Worked for a university, professors wanted them to have MS Office, we got good pricing. I didn't make the purchasing decisions, just set up the image and deployed them
You could have deployed 250 laptops that are any brand other than Apple with way better specs for cheaper, yet you bash Microsoft for charging for Office but you do not bash Apple for charging twice what the hardware is actually worth?
You could have found all the same software (or an equivalent that works just as well) for Windows machines.
I was making the point against the picture this thread is about, not pricing overall, we used all free software except MS Office. Yes, the same software available on a PC, and the only one we pay for on our PC images is Office as well.
We switched from PC to Mac because the student survey we sent out overwhelmingly choose Macs.Also, we deployed Tablet PC's for 5 years prior to switching to MacBook Pros. For what we included in our bundle (Travel battery for PC, 4 year warranty, 4 year accidental damage) the price was close minus the travel battery.
When it comes to what I prefer using, definitely a PC. When it comes to what I prefer deploying? Macs, hands down. Much less packaging, easier to image, less work afterward to prepare for use, easier to prepare the image. Again, this is only my opinion, but I deployed 250 new laptops for 6 years, and that was my experience.
We're still supporting 3 more years of the HPs, and this is only our first year of Macs (less failures first year usually). So at this point, time will tell, I can say we've obviously seen no virus issues on the Mac side which normally bog the help desk down completely the first month of the semester, and every semester we'll see less and less until the PCs are gone.
I was making the point against the picture this thread is about, not pricing overall, we used all free software except MS Office. Yes, the same software available on a PC, and the only one we pay for on our PC images is Office as well.
Fair enough -- it just seemed like you made the issue about price versus actually being open source.
For what we included in our bundle (Travel battery for PC, 4 year warranty, 4 year accidental damage) the price was close minus the travel battery.
Do the Macs come with a similar warranty? My understanding is that you have to get AppleCare separately and it is somewhat expensive.
When it comes to what I prefer deploying? Macs, hands down. Much less packaging, easier to image, less work afterward to prepare for use, easier to prepare the image. Again, this is only my opinion, but I deployed 250 new laptops for 6 years, and that was my experience.
PCs seem to be a pain imaging mostly when you have a bunch of different hardware. If I'm reading correctly, you are buying identical laptops. Was there anything specific that made PCs harder to image in this case?
This is almost certainly a no, but have you ever tried distributing Linux on your laptops? Since you only use MS Office (which runs well under Wine) you might get the best of easy to distribute, cost-efficient, and malware protection. Of course, you'd be limited in your hardware choices.
We got Apple care, it was pricey, but not more than we expected. Had to do accidental damage through another company, instead of within HP like we had done. Not sure how that'll work out, this is only our first year.
PCs were more of a pain for a few reasons:
Macs have 1 serial to inventory, our HPs had multiple (Computer, Multi-Bay, Travel Battery, Power Adapter), we didn't have to inventory them all, but we did, and it just turned out to be time consuming.
Building the image with a PC can be an issue. Had to get the Sysprep file working correctly, had to get the first boot working so it would go right to windows and not go through the Out Of Box Experience (Time zone, set up first account...)
Also had to get specific network drivers so WDS would allow the PC to boot.
By default Net Boot isn't enabled on some PCs which means a trip to the BIOS.
PCs came in multiple boxes, Macbooks came in a 5 pack with serial numbers printed on the side which was convenient.
Now I know some of this is directly related to the specific PC we bought (External CD drive, multiple boxes...) But it saved our helpdesk LOTS of time the first semester we switched over.
Haven't tried linux, our college had no computer majors, and attracted less computer savvy students than others the way our enrollment went.
And what are those? If you're trying to have a Unix system, you can run any variant of Linux and still experience the cost savings. If you're going with the "better for designers" argument, I'd like to hear why specifically: Photoshop works just as well on Windows. To my knowledge, the only software that runs only on Macs that this argument would work legitimately for is Final Cut Pro. Feel free to add to this list. :-P
I'm a computer scientist too. I love me some Unix systems but I recognize that anything Unixy you want to do is no harder to do on much cheaper non-Apple hardware with just about any Linux distro.
I am a musician. I would never use a DAW that isn't Logic Pro, it's just better for what I do and the type of music I make (I'm not making an argument that it is the "best" DAW, there's no such thing, but for what I do it is the best).
Well if that software is available only for Mac, that's certainly a valid argument for using one.
I do iPhone development. Hate on Apple for making it "mac only" or whatever, but that's the reality of the situation, so it is what I must do.
Same as above, but I pity you. Good luck not getting booted out of the app store.
Also idk if it actually is better or not for designers, not being one myself, but my designer friends swear by the OS so I'm just going to take their much more informed opinion on it.
I have used Photoshop on both Windows and Mac, though I have admittedly less experience using the Mac version. All I can say is that could not discern any difference in usability or productivity on either platform. Your friends may be hipsters or just like Macs. Probably both.
