Why A Mac in Church?

[dmeyer]

It's coming time to replace a couple of computers for our administrative staff. They're all Windows users exclusively, but I think I'm going to hook them up with Mac Minis and let them use Boot Camp.

Wait, what?

You read right, I'm going to buy them Mac Minis for them to use Windows with no intention of using OS X. Now why would he do a thing like that? He's just a fanboy.

First and foremost, no, they're not any more expensive. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: if you spec out a PC piece for piece with a Mac, you'll find the price difference is negligible.

AppleCare. Have you ever heard a bad thing about AppleCare? Have you ever heard a good thing about Dell's or HP's service? Imagine this: a representative from the USA. Huh? I've heard stories of AppleCare giving out brand new computers when the parts to fix an older one aren't available.

Power. The Mac Mini uses in the neighborhood of 25 watts while busy, and you can expect the typical PC desktop to run around 100. Now, I'm not a green freak or anything, but when you consider an entire office (not to mention a school or company), it doesn't take much to make a difference. http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple- ... 087-2.html

Versatility. I know the staff isn't using OS X for anything right now, but what if they had that option? Plus, having a Mac sitting there works into my master plan of getting the entire office over to OS X eventually (I'm talking years).

All that argument for a Mac and it doesn't even include the wonders of OS X. Tell me what you think of the Mac Mini idea, am I missing anything obvious that would be a game-changer? I haven't found a reason not to yet.

[chaselivingston]

I think that's a great idea. I think the Mac Mini is often overlooked, because people assume it's underpowered or won't do what all the other Macs will. I'm definitely guilty of that. I think for the situation you're describing, a Mac Mini would be the perfect option. It's small footprint alone would be ideal for an office, in my opinion.

[Stuart]

I think that's a great idea. I think the Mac Mini is often overlooked.

I've worked wonders with my 2nd gen PPC mac mini and it's still going strong now. Though I'd love an Intel based Mac now as mine is severly restricted as it won't run anything newer than iLife06 and certainly not the latest OS.

[johnnyd]

To some people, including myself, it is worth paying that extra premium for the stability and reliability you get with Apple.

Now, I can understand, and agree with the fact that we should be good stewards of the church's money. The church I am a part of, for instance, cannot afford a Mac right now, so we have just recently purchased EasyWorship 2009 for our presentation purposes. If we did have the money, however, we probably would purchase a Mac and use ProPresenter. Not because EasyWorship is bad, or because ProPresenter is the best, but because that's what would work the best for us, and the volunteers we have.

The software that comes installed on a Mac is far superior to anything I've seen from Windows, i.e. iMovie, iPhoto, Finder, Spotlight, etc. I really think these things, coupled with everything else I've said previously, make a Mac the best decision. I don't advocate spending all the money you have on it, and then not doing anything else, but if you have the money that you can afford to spend on a Mac, I say that's a great choice

Some food for thought:
Acer, Toshiba & Sony are all more reliable than Apple
[sources]
30,000 laptops studied by a WARRANTY company:
http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop ... lity-1109/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/ ... tables.ars

I priced a dual-core pentium Asus laptop at $500 w/ 1-year warranty and 1-year accidental, the cheapest comparable Apple would be the 13" Macbook at $1000, $750 at best if you buy refurb. Factor in that you can buy a standard 3-year warranty for the Asus for $80 ($180 for 1-day turnaround) and that the only warranty option for the Apple is the Apple Care plan at $250, that makes it $580 to $1000-$1250 for the Apple.

At MINIMUM, you are paying 30-50% more for that Apple refurb, upwards near 100% more if you compared new-to-new. Tell me how you can justify that when it's shown there Asus is more reliable than Apple?

iMovie = Windows Live MovieMaker (free)
iPhoto = Windows Live PhotoGallery (free)
Mail = Windows Live Mail (free)
Finder = There's literally thousands of explorer alternatives, although Windows 7 Explorer has a lot of the same features as Finder (free)
Spotlight = Windows Vista & 7 Start Search (built-in) same EXACT thing
Dock = Windows 7 Task Bar (or) RocketDock (free)

I just can't seem to justify it anyway I look at it. While I agree iMovie & iPhoto are superior, there's no way it could justify the cost difference, and certainly not because of reliability.

[chaselivingston]

The way I justify the extra cost is an overall superior product. Not only software, but hardware. When I use a PC, I feel like I might break it if I pick it up the wrong way, or close it too hard. When I use my MacBook, it feels extremely sturdy and well built. Then there's the extreme system resource usage by a PC compared to a Mac. I have a friend whose mom just bought a laptop loaded with Windows 7. It's a week old and already worthless. It's running at 100% processor power at idle. Macs have historically been much more secure, due in part to their Unix heritage.

I understand many people won't buy a Mac because of the cost, but to me, and many others, it is well worth the price.

[johnnyd]

A couple things....

1) Personally, I have no problem buying a Mac, but what I prefer and can afford personally is different than for a church, as it would be for any business, non-profit, etc.

2) In a church setting you are making a recommendation for a community. A church's budget is based upon giving, people in your community are entrusting you with the resources God's given to them. The decision should reflect what's best for your church, not you personally.

The way I justify the extra cost is an overall superior product. Not only software, but hardware.

We are called to be good stewards with our resources. Explain to me how one justifies it for someone who uses the computer for productivity? Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. has the same exact functionality on a Mac as it does a PC. The hardware is the same as other manufacturers, except for the shell and the screen, things like the processor, the hard drive, the ethernet connector, the graphics card... they are the same as the PC equivalent. It's the proprietary OS that makes it "seem" more reliable. The use of limited hardware in fact limits the compatibility, while at the same time keeps the number of possible conflicts down, resulting in what would seem a more stable OS. You basically give up options and cost-savings for a more stable system. Granted Apple has SOME quality software offerings, the fact is they have VERY few options when you compare the options for PC's.

