MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jun 02, 08 - 01:55 pm Comment from: Ampar

Paging Jonathan Blum. Paging Jonathan Blum.

Jonathan has stepped out. Can I take a message ?

I bet most of the tickets were from new Mac users looking for the Start button to shut down their Mac for the night.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:12 pm Comment from: ron

A jon & a bum in one name?

No wonder IT guys are hesitant to move to Macs. Windows machines guarantee continued employment.

I have said this for years and years - furthermore, a huge number of Windows problems exist for all users regardless of their abilities (due to the vast complexity of motherboards, incompatibilities, I/O issues, viruses, etc.) whereas most problems for Mac users cease to exist as their experience increases...

Complexity is the problem. Windows creates more, not less, complexity with each new version. Good luck with that!

don't forget that macs usually resell for a higher percentage of their original cost.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:25 pm Comment from: MadMac

So you DO get more with Windows! Take that you MAC guys... oh, wait...

FUZZY MATH!

Ok... so there are 1700 users.. w/o knowing what the percentage of Mac's vs PC's are, the numbers are meaningless.

If there are 1600 PC users and 1000 Mac users,this looks bad.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:32 pm Comment from: Wingsy

A large company has 100 people in IT. The company switches to Macs. 1/3 less trouble calls means they only need 67 people, and on top of that, the troubles are fixed in 1/3 less time, so they only need 1/3 of those 67 people, or 45 people. You think IT managers in PC shops aren't scared sh*itless over those numbers?

Jun 02, 08 - 02:33 pm Comment from: Wingsy

Wish I could edit a post. Do you see my typos?

Jun 02, 08 - 02:41 pm Comment from: Mr. Peabody

@The Rude Bellman,

Uh, reality check. When you've got more than two or three Macs, like maybe twenty or thirty or more, and you're using Apple XSan (or any SAN), You're absolutely going to need full-time IT pros in your company, make no mistake about that.

Our company grew from one Mac about eight years ago to 18, including laptops, and our IT department will have nothing to do with them, and so the two of us that instigated the move to Mac are stuck with what we're actually getting paid to do [not IT work], PLUS we do ALL of the network and desktop support for all of the Macs. When you've got lot's of any kind of machine you're going to need dedicated human support for that platform. 1/3 few problems that are solved 30% faster is not zero - in fact it's far from it. So if you're thinking of moving to Mac in your organization, and you're go to have more than four or five of them, get some kind of contract or full-time in-house IT support or you're going to be sorry.

I will never ever voluntarily use Windows, and Windows costs a whole helluva lot of money to operate compared to and maintain - period, but a workflow that is based on a significant number of Macs is going to need real professional support. So don't send the IT folks away, unless they're the sticks-the-mud that our IT people are, in which case you hopefully have the authority to summarily fire them.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:42 pm Comment from: loki

I don't trust their figures. We have a much smaller office (10 people) and we switched everyone over to Mac last year and we don't have a tenth of the issues we were having before hand.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:43 pm Comment from: Mr. Peabody

... compared to OS X...

Jun 02, 08 - 02:48 pm Comment from: ken1w

Only 1/3 less. They must have a lot of new Mac users asking basic questions. That explains why Mac problems are resolved faster, on average.

@ jitnol:

1600 PC users plus 1000 Mac users = 2,700 users. FUZZY MATH!

The article stated that the Mac and PC users were "in a roughly balanced Mac versus PC environment." So the numbers are comparable.

What would be more revealing is what were the types of problems occurred. If PCs tickets were for freezing/crashing issues, data loss, etc., and Mac tickets were for users who couldn't find a preference setting, then the ROI has to be skewed even more toward the Mac.

Jun 02, 08 - 02:54 pm Comment from: makemineamac

@ Mr. Peabody:

Why will your IT Department not support your Macs?

If everyone agreed that you could bring them on board when you and your counterpart did, then were they not also agreeing to learn about the platform and support you? And were there not dedicated funds to do just that? Or is it just ignorance and they're afraid to support them?

Somebody at your company should tell them they have to support everyone, you guys as well.

