Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

US University Dumps Windows to go All Mac 368

Posted by Zonk
from the shiny-white-plastic-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see dept.
MacKeyser passed us a link to a MacWorld article about a University doing things a little differently. Instead of sticking with their inefficient mix of Apple and PC systems, the college is doing a 'total technology refresh', and adopting an all-Mac policy on the campus. Previously, a class at Wilkes University would be outfitted with something like 20 Macs and 20 PCs, to allow for individual preferences in software and OS use. With Boot Camp students at the Pennsylvania liberal arts college will be able to switch between Windows and OSX, choosing which applications and OS to use at any given time. "[Scott Byers, vice president for finance and the head of campus IT said] 'We think it will save $150,000 directly, in buying fewer units - even though the Macs cost more per unit than PCs.' The school, which enrolls about 4,000 undergraduate and graduate students, will reduce its inventory from nearly 1,700 computers to around 1,450 after the change over. Other costs savings, however, will be harder to measure. 'By standardizing, the IT department should be more productive,' Byers said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US University Dumps Windows to go All Mac

Comments Filter:
  • They're an arts college, so this should be a perfect demonstration of Apple's OS dominance in the field of digital arts.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I was just looking at the majors they offer and I'm trying to figure out how Wilkes is an art school. Liberal arts university, sure, but that's it. In fact, the only art program they offer is a minor. Also note that they have about 2,200 students.
    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)

      by PetrusMagnusII (309326) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:53AM (#18384285) Homepage
      I think you're confusing Liberal Arts with Art.

      Take a look at the undergraduate majors:

      http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/143.asp [wilkes.edu]

      Accounting, Air & Space Studies being the first two on the list...
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by h2g2bob (948006)
        Well, art does have a well known liberal bias.
        • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by paeanblack (191171) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @02:23PM (#18387525)
          Well, art does have a well known liberal bias.

          So does Slashdot.

          Has anyone noticed that they aren't dumping Windows at all? They just want to use Bootcamp to cut down on total hardware costs and standardize on a single hardware platform. All they are actually dumping is beige-box PC hardware. They still plan to run Windows and Windows apps just like they did before.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by JackMeyhoff (1070484)
      Apple has nothing special for "Arts", Photoshop etc are all available on Windows as are drawing tablets. If you want specalised hardware for art then you shop Wacom and others not Apple.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dreamlax (981973)
        Then why does everyone say Macs are better for video/graphics? Every graphics designer I know uses a Mac.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Bobsledboy (836872)
          Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Macs are generally considered more user friendly for novice users, a group that I would guess video/graphics professionals would probably tend to fall into.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by curious.corn (167387)
            Could it be that Apple software is simply better at things like color matching, font handling and other stuff, like making top hardware manageable by non nerds?(since media processing always required more horsepower than say... Office Word + Norton AV + Outlook... wait, forget it...)

            Perhaps, it's a matter of software quality... (limited to certain areas of interest, of course)

            e
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by ColdWetDog (752185)
              Umm, no. Windows is there. My stepson is currently enrolled at the Vancouver Film School, a well respected digital arts campus (or at least an expensive one....). They have a wonderful mac setup, nice shiny PowerMacs galore. Nobody uses them. All of the serious stuff is done on PCs.

              This comes from the faculty - all real-live professionals in their fields. While lots of folks use Macs - they're perfectly capable critters and I constantly drool about switching, to be perfectly honest - there isn't any

              • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)

                by ktappe (747125) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:50PM (#18390821)
                In response to the three posters who say their Mac labs go unused, that is probably because those who prefer Macs have one. People who use a computer lab anymore are those who probably aren't that computer literate and therefore have only ever been exposed to PC's a few times and will therefore gravitate towards the only thing they've ever seen. PC costs have dropped such that anyone with an interest in computers can buy what they want (PC or Mac).
        • That's really what it comes down to. I've heard lots of creative justifications, but they are BS when you get down to it. It is just legacy. Back in the day, Mac was it for graphics work. Windows couldn't do it and didn't have the apps in any case. So it was Mac or nothing. Likewise with things like digital audio. When it first started, it was ProTools or nothing, computers weren't powerful enough to do it on their own.

