6d530b91
XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: gmgraves@pacbell.net

In article ,
 Chrisr  wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 04:34:36 GMT, George Graves 
> wrote:
>
> > I have to have to a PC due to the
> >fact that often I have to put together documents that will be used on
> >that benighted platform because corporations, for "financial" reasons
> >(that only look at up-front cost, not support costs), have gone with
> >PCs.
>   This is such a silly conclusion.  Do you honestly believe that 98%
> of large corporations blindly buy computers without fully
> investigating the TCO of their machines?

Believe it? I KNOW it.

>  Corporations do not base
> their purchases and desktop standards on which platform is cheaper.

Uh, yes, they do.

> Many large corporations have mountains of home made software that
> would require mountains of money to change.

And many do not. Your assumptions notwithstanding.

  Asset management tools,
> Network monitoring tools, training, file conversion problems, document
> compatability, mainframe intergration, NOS the list goes on and on and
> on.  The cost of migrating from Windows to Macintosh is astronomical.


Migrating? Why didn't they pick the lowest TCO platform to begin with?

> Furthermore, the TCO costs, I believe are flawed.

Of course you do. They favor the Mac.

> TCO goes up disproportunately with the number of machines.  If you take the
IT
> budget and divide by the number of PCs  you get a TCO per machine.  If
> you only have like 50 machines, you don't need an IT department, you
> can get away with 1 guy who basically does it on a part time basis and
> has some other role in the company but he just happens to be computer
> savy and inherits the job.

I used to work for an all-Mac company. They had 200 machines all easily
administered by a high-school kid (the VP's son) who came in after
school a couple of days a week. All of a sudden the parent company
decreed that the company change to PC/Windows. Their support costs over
the next year went up from basically a few hundred dollars a year to
several hundred thousand (for the FOUR IT support people that the PC
required.) so don't tell me about TCO.

>  You are just looking at the machine and
> software costs.  when you have 1000 PCs, you're looking at funding an
> entire full-time IT staff.

A lot more are required for a 1000 PCs than for 1000 Macs, and that's
for sure.

> people to manage the network, to handle
> upgrades, moves adds changes deployment planning, asset management
> help desk etc,etc,etc.  all of these people need managers , computers
> workspace , and so on and so on.  Mac's are rarely found as the sole
> desktop standard in a large corporation , and therefore it is very
> difficult to make a fair comparison for the total cost of ownership.
> Also with the new UNIX-based operating system,  one would assumethat
> the total cost of ownership has gone up significantly.  However that
> has yet to be shown far as I know.  So in all reality these purchase
> decisions are not made by shortsighted been counters.  Total cost of
> ownershipis is carefully considered before making any significant
> changes to a desktop standards.

Then perhaps you can explain why it is that the corporate world has
standardized on the platform with the highest TCO?

--
George Graves

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)