Are Macs Really Cheaper To Manage Than PCs?

[IntelliUser]

CIO — Macs in the enterprise aren't just cheaper to manage—they're a lot cheaper, according to a new survey released today by the Enterprise Desktop Alliance.

The survey found that Macs were cheaper in six of seven computer management categories: troubleshooting, help desk calls, system configuration, user training and supporting infrastructure (servers, networks and printer). Nearly half of the respondents cited software licensing fees as roughly the same for both platforms.
A whopping 65 percent of respondents said it costs less to troubleshoot Macs than PCs, 19 percent said they spent the same on both computers, and only 16 percent said they spent less to manage PCs than Macs.
Even more impressive, a majority of the respondents citing the low cost of Macs in nearly all categories said Macs were more than 20 percent cheaper to manage than PCs.
With Macs dominating in almost every cost category, why would 16 percent claim they spent less troubleshooting PCs? "It might be an [issue] of expertise of the IT staff," says Tom Cromlin, spokesperson for the Enterprise Desktop Alliance. "They're probably more comfortable troubleshooting PCs."
Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Jon Oltsik has another reason. He says top execs often prefer Macs, and thus supporting those machines take on more importance. "It's not about managing [Mac] systems, which may be easier than Windows" on a machine-by-machines basis, Oltsik explains. "It's when the CEO wants IT to install software on his or her Mac, which will need immediate attention and take time away from other tasks."
The cost of management appears to be a key driver for Macs in the enterprise. Nearly half of respondents said they brought in Macs mainly because of their low total cost of ownership and ease of technical support.
In fact, many small companies with limited IT resources told CIO.com that they moved to Macs after getting fed up with costly PC support issues. "Mac owners tend to do a lot of problem resolution themselves by communicating with other users," Oltsik says.

http://www.cio.com/article/569163/Are_Macs_Really_Cheaper_To_Manage_Than_PCs_?page=2&taxonomyId=3081

Don't worry, the cons are on the second page.

 

[maflynn]

The problem is that all intents purposes Macs don't exist in the enterprise and apple has generally not pushed into the enterprise market.

The point - cost of maintaining them is moot since they're not there in the first place.

 

[randomerratum]

It's hard to say in any kind of corporate environment for sure. I think it's got to depend on who's using them and for what tasks... I've worked in a number of post-production facilities and in that scenario, the ones sitting at the machine (editors, dvd authorists etc) can typically troubleshoot anything their G5 can throw at them. We all had office-issued PCs sitting there for all the office networking stuff (Outlook, scheduling and sales stuff) which were constantly being catered to by the IT staff - is this because Macs are more hassle free? Is it because Mac users are uncomfortable with windows?

Corporate environments like to buy those $300 PCs, recycle monitors and keyboards etc. This is obviously cheaper to setup, and if you've a full-time IT staff anyway, you might as well put them to work.

Personally, while I've been accustomed to replacing all my PCs after about 2 years, I recently had my first Mac "die" on me - a 2004 G5 tower had a solid 5 year run with requiring minimal maintenance and $0 in any tech support. Content with it's lifespan as it was, I ran the hardware test to see what was up... bad memory! $80 for new RAM, $120 for an OS update and it runs better now then the day I bought it!

Are Macs cheaper to maintain? Depends on who you are, but my experience is yes.

 

[clevin]

obviously, when you have 1 macs and 1000 pcs, you sure gonna spend more on the support of PCs.

 

[MisterMe]

obviously, when you have 1 macs and 1000 pcs, you sure gonna spend more on the support of PCs.

The point is that when you have 9 Macs and 1 PC, you still spend more maintaining the PCs.

 

[mysterytramp]

For about three-plus years, I worked off an iBook with OS 9. Zero maintenance issues. We "upgraded" in 2008 to Dell PCs running XP. I've had multiple issues that have required the hard drive to be wiped twice (and I've got another issue with the cursor randomly deciding to change its location on screen that I'll tell IT when my workflow decreases).

So in my one anecdote, the company has definitely spent more on my PC than my Mac. But the kicker for us was we made the Mac-to-PC switch largely because it was hard to find decent IT people who can troubleshoot whatever issues Macs present. Smaller labor pool means higher salaries, which is what our company was trying to avoid.

But the cost is really a smokescreen, IMHO. Companies want greater control over their equipment, control that is harder to implement on Macs, and part of the basic package with Windows. Ergo, companies love Windows.

mt