If a mac book costs $500 more than the 'equivalent' (relatively speaking) windows PC and you save $270 in tech support fees then you're still $230 behind the 8-ball.
Good thing Macs last 3x longer than PCs, so you’re always ahead.
If a mac book costs $500 more than the 'equivalent' (relatively speaking) windows PC and you save $270 in tech support fees then you're still $230 behind the 8-ball.
Actually this is the math that favours Mac. For example, I used to own Windows notebook that's half the price of Macbook Air I'm using now. The notebook was very slow. Frustrating to use from the very beginning. Then problems with hardware began creeping up after one years. They were so bad that after a full 2 years of use nobody wanted it anymore. Resale value was zero. All you can do was throwing it away.
On the contrary, My Macbook Air is a joy to use from the very beginning (even though it came with Lion haha). It's fast. It's fluid. Never have a single hardware problem. Now after a full 4 years it still works like new with El-Cap. And it's still going strong. Just have a look at it I open like 6 major apps all at once :O.
I can even receive phone calls now, something I couldn't do when I first bought my MBA. All these are unheard of in PC world, which I was a part of for 20+ years.
If I sell it I can get some money back. This, and in addition with a very productive 4 full years (2X the life of this 2X cheaper PC), makes Mac always cheaper than a cheaper PC when everything considered.
IBM is benefiting hugely from its internal Mac adoption program, saving about $270 per Mac versus Windows PCs, Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a Tuesday fiscal results call.
Not sure that you can quote any reliable figures until the program has been embedded and established long enough for a replenish and replacement of stock numbers trend to be established, not just a support picture. A little bit of smoke and mirrors here.
"It is 1958. IBM passes up a chance to buy a young fledgling company that has invented a new technology called xerography. Two years later, Xerox was born, and IBM has been kicking themselves ever since."
Sigh. Xerox was founded in 1906 as the The Haloid Photographic Company. It changed its name to Haloid Xerox in 1958 and then to Xerox Corporation in 1961. The addition of Xerox to the company name in 1958 was a name change, not the birth of a new company--fledgling or otherwise. The company was already 52 years old.
Apple's products are not way behind Office, especially Keynote, which knocks the socks off anything Powerpoint ever envisioned. Too many people try and make Excel into a database program and end up with a huge mess that nobody else can maintain. I like Pages a whole lot better than Word because Word, like all Microsoft products, keeps trying to do what's "best" for me instead of what I want done. As others have said, Microsoft keeps adding unnecessary features that overburden the user. I'd challenge Office users to document how many of the features they actually use. I would bet Microsoft could strip 50% of them and the vast majority of people wouldn't even know they were gone.
Have you seen those swiss army (knockoff) utility knives with way too many tools. This is what Office has morphed into. Which ones do you really need?
If you really wanted to make an outrageous comparison, replace that small box set with a toothpick and maybe you will understand the people's resentment of Pages and Numbers. It doesn't matter what you think of Office bloat. Those Office users are creating files and using features which Mac users are expected to be able to fully work with. Self righteous indignation is not going to change that.
Looks like you want my POV in this IBM / Apple thing.
Do I believe IBM when they say that they had a lower TCO? Yes. Same as I believe MS, Google or Oracle when they claim the same. Can I replicate the same TCO in every enterprise? Not necessarily. Every enterprise have differet needs. That's the reason some enterprises uses databases from Microsoft and others from Oracle, while others from IBM. Some uses Office 365 while others Google for Business. Some of them uses AWS while others Azure. MS dominates the enterprise because it's large portfolio, not necessarily because it's the best solution in every enterprise, although many time it is. Same as Apple and IBM.
On of the reason Apple is behind in the enterprise is that they don't support their own products. They don't have an enterprise solutions to deploy iOS or OS X devices, while MS supports you all the way, from mobile, to server to the cloud.
Another reason is integration with enterprise apps. MS Office integrates with BI, CRM and ERP's from many vendors, while iWorks...you know.
I always think that OS X had a place in the enterprise (IBM, Google and Apple are examples of it), but Apple are to blame for not position it. And Windows has always been ahead when you consider management tools. Let's see how IBM does.
Good thing Macs last 3x longer than PCs, so you’re always ahead.
