IBM's 200,000 Macs Have Made a Happier and More Productive Workforce, Study Finds (appleinsider.com) 169
sbinning shares a report from AppleInsider: IBM has published its latest study focusing on the benefits of Apple products in enterprise, and has found that a fleet of over 200,000 Macs leads to far lower support costs, smaller numbers of support staff, and happier employees versus a Windows deployment. In the study presented on Tuesday, IBM says that employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Mac-using employees generating sales deals have 16% larger proceeds as well.
Turning to employee satisfaction, the first-of-its-kind study shows that Mac users were 17 percent less likely to leave IBM compared to their Windows counterparts. Mac users also were happier with the software available, with 5 percent asking for additional software compared to 11 percent of Windows users. A team of seven engineers is needed to maintain 200,000 Macs whereas a team of 20 is needed for that number of Windows PCs. During setup, the migration process was simple for 98 percent of Mac users versus only 86 percent of those moving from Windows 7 to Windows 10. Windows users were also five times as likely to need on-site support.
Turning to employee satisfaction, the first-of-its-kind study shows that Mac users were 17 percent less likely to leave IBM compared to their Windows counterparts. Mac users also were happier with the software available, with 5 percent asking for additional software compared to 11 percent of Windows users. A team of seven engineers is needed to maintain 200,000 Macs whereas a team of 20 is needed for that number of Windows PCs. During setup, the migration process was simple for 98 percent of Mac users versus only 86 percent of those moving from Windows 7 to Windows 10. Windows users were also five times as likely to need on-site support.
Standardized hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standardized hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most big businesses tend to use standardized hardware for their Windows machines as well.
But still didn't work because next year the vendor changed components due to pricing/availability/etc.
With Macs, Apple will make sure the OS will work with the different components they chose.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a strange view of the world. Aside from a line of Dell Latitudes being available for many years precisely to avoid your scenario, it's very likely the future replacement model will have one generation up in Intel processor, use the same Intel graphics driver package have the same Intel pro network card, the same Intel chipset drivers etc.
In the corporate world there is very little that changes. In fact I'll go as far as to say I'm running the same driver packages for the same hardware vendors now a
Re: (Score:2)
"The pernicious truth about Mac hardware is that it actually becomes obsolete faster..."
Define Obsolete? I'm currently typing this on my 2012 Mac Mini which sits next to my 2007 Mac Mini. My 2007 is still going strong as a rendering assist. Yes, it's slow. But again, it's an assist. Something which can sit there overnight and grind away.
Macs, especially notebooks, continue to keep their value. If you don't believe me go to a pawn shop and see the prices they're charging.
Re: (Score:2)
And in a corporate environment, that's actually a good thing. I've been in places where a penny pincher is refusing to provide money for new machines and you have to install Windows 10 on a Core2Duo - this makes people really unhappy and drives up support costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I mentioned above I'm typing this on a 2012 Mac Mini. When I upgraded to Mojave I got a lot of beachballs spinning. Updated the memory from four to sixteen gig and it's humming along nicely.
Re: (Score:3)
Shit, I remember updating from 4MB to 16MB and having things humming, on an IBM OS too. Things change.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 10 runs just fine in terms of performance on Nehalem(2008/2009). Your claims of it running slowly on 10 year old hardware is at best a stretch, at worst it's BS. However, from what I read, Ivy Bridge (2012) is the oldest version supported by feature versions newer than v1703 in Windows 10. Depending on how you look at OS releases for macOS vs Windows 10 and its feature updates, you could ea
Re:Standardized hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows 10 runs just fine in terms of performance on Nehalem(2008/2009). Your claims of it running slowly on 10 year old hardware is at best a stretch, at worst it's BS.
Windows 10 does stupid things that make the experience bad. I have a 2600k, and the problem is that I'm still using the 7200rpm drive that I pulled from a Core2. The stuff I run doesn't really require much Disk IO so I shouldn't *need* to use an SSD, but because windows decides to peg the HD for 10 minutes on boot up because it's been off for a week makes the experience unusable during that time. OS X and Linux don't have this problem on even older hardware. It's reasonable to require more HD *space* and more RAM and to expect that new software will be harder on your CPU. I don't find it reasonable for your OS to consume the lion's share of your resources doing things you probably don't want it doing anyway. Ergo, Windows 10 is slow on old hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
You are complaining about performance of a modern OS running on hardware that dates back to the mid 2000s. Modern HDDs perform a lot better for a start, and you could get a small SSD for your boot drive for 30 bucks now.
