complexity and time that may be needed when programming. To them it’s a small simple thing or even a non-existent thing. So I won’t be able to necessarily charge for those extra 4 or 5 hours.
THOUGH - as a repair technician or sysadmin it can be a good thing. It looks bad because now you need to know more OS’s with more problems and more interoperability issues. Looking at it from a different light, that just means I could earn more by having knowledge of running a system like that.
What’s good for some may be bad for others. I also think as more people get Mac’s you’ll gain the benefits of more software, better interoperability, cheaper and more hardware. Of course this will also come with the price of more people having it so you’ll get more security hacks and viruses. As Steve said, we’re small and like it.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
In reply to Bob’s answer -
I totally don’t understand the line - The Architecture is more compatible with modern needs with regard to the processor’s library format? WHAT? Does that line even mean anything? It sounds like gibberish to me. How is the architecture more in line with modern needs - it’s the same as the pc now. I have no idea what is meant by the processor’s library format. Please, explain if possible.
Sorry, if you really did run that minitab test I cannot believe that the mac ran something in 20 minutes and the pc ran for 24 hours before crashing. Sorry, not with modern computers. If that was the case then something was wrong with the pc. You also don’t state what os’s were being compared. Also, just because it’s the same cd doesn’t mean it’s the same program. Unless it was Java, the program probably was rewritten to run on each machine, making them 2 different programs.
I don’t understand the compatibility issues you bring up either. I work daily with people on Mac’s. We have no problem exchanging word docs, spreadsheets, web page files, emails, pdf’s, etc. I also don’t understand your reference to the Blue Screen God. I have a heavily used computer right here that hasn’t crashed on me in years. The only problem I had was a hard drive went bad. Believe it or not, that happens on Mac’s too.
Uh, the whole thing with the portable os is here dude. You can install a fully working version of Linux on a bootable USB drive. And I’ve seen a company that allows you to do something similar with Windows. Plus with all the virtualization you can run multiple OS’s on 1 machine. In fact, wiht Parallels on the new Mac’s, you can run your windows within it. Welcome to 2006.
Sorry Bob, but most of what you said seems to be 15 years behind the times.
November 15th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The PC had Windows 98 and the older MAC had OS 7.x. MACs and PCs do not have the same architecture - even today. Any processor has a storage library of words against which anything being processed is compared. The method in which the library is compared against the processor makes a big difference in how fast processing occurs.
There was no problem with that particular PC, it was named Hal and we worked together just fine for years running Minitab and other apps. We ran the same test on an IBM of similar processing capability [since different PC brands get around patents by tweaking the processing. Acer used to call it the ‘Acer Advantage’.]
The problem was with the architecture. PCs and MACs had [and probably still have] a math co-processor. This is a processor dedicated to math functions since the library set can run much faster with such a division. This is the main reason why you label variables as ‘text’ or ‘number’ when programming. MACs are capable of floating point processing but PCs needed a software emulator.
For anyone wondering why MACs dominate the graphics market, the above reasons are the main two: library formatting and an integral floating point processor.
I cannot imagine how the PC architecture will be rectified for floating point processing without forever being an emulation. It’s kind of like softRAM: you’re using a toaster to make icecubes. The only other option is to draw a hard line with OS compatibility.
These and other factors make the base processing rate an apples-to-lemons comparison if you don’t use a stopwatch. Back when we installed Minitab 10.5xtra and ran the test, the core software files were the same - according to the Minitab statistician under whom I studied and was a beta tester for. What happened back then was the program was written on a PC then compiled for MAC and PC use. That is why during that era, the PC would not recognize certain MAC files as if they were extensionless or lock files. The same holds true with some current software.
Yes, PCs not reading MAC files is still an issue. If you are dealing with designers and programmers all day then you will not hear about it - they know how to use a computer. Printers, publishers and normal people have no idea how to add an extension today or 15 years ago.
Portables and OSs –
Sure you can load Windows on a MAC. You can also put a dress on your dog. It runs like crap when opening a 90MB file or trying to render real graphics. It is also not a concern of MS or MAC to work out bugs on this OS. That and cost are why MAC and PC apps are often decompiled from the same program rather than developed separately.
As far as the portable market - and I am not and have not referred to portable hard drives/servers since I have been discussing portable web browsing - there is no web phone nor any other hand held device with the processing capability of even a P90 on the market even though the technology is certainly there to do so.
Read my posting again- what is important is having a hand device that can run the exact same OS as a PC or MAC with smaller storage space. However, the user will not install the full OS, only what they need. They will also be able to install any basic programs [like Corel, MS Office, Real Player, FileMaker Pro, etc.,..] which are not resource hogs like Adobe or Solidworks.