I have heard this many times, but I haven't seen any real study with details comparing Mac's with PC's in the same price range and category. Since you claim this, maybe you can share how you got to that conclusion.
Looks like you want my POV in this IBM / Apple thing.
Do I believe IBM when they say that they had a lower TCO? Yes. Same as I believe MS, Google or Oracle when they claim the same. Can I replicate the same TCO in every enterprise? Not necessarily. Every enterprise have differet needs. That's the reason some enterprises uses databases from Microsoft and others from Oracle, while others from IBM. Some uses Office 365 while others Google for Business. Some of them uses AWS while others Azure. MS dominates the enterprise because it's large portfolio, not necessarily because it's the best solution in every enterprise, although many time it is. Same as Apple and IBM.
On of the reason Apple is behind in the enterprise is that they don't support their own products. They don't have an enterprise solutions to deploy iOS or OS X devices, while MS supports you all the way, from mobile, to server to the cloud.
Another reason is integration with enterprise apps. MS Office integrates with BI, CRM and ERP's from many vendors, while iWorks...you know.
I always think that OS X had a place in the enterprise (IBM, Google and Apple are examples of it), but Apple are to blame for not position it. And Windows has always been ahead when you consider management tools. Let's see how IBM does.
Actually, I didn't want your pov, I was being sarcastic. I was pointing you to evidence tha you wanted in one amongst your flood of pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple posts in the other thread. (But I am not surprised that it got lost in translation).
Re the rest of your post, Macs can natively or virtually run Windows, in case you didn't know. Nuff said.
For years Apple fans have been crying in the wilderness about TCO and how Macs are NOT overpriced when you factor in reliability, support costs, hardware longevity. Nobody listened and we all sat there at our desks with cheap plastic or metal gray boxes with Dell or HP stickers on them, boxes we were constantly calling tech support about because they crapped out when our reports were due.
Looks like in your workplace they went with cheap models. In my customer we always deploy high quality, business grade PCs from the Dell, HP and Lenovo and experience has been very positive.
Quote:
I remember watching some tech support dude work for hours on my desktop PC because Outlook wouldn’t connect to the corporate network properly. I had to go out in the equipment room to find a working machine I could use to get my timesheet in that day.
Maybe you should read about OS X problems with SMB shares, or the problem El Capitan has with NAS shares. It's clear that Windows has it share of problems, but I don't see how OS X will be different.
Actually, I didn't want your pov, I was being sarcastic. I was pointing you to evidence tha you wanted in one amongst your flood of pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple lists in the other thread. (But I am not surprised that got lost in translation).
One more time, I'm not Pro MS, neither anti Apple. I have devices from different vendors, including Apple, HP and coming soon a Surface Pro, same as my customers. I have to work with all of them every day. But I don't have any issue pointing their good or bad devices, services or applications, of any company. For some reason I don't get the same from you. BTW, I knew you were being sarcastic.
Quote:
Re the rest of your post, Macs can natively or virtually run Windows, in case you didn't know. Nuff said.
Comments
Good thing Macs last 3x longer than PCs, so you’re always ahead.
If a mac book costs $500 more than the 'equivalent' (relatively speaking) windows PC and you save $270 in tech support fees then you're still $230 behind the 8-ball.
Actually this is the math that favours Mac. For example, I used to own Windows notebook that's half the price of Macbook Air I'm using now. The notebook was very slow. Frustrating to use from the very beginning. Then problems with hardware began creeping up after one years. They were so bad that after a full 2 years of use nobody wanted it anymore. Resale value was zero. All you can do was throwing it away.
On the contrary, My Macbook Air is a joy to use from the very beginning (even though it came with Lion haha). It's fast. It's fluid. Never have a single hardware problem. Now after a full 4 years it still works like new with El-Cap. And it's still going strong. Just have a look at it I open like 6 major apps all at once :O.
I can even receive phone calls now, something I couldn't do when I first bought my MBA. All these are unheard of in PC world, which I was a part of for 20+ years.
If I sell it I can get some money back. This, and in addition with a very productive 4 full years (2X the life of this 2X cheaper PC), makes Mac always cheaper than a cheaper PC when everything considered.
IBM is benefiting hugely from its internal Mac adoption program, saving about $270 per Mac versus Windows PCs, Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a Tuesday fiscal results call.