Anyway, corporations don't run Windows 10 on 12 year old hardware so this is irrelevant. And recent versions of MacOS don't support Core 2 era machines at all.
Re: Standardized hardware (Score:2)
As a consultant, corporations most certainly run 12 year old hardware. Iâ(TM)m still upgrading machines running Windows 7. The support expires in January, so thatâ(TM)s when they will upgrade by.
Re: (Score:2)
That is debatable. My wifes machine is an mid-2010 iMac, featuring a i7-870 and 32GB RAM. If I could be bothered, I'd install an SSD. It is no slouch, by any means. However, it will not get the MacOS Catalina upgrade. The reason is the graphics card, because Apple changed the graphics stack and as such, the machine falls out of support. (This is also the reason, I won't upgrade the hard disk to an SSD: the work
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL is a software API/library.
There is nothing to nurse.
You just have the opengl.so on your $LIBPATH
Re: (Score:2)
This story is not about hardware or even software, this story is about the wetware. People interacting with devices, clearly people are getting fed up with the Bullshit of M$ and Windows anal probe 10 (windows watching you masturbate) and it is psychologically impacting their performance. They are more likely to get frustrated crippling performance and producing mistakes, which generates more frustration and produces more mistakes.
The better people 'feel' about using a device they more productive they are,
Re: (Score:2)
There are a fuckton of Apple laptops in the wild which are locked down to ONE version of OSX. I used to be the one imaging them for school districts.
I find that hard to believe given the history no both Apple laptops and OSX. I guess what you mean to say is that there are lots of obsolete MacBooks that cannot be upgraded anymore not that they can only run one version of OS X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if IBM employees are going out on lunchbreak and buying stuff at CompUSA to plug into their work computers.
Granted, by comparison there is almost no freedom whatsoever to change the hardware configuration on a Mac, but still.
Re: Standardized hardware (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I figured it was an article that implied IBM as a major force in the market, so it must still be 2009.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving aside Windows vs MacOS for a moment, this is bound to happen simply because of hardware.
More than likely the ability to ssh into a desktop plays a very large part in how easily a MAC, which uses NetBSD (IIRC) to provide an operating system, can be supported.
Re: Standardized hardware (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Darwin yes it's a BSD derivative.
Looks like quite a few products are based on NetBSD [netbsd.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It would be correct to say they've borrowed from several products, including NetBSD. You can check the man pages if you want, but there was at least FreeBSD, CUPS, Mach/XNU, Kerberos, and some of KDE in there; they even had an Xorg port to Quartz at one point. Apple has stopped merging most of those FLOSS changes and rarely gives back anymore (maybe just to CUPS). You'll notice NetBSD's hyperlink back to Darwin is 404.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. When you have a large network of machines you don't want to have to SSH in to them for management. You want something like Active Directory that lets you do central management and then handles everything on your behalf. When they go wrong you either Remote Desktop in for a quick poke or replace the machine and fix the old one at your leisure.
Re: (Score:3)
ssh into someone's desktop to fix something in their UI
ssh -X
and discover that because you don't have a dbus session, you can't get the particular UI component to function correctly.
IIUC dbus isn't used on Mac by default.
And if you say you're ssh'ing into individual desktops to configure them, you've never done enterprise level support. At that point, you're looking at some form of configuration management system that might involve ssh under the hood-- but probably doesn't.
Please find the instructions for installing the "puppet" configuration management software on OS/X [puppet.com] using using ssh. [puppet.com]
I'm not sure if this is what IBM is doing however it is certainly achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside Windows vs MacOS for a moment, this is bound to happen simply because of hardware. Windows environments are always a wasteland of incompatible drivers and incomplete patching.
On the other hand, you're more likely to get the kind of hardware you want to use if you aren't stuck with Apple. You don't get stuck with a crappy butterfly keyboard and flat panel "touch bar" that replaces usable keyboard keys because that's literally the only choice.
And you don't have to wait years for 32GB of RAM because "16GB is good enough for anyone". If you really need high-end laptop specs (like 128GB RAM and multiple hard drives), you can get that in a Windows laptop (it won't be light, but it'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
most people hit command-space and type the first letters of the app and hit "return" or "enter" ....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what hardware you're using but I haven't had a driver incompatibility issue since vista. Likewise in not sure which organisation you work at but our hardware is vetted, standardised, and so are drivers and the accessories we're allowed to plug in to our devices. A driver not working for another device not vetted, ... Assuming you could install it ... Is a feature not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Windows is just a steaming pile of shit.
(What hardware has to do with Outlook not registering that a mail is read, is beyond me. (Oh, actually I know: there is a 'company wide setting' that forces you to right click on an email and select 'mark as read')
99% of windows problems is either windows or absurd policies supported by windows.
I have admin rights on the PC at my company, but admin rights are not admin rights ... so many things I can not do. And people wonder why I develop in a Git Bash.
Lusers (Score:2)
Peasants
How Does That Even Work (Score:4, Funny)
How can 'IBM Employees' and 'Happy Productive Workforce' get forced into the same topic? Is this an article by the HR Recruiters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think our DOORS machine had all of a one nine uptime. 90%.
DOORS NG was worse. Then there's Jazz SCM. Maybe it was Stockholm syndrome but clearcase was decent because it was built before IBM touched it and easily scrip-table. But Jazz SCM was a special level of hell to use.
And midlevel managers bought it because "No one has ever been fired for picking IBM".
Re: (Score:2)
The really amusing part of this story is that IBM can't make their own OS that makes users happy. Nobody ever liked sitting at AIX. OS/2 was not very user-friendly, and now it's [all but] dead. In fact when I was an IBM employee in support at just-post-acquisition Tivoli, everyone had to have two machines on their desk. The idea originally was that one ran whatever you wanted to run basically (we were almost all former sysadmins, and none of our machines were managed by anyone but ourselves) and the other r
Re: (Score:2)
Never used OS400, have you?
I mean, it's got its flaws, but it's still the best OS I've ever used.
Maybe that should be "least worse", but you now what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Only slightly, I got some training in it while working for IBM but never actually put it into practice. It seems to have had many advantages, especially in its day, but most of those have been made less relevant over time, and as computers became more powerful. There is little need today to link object files from different languages, for example, and having an RDBMS come with the system is no longer unusual. And when you control the source, you can use portability rather than backwards compatibility (which
largely worthless data, sadly (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside form the bits we already knew, like Macs are simpler and easier to support, we know nothing from this because:
we introduced our employee-choice program to IBM employees in 2015
it is a self-selecting sample. People who mach the choice to commit effort to switching platforms are doing better.
Also, perhaps employees are happier if they feel some control over their work and environment. The actual choice may not matter.
You'd have to also see data for people switching from Mac to PC, which is not here.
Now if instead, IBM had randomly assigned new employees to PC or Mac, *then* we would have some interesting data!
And best throw in ChromeOS as well. That will lower support costs even more.
Complex vs Simple Software (Score:3)
A lot of specialized software does not run on Macs. And even things like Excel work a bit better on Windows if you are doing heavy stuff.
So that probably further biases the sample.
But then again, I have never understood how Windows can be properly managed in a large organization. What a mess!
Re: (Score:2)
With the sole exception of a few keyboard shortcuts, I have to disagree on Excel. Actually being able to bypass the ribbon can be huge.
The results... sure, there are problems with the methodology, and really does a 0.0001% vs 0.00035% support cost differential really make that big of a difference?
Re: (Score:3)
Also power users tend to have a "choice".
This study identified all of the company's power users who use Macs. I'm sure IBM's linux power users also used fewer IBM resources and IBM's windows power users are also less frequently using IT time.
Force me onto a Mac though and I'll use up all of IT's budget for me and then some because I won't be able to get it to do anything that I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Force me onto a Mac though and I'll use up all of IT's budget for me and then some because I won't be able to get it to do anything that I want.
I think we'd fire you if you are too incompetent to use a Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'd fire you if you are too incompetent to use a Mac.
Exactly!
Re: (Score:2)
Force me onto a Mac though and I'll use up all of IT's budget for me and then some because I won't be able to get it to do anything that I want.
If you think that not having used a Mac before, you are a moron and have mental problems.