          Well, many people don't like change, thus they stick with Macs because that's what they'v
          • by sgant (178166) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:29AM (#18384869) Homepage Journal
            I don't know. Speaking from a perspective of a graphics pro that's used both platforms, the Mac just "feels" more natural to me. No, I can't put that in a quantitative explanation. I've gone from Mac to PC back to Mac and yes, Photoshop performs on both, but as I said, it just "feels" better to me on the Mac. I've tried to understand why this is, but I really can't put my finger on it.

            But honestly, it all comes down to personal preference. I know in the pre-press shops I've worked at, the PC has tried to make inroads, but there are a few things that just keep it back. Font handling is one....though most shops are going to an all PDF workflow, so that mitigates some of these problems.

            But like this article, the great thing about the Intel Macs is, you can run either OS X or Windows....or even Linux, if you want. I would say that the extra you pay for the Mac is actually made up for this ability right there. It's very versatile now.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              For me, the big thing about using the mac for everyday tasks is that the UI is way less cluttered and navigating the filesystem is an order of magnitude faster. Simple file management works far better than in Explorer (and OSX's finder is still a steaming pile of shit).

              Also, bouncing back and forth between open windows and applications and [more or less] system-wide drag and drop make many operations a breeze.

              Another big thing for me are apps and utils that are only found on the mac. Adium, TextMate, Quicks
          • by LKM (227954)

            The other justifications usually come from the fact that they either just tend to listen to the marketing hype

            How's that for some cognitive dissonance. "I don't understand why people chose Macs. But I know all about Computers. Thus, people who chose Macs must be stupid fucks who just tend to listen to the marketing hype."

            Wow.

          • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:39AM (#18384919) Homepage
            And in no small part: Because they've never grown dependent and/or highly skilled in any Windows-only software. How often do you hear "Yes OS X is great, but as long as it doesn't run $foo it's not usable to me". Or about Linux, for that matter. And a lot of those really creative types I've met, well... their minds seem "jumpy". I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's probably what makes them creative, but I think they're prime targets for Apple's "just works" marketing because they wouldn't stay focused long enough to get technical problems fixed. Of course you have a whole class of basicly "graphics engineers" in the same way you got software engineers, but they tend to follow the creative guys' lead.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17, 2007 @09:29AM (#18385275)
            creative examples on windows:

            1. typefaces:
            a designer uses a 'faux bold' and 'faux italic' in there design, when printed, those are reverted to the normal face of the font
            reason: extended windows features that are not typographically correct, and do not translate correctly in postscript

            2. colors:
            a designer makes a design with very vivid colors on it screen, when printed those colors look dull
            reason: standard windows gamma is too high (higher then mac), resulting in more vivid colors, allthought those colors are outside the cmyk range, and therefore are not printed as they are shown on screen
            (test yourself: try to differenciate 80% and 100% black on a pc screen, you cannot)

            these 2 examples illustrate that designers, who do not have a clue about technical aspects, are experiencing issues with there design-workflow on windows.
            offcourse, a designer could avoid using those 'faux' typefaces, and adjust his screen gamma, windows is able to do it all, and has even more options then a mac, but that is not what is required by a designer

            about 'people don't like changes': (to stay in the creative environment) how comes that quarkxpress, the leading page-design tool for ages in the graphic industry (even from before windows95 existed), has been dumped in the course of 1 year in favour of indesign? could this be explained in any creative or non-creative way?
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by timeOday (582209)
            I think you're blind. Take one look at OSX vs XP, and Mac hardware vs PC hardware (on average), and you can't tell me why graphical/artistic types might prefer the Mac? I'm not referring to the functionality of the applications, but to the platforms themselves. And this is coming from a Linux user; my initial desktop screen looks like it's from 1987 and I don't mind having a mix of apps with 3 different widget sets on my desktop at once, but I've noticed that does NOT fly in the Mac world.

            Maybe Vista w

          • by sootman (158191)
            Or they just want to continue never, ever having to worry about viruses and spyware. But you're right, a lot of it is inertia and momentum--the same inertia that keeps Windows in the financial and government worlds, keeps Macs in the creative world--because that's what all your vendors, printers, artists, etc. use. Most people don't work in a vacuum.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dr.badass (25287)
            Well, many people don't like change, thus they stick with Macs because that's what they've always used. The other justifications usually come from the fact that they either just tend to listen to the marketing hype, or because they feel a need to try and justify the more expensive purchase.

            What operating system do you use, and why? Remember to list only reasons that have nothing to with personal preference. God forbid people should use what they prefer. If it is an operating system you have used before, y
          • by admactanium (670209) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @01:21PM (#18386925) Homepage

            Well, many people don't like change, thus they stick with Macs because that's what they've always used. The other justifications usually come from the fact that they either just tend to listen to the marketing hype, or because they feel a need to try and justify the more expensive purchase.
            what a wonederfully condescending post. first off, why do people who don't work in graphic arts care what graphic artists do with their computers? if it has no relevence to you, then why even argue the point. most of the people i know in graphic and visual arts have been using macs for a long time. much longer than any perceived "hype" of recent os x macs.

            has it occurred to anyone that graphic designers prefer using macs and that they might actually have good reasons to use the hardware that they do? i have a windows box that sits on the floor next to my mac. i use it once every couple months to double-check a website design or somesuch other little thing. when i switch to an intel-based mac, i suppose i'll bootcamp into windows for those occassions and not much else.

            nobody questions the choices of people in other fields to standardize on particular platforms or apps, but for some reason people really enjoy debating the graphic artists/mac connection. why do people feel the need to question a professional's choice of tools. do you also debate why certain mechanics use snap-on versus milwaukee tools or why one doctor might use a different brand of stethoscope than another? i don't see how anybody in graphic arts has to justify their hardware choices to anybody.

            the argument seems to generally stem from the "macs are too expensive" crowd. well, when you bill by the hour, having a computer that works perfectly 99% of the time counteracts that argument. i bought a quad core g5 with 4.5 Gb of RAM, a terabyte internal RAID0 setup and 2 24" monitors. how long did it take me to pay off that rig with work? about a week and a half. why would i, or should i switch to save a few bucks when i already know what i'm using works perfectly for my needs. it's not expensive in the world view, only when you compare it to crap pcs.

            seriously, keep your "ooh shiny" and "hype from apple tv ads" and "designers are too dumb to use windows" comments to yourself. it's incredibly insulting. i could choose to learn any platform and could probably get my work done on windows or linux, but why should i? to satisfy the curiousity of some random slashdot posters? or perhaps so i could save $800 on a box and hope that i can transfer all my files, get app crossgrades and generally get up to speed with a different plaform in the 8 hours it would take me to justify the cost savings. anything over 8 hours and i'm losing money. i'd rather just make an educated decision to use macs for my own reasons. but thanks for caring.

      • by LKM (227954)
        The Windows version of Photoshop sucks. It uses that weird Window-in-a-Window paradigm which makes it really hard to compare files open in Photoshop to files open in other apps. I truly dislike that application. Also, I think color management on Macs is simpler, and the Mac offers other creative apps which are not available on Windows, such as Aperture or Final Cut Pro (granted, both are from Apple, but these are kind of important apps for many graphic artists and photographers).
        • by BiggyP (466507)
          Heh, that's it's biggest selling point for windows users and the thing they get most cross about being different in the GIMP.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blowdart (31458)

      But it's not about that; and, as is often the case the slashdot headline is an anti-windows line.

      With Boot Camp students at the Pennsylvania liberal arts college will be able to switch between Windows and OSX, choosing which applications and OS to use at any given time.