Not sure that you can quote any reliable figures until the program has been embedded and established long enough for a replenish and replacement of stock numbers trend to be established, not just a support picture. A little bit of smoke and mirrors here.
Sigh. Xerox was founded in 1906 as the The Haloid Photographic Company. It changed its name to Haloid Xerox in 1958 and then to Xerox Corporation in 1961. The addition of Xerox to the company name in 1958 was a name change, not the birth of a new company--fledgling or otherwise. The company was already 52 years old.
Apple's products are not way behind Office, especially Keynote, which knocks the socks off anything Powerpoint ever envisioned. Too many people try and make Excel into a database program and end up with a huge mess that nobody else can maintain. I like Pages a whole lot better than Word because Word, like all Microsoft products, keeps trying to do what's "best" for me instead of what I want done. As others have said, Microsoft keeps adding unnecessary features that overburden the user. I'd challenge Office users to document how many of the features they actually use. I would bet Microsoft could strip 50% of them and the vast majority of people wouldn't even know they were gone.
Have you seen those swiss army (knockoff) utility knives with way too many tools. This is what Office has morphed into. Which ones do you really need?
If you really wanted to make an outrageous comparison, replace that small box set with a toothpick and maybe you will understand the people's resentment of Pages and Numbers. It doesn't matter what you think of Office bloat. Those Office users are creating files and using features which Mac users are expected to be able to fully work with. Self righteous indignation is not going to change that.
Paging @DaveNM...
Looks like you want my POV in this IBM / Apple thing.
Do I believe IBM when they say that they had a lower TCO? Yes. Same as I believe MS, Google or Oracle when they claim the same. Can I replicate the same TCO in every enterprise? Not necessarily. Every enterprise have differet needs. That's the reason some enterprises uses databases from Microsoft and others from Oracle, while others from IBM. Some uses Office 365 while others Google for Business. Some of them uses AWS while others Azure. MS dominates the enterprise because it's large portfolio, not necessarily because it's the best solution in every enterprise, although many time it is. Same as Apple and IBM.
On of the reason Apple is behind in the enterprise is that they don't support their own products. They don't have an enterprise solutions to deploy iOS or OS X devices, while MS supports you all the way, from mobile, to server to the cloud.
Another reason is integration with enterprise apps. MS Office integrates with BI, CRM and ERP's from many vendors, while iWorks...you know.
I always think that OS X had a place in the enterprise (IBM, Google and Apple are examples of it), but Apple are to blame for not position it. And Windows has always been ahead when you consider management tools. Let's see how IBM does.
Good thing Macs last 3x longer than PCs, so you’re always ahead.
I have heard this many times, but I haven't seen any real study with details comparing Mac's with PC's in the same price range and category. Since you claim this, maybe you can share how you got to that conclusion.
Actually, I didn't want your pov, I was being sarcastic. I was pointing you to evidence tha you wanted in one amongst your flood of pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple posts in the other thread. (But I am not surprised that it got lost in translation).
Re the rest of your post, Macs can natively or virtually run Windows, in case you didn't know. Nuff said.
For years Apple fans have been crying in the wilderness about TCO and how Macs are NOT overpriced when you factor in reliability, support costs, hardware longevity. Nobody listened and we all sat there at our desks with cheap plastic or metal gray boxes with Dell or HP stickers on them, boxes we were constantly calling tech support about because they crapped out when our reports were due.
Looks like in your workplace they went with cheap models. In my customer we always deploy high quality, business grade PCs from the Dell, HP and Lenovo and experience has been very positive.
Maybe you should read about OS X problems with SMB shares, or the problem El Capitan has with NAS shares. It's clear that Windows has it share of problems, but I don't see how OS X will be different.
Actually, I didn't want your pov, I was being sarcastic. I was pointing you to evidence tha you wanted in one amongst your flood of pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple lists in the other thread. (But I am not surprised that got lost in translation).
One more time, I'm not Pro MS, neither anti Apple. I have devices from different vendors, including Apple, HP and coming soon a Surface Pro, same as my customers. I have to work with all of them every day. But I don't have any issue pointing their good or bad devices, services or applications, of any company. For some reason I don't get the same from you. BTW, I knew you were being sarcastic.
I already knew.
Then most of your post is moot.
And yes, I am not at all a fan of Microsoft.