The Toronto District School Board (TDSB), the fourth largest school board in North America, will be dropping support for Macs in the classroom.
To give a little background, I use a Mac for all of my school and personal work. This is mainly because, graphically, the quality of my projects, presentations or videos that are produced with iLife or other applications are of a much better quality than that which I’m able to produce on a Windows machine in the same timeframe. Many TDSB schools favor Macs for the same reason I do, but won’t be purchasing more with support from the TDSB. I’m not only furious that students won’t have access to this technology, but also with all the money already invested into Macs that will now go wasted.
The TDSB argues that the decision to stop supporting Macs largely relates to the cost, and that Macs cost on average 40% more per unit. They’ve introduced a Classroom Technology Migration Initiative (CTMI) which basically means students’ documents can be accessed from any TDSB computer. So, if they’re switching to a new school, they will be able to access their files at any computer in the school. Sounds like a great initiative, but the TDSB is providing support only for Windows XP based machines.
The cost difference between a Mac and PC when this centralized network was deployed was $233, and now is about $324; not close to the $400 the TDSB claims.
Scott Baker, former Pringdale Gardens ICT Consultant, argues this point:
“It is not a simple differential, as it does not reflect the quality of components used, nor the added value (such as software, built in camera, built-in microphone, larger screen (20” vs. 17″), quality of components, etc.) that is bundled with the Macintosh.
He also goes on to point out that some U.S. school districts run Windows programs on a Mac under virtualization like Boot Camp, Parallels, or VMware Fusion. Not only do they run it with no problems, it runs faster with fewer crashes, according to Scott.
What the TDSB doesn’t understand is that if you’re going to buy a computer, you don’t just look at the price of the hardware. A Mac or PC? Well, you’ll be paying $500 less for a PC and get around the same specs, but do you take into consideration that you’ll be paying money when it breaks or gets a virus (both of which PCs are more susceptible to)? Or all the additional software you’ll be paying for? The TDSB hasn’t, in this case.
In an effort to push the TDSB to support Macs, ICT/Media Teacher Chris Higgins has created an online petition. Mr. Higgins isn’t the only one who is showing support for the Macintosh; many students have voiced their opinions, such as 9th grade student Emil Mattis:
The TDSB should really consider investing in our students, not board executives. PCs only limit one['s] creativity. Macs are worth it no matter what the [cost].
I’m really disappointed in the TDSB for making this decision. The three largest school boards in North America have all succefully impleted a system with support for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux in some cases, so there isn’t much excuse for them not being able to do so, as well.
Acquisition costs are a fraction of the support costs. Gartner, IDG, and other analysts firms have repeated this mantra for over 20 years now, yet management remain oblivious to total cost of ownership issues.
From my experience base, which is with over 1 million desktop computers, an OS X desktops cost about 18% of a PC desktop, over a 3 year life.
Just the cost of creating the software hard disk image for the myriad of chip configurations even in a single model of PC is overwhelming. To deploy a standard configuration when the hardware is not consistent, takes as many images, or else custom, time consuming manual installations, to create deployable, manageable machines.
On OS X, a single image is deployable on any Mac hardware – a massive time saving in just initial deployment.
This says nothing of the support costs, the data integration and migration issues with Microsoft proprietary data lock in with every product they produce, the anti-malware hoops (and costs) to jump through. Once on the Microsoft path, they block the majority of attempts to transparently share data with anything other than their own products, a barrier to exit, a lock in on their products, and a serious hinderance to business, holding business data hostage in some unpublished, proprietary data format.
Application presentation is extremely consistent, reducing user training – and support – costs. Even the single menu bar saves screen real estate, and identifies current foreground application, producing a better user experience. Studies have shown that Mac users, run many times more applications than their PC counterparts, as the require little additional learning to run additional apps, based on consistency of user interface and menu presentation.
Recently the graduate school of a major local University moved from Macs with one part time support person, to PCs, with 5 full time plus support staff, and a radical decrease of service to go with.
If the schools were to buy corporate class PCs – those with a consistent hardware configuration / chipset, that reduces deployment costs, and increases overall build quality to near Mac levels, then the price disparity is an equivalent PC is MORE expensive to purchase than a Mac. And in the server space, this spread is even greater, with OS X Servers a fraction of the price of a Dell, not even including the onerous licensing costs of Windows server and application CALS.
The bad part of this is that once on the Windows path, the data lock in makes it very hard to change directions, when you discover the error of your ways, and your IT costs are forever increases. Budget for at least 5 times as many support staff – you'll need it.
Just the cost of creating the software hard disk image for the myriad of chip configurations even in a single model of PC is overwhelming.Recently the graduate school of a major local University moved from Macs with one part time support person,
@kirkrr Thanks for the comment.
The school district never puts the latest version of software, like Office. Why not? Shouldn't we provide the best possible tools for our kids to succeed? Well people at home may not have the latest software, and they'd like to make sure about backwards compatibility. We're using Microsoft Office 2003 at my high school… Soon we'll have 2007! Maybe Office 2009 in 5 years!
I totally get what you're saying about maintenance and upkeep costs, but another problem is finding people with experience for Macs.
Another teacher I've spoken with argues that we should force students to older applications or because they are harder, and therefore students will develop skills for using that application and can transfer it to other applications.
However, the interface of Microsoft Office 2009 to Office 2003 has major changes, and I'm sure if you opened the new version of Office, students would have troubles.
And, why should we use those programs at all if they're hard to use?
In response to your point about Microsoft's proprietary software: The TDSB forces schools to use proprietary programs, like IE and not Firefox. From what I've heard, they can't use open-source because if something goes wrong they can't contact an open-source foundation because it "isn't just one person," and "open-source applications aren't secure because anyone can make changes."
Firefox and other open-source projects aren't just released when anyone makes a change to the code… Every change is reviewed by at least one other person before released publicly, so I think it is a lack of education.
They could be correct about it being easier to just sue Microsoft if the entire infrastructure is built of Microsoft products/technology and something goes wrong, as an open-source foundation won't have money.