RE: [Fed-Talk] Macs in the Navy(?)
RE: [Fed-Talk] Macs in the Navy(?)
- Subject: RE: [Fed-Talk] Macs in the Navy(?)
- From: "Orth, Lonny J CIV N62306" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:58:29 -0400
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Macs in the Navy(?)
First, I am the one that originated the "... cost more money to maintain
IT support personnel..." line. And when I wrote that, it was with
respect to my command's IT department. But as Amanda listed the
counterarguments, I would have to select (a) and (c) as the reasons my
particular branch of the Navy has given for cutting the Mac cord.
As Ryan Keefe and others have mentioned, other Navy entities still have
a strong Mac community. Even the NRL detachment down the street has a
few Macs, but they also don't have to deal with NMCI.
Again, I realize that this does not go for all Navy entities, but the
only way that a Mac can be purchased for use in my command is if it
provides a required service that does not have a Windows equivalent.
Higher levels of productivity, reliability and better security are of no
consideration.
If I sound bitter, it's because I am.
Out of curiosity, was Apple even given the chance to bid on the NMCI
contract that Dell has ever-so-apparently won?
Lonny Orth
Electronics Engineer
Naval Oceanographic Office
Stennis Space Center, MS
email@hidden
-----Original Message-----
From: fed-talk-bounces+lonny.orth=email@hidden
[mailto:fed-talk-bounces+lonny.orth=email@hidden] On Behalf
Of Amanda Walker
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:09
To: Fedtalk List
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] RE: Macs in the Navy(?)
On Apr 14, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Michael Chute wrote:
> I beg to differ on this one. The support cost for macs is less than
> that of Windows. [...]
>
>
>> From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:59:00 -0400
>> To: Fedtalk List <email@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] RE: Macs in the Navy(?)
>>
>>> [...] not to mention it would cost the command more money to
>>> maintain IT support personnel trained on Mac OS.
Please be careful editing quotations: I was quoting someone else here--I
actually agree with you :-).
This is an argument I've had with IT departments on several occasions,
and here's what the counterargument has generally boiled down to:
(a) "Macs may be cheaper to support than Windows, but we're already
paying the cost of supporting Windows. Supporting both, if the support
cost per Mac is lower, has a higher net cost than supporting only
Windows."
(b) "Sure, I personally could support Macs--I love Macs--but all I know
about my successor is that they will be trained to support Windows. For
the sake of being able to smoothly move people in and out of this IT
organization, we only support Windows" (same argument for hardware
manufacturers, applied to Dell, IBM, etc.)
(c) "We don't care that DISA and the NSA describe MacOS X as more
secure. We've standardized on Windows on Dells."
Note that none of these is a technical criterion, or has anything to do
with Macs per se, and only the first has anything to do with cost
control.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden