If I were moving away from Windows XP/Vista; I'd much rather go the Linux route. If Apple wants to compete in the enterprise space, Apple should make a concerted effort to build hooks to integrate well with Active directory and Exchange as well as incentivise tool developers to write tools & Applications that can install on MACs as well. But one may argue that Apple is pretty content with it's niche market, will be glad if they make inroads into the enterprise, but don't feel the need to make that move a prioity.

As a CIO, and an AVID mac user (iPhone, 24 inch iMac, and 17 inch MB Pro), I think this is no-goodnik on almost all it's argued merits.

I love your guys' stuff, but I think this one is too far off base.

1) Weider admitted to the fact that most of the apps wouldn't run on a mac. So what do you do? Do you run Virtual Machines? I think he underestimates the cost.

2) He has no real leverage in negotiation because of the Macs he has in house. We're sticking with XP too. There's no added leverage with some Mac's in the enterprise, and no real "blink" moment at the negotiating table. That's naive, I think.

3) It may be better for beginners, and he admits that doesn't carry watter in paragraph two of that section.

4) Malware: This one is just bad work. If any CIO is relying on just the fact that there are low malware numbers for the platform then he doesn't have policies/technologies that are robust to ANY system type on the network (OK, that's a little hyperbole, but you get the meaning). There needs to be social and technical policies, good security frameworks, and good change management policies for builds (build is better than repair). And they should be robust to the system that DOES have higher malware no matter who makes it.

5) The smart users argument may carry a little water, but I'm not sure. Smart people are going to be smart on whichever. They may choose mac more often, but what's the cause an effect here? Even if there's a correlation, I don't necessarily see causation.

As to different platforms, maybe they do help people learn more, but that argument can be made reductio ad absurdum. If I let someone hack the mac on our network to try things out (and we do stuff like that), then why not BSD? Linux, some other thing? This is an issue that doesn't apply to mac's and if you're doing research on how to use smarter technologies it probably SHOULDN'T apply to only Mac. Since this article specifically addresses reasons to say yes to Mac's, I say blue-screen to your house. Make the choice for the right reason, which, in this argument is learning, and broaden it because Mac isn't the only platform for learning and research on learning.

5)Cool factor? Do I need to even talk about this one? I've worked in high-flash factor environments and environments where people pick the right tool, regardless of cool factor, to get the job done. No flash, just doing the good stuff and then going home and playing with the dogs. Sure we like our toys, but we don't let them drive business. Get your devs dual 24" monitors. It's better that way.

Which environment would you take? I'd take the no-flash every day. I don't need a beautiful piece of machinery on my infrastructure that some poor support guy now has to learn and maintain violating the 80/20 rule tenet.

Now, all that being said, I DO occasionally allow research to happen in this way. Some of our developers use Vista for testing. There are some linux laptops and Macs running around. But the technologists using them have no expectation of support, and if they go across policy for managed infrastructure and security, it's toast. So only the most advanced techies get to do that stuff.

Anyway...Back to the dogs.

Wow, usually the editors cut garbage like this before it makes it to life.

Not sure how you can justify the claim that that Mac would give you purchasing power. Macs tend to be higher cost and best case, you're into a mixed environment. If I really wanted to push the OS price, I'd just go to Linux.

As for it being easier for the low-end folks - they're retiring so I don't give a crap about them any more.

You may have a point about the virus side of it, but even that isn't a huge factor.

O.K., cool factor. Yep, definitely has that. And in the recession we're in, that's certainly on the top of my list...NOT.

Interesting article. I work in healthcare as well, and work with four or five macs in an enterprise of almost 10,000 employees, all Windows based.

In the past five years I have noticed an increase ease of use in the mac in this enterprise environment, I think a lot of that comes from enterprise partners creating software that is OS agnostic to a degree.

It also might help that in the last five years I have just figured out how to get things done, and built relationships with our IT team.

A good point to hit on again is the fact that most software is web based now. That does not always mean that it will work on anything other than IE, even though it should.

"There are probably fewer barriers than moving to Macs, but some of the big ones are the same:application incompatibility and cost," Weider says.

We're done here. If you are still trying to justify the use of any particular tool and this is what you get after an good evalutation of situational variables, you are doing so out of a personal preference, not for business reasons.

Stop now before you look foolish.

I am a Mac person, but I would argue against wholesale conversion to Mac OS X. The costs in training and software would take a long time to amortise. I would say though, there is nothing wrong to put Macs in where they make sense (graphics, video and audio) and where they will work (web applications). Insofar as Macs integrating with Active Directory or Exchange, they already can and do.

Windows, Macs, smart phones... this article and the inspired comments scream for flexibility to choose.

Read more of our viewpoint at our executive advisory blog.

http://eapblog.burtongroup.com/

Mike Rollings
Senior Analyst, Burton Group

So, let me see if I get Mr. Weider's points right:

1) We can get better negotiating power by replacing one sole-source vendor with another. Except that it will cost 20% more to replace the hardware. And Macs have compatibility issues. And we might have to support a mixed-platform environment. (He fails to add: "And hope that the new sole-source vendor doesn't figure out how expensive it will be for us to change platforms again and therefore jack up our prices. Or we can take on the huge expense of actually changing platforms every couple of years to get 'the ability to bargain better'")

2) Macs are easier for beginners, except that my users are not new (whose are??), so "everything they [know will be] completely wrong" (Translation: Going to Macs will require significant incremental training costs)

3) Fewer "Mac Attacks" make for a safer platform (perhaps his best point - and it's not terrible - but this alone cannot justify a radical platform overhaul which *starts* at 20% greater hardware costs, not to mention training, migration, compatibility, etc.)

4) Macs "hide the technology from the user"...which leads users to become...MORE tech-savvy?? (Has this hypothesis been tested with actual end users? Or is it just a wish on Mr. Weider's part?)

5) Macs look cool.

Is this guy really a CIO with responsibility to run his IT department in a cost-effective manner, or is this a late April Fool's joke?

At least one of his earlier quotes suggests he might get it: "...all of the planets in the solar system would have to line up right to make that [moving to Macs] make sense."

I guess such a short list of reasons shows how over the Mac/PC wars are today. It can't be denied that Windows has caught up to the Mac. Arguably, it has surpassed the Mac in some ways, but we don't even need to make the argument.

And it's true that malware doesn't affect Macs, but it doesn't affect most PCs anyway. And there's no reason it should affect PCs in a controllable environment like a corporation. With sensible policies, good network design, and standard hard drive images, malware is not a problem (and using Macs doesn't save you the costs of sensible policies, good network design, and standard hard drive images).

These articles are silly because they are based more on what an end user "wants" rather than what is needed.

Sure, I love my Macs at home and wish that my office system was a Mac. But in reality, almost ALL of us spend our workday within 3 or 4 apps. So even though we love the swooshing Mac interface, there is no real benefit to switching an entire workforce to the "pretty" platform because in the end then the user still operates those same 3 or 4 apps while the company just tripled their technology budget.