Windows 7 Launch is a Dangerous Time for Mac Advocates

| Editorial

Yesterday was full of news and commentary about Apple's reaction to Windows 7, including some nice quotes from Apple SVP Phil Schiller. However, at your level, the project level, there are pitfalls for Mac enthusiasts who go about evangelizing the wrong way. Here's what to avoid, and here's what to do.

I have been involved in some fairly high level technical projects in my career. This was at NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. What I've learned along the way is that there are two critical factors that will determine your success as well as the success of your technical project.

Technical Depth. Recently, I became aware of a project in which there was a need for a major database. The project had lots of technical people, even database experts, who felt that Oracle was the way to go in the long run. However, IBM came in with a great song and dance and sold the management on DB2. For those not familiar with DB2, it's IBM's flagship database, but it's old, quirky, and doesn't run as well in Linux as is does in AIX. The managers were wowed by IBM and the lowball price. It wasn't the best decision for the project in the long run.

At issue is the technical depth of the decision makers in any organization. If senior managers have been in the trenches and have real hands on experience for decades, then they can carry that into their management years. However, many managers are selected these days, not for their technical talent, but for the ability to manage money, manage people, look good with customers, and impress their bosses. Often, that means making a decision based on the only metric their limited training can handle: costs.

Of course, we'd all like them to take advantage of the greybeards and young technical experts in an organization, but doing so makes modern managers uncomfortable, insecure, and threatens their ability to impress executive management. So they go it alone, select low cost but technically inferior solutions, get a promotion, move on and leave the project stewing in the mess they've left behind.

Technical Savvy. That's the second, and even more important element for technical people. Not only must you have extreme technical depth on a wide range of solutions, but you must be able to present options to senior managers in a way they can understand -- not as something that seems simply to support your own agenda.

In other words, you must be capable of presenting technical options that show a deep understanding of the issues, but do it in such a way that your boss both respects your judgment and feels that you're looking out for him (or her) and the good of the project.

Clearly, being an arrogant, sarcastic fan boy of Apple isn't going to leave that impression with decision makers. Accordingly, it pays to be careful in the selection of websites and books that you read. Apple websites that offer up nothing but a continuous stream of ad hominem attacks, disrespect, and blind allegiance to Apple won't provide you with the training and frame of mind to be a deep, useful, trusted technical contributor to the team.

Windows 7

Microsoft's Windows 7 is an OS that will provide certain benefits to any organization. People in your own organization will be actively perusing an understanding of what those advantages will be and how (or when) to roll out an upgrade. While the OS is certainly deemed technically inferior to Mac OS X, believe it or not, that's not the only basis on which the decision will be made.

Next week, when Windows 7 is launched, you should be thinking about how you are perceived in your organization. What have you bothered to learn about Vista in the past? Are you technically deep in Windows 7? Have you been spending your evenings playing with the Windows 7 betas? Are you technically prepared to offer quantitative, technical and cost evaluations of this OS so that your managers see you as making an insightful technical contribution? (If not, then just keep quiet.) Or are you planning to just smirk your way through the cubicles, suggesting that now is the time for everyone to follow your own agenda, get on your bandwagon, and generally piss off everyone around you.

Phil Schiller can get away with suggesting that everyday consumers just not bother with an onerous, tortuous upgrade to Windows 7. But there are people in your business organization who are technically experienced with XP, Vista and Windows 7. They're tasked with understanding how to keep the organization functioning in a PC dominated world. If you're not helping them with that deep technical assessment, contributing your knowledge on how Windows 7 and Snow Leopard can both work together to make your project a success, then you'll be marginalized, pushed aside.

And then, you'll be wondering, on your way out the door, why everyone around you is such an idiot. Instead of becoming a trusted, senior member of the technical team.



Did you miss something? The whole reason Windows 7 is coming out now is because companies SKIPPED Vista. They’re not knee deep in it, they are completely sidestepping it. What have I learned about Vista? I’ve learned that it’s loathsome and going the way of the dinosaurs.

7 will be an improvement for Microsoft. It will help them regain a lot of lost trust with their customers. And it’s good competition for Apple to have a strong product to measure up against.


Microsoft seems (IMO) to be suffering the same problem that the Star Trek movies had. Every other one is good.