This is a nice study, however, there are few confounding factors that are very hard to filter out, some of them are:
1) The Mac users are smarter, thus solve their own problems
2) The Mac support guys are smarter, thus solve the reported problems faster
3) Different applications are installed on the PCs and Macs

In any event, I am not at all disputing the results, just suggesting that, on statistical grounds, there are lots of confounding factors that are not mentioned in the short summary of the results.
However, if they have assigned computer assignment was randoms for both the users and the support guys, the uncertainity would be much more minimal.

In any event, as long as Mac deployement cuts costs by any method, it is always a good reason to stop using PCs.

1/3????? Try 99% less. I know for a fact in my business.

Jun 02, 08 - 03:07 pm Comment from: Jubei

@ Ampar

Hahahaha... yeah he qualifies as one of the top 5 idiots list. We know who the others are. Actually we need to do a vote for the top 5.

Jun 02, 08 - 03:22 pm Comment from: Gordon

@ jltnol

You are either new to the Mac or don't have any experience with them. These figures are not the least surprising to experienced Mac users (ie. people who have experienced a Mac environment for any reasonable time).

"FUZZY MATH" - sounds like a clueless Windows-user comment.

Ok, here is my small perspective. Myself and mybusiness partner have a very small business that is in startup mode. It is basically me and him with a few others that we occasionally use. He is a longtime Widows user and I am a mac user.

Since the inception of the company, his Dell laptop has stopped working, and recently has gotten some sort of virus that has made it useless (and is currently "in the shop"). His HP desktop has had to be.....refreshed, that is defragged, new virus software, re-installs, etc. He currently runs an antivirus program, and an adware program all the time, sucking away cycles and costing money to purchase.

I have 2 desktop Macs (one is an old G4) and one MBP. I have spent $0.00 on antivirus software, $0.00 on anti-adware software, and $0.00 on repairs. I do not have to run extra software to protect me, and I have been virus free for years, even with the two desktops running 24 hours a day. None of my machines have ever gone down.

But at least his Dell laptop was "cheaper:

Jun 02, 08 - 03:23 pm Comment from: alansky

Despite the well-documented fact that Macs are less costly to support, IT managers around the globe are still justifying their reluctance to support Macs repeating the lame excuse that their companies can't afford "the additional cost of supporting Macs"--as though these hypothetical Macs would surely cost more to support than the Windoze computers they would replace.

Needless to say, one can't help suspect that the attutides of many of these IT types are motivated by their desire to protect their turf without having to learn anything new. Gotta be careful how you ration those brain cells!

Jun 02, 08 - 03:25 pm Comment from: Uncle Al

@ Mr. Peabody

I have to disagree. With around 40 Macs, we have no IT department. A couple of us handle the few tech support requests. If your people are using stable software, and they are reasonably competent, there just aren't that many problems. We did have one windoze machine that was required to run Alchemy archiving software. That one machine took about as much support time as all the Macs. In fact, when the disk filled up, a contract company spent six or eight hours trying to add a disk. Made me crazy. We finally got it to save to our XServe, and that sufficed until we could get rid of the whole mess.

Jun 02, 08 - 03:30 pm Comment from: MCCFR

Many years ago, I worked alongside the second-line support at BP's corporate head office in the City of London.

The entire Macintosh estate of around 1200 users at Moorgate was supported - if memory serves - by THREE guys; actually, it was even better than that because one of the guys was a workshy fop and the team leader had his head up his ass. So, in reality, they were probably being supported by around 1.75 people.

And yet - because of the strange way in which politics work in an oil company (oil price=high means exploration is more important, price=low means refining and retail is more important) - BP moved comprehensively away from the Mac in the 1996/7 period when oil was around $13/barrel and the oil guys had control of the wheel.

Admittedly, Apple didn't help themselves even then: no matter how many alarm bells were being rung at Apple's UK headquarters (and trust me, we were ringing them), we got no concessions or even any clarity regarding roadmaps or similar.

In any case, there isn't a single office of what used to be BP Exploration that hasn't increased it's second-line IT support staff by 10:1 when compared to a like-for-like user base.

