Uncle Dave says:
John has written about how he thinks Apple might dump their OS for Windows. He’s also written about how he thinks Apple should make their OS open source. Today, one of the posts on our blog discusses how Vista might be the end of the road for Microsoft’s OS. Throwing all of this together along with a few other bits and pieces has given me an idea I’d like to toss out. No data or conversations with IT managers, etc. to back it up, just 30 years experience with the computer biz by a guy who’s owned both PCs and Macs.
Suppose I am an IT manager who has been waiting for Vista to upgrade my 300+ computers. Many of the old ones, bought 3-5 years ago to run XP, are crapping out or aren’t worth upgrading. More recent machines should work fine with Vista. Suddenly, MS announces not only another delay, but that to get full use out of Vista, each machine must have far more advanced technology than even the most powerful of my power users posses. In short, all of my machines must be tossed and new one purchased, plus I have to buy copies of Vista.
Then comes Apple with the Intel Macs. Not only do they run a Windows-like OS, but they will run all of my Windows apps I have now, in some cases, faster than on a PC. When Vista comes out, it’s a good bet someone (if not Apple or even MS, despite protestations) will figure out a way to make Vista run on the Intel Macs.
Then I have to ask myself, what exactly am I going to be able to do in Vista – in a business environment (ie, no games, etc) – that 1) I can’t do now; 2) doesn’t have (or will have) Mac equivalents; 3) can’t be run eventually on an Intel Mac?
Would I be better off replacing my aging PCs with Intel Macs which can run both OSs? Isn’t the stability, smaller size, better protected, quality built Mac a better choice? Assuming the “common wisdom” that a PC is cheaper to buy, set up and maintain than a Mac, doesn’t that disappear with the increased hardware requirements for Vista? Isn’t the fact I can get this today (admittedly, on a Mini, but soon on more customizable Macs) rather than maybe next year a big factor?
I could go on, but I hope you see where I’m headed. In a business environment, given what Vista will provide versus what an Intel Mac now provides (much less what future versions of OS X will add), how many IT managers and their check-writing bosses aren’t looking at the Mac and seriously evaluating it as an alternative to Vista on a PC?
Forgetting about the Mac or Windows addicts, evangelists, hardcore fanatics and the like, and only concentrating on what each platform provides to medium to large businesses for whom cost of ownership, interoperability, usability and other, standard IT criteria rule, tell me where I’m wrong.
And, taking the next, big step, having OS X on the machines for all to see and try, perhaps users begin to like it better. IT managers, liking the added security, etc of OS X, start wondering why they need Windows at all as developers port their currently Windows-only software to the rapidly increasing user base of OS X on an Intel Mac. And so on…
Is it possible this is the scenario Steve is envsioning and Bill is having nightmares over?
I would love nothing more then to see M$ fall. Ballmer is such an idiot and Gates could do so much more with his money. They have had their time in the sun, time to move on.
Take a look at the new Jobs bio.It’s title Icon”The greatest second act in business history”can be taken at least two ways.I got the feeling that the author thought Bill Gates is a P***k and Steve Jobs is a talented P***k.His point was that Jobs is going to eat M$ alive if they give him half a chance.Oh yeah Ballmer is a stupid P***k.
I have to admit I’m tempted to buy a dual core mini. I’ve always been anti-Macs because I build my own and you cannot reasonably and cheaply build your own Macs. But that dual core mini is cheap enough, and powerful enough, that I’m thinking about taking the plunge. The fact that I can run Windows on it makes it all the more tempting.
All of this running Windows on a Mac sounds good, but it doesn’t really help people like me at the moment. I’m a graphics professional and would need an intel-based Power Mac G5 that would dual boot Windows XP and OSX. When is Apple going to put Intel chips in the Power Mac G5 machines? I’m tired of waiting.
“When is Apple going to put Intel chips in the Power Mac G5 machines? I’m tired of waiting”
Uh, never. Apple is not using the G5 processor anymore. You mean that style computer with the expandable case design.