Win95 was buggy. When MS had enough patches to make it fairly decent they had Win98
Win2000 was kludgy and buggy. When they had enough patches to make it fairly decent they had XP-SP2
Vista came out and it was slow, kludgy,  and buggy. Now that they have enough patches they have Win7

So Win7 should be fairly decent. I don’t see any way to prevent a Vista user from upgrading. That upgrade will be fairly simple for most. OTOH it’s the XP users that are going to wait. Their existing hardware, especially for home users, will often not support Win7. WinXP does run fairly well. I see a lot of them just waiting until it’s time to replace a computer. The real question then is to go to Win7 or a Mac. Either way they have to offload their documents and transfer them to the new box.

FWIW, my mother (80 something years old) was until last week, still using Win98 on her desktop. It worked fine for her but now that MS has dropped all support for W98 my brother upgraded her to Ubuntu. She uses her three year old laptop (WinXP) for much of her computing so there was no need for new hardware in her office.


Good points, John.

I think the best way to do it is to infiltrate the organization and earn or demonstrate one’s CML (Certified Microsoft Lickspittle) qualifications. Then hit them with the “Hey, wait a minute! I think Macs may be the best solution here” surprise.

Patience, planning, and choosing appropriate opportunities are the keys…


John, thanks very much for this. Sometimes these forums do get so wound up in shallow poking fun at MS and PC’s. I appreciate a good, solid reality check here.

This may take on more significance as Apple’s market share continues increasing. Eventually malware’s going to become a significant issue. In another forum someone else pointed out that the Sidekick fiasco may demonstrate how, as more and more players get involved in ever-changing technology, Apple users may face more and more MS-like problems.

Maybe “Dangerous” overstates just a bit, but we’d all do well to reassess.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still up for the occasional deserved jab?at PC ? but Apple’s commercials do it so much better. wink



As usual a well-thought out piece. While Apple is not attempting to ‘take over’ the workplace, Mac users (certainly this one) want legitimacy for their platform of choice, which is ultimately about hearts and minds.

Apple’s footprint has always been bigger than its market share, and is so now more than ever. My observation is that many PC users have grown progressively defensive, despite MS’s continued market dominance. Under these conditions, I have found that the most powerful argument is silence (on my part) combined with solid performance (from OS X). Anything else is going to compromise my credibility, get me branded a ‘fan boy’, and provide fodder for puerile outbursts about the Mac platform, and closed ranks around Windows.

PC users need time and freedom to explore Win 7, and come to their own conclusions. This is healthy, particularly if it reveals a competitive product.

Under these conditions, it will be easier to hold rational discourse on solutions and options. I think a solid performance from Win 7 will make it easier for people to acknowledge OS X’s strengths, and enhance its acceptance.


I’m a very experienced IT Architect.  I design very large J2EE and .NET architectures on Unix and Windows OS.  Windows 7 is no more attractive to large corporations than Vista was.  To upgrade the archaic XP OS would require new, faster hardware with more memory, ensuring existing apps run on 7,  retraining of users and support, new licenses and new support tools and processes.  Thats an expensive and time consuming proposition that no one wants especially during a recession.  There is just no business value in doing it.


The problem with Vista was that it didn’t really serve the Wintel consumer’s needs. What most of the Enterprise users wanted was an upgraded version of XP—something that didn’t disturb their workflows.

What they got was a sorry copy of Mac OSX without its UNIX foundations. Most Wintel users didn’t need an advanced graphics compositing engine, What they needed was good foundations. They needed protection from malware.

The culprit here is Longhorn. Microsoft promised the moon for five years. Longhorn was going to out-perform NeXTstep, Mac OSX and anything else. That didn’t happen; Microsoft had to start again with a clean copy of Windows Server 2003, a variant of Windows NT. Vista was so bad because Microsoft had to rush it out the door to cover for Longhorn.

MS cleaned Vista up and call it System Seven, now. It is faster and is lighter weight than Vista was. That is okay, but we shouldn’t expect too much from it. Microsoft had to use technology from 1988 to create Vista. The underlying flaws of Windows NT are still there—in System Seven. Its exterior is better protected, but no OS is fool proof. They all have vulnerabilities. When the vulnerability is exploited, that is all she wrote.

