General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2194172

    PCs to Replace Mac?


    by chrispycookey ·

    We have a few Macs in our office specifically for our graphic design and publications group. Our IT Manager mentioned to the group yesterday that once we implement Vista, there won’t be a reason to use a Mac for anything as Vista will do it all and be compatible with everything. I skeptical. I must have missed something…

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3111900

      IT manager needs a drug screening.

      by fungus-among-us ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Does the IT manager know the difference between an Operating System and applications? Vista (beta) is a new operating system for IBM PC based systems, that does not magically change the way the applications work. PCs have their strong suits and MACs have theirs, but I doubt one will replace the other in the near future.

      • #3210247

        I don’t think the IT manage needs a drug screening

        by labarker ·

        In reply to IT manager needs a drug screening.

        … he’s just protecting his job. The more Windows boxes he has
        to look after, the more work for him and his team. Replace all
        the PCs with Macs and he’d have to get rid of some of his team.
        You really have to be an idiot not to be able to both use and
        look after a Mac. I’m the IT person for three Macs (have been for
        over 10 years) and I taught myself. But none of my friends can
        look after their PCs. They have to go running to a dealer when
        software goes sour, and it seems to me they are always having
        trouble. Also, they don’t use their PCs nearly as much as we use
        our Macs, which are on all day every day, yet these PCs break
        down within a few years.

      • #3209779

        Bluring the lines

        by esalkin ·

        In reply to IT manager needs a drug screening.

        Apple is moving to the Intel chip-sets. Fire-wire, USB; etc. make parts swappable. Mac OS already does Windoze. Redmond get all their “wow” ideas from Cupertino. In a few years there will be very little difference and besides everyone will be on Linux anyway :0)

        • #3211030

          Linux then under fire??

          by crayolakidd ·

          In reply to Bluring the lines

          Keep in mind that there is little security difference btwn XP SP2 and most Linux distros in the way of security – the real difference is that Windows makes a much more sizable target due to its popularity. Now consider consider the reprocussions if what you are saying actually happened. If a mass exodus to Linux did occur, not only would it then be a more prime target, a large portion of hackers are Linux based making it very easy prey. Given also that Windows also has a massive head start by way of available antivirus software, and you start to see the ugly picture….Linux siply wouldn’t be prepared to fight off such an onslaught.

          Before all you Linux fanboys keep encouraging ppl to abandon Windows, you may want to take the time to consider the consequences of such advice 🙂

        • #3278788

          Linux Security Mac security

          by janjop ·

          In reply to Linux then under fire??

          Everyone moving to Linux is unlikely due mainly to the
          applications that are unavailable. Graphic designers want Adobe
          apps, Macromedia applications, and apps like Quark not the
          free replacements like Gimp for those apps. They want native
          versions not “WINE” emulations of their apps. To date Linux and
          Unix works with the 3D community, Some high end 64 bit apps
          like Discreet Flame (now Autodesk Flame), and the technical user
          / server community but not the graphic design community or
          the general computer user community. Apple OS X is the
          exception because of the apps available, the nature of the Mac
          community, and the fact that OS X doesn’t require Unix tech
          abilities to operate.

          The security issues are not on par with Windows because of the
          design of the system. For example executable files in Windows
          don’t need much user intervention to launch. Microsoft
          continues to ignore this issue! if a virus hits a Linux or a Unix
          box the likelihood of it doing much damage to the system
          is far less and the likelihood of a Unix user being unable to cope
          with the situation is far greater because Linux/Unix users have
          to be more tech savvy to install, use, or upgrade their systems at
          all (OS X users are the exception). Also some of this has to do
          the way user accounts are setup in Linux or Unix. Most Windows
          users have full admin access to a system most Unix users
          reserve a Super User account for risky admin stuff. Much of the
          security issue has to do with the invisible running background
          applications in Windows, virii and spy ware can run as
          background applications leaving Windows users unaware, this
          doesn?t really happen in Unix. Lastly most virus writers are
          familiar with Windows vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer.
          Internet Explorer hasn’t been ported to Linux, exists for OS X but
          is no longer available for OS X and is unavailable for other
          versions of Unix. Existing Mac viruses are generally Word Macro
          viruses (designed for the PC user), and Windows viruses that Mac
          anti virus software detects as a courtesy to the Windows
          community. (Mac users don?t want to spread Virii)

    • #3111865

      Get a list of applications

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      See if the same applications are available on the PC (don’t guarentee they will be available for Vista on release day either).

      I used to do desktop publishing on the Mac, and have done the same on the PC. Not every program has an exact equivalent. Some of the equivalents have the ability to import files from Mac programs – test to be sure it doesn’t mess up the files.


      • #3113526

        Not just applications…

        by Anonymous ·

        In reply to Get a list of applications

        But also who you interact with. We have a MAC in-house. I will admit, I am not a MAC user – nothing agianst them really (well now that their maouse has more than one button) just can’t justify the more expensive hardware, personaly – so I don’t remember the precise details but, we work closely with a publishing firm, that is MAC-only. We have found that some documents are not 100% compatible between windows versions and MAC version of the software (don’t remember now if it was Pagemaker, or something else). As a result, it has been more cost effective to keep the MAC around to ensure that we get the desired end result.

        Just one more gotcha to keep in mind…

        • #3168368

          …And backups…

          by mikemoyle ·

          In reply to Not just applications…

          If you have backed up/archived any of your projects onto disks
          (Zip, JAZ, CD, etc.), were they Mac-formatted disks, or Windows-
          formatted? Macs, after all, can read Windows disks, but the
          reverse is not necessarily true. (I think that there may be a
          program available that adds that capability for Windows but,
          again, will it be Vista-ready?)

