I’d suggest side-by-side testing is pretty much a waste of time. The Dell machines were just as fast as my Intel Mac.

As for cost, the Macs were more expensive, but not enough to make a difference either way.They would have been running Parallels and Windows XP so we can use InDesign integrated with our main system, but that’s another story.

To give you all a little more background on our particular situation, the question of switching to PCs is indeed one of cost. In mid-2007, I sought to replace the nine Macs we have for graphics artists and designers. The newest machine in that fleet is 4 years old; most are 6 and 7 years old. Most have had a processor and RAM upgrades at some point over the years and are maxed out. But as Will says, they’re still chugging away.

My impetus for seeking new machines was mainly CS2. We were finding that on the older G4s, Illustrator in particular was a problem. InDesign wasn’t so bad. We also needed new monitors (most of those are just as old as the Macs). And we recognized the need to switch to Intel processors before long so we could switch eventually to CS3 (and wanting to add Flash, that would soon be necessary).

I initially asked for top-line iMacs, but our IS department advocated, to my delight, getting quad MacPros and new widescreen LCD monitors. We bought three machines, replacing the three oldest Macs, and gave them to the three artists who do information graphics (and so use Illustrator more than the others, addressing the most critical performance and productivity issue). We then planned to purchase the other six machines in 2008.

Then the budget numbers came back — sorry, no new Macs in 2008. And maybe when we do replace those machines, we should get PCs.

So I’m working with our IS department to determine whether it would really be cheaper, what the hidden costs are (the TCO), and so forth. They’ll be setting up side-by-side testing for compatibility and functionality as well. We have until the fall to pull together a final report. The feedback I’m getting from all of you will be part of it.

So again, keep it coming, and thanks for the help!

– Mike

Where is the cost savings?

Hardware of similar specifications across the two platforms is pretty close in price; in some cases with the advantage going to Apple.

Although I won’t pretend that Apples are totally secure, a newsroom full of journalists reading every email sent their way and opening every attachment either out of necessity or ignorance will not end well in a Windows environment.

Let’s also not forget whose operating system causes more problems with false-positive anti-piracy measures. When last I checked, Apple didn’t even require a serial number for installation, much less ‘break’ computers found (correctly or incorrectly) to be using ‘pirated’ serial numbers.

Oh yeah, then there’s site-licensing antivirus software too. When I stopped using Windows a couple years back, there weren’t any good freebies that could legally be used in a commercial environment. Mac still has ClamXAV.

Anecdotally, Apple hardware lasts longer. I’ve been in newsrooms with 10-year-old G3’s and G4’s still happily chugging away. I, personally, have never had a PC last longer than 2-3 years before being partially or completely rebuilt.

Additionally, the cost of replacing all the Mac software licenses with Windows software licenses is prohibitive as well. Why do it?

The industry is all over the place these days. Why compound staffers’ misery by handing them new computers (and delays stemming from problems in roll-out) to add insult to injury? That’s just mean.

Lastly, what is the significant monetary advantage of switching? I can all but guarantee you that admin costs for Windows machines is higher than Apple (but probably lower than various *nix distros). Even if there are a couple bucks to be saved in the hardware, or even possibly in the software retraining and support have to make it less than money-saving.

The only place I’d go against the Apple is the XServe. That specific hardware is a colossal waste of money when compared to similarly equipped Windows or even Linux hardware.

I do agree that in the end, both platforms are tools that are capable of doing the job. However, there are non-cost related issues with not providing your creative staff with the tools of their choice.

Finally, general office PCs have very meager system requirements in comparison to the needs of graphic artists. The PC market is more price competitive at the low end of the market. However, with higher end workstations, Apple is typically more cost competitive than PC brands. Try comparing a Mac Pro to a similarly equipped Dell by comparison. When this is coupled with TCO arguments, security issues, etc. it seems hard to justify the massive cost of switching platforms.

to those who say a computer is just a tool, you’re both right and unfortunately wrong. yes, it’s a tool…but that being said, you don’t tell a painter which brush to use. you don’t tell a sculptor what chisel to work with…if you want the best work out of an artist then you let them choose the tools they feel will work the best. a productive happy artist means better art in less time and that’s where the real value is.

several years ago, my company tried to switch off macs because the IT guys and accountants thought it made sense to standardize on a single platform. the artists fought it tooth and nail and the ultimate decider was the significant dollar amounts required to replace not only the hardware, but software… especially when it comes to software outside the group licensing, stuff you use every day and now need new equivalents for.

to my mind, it boils down to one simple question, “what is the right tool for the job?” if you’re in accounting, you need windows. that’s the best tool. if you’re running a server, you might need linux. that might be the best tool. for me, the mac is the best tool for my job. the reliability of the hardware has been impressive. i’ve had great uptime with very little maintenance involved. add to that the relative absence of viruses and the ease use and it all adds up to a very good thing.

A very thorough study done by Gistics, Inc. a number of years back that included over 10,000 businesses using Macs for graphics found that Macs had a higher ROI, produced more revenue per user, and spent 30% less time on technical support. The differences were significant. And those were in the days when Macs really did cost significantly more than a PC counterpart.

One of Senior Project Engineers came from a company that thought they could save money by switching. They went from a small IT department in a room to needing a whole building to support the same group of users.

If someone thinks you should switch, then ask if they are willing to be held accountable when the Total Cost of Ownership doesn’t work out. Because it just won’t.

Having said that, Charles is right that it’s just a tool. But, if you reached into your tool box for a hammer and had a choice between one with a stick for a handle or one with a nice heft and feel and balance, which would you chose?

Our graphics department successfully fought off a push to go all PC a few years ago and what kept the PC at bay was the upgrades the PCs would require to match off-the-shelf Macs that are ready to go. I think the PC priced out $400 higher than the Mac Tower (at the time).