Using that logic, "if it's superior then it justifies the cost". Well then why not buy everyone a BMW? It's superior in every way to a Ford, does that justify the cost? Certainly NOT if the task at hand is just to get from point A to point B.

When I use a PC, I feel like I might break it if I pick it up the wrong way

Anecdotal evidence. Latest study shows Asus, Toshiba, and Sony to be more reliable than Apple. Granted, Apple MBP's with aluminum uni-bodies are nice, the Apple Macbooks are plastic.

Then there's the extreme system resource usage by a PC compared to a Mac. I have a friend whose mom just bought a laptop loaded with Windows 7. It's a week old and already worthless. It's running at 100% processor power at idle.

A couple things wrong with this statement. A) You are assuming all PC's have extreme resource usage. This is not the case. To think this would be ignorance. Windows is highly customizable and while it's easy to make it bloat, it's also very easy to make it slim. This is purely subjective to the knowledge level of the user and has similar consequences on both platforms. The second issue is B) You are using one example without context to make blanket statements. One can't use anecdotal evidence in a single instance to support a claim on every instance. Without knowing any context it's impossible to place blame on the OS or the hardware.

Macs have historically been much more secure, due in part to their Unix heritage.

Incorrect. Macs have been historically more secure because they have 5% of the market share and most people that develop viruses and malware are looking to infect more than 5% of computer-users. Did you not keep up with the latest Snow Leopard news? 33 security holes, shipped with vulnerable flash version, shipped with bug that could delete 100% of your data if you logged in as guest. Last year at the CanSecWest security conference, Apple lost in a hacking competition where it only took 2-minutes to gain control of the system. So it's not because Macs are more secure, but rather because there's a lack of viruses written to take advantage of these security holes.

I feel like as a servant in this area it's my responsibility to know the facts. Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay, or finding evidence to support a preconceived preference would be irresponsible and show a lack of integrity on my part. There are pros and cons to using a Mac versus a PC. It's my job to look at ALL the pros including the cons and make a decision on what's the best tool for the job.

I have researched this for a long time and there's no doubting that Macs cost more and I don't see much of a reason to justify the cost yet. Some feedback I've gotten has been in regards to how many hours of tech support Macs need vs. the comparable PC. I think that this is a very reasonable concern to have and would greatly impact the overall cost to which I am most interested in. But, I have yet to find a reliable source that proves that Macs need less tech support or puts forth an estimate as to how much extra time or cost is saved. So if anyone has any evidence to support this I'd be interested in it. I'm interested in facts, not opinions. Thanks.

[paschott]

But Macs are pretty, right?

Anyway, I agree with your posts, but can see where a church would choose to use Macs over PCs if they have a lot of staff who are familiar with Macs over PCs. The support costs are something to consider and I'd agree that a good study on that makes a lot of sense. I know that Mac-only churches can sometimes hit snags when they run into software that is Windows-only. You can get around it with emulators and virtualization, but short of buying a PC, that's about it. This tends to be more of an emotional issue than anything else. For our church's purpose, I see no benefits to switching to Macs. We do pretty basic stuff, don't do excessive graphics/video editing, and don't do fancy worship presentation packages. For our needs, I'd be hard pressed to justify the extra costs. For others, I can see where they'd want to get some of the basic Apple software included when they do a bit more graphic/sound work than we do.

Still, let's be sure to keep things on track here and let's try not to get too emotional in our responses. It's very easy to turn this into a flame-war and I think we'd like to avoid that.

-Peter

[johnnyd]

Absolutely, I just want to have an objective discussion.

I think a mixed PC/Mac environment is where we'll end up, but I do know of people pushing for an all mac platform for the entire church and simply can't justify it without knowing the overall cost for the life of the computer, including tech support, maintenance, product cost, warranty, etc. Maybe there's just too many factors to be absolute and just have to make the decision based on what evidence is known.

I don't think anyone will ever be fully satisfied with the result. Just trying to make the most informed decision possible.

[chaselivingston]

I'm not sure any of us will ever agree here. In general, my experience with Macs has been much more pleasurable than my experience with any Windows based PC, which is why I'm a big Mac proponent. I believe I can be a good steward of a church's money in recommending they buy a Mac, because I know they're getting a product that will serve them well and last them a very long time. I'm fine with people disagreeing with that thought, but I don't think you'll ever change my mind. I'll keep buying Macs for myself, and recommending them to anyone who asks.

[jimwalton]

I think there is so much more to consider than simply cost. Typically, you will see a church using ProPresenter when they are larger, even mega-sized. The only non-megachurches I have seen using ProPresenter are where the IT Director is pro Mac and he/she is over the entire presentation process. I think Daniel has a great idea with beginning to switch over the staff to Mac Mini's, they ultimately may never realize that anything is different under the hood. You've got to start somewhere if you want to go down that road.

You can't just come out and smear all churches that use Macs as bad stewards of the money they have been entrusted with. There's a chance that a person may donate a Mac or 2 to a church and in that case, should the church turn down the generosity or embrace it.

Consider the long term goals of the tech ministry of the church not just the immediate cost. If the ultimate goal is to have a Mac for ProPresenter and for the support staff/volunteers, then maybe new hardware can't be purchased for another 6months or year until the budget allows. Then again, maybe you start with refurb or used Macs.

Honestly, there are so many churches out there that would love to have money to upgrade the 5 year old computer they have and this whole discussion on Macs is irrelevant to them. So, like I say, I think the long term goal of the ministry is the thing that should drive any hardware and software purchases, not simply cost.

The last tech ministry I was responsible for had a 5 year plan when it came to upgrading hardware.

Do you have a 5 year plan for your ministry?