IT support ratio

I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
(nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
scientific equipment.

I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
huge.

I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.

The TOC issue needs to be explored.

"Danny Martin" <dmartinZZZ@ufl.edu> wrote on 1/10/04 3:10 PM:

> I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
> The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
> justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
> machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
> (nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
> servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
> guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
> used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
> email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
> local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
> of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
> scientific equipment.
>
> I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
> is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
> that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
> IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
> support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
> machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
> corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
> huge.
>
> I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
> connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
> laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
> the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
> minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.
>
> The TOC issue needs to be explored.

You have just described one of the reasons why the claim that PC's are
cheaper is very often a myth.

Danny Martin wrote:

> The TOC issue needs to be explored.

http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/virginiatech/

“From the beginning, we’ve only had Macs,” notes Williams. “We knew that
if we were going to put in over 500 computers, we couldn’t afford to add
a big support staff. I did my homework, and every study I’ve ever read
points out that the cost of ownership of a Mac is always less than the
cost of owning any kind of Wintel machine — sometimes it’s as little as
half the cost. The fact is, we now run a 550-machine lab, and we only
have one guy who does the support for us!"

-jcr

"John C. Randolph" <jcr@nospam.idiom.com> wrote on 1/10/04 3:48 PM:

> Danny Martin wrote:
>
>> The TOC issue needs to be explored.
>
> http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/virginiatech/
>
> “From the beginning, we’ve only had Macs,” notes Williams. “We knew that
> if we were going to put in over 500 computers, we couldn’t afford to add
> a big support staff. I did my homework, and every study I’ve ever read
> points out that the cost of ownership of a Mac is always less than the
> cost of owning any kind of Wintel machine — sometimes it’s as little as
> half the cost. The fact is, we now run a 550-machine lab, and we only
> have one guy who does the support for us!"

With the heavy amount of support for the idea that Macs are cheaper to own
in the long run (and often in the short run), why do you think so many
people believe the opposite? Do they have any support whatsoever?

In article <dmartinZZZ-64A2A0.17105910012004@sp25fe.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
Danny Martin <dmartinZZZ@ufl.edu> wrote:

> I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
> The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
> justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
> machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
> (nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
> servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
> guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
> used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
> email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
> local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
> of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
> scientific equipment.
>
> I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
> is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
> that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
> IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
> support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
> machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
> corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
> huge.
>
> I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
> connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
> laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
> the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
> minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.
>
> The TOC issue needs to be explored.

Danny, you've described what *every* TCO study done to date has shown.
That Windows, of any flavor, is more expensive to support.

Beware, johnny will chime in and say there are 500 machines where he is
supported by no one since they run XP and a few others will come forth
with something similar.

The last TCO study I know of was the Microsoft/Interpose one of 1997-8
which showed Windows to be more expensive, but this was before
W2K(really NT 5) and XP. That said, there haven't been significant
enough changes in Windows to change the costs, especially since Viruses
have become a larger part of admin costs...avoiding them and getting rid
of them once you have them.

Part of the problem is who will do a study. Most places that might be
interested make the bulk of their bucks from Windows. Would they want to
do something to jepordize their income? maybe not. in the past, Apple
has funded studies, but the PC folks cry foul, that the study is biased
in favor of Apple. So Apple can't win to some point.



Here's the reference to the Study:


Systems Management Law Technology Product News
(Volume 4, Issue 12, p. 32, col. 2) October 1997

Total Asset Administration
By Kingsley Martin

Most technology committees concentrate their budget and planning efforts
on the acquisition of next-generation software and hardware. But
hardware and software costs represent a small fraction of the total
expense of networked computers.
Accordingly, this focus overlooks the most important factors driving the
rising costs of law firm computer systems. The neglected costs are
management and labor expense.

Total Cost of Ownership

A widely accepted measure of computer expense is the total cost of
ownership (TCO) model proposed by the Gartner Group. This standard
analyzes all costs associated with computer ownership over the lifespan
of the equipment. Costs are divided into direct and indirect expense.
Direct, or budgeted expense, comprises hardware, software, operations
management, labor, development and communications fees. Indirect, or
unplanned costs, comprise peer support, casual learning and productivity
losses caused by "downtime."

A recent study by the software giant Microsoft and Interpose, a software
developer specializing in TCO tools, proposed a cost breakdown of PC
ownership (See "Cost of Ownership," Page 42). This analysis projects
hardware and software expense as one-fifth of the technology budget
(excluding unplanned expenses).

The study also compared a number of hardware alternatives and proposed
the following cost comparisons:
DOS $8,980
Windows 3.1 $7,251
Windows 95 $6,530
Windows NT $6,516
Macintosh $5,075
UNIX $12,973

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
that he will get nothing in return!"

In article <dmartinZZZ-64A2A0.17105910012004@sp25fe.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
Danny Martin <dmartinZZZ@ufl.edu> wrote:

> I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
> The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
> justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
> machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
> (nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
> servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
> guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
> used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
> email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
> local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
> of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
> scientific equipment.
>
> I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
> is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
> that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
> IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
> support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
> machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
> corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
> huge.
>
> I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
> connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
> laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
> the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
> minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.
>
> The TOC issue needs to be explored.

It has been, but Windows afficianados are deaf to the results that show
Macs to (always) have a lower TCO.

--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, food, cars and tenors:
"Made in Italy"

In article <BC25D11D.39DBC%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "John C. Randolph" <jcr@nospam.idiom.com> wrote on 1/10/04 3:48 PM:
>
> > Danny Martin wrote:
> >
> >> The TOC issue needs to be explored.
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/virginiatech/
> >
> > “From the beginning, we’ve only had Macs,” notes Williams. “We knew that
> > if we were going to put in over 500 computers, we couldn’t afford to add
> > a big support staff. I did my homework, and every study I’ve ever read
> > points out that the cost of ownership of a Mac is always less than the
> > cost of owning any kind of Wintel machine — sometimes it’s as little as
> > half the cost. The fact is, we now run a 550-machine lab, and we only
> > have one guy who does the support for us!"
>
> With the heavy amount of support for the idea that Macs are cheaper to own
> in the long run (and often in the short run), why do you think so many
> people believe the opposite? Do they have any support whatsoever?
>

I as well as a number of others on this NG (we've explored this topic
before) am of the opinion that it's due to IP managers "empire
building." The more people they have working for them, the more
indespensible they seem. They pitch PCs based upon things like TCO
(falsley, I might add) and "standardization" as well as the need for the
corporate world to close ranks and offer a unified technological front
for the good of all. I.E. "Lets go PC because the Fortune 500 are all PC
and we want to run with them and seem hip and with-it computer-wise."
It's all bullshit of course. The most effective corporate computer
environment is one that best meets the needs of those USING the
computers rather than those ADMINISTERING them. The great bulk of
corporate computer users SHOULD be on Macs simply because they DON'T
need the support and a lot money could saved there, but obviously,
designers need CAD and they should have PCs as well as engineering
people, some of whom need PCs some of whom need X11 *nix. Marketing
Communications needs to be on Macs, for obvious reasons, and corporate
servers are probably best served running Linux/Apache. A mix like this
is NOT difficult to administer (in spite of IT-types protestations to
the converse), and people end-up being happier and more productive.
Expect our resident Windroids to come down on this with both feet.

--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, food, cars and tenors:
"Made in Italy"

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:27:19 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
wrote:

>"Danny Martin" <dmartinZZZ@ufl.edu> wrote on 1/10/04 3:10 PM:
>
>> I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
>> The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
>> justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
>> machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
>> (nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
>> servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
>> guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
>> used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
>> email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
>> local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
>> of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
>> scientific equipment.
>>
>> I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
>> is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
>> that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
>> IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
>> support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
>> machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
>> corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
>> huge.
>>
>> I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
>> connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
>> laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
>> the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
>> minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.
>>
>> The TOC issue needs to be explored.
>
>You have just described one of the reasons why the claim that PC's are
>cheaper is very often a myth.

