You can run Windows Excel on a Mac. You can run Windows on a Mac.

Mac VS PC is one thing - I have seen sunshine and dark clouds on both platforms. Tend to prefer Windows as the security is better. Macs do however have the benefit of a monolithic backup system that mostly works.

But am I the only one who literally spit out my coffee over this statement:

-"...Previn also announced research on how macOS users and devices require less support, as seven engineers support 200,000 macOS devices versus 20 engineers required to support 200,000 Windows devices."

One support technician / engineer supporting about ten thousand devices? Is something wrong here, or is our near future really that bleak?

I buggered off a job posting that suggested one technician support and maintain a domain/network of 500 workstations with no real backup workers as unrealistic... even with that workload it's pretty certain something will not be properly done.

Perhaps, when it happens, that level of workload on sysadmins and engineers is one of the reasons for many of the recent ransomware debacles and security breaches.

What any computer costs up front doesn't really matter. It's all about TCO. I sort of doubt they would offer a tool that isn't correct for the job too. 

Pretty sure they mentioned the TCO of a PC had come down now since Autopilot had become a thing for Windows, meaning they can do similar zero touch deployments.

Outlaying an extra $1000 on a new computer would probably cost about $400 per year in terms of the additional cost of capital plus depreciation. That's only about 12 hours of extra productivity from someone on a $70,000 salary to break even.

I'm not an IT person so I don't want to say whether that extra $1000 should be spent on a Mac, or whether there is something else it should be spent on. Either way, it's a no-brainer that some investment needs to be made to stem the massive loss of productivity that occurs in large organisations where a significant proportion of their staff struggle with IT problems on a daily basis. 

Amazing comments from people. If you ordered 70,000 a year from Apple, do you think you would be paying retail? The comments about the complexity of maintaining Mac versus Windows is the very point - there is no doubt whatsoever that Mac takes less effort to maintain a fleet of workstations. Investing in tools and disciplines pays off. 

iBM workstations are used for office work, software development, and all sorts of research. 

BlinkyBill:

 

Amazing comments from people. If you ordered 70,000 a year from Apple, do you think you would be paying retail?

 

Yep I absolutely believe Apple would charge retail on volume purchases.  

grepa:

 

 

 

But am I the only one who literally spit out my coffee over this statement:

 

-"...Previn also announced research on how macOS users and devices require less support, as seven engineers support 200,000 macOS devices versus 20 engineers required to support 200,000 Windows devices."

 

One support technician / engineer supporting about ten thousand devices? Is something wrong here, or is our near future really that bleak?

 

I buggered off a job posting that suggested one technician support and maintain a domain/network of 500 workstations with no real backup workers as unrealistic... even with that workload it's pretty certain something will not be properly done.

 

I think that is higher-level engineers as I thought I saw another comment about the number of front-line support calls handled for each platform. It also depends on how much can be handled by the end user. E.G are they free to arrange their own replacements if a hard drive begins to fail.

Not sure in which corporate world besides IBM's will claim that Mac takes less effort to maintain fleet of workstations. Marketshare speaks volumes. How anyone can even claim that Apple is enterprise friendly is laughable. Go to Apple and ask for a roadmap and they will tell you to get lost. Go to Dell or HPE and they will gladly share..

If we are going to debate Windows AD with SCCM and GPO for PC with Apple's MDM for a Mac makes Apple easier to maintain then that is laughable. 

Until then we do not know what we are comparing. A $2500 Mac with a $1200 PC? Like I said previously as well, the Macbook keyboards on IBM's fleet of 200,000 machine's must be perfect..

billgates:

 

Until then we do not know what we are comparing. A $2500 Mac with a $1200 PC? Like I said previously as well, the Macbook keyboards on IBM's fleet of 200,000 machine's must be perfect..

 

You seem to be obsessing over the keyboard thing. You do realise Windows notebooks can have hardware issues too, right?

Personally my MBP keyboard (first gen of the new shape) has been flawless, so your assumption about 200,000 with no issues may well be correct.

Its hardly a scientific peer reviewed study is it.  :-)
Could easily be complete BS .
IBM : we've spent all this money on Mac's , lets release some attention grabbing headlines that put us Back in the spotlight and make
those who made that decision look good.

Ive never met anyone who didnt like their Mac
Ive met plenty who hated Win10, Win8 . but,
Get a new GOOD spec Win10 PC , setup correctly , and the workstation experience would be just as good as a Mac for most Business use (I'd bet).
Ive seen plenty of companies with PC workstations so old, clogged up and underpowered that its a painfull experience for my 15minutes checking it, let alone 
every day of the week.

IBM is/was in partnership with Mac, so what really is the truth here .

Stat's can be made to mean anything. The assumption people are making is that PC's and Mac's users are being used on the same tasks for equal amounts of time, therefore reduced tech support requirement for Mac's must mean Macs are more reliable. But they haven't actually qualified that. Where I work, Mac's are a status symbol for the execs who rarely use them for work so naturally have much lower tech support needs. 

Besides, I'm pretty sure you can't trust productivity stat's out of IBM - this is the the same outfit that provided stats proving working from home improved productivity heaps and then 5 years later reversed the decision. 

billgates:

 

Not sure in which corporate world besides IBM's will claim that Mac takes less effort to maintain fleet of workstations. Marketshare speaks volumes. How anyone can even claim that Apple is enterprise friendly is laughable. Go to Apple and ask for a roadmap and they will tell you to get lost. Go to Dell or HPE and they will gladly share..

 

If we are going to debate Windows AD with SCCM and GPO for PC with Apple's MDM for a Mac makes Apple easier to maintain then that is laughable. 

 

Until then we do not know what we are comparing. A $2500 Mac with a $1200 PC? Like I said previously as well, the Macbook keyboards on IBM's fleet of 200,000 machine's must be perfect..

 

Times are changing. The endpoint really doesn't matter as much as it did 10 years ago. With the rise of the likes of Okta, not everyone sees AD as a must have going forward. Like all things in IT, it's always moving and you're best to keep an open mind. 

I'd be keen to know what has put you off MDM for Mac? I'm a jamf Pro admin, along with maintaining our Windows machines with a mix of Manage Engine Desktop Central/AD/GP etc, and find the both pretty easy to look after. I'd love to have autopilot for our windows machines, but we can't justify Azure AD for that.

BlinkyBill:

 

Well, for IBM it’s about the cost of maintenance. 277k of machines to maintain adds up very quickly. In the workplace, it’s about productivity of outputs - downtime applying forced patching, anti-virus etc etc all affects productivity. 

 

I see people writing about Windows Updates as if MacOS did not have updates to apply, as if these did not require restarts and as if things didn't break at all on MacOS. 

We have lots of examples - batteries that explode, keyboards that double- or triple-click, MacOS updates that fail because now it incorrectly checks for available disc space, etc.

alasta:

 

I'm amazed it's taken this long for large employers to figure out that issuing complicated technology to non-technical employees is terrible for productivity.

 

I don't see Windows as "complicated" or Mac as "easy". Both use similar windows-based desktop metaphors. In both you have to open explorer windows to copy files from one place to another. Both use folders. both have buttons to maximise and minimise windows. Both have quite complicated control panels (or "Settings").

The main difference is the number of devices available to connect, device drivers as a result, etc - all that managed corporate policies can deal with quite easily.

Large corporations can manage Windows as effectively as they can manage MacOS - actually better, based on the number of tools available for this.