Advice on switching users to MAC

[Frater A.S.]

I would make sure that all the office updates have been done, as well as the mac system is up to date.

We have a macbook user as and she was having issues with office 2008 aswell it kept crashing and doing funny things, once all the updates were done it worked fine.

 

[PeterCH]

People running Office apps don't want Macs. Macs are for fanbois and arty types (sorry if I've offended any arty types who don't use Mac). I assume that your company's policy is "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

MS Office for Mac is superior to MS Office for Windows, especially regarding Entourage being far better and more stable than Outlook.

This 'fanbois' and 'arty' types is nonsense. Macs, while NOT PERFECT, work more often then not, I can tell you that this Mac Pro here - while not without issues - has had far fewer than Windows with its registry and useless bloat.

Really Amida, why would you force a Mac onto an innocent office worker? If you need to get rid of your IT budget quickly I recommend the Lenovo T400 (NM355ZA). It's the same price as a Mac, but has all the features your office workers want (like an encrypted hard drive and built in 3G) and none of the features they don't want (like an overpriced, incompatible, fault prone, flashy macbook with an unreadable glossy screen and poor aftersales support.)

ThinkPads when they were run by IBM were legendary. Now Lenovo is another cheap Chinese maker - I would not recommend Lenovos.

Your users should be your priority, not making Jobs richer. <-- sorry, is that concidered blasphemy?

Exactly why people should stay with old versions of Office, old versions of Windows - at least to keep the UI the same. The thing about Macs is that they are far less flashier than Windows - Windows has its AERO and FLIP3D and other useless UI features which slow things down, while Mac OSX has none of that BS - the UI is consistent since Panther.

 

[Drunkard #1]

MS Office for Mac is superior to MS Office for Windows, especially regarding Entourage being far better and more stable than Outlook.

This 'fanbois' and 'arty' types is nonsense. Macs, while NOT PERFECT, work more often then not, I can tell you that this Mac Pro here - while not without issues - has had far fewer than Windows with its registry and useless bloat.

ThinkPads when they were run by IBM were legendary. Now Lenovo is another cheap Chinese maker - I would not recommend Lenovos.

Exactly why people should stay with old versions of Office, old versions of Windows - at least to keep the UI the same. The thing about Macs is that they are far less flashier than Windows - Windows has its AERO and FLIP3D and other useless UI features which slow things down, while Mac OSX has none of that BS - the UI is consistent since Panther.

A lot of what you say is valid. Macs are reasonably stable, have good build quality and are superior to generic PCs in some circumstances.

A lot is just BS. Macs are not the best choice for everyone all the time. The best way to describe their "target market" is "fanbois and arty types". Sorry, but it's the truth. I also doubt you'll find any reliable evidence saying Macs give less trouble than branded office PCs. I think the opposite is true. It's possible these days to build a Windows PC that's more stable than any Mac could be.

In the corporate and consumer mass market, Macs are not what people want or need. They want certain boxes ticked, and at the moment the Lenovo mentioned ticks all of them. The Macbook doesn't even come close. (The Lenovo's build quality isn't the same as it used to be, it it's still as good, or better, than anything else in it's class. The Toughbook isn't in it's class.) I can think of very few markets that would choose the Macbook over a branded PC notebook.

As for Office for Windows and it's UI being inferior. The OP's test case disagrees, and so do I. Even if it's just the stress and expense of the changeover that is discouraging this worker, that is enough reason not to chance. Why got through all that stress for best case: a SMALL increase in productivity, MAYBE.

 

[Moklet Kcuf]

Macs are reasonably stable, have good build quality and are superior to generic PCs in some circumstances.

true

The best way to describe their "target market" is "fanbois and arty types". Sorry, but it's the truth.

Please reference proof for this statement. Otheriwise you are just being narrow minded and derisive.

I also doubt you'll find any reliable evidence saying Macs give less trouble than branded office PCs. I think the opposite is true. It's possible these days to build a Windows PC that's more stable than any Mac could be.

