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.
Personally I’m not going to be upgrading right away. In time I probably will and it may even be before the end of 2007. I just have no reason to at the moment. Everything I need runs in XP and I’m not upgrading any apps that need it.