I surveyed the web, this does not exist now in 2006 nor will it probably in 2007. Two battles must be resolved first:
Power Requirements
OS development incentive
Right now, like you Stephen, the OS developers don’t want to factor more into their job than is required: it doesn’t bolster the bottom line.
Yes, you can receive Word and Excel attachments and view them on handhelds. But, the only reason why you can view an *.doc or an *.xls on a handheld is because a plugin had already been developed to do so. There is still limited or no capability outside of viewing. It also does little good to have another hokey miniOS to deal with on your system.
Anyway, much as video cards have become their own processor, the next step will be to make your network card its own processor - while the handheld market drives toward this goal from the other end. Either way, eventually there will be a handheld which works as your main internet interface. The incentive is there now, XP is set up [poorly. as usual] to have just one PC connected to the internet for surfing so that your other systems are not vulnerable. This, and the existence of Ad Aware, shows
that people want their main system clean. A system built for surfing and other minor tasks [which can quickly be wiped clean and re-initialized] will soon be the goal of these two technologies.
Bob
PS - MACs usually bomb when running graphics or math functions that a PC can’t. If you haven’t seen the BSOD in years, see if MS will buy it from you to see what went right. I’m willing to bet that you don’t render large graphics or even large text files much on that computer. When I open my novel in MS Word, this PC crashes. The MAC would bomb here, too, but the PC library is prioritized for text, the MAC’s is not.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Ok, so when you talk Architecture you are talking the software OS, not the hardware. I think your terms are just off and that’s cofusing the issue. When you say library you are talking about the software not the hardware. Because, now the hardware is identical with the exact same chips running the same instruction sets.
PC’s needed a software emulator about 15 years ago when the chips didn’t come with a floating point processor. Now they do. And I wouldn’t say Mac’s completely dominate the graphics anymore and it really isn’t because they have a floating point processor. I know many graphics people now using PC’s and having no problems. The whole floating point issue is almost 20 years old so why are we talking about it now?
Sorry Bob, your information doesn’t seem quite accurate which makes it difficult to base a discussion on differences.
As a far as the virtualization, again, I think you are using 15 year old knowledge. I personally haven’t run Windows emulated on a mac, but from all reports I hear it runs great. As long as the Mac isn’t 15 years old.
Your ps really made me laugh out loud. Seriously, I think you got a bad computer, have it setup or corrupted, or it’s user error. You say you open your novel in Word and crashes your pc, that’s not because of the os. As I type this I have open: Outlook, IE with multiple tabs, Firefox with multiple tabs, an email I was reading, iTunes with streaming radio, skup, AOL IM, MSN messenger, activesync, filezilla, my coding program NuSphere, and in the background is running apache and mysql. If you like I would gladly open your complete novel in Word and guarantee it won’t crash and will still be responsive. And no I don’t have a souped up machine. Less than 2 Ghz with half a gig of memory. I doubt a properly setup and maintained mac would crash either. I have seen Mac’s running as many apps or more as I mentioned as someone worked on an image that was several hundred MB.
You’ve got some good opinions but I don’t think the knowledge is correct. that being said, I am finding it hard to understand some of what you are trying to explain because the terms I think aren’t right. I’d be glad for some other comments on some of these issues.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
This topic seems to have lost it origin and is rehashing the old debate of PC vs Mac. I am not interested in being dragged into a debate on which is better and for what. However, will state with that Mac’s had their day of dominance in the Graphics market about two decades ago and began to rapidly lose ground over the last decade. I would add that in a price to price comparison today, I will always find a PC the can perform every bit as well as a Mac. As a result, it only makes sense from a Network Administration and Business Sense to purchase the PC. Why? Well if the initial $$ tag doesn’t convince you, then the long haul costs should. Meaning that you will be paying more for software and support on a Mac than you would a PC. Additionally you will have to address human capital; specifically the fact that there are more people that know how to use a PC than a Mac. And finally you will have to address network compatibility issues. So all in all, the best business decision regarding the old debate of Mac vs. PC in a graphic arts department would be to use PC’s.
Now, let me complicate the whole run-on debate, as to which is actually better here, by tossing in the fact that Apple announce back in February that they would be using Intel Chipsets (ref: http://whitepapers.zdnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?&tags=Apple+Computer+Inc.&docid=165190).
If you want to debate speed of processors, then AMD out performs a dollar to dollar comparison of a Mac processor. Additionally rendering of 3D animations or objects on a PC can be significantly increased by adding the appropriate hardware accelerators such as SLI enabled and activated video cards as well as placing the windows kernel into RAM [Edit the Registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\to 1 to Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement\DisablePagingExecutive 0 to undo disable paging and have the kernel run in RAM (set the value to this hack). Exit the Registry and reboot.].
All in all to reiterate the point, PC’s are still the better economic choice for businesses today.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Chucks right. The argument is off the topic of the original question and really doesn’t have merit about anything in that regards.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
hi
wonderful post