Good luck proving this one too. Sure you can buld a stable Windows PC, as long as you don't connect it to the internat.

 

[Drunkard #1]

true


Please reference proof for this statement. Otheriwise you are just being narrow minded and derisive.

Good luck proving this one too. Sure you can buld a stable Windows PC, as long as you don't connect it to the internat.

I can't prove anything I say; it's an integral part of being a forum troll. However, I do stand by my statement. Macs are specialised products used for specific applications. Who else, apart from film-makers, musicians, photographers, fanbois, luddites and posers would choose a Mac over a generic PC. Oh, and architects. Macs don't belong in an office. Edit - let me phrase that better: Using a Macs is not beneficial to anyone other than the folks mentioned above.

Windows PCs are stable (at least all mine are). I don't see how connecting them to the internet changes anything. Mine all have internet access, through a dedicated firewall, and none are less stable for it.

You folks must be engineers: A client asks for a light to turn on when it gets dark outside. Normal person - Fit a day-night switch. Cost: R 100. Engineer - Lets look at our options in the Siemens PLC range. We'll need an external luxmeter, a GPS for timing, ammeters, voltmeters, watchdogs and additional IO modules all mounted in a custom made box with an external cooling tower. Cost R 50 000 and counting. Sometimes the client just wants a simple, cheap solution that works. In an office that solution uses generic PCs and Windows. Unless you've got a compelling reason to go Mac, don't.

 

[PeterCH]

A lot of what you say is valid. Macs are reasonably stable, have good build quality and are superior to generic PCs in some circumstances.

A lot is just BS. Macs are not the best choice for everyone all the time. The best way to describe their "target market" is "fanbois and arty types". Sorry, but it's the truth. I also doubt you'll find any reliable evidence saying Macs give less trouble than branded office PCs. I think the opposite is true. It's possible these days to build a Windows PC that's more stable than any Mac could be.

It is possible to do anything. Yes the PC I type on is a Panasonic Let's Note and yes I can drop it 78 cm, sit on it, spill water on it or bury it in snow - but that also comes with a price premium. You won't find a Dell, HP, Sony or Acer with those sort of specs either. The build quality is incredible BUT it has issues - it can't be booted by most Linux or BartPE bootdisks for example. It's also quite a slow CPU (although low power draw) and has no ExpressCard slot because Panasonic Osaka thinks the average salaryman doesn't need those features.

You are however making a sociological statement which makes no sense. Can you prove to me - and I assume you are knowledgeable in sociology or psychology why 'arty types' would find a well built, fully laden notebook with a great OS to be something for them as opposed to Joe Average. Sure Joe Average usually buys Celeron driven generic machines - but then the people who buy high end AlienWare, Dell and SONY Vaio machines - those are priced comparatively - are those also machines for 'artsy types' or some other stereotyped sub-grouping of society?

In the corporate and consumer mass market, Macs are not what people want or need. They want certain boxes ticked, and at the moment the Lenovo mentioned ticks all of them. The Macbook doesn't even come close. (The Lenovo's build quality isn't the same as it used to be, it it's still as good, or better, than anything else in it's class. The Toughbook isn't in it's class.) I can think of very few markets that would choose the Macbook over a branded PC notebook.

The FULL RUGGEDISED Toughbook isn't but business Toughbooks - aka Let's Note and machines made by NEC (LaVie, VersaPro, Versa) beat Lenovos by far in terms of build quality and Osaka and Tokyo respectively make sure to put in only what businessmen need and nothing else. These machines are in Dell and Lenovo's class in terms of target audience and price (you will always get a lower RAM and slower CPU machine for the same price from these makers though but for business use it's not too bad) - these are not the fully ruggerdised laptops from Panasonic US marines or paramedics use in the field.

As for Office for Windows and it's UI being inferior. The OP's test case disagrees, and so do I. Even if it's just the stress and expense of the changeover that is discouraging this worker, that is enough reason not to chance. Why got through all that stress for best case: a SMALL increase in productivity, MAYBE.