          …And fonts…! Do you use any specific fonts on the Mac(s) that
          you don’t own on the Windows side? (Don’t tell the IT guy about
          TransType, make sure that he “understands” that you’ll have to
          buy all new fonts! And make sure that you give him the
          INDIVIDUAL font prices – no bundle discounts, here!)

          We’ll give you enough ammo to keep those Macs!

    • #3111844

      Is there a business case for this?

      by mr.macadam ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Some designers have switched to PC. More power to ’em. If one of our designers wants to work on PC, then they get one. If they want to work on MAC, then they get one.

      I don’t see any of our designers switching to Windows EVER. And I wouldn’t make them.

      • #3113694

        ‘Reduced Support Costs’

        by juleslt ·

        In reply to Is there a business case for this?

        As always, the business case for reducing standardising the hardware and software in organisations is ‘reduced support costs’.

        There is some truth – support staff that are capable and comfortable on working with PCs, Macs and Linux systems cost more. Historically speaking, getting them all to play together has also been harder than picking one and sticking with it.

        On the flipside, I do think many organisations now lack anyone with enough knowledge of the alternatives to perform meaningful cost/benefit analysis. (When you see people buy a Windows server to run Apache or JBoss, you do have to wonder if they’ve costed it against a Linux machine running the same).

        • #3113668

          Not exactly True

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to ‘Reduced Support Costs’

          I can’t talk about Linux but getting a Mac connected to a PC is as
          easy as falling off a log.

        • #3113535

          Again, not exactly true

          by marie.kennedy ·

          In reply to Not exactly True

          As a network engineer who is fluent on the Mac and PC platforms, I have to disagree. We often have issues setting up Macs to print (and keep them printing) to networked printers. And Macs don’t always like to play nicely with network shares and some networked software. Oh, and backing the Mac OS servers up is a pain.
          So, while it’s all doable (with a few hic-ups here and there), it’s not as necessarily as easy as falling off a log.


        • #3113516

          Not For ME

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Again, not exactly true

          I’m certainly not the expert you are, but it took me less than twenty
          minutes to set up a home network with four computer (2 Macs and
          2PC) and a network printer. Granted, It’s not a big business, but it
          sure was easy.

          I have in the past worked in a large corporation that was all UNIX
          and Mac. I never saw a problem doing this and I used to hang out
          with the IT guys all the time.

        • #3113445

          It all depends

          by marie.kennedy ·

          In reply to Not For ME

          No expert here. Just a working stiff. When it comes to a network, it all depends upon the setup. Macs are great when they work. When they don’t they’re a pain. But all computers are like that. Any time you mix platforms you’re in for some fun.

        • #3167994

          Not an expert either…..

          by crackajacka ·

          In reply to It all depends

          I dont claim to be an expert on this topic but here at the house we have a network consisting of 4 macs(2 powerbook g4’s, one mini, and a 400mhz g4 powermac) and 3 Pc’s 2 running xp pro and 1 running 2000 server. They play together quite well, only problem we had was a slight one with using remote desktop client that microsoft provides for pc control from a mac.

        • #3168809

          Into which server environment?

          by pheck ·

          In reply to Again, not exactly true

          Sure, getting the various flavours of OS to be nice to each other can be a little more complicated than just getting two computers with different OS’s hooked up and sharing files.
          If you throw in shared volumes, intranet/internet, mail, other server based apps, media streaming and printer sharing it can get a bit more fussy.
          It will make a difference as to what type of server environment you’re operating from, or even if you’re running multiple server OS’s.
          With complexity comes complications and that’s not a singles OS’s strong suit.
          Bring on open standards! so we don’t have to spend time and effort on finding adaptors, work-arounds and patches to get the square pegs to fit the round holes (and I don’t mean make everything on one OS, Mac, PC, Linux, etc).
          Paul H

        • #3168694

          I Defer To You

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Into which server environment?

          You’re way beyond me in terms of experties.

          I must say that I can only learn from what you have to say and it
          makes sense.

          Bring on open standards!

        • #3211911

          Not exactly true… which OS version?

          by lzdwren ·

          In reply to Again, not exactly true

          I would believe you if you are talking about MAC OS 9
          or below but you are NOT correct if you are talking
          about MAC OS X

    • #3111765


      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      As already said, Macs have their place and PCs have theirs. Until the Vista release has a proven track record, don’t try to implement any changes and the cross platform software may not function the same or offer the same options as it’s counterpart. Don’t try to force users to change hardware just to take up some small advantages overall but do little to advance their individual usage.

    • #3112764

      You?re not the one who “missed something”

      by robertk2 ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I don’t think it was YOU who “missed something”, it sounds like your IT manager is mistaking the ability(?) of Vista’s enhanced graphics to make the desktop visuals look “pretty”, with the OSs’ ability to actually run a decent graphics design program with the same level of production capability of the Mac based programs. That functionality will not be inherent in any of the third-party graphics software available upon Vista’s release, at least that I’ve seen so far. It will be up to the 3rd party software designers to build-in any “enhancements” for the Vista system to make their software competitive with the Mac versions, and personally I don’t see that happening for launch.
      I also hope he’s not planning on switching immediately upon release, as there will (historically) be at least a six month period of patches and updates before Vista will work reasonably well enough to count on for “essential” systems. So unless your company can do without your design and publications group for that long, urge him to keep the Macs for awhile anyway.
      Only you can tell if it’s wishful, or delusional thinking on your managers’ behalf.

    • #3113692

      Not Compatible

      by juleslt ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      In short, Vista will not be compatible with OS X software.

      IT managers, it seems, love to ‘rationalise’; we have a guy here who had a need for a really beefy Windows machine – a senior developer ($80k plus) who was losing maybe an hour a day sitting around waiting for code to compile.

      We specced the machine we needed; the IT department came back with something cheaper and lower spec. Sometimes they are very short-sighted when it comes to saving money.

    • #3113680

      or maybe the opposite

      by gdelt ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      how about replacing our pc’s with mac’s ?
      both sound good !

      • #3113627

        Windows on a Mac

        by jbjeffe ·

        In reply to or maybe the opposite

        I was in an Apple store and was told a Mac can dual boot to a Windows OS without running Vitual PC. I have not seen this but it does sound interesting. They even have a 2 button mouse now.

        • #3113623

          Where Have You Been?

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Windows on a Mac

          Not only do they have a two button mouse but a scroll wheel too!

          Boot Camp (a free download from Mac) lets you you boot in either
          OS X or Windows but some company is offering a program that lets
          both run at the same time. I prefer the former.

        • #3113489

          Lots of Old News and Bad Info

          by davemori ·

          In reply to Windows on a Mac

          Some of the folks posting to this thread are really not knowledgeable about Windows solutions on the MacOS.


          Like multi-button mice, they been around on the Mac for decades ? you just buy them from Logitech, Microsoft or some other third party, not Apple. All the multibutton USB mice have worked seamlessly on Macs since the 1998, thanks to some terrific work by the Evangelism Department at Apple.

          Virtual PC has been out there for the MacOS ? the big issue is that it does not presently support the Intel based Macs, because the code is designed around a PowerPC instruction set. Intel based Macs don?t have PowerPCs inside.

          This garbage about Macs not doing software virtualization well it shows that the writer does not understand what is happening on a Mac or a PC when virtualization is occurring.

          There are different approaches to virtualization.

          VMWare does not presently support the Mac OS, but it illustrates one technical approach to virtualization.

          VMWare?s approach is to have its own very thin OS and hardware emulation sitting above the hardware layer, with Windows sitting directly above it, and Windows apps sitting on top of Windows.

          Generic drivers in Windows are loaded to allow Windows to work well with the emulated hardware in the layer below.

          This will generally always have better performance than the older approaches to virtualization, but a good part of VMWare’s performance comes from the fact from massive RAM and (on the server side) SAN storage.

          VMWare Approach Diagrammed:

          Windows App
          MS Windows w/Generic Drivers
          VMWare (Thin OS and HW Emulation)

          Microsoft?s approach is an older approach with VirtualPC. They bought this product from Connectix, and yes it has been working fine on the Mac OS since 1997, supporting all sorts of versions of Windows. It just, at present, does not support Intel based Macs, because the code is designed to work with a PowerPC Instruction set and Intel based Macs do not have PowerPC processors inside.

          Parallels has the same basic conceptual approach, but they do not have to do as much hardware emulation because of the fact that the Intel based Macs have a huge deal of hardware commonality with their Intel based Windows PC counterparts.

          Both approaches still run emulation as an app on the Mac OS.

          This approach is always going to be slow, because it demands a lot more horsepower out of the processor. It only works a little better on Windows PCs because there is not as much involved in hardware emulation and OS translations to run older versions of Windows on top of a newer version of Windows.

          This is not ?spaghetti coding? it is ?lasagna coding? ? with lots of layers between what you are working on and the actual hardware.

          Microsoft/Parallels Approach

          Windows App
          MS Windows w/Generic Drivers
          Parallels/Virutal PC (HW Emulation running as App)
          Mac OS X
          Macintosh Hardware

          Boot Camp is not virtualization.

          It is a redirect at boot time to a volume or partition with the appropriate OS on it. If any of you remember or have used V-Communications Partition Commander, Boot Camp is more similar to this product than anything else.

          Its advantage is native performance. Drawback is only one OS at a time unless they figure out a clever way of modifying Boot Camp so you can switch between an OS, similar to what Apple did with the Houdini Cards in the 1990s.

          Again, similar to the VMWare solution, generic drivers in Windows are loaded to allow Windows to work well ? but this time with actual hardware on the Intel Mac.

          Boot Camp Approach

          Windows App
          MS Windows w/Generic Drivers
          Macintosh Hardware

          – OR –

          Mac OS X App
          Mac OS X
          Macintosh Hardware

          Native performance is always best, as long as the OS and apps are not required to share RAM, Cache and other system resources with a simultaneously running, different OS.

          The important thing to remember is that these solutions address different needs and segments of the market. In that sense, they are compliments to each other, not competitors.

          What each person wants out of compatibility is different.

          One thing which Boot Camp addresses very well is the market for games or the consumer market. It is indeed nice to have a single computer that can boot to one OS or the other. Gamers don’t tend to have a need for multiple apps or multiple OSes launched.

          It also addresses the market of the multiplatform developer or consultant or the QA tester who wants a single machine that occasionally boots to another OS. Maybe the K-12 education market as well, where funds are scarce and solutions may be on one platform or the other.

          Web based apps and integration products like Thursby Systems’ DAVE have made a lot of the Mac to Windows integration issues go away since the late 1990s.

        • #3113448

          Good explaination…

          by bluepen ·

          In reply to Lots of Old News and Bad Info

          Good explaination and distillation of the issues. My dream machine is the soft-switching OS, but I may be dreaming there. I too use the three-button mouse on the G4 laptop I use in my job and would not be without it. They are both more functional and easier for Windows people to adabpt to; one less thing to learn on the Mac.

        • #3210170

          Good explaination…

          by bryony ·

          In reply to Good explaination…

          Here is a link to an article about Crossover, a soon to be
          released effort based on the WINE project. It will allow Windows
          applications to run on a Mac in a standard Mac window without
          buying a copy of Windows itself. The Windows apps show up in
          the Dock and the Application folder, just like they were Mac
          apps. Don’t know how performance will be, and evidently it will
          not support every app out there – but for sure all the common
          ones. And because you dont need a copy of Windows it will be
          actually cheaper than the free Bootcamp!


          I’ve been running Parallels for some weeks now and it functions
          well, but does require more RAM – if I have some processor-
          intensive work, like scanning multiple slides at 4800 dpi, make
          sure to shut off Parallels (and any other process not needed to
          scan) to free up all the memory you can. It is nice though to copy
          and paste between the OS’s and run the mouse freely back and
          forth. And you can place files and find and open them easily
          from either OS.

          Oh yeah- I’ve been using 4 button mice (trackballs actually) from
          Kensington on Macs for ten years now. One works like a
          Windows right click.

        • #3168582

          More News!

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Lots of Old News and Bad Info

          I’m sorry that I don’t have the information at my fingertips, but I
          read that someone is either about to release or has already
          released a piece of software that will allow OS X and Windows to
          run at the same time on an intel Mac.

          If I can find the article, I’ll post it.

          Personally, I don’t mind rebooting.

        • #3167995

          It’s called Parallels Desktop for Mac…

          by flarich ·

          In reply to More News!

          Runs many operating systems, including Windows XP. I’ve used it and it is reasonably fast for a 1.0 release (some issues with USB devices)… (

          Freeware users can try q (

    • #3113624

      Odd – the right tool for the job…

      by nocubes4me ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      We’re actually heading the opposite direction.

      With the release of the Intel Mac’s and their native Windows capabilities (although we’ve decided on Parallels Workstation, as it’s quicker), our CFO and IS director plan on broadening our Mac base.

      Their primary concern is that the Intel Macs won’t have the same longevity as their predecessors, and it’s that longevity and the history of “build ’em, run ’em into the ground” that brought them to the analysis of “lifetime cost”.

      Their analysis covered cost per user from 1999 – 2005, tracking the intial expense for hardware and software along with the ongoing expenses (upgrades, person-hours spent supporting the machine, and person-hours lost productivity during any outage – upgrade related, general maintenance, and “unplanned maintenance”). Those of us below their levels already knew that the Mac boxes were likely to have a higher percentage “still in service” – we have only recently retired our G-3 laptops (with some resistance – people seemed to get attached to those much like certain series of IBM Thinkpads earned a die-hard following), but have no X86 machines afield older than Pentium M and P-4.

      Endgame – for workstations, the Macintosh population incurs less than half of the upgrade time spent across three years and other than software issues (not related to the OS) less than 5% unplanned outages – primary cause was either power supply or hard disk failure. For laptops, the initial expense was somewhat higher in the first three years (1999-2002), but nearly equal from 2002 forward (we buy higher end laptops for the Windows users, so it’s nearly “oranges to oranges”), with the Macintosh population requiring only a quarter of the ongoing maintenance time and having nearly zero unplanned outages (again, primary downtime causes were disk or power supply/battery related).

      With that kind of data, and with the ability to put Windows on the newer Macintosh boxes, the CFO (who’s not tech-ignorant – she was an engineer before becoming a CFO) said it was “pretty much a no-brainer”.

      We’ll see how those stats hold up in another six years.

      • #3168625

        The Three year Cycle

        by bluepen ·

        In reply to Odd – the right tool for the job…

        In the school district I am working for now we have a three-year replacement cycle for what we call “front-line” machines; the main labs, teachers and administrator deskstops, etc. This includes PC’s and Mac’s both. Longevity is a misnomer in today’s environment. Right tool for the job is more like it, even for schools. We have to train students to be ready for the big, bad world, so we try to give them the most up do date software we can, along with machines to run them. As a result, we are in the same rat race as everyone else. With almost 1,000 computers that is a lot of rats.

        • #3169243

          Not really the 3 – 4 year turn around cycle

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The Three year Cycle

          Is due to Tax Benefits as the computers here get devalued at 20% Per Annum and after 3 to 4 years they start costing money for the companies schools and the like.

          With Schools or other Government Departments it also helps that they have written the value down to almost zero and can still sell them off at a reasonable price and that money goes straight back into their Budgeting so they tend to end up with better stuff than what they had previously particularly when the Discount for these places is taken into account.

          At one Government Department that I used to do work for they could sell off a 3 to 4 year old computer for slightly less than what they were paying for the replacement units and with the money set aside for the replacement they where coming very close to making money by constantly upgrading. Naturally the people in charge syphoned off the profits to use elsewhere but there is nothing new in that is there?


    • #3113569


      by ideaguy ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Vista is NEVER really coming out. If it ever does, the IT Manager will have likely been tuned in by hundreds of viruses and security threats and other new OS issues every OS comes out with.

      Switching to Vista??? that’s rich…. hilarious….

    • #3113529

      Just the Opposite

      by bluepen ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      We are looking at putting in the new Mac Intel processor machines. We have over 900 macs in the school district and only about 100 PC’s. I would love to run Mac apps on my desk and have the ability to switch over to PC, which I need to do for our accounting package. The IT Manager is living in lala land.

      • #3113495

        More… Windows on a Mac

        by manskybook ·

        In reply to Just the Opposite

        This must be a very windows-centric group. The talk on the Mac
        SysAdmin lists is either dual-booting Intel-Macs, or, better yet,
        running windows in a virtualization environment. Most
        everybody there sees migration in the opposite direction
        (Windows to Mac), though not necessarily wholesale changes.
        This is also here-and-now, with fully-functioning (beta)
        software from Apple (Boot Camp) and others.

        Since the hardware (i.e. the CPU) is now the same, there’s no
        performance hit. Vista will not be even close to offering the
        same opportunity, and Apple has repeatedly stated that they will
        not now or ever provide a version of the Mac OS that will run on
        anything but Apple hardware.

        • #3113451

          You’re Right, But

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to More… Windows on a Mac

          You’re right but too many people and companies have too much
          invested in to old Windows/PC world. Switching to have the best of
          both worlds is just too traumatic. Even the introduction of Vista
          seems to be more then some of them can handle.

        • #3168762

          Now if we are using XP on Mac hardware

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to More… Windows on a Mac

          the Mac just becomes expensive hardware.

    • #3113499

      same old story – still not true

      by davemori ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I recall both Microsoft and many IT managers saying the exact same thing about Windows 2000.

      Just a facade and an excuse for him to try to drive his own Windows-centric agenda.

      It got my predecessor thrown out of the company because he did not understand that an OS is not a solution, and he did not understand that IT is a corporate service, not a corporate dictator — but things have only been better since his departure.

      The apps don’t magically and radically change for the better and roses don’t start blooming in skunk cabbage patches just because Microsoft delivers some lame new version of Windows.

      The MacOS has a lot going for it in font metric accuracy, scientifically correct color synchronization and management, and display accuracy with Postscript — plus some huge tools for working with both compressed and raw digital video and stills.

    • #3168758

      Whist I’m all for moving away from Mac’s in the workplace

      by mjwx ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Vista is not the way to go. Move to a Linux platform or Windows 2000 or XP if your manager insists on a windows platform. What it sounds like to me is that your manager has read an article about how “good” vista is which was written by the discrete arm of Microshaft marketing and decided it was time for some generic leadership (you there, do ).

      Contrary to popular belief, you can do everything you can do on a Mac on a PC running Windows [b]or[/b] Linux. The key is breaking the Apple cycle, Trained on a Mac, work on a Mac, get tech support to die of a coronary trying to figure out a Mac, rinse and repeat. If we can just convince people that a PC can do everything a Mac can and more for a significantly reduced price (even with windows).

      Once I defeat ignorance, I will to bring peace to the middle east and end world hunger. 🙂

      • #3168696

        No Reason To Change

        by yobtaf ·

        In reply to Whist I’m all for moving away from Mac’s in the workplace

        As a user who does some work on a PC and some on a Mac (it’s
        all design and media stuff), to me, there is no comparison. The
        Mac is much easier to use and the system is much more
        transparent (at least to me). I can actually find what I’m looking
        for instead groping through a mysterious labyrinth or oddly
        named files in (what appears to me) bizarre places. (You see I
        have to do my own IT work.)

        The GUI for the Mac OS is always two steps ahead of Windows
        and more user friendly. But despite my prejudice toward Mac, I
        need some programs that until now were only available for the
        PC. Being self employed I don’t have the same considerations
        that large companies do. So I will probably never buy a PC again
        though the BOX Technologies workstations are very attractive,

        My consideration are very different from companies that need to
        supply inexpensive workstations to lots of employees. Though
        you could possibly use Mac Minis. I shouldn’t even be putting in
        my two cents because the majority of readers here are way out
        of my league in the IT field.

        In my humble opinion (and you know what opinions are worth),
        the world is something like 97% PC/Windows and most PC user
        have never used a Mac. On the other hand most Mac users are
        familiar with Windows (they have to be). But my point is that
        most companies and IT people have a lot invested in PC/
        Windows, and since you can do the same things on both
        platforms (now more then ever), why should they change the
        way they do business? To switch is probably more trouble then
        it’s worth and there’s no real reason to. If your boss want to get
        rid of the Macs he’s free to do so, but the Mac users will suffer.

        For me, like most Mac supporters, I know that I will always have
        all the the nice little innovations that Windows or Vista wouldn’t
        have until the next release (if then). If it’s more expensive (and
        that’s debatable) we’re willing to spend the money to have the
        privilege of using the Mac OS.

        • #3169182

          Mac’s are not Admin friendly

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to No Reason To Change

          As a network admin who takes care of the marketing/design section on our domain, Mac’s are not very easy to network with other OS’s (Even getting it to work with Linux is a bit of a pain as I have recently found out). Error messages are hidden from the user (not good when your trying to troubleshoot) so I have to use the terminal to dig into the system.log file (good thing that I know a bit about Linux systems) which I need to access using SU (normal users cant access the system messages only those caused by the user). Even the system log is not a lot of help as apple support leaves a little bit to be desired (obscure error codes).

          Mac’s don?t suffer less errors than windows, they just have less error messages. Often I find myself doing really obscure things (like taking the machine off the domain) to find out simple errors (the user had changed the time zone). The lack of any error message at all is very frustrating to say the least.

          Mac users, I wouldn?t say that all Mac users could use a PC. Our graphic designers are lost on windows, which is actually set out quiet logically. Your documents are in My Documents, programs by default go into Program Files, Windows contains the all the Windows system files and the start menu helps to find all your installed programs (Linux, now there?s a file system that can get complicated if you don?t know what your doing). Windows is meant to be idiot proof, although all MS have done is produce better idiots. A PC user can use a Mac as well as a Mac user can be expected to use Windows.

          A lot of Mac users will say that their Mac is a lot more user friendly than a Windows PC but most Mac users have never opened the terminal let alone drilled into the full file system (*nix based). As an admin I find Mac’s User friendliness to be a membrane hiding the admin unfriendliness underneath (once again we all know what opinions are worth).

        • #3169173

          When You’re Right You’re Right

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Mac’s are not Admin friendly

          How can I argue.

          You’re right.

          But I still smell something.

          Maybe it’s an opinion?

        • #3169174

          Lets Shake Hands

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to Mac’s are not Admin friendly

          DEAR mjwx,

          I don’t think it fair for me to have the last word, so say what ever
          you want. But I had enough for today in the Mac vs Windows Wars.

          They both stink too.

        • #3168199

          I know, but I disagree

          by mypl8s4u2 ·

          In reply to Mac’s are not Admin friendly

          I agree that windows does breed better idiots but in terms of being easier, I don?t agree. I?ve had clients put files just about all over the place. Just because something defaults someplace, doesn?t mean people can?t change it (mostly by accident). And programs are not always placed in the ?program file? folder. And how about downloads? Most downloads download to ?documents and settings\%user%\local files\temp\xxxx? sometimes it?s impossible to find the file at all. And when they choose a different download location, windows tends to remember that location and not reset to the default.

          With a MAC, you need to get used to it. I find the layout is more logical and easier to navigate than a PC but like you said, ?an opinion?.

        • #3168094

          Actually In Agreement

          by yobtaf ·

          In reply to I know, but I disagree

          I actually agree with you.

          Most users (and I don’t mean IT specialists) on both platforms
          don’t have a clue. Personal computers are really much harder to
          maintain and use then 90% of the people realize and the
          computer industry sort of hides the fact.

          What’s worst is the growth of little businesses that have
          sprouted up to fix computer problems for these people. I have
          seen some of these guys fix one problem and create others.

          In reality, if you know either OS with any degree of proficiency,
          you can setup your computer to work just the way you it to.
          Sadly the biggest challenge with Mac and MS has become, who
          can make the prettiest GUI.

          When I first started working on serious computers, we were
          running IRIX on SGI boxes. IRIX, at that time, had a Mac/
          Windows like interface laid over the OS, so beginners would be
          able to use it. Anybody who knew what they were doing would
          deactivate it and do everything in command line. Many did it
          because memory was more expensive then and they wanted to
          save it for more important things.

          As far as I’m concerned, the software is the important thing but I
          realize most people can’t deal with computers unless they’re
          made friendly. So we have IT people to keep things running.
          After all workers should just come in and do their job.

          What annoys me the most is both OS’s are trying to be all things
          to all people. It’s sort of a waste of resources, though I
          understand that Vista is trying to dealing with this by offering
          something like eight different flavors. Meanwhile Mac, which
          usually wins the beauty contest, is focused on a more specific
          market, which limits it use for a more general audience.

          This has gotten way off the topic, please excuse me.

        • #3168069

          Well as one of those Little Business

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Actually In Agreement

          I can’t agree more I walked away from the big end of town into [b]Semi Retirement[/b] so I could support Small to Medium Business and offer them the service that I couldn’t when I worked at the Big End of Town. But that failed miserably within 12 hours I had 10 of my previous staff come visit me and ask for jobs, naturally they all brought along a large client base so my [b]Retirement Fizzled.[/b] 🙁

          Some of the things that I’ve seen done by these people horrifies me no end but the best/worst so far has to have been one Insurance Broker who brought an off the shelf HP and took it back to the store that he bought it from for repair. Apparently they lifted a copy of his Client Base off the computer and what prices he was charging and on sold these to one of his competitors so within 6 months he didn’t have a single client left.

          When I see things like this you can’t complain about the [b]Professional Standards Displayed[/b] as there aren’t any but proving it for the courts is a different story. I just wish I could have proved beyond any doubt in the [b]Legal Sense[/b] with that one as the shop involved needed to be taken down for allowing that to happen.

          But I did try hard and didn’t even charge for the work. Unfortunately when I had sufficient proof he no longer had any money left to pursue the case. :_|


        • #3222067

          RE: Mac’s not being Admin friendly

          by gentlerf ·

          In reply to Mac’s are not Admin friendly

          While I haven’t worked in the corporate arena as a network Admin, I do have some small experience with getting Macs to talk with PC’s and visa versa. The biggest issue is the file and print servers. On the Server side, MS has Mac compatible add-ins for Macs to access the server. Novell has a Mac client. If the Server is Linux, not too much of a problem there as there are free clients for Macs through

          Yes, anything doing with cross-platform interoperability is going to take some effort. I won’t deny that. But what I wish to iterate here is, the Mac side of the equation is not as difficult as you want to make it seem. Yes, they do have different issues but nothing as insurmountable as you seem to want others to believe. Trust me on one point, Windows is not idiot proof as I have run across a number of idiots who should never be let near a PC, let alone any computer.

          Nuff said for now.

      • #3168201

        Graphics on a MAC

        by mypl8s4u2 ·

        In reply to Whist I’m all for moving away from Mac’s in the workplace

        You can never beat the graphics on a MAC. How many years now, Windows can not catch up to this. I don?t care what anyone says. If you honestly think Windows can do better in graphics than a MAC, obviously you don?t know jack.

        • #3168398

          Havent seen DX10 have you.

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Graphics on a MAC

          or a version of Linux that has been made for high end graphic’s.

          Mac has no real answer to Direct X 9 or even open GL. Infact it has been beaten for years by specialist Linux distobution (a niche market of their own).

          Please have the facts before you go shooting off your mouth

        • #3168359

          Speaking of which…

          by mikemoyle ·

          In reply to Havent seen DX10 have you.

          You are correct that DirectX i Windows-only, but OS X has (I
          believe) implemented OpenGL from the get-go.

          You might want to read thses articles on OS X support for OpenGL
          before you go any further:

      • #3167353

        mjwx, I use a Mac because

        by labarker ·

        In reply to Whist I’m all for moving away from Mac’s in the workplace

        you’d have top be real dumb not to be able to learn how to use
        and look after a Mac. I’m my own IT person. I look after three
        Macs and I taught myself, simply by using the help menu. Not
        one of our friends can use their PCs properly, never mind look
        after them. They all have to go running to (usually) their dealers
        when software goes sour.

      • #3167352

        mjwx, I use a Mac because

        by labarker ·

        In reply to Whist I’m all for moving away from Mac’s in the workplace

        you’d have to be real dumb not to be able to learn how to use
        and look after a Mac. I’m my own IT person. I look after three
        Macs and I taught myself, simply by using the help menu. Not
        one of our friends can use their PCs properly, never mind look
        after them. They all have to go running to (usually) their dealers
        when software goes sour.

    • #3168678

      I am missing something too

      by kiltie ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Not quite sure what you are getting at here, could you explain please?

      Although statements like “Vista will do it all and be compatible with everything.” show an extremely naive attitude. Currently Vista is still in Beta, and the final product may well change, or…. certainly will change, if M$ finally start listening to feedback from users, instead of riding roughshod all over them.

      Vista is so much bloatware and eye candy (say many critics), that many major corporations (the bread and butter of M$ market) are leaning towards a *nix base or other alternative, or, at the very least, holding off for a few years to see what happens.

      I cannot see the justification also implied there, that Vista will do everything that Mac can do, and do it better, hence making Mac systems obsolete in one fell swoop.

      ….. and as for being “compatible with everything.” ……. rotflmao!!!!

      No Way Jose

    • #3169175

      Like comparing a BMW to a Kia

      by gsosa70 ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      Macs running Mac OS/X are far-superior machines than any
      Windows-based PC. Vista is a bad copy of OS/X integrating
      features that Apple has had for a long time. The only thing that
      keeps Windows alive is the wide spectrum of applications available.
      Of course Apple can’t compete there. Whoever who has seriously
      used a Mac knows I’m right.

      • #3168215

        Mac or PC?

        by cweber ·

        In reply to Like comparing a BMW to a Kia

        I work with both MAC and PC’s daily. I have a few people in house who work in Photoshop, Quark etc.. When I took over this network I was told that the reason that the MACs were not on the network was that they couldn’t get them to talk to Novell. I have since removed most of the visible portions of Novell and they don’t seem to have any problems.

        I use Photoshop and Illustrator on both Windows and OSX quite frequently and there really doesn’t seem to be a huge difference on the user level (I believe that we can thank Adobe for that). There is a pretty big difference in the time spent rendering images on the MAC.(The MAC that was twice the cost.) It’s just plain slower. I also get a mysterious lag when dragging objects between monitors on the MAC. That lag just isn’t there on the PC.
        The rest of those MAC users are still on their MACs but for some reason they keep using an old PC for their Email and internet. They are getting paid enough by the company that it would be ridiculous to take their MACs away from them and make their work more difficult. Not because the Mac is better, but only because that is what they have always worked with. We aren’t asking them to do a job that we could get any conformist off of the street to do, and if their MAC makes them more comfortable, and they aren’t put off by intermittent lack of communication with their printer then why should it matter to me?

        As for Vista…. I really can’t afford to spend that kind of money for every user in the building to get a new, faster PC. It’s not going to happen here.

        • #3167333

, sounds like you work for

          by labarker ·

          In reply to Mac or PC?

          a real cheapskate company. (Been there, done that.) Only an
          outdated Mac is slower than whatever the latest PC is.

        • #3167332

, sounds like you work for

          by labarker ·

          In reply to Mac or PC?

          a real cheapskate company. (Been there, done that.) Only an
          outdated Mac (like my own B&W G3) is slower than whatever the
          latest PC is.

        • #3167328

, sounds like you work for

          by labarker ·

          In reply to Mac or PC?

          a real cheapskate company. (Been there, done that.) Only an
          outdated Mac is slower than whatever the latest PC is. I have
          been using a Mac for 20 years and haven’t once considered
          changing, even though I now have to put up with an outdated
          machine, because at least a Mac is easy to look after. All my
          friends have to go running to their dealers when their PC
          software goes sour.

      • #3210262

        Might want to re-think that one

        by crayolakidd ·

        In reply to Like comparing a BMW to a Kia

        Before jumping on the band-wagon with the “Vista copying OS/X lines”, you may want to do your homework…the simply fact is that many of the ideas seen in OS/X appeared conveniently after they were laid out for Vista…truth is I’m sure there has been adoption of each other’s ideas on both sides of the fence.

        “Whoever who has seriously
        used a Mac knows I’m right….” Speak for yourself – I’ve used both systems years and personally I don’t believe you’re right at all. Both OS/X and the up-coming Vista (we’ll forget XP as a bad joke) are great systems and have their uses. I nudged my partner into getting one of the new G5 iMacs for security reasons (and hours/days saved cleaning out viruses and spyware), but for sheer performance (dollar for dollar), especially in the digital graphics realm, I simply can’t look past my PC, which is now running Vista like a charm 🙂

    • #3168208

      crazy is as crazy does

      by mypl8s4u2 ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      According to posters here and other places on this web site, Vista (maybe as a beta) isn?t compatible with anything let alone taking over operations on the MAC sector. Your IT dude obviously doesn?t know apples from oranges. How sad that you hired him, obviously not knowledgeable. Anyway, the current reports state that current software will either not load or is incompatible with VISTA. This is not to say it won?t be like that at launch time, but M$ has a track record of putting the cart before the horse and I doubt this would be any different.

      • #3168480

        MAC vs. PC…. here too???? Sigh

        by fungus-among-us ·

        In reply to crazy is as crazy does

        I don’t think the original poster wanted this to become a MAC v PC debate…. which it has become. I see this same sort of debate between AMD vs Intel users, Domestic vs. Imports (beer and cars), 9mm vs. .45… comon people… basically, we need to let the original poster’s “IT Manager” know that s/he needs to stop reading the M$ marketing hype and read more of the “Tech”

        P.S. If you are the IT Manager discussed by the first post… Sniffing Glue at work is probably frowned upon. Save a model plane, stop sniffing!

    • #3168474


      by dormerod ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I thought the Mac WAS a PC (thats Personal Computer not Politically Correct)!

    • #3168393

      Apple?s lack of a true 64-bit system

      by sscan1 ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I?ve been a Mac user and fan for 20 years, but I?m fairly disenchanted with Apple these days. I can?t stand commercials that use a ?Fear? based marketing tactics and Apple?s commercials have become just like the IBM commercials I?ve hated for years.

      Hey Apple, you want to talk smack. Get a full 64-bit system in place, than I listen to what you have to say. Until then, I refuse to even consider OS X as an equal to Vista, much less XP-64. Apple?s not perfect and we know Microsoft isn?t either. I hold Apple to a higher level. I ?m a big fan of consolidation and Apple?s lack of a comprehensive 64-bit solutions is unacceptable.

      I would make the same decision as the manager. True Apple fans should show their dismay with Apple?s lack of a true 64-bit system, by supporting Vista in the enterprise. This would at least motivate Apple to get off their buts and get things done. Don?t get me wrong, I was delighted to hear of the port to Intel, but the lack of a true 64-bit system or plan just ticks me off.

      Honestly, I hate the problems I encounter with XP especially with the recent patching glitches. And, so what if I?m an MCSE at least I have perspective. When the true 64-bit systems come, I?ll get one and get Apple certified.

      • #3168327

        Mac OS X Tiger, 64-bit, GA since April 2005

        by ·

        In reply to Apple?s lack of a true 64-bit system

        Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger Server supports 64-bit applications (large address space) and has been GA since April 2005. The Power Mac G5 supports up to 16 GB of RAM with up to 4 processors, shipping since October 2005.

        Q1. What is there about this system that does not meet your requirements?

        Q2. What is it that you want to do that you cannot do with the current GA Mac OS X systems?


        Apple Announces Mac OS X Server “Tiger”

        Apple Introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual

        Mac OS X “Tiger” 64-bit Support

        Power Mac G5 Technical Specifications

      • #3166957

        odd perspective… ?

        by manskybook ·

        In reply to Apple?s lack of a true 64-bit system

        Well, at least you said it – Apple has *some* 64-bit capability.

        64-sit systems are hardly the norm; Apple has already included
        some of that capability in an operating system two years before
        Vista; “Leopard” may beat Vista to market and equally may
        include what you want (WWDC is just around the corner, so stay
        tuned for announcements); and Apple has a better track record
        than MS for implementing new technology, especially through
        the OS. I shudder to think what actual capability Vista might

        That noted, please recall that the top-of-the-line Intel Macs
        have not yet been announced (both towers and servers); and
        Apple has already provided 64-bit hardware for a couple of
        years. They’ve at least been working on the problem, not just
        promising capability.

        (and screw the TV ads – from Apple and everyone else; they’re
        not aimed at people like us)

    • #3168346

      PCs to Replace Mac? I’m sceptical too …

      by labarker ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      and I wish I could be a fly on the wall when your IT manager has
      to employ more IT people and they all land up tearing out their
      hair. Better find a new job, Beta80Cooke. I really feel for you.

    • #3167646


      by species8472 ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I don’t think pc’s will replace mac’s neither will mac’s replace pc’s for one look at the above statements. Yes pc’s are 80-90% or what ever it is of the market BUT, those who use mac’s probaly will never change over to pc’s they are too loyal and I proably will stick with my pc’s cause i have to much invested in my computers and have no reason to buy Mac.

    • #3210263

      Would have to agree on this one

      by crayolakidd ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I can feel the daggers in my back now…hmmm. As a graphics and digital arts teacher, and as someone who has been giving Vista one hell of a work out, I have to agree with your office manager. Although Macs have long had a reputation as the “graphics tool”, I have long found one has to spend twice as much to get the same performance as from a PC, and forget even going the way of even the newest line of iMacs. My 18mth old Thinkpad runs rings around my partner’s brand newG5 iMac, and as for my main PC….. When looking to update my PC last year I ended up opting to get mine build to suit my graphics requirement. I spent just over $3000 AU, but to get a G5 with the same capabilities I would have been looking at nearly $2000 more again – how can any business justify that sort of expenditure, especialy as Vista is shaping up to finally give Macs serious competition.

      I have to say I am not a Mac basher ( I have never particularly approved of the way Microsoft goes about its business), bt I am certainly under no illusions as to their true capabilities either

    • #3222105


      by teirich ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      MAC are MAC’s and MAC users are MAC users.

    • #3220874

      Video editing Mac versus PC

      by heikki.rauhala ·

      In reply to PCs to Replace Mac?

      I have several PC and I?m doing almost everything on them
      -except video editing there Final Cut Expess and a powerful Mac is outstanding.
      Never freezing the computer or other errors , rendering in a fraction of the time of the job at a PC,plenty of transactions, tools and utilites included, that you have to buy extra for a lot of money from Adobe, Pinnacle, Sony, etc.

      The extra cost of purchasing and maintance of a Mac is paid when editing video half an hour a week I still do most work an 2 PC:s because the company standard on Network access, servers, applications, etc

      Henry R

Viewing 21 reply threads