Jun 02, 08 - 03:43 pm Comment from: Scot Murphy

@ Mr. Peabody:
"Our company grew from one Mac about eight years ago to 18, including laptops, and our IT department will have nothing to do with them"

That sort of crap shouldn't be allowed in any business. They were given a job to do, and they either do it or the company should find someone who will. The employees shouldn't be able to dictate to management what they will or won't do, especially if they were hired without condition. Unions are a different thing: those contracts are negotiated. But IT guys simply telling the bosses they won't follow through on a company initiative? Time to find new IT guys.

"If anything, further investigation will reveal to them that Macs will require even less support than they found in their initial case study."

Doubtful, as most tech support has more to do with users being clueless than actual tech problems. The fact that the people are using macs will not make them any less stupid.

Here's why: Go to any Mac support site and you see that a significant number of Mac problems are the result of dealing with Windows servers and computers. Remove the PCs and the Macs will have fewer problems.

At my last company, there were 55 employees, and all had Macs.

We had one IT man, and he spent 90% of his time on eBay and other non-productive activities. The reason was two-fold: first, he had an "in" with the owner so he never got into trouble. Second, the Macs worked flawlessly, and I can't remember any major problems or tasks for him other than teaching new users.

In my current company, we only have 2 Macs and 30 Windblows units. There are major problems everyday. The owner buys windows units because he thinks they are less expensive. The cost of running a windblows unit over a two year period is ridiculously high. About $600 per unit per year. Macs: $100.

I'd rather have an all Mac company running required Windblows apps via Remote Desktop Connection to a Windblows server than having them run on a Windblows client. That's the way we ran in the first company I mentioned, and it was flawless.

Jun 02, 08 - 04:00 pm Comment from: walk away Bill just walk away

90 % of all statistics can be made to say anything......... 50% of the time. Yessssss

Still 1/3 of the problems, or, as some analysts write, "issues ... because 'Designed by Apple in California' is prominent on the box..."

Migod, with hurdles like that to overcome, not to mention the Cuisinart-like appearance of older Apple computers and the need for "ethernet enablement units", I'd be surprised if the problems with Apple computers in the workplace aren't absolutely profound!
How can people WORK under those conditions, Tech-Guru Blum?! For the love of god, HOW?!!

At my school site, we have one "IT" guy to support somewhere around 150 Macs od mixed age and OS, and a handful of PCs using XP. Needless to say, the vast majority of support he provides is to keep the PCs running. He also runs our computer lab, servicing around 350 students per week (all on shiny new iMacs). I asked him once what it would be like if we had all PCs at our site. He laughed!

@Mr. Peabody,
I did not say that there will no need for any IT guys by Mac.

My point is that more work means more work.

If your decision to incorporate a more efficient system over an old familiar system meant cutting into your hours, guess what? You'd stick to old familiar. Most people work so they can make money, not so their company can at their expense. It's a fact of human nature.

Jun 02, 08 - 04:43 pm Comment from: Cubert

Only 1/3?????

Hard to believe it isn't 1/10.

"Despite the well-documented fact that Macs are less costly to support, IT managers around the globe are still justifying their reluctance to support Macs repeating the lame excuse that their companies can't afford "the additional cost of supporting Macs"--as though these hypothetical Macs would surely cost more to support than the Windoze computers they would replace."

It's not that Macs cost more than Windows to support; setting aside infrastructure issues like AD integration and/or group policy, user support is still just user support irrespective of platform because users are still user. The issue isn't greater cost--it's cumulative cost. If you're already supporting one primary platform and need to support another, that costs more money and not because they're an Apple product versus an M$ product or other *nix product, but simply because one can't pretend enterprises support additional platforms for free. Same goes for businesses with investments in Cisco gear, EMC gear, APC gear, et al. How many vendors do you really want to pay? It's a legitimate concern from the top down. This is why if a company is going to make the switch to Apple, it should be done in totality; it makes more sense to unify one's primary platform if at all possible from a costing analysis.

"Doubtful, as most tech support has more to do with users being clueless than actual tech problems. The fact that the people are using macs will not make them any less stupid."

True, especially in group policy-managed enterprises; there's just not that much users can do to machines when they're locked down. That said, PBCAK errors are not exclusive to any one platform.