AFAIK the RIBBON in MS Office for Windows is a bigger issue to grapple with than Office for Mac. Entourage apparently is also more stable.

I think you're just referring to Macbook Pros being for 'artsy' types because they are brush aluminium and what-not. But they are sturdy machines. They are also fully laded - they have TWO GPUs, a high end CPU, lots of RAM and a high end screen which you can get in matte too. Now if you're only using a latop to run Office apps - such a monster is too much - but so is a top end Lenovo and every Sony Vaio out there - but if you have R13K to spend on a good quality machine with lots of features and good build - the Mac Book (not Pro) is a good contender. It can run Windows and OSX and OSX is more stable.

 

[Moklet Kcuf]

I can't prove anything I say; it's an integral part of being a forum troll.

thanks for your honesty

Macs are specialised products used for specific applications. Who else, apart from film-makers, musicians, photographers, fanbois, luddites and posers would choose a Mac over a generic PC. Oh, and architects. Macs don't belong in an office.

First of all, continuing to call mac users fanbois, luddites or posers, confirms your derisive stance, which in turn dilutes your credibility.
Yep, creatives often prefer Mac, but that is not to say Macs are specialised. The iMac, Macbook & Mac Mini are all aimed at everyday users. My grandmother uses one ( I spared her the grief of the Windows world) my niece uses one, a great majority of students and schools (in the 1st world) use macs. I use mac.
Ask these folk if they'd prefer to go back to Windows, most or them wont.
That is unless they depend on a PC oriented application and find it works better on Windows . Office, I also agree is best on Windows.

Windows PCs are stable (at least all mine are). I don't see how connecting them to the internet changes anything.Mine all have internet access, through a dedicated firewall, and none are less stable for it.

Viruses & Malware. Installing spyware, antivirus etc, begins to cripple a PC before a threat is even detected. Firewalls are just another PIA. This reason alone is why Windows should be avoided if at all possible.

In an office that solution uses generic PCs and Windows. Unless you've got a compelling reason to go Mac, don't.

I somewhat agree, for practical and financial reasons PC's make more sense in the average office/administrative environment. That's not to say however Mac aren't equally as capable in 'most' regards.

 

[PeterCH]

I can't prove anything I say; it's an integral part of being a forum troll. However, I do stand by my statement. Macs are specialised products used for specific applications. Who else, apart from film-makers, musicians, photographers, fanbois, luddites and posers would choose a Mac over a generic PC. Oh, and architects. Macs don't belong in an office. Edit - let me phrase that better: Using a Macs is not beneficial to anyone other than the folks mentioned above.

Please explain to me why there are so many Windows botnets out there?
Well because to run a Windows machine you need to be a SECURITY expert at the same time. This is a lesser issue with the Mac. The OS and the hardware also come from the same source which means that cr@ppy drivers don't spoil your day and the lack of a registry avoids the Windows installation from getting more bloated with time.

Who wants to use such a machine?

Everyone who values his time over the few hundred dollars extra spent.

If you prefer to be with your wife and kids instead of reformating your PC this is for you. If you don't want to deal with AV-softs, firewalls, HIPS, defragmenters and registry optimisers this is for you.

Windows PCs are stable (at least all mine are). I don't see how connecting them to the internet changes anything. Mine all have internet access, through a dedicated firewall, and none are less stable for it.

But you're not Joe Average. You're a well clued up, guy who probably works in IT to some degree for a living. Most people are not. Most people want to see a PC as an appliance and the constant unfriendliness of Windows is a major put off - big one for me is STEALING of the FOCUS. When I type I don't want some stupid dialog box to pop up and cancel out half of my writing - because some program wants to connect to the internet and Ballmer/Gates et al have engineered an OS which absolutely MUST TELL ME THIS - it has to jump out at me and spoil what I've been doing.

 

[PeterCH]

Engineers usually look for the simplest solution which works. It's part of the engineers mantra. Please.... don't say the opposite