Agreed. Every year I pay myself $40-50k per year just to use my own
PC.

(In other words, your experience doesn't really mean that much in this
context - doesn't someone keep joking about how Gartner says a coffee
maker costs $120k/year to operate?)

"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/10/04 9:12 PM:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:27:19 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Danny Martin" <dmartinZZZ@ufl.edu> wrote on 1/10/04 3:10 PM:
>>
>>> I work at a major university and our college IT guys are Windows fans.
>>> The college IT webpage lists lower cost of windows boxes as the main
>>> justification for only supporting windows. I asked the IT guys how many
>>> machines they support and the answer is around 300 plus 75 laptops
>>> (nearly all use Windows 2000). IT also supports email and web page
>>> servers. Almost all end user software is server based. There are 3 IT
>>> guys employed full time for 375 machines. 95% of these machines are
>>> used for routine desktop duties * accounting, writing papers, web,
>>> email, etc. All machines are networked with most machines attached to a
>>> local printer with access to a network printer(s). Only a small number
>>> of machines are used for data collection or are interfaced to
>>> scientific equipment.
>>>
>>> I don¹t know how much IT staff is paid, but I suspect the average salary
>>> is $40-50K with benefits, for a total IT cost of 120-150K. I¹ve read
>>> that Apple runs their enterprise operations on Apple hardware and their
>>> IT guys support about 400 machines each. In other words, an IT pro can
>>> support 400 Macs, while Windows machines require 1 tech per 100
>>> machines. There are probably many differences between IT usage in a
>>> corporate vs. academic setting, but a 4 fold difference in manpower is
>>> huge.
>>>
>>> I continue to use my G4. I get no support form IT other than a network
>>> connection and email address. I connected to the networked color HP
>>> laser printer via IP addressing. The IT guys were impressed that I made
>>> the connection in about 2 minutes once I had the address. It took 2
>>> minutes since I had never used IP addressing before.
>>>
>>> The TOC issue needs to be explored.
>>
>> You have just described one of the reasons why the claim that PC's are
>> cheaper is very often a myth.
>
> Agreed. Every year I pay myself $40-50k per year just to use my own
> PC.
>
> (In other words, your experience doesn't really mean that much in this
> context - doesn't someone keep joking about how Gartner says a coffee
> maker costs $120k/year to operate?)

For me less down time and less frustration has value. That may not be the
same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any case, even in purchase
price Macs and PC's are comparable, but the Mac tends to use less power and
is used longer.

It might be a more fair comparison to compare how many machines each of
the "IT guys" support at Microsoft with the ratio at Apple. The reason
being they are both computer software companies.

Where I work (a small college) we have about 250 Macs. I support about 30
of those in my department (Physics). The rest (about 220) are supported by
4 people and a few student assistants. the vast majority of the machines
are PCs. I have no idea how many in total but it varies (most students
have PCs in their dorms). There are about 20PCs in my labs which all of
which run Linux and about 10 are dual boot. The Macs and PCs are a part
time thing for me. They don't take all that much maintenance. The reason
why the regular "IT guys" don't maintain them is that they have no clue
about the specialized equipment and software we use in Physics. So, in the
case where I work there is not a clear cut case of "number of support
staff / number of machines".

In a very small company (less than 25 employees) where everyone uses
computer for some part of their job function... there is often NO full
time "IT guy". They tend to have one or two people who are "gurus" and
take care of the rest of IT stuff in addition to their regular jobs.

In a company that has about 100 employees and machines then they tend to
have at least one full time "IT guy" whether they use Macs or PCs. So
again the ratio is quite different.