@ Gordon

Actually, I've been using Macs for about 15 years now.

I just don't like articles that give incomplete information.

The cut at the top of the page says:

This particular company has approximately 1700 employees with a mixed environment of PC users and Mac users.


Mixed doesn't mean 50/50. It could be 90/10 in either direction, and that would be considered "mixed". Without knowing the percentage, the rest of the article seems pointless. If it were 90% Macs, this would be good news. But if it's 90% Pc's then it doesn't seem so bright.

You can make the numbers mean anything you want by leaving some of the facts out.

Jun 02, 08 - 05:53 pm Comment from: feral

Ed Rooney: I don't trust this kid any further than I can throw him.

Grace: Well, with your bad knee Ed, you shouldn't throw anybody... Its true.

Ed Rooney: What is so dangerous about a character like Ferris Bueller is he gives good kids bad ideas.

Grace: Mmm-hmm.

Ed Rooney: Last thing I need at this point in my career is fifteen hundred Ferris Bueller disciples running around these halls. He jeopardizes my ability to effectivley govern this student body.

Grace: Well, makes you look like an ass is what he does, Ed.

Jun 02, 08 - 07:38 pm Comment from: MobileAdmin

Any yet another weekly dose of Mac's need to be in the enterprise.

I'd like to see the breakdown of support tickets. I've had my share of hardware failures on Mac's, hard drive failure is not unique to PC's. That being said most pc's run 24/7 might last 2 years before something fails.

*if* you could have a business where the image of software is identical between MAC and PC then I'd be interested. Realizing the majority of enterprise software is likely homegrown and likely won't even function on a MAC seems to make this experiment moot unless your company is strictly run on off the shelf applications that are available cross platform. At that point I'd also be interested in benchmarking and performance as I'd doubt a MAC would excel at any high end graphic applications as the amount of video cards available is pathetic.

"Another IT Guy" and "MobileAdmin" are spouting the party line for typical IT types looking to preserve job security.

First claim as "Another IT Guy" has, that supporting an additional platform will be too much. This is completely bogus, which study after study, including this one, show. The real fear is that reduced support costs for the Mac would mean fewer and fewer PCs purchased, and IT support staff would end up being reduced.

If that doesn't fly, then try the approach used by "MobileAdmin": Claim that custom, in-house software won't work on the Mac. There are only two possibilities here.

One possibility is that the custom software is just terrible because it's written by people who don't know what they're doing. If this is true, then porting over to the Mac will be impossible, but keeping the software is also untenable. You need to replace not only the software, but the people who wrote it.

Second, the software is good. In this case, the crew that developed it knew what it was doing, so converting it to run on the Mac or any other platform should be relatively easy. Done in a matter of hours? Maybe not, but it shouldn't be a major project either. Good code is good code.

Jun 02, 08 - 10:02 pm Comment from: MobileAdmin

You miss my point (and the arguement against this "cost savings"

If the option is 1 or 2 .. it costs the enterprise $$$ to rewrite or replace said software. This isn't some little less then 100 person shop. I'm talking places with 5,000, 10,000 laptops and computers. At the end of the day you still have a large number of devices to support (on top on all the other infrastructure) so be it a PC tech or a Mac tech you will need to staff accordingly. So by your formula 1 Mac tech can support what 1,000 or 2,000 devices? Right now with 5,000 the ratio is around 350 pc's per tech where I work .. so come up with your ROI / TCO and I bet it will be higher upfront AND ongoing.

I think fair and enthousiast (though not many exist amongst them, maybe) IT people will quickly understand that they better learn how Macs and OSX goes along... or join the line of the unemployed.

Jun 03, 08 - 05:06 am Comment from: MobileAdmin

Obviously I'm on a MAC news site so I have an interest in apple products. I've been a mac user since the 80's, have a G4 at work and a G5 and Imac 24" at home (along with a 4 thinkpad's and a few pc's) so I look at myself as a technology person not an "IT person in Windows camp".

Can someone show me this huge out of work mac support group that is awating said employment chances?? Your talking about the same people already doing end user support will just have to take on learning OS X, or move onto another field. The corporate IT world is so large with many ways to earn a living. The sad reality is it's likely to be all but outsourced in the next 2-3 years.

