Going Mac...maybe.

[N80]

I cannot count the number of times that we have had to purchase new versions of software when we purchased new Macs because the old version was incompatible with the new Mac OS.

Since this is such a common occurance, surely you can share some specific examples and under what circumstances this happened.

I have not had this experience and I have been through all major Mac changes (early chip to PowerPC chip, OS 9 to OS X and PowerPC to Intel). I have been through this change with all the usual Mac software like Clarisworks, AppleWorks, etc but also with pro-level software like Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive,PageMaker, FileMaker etc. This includes proprietary software for fairly high end film scanners from Nikon etc.

That's only three significant changes in Mac's history where you could possibly have had the experience you describe. The change to PowerPC occured somewhere around System 7 back in 92 or 93 maybe. The change to OS X was relatively seamless as you could run older programs in emulation. I'm still running Photoshop 5.5 (!!!) this way on a G4 tower that is probably 8 years old and it works perfectly. It came with OS 8 on it and now runs about the 4th version OS X flawlessly. (Folks can claim that their Windows PC can do that, but lets see the average home user pull that off!) I could run that same ancient version on my iMac until the lastest version of OS X came out and that's about 5 version releases ago for Photoshop!The change from PowerPC to Intel was easy and most significant programs were realeased as UB (universal binary) and could run on either chip.

So I'm genuinely curious to hear some specific examples and under what conditions they ocurred. I don't doubt that you have them, I just wonder what they were, especially since the occasions were countless.

It has happened many times over the years to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It would have been nice to run the old version of the software on speedier hardware, but it was just not possible. But we did it because, in those applications, the Mac was the best tool for the job. Applications like Quark Express, Aldus Freehand, Adobe Illustrator come to mind. There were also a number of proprietary software packages that had to be updated, as well.

Again, not my experience. It might take a little strategic planning with these big chnages. But if you're talking about Quark and Freehand, you're talking about pretty ancient history.

And besides, these big changes are what keeps Apple competative and are the reason they are gaining market share, be it ever so tiny.

 

[MossRoad]

Since this is such a common occurance, surely you can share some specific examples and under what circumstances this happened.

I have not had this experience and I have been through all major Mac changes (early chip to PowerPC chip, OS 9 to OS X and PowerPC to Intel). I have been through this change with all the usual Mac software like Clarisworks, AppleWorks, etc but also with pro-level software like Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive,PageMaker, FileMaker etc. This includes proprietary software for fairly high end film scanners from Nikon etc.

That's only three significant changes in Mac's history where you could possibly have had the experience you describe. The change to PowerPC occured somewhere around System 7 back in 92 or 93 maybe. The change to OS X was relatively seamless as you could run older programs in emulation. I'm still running Photoshop 5.5 (!!!) this way on a G4 tower that is probably 8 years old and it works perfectly. It came with OS 8 on it and now runs about the 4th version OS X flawlessly. (Folks can claim that their Windows PC can do that, but lets see the average home user pull that off!) I could run that same ancient version on my iMac until the lastest version of OS X came out and that's about 5 version releases ago for Photoshop!The change from PowerPC to Intel was easy and most significant programs were realeased as UB (universal binary) and could run on either chip.

So I'm genuinely curious to hear some specific examples and under what conditions they ocurred. I don't doubt that you have them, I just wonder what they were, especially since the occasions were countless.



Again, not my experience. It might take a little strategic planning with these big chnages. But if you're talking about Quark and Freehand, you're talking about pretty ancient history.

And besides, these big changes are what keeps Apple competative and are the reason they are gaining market share, be it ever so tiny.

I suspect your IT experience in my industry is just as extensive as your time on a tractor with a hydrostatic transmission... once around the parking lot.

 

[N80]

I suspect your IT experience in my industry is just as extensive as your time on a tractor with a hydrostatic transmission... once around the parking lot.

That's why I asked for specific examples. And not a snide comment. Which calls your credibility into question. Not mine.

Funny how you always fall back on the experience thing. Funny how you seem to think it makes you entitled to be able to make pronouncements that are beyond question. Funny how having your experience questioned makes you defensive.

Funny how you think your IT experience, in 'your' industry has any practical bearing on a home users choice of computing platforms.

Funny how we Mac fans are the ones so often branded as zealots.

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[CurlyDave]

I will start by saying I am a Mac person, have been since 1985, but I worked for a company that switched from Mac to PC and I can tell you exactly why they did this.

1. Macs are not very good at being centrally administered in a corporate environment.

2. In general, it will take more IT people to support a group of PCs than the same number of Macs.

3. The hardware cost of Macs is generally higher.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of an IT manager in a corporation. Would you rather supervise a department of 10 people (Macs) or 25 people (PC)? If you have 25 underlings your salary and prestige will be much higher than if you only have 10. Best reason in the world to recommend PC.

Secondly, you can justify PC purchases based on lower capital cost. Absolutely true, but somehow those extra 15 IT workers never come into the equation. If any corporation ever really looked at total cost of use, Macs would win every time, but the fox is guarding the chickens. The IT manager would have fewer underlings and a lower salary if Macs were used.

Of course, the logic is reversed for individual owners.

My wife is a university professor ands has a consulting business on the side. When I first started dating her ~ 12 years ago, she was a dedicated PC user, thought Macs were crap, and would never consider switching. It was just plain too hard to learn a new way of working.

Now part of her consulting business was to produce 50-60 page reports that were due on very specific dates. She has about 10 to 12 of these in any year.

When she ran PCs, at least once per year, her computer would crash a few days before a major report was due. The only safe course of action was to go down to the computer store and buy a new, top line PC. Usually HP, but sometimes Sony.

The she would reload her software and start over on the report, sometimes with a backup file to give her a flying start on the data. Never once late with a report, but a lot of money out the window.

The there was a program at her university to train people on Macs. She took it, bought a Mac, and it is like night and day. We still replace hardware, but on a schedule, not an emergency basis.

In fact, if you look only at small business, where the owner is free to choose his computers with lowest overall cost in mind, counting his labor, loss of business due to downtime, expense of software repairs, etc. you will find that Macs are vastly more common than in big business. Might not even get up to 50%, but they are much more common than in businesses with an IT department. They just work more frequently and go longer between repairs.

 

[RadarTech]

While I have not read all the posts on this thread I have a few comments.
Curly Dave-- you are absolutely correct about the big business costs..

here are a few twists though, with my story..

I trace my computer /electronics knowledge and training back about 25 years. Started in the 80's with Tandy computers, and then military systems unisys / sperryvac. Onward to Cisco routers, switches, firewalls and now Voice over IP systems and experience working at Internet Service Providers. I have held positions from field support tech, ISP NOC engineer, director of IT, and now a full-time Network design/support consultant.

During the mid to late nineties, we saw MAC's become a force in desktop publishing, that continued until about 2003. about that time most apps (quark express for example) started going cross platform. Some newspapers shifted to PC's... A friend's company shifted from MAC to PC just because of the admin issues and the lack of good mac support folks..

Now when they did, they added 4 new IT staffers. (had 8 when to 12)
Interesting thing though, when they added the staffers they added new technologies and more inhouse development. Before the switch all special apps were supported and developed externally- could not afford the MAC app developers. After the switch they used 1 senior developer, 2 mid-level, 1 PC tech and 1 coop. Most of the staff were fairly quick to learn the PC side..

Another company I know, did what Curly Dave said-- they doubled the IT staff-- ALL NEW folks for the PCs-- (15 to 30) and then after 2 years about 10 of the ole MAC folks left. Mostly attrition and refusal to learn PC..


So the end result here is YMMV-- your mileage may vary....

As long as there are different platforms, there will be difficulties in maintaining systems. and that will make life interesting for those in the consulting world!


Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Later,
J