      They are standardising on hardware, not an operating system. Which makes sense in terms of cost and hardware management.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by iBod (534920)
      This 'dominance' is slipping away.

      The Mac offers nothing special or unique in the field of digital arts today.

      It used to be the case that the Mac had better software tools and better color management but this is no longer true. The same software and specialist hardware is available for Windows and many cost-concious design shops have gone over to Windows on generic workstations.

      A lot of designers still use Macs because they've always used Macs - simple as that.

      • by Bert64 (520050)
        The same can be said for windows relative to linux... People are still using it because they always have.
        • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by omeomi (675045) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:30AM (#18384873) Homepage
          The same can be said for windows relative to linux... People are still using it because they always have.

          Not at all. I'm all for Linux, but in art or digital audio, the tools available in Linux just don't stack up (yet) with ones available for Windows and OSX. Yes, there's the Gimp for graphics, and Audacity for audio (among a few others), but there's nothing that comes close to competing with ProTools, or any of the other major audio software applications, and I don't think there's much on Linux that competes with Illustrator or Quark, either.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ColdWetDog (752185)
            Exactly. Only two things need to happen before I ditch Windows in favor of Linux.

            Decent color management and Photoshop (at least CS2 level). I'm not sure why color management hasn't arrived, but Photoshop may be the killer un-app. Adobe has no particular reason to make it easy to run under Parallels and even less reason to make a native port. No Gimp flames please. I've been playing with it on Ubuntu - actually pretty impressive, but not Photoshop. Not even close.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Senjaz (188917)
        A lot of design shops wouldn't switch because they have an investment in Apple scripts that streamline their workflow. That can't be easily ported. Quark and 3rd party plug-in makers are notorious for bad support and huge prices. Even if you can get a Windows version of the plug-in you use, they'll probably expect you to pay for it again. Some of those plug-ins cost as much as Quark does in the first place.

        It's the counter part to those millions of shitty custom developed VB apps that keep businesses on Win
    • Really people, how does using a Mac makes you more 'artistic'?
    • Please, please, please tell me you understand the difference between a liberal arts college and an art college. Hint: It's not an institution of higher learning where non-conservatives go to learn to paint and sculpt--digitally or otherwise.

      AAUGH!

  • by feranick (858651) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:18AM (#18384139)
    Wake me up when a major US university does the switch...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      • by feranick (858651)
        Nothing to see here. Having an Apple supercomputer designed in a university, doesn't mean that university is switching. If that was the case, there would be way more US universities switching to Linux, since most of supercomputing clusters actually runs on Linux. So I get back to sleep.
      • by phoxix (161744)
        I fail to see how creating a cluster based on macs is considered switching. If that were the case, many organizations switched to linux ages ago.
      • What does that have to do with anything? The conversation here is about desktops, not cluster farms.

        By the way, I don't know them, but I'm guessing that the Virginia Tech folks sure do wish that Apple had sprung for some sort of OOB hardware management on those XServes. IPMI, anyone? Only if you've got the new X86-based hardware, which they didn't buy.
  • If they migrate to Mac OSX, does that make it less likely that at some point in the future they would switch to Linux? If people are having a hard time convincing people to move from Windows to Linux, isn't the job going to be harder getting them to move from Mac to Linux? It isn't really Windows that is the challenge to Linux, it is Mac OSX. Is it really a great thing for Free/Open Source software that people that many who are migrating from Windows are choosing Mac OSX?
    • by rvw (755107)

      If they migrate to Mac OSX, does that make it less likely that at some point in the future they would switch to Linux? If people are having a hard time convincing people to move from Windows to Linux, isn't the job going to be harder getting them to move from Mac to Linux? It isn't really Windows that is the challenge to Linux, it is Mac OSX. Is it really a great thing for Free/Open Source software that people that many who are migrating from Windows are choosing Mac OSX?

      I don't care about OSX (BSD) vs Linux. Both have the same (or similar) underlying structure, which makes it stable and safer than Windows. If people move away from Windows, either to OSX or Linux, that would be a good thing. OSX is the more logical choice, as it is more mature as a desktop system, and Apple has a good name here. I don't care if people don't make the next step to Linux.