# 4. I think the quad core G5’s on sale at the will be powerful enough to keep any graphics pro happy for a couple of years to come, by which time all the bugs (because there will be some, oh yes there will) will have been ironed out of the Intel Macs. I mean, quad core, 16gigs of ram, quattro fx graphics card…. hang on I’m getting sweaty under the collar! Seriously though, I am also a graphics pro as well as a musician who uses Logic Audio, and I am NOT gonna get an IntelMac until they have been used and abused in the wild for at least 2 years.
Three Words: Existing Active Directories
I use Macs in a Windows company, and I am the default computer guy. I’m not going to change over to a OSX/Vista environment because of four reasons:
1. It’s too much work to maintain two systems.
2. It is too much work to train the staff to be Mac efficient.
3. Half of them will stick with Windows and never use OSX.
4. I can buy 2 cheap Dells for the same price as one basic Mac Mini system. Half of them would never know the difference.
#4,
This fall when we see the release of the new intel architecture (conroe or woodcrest).
So, PV, you’re buying 2 Dell desktops w/80gb HD and optical drive that r/w/cd’s and dvd’s for $300 each! Ready to network and w/DVI out to monitors. Your corporate price vs. Mini otc retail.
You must have a real friend inside Dell.
At this point, migrating from one OS to another can be extremely daunting, even on a machine with dual-boot capabilities (an either/or OS choice). But with the increased speed and hardware-level I/O of next-gen virtualization, dual-booting will be replaced with simultaneous-booting of different OSes, and suddenly migration to another OS can be accomplished over a longer term, without the pain of having to reboot from OS X or Linux to Windows to use a particular program.
When OS/application migration can be accomplished at a more leisurely pace, then Microsoft’s entrenched position holds less value as a deterrent to change. I think increasingly robust virtualization is the key to any hope of loosening Microsoft’s grip on the OS market anytime soon. Intel’s Vanderpool-enabled chips are already being sold, and AMD’s Pacifica chips are right around the corner. As useful as VMware and similar solutions are today, they’ll be more so in the near future with those new CPUs.
When OS X can run in a virtualized environment alongside Windows, Apple will have a better chance of stealing market share from Microsoft if it’s up to the task.
#7 and #8 nail it. The real answer is “none of the above.”
Most IT managers aren’t going to be looking to upgrade to Vista once it comes out. It’s unproven and probably has some nasty bugs that will need to be shaken out once it hits mass distribution. XP works fine. I may get a copy to screw around with, but it’s not going out on the computers I’m responsible for for a while regardless of hardware. It would need compatibility testing with all the software we use at minimum, and there’s really no pressing need to upgrade anyway.
Switch to Mac OS X because of this? Hah! Just because there are equivalents of most Windows packages doesn’t mean I or the people above me want to pay for everything again. Nor do I want to struggle to get the Windows-only apps to work under emulation. Nor do I want to deal with user retraining. I’m already casting a skeptial eye towards the next version of Office just because the interface is so radically different and it will cost people productivity and frustration to adjust. Not everyone here is computer savvy, but they know what they’re used to. Even if it’s “easier” they’ll still have to figure out how to do everything again and all they want to do is work, not play with software. I’ll get it if I we happen to have software assurance just so we don’t have to pay for it later. I’ll screw around with it but will probably just sit on it for the near future unless it convinces me otherwise. There’s just no need to upgrade here either. At least 2003 gave us a much nicer version of Outlook.
And as #7 says, I don’t know how well OS X will integrate into our existing AD setup. It’s quite customized. I’m sure there may be something on the Mac end to help in this regard, but I haven’t looked into it because of all the reasons I already mentioned.
XP is fairly stable and a known quantity, both on my end and on the user end. I keep the machines patched and the users in limited accounts so spyware hasn’t been a big issue. I don’t see a compelling reason to change yet. It has to be proven and worth the upgrade cost. Neither Vista nor OS X qualify.
I’ll probably get Vista for my home PC though, just as an enthusiast and someone who likes eye candy. They’ll have the opportunity to convince me that way but eye candy isn’t good enough to do it at work.