As one scales up the number of users and machines... the process is not
linear. Once you reach some level you will start to add different people
to the mix. Server Administrators, LAN administrators, application support
(help desk)... Once the organization gets to some critical size... there
will be a CTO and all sorts of extra staff that have nothing to do with
direct support.

Then there are differences between particular industries and how the
machines are used, what software they use, what people actually do with
that software, and how it is deployed. For instance, a largish law office
will mostly have users that use an Office suite and a few database apps
for keeping track of documents and for doing reference searches. Most
support requests will be for these applications and for printing.

In a school it will be different again. In a large enough school it might
be quite different. There may be labs in the Arts department that use Macs
exclusively (ours does) and they have special printing needs,
networking, server, and backup requirements as compared to a PC lab in the
library where people mostly surf, use an Office suite and print to
central high speed laser printers. In this case the Arts labs are going to
require a lot more support than the Library labs.

It might be interesting to add up all the extra software one needs to buy
for PCs running Windows in order for them to keep functioning and be
usable... Anti-virus, anti-popup, ghost, client-server licenses, SMS,
personal firewalls, etc... Macs and PCs running Linux don't seem to need
all that extra stuff and/or it is built in.

Basically, what I wanted to say was, it is very difficult to do fair TCO
studies between different industries and different usage patterns. Number
of support staff does not scale linearly (there are bumps in the curve).
With PCs running Windows there is a large cost involved in maintaining a
basic level of security as systems are patched due to viruses and worms
and trojans and whatnot that I believe is factored in when doing the TCO
studies that I have read. I have never seen a study that factors in the
lost hours of productivity as machines are cleaned of the latest virus.

-DU-...etc...

"David Utidjian" <utidjian@nospamremarque.org> wrote on 1/11/04 7:58 AM:

> It might be a more fair comparison to compare how many machines each of
> the "IT guys" support at Microsoft with the ratio at Apple. The reason
> being they are both computer software companies.
>
> Where I work (a small college) we have about 250 Macs. I support about 30
> of those in my department (Physics). The rest (about 220) are supported by
> 4 people and a few student assistants. the vast majority of the machines
> are PCs. I have no idea how many in total but it varies (most students
> have PCs in their dorms). There are about 20PCs in my labs which all of
> which run Linux and about 10 are dual boot. The Macs and PCs are a part
> time thing for me. They don't take all that much maintenance. The reason
> why the regular "IT guys" don't maintain them is that they have no clue
> about the specialized equipment and software we use in Physics. So, in the
> case where I work there is not a clear cut case of "number of support
> staff / number of machines".
>
> In a very small company (less than 25 employees) where everyone uses
> computer for some part of their job function... there is often NO full
> time "IT guy". They tend to have one or two people who are "gurus" and
> take care of the rest of IT stuff in addition to their regular jobs.
>
> In a company that has about 100 employees and machines then they tend to
> have at least one full time "IT guy" whether they use Macs or PCs. So
> again the ratio is quite different.
>
> As one scales up the number of users and machines... the process is not
> linear. Once you reach some level you will start to add different people
> to the mix. Server Administrators, LAN administrators, application support
> (help desk)... Once the organization gets to some critical size... there
> will be a CTO and all sorts of extra staff that have nothing to do with
> direct support.
>
> Then there are differences between particular industries and how the
> machines are used, what software they use, what people actually do with
> that software, and how it is deployed. For instance, a largish law office
> will mostly have users that use an Office suite and a few database apps
> for keeping track of documents and for doing reference searches. Most
> support requests will be for these applications and for printing.
>
> In a school it will be different again. In a large enough school it might
> be quite different. There may be labs in the Arts department that use Macs
> exclusively (ours does) and they have special printing needs,
> networking, server, and backup requirements as compared to a PC lab in the
> library where people mostly surf, use an Office suite and print to
> central high speed laser printers. In this case the Arts labs are going to
> require a lot more support than the Library labs.
>
> It might be interesting to add up all the extra software one needs to buy
> for PCs running Windows in order for them to keep functioning and be
> usable... Anti-virus, anti-popup, ghost, client-server licenses, SMS,
> personal firewalls, etc... Macs and PCs running Linux don't seem to need
> all that extra stuff and/or it is built in.
>
> Basically, what I wanted to say was, it is very difficult to do fair TCO
> studies between different industries and different usage patterns. Number
> of support staff does not scale linearly (there are bumps in the curve).
> With PCs running Windows there is a large cost involved in maintaining a
> basic level of security as systems are patched due to viruses and worms
> and trojans and whatnot that I believe is factored in when doing the TCO
> studies that I have read. I have never seen a study that factors in the
> lost hours of productivity as machines are cleaned of the latest virus.

