Not sure where you based your information. Usually, before the adoption of the program, companies like IBM performed pilot studies. Some gradually implement the program -- I assume to learn from experience and define the parameters.
There is a deterrent to opting into the program -- the employees who buy their own computers must be able to work within the budget -- including the cost of the maintenance. This means you cannot resort to internal IT, as you claim, in case something malfunctions with your computer, if you opted for the program. Those employees that did not opt for the program still may use the company bought computers and avail of internal technical support.
Obviously, this program is a lobby usually initiated by Mac users. I assume that those who opt for the program are more savvy or more experienced Mac users. And contrary to some claims by Mac detractors, these Mac users are more technically savvy to know what to do in case something goes awry with their Mac computer.
If indeed there are companies that structure their program as you outlined, then they deserve the outcomes you indicated.
To my knowledge, the success stories opting for this program indicated reduced IT services and staff (saving money for the company), increased productivity and satisfaction (I assume from Mac users who opted for the program).
CGC
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfoalex
I've been doing this for years. I have bought my own PCs and Macs, my own software licenses, etc. Letting your employer pick your software and hardware is easily one of the biggest mistakes in corporate america today. There is no such thing as a one-size fits all approach. And those that don't realize this can expect to pay for it dearly in lost productivity.
It's not even a PC or Mac debate. I have bought both. It's a question of letting the person who actually has to do the work pick what will best accomplish that work. Who could possibly know better than the person doing the work?
I'll ask it another way. Would you want your heart surgeon to pick the tools needed for open heart surgery, or a hospital administrator who never went to medical school? I think we all know the answer. So why does IT for a second believe they somehow know better than I do what tools are needed. They don't. They couldn't. And to believe otherwise is simply ridiculous.
For a start, who gives a rats arse. As long as the computer you use is suitable for the job, I dont give a fuck whether it's my own or what the company gives me.
Does it matter if it has 54 GB of RAM and a double-sided green ray disk burner?
The company outlines minimum system requirements for the program that effectively limit it to PCs running Windows Vista/7 Ultimate (employees can't use the Home, Business, or Professional editions) or any Intel Mac running Snow Leopard with at least a 2GHz processor and 2GB of RAM.[/QUOTE]
so buy your own but we will tell you what you can buy. go F off. i am not fooled. another ploy to get you to pay for the privilege to work for you. and what IT genius decided win Ultimate but not Pro or business. Someone need media center for work? chess game?
I do not have the links offhand, but there are other companies (e.g., IBM. a number of biotech companies) that opted for or investigating the use of multiple sources of computers for use in the office. What some actually found was that the Mac users used the IT department resources much less; thus saving costs for the company. As important, it improved employee productivity, especially those using the Mac systems.
That's been my experience - I bought a G4 Mac Mini when they came out and brought it in to the office. I bought the C2D Mini to replace it a few years ago. Of my team of 24, I'm the only one who's not experienced a moment of downtime. Each of my co-workers has had their computers re-imaged, about half of them more than once. Several have had hardware failures, and all of them have had lost productivity due to crashes and issues with domain migrations, not to mention the reboots because of weekly security patches.
While all of them complain about their issues, I keep on working. I'm not supported by my IT department, and since I switched from my Windows XP laptop to a Mac, I've not needed them once.
I wish more companies would see that the long-term cost of ownership is actually far less with a Mac than it is with Windows.
My company provided computer is an IBM ThinkPad that IBM officially stopped supporting two years ago. It has a whopping 1 GB of RAM, Pentium-M chip (predates the Centrino that came out before Single Core chips) and a 1024x768 15-inch screen.
It struggles to run the company image of WinXP.
I just attempted to view a required training video on my allocated computer and it slowed to a crawl. Ended up having to kill the browser. Funny thing is they refused to buy a PC with a real GPU in it at my request. Flash might have had a chance with a little boost from a GPU.
What is even worst is that the IT department frets over the expense of new computers every couple of years. It doesn't register that it might be more economical in the long run to avoid bargain basement PCs. Especially bargain basement PCs they pay top dollar for from Dell. The short term is the only thing that matters.
I wonder why the requirement for Snow Leopard and not just Leopard.
It can't be THAT much different for their IT department to support.
At least that has been my personal experience. It is much more stable owith respect to networking and other features people don't take notice of. SL has been a great leap forward in my opinion and desrves more credit than it gets.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a way to get the employees to pay for their own computers? I got the distinct impression from the article that the Mac users were buying their own computers (in addition to providing their own tech support).
I have the same reaction..just closer to the day when you have to buy your own computer.
