The last two posts in this series covered the pros and cons of using either all PCs or all Macs for your church’s IT infrastructure.
It’s been a couple of weeks since the last post in this series. So let’s recap what we’ve covered so far.
Ready for a refresher?
The PC-only Environment Pros and Cons
In part 1 of this series I talked about the pros and cons of a PC-only environment. Here’s a quick run-down of what was covered.
Pros
- They’re cheap – If you church is cash-strapped then for under $500 you can purchase a computer for a staff member.
- They’re everywhere – This means getting them repaired and maintained is very easy.
- Wider range of software choices – With vertical markets like churches, software vendors concentrate on the larger market and that’s Windows.
Cons
- They’re cheap – You don’t want that $400 computer in a mission-critical role.
- Creativity – Most creative types use Macs so you may be hamstringing them if you make them use a Windows-based PC
- Security – Despite the increased security of Windows 7, the bad guys target the largest market just like the software vendors.
The Mac-only Environment Pros and Cons
In part 2 of this series I covered the pros and cons of a Mac-only environment. If you get a Mac and never look back here’s what you’ll get:
Pros
- Support after the sale – Apple provides excellent support for transferring files from one computer ot another and has, bar none, the best support website.
- Longevity – Your Macs will run for years and still be able to run the latest OS so that you can stay current.
- Macs can run Windows – For that one application you must have that hasn’t been ported to OS X yet.
Cons
- The Learning Curve – People who have used Windows for decades may not be as productive on a Mac.
- No Business-Class Support – Apple is a consumer-based company, they don’t offer support for enterprises (star-ships or otherwise)
- Price – Yes, you get more value from a Mac but often budgets are tight and justifying a $1100 computer for administrative duties can be tough.
Whew. That ends the reminder. Ready for the next consideration?
Enter: Linux
Linux was suggested as an alternative in the comments, however, I don’t think it’s ready for the front office yet. I wouldn’t recommend it to my mother so I wouldn’t recommend it to the church secretary either. In the back end it’s a competitor but if you leave the church, who is going to support it?
Sticking with technology that you know you can find someone to support is the best way to go.
Additionally, there are too many choices; people like choice but they don’t like to be overwhelmed with options. That’s my take on it, I’d love to hear you sound off in the comments below.
In the end I’d argue for a blended environment.
Sticking with only one platform severely limits your ability to meet the needs of your staff.
Give the people who need to do light computing duties inexpensive PCs. Those who need more power or have creative duties, let them decide. If you’re going to spend $1200 on a computer, let the user choose what they’re comfortable with. Adobe Photoshop, Quicktime Pro and MS Office all run equally on computers whether they run OS X or Windows.
In the back office, I recommend sticking with Windows unless all of your client/server applications will run on Xserve. Integrating Macs into a Windows domain has become much easier and if your domain isn’t too complex you shouldn’t have any trouble at all with a blended environment.
Of course, I’m painting with a broad brush here. Some situations are more suited for one platform or the other. That’s something you’ll have to evaluate. Nothing is set in stone and the target is always moving.
That’s what I think, how about you?
Leave a comment and tell me what you think.
Blended all the way.
I’ve grown professionally with IT for the last {cough} 26yrs now and have lost count of the times I’ve been asked “what computer do I recommend”. My answer always started with a few questions not least of which was ‘what are you used to using’ – if they said mac then I directed them that way.
The church I attend is blended. We have a Windows server and mostly windows clients but with a couple of Macs and an oddity (*nix) or two dotted around.
Good series dude – thanks.
Couple quick comments:
- With win7 the longevity of PC’s is greatly increased. I’ve tested it with 6+ year old Dell’s with no problems. My main Dell work desktop and laptop are now over 3 years old and both run win7 64bit happily. So the old argument that macs have a longer ROI doesn’t hold any longer IMO.
- Vendor AND volunteer support needs to be given very high consideration. All hardware and software will break … how quick/easy you can get paid or volunteer support is HUGE in my book.
- And finally, you must going into every IT decision with standardization at the forefront. Here’s my “rant” on standardization
http://jpowell.blogs.com/jason_powell_church_it/2010/01/standardization-is-king.html
word! great thoughts here jason. and your point about standardization is killer.
slight weirdness with your site… it lost all CSS styling on click.. had to refresh… weird!
btw… you should guest post. would love to have you!
Jason, I agree that Windows 7 is friendlier to older PCs. I got it running happily on an IBM Thinkpad T42.
However, that $300 PC won’t last nearly as long as a Mac. That’s my own personal experience based upon what I’ve observed over 15 years in IT.
We are a blended environment, but barely. Only one staff member (out of 20) is on a PC she is a part-time counselor and all she does is email and Word. When her Dell dies, we will replace it with a Mac. In 2006 we committed to switching to a Mac office. We now have, I think, 29 Macs and 6 PCs. Four of the PCs are for children’s check-in since they needed a windows only printer, one is for our financial volunteers b/c Quickbooks for Mac isn’t “there” yet, and the last PC is the aforementioned staff member. I can honestly say that I spend less time supporting our Macs than I do our 6 PCs. The maintenance required is maddening.
I am for a non-blended environment. I like the idea of having everything the same. Some day, I hope.
The cost of getting into Mac’s is not as bad as you said in the post though. We just bought a brand new MacBook for under $900 and two Mac Minis with keyboard & monitors for under $800. The gap is not that wide. If time is money, then we save plenty of money throughout the life of any one of the Mac’s we own.
Travis, I’m interested in knowing how you got that kind of pricing for those Mac Minis because Apple’s website lists the Mini starting at $599. With a 25% discount that’s still $900 before you purchase a keyboard and monitor for both. Did you buy them refurbished or used?
I purchased two Minis from MacMall for $569, a Mac Formatted keyboard and mouse from OWC for $38, and there are tons of monitors out there for around $160 (I got ours from TigerDirect), with shipping it ends up right around $800.
I saved around $100 per computer by shopping multiple sites, even with shipping factored in. MacMall ships for free so that helps a ton too.
So you paid $800 for each Mac Mini, not $800 for the pair. That’s pretty pricey for a computer to just check email, surf the Internet and type Word documents.
To be clear, those were bought to one, run our streaming during services and the other, to multitrack record our worship into Logic Studio.
I don’t disagree that $800 is more to spend on a computer purchase than you would HAVE to in order to surf the web, check email and use word.
We look at total cost of ownership, or we try to, and we factor in maintenance and support as well. Combine that with the average lifespan and you end up purchasing Macs if you are us. The initial purchase is higher with Mac but we estimate that within a year or so we break even and have a much less stressed tech department. The Macs that we have in house are all far more effective 3-4 years down the road than the PC counterparts as well. (Although I understand Win 7 adresses some of that.)
Hey Travis. I am looking at convincing my church board to go Mac in our A/V room. We’re just a small church, not looking to do any heavy duty audio or video quite yet. But we do need something that can display video on a secondary display without any choppiness when playing video, at the same time recording a simple line-in audio feed of the main sound. We’ve experienced problems in trying to do this with our current PC. I want to get a Mac Mini as a replacement, but I wanted to make sure the Mini has sufficient power to do what we need. You have two Minis doing some heavy lifting. For our small amount of work required, do you think 1 Mini would do the work?
The newer Minis do support multiple displays. It depends on what you are wanting to send and record. We’ve run ProPresenter, iTunes playback, and Garageband/Audacity for recording. (Just make sure that the signals OUT of the Mini are not routed back IN to the Mini on the console somewhere.) Spec wise, the Minis that are out now are beefier than what I have used for this set up in the past. The dual display limitation has always been the factor in the past, but now it is doable.
I think you could handle this on a Mini.
The short answer is that Linux probably isn’t ready to give to your mother yet. However, that time is very quickly coming to a close.
For one, if you want to get support, Ubuntu now offers support to individual users…so if your Linux IT guy leaves, quits, goes into a coma or dies, if you’re using Ubuntu you still have lots of fairly inexpensive options to get support and not get stuck.
The only reason Linux might not be ready for your mother is that most open source distributions have to stick with open source only licensed software so proprietary software that everyone uses like Flash you still have to add on yourself. It’s not very hard as there are packages for all the main distributions. As open standards like HTML5 starts replacing stuff like Flash, the last few things will go by the wayside.
Another thing that I think should be considered in this conversation that hasn’t been mentioned is the type of company you are supporting when you spend your money. We all know Microsoft is evil and Steve Jobs practically gloats in the fact that he is evil, so why would I want to support either company with my (church’s) money. This is probably reason #1 for me to use open source software: it’s community-based and open. When I use open source software, I invest in a community that helps everyone…not just the shareholders of one company. I’ll have to stop at that, but if you’re interested in more on that topic please follow my blog http://www.opensourcechurch.com…it's just starting up, but I’ve been noodling on these issues for several years now and have a lot of content coming.
I would also like to note that Linux officially left the back office when netbooks started being sold with it (and not Windows). Linux is becoming a serious competitor in the desktop environment and will only grow in market share as hardware vendors look to make more money (or cut costs) by limiting their software costs. Worldwide Linux and open-source in general is expanding like crazy, but in the US where we have too much money to spend it’s not as much of a competitor. But, with the rest of the world jumping on board, I would expect the US will eventually follow suit too. In the end, companies like Google are radically changing the game when they start paying companies to use their open source based OS on phones, netbooks, you name it.
http://abovethecrowd.com/2009/10/29/google-redefines-disruption-the-%E2%80%9Cless-than-free%E2%80%9D-business-model/
peace,
Kevin
http://www.opensourcechurch.com
Kevin,
Calling companies or individuals evil is a poor tactic. I could probably find plenty of “evil” people in the Linux community. Let’s make sure we’re Christ-like in our discusson and stick to the facts.
Sorry, I guess my tongue-in-cheek didn’t make it across the inter-webs. Wasn’t being (entirely) serious. Just thought that maybe another look at where our (and our church’s) money is going might be another alternative consideration (whether the company is not-so-evil or not). Maybe a more serious consideration for the companies would be how they treat their employees or their manufacturing practices, etc. rather than their evil-ness. I’ve actually heard good (and not-as-good) things about both companies on that front. Just trying to expand the conversation a little…
Why Microsoft and Apple are Evil and Ubuntu is Not
OK, so I wanted to take some time to revisit my comment about Microsoft and Apple being “evil” and I’ll go ahead and apologize for the length, but thanks in advance for reading or at least skimming it.
I’m mainly focusing on John’s response to my comment:
Calling companies or individuals evil is a poor tactic. I could probably find plenty of “evil” people in the Linux community. Let’s make sure we’re Christ-like in our discusson and stick to the facts.
So this is my attempt to clarify my position, “stick to the facts” and be “Christ-like”. I tried to only talk about what was completely necessary, but I know that this is probably a new way to think about this issue for many of you so keeping it too short can cause confusion as evidenced by John’s response to my last comment. Speaking of which, before I go on I think it would be helpful to clarify a few things about my initial comment:
1) Even taking my comment completely seriously, I didn’t mean that Microsoft and Apple are absolutely evil in all aspects. I would think this would be obvious as there are always good and bad about anything (except God). On the other hand, as Christians, it’s obvious (at least to me) that we should be lining up corporate ethics and business practices with biblical values and if they don’t match up, they can be considered “evil” as a general term. Just like a person, a company can be judged by the fruit it bears (sorry Apple, pun intended)
2) I’ll strike my comment about Steve Jobs from the record. Talking about specific people confuses the issue that I’m really talking about which is the business ethics of the companies, not the personal ethics or morality of anyone working for the company. While Steve Jobs’ public comments and attitudes are synonymous with Apple’s as he has chosen to be the face of Apple, I’ll ignore that fact to get to the issue I’m talking about: corporate ethics and business practices. I’m not attacking or judging any person. Period.
OK, now for the good stuff. First, I won’t go into detail about why the business ethics of Microsoft or Apple are evil. That’s already been discussed at length and here is a good summary article about Microsoft from the Free Software Foundation.
If you think Apple is any different, here’s a recent article from Newsweek that basically gushes about Apple products, but mentions in several places how proprietary, litigous and unmerciful Apple can be. While there are differences in the two companies, they share many similarities in how they do business.
I’ll summarize the position by saying that in general Microsoft and Apple have business practices that are unforgiving, unmerciful, overly litigous, self-serving, greedy…the list could go on. Again, while some positive adjectives could be thrown in there (again, they aren’t completely evil in their business practices), I think it’s safe to say that the former list doesn’t mirror biblical values very well at all. Now you ask, “but aren’t they just being good business by doing so…competition is fierce and they need to compete?”. And of course the answer is a resounding “YES!”. They are being good businesses according to secular standards. Of course, the Bible doesn’t tell us to be good businesses and to make a lot of money for our investors, does it? As Christians, we’re called to be different from the world. That means our whole lives. How and where we and our churches spend our money supports a set of values that should hopefully match our personal beliefs. Shouldn’t it?
The other part of this discussion is the comment relating to the fact that Ubuntu and Linux isn’t any different from Microsoft and Apple. Yeah, I beg to differ…surprised?! Probably not.
We’ll talk about Ubuntu explicitly for discussions sake, but most, if not all, of the arguments translate to any company using a purely open source business model (of which there are many).
Ubuntu uses completely free, open-source software in their business model. In order to make money, you pay Ubuntu for services, not the software itself. What this means is that while Ubuntu controls their distribution, they don’t control the licensing of their software. Their licensing comes from the author and contributors of the different projects that chose to make their software open-source. As long as Ubuntu complies with the open-source licensing terms (mainly, to make any derivative works also open source), they can use the software however they choose for commercial purposes. The beauty of this model is that:
1) If I can’t afford services, I can still get the software absolutely free (i.e. you have more time than money). I don’t have to break the law to use the software. This helps the poor and less fortunate in many ways. Helping the poor is a biblical value.
2) If I decide that Ubuntu becomes “evil”, I can move to a distribution that isn’t so “evil” because the software is available to anyone that complies to the open source license. This allows me, as a Christian, to choose to support companies that use open source software in ways that mirror Christian values (whether they are doing so purposefully or not). In fact, if I decide Ubuntu is “evil”, I can actually create my own derivative distribution of Ubuntu and create the “NotSoEvilUbuntu” company and do the same thing Ubuntu is doing, with the same software and compete with them. I can also just choose not to support the company by choosing not to pay for services. On the other hand, Microsoft and Apple deliberately use business methods that limit choice and sometimes even force you to use their product (ever tried getting someone else to open a spreadsheet you created in other than Microsoft Excel format?). Freedom to choose is a biblical value.
3) The company has no licensing rights over the software, so Ubuntu can’t sue any one for using, copying, or redistributing the software unless they do so in greedy ways (ex. they don’t comply with the open source license). Punishing greed is a biblical value.
4) Open source business models serve the community as well as the company’s profits. Serving the community is a biblical value.
While there are others, those are the big hitters. Of course, there are lots of “good” and “evil” people in the Ubuntu community. Additionally, open source projects and business models aren’t Christian in and of themselves. However, at a minimum, the business models supported by open source software and culture are much closer to biblical values than proprietary models and many aspects of open source culture mirror principles from the Bible very directly (that subject is what my blog is all about). Therefore, I must conclude that open source companies like Ubuntu are not “evil” or at least much less “evil” by their very nature than companies with proprietary business models like Microsoft and Apple. If I must conclude that, then it seems as Christians it should be a consideration for the decision on which software, hardware, etc. we use, especially in our churches (even if the technical and financial considerations say otherwise).
And for me that leads me to always avoid proprietary software when an open source alternative exists and using the least proprietary solution when OS alternatives aren’t available. Of course, more companies are using hybrid (open-source AND proprietary) business models, so it’s not always a clear case like the one above). In fact, Microsoft and Apple have even been partially forced on the open source bandwagon through competition.
Of course the only reason I brought this all up is that John only mentioned technical and financial considerations in his review of a PC or Mac only environment (including his miniscule review of Linux). Since this is ChurchIT.com and not IT.com, I expect there to be other considerations besides what the secular world would consider. That’s really it. If I want general IT advice, I’ll go somewhere else…here I expect advice that’s not only applicable to church use cases, but also centered on Christ-like values and in this post, I personally found it wanting.
Let the flaming commence…I wouldn’t post things like this if I couldn’t take the heat.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
Kevin,
First let me say that I don’t expect anyone to flame you, that wouldn’t be Christ-like.
