IT Managers: Do you need Windows Vista or should you ‘Get a Mac?”

“With Release Candidate 1 of Windows Vista now available, it is high time for IT departments to seriously consider their plans for Microsoft’s forthcoming desktop client,” Daniel Robinson writes for Computing. “And top of their list of questions should be: do we need it?”

Robinson writes, “A question like this is almost heresy in the world of business computing. IT managers reading this article will no doubt ask what other option they have. Mac OS X runs only on Apple systems, so switching to that platform is out of the question, unless you fancy buying its overpriced eye candy and getting locked in to a single hardware vendor.”

MacDailyNews Take: You’re not serving your readers very well with your ignorant “overpriced eye candy” bullshit, Danny Boy. We’ll address your “locked in to a single hardware vendor” bit down below, but first let’s take a look at these related articles:
Fortune compares Mac vs. Dell: ‘you’ll get more for your money with Apple’ – September 11, 2006
Thurrott pits Apple Mac Pro vs. similarly configured Dell, figures out the Mac is less expensive – August 18, 2006
Microsoft Windows five times more expensive for users than Apple’s Mac OS X – August 15, 2006
Apple Mac Pro with/ 20” Cinema Display less expensive than Dell Precision 690 sans monitor – August 10, 2006
Get a Mac: Viruses, spyware cost U.S. consumers $7.8 billion over last two years – August 08, 2006
Mossberg: Apple’s new MacBook surprisingly inexpensive, offers vastly superior Mac OS X – June 08, 2006
FBI: Viruses, spyware, other computer-related crimes cost U.S. businesses $67.2 billion per year – February 01, 2006

Are those enough for you? Because we have plenty more of the same if you like.

Robinson continues, “Windows Vista… hardware requirements are much more demanding than those for Windows XP, which means that firms will probably have to invest in new PCs if they want to get the most out of Vista. In fact, most corporate desktops now in use will hardly be adequate to run Vista, if my experience with the beta releases is anything to go by. Is Vista worth all this extra investment? I find it difficult to pinpoint any area in which Windows Vista is a significant advance over Windows XP.”

“In fact, many of the features that would have made Windows Vista more appealing to corporate customers – such as the database-like WinFS file system – have been dropped altogether,” Robinson writes.

“Like it or not, Windows Vista will be here by the end of the year, and available pre-installed on PC systems early next year. And from then, Windows XP will only be available for another two years before it is discontinued,” Robinson writes. “This timescale means that companies cannot afford to sit on their hands and put off the difficult decision of whether to start an upgrade process to Windows Vista. The second question to ask is a much more problematic one: do you have any choice?”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: To answer Robinsion’s rhetorical question, “do you have any choice?” No. Not if you stay with Microsoft Windows. And that brings us to Robinson’s “locked in to a single hardware vendor” garbage: With Windows you are – drum roll please – “locked in to a single operating system vendor.” Microsoft Window PCs don’t offer choice. They offer the illusion of choice. Sure, you can pit box assemblers against each other to save some cash upfront (and waste a boatload from then on trying to secure the in-securable and on support costs – it’s called Total Cost of Ownership, you should think about it sometime), but Apple’s Macs are certainly price competitive – especially since each successive version of Mac OS X runs faster on old hardware, unlike Windows.

So, there is no extra “choice” in choosing Windows PC over Apple Macintosh. In fact there is less choice because only Apple Macs give you real choice in that they can run Mac OS X, Windows and Linux. So you’re “locked in” with superior Mac hardware that gives you a real choice of operating systems or you’re really locked in to the inferior, insecure Microsoft Windows running on commodity assemblers’ OS-limited boxes.

Keep in mind that Apple is a highly profitable company, in business for decades, with a market cap $13 billion higher than Dell’s today.

Mr. IT Manager, how do you feel about your “choice” with those all of those boxes you’re now stuck with from, oh, IBM (defuct) or AST (defunct) or any number of hundreds of PC box assemblers that have come and gone? Good choices there, buddy. Way to avoid that “lock-in.”

