Mac desktops are 'smarter money,' says CIO

Property asset management company Capital & Regional is evaluating Linux desktops and Apple Macs as a way to reduce its dependency on Microsoft.

While the U.K. company has about 700 PC users and currently runs Windows XP Pro and Office XP Pro, Chief Information Officer Richard Snooks has criticized Microsoft's aggressive licensing policies.

"We are feeling the pinch of the aggressive revenue targets of Microsoft," Snooks said. "We are asking ourselves, 'Are they (Microsoft) fit for our business?'"

In particular, Snooks isn't convinced by the arguments for upgrading to Microsoft's latest Windows operating system, Vista, and is actively looking at alternatives, including a small trial of a Suse Linux desktop inside the IT department.

"I feel we are being railroaded, and the market generally forced (us) into a corner or even a cul-de-sac. In a free market, we have made Microsoft dominant, and now we have the collective responsibility to reverse this situation to re-establish balance and competition. If I am being driven down the Vista route, then an Apple Mac is smarter money and cheaper."

Snooks said the browser-based ATMs at Capital & Regional's shopping outlets could potentially run on Suse Linux with a Firefox browser, while Apple Macs may be a better alternative to Windows PCs.

A Microsoft representative said the company offers a range of licensing agreements for different business needs and cited security and energy efficiency as benefits of moving to Vista.

"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."

Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London.

[Charleston Charge]

Not sure on the reasoning

"If I am being driven down the Vista route, then an Apple Mac is smarter money and cheaper." To me it sounds like he doesn't want to go down the "Vista route" because he feels he's being pressured to go that way. If you go down the Mac/Apple route then you'll just end up on a different route attached to another single vendor, but this time with both hardware and software. Based on his reasoning it seems like the Linux route would be the way to go.

[qwerty75]

This quote might be true, and it should scare the crap out of windows users

""Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft"

It is far less secure then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

It is far less reliable then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

It is far less flexible then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.

But this is a flow out lie:

"and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain,"

[jjbraunius]

A very nice idea indeed!

"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from
Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and
maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates
maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to
be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth
security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."

I really don't see any complexity being reduced. The licensing
scheme is becoming a mess for huge corporations and the
constant system updates are also a mess to implement. There
always seems to be a constant patching of bugs and security
threats with MS OSes.

Lets also mention how RAM hungy Vista really is - minimum
1gig to function properly!

In depth security of which version? The Vista licensing scheme is
a total mess and honestly only the most expensive version adds
a bit of increased security. On the other hand a Linux or FreeBSD
system has that security already built-in. I see Linux as being
problematic in this implementation is that it has limited
hardware drivers compared to Windows. On the other hand
Apple has shown that this is not a problem. The other problem
is using MS products on the server end - that hasn't always
shown to be OS independent.

As an IT administrator I am actually just now forcing upgrade to
Windows XP due to the fact that the new .net internet apps our
firm is forced to use are not Windows 2k compatible. Just the OS
is costing us $150 per user with no apparent benefit for the
firm. Then on top of that we have to get new Office licenses at
$250 a pop and it quickly becomes a financial nightmare. At the
same time there is Openoffice.org that is quite a viable solution.

[jjbraunius]

you mean Flat out lie?

I agree...

The only thing is the ease of changing drivers post installation
which is usually a logistics nightmare on Linux/Unix clones.

[Penguinisto]

*snicker*

"[i]A Microsoft representative said the company offers a range of licensing agreements for different business needs and cited security and energy efficiency as benefits of moving to Vista.[/i]"

How energy efficient is it to be forced to buy a bigger, newer computer with a larger power supply just to run Vista?

/P

[gsmiller88]

I don't get it...

Apple can combine all of their OS features into one varation.
Microsoft has to have several, the cheapeest of which is even more
than the single version of OS X! As always, it's a greed thing...

[Thomas, David]

Finally, the Lights are On!

My subject line says it all.

[jdien07]

Mac supporter says: bad story

I happily admit to being a Mac partisan and yet I have to say from an objective point of view that this is a crappy news story. In what sense does this constitute news? It isn't a major corporation. It doesn't offer new information. It's just the unsupported opinion of a random CIO. At a minimum, it should ask the CIO to provide the concrete numbers that led to this conclusion. How much money does he estimate a Vista PC would cost versus Mac or Linux? Better yet, get some opinions from other companies too. This article is a waste of time for the reader. Come on cnet, you can do better than this!

[onlyauser]

Good points --- However, I will remain with Windows

I can see this man's point and find it extremely aware and smartly charting a course for his company. If he sees certain aspects that are not beneficial to his company using Microsoft it is his fudiciary responsibility to look elsewhere. If my company only required a few 'common' type of applications to funtion I would have switched yesterday.

The main reason I run Microsoft's OS is because I run so many different apps and have a large variety of needs that Windows does better than the rest.

[dyler]

This is downright wrong

Hello,

I have been in IT support for 12 years and this is flat out wrong. I think Macs and Windows are both great platforms and that is why I use both. They do different things well and better than the other, such as there is no video editing program that comes close to final cut on windows unless you shell out huge amounts for avid. Windows is a easy and basic operating system to support IT wise. Linux is a nightmare with drivers and etc. Mac they will find will have major incompatibilites in the real world. I think CIO's need to spend less time doing paper work and get out there under the desk in the real world to see what support really means, your overhead will increase becuase of the larger support department you build becuase of this switch to either mac or linux and they will be spending more money that they are with windows now, not to mention the price of a mac box compare to a core 2 duo windows box.

[KlondikeWolf]

ROFL

"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain,"

Windows 2000 was way more secure and reliable. Vista's Windows Explorer crashes at least twice per day on me, and I'm running a clean OEM machine. Vista is right up there with Me for being the -least- flexible. It is expensive and not worth deploying, and very difficult to maintain ... Windows 2000 was much better if we compare MicroSoft OS products. The -only- reason his statement has any validity is Windows 2000 isn't much available anymore.

[jdien07]

Plagiarized?

I just found the full news article at the following site: http://www.silicon.com/ciojury/0,3800003161,39167758,00.htm

I find it interesting that this "cnet article" didn't provide a link to the original story and that it claims to be "special to cnet." Something is very off-key here. It does correctly give the name of the author but unless silicon.com is owned by the same company as cnet.com, somebody just violated copyright law. Even if the same writer posted both articles, only one of the companies actually owns the copyright to the text.

[jdien07]

same company

Ah, silicon.com IS owned by the same company so not plagiarism. Still very misleading to readers, not to mention incomplete. Be sure to see the original article for the full info.

[pilaa]

Intel Based Machines are just as Flexible

What people are failing to realize is the fact that you can run multiple OS's on Intel based hardware almost as easily as you can on a Mac with the exception of OSX of course).

If Windows Vista is not a necessary upgrade solution but stability and improved network security is, then it is wise to install Suse or Redhat Linux as the host OS and add VMWare or Parallels for Windows to keep your existing copy of Windows XP or 2000 running virtually as a client OS on the desktop.

This solution will add stability and security to your network and allow the flexibility most companies need while getting off the Microsoft Windows upgrade gravy train...

[mbenedict]

All talk, no action...

If Linux *were* appropriate for their needs, Capital & Regional would have switched already, instead of having their CIO just yappin' about it.

I mean, come on, 700 users is insignifant these days from an IT perspective. Put up or shut up.

[ResinNation]

ummmm... huh?

K... so they're as easy to run mulitple systems as a Mac, but they
don't run the Mac OS, right? But a Mac can do it all, just as easily,
AND run the Mac OS?
So... what was your point?

[bigjim01]

What an idiot

If Macs & Linux was good alternatives, then a majority of people would be using them rather than using Windows as most of the planet does now. Sure other people use these "operating systems" but they just don't offer the ease of use that Windows offers.

[Ted Miller]

Bravo!!!!

He is right! I am sure others are upset about his viewpoint. But try to look at it from his perspective. Microsoft has been agressive in beating the cash out of people all over the world and abusing people with very shabby products. I am not a linux user or a Mac user. I am a Microsoft User and IT person for many years and I am telling you that as of this date and where Microsoft plans to go in the future, that it is a big mistake for any one to walk that path Microsoft has laid out for us. People wake up. Microsoft is human and therefor imperfect just like any one else. It is time to look else where.

[Xenu7]

Junk food by any other name

If you've always eaten off paper and plastic, it's hard to imagine eating of silver an china.

[jmvapa]

We started migrating to Mac's 3 months ago and haven't looked back

Since practically all of our existing software doesn't work in Vista, switching to Macs wasn't as scary as it had been before. We started with a single Macbook and have been migrating every laptop and desktop ever since. For the occasional legacy needs, we easily migrated our old Windows systems into virtual systems in our new Macs using VM Fusion. Even without existing Windows OS's, we could easily use ReactOS or Crossover. My farewell letter to Windows is here: http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do.html