Pfeiffer Research recently released a new report on the differences between Mac and Windows productivity, TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), and user interface efficiency. IT-Enquirer was given the opportunity to study the complete € 2,399.00 report and run the below story on it. The results of the comparison has more nuances to it than most of us would expect.

Pfeiffer ran an exhaustive list of interviews and analytic measurements to put his report together. The result is a 200-page work piece that is very balanced in its findings and conclusions. Pfeiffer collected data from enterprises all across the US, the UK, and the EU. Even Belgian companies were interviewed. Among the respondents were the largest publishing companies in the world, such as Conde Nast, Time Magazine, and Bauer Verlag, but also others like Ikea were on their list. 

The report discusses the differences in purchase costs, staffing, management and deployment issues with the platforms, administrative issues, and OS strategy. It measures user interface efficiency, common computing tasks and publishing-specific workflow productivity. The report uses Pfeiffer’s own methodology, of course.

This methodology involves interviewing IT-management, financial departments, administration, support and helpdesk, and finally the users. Pfeiffer also takes into account three levels of involvement with technology: corporate IT-management, publication-level administration and support, and end-users.

Pfeiffer found that needs and attitudes differ greatly depending on the level of involvement. In most corporations, Windows machines are used for office tasks and general computing. Macintosh computers on the other hand are used by creative users --that is at least the traditional break-up of users. Pfeiffer, however, has a far more granular approach to who uses Macs: he says Macintosh computers are deployed mainly in deadline-driven departments-- a distinction which allows for greater accuracy in determining what type of group exactly benefits from using Macs.

Pfeiffer also distinguishes three levels of attitude towards the Mac platform. The anti-Mac group as a strong tendency towards standardisation of computers to the Windows platform. Consequently, as soon as it is possible --read: whenever the same functionality seems to be delivered on Windows machines-- the Macs go out the door and are replaced by Windows machines. Pfeiffer reports that the main reason for doing so is that Macs are perceived as being difficult to integrate with Windows PCs. The report states that most organisations in this group were still using Mac OS 9 instead of Mac OS X, and that reminded me of a Mac-to-Windows migration I witnessed several years ago.

Anti-Mac is not always clever

In Antwerp, my birth town, the local Yellow Guides advertising department deemed it useful to standardise and replace all of their Macs with Windows computers. Although this raised quite a bit of panic with the end-users, the IT-manager --whom I interviewed because of this at the time-- was convinced his move was going to save the company a lot of money.

I remember him rather full of himself explaining to me the exact phase-out strategy he had devised with the aim of stirring as little resistance as possible against his plans. One year later, the transition was complete, and I heard little or nothing from him.

That seemed like odd to me, as he promised me to keep me informed about the cost-savings he would realize. Two years passed before I heard that the company had replaced the IT-manager by someone else, for not being able to reach his commercial and economic objectives. The new IT-manager silently migrated back to Macs for every department that was not involved with office work.

The anti-Mac group was long countered only by an almost fanatic group of Mac-afficionados. It looks like this has changed. Pfeiffer sees a second group which he calls critical but pragmatic. This group considers Macintosh computers better suited (more mature) than Windows with respect to publishing functionality and overall productivity. This group looks upon Apple as not being a good enterprise player. The report states this is because Apple does not provide for a proper technology road map, and for not making hardware fully backward compatible.

Of course, the latter is a contradiction in terms, and the respondents in this group should know better: it is by making everything so far backwards compatible that Windows is inferior to Mac OS X in several areas.

The third approach is the pro-Mac attitude: this group will only use Windows when they really have to, and where they see an economic benefit in using Windows.

Only the second group will understand that Macintosh still remains the standard in most publishing operations, and that moving to Windows may not yield the expected benefits.