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)