Fanboys seem to think there is this agenda to not allow mac in the enterprise. While I'm sure there is a number of places that know nothing about OS X and the nice things apple has done a number of them are staffed by people just like us and the simple fact is apple has done nothing to pursue the corporate world, their pricing has always been higher, their focus more media driven so blame apple for the perception it faces.

I've worked in IT, and I've been on the receiving end of IT ire for supporting Macs. It was bad enough that I got out of the business. You may have been using Macs since the 80s, but if you are, you're one of a very small minority in IT. I doubt you really were though, since you're still spouting myths. Macs have always been cheaper than PCs, but IT has always pointed to the cost of the box, while ignoring the huge costs of maintaining and protecting PCs.

As for replacing software, the larger the number of computers, the lower the cost per computer to replace the software. You don't need to compile it for each machine. Compile once, then put it on a server and install it like any other package. The only way it would cost a lot is if it's poorly written, and then you know that your development team needs to be replaced.

There may not be an agenda to keep Macs out of the enterprise now, but I doubt it. I know there was an agenda when I was in IT, and looking at it from a users perspective now, nothing seems to have changed.

Oh, and it's Mac, not MAC. MAC stands for Media Access Control. Mac is short for Macintosh. It would be easier to believe you owned Macs if you knew that.

Jun 03, 08 - 08:18 am Comment from: MobileAdmin

I'll gladly send along pictures of all my Mac's from the IIe, IIfx, Mac Classic etc etc ..

Each Mac I have bought was definately more upfront then any pc I've bought but yes I rarely upgraded the Mac vs. the pc always got new parts etc, the savings is likely moot as I often had to buy a whole new Mac once I needed more horsepower.

Enterprise IT has a lot of $$$ tied up and the thought to switch platforms be it Mac or Linux is not one many companies are willing to explore to the cost.

I didn't know my trademark spelling errors is a sign or not of my past apple experience. Attitudes like on here is why apple is never going to be more than a pretentious kid with a sweater tied around their neck ..

Jun 03, 08 - 08:24 am Comment from: Asmodeus

"Attitudes like on here is why apple is never going to be more than a pretentious kid with a sweater tied around their neck .."

Maybe to IT types. Everyone else loves Apple

Jun 03, 08 - 08:27 am Comment from: Asmodeus

I don't understand the push to get Macs into the enterprise anyway. At least it isn't Apple who is doing the pushing, as they make zero effort to sell to the enterprise.

Applause to them for not cheaping out and selling to a cheapo market.

Geez, the IIe was NOT a Mac, and that is not a spelling error.

You're right though, enterprise does have a lot of $$$ tied up. It's tied up in the hands of IT, and that's just where they intend to keep it. That's why they (IT, not the companies) have no interest in switching platforms.

By the way, Macs have always lasted longer than PCs, so the claim that you needed to buy a new Mac when you needed more horsepower may be true, but it is misleading at best. The fact is that by the time you replace one Mac, you've 'upgraded' a PC several times, and replaced it twice.

You should stop writing now. You're making it more obvious that you've never owned a Mac.

Jun 03, 08 - 09:05 am Comment from: MobileAdmin

The IIe was likely around before you used a Mac/pc etc. So don't kid yourself because you bought a ipod and think Apple is "cool".

Apple does the same thing as they just stop supporting older models and force you to upgrade if you want to keep using their latest product. Not something you need to always do. And your right, my Mac Classic still works fine and I still have a couple programs on it. My pc upgrades all revolved around gaming so unsure it's a critical upgrade for most people, other then that the upgrades would be the same regardless the platform (storage, printer, monitor)

Of course the IIe was around before I used a Mac. The IIe was around before there was a Mac! You SHOULD know that, since you're an expert.

So far, I've owned a II+, a IIe, Mac 512Ke, Mac IIci, a Mac clone in the late 90s, a Cube, a PowerMac Dual G5, and an iMac G5. All bought new at the time.

As for stopping support of older models, everyone has to at some point, but Apple drops support long after you should have bought new. I can still run software written in 1984 on my G5 that I bought in 2004! Try that on a PC.