Is Vista really driving Windows users over to Mac and Linux? Or does Redmond have such a lock on the market that everyone else is permanently regulated to also-ran status?
That's probably a debate that will go on for a while, but at least enough time has gone by to draw some preliminary conclusions.
To be sure, there are enough enterprises that have switched from Windows to Mac to indicate that there are some very valid reasons to do so. This profile of Auto Warehousing Co. on Computerworld shows that a new Mac infrastructure can cut costs, improve reliability and deliver enhanced IT support, even if the original spark for the switch was a licensing dispute with Microsoft. There's also a lot of detail here as to exactly how the transition took place and how problems were overcome.
Over at The Unofficial Apple Weblog, which one would think would put the best Mac-centric spin possible on the Mac vs. Windows debate, we have Scott McNulty saying that Macs aren't likely to transplant PCs any time soon. But, then again, who cares? Mac users know they have the better stuff, so let the world burn.
That view is countered by author and professor Joe Habraken, who argues that the Mac/Intel combination will eat Microsoft's lunch when it comes to multimedia applications and visual communications, which are fast becoming standard operating procedure at most enterprises. Plus, new tools to link iPhones to the enterprise are sure to be in great demand among younger workers.
Of course, rarely do you get such a direct tit-for-tat among professional commentators as the one going on between silicon.com's Andy McCue and ZDNet's Marc Wagner. McCue showcases a raft of CIOs arguing that Vista's costs will drive more and more enterprises into the Mac or Linux camps, while Wagner says, basically, that that's a bunch of hooey because it will cost just as much, if not more, to upgrade to Mac or Linux.
So there. Gee, I'm sure glad we've settled that one.