If you experienced that, you are indeed a moron. How you can not be able to use a computer which is just a linux box in disguise is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside form the bits we already knew, like Macs are simpler and easier to support, we know nothing from this because:
we introduced our employee-choice program to IBM employees in 2015
it is a self-selecting sample. People who mach the choice to commit effort to switching platforms are doing better. Also, perhaps employees are happier if they feel some control over their work and environment. The actual choice may not matter.
Ah, I think you have found it!
Professor Robert Cialdini [wikipedia.org] identified sequences such as these as "pre-suasive" (in his latest book) techniques that create a greater commitment to a particular course of action. According to his research the very act of filling in the survey starts a chain of commitment that produces the very effect you have described.
According to his previous research if 200,000 people were doing this it would also create social proof, oneness and liking. All of which would contribute to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should re read the article.
How many people do you need to support 200000 macs?
How many people do you need to support 200000 Windows PC's?
Does any one here know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.
Those who wanted Macs were probably already Mac users. You cannot say the same about those that had Windows thrust upon them. They may be first-time users of a computer. So, yes, it could have placed a bias on the fewer number of support calls from Mac users.
Re: (Score:2)
You can’t say that users that chose Windows were not Windows users but you can say the same about Mac users?
They may be first-time users of a computer.
At IBM? I don’t see IBM as a beacon for lots of new hires coming out of colleges that never used a computer before.
So, yes, it could have placed a bias on the fewer number of support calls from Mac users.
So your explanation for fewer support calls on Macs at IBM is that all the Macs went to experienced users while their Windows users were all noobs. Sure, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Given a choice, in any large organization, who would opt to move from Microsoft to Mac at work?
From my experience, two main groups come to mind at the extremes of the work experience. 1) people who care the least about computers. We are talking receptionists, admins, etc. people whose work does not rely on technical prowess. 2) power users who have to work on many different OS. Linux and Unix engineers who use a lot of command line will be fine on a Mac.
Did IBM actively encourage at least part of that pool of known high-support users to move over to Mac? How many did so? Significant reduced dependence on support, and increased production from that population, would be impressive arguments in favour of Mac versus Microsoft.
I don’t know if anyone was pressured but the article implies users were given a choice. You would think that if someone constantly needed supp
Not sure I believe this (Score:2)
Is being given a Mac instead of a PC going to make them less likely to leave a company? That's a tough sell.
Now if the metric was "less likely to want to kill themselves and everyone around them" - that I can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if they are on a Linux/BSD/whatever? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well you can run AIX on a POWER9 box if you want but there are zero desktop applications for it. You could try V7R3 but it does not support a graphical interface. There are also zero pieces of commercial software for it. Everyone rolls their own. From a user standpoint AIX/Linux/FreeBSD are identical.
We had Macs at Sun Microsystems... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sun also had IBM mainframes...
Re: (Score:2)
How sad. I really liked Solaris. And back then, you could actually get apps for it, like Photoshop. Although in my first sysadmin job I did introduce Linux, which we used mostly as a glorified X-terminal. Back then there was no OpenSolaris, and Linux did the same job for free.
Additional details (Score:5, Funny)
In the study presented on Tuesday, IBM says that employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Mac-using employees generating sales deals have 16% larger proceeds as well.
In addition, employees that used Mac machines were 34% more beautiful, with the women having noticeably bigger breasts and glossier hair and the men becoming taller with whiter teeth. Mac-using employees are expected to cure cancer, eliminate hunger worldwide, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity by 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
In the study presented on Tuesday, IBM says that employees that used Mac machines were 22 percent more likely to exceed expectations in performance reviews compared to Windows users. Mac-using employees generating sales deals have 16% larger proceeds as well.
In addition, employees that used Mac machines were 34% more beautiful, with the women having noticeably bigger breasts and glossier hair and the men becoming taller with whiter teeth. Mac-using employees are expected to cure cancer, eliminate hunger worldwide, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity by 2030.
Wow, how do you know all that?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's because Mac PCs have electrolytes and everyone knows electrolytes are good.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but this is a site for news so you don't need to repeat what is already known :)
Mac O/S, not Red Hat Linux? (Score:2)
Re: Mac O/S, not Red Hat Linux? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RedHat, like all other purchases, is for IBM to milk dry without doing any actual work.
See also Rational.
Overly identify with thier desktops? (Score:2)
Turning to employee satisfaction, the first-of-its-kind study shows that Mac users were 17 percent less likely to leave IBM compared to their Windows counterparts.
I can't imagine basing career decisions on the operating system on the x86 computer on my desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the people that chose a Mac were younger, and the older ones either retired or were laid off because of their age.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what I was thinking. Unless normalized, you will get older workers preferring what they know, which would lean to Windows, and the younger people would shift to include Apple more. This alone would shift the demographics and variables they measured.
Re:Overly identify with thier desktops? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine basing career decisions on the operating system on the x86 computer on my desktop.
I think it's more about respecting employee choices as to what works best for the job they need to do. I (like I'm sure many of us here) have worked for places where you got the most bargain-basement (*ahem* Dell *ahem*) Windows laptop that weighs as much as a cinder block, which is overly-locked down to the way IT thinks you should be using it, even if it's not optimal or suitable for the work you're doing. So making a career choice between an organization that is willing to invest in the tools you need to get the job done in a more efficient and enjoyable manner should count quite a bit over another organization that wants to dictate your tools for you, and which (frequently) goes with the most bargain-basement systems.
Does your employer respect you and get you the best tools, or are you just another drone to them? Which one would you rather work for?
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
If you are frustrated by your work environment, you should leave. There are tons of companies looking for IT people. For some reason, people tend to be less frustrated when working on MacOS than on Windows.
I see this in my current company: some people are tasked with developing Big Data solutions on/for Linux, but are only provided with Windows laptops. This is a recipe for constant workforce churn. Number 1 reason on exit interviews: no Linux on developer's laptops.
Not news (Score:2)
Haven't we known since the '70s that Unix makes you happier than VMS?
Re: (Score:3)
I never heard that, I know there a many happy VMS admins, are you thinking of the IBM mainframe OS MVS?
Re: (Score:2)
The GP is referring to the old meme that Windows NT == VMS(+1). It was cute 30 years ago, but never funny, or true.
Still waiting for my Powerbook G5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need a backpack sized battery to power it and aluminum framed laptop to double as the heatsink.
What are thesese 200k employees doing with MACs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Details (Score:2)
Correlation. Cause and effect. Arbitrary personell cross sections. Comparing apples and oranges.
This research is about as meaningful as researching whether people that wear high heels are more likely to get pregnant than those that do not without acknowledging that specific physical properties tend to increase the chance of both wearing high heels and getting pregnant.
Notable questions include: are Macs and Windows equally available to everyone? Are support employees comparable in skill and salary? Is OS su
lies (Score:2)
all lies
Windows needs more support... (Score:2)
I would bet that there is some MASSIVE shadow IT going on with these Macs at IBM, and they are being allowed to just "do whatever
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was actually Flavor Aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
</pedant>
Re:Kool-Aid (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd just like to point out that 200 000 Macs for a workforce of 350 000 workers gives you a pretty large pool to sample from, making it unlikely that only certain "high achievers" are choosing Macs.
But if you are correct, then you can easily flip this around: if your new hire is willing to use Windows, then from your statement we can assume they're more likely to be less motivated and less productive.
Yaz
Re: (Score:3)
if your new hire is willing to use Windows, then from your statement we can assume they're more likely to be less motivated and less productive.
Yes. We also know that people who use default browsers [economist.com] are worse employees.
Correlation is not causation (Score:3)
At first I thought you deserved "Insightful" moderation, though I was unsurprised you hadn't received it. On more thought, I'm less sure.
I think that psychological factors are key, but my theory would be more along the lines of ambiguity tolerance. As IBM has lost its focus and direction over the years, employees need to have a different attitude to be "happier and more productive", which is how I often feel when I'm working on my Mac in contrast to Windows or Linux. No, Apple has stopped being a "Think Dif
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be that IBM hasn't gotten around to loading up their Mac builds with all of the crap that makes using their Windows builds such a miserable experience. I know when I worked there I used a Mac because it was a lot easier to use due to not being loaded up with firewalls, anti-viruses, auditing software, monitoring software, various unknown IBMisms and who knows what else they shoved in their build that slowed it down to a crawl and made it all but unusable.
If I know IBM, they'll keep trying unti
Tool-aid (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd lean towards productive.