      I moved from Windows to the Mac six years ago, when OS9 was still the Mac OS but knowing that OSX was coming. I have us

      • by drsmithy (35869)

        I don't care about OSX (BSD) vs Linux. Both have the same (or similar) underlying structure, which makes it stable and safer than Windows.

        What "underlying structure" is that ?

        I have used OSX to learn how to work with a UNIX-like system. I've tried to use linux then, but it was too much to handle at the time. I'm probably not the typical user, but for my next computer I'm considering moving to Ubuntu.

        OS X will not teach you how to use UNIX, because its "UNIXness" is an incidental feature. OS X might be

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by karmatic (776420)
      No, it's a good thing. The transition from Mac to Linux is much easier since they already lost compatibility, application support, gaming, and driver support anyway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NickFortune (613926)

      If they migrate to Mac OSX, does that make it less likely that at some point in the future they would switch to Linux?

      Possibly, possibly not. After all, in a lot of ways the jump from OS/X to Linux is a lot shorter than the one from Windows to Linux. They're both Unix descended systems and have a lot of apps in common. And when it comes to Linux, the price is always going to be had to beat.

      On the other hand, I have to say that it doesn't much bother me. What I'd like to see is a bit more diversity O/S

  • by IchBinEinPenguin (589252) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:26AM (#18384183)
    ... diversity good.
    Even it it's a 'non-evil' monoculture.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geekboybt (866398)

      How is this different from them buying all Dell (or HP / Brand X / Whatever)? Just now that by buying Apple, every computer can use an OS that runs Photoshop, et. al. that isn't Windows, not just 50% of them.

      Before the switch, every user had a choice - Mac or Windows. Every user still has a choice - OS X or XP/Vista - just now they can standardize on the hardware. Unless you have a real beef with Apple hardware (and every hardware vendor has its critics), I don't see a downside to this policy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        If you want a windows PC, buy a windows PC. Don't lobotomise a Mac.

        Windows` strength is the diversity of third-party support, both hardware and software.
        Why give half of that up and run only on mac hardware?

        To answer your question, it's no different from only buying Dell or Brand X or whatever. It's just as wrong.
        • by macs4all (973270) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:44AM (#18384957)
          If you want a windows PC, buy a windows PC. Don't lobotomise a Mac. Windows` strength is the diversity of third-party support, both hardware and software. Why give half of that up and run only on mac hardware? To answer your question, it's no different from only buying Dell or Brand X or whatever. It's just as wrong.

          You obviously have never tried to maintain more than a few computers at a time.

          The main reason IT departments tend to be "monoculture" when it comes to hardware is the sanity of their IT staff.

          You will note that they did NOT create (another) OS "monoculture". The users now have the choice between the two top-selling OSes, and the University gets to buy less hardware.

          Oh, and since they are Macs , they can, through Parallels, even designate some or all of the machines to run nearly any other OS on the planet.

          No other hardware vendor can offer that (at least not legally).

          None. Period.

    • ... diversity good.
      Even it it's a 'non-evil' monoculture.


      Two points.

      1) Plenty of (software) diversity here (more than most places) - students can choose osx or windows (pity there's no linux)

      2) Google is the 'do no evil' company (hah!). Apple sues its customers, pushes DRM, etc etc. They just make better products than MS, so we don't care as much about their evilness.
  • Confused (Score:4, Informative)

    by Saint Stephen (19450) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:27AM (#18384187) Homepage Journal
    Dumps Windows because the new Macs can all run Windows?
    • by uhlume (597871)
      I'd be tempted to call this one of the stupidest and most misleading Slashdot headlines I've ever seen. Unfortunately, I've been reading Slashdot far too long to make that claim.
  • The school...will reduce its inventory from nearly 1,700 computers to around 1,450 after the change over.
    I may be a Mac fanboy, but I don't see how fewer computers can be a benefit for students.
    • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:37AM (#18384235) Homepage Journal
      I may be a Mac fanboy, but I don't see how fewer computers can be a benefit for students.