From a previously posted article of mine:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:th...&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
F-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&selm=BC19C37E.38812%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net

I do believe that, for many users, there is good reason to know both Mac and
Windows (and probably Linux as well - my weakness). I designed the material
and taught the OS classes for Intuit Tech Support (the folks who make
Quicken and TurboTax), and often would have people who knew Windows well
just be stunned at the simplicity and utility of the Mac. Wish I had a
nickel for every student who told me that they never imagined using a
computer could be so easy and trouble free. They had just grown accustomed
to the problems on the PC, or blamed themselves. This was very common...

The Windows support at Intuit had many many IT support folks just to keep
the computers running (1 for every 50 computers I believe, something like
that). The Mac folks were expected to keep their own machines running with
no outside support (they did have tech leads - and trainers - who could help
them, but no IT support). The Macs had lower levels of down time. (Intuit
was obsessive about keeping records on all that - downtime was measured by
the time the support rep was unable to take calls due to a downed computer).
Mac users also tended to call less often per machine, and call times were
shorter on average (though Mac Quicken is less feature rich / bloated than
Win Quicken, so there may be other reasons for this - then again, it was
also true for TurboTax/MacInTax, where the features were very similar).

Hey - when I have been quoting studies in other threads I have left out the
ones I was directly involved in. Intuit is the number two seller of
software, behind MS, and their studies support the Mac being less
problematic as well

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
wrote:

>For me less down time and less frustration has value.

Another reason to choose PCs.

>That may not be the
>same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any case, even in purchase
>price Macs and PC's are comparable,

We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you
keep repeating it?

>but the Mac tends to use less power and

Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.

>is used longer.

Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.

"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/11/04 7:21 PM:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> For me less down time and less frustration has value.
>
> Another reason to choose PCs.

Can you support the idea that PC's have less down time and / or create less
frustration?
>
>> That may not be the same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any case,
>> even in purchase price Macs and PC's are comparable,
>>
> We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you keep
> repeating it?

No - the last go round we had in here showed quite clearly that they were
comparable. The comparisons were between Dell's and Apple's machine. There
were some configs where each was less expensive.

>> but the Mac tends to use less power and
>>
> Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.

No. Not at all.
>
>> is used longer.
>>
> Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.

Most people do not upgrade their PC's - they replace them as they age.

In article <BC25D11D.39DBC%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
> With the heavy amount of support for the idea that Macs are cheaper to own
> in the long run (and often in the short run), why do you think so many
> people believe the opposite? Do they have any support whatsoever?

It's because they look at their computers (PCs and/or Macs) and look at
their records and their budget, and notice that the TCO they personally have
observed is an order of magnitude or more lower than any TCO study's claims,
and so they sensibly dismiss TCO studies as the voodoo they are.

--
--Tim Smith

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote on 1/12/04 4:11 AM:

> In article <BC25D11D.39DBC%snit@nospam-cableone.net>, Snit wrote:
>> With the heavy amount of support for the idea that Macs are cheaper to own
>> in the long run (and often in the short run), why do you think so many
>> people believe the opposite? Do they have any support whatsoever?
>
> It's because they look at their computers (PCs and/or Macs) and look at
> their records and their budget, and notice that the TCO they personally have
> observed is an order of magnitude or more lower than any TCO study's claims,
> and so they sensibly dismiss TCO studies as the voodoo they are.