The fact is, if you want to choose the one hardware company that will be in business a decade from now, your best bet is Apple Computer, Inc. And only Apple Macs will be able to run the widest variety of operating systems and applications thereby giving you real choice for a change.

Contact info:

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Infoworld: Microsoft’s WIndows Vista not so revolutionary after all – September 11, 2006
Microsoft’s greatest trick: convincing the public that the Wintel PC platform is open – March 06, 2006
Computerworld: Microsoft Windows Vista a distant second-best to Apple Mac OS X – June 02, 2006
Defending Windows over Mac a sign of mental illness – December 20, 2003


  1. Does anyone with a brain only look at Windows for solutions, there are probably dozens of departments that could use a Mac to do what needs to be done. And if they need to use a windows App, Parallels, or they need to install Terminal services or Citrix which will cut down on the number of Windows desktops that can be corrupted by the virus of the week..

    (first post?)

  2. Daniel Robinson writes for Computing.

    This is the biggest load of crap I have read on MDN. Is this guy getting paid for this? The IT boys are runnin’ scared, break out the banjos boys and head for the hills.
    MDN don’t publish the email for these sad folk, they should continue to live in the shrinking world they inhabit just like the Dodo.
    Boy I feel like it’s Christmas Eve.

  3. Alright..
    The real question he asking here, what can we do to justify to the bean counters purchasing new computers and increasing IT support cost for having to implement new technology, when Vista is really just a skin/theme for XP. and if the bean counters realize this they are going to ask, why spend the money…

    IT Managers at work.
    Remember OS X means less tech support (obviously in the beginning the tech/IT cost is going to be higher from just implementing a new system, much like money they are looking to budget from Vista), but then over time it will drop.

  4. If it were a matter of replacing existing boxes with Apple hardware vs. simply upgrading the MS OS on old hardware, there might be a valid cost consideration. But if they are upgrading anyway to premium Wintel systems, there is no contest: OS X wins hands-down.

  5. A Good Title, post 9-11, since that’s all we hear from Bush… all the time.
    I’m glad you invited me to speak at the dedication of this new Aquarium here in Omaha.
    Let me say a few things:
    North Korea
    Axis of evil

    Thank You very much, I’m sure it’s a nice aquarium.

    Ever notice the look on people’s faces when you tell them that there are other OSes they can run on their PC. They give you a look like you are about to push them over a cliff. They hate Windoze, but truly fear switching out to another OS.

    Take A Deep Breath, People…
    There is life after and without Windows.

  6. See, doesn’t matter that Macs and OSX are better – the world is attached to MSoft and Vista will he welcomed with open arms amid much unjustified commentary about how it’s ‘finally here’ and everything is all better now.

    Mac: tiny market share, now and forever.

  7. Every time I think this is the most biased web site on the Internet, I read more bullshit like this that makes past posts look fair.

    The only reason macs can run all 3 major operating systems is because the other two (linux and windows) are either open source or licensed to run on any x86 or x64 hardware you want. If apple would license osx, then any pc could run all three operating systems as well. claiming a victory for apple when apple is the one preventing its OS from being used by hardware manufacturers is unbelievably shortsighted.

    and regarding your point about apple being around forever, did you forget (or choose to omit) that it was microsoft’s large investment that kept apple afloat in the 90s?

    and before you call me a windows fanboy, i own an imac. so come up with another reponse before you flame me.

  8. Nikhil,

    Microsoft’s $150 million purchase of non-voting stock represented less than 4% of Apple’s cash assets. Of its total market capitalization, the $150 million was a tiny drop in the bucket. It was a token gesture. A dog and pony show. Before the first Apple-Microsoft five-year agreement expired, Microsoft sold its Apple stock at a profit.

    Get your facts straight before you post next time.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.