- How to make new stuff from your piles of obsolete tech
- Why your computer sucks
- 10 recession-proof IT skills
- Juniper execs share network vision
- 9-year-old plots his fifth Microsoft certification
Macs vs. PCs vs. Linux arguments are dominating two mailing lists I'm on. The vitriol may be slightly less than in the past, but many of the same attitudes exist with subjective arguments trumping logic on both sides. While I can ignore fanatics on a mailing list, owners and managers in businesses have to coerce all sides of the operating system wars into working together. Let's look at three issues in this discussion: who owns the computers, whether software availability forces your decision, and the costs of acquisition and ownership.
Technology people in big companies will say, often forcefully, that the "personal" in personal computer denotes a single user, not user control. The computer belongs to the company and the IT department, and the employees are granted its use at the discretion of the company.
But the issue is more about control than ownership, because the company owns the computers just like they own the desks on which they sit. This means you have no legal expectation of privacy on a company computer. In fact, your download stupidity can get your entire company in trouble, so they have every right to monitor what you do with your computer.
Too many small companies, however, let employees control what's on the computer, and sometimes what type of computer is on that desk. As companies grow, controls tighten up and the company dictates more details about the hardware and software available to employees.
If your company allows employees to choose what hardware and software they want, then this discussion doesn't matter. Mac fans get a Mac, Windows fans get a PC. One way or another, you pay whatever it costs to buy and maintain the hardware and software employees want.
Personally, I can't call letting the employees get whatever they want a "best practice" for IT management. You must decide who's in charge of computer systems, management or employees. I suggest you chose management.
When specific software needs force you into buying a specific hardware platform, don't fight it. Graphics people, for instance, invest years in learning to maximize the value of their software, and that software almost always runs on a Mac. Offering them the same or similar software on a PC won't change their mind, because versions and subtleties differ between the platforms.
Comments (12)
I suggest that you choose usersBy Fredric Paul on June 17, 2009, 8:53 pmOne of the key advantages small businesses have compared to larger ones is that they can be more flexible. Over at bMighty.com, we believe that IT's role is to empower...
Reply | Read entire comment
Mac vs PCBy Anon on June 18, 2009, 1:17 pmThe one cost you have not considered is that of the employee's time. A small increase in employee productivity will render trivial the other costs considered.
Reply | Read entire comment
No mention of VMWare/Thin clientsBy Anonymous on June 18, 2009, 4:53 pmVMware's VDI: Virtual Desktop Infrastructure Why no mention of this? Why not just get rid of the hardware for the most part. Cut the time of desktop support dramatically....
Reply | Read entire comment
AgreedBy Anonymous on June 18, 2009, 5:35 pmJust 5% more productivity of any knowledge worker pays for itself in no time (including the 5x+ costs for ongoing support, training, etc.) Not only that, but for...
Reply | Read entire comment
Subject: Disagree, for the most partBy Anonymous on June 18, 2009, 5:37 pm"Agreed" should have said, "Disagree, for the most part."
Reply | Read entire comment
Hardware cost comparrisons and platform warsBy Anonymous on June 18, 2009, 7:29 pmBe careful that you compare oranges with oranges. Tier 1products will always cost more than tier 2 or less products. With over 20 years in the sales, service and...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments