Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#91

Post by WayneBro »

Delmania wrote: post #80
WayneBro wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely other biases. Macs simply can't do as much as Windows can in a business setting. That's why companies like Disney and Google have to build their own systems management tools. I could not imagine running a financial services house, an insurance company or a warehouse without Windows. Even simple software like remote desktop does not exist on the Mac. Yes the Mac has screen sharing but it is nowher…

> Macs simply can't do as much as Windows can in a business setting https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/Office-... > Even simple software like remote desktop does not exist on the Mac. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/microsoft-remote-desktop/id7... https://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/ Where on earth did you come up with this belief?

It only works from Mac to Mac though. You cannot do remote desktop from Windows to Mac. That's typical Apple bullshit that will not fly in the enterprise. RDP also comes built into Windows where is you have to buy this from Apple.

Also for anybody suggesting team viewer… Come on that's a ridiculously expensive package that does not even work as well and it's not ubiquitous.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#92

Post by zeveb »

gramstrong wrote: post #4

*for a corporation. For a single user who knows their way around a Windows machine, they are not.

I can't compare Windows and macOS, but I can compare Windows and Linux.

About a year ago my employer forced me to use a Windows machine. Fortunately, I have complete control of it (it's not managed by my employer); unfortunately, that doesn't matter. It's a complete cesspit: updates are horrible; the pre-installed crapware from the manufacturer is horrible; the pre-installed crapware from Microsoft is horrible; the interface is horrible (just trying to navigate around prompts and windows is … miserable). There is literally only one good thing I can say about Windows: the background and lock screen images are really, really nice (awesome, really; just beautiful).

In every other way using it has made my life measurably worse.

Meanwhile, I continue to use Linux on my personal machines. It Just Works™, and really well. It's reliable, fast, easy to use, pleasant to use: every time I log onto my personal Linux machine I breathe a sigh of relief.

Yes, some of that delta is due to greater familiarity with Linux, but a huge amount is due to this simple truth: the Linux interface is better than the modern Windows interface (which is, itself, worse than Windows 7 was). Linux feels like it was built by developers who use what they develop; Windows feels like it was built by a marketing department who use Macs.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#93

Post by sosborn »

slantyyz wrote: post #55
mschuster91 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because new MBPs have their RAM soldered and instead of SSDs weird NVMe sticks which you can't just put into an old Mac Pro/iMac and keep on working (or trivially upgrade). Oh and you can't just simply swap the battery (I needed Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to my trustworthy Fall 2011 MBP.

>> Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to my trustworthy Fall 2011 MBP. You're very lucky you don't have an early 2011 MBP. Infamously untrustworthy. If I had waited a few months to get your model or the 2012 model, I'd probably still be a Mac user.

> You're very lucky you don't have an early 2011 MBP

I have one. Still works great.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#94

Post by kogepathic »

rpazyaquian wrote: post #28
freehunter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but I would strongly hesitate to say "basically indestructible". Macs are incredibly destructible. They have a very thin glass screen, you could bend the chassis with your hands if you wanted to, and they're not even a little waterproof. How I would describe a MacBook is "quality". It's not especially durable, it just doesn't break down over time. Other laptops break in stupid ways. The hinges snap because it…

> How I would describe a MacBook is "quality". It's not especially durable, it just doesn't break down over time. I've definitely noticed the same thing. Almost every laptop (and computer, for that matter) has broken down within a year to a year and a half for some random dumb reason. Two of my laptops died due to messed up power supply connections on the motherboard, two others died due to the hinges completely snap…

> Almost every laptop (and computer, for that matter) has broken down within a year to a year and a half for some random dumb reason.

Consumer hardware is crap because the market doesn't want to pay for anything above crap. The laptops break after a year because that's how long the warranty is, and the manufacturer is counting on you to come back and buy next year's cheapest model when your laptop breaks.

Go look at enterprise quality PC laptops, they cost as much as a Mac does, but they last just as long.

I can tell you stories of ThinkPads which I have personally seen run over by cars, and while the LCD is broken and the body is a bit scuffed, they still work with an external monitor.

> The one thing stopping me is the price point... $1600+, yikes.

Yup, and if you buy mobile workstations, you're going to pay that much. The great thing about PCs though is that they don't retain their value like a Mac does.

This is why whenever someone asks me for a laptop recommendation, my first pick would be a 2-3 year old enterprise laptop. You can pick them up refurbished for around $300, and they'll easily last you another 3.

The only disadvantage is that companies are afraid to innovate their business laptop line, so in a lot of cases you're stuck with laptops that have a 1366x768 screen while everyone else is running around with a $2000+ extremely fragile ultrabook, which has a 3K display.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#95

Post by st3v3r »

slantyyz wrote: post #53
TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree. My 2009 MBP lasted much longer, and required way less maintenance time, than any PC I've owned or used.