Malware will not go away even if every Windows 2000 and XP user upgrades to System Seven. That is just a fact, not a knock on System Seven. Windows was never designed to handle the internet and you can’t give it the capability to do so after the fact. You have to start again and put world class foundation on it, like Linux or BSD. Or you need to isolated it inside a virtual machine. Microsoft has good reasons for not doing either, so we will suffer malware attacks, until they do.


The company I work for is a rather huge company that told Microsoft we’d be skipping Vista, please come back when you have something that works. OTOH, the IT people plus the beta testers are raving about Windows 7. I’m rather disappointed - the climate of “we’re only using windows because we have no choice” left me with hope that we’d at least stop using windows only applications for things we don’t need to, and minimize the pain as much as possible. But if we fall for the Windows 7 banana-up-the-tailpipe, then we’re only more likely than ever to remain exceedingly windows-centric.


To upgrade the archaic XP OS would require new, faster hardware with more memory, ensuring existing apps run on 7,  retraining of users and support, new licenses and new support tools and processes.  Thats an expensive and time consuming proposition that no one wants especially during a recession.  There is just no business value in doing it.

And in the business world that about sums it up right there.  They got stuck with Windows XP way back when, and don’t want to upgrade to Vista, 7, or Macs because of the cost.  Regardless of whether Vista, 7, or Macs are better than XP or not, companies would rather use XP for the next 30 years if they could. They’ve become so accustomed to using an OS for nearly a decade with no new versions, and a few service packs, the idea that every two years or so the OS will be upgraded is abhorrent to them.

God I hate “business”.  lol


Let’s be realistic, how much more operating system do we need to do wordprocessing/spreadsheets.  The average worker is fine on the existing systems and the inhouse software runs fine.  The question is what productivity do you gain via Windows 7 vs XP or OS X.  The upgrade plans in larger corporations are centrally controlled and you as a user have very little input wether you run XP or OS X or Window 7, but if a CEO or CTO comes along and says we need to run this then IT will do the legwork.  The other thing driving upgrades is a new widget comes along and it is a must have for your business and only available on a specific OS.  That may help drive the upgrade but arguing that OS X is better then Windows on a technical basis is not going to change many people’s mind.  Companies offering a mixed PC/OS X environment will likely let the user pick and those already on Windows are not suddenly going to switch to Window 7 or OS X overnight, but the companies that have suffered major productivity loss due to the Windows security environment are probably taking a good look at OS X vs Windows 7.


Microsoft has long been a monopoly and the problems associated with that are being felt now. Its market share is declining slowly. Oh! Not enough to panic anyone, but people can recognize that Microsoft might dwindle. The strengths of that monopoly are turning into weaknesses.

Monopolies are monocultures which invite attack; they have to expend increasing efforts fighting off competition or sabotage. If an attack is successful, then a wide spread blight can occur. This would be true, even if Microsoft Windows had world class defenses, but it doesn’t. System Seven has better defenses than Vista, but its internal bulkheads are non-existant, so if a probe gets through a vulnerability then the user loses control of his computer.

Tens of billions of dollars are lost every year from that. You would think that this would be enough reason for Big Businesses to change to a more secure system, but they are used to the loss and think it is contained “in its box.”

Monopolies are control Freaks, too. They try to retard change so it doesn’t cost them market share. This means that they are reactive to new events. They retard innovation, but only in the areas which they can control. Microsoft has long done this. Wintel is a combination where the innovation was in the hardware market, while Microsoft dragged its feet.

The hardware innovation has run its course; the megahertz wars are over. Microsoft Windows is incapable of handling multiple cores. Software and marketing innovation is being conducted elsewhere. Microsoft has long been a copycat. Some of the advantages of its competitors cannot be copied without destroying Microsoft’s business plan.

Monopolies become hidebound. This encourages its customers to become hidebound, too. The Enterprise market’s refusal to accept Vista is evidence of that. Microsoft Windows had long been sold as “good enough.” So, Windows XP was a “good enough” reason not to move to Vista. Why would the IT personnel want disturb their workflows? Vista’s extra cost and deficiencies helped retard that conversion, but the root of this conviction was its customers resistance to change. What would make the IT personnel want to move to System Seven? There is not much that will push Enterprise off the dime, and System Seven ism’t good enough to pull them.