Is it your claim that since some people do not end up paying to have their
Windows computers worked on or paying to be trained then the TCO studies are
voodoo? What about the people who do pay - as someone who does that type of
work, I earn much more money per Windows user than per Mac. That is the
norm in the computer industry...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:00:20 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
wrote:

>"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/11/04 7:21 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For me less down time and less frustration has value.
>>
>> Another reason to choose PCs.
>
>Can you support the idea that PC's have less down time and / or create less
>frustration?

Only with personal experience, which is largely what I see here.
Where are the XP vs OS X Gartner studies?

>>> That may not be the same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any case,
>>> even in purchase price Macs and PC's are comparable,
>>>
>> We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you keep
>> repeating it?
>
>No - the last go round we had in here showed quite clearly that they were
>comparable.

No, it clearly demonstrated Apple is massively overpriced. You
participated in the discussion. Did you not understand it?

>The comparisons were between Dell's and Apple's machine. There
>were some configs where each was less expensive.

Not really. The Dell was less expensive and faster.

>>> but the Mac tends to use less power and
>>>
>> Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.
>
>No. Not at all.

Yes, actually. The Mac has significantly slower CPUs when comparing
all but the most expensive Macs.

>>> is used longer.
>>>
>> Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.
>
>Most people do not upgrade their PC's - they replace them as they age.

G4/1.4 (an obsolete and slow CPU) - $399 for the Mac
AMD/1800 - about $50 or less

"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/13/04 6:20 PM:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:00:20 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/11/04 7:21 PM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me less down time and less frustration has value.
>>>
>>> Another reason to choose PCs.
>>
>> Can you support the idea that PC's have less down time and / or create less
>> frustration?
>
> Only with personal experience, which is largely what I see here.
> Where are the XP vs OS X Gartner studies?

I am not going to go double check all the studies I have posted and see if
they mention OS's, but I do know that for the last 15 years I keep seeing
these studies, and PC users often complain that they are old studies. I see
no reason to think things have changed.
>
>>>> That may not be the same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any
>>>> case, even in purchase price Macs and PC's are comparable,
>>>>
>>> We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you keep
>>> repeating it?
>>
>> No - the last go round we had in here showed quite clearly that they were
>> comparable.
>
> No, it clearly demonstrated Apple is massively overpriced. You
> participated in the discussion. Did you not understand it?

Think what you want... the Dell and Apple sites do not agree with your
claim.
>
>> The comparisons were between Dell's and Apple's machine. There
>> were some configs where each was less expensive.
>
> Not really. The Dell was less expensive and faster.

In some cases, perhaps, in other cases it was the exact opposite. And speed
is not the only measure of a computer's worth to me, if it is to you, you
may see things differently than I do.
>
>>>> but the Mac tends to use less power and
>>>>
>>> Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.
>>
>> No. Not at all.
>
> Yes, actually. The Mac has significantly slower CPUs when comparing
> all but the most expensive Macs.

No. That is not what I meant at all.
>
>>>> is used longer.
>>>>
>>> Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.
>>
>> Most people do not upgrade their PC's - they replace them as they age.
>
> G4/1.4 (an obsolete and slow CPU) - $399 for the Mac
> AMD/1800 - about $50 or less


I am sure hidden somewhere in there you have a point.
>
>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:57:56 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
wrote:

>"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/13/04 6:20 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:00:20 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/11/04 7:21 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For me less down time and less frustration has value.
>>>>
>>>> Another reason to choose PCs.
>>>
>>> Can you support the idea that PC's have less down time and / or create less
>>> frustration?
>>
>> Only with personal experience, which is largely what I see here.
>> Where are the XP vs OS X Gartner studies?
>
>I am not going to go double check all the studies I have posted and see if
>they mention OS's, but I do know that for the last 15 years I keep seeing
>these studies, and PC users often complain that they are old studies. I see
>no reason to think things have changed.