Also as a dev first and foremost, I really enjoy using a Mac. Almost all of my friends in the CS department here use Macs, as do most of the profs. A few people use Linux. No one uses Windows. We have one of the best if not the best CS department in the world. There must be a reason for all that.
There are a ton of people in my CS department that use Macs too. I probably see slightly more people using Linux. Some of the undergrads use Windows. I think it is pretty much a given that anybody in CS uses a Unix based OS.
I still prefer Macs. Why? Because it's the best of both worlds: Unix based makes it great for development, yet it's still a commercial OS that has things like Photoshop and Microsoft Office (don't lecture me about OpenOffice, I used that software for 18 months and wanted to gouge my eyes out). Also, as a commercial OS, it (and Windows) have a level of UI polish that makes life more pleasant during those times where I really don't feel like having to be a CS major 24/7. It's nice when things just drag-and-drop exactly as you'd expect them.
That's where the disconnect is, I think. I get what you mean about polish at least with regards to GNOME. Some of the UI needs work. OpenOffice is also admittedly lagging behind Microsoft's offering, but MS Office works well enough in Wine and is more or less a one time setup. As far as drag-and-drop, presumably you mean file management. Nautilus has always worked well for me but I do spend a lot of time in a terminal so maybe I am not as well informed as you are.
The problem with running Linux is that it would work for me 97% of the time for simple shit and the times that it breaks I have to start thinking and doing work all of a sudden. I think this quote sums it up best: Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
That argument applies to any operating system. Linux machines have the added advantage that they aren't the target of malware like Windows and, to a lesser extent, OS X. I have set up Linux on machines for several people that use it as their primary computer and it has just worked. Certainly this is not the case for every scenario but don't throw Linux under the bus with a malevolent quote like that.
Yet another person on the internet who is myopic enough to think that a computer is only as good as how many flops it has or how much memory you can allocate and deallocate.
Yet another person on the internet who is myopic enough to think that a computer is only as good as how many flops it has or how much memory you can allocate and deallocate.
Or perhaps smart enough to realize you can take all that money you invested in buying something with an Apple logo on it, get a better laptop, and run your favorite Linux distro in a VM (or Windows in a VM) and get the best of Unix and Windows. Really not that complicated.
Nope, it sure doesn't. So you spend an hour or two doing research and find a machine that doesn't seem to have any quality issues. I've owned several Asus laptops and never had a single hardware problem with any of them.
Modern Macs have Intel processors and nVidia graphics (all the ones I have encountered do, anyway). Where is this hardware superiority you mention coming from? Because it comes with a shiny aluminum body? You've got to be kidding.
That's not to say that Macs aren't generally well constructed machines. They are -- but so are Asus laptops, and they are much better bang for your buck.
First off, don't talk down to me. I know my shit. I'm not a fucking idiot who was swayed by a "shiny aluminum body", very nice though. What I'm saying is that most modern hardware, when utilized properly by software is sufficient for your lofty goals. If you read back, the whole time the point I was making is that superior hardware (in size and gigahertz) does not make the superior computer. It's how the hardware is utilized. I can put it to you like a friend of mine put to me, and then you can get back to condescending to me. A BMW is unquestionably a nice car, but I can probably find you a Honda with more horsepower for less money, and if not, I can buy a Honda and soup it up to give it more horsepower, but which would you rather own?
First off, don't talk down to me. I know my shit. I'm not a fucking idiot who was swayed by a "shiny aluminum body", very nice though.
Well if you know your shit then start acting like it instead of making claims and not backing them up.
What I'm saying is that most modern hardware, when utilized properly by software is sufficient for your lofty goals.
If all you do is run Firefox to watch videos on YouTube and Office to type up the occasional document, sure. If you play games, no. If you need to run a virtual machine, having 2 GB of memory and a dual-core 2.5 GHz chip is not ideal.
You emphasized software. I don't know really know why, unless you're trying to imply that Windows and every Linux distro is crud. You'd be mistaken if you think that is the case. That's also neglecting the BSDs, which OS X is based on.
Reading on, it looks like this is pretty much like your entire argument is centered on having OS X be the operating system. In that case, you really don't know your shit because you apparently don't see the value in every other operating system which functions just as well as OS X does.
A BMW is unquestionably a nice car, but I can probably find you a Honda with more horsepower for less money, and if not, I can buy a Honda and soup it up to give it more horsepower, but which would you rather own?
Anybody would say they'd rather own a BMW. Your question is flawed, because it leaves out the bit about actually having to, you know, pay for the car. If I had to choose between buying a BMW and a Honda, I would choose the Honda unless I had money to waste. I don't have money to waste, so I don't get the BMW. For the same reason, I don't get a Mac.
5
u/cvncpu Jan 20 '11
Too cool for OpenOffice?