I'm a computer guy - Got started years before Windows existed, was a Windows guy for years more, mostly migrated to Linux for a while, and have used MacOS off and on since it was monochrome (only once on my own personal computer - and that was a secondary PC I got for iOS development) .
I've never been terribly fond of the MacOS user experience - not even when compared to DOS. It's nice, simple, and prevents me from setting things up to be efficiently used for the wide range of things I use my computer for. Windows isn't great at that either, but at least with some tweaking it can be made a lot better (I've actually become quite fond of that nice big "organized desktop" space on an (almost) full-screen Start menu, though it's a bit tedious to clear out all the animated garbage it's initially cluttered up with. If they hadn't severely nerfed the menu itself I might rank it as my all-time favorite launcher)
For a work computer though? A Mac is adequate - its overly tidy interface is sufficient for the limited number of things I need to do at work. And it mostly just doesn't have problems (Thank the Unix). It's a tool that gets out of your way so you can focus on getting work done. And that's close to the highest praise you can give to a work tool.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually - on further consideration I might be overthinking things. I could well believe that given the choice between "Windows" and "anything else", the most productive people would disproportionately gravitate towards "anything else". And MacOS isn't just any "anything else" -- It's Unix combined with one of the most polished UIs on the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually - on further consideration I might be overthinking things. I could well believe that given the choice between "Windows" and "anything else", the most productive people would disproportionately gravitate towards "anything else". And MacOS isn't just any "anything else" -- It's Unix combined with one of the most polished UIs on the planet.
It's also a perception thing. I noticed with a lot of the mac users I worked with, as soon as a meeting came up or something else was going on they would whip that macbook out asap just to show off. Fucking status symbols. Once open they would inevitably starting doing shit which I presume was "productive"
Ont he other hand a lot of execs I knew that had windows systems would leave them in their car or at the hotel because they were embarrassed to be using them while all the other execs would have their macb
Re:Tool-aid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd lean towards productive.
Same.
I'm a computer guy - Got started years before Windows existed, was a Windows guy for years more, mostly migrated to Linux for a while, and have used MacOS off and on since it was monochrome (only once on my own personal computer - and that was a secondary PC I got for iOS development) .
I've never been terribly fond of the MacOS user experience[...]
For a work computer though? A Mac is adequate - its overly tidy interface is sufficient for the limited number of things I need to do at work. And it mostly just doesn't have problems (Thank the Unix). It's a tool that gets out of your way so you can focus on getting work done. And that's close to the highest praise you can give to a work tool.
Similar too. I'm not fond of macs. I don't particularly like the UI and I think the new keyboards are really not very good at all. I'd much rather be using Linux on a decent thinkpad, personally.
There's a few things about macs though that make it hard to judge the article on macs vs Windows. While I don't think Macs are the best hardware out there, none of them are wretched 20lb shitboxes, so unless somewhat it's like for like on the hardware it's tough to tell. Also, I don't like windows but holy shit do corporate IT types love to fuck with Windows. They seem to love locking it way down to the point where work is barely possible and installing all sorts of invasive endpoint protection crap which makes the machine slow to a crawl.
So the comparison may simply be fucked Windows on a shit laptop vs vanilla OSX on an OK laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not fond of macs. I don't particularly like the UI and I think the new keyboards are really not very good at all.
I've had my first Mac for a year now - Macbook Pro 15 provided by my employer. I can deal with the UI (once I found a third party app to add a taskbar), but the horrible keyboard ruins the whole package. Totally unsuitable for hardcore development work.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey - It's Windows vs. Unix. Even the MacOS UI isn't a big enough liability to throw that fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, stuff like that is actually a major factor that's often lost on abstracted discussions. Windows is 10x more annoying and painful to use when its "Windows, as locked down and managed by Corporate IT stooges who treat all their users like computer illiterate secretaries".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--Hardware expenses are nominal if the cost to SUPPORT them is less. Win10 updates are a shitshow and the OS is basically spyware.
--The ONLY thing I like about Win10 are the virtual desktops, and OSX has that. After buying an inexpensive used iMac in 2018 and equipping it with a full-size wired keyboard and a 3-button mouse, it became my primary desktop because it was so much easier (I'm a Linux guy) once I made the investment to learn how it worked. Plus I can dual-boot Linux on it, and/or run Virtualbo