I actually have some experience with KraftCo from my days at IBM. Then they were a very forward-looking company pursuing the latest technology (CICS and DL/I at that time).
What am curious about is: Will they allow the iPad? My best guess is YES!
For a start, who gives a rats arse. As long as the computer you use is suitable for the job, I dont give a fuck whether it's my own or what the company gives me.
Does it matter if it has 54 GB of RAM and a double-sided green ray disk burner?
Many corporations don't want people to use their own machines because they cannot control what happens outside of the office. Software, viruses, porn, etc. Heck, where I work, one assh*le got pissed I put their phone's SIMM into my iPhone, which I bought and JBed.
It's anyone who decides to use their own computer as their work computer, PC or a Mac.
Technically, what you stated is correct to avoid discrimination. The program though was initiated to accommodate Mac users in a Wintel-based environment. Mac users were the ones who lobbied to have this option adopted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert
I wonder why the requirement for Snow Leopard and not just Leopard.
It can't be THAT much different for their IT department to support.
One possible reason. There is a subsidy if you opt for this program. You have to buy more recent Mac Intel-based computers (if you do not have one yet). You are not be able to use your older Mac computers and pocket the subsidy provided. Just as important, using one OS, Snow Leopard, will minimize versions of softwares maintained in central servers.
If an employee opts for the program, the subsidy usually includes that the employee takes care of the cost of technical support -- not use internal IT services and personnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
In my experience when there are business reasons to fix the broken system you broke it you fix it doesn't fly. That might be the stated policy for minor issues. However, if the person who's computer it is can't fix it and there is a critical reason to fix it, the IT person will be fixing it.
There is a reason why companies have structured the program to include the cost for technical support in the subsidy provided.
The option to provide your own computer will work mainly for those employees who are tech-savvy enough to be able to deal with the usual day-to-day technical issues encountered, and have the foresight to buy an Apple Care, if practical, to deal with for more critical and difficult issues.
It is one thing to seek the support of internal IT in case of emergency. I doubt very much that the company will allow a clueless employee to participate in the program in the future. The company may even impose immediate cessation to participate in the program, if the employee turns up to the "technically-impaired" or clueless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames42
I wish more companies would see that the long-term cost of ownership is actually far less with a Mac than it is with Windows.
This is where the more widespread adoption of the iPhone and potentially the iPad, as well as the Apple Store (and perhaps Best Buy "Apple Store") may help in more companies becoming more receptive to Mac computers.
Moreover, unlike in the past, Apple is now paying more attention to the needs of the enterprise, and there are companies, providing solution, e.g., the Citrix ecosystem model, that will allow Apple mobile computing devices to integrate with enterprise servers.
I found out also that Apple Stores now have "business liaisons" to assist people asking for business solutions. However, the one I talked to in the Boylston Apple Store in Boston, while very cooperative. has very limited expertise in biomedical applications though.
Apple should provide more support to local small businesses that offer Apple-centric solutions to address the needs of specific businesses and fields.
This is great news for Apple. More subsidies to bring the cost down, thereby driving people toward the Mac who otherwise wouldn't have bought one for the price
I'll ask it another way. Would you want your heart surgeon to pick the tools needed for open heart surgery, or a hospital administrator who never went to medical school? I think we all know the answer.
My company provided computer is an IBM ThinkPad that IBM officially stopped supporting two years ago. It has a whopping 1 GB of RAM, Pentium-M chip (predates the Centrino that came out before Single Core chips) and a 1024x768 15-inch screen.
It struggles to run the company image of WinXP.
I have a similar situation at my office. I have an HP laptop that is pretty horrible. I have actually made this exact suggestion to my boss and several of my IT compadres. This policy makes a lot of sense for IT personnel who have the expertise to maintain their own systems. My suggestions was actually to forgo a raise for 2 years (wouldn't be that big a deal anyway) in exchange for a $2500 allowance to use towards the purchase of a laptop of your choice.
I think I'm going to drop this article in the IT dept suggestion box at the office. All they can do is say no, expected, and who knows even if they don't implement anything like this maybe they'll think it a decent idea and I'll win the $100 gift card.
Many corporations don't want people to use their own machines because they cannot control what happens outside of the office. Software, viruses, porn, etc. Heck, where I work, one assh*le got pissed I put their phone's SIMM into my iPhone, which I bought and JBed.
'course if you work for the federal govt., you watch porn on company computers during work hours... and make twice as much as the non-govt. Workers paying your salary!
Is it just me, or does this sound like a way to get the employees to pay for their own computers? I got the distinct impression from the article that the Mac users were buying their own computers (in addition to providing their own tech support).