      RTFA.

      The classes used to have (all number pulled from my ass) 15 windows PCs & 15 Mac PCs. In a class of 20, 10 would go unused.

      Now, they'll have 20 PCs capable of running OS X or Windows. All students still have access to a PC.
      • by Baricom (763970)
        I did, and I suppose that if all classes are truly overstocked, then a reduction in machines is great. In practice, however, it seems to me that computers are often unevenly installed, so one class consistently has too many, while another has too few. I guess this all hinges on the newly-gained "productivity" of the IT department.
    • I may be a Mac fanboy, but I don't see how fewer computers can be a benefit for students.

      Not all of the resources at a university are there for the students. I think the reduction in the number of computers would be due to researchers who previously needed a PC and a Mac now getting a single box.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:32AM (#18384215)
    That title is very misleading, it is only the hardware that is switching to mac, no the OS. It says they plan to use boot camp to dual boot OSX and windows. Hardly what you'd call a mac campus. They're just making it so that hardware wise they only have to buy macs rather than macs and pcs.
  • Headline Incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:34AM (#18384227) Homepage Journal
    The university is not dumping windows at all.

    They're dumping generic PCs in favour of mac PCs. They'll still purchase windows licenses & allow dual booting.

    It's a hardware story, not a software story.
    • by GreatDrok (684119)
      Don't these schools typically have Windows site licences anyway? By buying Macs and installing Boot Camp the users get the choice they want and the school can install a copy of Windows as usual due to their site license. MS doesn't get paid twice for each PC which can only be good IMHO. Personally, I wouldn't give the users the choice. I would do a deal with parallels or VMware to allow the Windows software to be run while encouraging the users to run OS X all the time.
    • sure?
      there is nothing special about apple hardware nowadays, they are just the same generic pcs. the only reason to use macs would be osx.
  • hrmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrsym0r (1068436) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @05:46AM (#18384261)
    fta:

    "Although the $1.4 million three-year switch - which started last year with the purchase of approximately 500 Macs"

    $965 per apple? including the installation, planning etc? Over three years, in which time period the current macs would be outdated and require hardware upgrades in order to use the mac OS that will be in circulation by then?

    Methinks their budget may fall a tad short..
    • by feranick (858651)
      You also need to add the $$$ for licenses of MS products...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by djfake (977121)
      plus Apple care of $119, plus AMP agreement of $79.
    • by jpellino (202698) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @07:48AM (#18384707)
      often longer. every fw imac, cube, power mac and ibook we ever owned is running tiger and doing better than previous OS versons - every non-fw g3+ is running 10.3.9 and doing very well.

      installation? ard.
      planning? has to be done anyway.
      etc? macs have less etc.
  • Makes total sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhotoGuy (189467) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @07:37AM (#18384663) Homepage
    I've said it before, I've said it again; I bought my first Mac(book) recently, and the thing that pushed me over the edge to do so was the fact I knew I could fall back to Windows when I needed to, or completely stay in Windows if the OS X experience wasn't a good one. But like most people who try it, that "security blanket" of Boot Camp is more of an insurance policy, or peace of mind (or gaming option), rather than something they end up using in real life. I have my MS Office and OpenOffice, Opera/Firefox/Safari, and even IE under Crossover Office or Parallels. (I tend to use Parallels for IE testing purposes of my websites).

    The only reason I reboot to windows now, is for the odd game; and even that's rare with me. Windows seems so much peppier, too, when I do go to it; since I only go there occasionally, the system doesn't get bogged down with addons, startup items, spyware, etc.. (The old reinstall-windows-every-six-months can be extended greatly, if you only use Windows occasionally.)

    I think for a multimedia course that needs to teach students both Mac and PC skills, it makes all the more sense; both OS's on one machine: of course it's an overall savings, and somewhat of a no-brainer.