Re #10, the Dell is still cheaper than a Mac, even if it isn’t half the price, #8 and #12 also have good points – Most computer illeterates just want things to work EXACTLY the way they (halfway) understand, and will complain about even minor interface changes (IE to Firefox, for instance – if you ignore the tabs Firefox looks much like IE) – Even if something is far superior, they never want to hear, see or use it.
Just because it is possible to run both OSX and XP on the same machine has nothing to do with whether businesses will run both. It is the software that makes a difference. If a user of Office can use [fill in the blank OS] and get absolutely 100% compatibility (not 99%, not 99.9%..100% in both UI and file format) with no additional user training or support costs then the machine nor OS matter. But that is a huge “IF” and it is still not there.
Suppose your company is using Quickbooks. There might very well be a Quickbooks for Mac (no idea if there is). Yet, there are going to be differences between the two versions not the least of which is the keyboard (don’t ask me what Apple was thinking when they came out with the Mac keyboard). The interface will be slightly different. Options configured outside of the application such choosing printers and such will be different. All that adds up to additional maintenance and support costs for the business. Other than flighty sales people, I would *never* recommend a company allow for a mix of operating systems for users or certainly not within a single department. The additional cost to support multiple OSs is a four alarm headache.
The only way that OSX will get traction in medium to large business is if they make substantial inroads to developers such that a developer is able to make the killer app on OSX faster than on Windows and I simply don’t see that happening anytime soon. Jobs is too busy on his knees in front of the RIAA and MPAA teat.
#1, Bill give more of his money away than any other 10 execs combined. It’s okay to be rich you know. You don’t have to give so much away you’re not rich yourself anymore. In fact, I would call that incredibly stupid. If you don’t get to keep most of it for yourself, there’s no point in earning it in the first place.
The rest is a yawn. The OS does not matter. Solving business problems matters – who cares what OS you use to do it. Multiple OSes cause Global Warming.
I think there is an emerging market in writing editorial colums that hackle Mac users sensibilities. As far as I can tell there was gonna be a mass migration away from windows and beigh boxen (any minute now really) for the better part of the last 20 years. With the exception of Windows 95 I have never really detected any serious desire from the public at large to upgrade. I venture to say, the vast majority of computer users dont even know what a macintosh ~is~. Let alone contemplating a switch.
I mean really, Microsoft had trouble getting business users to upgrade to XP from 2000. It is safe to simply forget about getting em to switch to an entirely different operating system. If you havent ever seen the effect this has on an orginization, and suggesting this, I guess I can forgive that. But I was part of several switches from mini computers to PC’s back in the day, and pretty much no matter how bad windows gets, suggesting a company of any significant size switch from windows to Mac is sheer lunacy. Crazy talk. I mean really, if you havent ever experienced this, stop talking now, you are making yourself look silly. All your feature for feature, and boot camps and virtulization layers do not change this. It is a people issue, not a technology issue.
Vista will be adopted by business pretty much the same way XP was. When a worstation dies, or a new workstation is needed, the new computer will have it pre-installed. For a year or so after Vista is released, tech support will be called in about a month after the new computer arrives and they will downgrade it to XP. After that the users will start to be familiar with Vista, and will even start to like it.
Finally, my suspicion with Vista being late is this, when Microsoft says Vista isn’t ready, they dont mean any technical details(we all know Microsoft has no moral dilema releasing software that is buggy), they are talking about users. Microsoft senses no demand from users for more, thus the money they spend on advertising its release doesnt get the most bang for the buck, and create a huge surge in sales at release.
Vista being late is a marketing problem, not a technical one.
A few additional points:
– People are getting freaked out about Vista’s hardware requirements keep forgetting that the really outrageous ones are for the full Aero effect, with the transparencies and shadows and frosted glass and such. It will have lesser graphics modes to provide a more XP-like experience on machines with lesser hardware. I don’t think you’ll need a top of the line machine unless you want the best eye candy.
– Maybe it’s because people who haven’t done IT don’t think in these terms, but the cost of upgrading is significant in all senses of the word. The actual monitary cost is multiplied by the number of machines you have, so something at say $85-150 can turn into tens of thousands of dollars at a medium sized business pretty easily. Then there’s the practical cost of every user having to adjust to the new software. That really has to be justified. I think Vista will probably be okay here, it’s Office that has a steeper hill to climb because it’s a bigger change and those changes will be more consequential in people’s day to day computer use. And finally there’s the IT cost of actually rolling it out. Imaging helps a lot in that you don’t have to install everything from scratch every time, but you still have to apply the image to each and every computer. I think there are systems that let you push them out remotely, but we don’t have that so it’s still a lot of physical time and effort. While desktop software can be upgraded with less pain, operating systems cannot.
– This reminds me that there is at least one nice thing about Vista from an IT perspective: it supposedly is a lot more imaging friendly. I need to build a separate XP image for each and every computer model because it will usually choke if all the hardware changes out from under it. It just keeps rebooting. Vista supposedly detects this, throws out the hardware information, and goes back to the generic profile it uses during installation so it can redetect the new hardware. If this works as advertised it would certainly be helpful to me, but that’s not a reason for me to roll it out.
– Going back to the difference between IT and individual users, what you should be getting from this is that organizations are very conservative. There has to be a clear benefit for a major upgrade to take place. We won’t do it just because Microsoft or whoever says jump. There are big costs associated with a transition that are minor for an individual who can be more free. A good example is a company that tried to get us to switch to them for web service. They eventually matched the price we were currently getting, and would give us an additional discount for the duration of the contract we chose. We weren’t interested in being locked into multiyear contracts, so it was whether it was worth switching for one year’s worth of discounts and then right back up to what we’re paying now. An individual might go for it because, you know, what the hell. Free money. We didn’t because the temporary monetary benefit, which wasn’t huge to begin with, wasn’t worth the probable disruption in service for the entire office and the reconfiguration that would need to take place to transfer over. If it was a permanently reduced rate then maybe, but it wasn’t. Organizations are conservative.
95% of computers users only need an Office suite, email, browser, and maybe calender / organizer. A smaller percentage will use specialized software such as an accounting package. A very small number, maybe 5%, will use something intensive like a CAD / graphics program.
That very small number might want something faster and beefier. The rest can easily get away using WIN XP or even WIN 2K with the 80 g HD and RW / CD / DVD. For most applications, the computer HD size is secondary, provided they are all hooked up to servers and mass storage. If these machines all work just fine now, why upgrade them to Vista or OSX? When the computer reaches the end of its useful life after 3 to 5 years, then would be a good time to upgrade.
Those who use the intensive apps like CAD, video, and graphics might be better off using something like XP or even 2K. Vista will probably steal more resources then desirable.
If I was in that situation I would realize that the majority of things that need higer end equipment is eyecandy, this is an office enviorment, while it might be nice I don’t need all the eyecandy, so I will do a phased update, replace the systems that needed replaced nomatter what, upgrade the newer systems and live without the nicer visual effects, and stay on my typical replacement cycle for systems. I would not switch over to a mac for my corperation. I might get one to play aroun with myself but that’s it.
Mr. Old Time Fusion I would point out that you are talking about people, in particular ego maniacs in middle management, doing what is practical. How many of these people need Blackberries? MS will send out some strokers to say how this will synergize real time deliverables and offer seamless transition to mission critical value added corporate solutions. How can anyone argue with that?
“Suppose I am an IT manager who has been waiting for Vista to upgrade my 300+ computers”
I can assure you that no one in IT looks forward to OS upgrades, and besides what’s wrong with XP? Vista sounds like a load of crap especially for the business side of things. Users don’t need some neat glass effect, they need a stable reliable machine that just works and XP already does that. The company already has the licenses so why upgrade to Vista? Vista will be fazed in as companies purchase new computers; end of story.
I hate to tell you folks but outside of the left coast you can not find a mac dealer let alone someone who can service them.
Milo, very good point. I’m used to having to make a budget every year for expected capitol costs and replacements. Not everything on my list gets accepted and I usually need to quality or explain why something on the list is needed. Where I work, and have worked in the past, don’t just spend money for the sake of it, they spend money because it is needed.
Last job I asked for my replacement computer to be a laptop so I could work on projects at home. A Vice President suggested I just stay late. Mind you, that is one of the reason’s I looked for another job.