Maybe. I worked in a Dell office, and purchased my own Mac. Did my own support, etc, and they agreed to purchase applecare to cover any damage.
Why Windows 7 Ultimate? Professional should be just fine. The only things Ultimate offers over professional is a language pack and BitLocker. They want the encryption part I guess? That is the only thing I can think of.
Comments
There is a deterrent to opting into the program -- the employees who buy their own computers must be able to work within the budget -- including the cost of the maintenance. This means you cannot resort to internal IT, as you claim, in case something malfunctions with your computer, if you opted for the program. Those employees that did not opt for the program still may use the company bought computers and avail of internal technical support.
Obviously, this program is a lobby usually initiated by Mac users. I assume that those who opt for the program are more savvy or more experienced Mac users. And contrary to some claims by Mac detractors, these Mac users are more technically savvy to know what to do in case something goes awry with their Mac computer.
If indeed there are companies that structure their program as you outlined, then they deserve the outcomes you indicated.
To my knowledge, the success stories opting for this program indicated reduced IT services and staff (saving money for the company), increased productivity and satisfaction (I assume from Mac users who opted for the program).
CGC
I've been doing this for years. I have bought my own PCs and Macs, my own software licenses, etc. Letting your employer pick your software and hardware is easily one of the biggest mistakes in corporate america today. There is no such thing as a one-size fits all approach. And those that don't realize this can expect to pay for it dearly in lost productivity.
It's not even a PC or Mac debate. I have bought both. It's a question of letting the person who actually has to do the work pick what will best accomplish that work. Who could possibly know better than the person doing the work?
I'll ask it another way. Would you want your heart surgeon to pick the tools needed for open heart surgery, or a hospital administrator who never went to medical school? I think we all know the answer. So why does IT for a second believe they somehow know better than I do what tools are needed. They don't. They couldn't. And to believe otherwise is simply ridiculous.
Does it matter if it has 54 GB of RAM and a double-sided green ray disk burner?
so buy your own but we will tell you what you can buy. go F off. i am not fooled. another ploy to get you to pay for the privilege to work for you. and what IT genius decided win Ultimate but not Pro or business. Someone need media center for work? chess game?
I do not have the links offhand, but there are other companies (e.g., IBM. a number of biotech companies) that opted for or investigating the use of multiple sources of computers for use in the office. What some actually found was that the Mac users used the IT department resources much less; thus saving costs for the company. As important, it improved employee productivity, especially those using the Mac systems.
That's been my experience - I bought a G4 Mac Mini when they came out and brought it in to the office. I bought the C2D Mini to replace it a few years ago. Of my team of 24, I'm the only one who's not experienced a moment of downtime. Each of my co-workers has had their computers re-imaged, about half of them more than once. Several have had hardware failures, and all of them have had lost productivity due to crashes and issues with domain migrations, not to mention the reboots because of weekly security patches.
While all of them complain about their issues, I keep on working. I'm not supported by my IT department, and since I switched from my Windows XP laptop to a Mac, I've not needed them once.
I wish more companies would see that the long-term cost of ownership is actually far less with a Mac than it is with Windows.
I wish they would do that where I work.
My company provided computer is an IBM ThinkPad that IBM officially stopped supporting two years ago. It has a whopping 1 GB of RAM, Pentium-M chip (predates the Centrino that came out before Single Core chips) and a 1024x768 15-inch screen.
It struggles to run the company image of WinXP.
I just attempted to view a required training video on my allocated computer and it slowed to a crawl. Ended up having to kill the browser. Funny thing is they refused to buy a PC with a real GPU in it at my request. Flash might have had a chance with a little boost from a GPU.
What is even worst is that the IT department frets over the expense of new computers every couple of years. It doesn't register that it might be more economical in the long run to avoid bargain basement PCs. Especially bargain basement PCs they pay top dollar for from Dell. The short term is the only thing that matters.
Dave
I wonder why the requirement for Snow Leopard and not just Leopard.
It can't be THAT much different for their IT department to support.
At least that has been my personal experience. It is much more stable owith respect to networking and other features people don't take notice of. SL has been a great leap forward in my opinion and desrves more credit than it gets.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a way to get the employees to pay for their own computers? I got the distinct impression from the article that the Mac users were buying their own computers (in addition to providing their own tech support).
I have the same reaction..just closer to the day when you have to buy your own computer.
What am curious about is: Will they allow the iPad? My best guess is YES!
.
For a start, who gives a rats arse. As long as the computer you use is suitable for the job, I dont give a fuck whether it's my own or what the company gives me.
