Design/Production filter: Going from Mac to PC.

I held onto Quark 4.1 for so long 'cause it's only version that Indesign will open and I knew we would eventually switch to Indesign.

rob511 has a major point: There's no good reason that Macs and PCs can't interoperate perfectly well, especially in that kind of environment. No, they can't manage the Macs with NT domain management tools. But for substantially less than will be lost doing the conversion, they could afford to hire a Unix networking consultant to resolve any actual integration issues they have. Again, if they want to claim it's cheaper, they should have a model that shows it's so. If they've produced a proposal or a project plan, it should have enough numbers in it that you can reproduce their model. If it doesn't, then there's really no case for the switch. If they want to make it about cost savings, they should be able to get specific about them. Good luck. I know the good fight can be hard to fight. Also remember that at the end of the day, lives (probably) won't be lost, either way.

Clarifications: Yes, *I* think it's a bad idea. But I'm trying to fair and look at this objectively and how to make it work. I'm also trying to demonstrate that this is a bad decision in a non combative, friendly corporate way, that referrers to the bottom line. So I'm writing up something to present to the higher ups, while trying to come up with answers/alternatives to any misgivings they might have. Ambrose: Again, it's perceieved as being cheaper and the IT department said so. The support specialist is part of the IT department and was formerly a production manager for one of the satellite offices of the company. We're a newspaper publishing company and the IT/Tech department is advising on this. Yes, they're PC based and want everything to be PC based as it's easier (cheaper) to maintain in their eyes.

Brandon, do your bosses, IT folks, bean counters know that there are plenty of companies that operate just fine using both platforms? Especially in publishing, it's quite common. And if it seems counter-intuitive, it's because it works. For example, your advertising and circ people may need (or strongly prefer) Windows for the software, the creative and editorial types Macs for the same reason.

It's a company wide change. Why? What benefit is supposed to accrue from adopting a single platform, or indeed, moving from one platform to another? We'll have a co. support specialist to help us through the changes What kind of company? Are they the ones making the reccomendation? Are they the ones selling you the PCs? Do they have any companies they've "helped" which still use Macs? People often assume that one platform is better than two. But that's generally what it is, an assumption, not a tested theory. Or, being cynical, it's really just a decision which makes life easier for them, because they don't do Mac support. they've already change one, smaller paper, over it shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? Have you talked to the people at that paper? In case you can't tell, I'm one of the people who thinks it's a terrible idea.

Here's a thought to take to your bosses: If someone is arguing that the migration will save money, make them show the model. Make them show it in real time. Change the assumptions and see what happens. If they haven't got a model (e.g., in Excel) that lets you change assumptions and see the results, then they probably don't have a sound argument for cost savings.

This sounds like someone who has the CEO's ear got a brain fart and now the CEO thinks it smells like roses. Speaking frankly, and as someone with about 15 years of experience working in IT or related fields, the vast majority on PCs: It's a really bad idea. As KJS has pointed out and lots of other folks have implied, the human costs will dwarf the license and hardware costs. And the unforseen license costs alone (font licenses, duplicate software licenses -- Macrodobe isn't going to let you just translate those licenses, you know -- additional unforseen software like antivirus and software firewalls, etc) are pretty significant. You can definitely make Windows work for a graphics and print environment, and you could probably save money at it. But it would take a lot of work to save that money -- you'd want to be looking closely at your opportunity costs -- and I doubt you could save any money at all by migrating. Also, the PPC to Intel shift probably isn't going to cause much problem for you. You'll want to hold off refreshing the workstations until you have all the apps you need on Intel, but your servers I expect you could migrate as necessary. Remember, Apple has been doing proof-of-concept builds on Intel since 10.0.0. They know how to make it work for the Apple stuff, which is what matters most on the servers.

Wrong. If these specialists were helping you, they'd have answered all those questions already. they're going to leave you to swing. The only reason companies switch to PCs is they (incorrectly) think they'll save cash, or because of vested interests in IT who only know PCs and couldn't give a fuck what's better for the user. If they're saving cash, they're not going to spend a lot holding your hand on the move. Resist man, resist!

I think it's a dreadful idea. You don't know shit about PCs, judging by the questions you're asking, so you have no idea of the horror speedbumps ahead. It's a company wide change. We'll have a co. support specialist to help us through the changes and as they've already change one, smaller paper, over it shouldn't be that big of a deal, right?