Second, your opinion and points are valid. Maybe you should write a guest blog on Linux in churches (hint, hint).
My exposure to Linux and open source software is limited which is why my mention of it was brief. The software I’ve used (mostly office productivity apps) lacks the fit and finish I’ve come to expect from closed-source applications from MS and Apple. I didn’t want to come down on it without a thorough knowledge of what I was talking about. I offered a brief opinion based upon my limited exposure. Had I left out Linux all together I imagine you would have commented about that as well so I’m de-rezed if I do and de-rezed if I don’t.
As far as their business practices are concerned I’ll let the apostle Paul speak for me, “Food (software) will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat (install), and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” 1 Cor. 8:8,9 ESV (commentary and emphasis mine).
My freedom to use software from MS and Apple is just as valid as your freedom to avoid it. Let’s try not to be stumbling blocks to each other but rather choose to celebrate our freedom in Christ to choose what software to use.
Cheers,
John
Hi John,
Thanks for the response. I’d be more than happy to become a more integral part of this community by guest blogging about open source topics. I’ll always be around to put the open source tint on the discussions that come by. In the near future, I need to spend time on my own site first though. Hopefully, discussing and posting about some of these things on my own site as well as discussing things here will help me figure out the best and most effective subjects that would be useful in this forum.
Next, suffice it to say that I don’t agree with your commentary and emphasis on the passage you mention and believe that it is a bad application of Scripture in this discussion. However, this doesn’t seem to be the proper forum for this discussion. I’ll most likely write a blog on my own site in the not-so-distant future in response since theological discussions about open source software is part of it’s purpose. When I do, I’ll post a link here.
Lastly, my position is not to say that open source software is the only way to go and all proprietary software is evil and sinful. I don’t expect most people to take as strict of a position as I have (although I believe they are missing out horribly by not doing so). We do as you say have the freedom to choose as we wish. On the other hand, that freedom also means we have the responsibility to choose wisely and morally. Again, my main purpose for posting was not about whether we should use proprietary vs open source software, but rather…as Christians, what ethical and moral concerns might also affect our IT decisions besides just the technical and financial? I think that is an important question for this forum and the answers involve more than proprietary or open source software and are usually not so simple or black and white.
Hopefully, rather than being stumbling blocks we are chunks of iron sharpening iron? Sometimes, there’s only a fine line between the two.
Thanks for starting the discussion…I look forward to being a part of this community in any way. Thanks for also being gracious enough to stick with me in this not-so-normal discussion.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
btw, there are certain times when flaming someone is Christ-like. We only have to look at Jesus overturning the temple tables or flaming the Pharisees and religious leaders in Matt 23 to see examples. Maybe I need someone to turn up the heat on me?
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
btw, even WIRED has noticed Apple’s Evil-ness…maybe I’m not far off base after all.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/05/5-suggestions-apple/
“Plenty of us love our shiny iPads, iPods, iPhones and MacBooks — state-of-the-art gadgets with undeniable allure. But it’s tough to imagine customers will stay loyal to a company whose image and actions are increasingly nefarious. We want to like the corporation we give money to, don’t we?”
It’s always perplexing to me that secular culture seems to point these things out faster than the church…
Nice post, it’s good to see someone approach this argument from a balanced standpoint. I’d like to stay out of it completely, but I feel compelled to toss some extra info in
While your statement of being able to purchase a cheap PC for menial tasks is absolutely correct, I’d like to point out that if you spend as much on a PC as you do on a Mac, it’s going to be an amazing PC with just as much capability for high-end tasks as the Mac has.
Any argument about Mac hardware being better went away when Mac switched to Intel, now it’s all about the OS.
Just my two cents
Thanks for the well thought out post!
This was posted today on OSNews and might help round out the Linux side of the discussion a little better; while it’s mainly comparing Linux to Windows there’s also a few comments on Macs:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23132/10_Things_Linux_Does_Better_Than_Windows
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com
I guess I should have mentioned. The article is actually a reply to another article about “10 Things Linux Does Better Than Windows”. It seems to be pretty balanced approach by pointing out the ugly babies on both sides of the discussion and putting forth a rebuttal to the rather one-sided original Linux article.
Kevin
http://opensourcechurch.com