You should think about the type of language and framework that you work with.For web development, Macs tend to be an excellent choice, but so is Linux. When choosing the best Mac for coding, we recommend considering the tools you like to use and their compatibility with both Windows and macOS. Both Macs and PCs are great for software development. Mac versus PC for software development.
Vs Pc For Software Development Install Development ToolsYou can also provide Touch alternatives, keyboard navigation, and support for Siri intents, as well as allow users to print everywhere using Command-P, and more.This includes both hardware and software. The macOS 12 SDK brings new and improved APIs for apps built with Mac Catalyst, allowing you to display pop-up buttons, tooltips, and a subtitle in a windows titlebar. You can use nearly all software from the Linux/Unix world with a super powerful command line and the ability to download and install development tools with one command - but you can also mix and match any macOS software you want, like native IDEs, debugging tools, and more.The truth is not black and white, but the following are true, even if many IT shops remain willfully ignorant to the facts and hang on to Mac realities and stereotypes from the 1990s:Programmers who work on a lot of back-end web server code often like macOS for their personal computer, because its based on Unix and easily runs nearly all.Mac vs Windows for programming and student use in 2019May 13, 2019Mac Catalyst. That wasn't my intent, but those comments made me think about where the Mac fits in the enterprise and what causes so many IT organizations to be so emotionally opposed to having non-Windows PCs in their companies.In comparison, on macOS you really do get the best of both worlds. Speaking of which.People also askWhen I said last week that Windows 10 won't save the PC, some Windows-addled IT folks said I was secretly suggesting that enterprises replace their PCs with Macs.Macs do what most people need, though there are critical corporate needs that only Windows apps serve. Macs provide an operational recovery option that an all-Windows environment doesn't. Macs are more secure out of the box than Windows PCs. Why? Because having a certain percentage of non-Windows users provides a fail-over capability in case of a malware or hacking meltdown, as well as lets some users work with devices they are more comfortable with.A good metric is that about 15 to 25 percent of employees should be using a Mac, with the higher percentage aimed at companies that focus on software and creative work. Why? Because Macs are better suited to thwarting phishing and other attacks on these sensitive users' systems and for operating outside your network."Regular" office workers should be given a choice as to whether to use Windows or OS X, if their job requirements are satisfied by either platform. Who needs a MacThe bottom line: Executives and road warriors are the best candidates for Mac use in a company, in addition to the historic Mac enclaves of application development and creative functions such as marketing and design. Windows PCs, running Windows 7 today and Windows 10 in a few years, will remain the standard computing device for the majority of users. An all-Mac environment is as unreasonable as an all-Windows one. The more Windows-like your management approach, the more it will cost to manage your Macs. The good news is that you can manage Macs for the same or lower cost, depending on the approach you take. Gartner estimates that IT organizations spend $2,000 to $2,300 per user per year to manage and secure their Windows PCs. (I hear similar stats from CIOs I meet at conferences, though so few companies use Macs to any scale that all I can offer are such anecdotes, rather than statistical "proof.") The Mac aids your security and recovery needsIt still shocks me how much time and money IT organizations spend on securing Windows PCs, such as for incessant antivirus updates and frequent infection-cleanup efforts, for managing backups and encryption, and for dealing with dozens of often problematic fixes every month in the infamous Patch Tuesday releases.Windows has lots of security and management APIs, of course, which let IT go to town in securing and managing them using tools like System Center - at a huge cost. ![]() It's quite easy to recover a Mac and mines downtime. (Try that in Windows!) For broader-scale backup deployments, providers such as Acronis provide cross-platform backup.Apple's backup approach creates a fully usable environment image that you can install to another Mac if needed, so you can get a user up and running fully intact on a new Mac, or on a new drive, or on a wiped Mac. You can back up to a dedicated drive for each Mac or to departmental Time Machine server running on a Mac equipped with OS X Server. But automated backup is native to OS X, via its Time Machine tool. Plus, Apple updates the antimalware signatures automatically every day. Until malware creators figure out how to bypass OS X's native security - it has a lot, including code-signing so that malware can't self-install - the Mac is a safer platform. That should speak volumes.If you're concerned about malware, you should use a Mac. Malware is so common in Windows that new variants rarely make the news any more, whereas IT security folks are still obsessing over a Mac Trojan from several years ago that affected some thousands of users. Then there's malware, the bane of users and IT departments everywhere. The malware neutralized all the Windows PCs and servers at Sony, and the only computers that could function (because they were immune to the malware) were Macs and iPads.As any biologist will tell you, a monoculture is dangerous because a single pest or disease can wipe out an entire forest or field. This is a real possibility, as we saw with the Sony Pictures Entertainment attack last fall. Also, the use of MDM to manage the Macs works easily whether a Mac is in the office or in a hotel or café.I also recommend that every department have at least some Mac users, around 10 percent, so the company can keep operating if it gets nuked by a malware attack. I recommended that executives and road warriors be issued Macs mainly because Macs are more resistant to phishing and other malware attacks, so the usually critical information for these users is better protected. It's your money.The monoculture risk. Dim text feature in powerpoint for mac 2011Operational recovery will be faster if not everything fails. IT likes to standardize, to a fault. IT security should think the same way: You need technodiversity in case of a techno-pest or techno-disease. That's certainly my company's experience, where about a quarter of all computers are Macs, and I've heard the same from Cisco, Intel, and others.Support costs are typically lower for Macs, mainly because OS X users need less support. It's a dishonest argument.Macs are also more durable than PCs, so over time, you'll spend less on repairs and replacements. However, a comparable business-class PC from Dell, Hewlett-Packard, or Lenovo costs about the same - maybe $200 less, maybe $100 more, depending on configuration and level of portability.Comparing the cost of Macs to cheap PCs is misleading, as enterprises don't buy cheap PCs that home users do. That's usually cited as a reason to pooh-pooh Mac adoption. Macs are not overpriced versus Windows PCsThere's no question that Macs are expensive, easily $2,000 for a business-class iMac, MacBook, or Mac Mini setup. The applications mix is a key considerationMacs integrate so easily with other Apple devices, such as iPhones, iPads, other Macs (like the ones at home), and Apple TVs - especially if you use Apple's Mail, Calendar, and Contacts clients, as well as its iWork suite. IT organizations fretting over budgets should take note. But the malware remediation costs for Mac users will be much, much lower (close to nil).The bottom line is that the TCO for Macs is no higher than for Windows PCs, and in most cases lower.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorKaren ArchivesCategories |