* Competing claims mean confusion
Two weeks ago I wrote about what readers and friends call the Macintosh Surge as they dump Windows PCs for Intel-based Macintoshs running OS X. The reasons given are Apple’s competitive pricing, Windows program support and increased use of Web applications. Reader feedback was huge and interesting, but sometimes off-topic and downright hostile.
Two weeks ago I wrote about what readers and friends call the Macintosh Surge as they dump Windows PCs for Intel-based Macintoshes running OS X. The reasons given are Apple’s competitive pricing, Windows program support and increased use of Web applications. Reader feedback was huge and interesting, but sometimes off-topic and downright hostile.
For long time readers let me remind you I always suggest using the simplest and least expensive tool for the job. Simple beats complex, and cost effective tools trump the rest.
For new readers, let me say I focus primarily on the 80% of users in small and midsized companies doing general work. I believe four of five users could run their computer with something other than Windows with a bit of planning. Whether those users switch to a Macintosh or a Linux system is their business, but they should regard Windows as a choice, not a requirement.
Let me clarify some details, starting with pricing. I said a new low-end Macintosh (including monitor) starts at $1,000. Many Mac Fans called me an idiot (see “downright hostile” section later in this report) for saying a “comparable” PC cost less. Take a look at PC World’s Top 10 Value Desktop PCs roundup. Three cost well under a grand, two cost well over, and the rest were right at $1,000. I claim three of the Top 10 being well under a grand counts as PCs still being slightly less expensive.
Many pointed out that lower support costs achieved by not having to fight viruses deserves mention, and that’s true. Viruses generally don’t attack Macs, spyware attacks are a tiny fraction of those on PCs, and many experts say general desktop support costs are less for Macs (but others disagree, of course). That’s a fair topic for discussion.
Others pointed out “the incredible value of included Apple software” (their words) over what comes from Microsoft. To get programs like iMovie, iTunes and Garageband would cost hundreds for their PC equivalents, or so goes the argument.
Sorry, I don’t buy that, primarily because the computers in question are for SMB use. I don’t believe 80% of small company users sit around editing movies or creating drum and bass tunes (although if you do, Mark Gibbs would probably like to hear it).
If you want to talk about included business software, the winner’s circle belongs to Linux vendors who include the OpenOffice productivity suite along with other tools like high-end e-mail clients, calendars, Personal Information Managers and Web authoring software. Linux offers comparable software to both Windows XP and Microsoft Office for a price of free to $89, depending on the vendor. Linux wins the price race every time.
The move to Intel chips makes new Apple hardware a little bit Mac, and a little bit Windows. Here’s one comment: “Today, anybody who is an SMB is crazy not to buy a Mac because they can run their Windows legacy systems on the box.” You do still need a legal Windows operating system and applications, of course.
Ways to run Windows and OS X concurrently include at least Parallels, that I mentioned last time, and iEmulator. Coming soon, VMware will ship its Macintosh product. If you want to reboot between operating systems, Apple’s BootCamp offers that feature.
I was amazed so many Mac Fanatics flamed me. My last words were, “If you’re going to buy new hardware to support a new operating system, you may find that switching to a Macintosh costs less and gives you more than upgrading to Windows Vista. Besides, regardless of Vista’s new glass-like interface and Mac-inspired Gadgets, Apple still does Macintosh better than Microsoft copies Macintosh. And Apple is about to roll out its operating system upgrade to answer Vista, which should keep Macintosh that much farther ahead.”
Evidently, being complementary and saying nice things rather than being wildly enthusiastic about Macintosh makes me a Microsoft stooge (according to some rude people). Just one question: where does Shift Butterfly Period and other key commands fit within the “intuitive interface” spectrum?
But the goal is using the right tool for the job. Reader Jim said, “Folks should have the ability to use the tool of their choice, that is Mac, Linux or Windows, so long as there are applications to support them and their work gets done.”
I agree.
Companies using Windows, Macintosh, and Linux systems can pick the best parts of each for every job they tackle. That means they can pick tools they know to address every situation, and increase use of the platform that gets their work done faster and cheaper.