.....aside from the fact that both vendors' OSs have radically changed,
you mean? Don't let a minor little thing like that get in the way of
your argument....

>>>>> That may not be the same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any
>>>>> case, even in purchase price Macs and PC's are comparable,
>>>>>
>>>> We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you keep
>>>> repeating it?
>>>
>>> No - the last go round we had in here showed quite clearly that they were
>>> comparable.
>>
>> No, it clearly demonstrated Apple is massively overpriced. You
>> participated in the discussion. Did you not understand it?
>
>Think what you want... the Dell and Apple sites do not agree with your
>claim.

Actually, they clearly do, as even a cursory look over at
bensbargains.net, fatwallet.com, and others will illustrate. The fact
that you deliberately try to overprice the x86 PCs doesn't change that
one bit.

>>> The comparisons were between Dell's and Apple's machine. There
>>> were some configs where each was less expensive.
>>
>> Not really. The Dell was less expensive and faster.
>
>In some cases, perhaps, in other cases it was the exact opposite.

Please illustrate these cases. Start with a Dell 400SC, typically
found for $300 - $400 for a P4/2.4 configuration. Show me a Mac
that's cheaper and faster. Heck - just show me a new Mac that's
faster and less than twice as much with PCI/AGP slots --- we'll start
with something simple.

>And speed
>is not the only measure of a computer's worth to me, if it is to you, you
>may see things differently than I do.

.... so be happy on slow, old hardware. Most people aren't and won't
be.

>>>>> but the Mac tends to use less power and
>>>>>
>>>> Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.
>>>
>>> No. Not at all.
>>
>> Yes, actually. The Mac has significantly slower CPUs when comparing
>> all but the most expensive Macs.
>
>No. That is not what I meant at all.

Nevertheless, it's quite true - the Mac is significantly slower at all
but the very highest end, and even then things don't look good at all
for the Mac.

>>>>> is used longer.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.
>>>
>>> Most people do not upgrade their PC's - they replace them as they age.
>>
>> G4/1.4 (an obsolete and slow CPU) - $399 for the Mac
>> AMD/1800 - about $50 or less
>
>I am sure hidden somewhere in there you have a point.

However hard everyone here tries to make it, it keeps flying over your
head.

In article <01k9001d2hgntr997aa5pgdcarj7mtgd89@4ax.com>, foo@bar.com
wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:57:56 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
> wrote:

[snip]

> >In some cases, perhaps, in other cases it was the exact opposite.
>
> Please illustrate these cases. Start with a Dell 400SC, typically
> found for $300 - $400 for a P4/2.4 configuration. Show me a Mac
> that's cheaper and faster. Heck - just show me a new Mac that's
> faster and less than twice as much with PCI/AGP slots --- we'll start
> with something simple.

You're trying to define everything on your terms: price/performance. You
want everyone to take it for granted that a faster processor is worth
more than slick industrial design, or the iLife suite, or the Mac OS X
development environment, or whatever.

Maybe I think a computer is overpriced at any price if it doesn't run
OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner. How come you're right, and I'm wrong?

[snip]

--
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003

"foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/13/04 10:14 PM:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:57:56 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/13/04 6:20 PM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:00:20 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "foo@bar.com" <foo@bar.com> wrote on 1/11/04 7:21 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:21:07 -0700, Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For me less down time and less frustration has value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another reason to choose PCs.
>>>>
>>>> Can you support the idea that PC's have less down time and / or create less
>>>> frustration?
>>>
>>> Only with personal experience, which is largely what I see here.
>>> Where are the XP vs OS X Gartner studies?
>>
>> I am not going to go double check all the studies I have posted and see if
>> they mention OS's, but I do know that for the last 15 years I keep seeing
>> these studies, and PC users often complain that they are old studies. I see
>> no reason to think things have changed.
>
> ....aside from the fact that both vendors' OSs have radically changed,
> you mean? Don't let a minor little thing like that get in the way of
> your argument....