Of all the laptops I've had, and PC laptops vastly the outnumber Macs, I've only had one fail catastrophically. And that is my 2011 Macbook Pro, which failed right after its AppleCare expired. It had already had its logic board replaced once under AppleCare. Thousands of 2011 Macbook Pro owners had the same, now infamaous, problem, and Apple pretty much pretended the problem did not exist (until after my AppleCare ex…

Good for you. I have not had anywhere near that experience. My anecdote cancels out yours.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#96

Post by WayneBro »

greedo wrote: post #83
stirner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows' Remote Desktop feature is different from regular screen sharing. It's able to transmit data at a lower level than the actual pixels on screen, making it a lot faster.

And there's a Mac version distributed for OSX/macOS by Microsoft that's arguably superior to the Windows client. But I understand the RDP protocol. In a decent corp environment with a gigE LAN, the data compression benefits of RDP compared to TeamViewer or Apple's Remote Desktop aren't that necessary.

OK you can focus on the little nuances of whether RDP is better or not on Windows or Mac. The fact is that becomes built into windows where is you have to buy it for the Mac. You also cannot RDP from windows to a Mac. And team viewer is ridiculously expensive.

Please ignore the other fact that I stated about how big companies have to build their own systems management frameworks for the Mac though. And I think you probably know that there is a ton of other software that just does not exist for the Mac. So you're going to end up writing your own and that is definitely not cheaper than buying it off the shelf and many many many cases.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#97

Post by INTPenis »

walshemj wrote: post #88
greedo wrote: post #69

I use a Mac at work, and we've started giving managers the discretion to choose a Mac for their employees. I've been using Macs since OSX, so fairly familiar with their flaws in a corporate environment. I have to laugh at anyone who thinks Windows would be comparable or cheaper in cost to a Mac. Everyday, I hear a continual litany of woe and despair from our helpdesk about drivers, and anti-virus, and AD issues etc a…

Managed to get macs working with share point yet

Or more simpler yet, Active Directory? My brother works with Macs as a sysadmin of a university and there are constant issues getting them integrated with the rest of the PCs in their AD. They even discussed buying Apples OD to integrate with.

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#98

Post by raesene6 »

mamon wrote: post #48
jgforbes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be other biases too. For instance, if the Mac users at IBM were in largely technical roles (e.g. working on their MacOS integration service) vs large non-technical departments working on Windows machines (e.g. HR and accounting). It wouldn't be very surprising that technical departments had less help-desk complaints than non technical departments.

It really depends. Developers may have better skills, but also have bigger needs, in terms of software we need to use on daily basis. And with things like proxy servers, ActiveDirectory, group policies, or antivirus softwarem which you cannot reconfigure or turn off, working on Windows can be real pain in the ass.

Realistically though those are organisational decisions not requirements of the Windows platform. there's nothing that mandates that a windows environment must have AD/Group Policies or Anti-Malware software, you can configure a stand-alone windows 10 PC quite happily without any of those. Personally I work in a Windows environment but don't sign into a domain.

It's more that organisations demand that windows, which they understand, be configured in a specific manner.

Some might say "ah well you've got to have A-V on windows or you get malware", but at actual technical level there's not a lot of reasons that MacOS is less susceptible to malware than Windows, and indeed its rise in popularity has seen more emerge

Re: Macs are 3 times cheaper to own than Windows PCs, says IBM's IT guy

#100

Post by camiller »

rpazyaquian wrote: post #28
freehunter wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but I would strongly hesitate to say "basically indestructible". Macs are incredibly destructible. They have a very thin glass screen, you could bend the chassis with your hands if you wanted to, and they're not even a little waterproof. How I would describe a MacBook is "quality". It's not especially durable, it just doesn't break down over time. Other laptops break in stupid ways. The hinges snap because it…

> How I would describe a MacBook is "quality". It's not especially durable, it just doesn't break down over time. I've definitely noticed the same thing. Almost every laptop (and computer, for that matter) has broken down within a year to a year and a half for some random dumb reason. Two of my laptops died due to messed up power supply connections on the motherboard, two others died due to the hinges completely snap…

Flip side of the coin here, My personal HP laptop was bought on special as Windows 8 was just coming to market and the store wanted to get the older stuff with Win7 off the shelves. That would put it around late 2012, so almost 4 years old. I was getting fed up with the Win 10 upgrade and decided it was time to go full time Linux, I replaced the old drive with a SSD, not because the drive failed but because I wanted to, plus as a safety net I could always put the Windows drive back in. Sure I'd like to buy a new laptop, and am leaning toward System76, but as long as the one I have is still working I can't really justify it.
Post reply on HN