6ee0a6e9   
   XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: crex@.no-spam.bellatlantic.net   
      
   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?  Corporations do not base   
   their purchases and desktop standards on which platform is cheaper.   
   Many large corporations have mountains of home made software that   
   would require mountains of money to change.  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.   
   Furthermore, the TCO costs, I believe are flawed.  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.  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.  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.   
      
   Chris   
   If life seems jolly rotten   
   There's something you've forgotten,   
   and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)