Not the first time; 15 years ago PC's were still DOS based and Word Perfect
5.1 was the "thing".
>
>>>>>> That may not be the same for all, but I assume it is for most. In any
>>>>>> case, even in purchase price Macs and PC's are comparable,
>>>>>>
>>>>> We've already proven to you that this isn't the case, so why do you keep
>>>>> repeating it?
>>>>
>>>> No - the last go round we had in here showed quite clearly that they were
>>>> comparable.
>>>
>>> No, it clearly demonstrated Apple is massively overpriced. You
>>> participated in the discussion. Did you not understand it?
>>
>> Think what you want... the Dell and Apple sites do not agree with your
>> claim.
>
> Actually, they clearly do, as even a cursory look over at
> bensbargains.net, fatwallet.com, and others will illustrate. The fact
> that you deliberately try to overprice the x86 PCs doesn't change that
> one bit.

You can believe what you want. I have been pricing computer systems for
schools, businesses, and individuals for years. There was a time when
Apple was fairly consistently a bit higher (though not as high as some would
claim). Those days are past.

One recent example: a school wanted a set of 10 wireless notebooks. Priced
Dell vs. Apple. Apple was less than half the price, and Dell only offered 8
notebooks vs. Apple's 10. That, of course, is an extreme example - usually
they are in the same ball park. And of course, there are times the Dell's
are cheaper.
>
>>>> The comparisons were between Dell's and Apple's machine. There
>>>> were some configs where each was less expensive.
>>>
>>> Not really. The Dell was less expensive and faster.
>>
>> In some cases, perhaps, in other cases it was the exact opposite.
>
> Please illustrate these cases. Start with a Dell 400SC, typically
> found for $300 - $400 for a P4/2.4 configuration. Show me a Mac
> that's cheaper and faster. Heck - just show me a new Mac that's
> faster and less than twice as much with PCI/AGP slots --- we'll start
> with something simple.

Apple does not sell machines in the 300-400 range. That does not change the
fact that the the machines are similarly priced in the same ranges. I could
just as easily say show me a Dell, or any PC, with a "floating" LCD at *any*
price. There are ways we can each choose to be unfair. Look at my example
above - very real world. Show me the best price you can get from Dell where
you get:

* 10 notebooks
* 10 wireless cards
* a wireless hub
* management tools for the hub
* a network laser printer
* a locking cabinet to place them all in
* software to remotely manage the notebooks (including install
software on all at once)

Dell was nowhere in the ballpark of Apple. Nor were any other venders I
could find.

>
>> And speed is not the only measure of a computer's worth to me, if it is to
>> you, you may see things differently than I do.
>
> ... so be happy on slow, old hardware. Most people aren't and won't
> be.

Who are you talking to here? You certainly are not addressing my point.
>
>>>>>> but the Mac tends to use less power and
>>>>>>
>>>>> Err...huh? Less powerful CPUs, you mean.
>>>>
>>>> No. Not at all.
>>>
>>> Yes, actually. The Mac has significantly slower CPUs when comparing
>>> all but the most expensive Macs.
>>
>> No. That is not what I meant at all.
>
> Nevertheless, it's quite true - the Mac is significantly slower at all
> but the very highest end, and even then things don't look good at all
> for the Mac.

The Mac is generally faster as task completion - the only measure that
counts. Not that I would not like to see faster Mac's, but computer speed
is not an issue for most. Most people use a computer to surf the web, read
e-mail, and do word processing. Even a Pentium III or a G3 are overkill for
those things.
>
>>>>>> is used longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, because they're so damned expensive to upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> Most people do not upgrade their PC's - they replace them as they age.
>>>
>>> G4/1.4 (an obsolete and slow CPU) - $399 for the Mac
>>> AMD/1800 - about $50 or less
>>
>> I am sure hidden somewhere in there you have a point.
>
> However hard everyone here tries to make it, it keeps flying over your
> head.

No - I just do not accept your straw men and lies.