    Yes, Mac hardware is single-vendor (unless you do the hackbook thing, not viable for a commercial enterprise); but in my experience, it's well designed, solid, stable, fast hardware. My only lament is that I'm a big fan of sub-nootbooks, like Librettos, and Apple has no such option currently. But I can live without that, for all the other benefits that OS X brings.

    Yes, I'm a recent fan, and I am a boy, so fling away with your "fanboy" insults. Meanwhile, I'm productive and enjoying the experience immensely :)
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:25AM (#18384845) Homepage Journal
    Even in the summary, it states they are intending to use Bootcamp: "With Boot Camp students at the Pennsylvania liberal arts college will be able to switch between Windows and OSX, choosing which applications and OS to use at any given time."

    So they arent dumping windows, they are just going to a more manageable single-source hardware vendor, whch just happens to be Apple.

    Sure, its a good thing as more students will get a taste of OSX, but please be a bit more accurate here of what is going on. Geesh.
    • I meant to say not dumping *windows*.. Geesh. sorry people.

      Would be nice if you could go back and edit your posts for when you make stupid mistakes you dont catch until after you hit submit.
  • Apple is cheaper? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LaughingCoder (914424) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @08:52AM (#18385001)

    Wilkes decided to go all-Apple because the new Intel-based models and the Boot Camp dual-boot software - would let the school reduce the number of machines campus-wide. "This is an aggressive technology refresh," Byers said.
    OK, now I get it. It's cheaper to standardize on Macs because they dual boot - therefore the same machine can be used to run Mac OS (and hence Mac-only apps) or Windows (ditto). So they aren't standardizing on Mac OS (as the headline implies), they are standardizing on Mac hardware because it can run Windows too. This has nothing to do with the OS wars, it is purely a financial decision.
    • So they're going to be buying a bunch of Macs to replace their PCs, in order to save money (the PCs presumably still work). Kind of like fucking for viginity.

      I know that the intent is to save on hardware support costs, but I would think the payback period would be quite long.
  • by bryan1945 (301828) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @10:47AM (#18385771) Journal
    Both of my parents went to Wilkes (long time ago- my mom met my dad in a slide rule class!), and they are impressed that Wilkes is going forward (for right or wrong). I think my mom was surprised that Wilkes even had computers. Like I said, long time ago! :)

    As to good or bad- let it shake out and see what happens. I'm tired of all the fanboy/advocacy about what's better, cheaper, etc. Let's give some real world craziness a shot.
  • by krunk7 (748055) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @12:51PM (#18386697)
    I have not met a single person in real life who used a mac for more then a few days that did not permantly switch to OS X as their primary OS.

    This includes the following categories os users:

    • Linux/Bsd types that bought a mac laptop with the sole intention of installing *bsd or *nix on it. . . .but mine as well see what this osx thing is about, right?
    • Windows types who bought a macbook "just to see". After all they can always install windows on it and it just looks cool for a decent price..right?
    • Developers
    • Casual users
    • Academics
    • Professionals


    Now I have seen a blog or two of people who disliked the OSX experience. And a couple of vocal anti-mac types and purists in places like slashdot. I doubt they're in any way representative of the norm. There are very good reasons to use a pc over a mac. There are fewer reasons to use a *nix/bsd over a mac except in the "server on a shoestring" market. It just so happens that unless your a gamer or need a specific, niche software that isn't available on mac...almost all of the reasons above have nothing to do with the end user.

  • standardization.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by God of Lemmings (455435) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @02:14PM (#18387439)
    This is the first time I've seen the buzzword "standardization" used to defeat a set
    of windows machines instead of the other way around.
  • A student there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reav (549235) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @09:55PM (#18391263)
    I'm in their master program for school admin. I can report that their technology in education courses stress interoperativity and are not OS specific. Students are encouraged to submit projects in open formats which promote open standards. I don't have a handle on their engineering or math departments but there are numerous penguins posted conspicuously on some professors' doors. re-v

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...