German company switching 12,000 desktops from PC to Mac
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
Nowadays you can get one box to do everything, a Mac is a Unix workstation that can run a PC in a VM. Why wouldn't organizations switch?
Certainly, back then, if you needed colour management, Mac was by far the easiest/cheapest solution.
Personal OS/Interface preference. I've used Windows 2k and XP for years. I find the OS X interface to be cleaner, easier, and faster to use. I just prefer it. Just like I prefer my new car over my old one. No logic, no stats, just what I feel happier/more comfortable using.
OS Level ColorSync support, which extends through screen calibration, printers, Safari, Preview, Photoshop, etc...
Built-in screen calibration. No, it's not as good as a $ hardware/software package, but it's pretty good, and good enough for web work certainly.
The ability to run any OS/browser combination easily (Parallels or VM Ware). Macs aren't a majority, but they're up there, and depending on your site's demographic, making sure stuff looks right/works on the Mac can be very important. I run OS X/Safari, OS X/Firefox, WinXP/IE6, WinXP/IE7, WinXP/Firefox, Vista/IE7, Vista/Firefox, etc... on my Mac very easily. I can also run my Windows VM at whatever screen size/resolution I want to see how things will look on a 1024/768 display, without hosing my main display/work area.
For whatever reason, using Photoshop on a Mac is easier/better looking for me. I can't back that up, but it's a strong difference for me.
Apple displays generally have better color gamut, than the displays from major PC vendors. Even the photographers I know who choose to use Windows (which is fine), usually use Apple displays, unless their using a very high buck non-consumer display.
I'm sure other folks are much happier using PCs, which is fine. These are just some of my reasons.
You'd have to expect a pretty large decrease in IT support staff to recoup that cost. For businesses, it's all about the bottom line on the spreadsheet, and the cost of switching from any one OS to another is rarely going to be justified.
Much more likely is a company supporting both for a time, and switching over to the new OS on all new purchases, or allowing employees to choose.
It's funny, loads of companies in the late 90s ripped out their Unix CAD workstations and replaced them with high-end PCs running NT . No-one batted an eyelid at that. Now we're talking about replacing average PCs with Unix workstations and everyone's like shyeah right.
They switched some years ago for the exact same reasons they mention now from Mac to Windows PCs.
I've experienced this over the years with Linux. I will from time to time install the latest greatest distro, configure it, work out all the little nagging bugs and then ....
Nothing, it's not fun (unless you think getting your graphics card to work and spending 4 hours doing it is fun), in fact the goal is always to get the OS to the point where I can use it ... for something else.
That's it?!? And they're not even done, which means the largest installation is now under 1K.
Shows how far the Mac platform has to go in the 9-5 world.
The posers (fresh out of school, concerned about image/style still) usually are using Macs.
/ducks
Every design team I've worked with, startup or Fortune 500, has been on Macs. Yes, that's just more anecdotal "evidence" but I've been a consultant in several companies over the last ten years.
One Fortune 100 company I worked at had slowly moved the entire web development team (front end and back end) onto Macs. The front end guys liked Photoshop on the Mac, and the OS level colorsync support, and the higher gamut LCDs (versus your run of the mill Dells - no one was springing for the $5k+ displays). The back end guys liked that they could run the same bash scripts and ant execs on their local machines as would be running on the Solaris production servers. Having a 99% compatible bash shell available out of the box, and having the same path separators makes a big difference.
Plus, the corporate Dells + support plan + etc... are pretty close in price. And our department was responsible for 2 billion+ in corp revenue, so a few Macs are a small price to pay.
I'm glad you weren't supervising our department:)
The first reason was that they ended up costing twice as much to match the configurations (extra memory, the requisite software, etc).
The second and more critical reason was support. Apple just wasn't up to the task of handling a call from someone with somewhere between half a dozen and 100 macs at once.
The first reason has been changing in Apple's favor since, and the last time I checked around 4 months ago the cost was pretty much even.
The second I don't know, but one can hope.
And it would be a poor manager who didn't take advice from the specialists he employes in making decisions.
Smaller FX shops that don't have IT staff are much more likely to consider it, unless they rely on software that isn't available in OSX, like XSI.
Which reminds me, now Houdini is available for OSX (it might still be beta, but it's coming if not here already).