XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: wjoseph@htg.net   
      
   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?  Corporations do not base   
      
   C'mon!  If companies do investigate TCO then please reference the   
   decades worth of TCO figures that these companies should be able to   
   access.   
      
   The bottom line is that computer platform decisions are most often based   
   on "nepotism".  If you don't believe me then just ask "uncle" Bll.   
      
   MC   
      
   > 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)