Does it matter if it has 54 GB of RAM and a double-sided green ray disk burner?
Many corporations don't want people to use their own machines because they cannot control what happens outside of the office. Software, viruses, porn, etc. Heck, where I work, one assh*le got pissed I put their phone's SIMM into my iPhone, which I bought and JBed.
It's anyone who decides to use their own computer as their work computer, PC or a Mac.
Technically, what you stated is correct to avoid discrimination. The program though was initiated to accommodate Mac users in a Wintel-based environment. Mac users were the ones who lobbied to have this option adopted.
I wonder why the requirement for Snow Leopard and not just Leopard.
It can't be THAT much different for their IT department to support.
One possible reason. There is a subsidy if you opt for this program. You have to buy more recent Mac Intel-based computers (if you do not have one yet). You are not be able to use your older Mac computers and pocket the subsidy provided. Just as important, using one OS, Snow Leopard, will minimize versions of softwares maintained in central servers.
If an employee opts for the program, the subsidy usually includes that the employee takes care of the cost of technical support -- not use internal IT services and personnel.
In my experience when there are business reasons to fix the broken system you broke it you fix it doesn't fly. That might be the stated policy for minor issues. However, if the person who's computer it is can't fix it and there is a critical reason to fix it, the IT person will be fixing it.
There is a reason why companies have structured the program to include the cost for technical support in the subsidy provided.
The option to provide your own computer will work mainly for those employees who are tech-savvy enough to be able to deal with the usual day-to-day technical issues encountered, and have the foresight to buy an Apple Care, if practical, to deal with for more critical and difficult issues.
It is one thing to seek the support of internal IT in case of emergency. I doubt very much that the company will allow a clueless employee to participate in the program in the future. The company may even impose immediate cessation to participate in the program, if the employee turns up to the "technically-impaired" or clueless.
I wish more companies would see that the long-term cost of ownership is actually far less with a Mac than it is with Windows.
This is where the more widespread adoption of the iPhone and potentially the iPad, as well as the Apple Store (and perhaps Best Buy "Apple Store") may help in more companies becoming more receptive to Mac computers.
Moreover, unlike in the past, Apple is now paying more attention to the needs of the enterprise, and there are companies, providing solution, e.g., the Citrix ecosystem model, that will allow Apple mobile computing devices to integrate with enterprise servers.
I found out also that Apple Stores now have "business liaisons" to assist people asking for business solutions. However, the one I talked to in the Boylston Apple Store in Boston, while very cooperative. has very limited expertise in biomedical applications though.
Apple should provide more support to local small businesses that offer Apple-centric solutions to address the needs of specific businesses and fields.
CGC
I'll ask it another way. Would you want your heart surgeon to pick the tools needed for open heart surgery, or a hospital administrator who never went to medical school? I think we all know the answer.
What if she's hot?
I wish they would do that where I work.
My company provided computer is an IBM ThinkPad that IBM officially stopped supporting two years ago. It has a whopping 1 GB of RAM, Pentium-M chip (predates the Centrino that came out before Single Core chips) and a 1024x768 15-inch screen.
It struggles to run the company image of WinXP.
I have a similar situation at my office. I have an HP laptop that is pretty horrible. I have actually made this exact suggestion to my boss and several of my IT compadres. This policy makes a lot of sense for IT personnel who have the expertise to maintain their own systems. My suggestions was actually to forgo a raise for 2 years (wouldn't be that big a deal anyway) in exchange for a $2500 allowance to use towards the purchase of a laptop of your choice.
I think I'm going to drop this article in the IT dept suggestion box at the office. All they can do is say no, expected, and who knows even if they don't implement anything like this maybe they'll think it a decent idea and I'll win the $100 gift card.
Many corporations don't want people to use their own machines because they cannot control what happens outside of the office. Software, viruses, porn, etc. Heck, where I work, one assh*le got pissed I put their phone's SIMM into my iPhone, which I bought and JBed.
'course if you work for the federal govt., you watch porn on company computers during work hours... and make twice as much as the non-govt. Workers paying your salary!
.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a way to get the employees to pay for their own computers? I got the distinct impression from the article that the Mac users were buying their own computers (in addition to providing their own tech support).
Maybe. I worked in a Dell office, and purchased my own Mac. Did my own support, etc, and they agreed to purchase applecare to cover any damage.
I think the IT people couldn't be much happier.
Ha, ha, so naive!
IT department HATE the Mac
IT department loves babysitting retarded computers that do not even run by themselves, let alone doing anything useful.