Monopolies reduce the intelligence and competence of their leaders, because they lose the competitive zeal. Politics allows bad managers to get promoted. Heavy handed, short sighted or bad decisions get made which increasingly irritate their customers while the decision maker skates free of any responsibility. When the results of those bad decisions become evident, cover ups abound.

Thus, a monopoly increasingly sets themselves up for failure. Longhorn’s failure is evidence of a long string of bad decisions. Rather than admitting that failure, Microsoft tried to cover it up. They had to start anew, but how they did that was to retrench to Window Server 2003. All the security problems in Windows NT were, thus, carried forward.

Do I think that Apple is much of a danger to Microsoft’s market share? No, I expect Google’s Chrome OS to be so. What if the IT personnel can get rid of its malware problems at little cost? What if they can run their Windows Applications in VMware without the problems they currently experience? What if Web or business applications can duplicate their current work flows? Why would they want to move to System Seven when Google Chrome will be out next year? Why not stay with the problems they have, rather than experience new ones?


Microsoft is a dying Dinosaur!!! It will take a long time to die!!! When it dies it will bring a whole lot of enterprises down with it!!! Just like AIG!!!


Darwin ? the business value in Windows 7 comes from 3 things ? and 2 of those are the same as Vista (and all 3 of them are arguments you could use for OS X).

(1)  It?s a far more secure system than XP. While good firms with well managed installations rarely have virus problems, we do know that billions of dollars are lost every year in cleaning up infected machines.
(2)  Search ? the single biggest thing I miss using XP is the lack of Spotlight. Instant search on documents is an obvious business benefit ? especially if combined with shared server side search. Just think of the time wasted on looking for documents in nested sub-folders.
(3)  Window management ? in particular, the addition of Expose-like features. I find this far better than ALT-TAB switching, particularly the ability to easily see all windows in the current app. Granted, this is undermined by apps that take an MDI approach, or make heavy use of tabs ? IDEs would be an example ? as would many of the iLife applications on OS X.

As with Snow Leopard, there are also a large number of small improvements, and productivity (and therefore business value) can come out of that, too (a reduction in friction). When people ask what I like about OS X over Windows, it?s really that ? the degree of low-level polish ? rather than the more obvious features.

When it comes to hardware support ? I think the majority of business machines in service should be capable of running Win 7 (if not with full Aero effects) ? the typical lifespan of a business PC is about 3 years, and Microsoft have also reacted to the move towards lower-spec machines with Win 7, rather than the Vista-like presumption that the OS could drive hardware upgrades.

[I?m also old enough to remember how long it took businesses to see the point in GUI based systems in the first place ? in took Windows pretty much a decade to replace MS-DOS as the default system ? and we still have green-screen based VT100 apps in daily use]


One point, JulesLt, is that Apple is doing some things which will change the game. It is positioning itself in some innovative ways. It is doing so carefully. Many people may not see the consequences. These actions will not affect the Enterprise market in the short term. But eventually?—sure.

Apple seems to be acting on many fronts. The Mac OS is getting faster, more secure and more flexible that the Windows OS. Eventually, this will effect every computer niche, except the low end computers which Apple will happily leave to Google.


Apple is leaving behind 32 bit code and it is doing so in a soft handed way. Most Applications were pushed by the change to Intel Processors into switching to the XCode IDE. Those developers will easily move their apps to 64 bit code by just recompiling. A lot of cruft will be left behind. Mac apps will be in the latest code and API’s: Clang LLVM, squirrelfish and the newest runtime languages.

Companies which had been cross platform, Adobe and Microsoft, have caved in to developing 64 bit versions of their apps. So, 90+% of Mac Apps will be in 64 bit soon. It is not yet fully clear what this will mean.

The obvious change is in speed, but there are others. A recent face off on a Mac laptop between 64 bit versions of Snow Leopard and System Seven showed an interesting pattern. Snow Leopard was about 10% faster in all the tests, but games which were 30% faster than Apple. System Seven had much worse battery life. This indicates that Apple is following its traditional practice of throttling back the GPU to conserve the battery. If Apple hadn’t done that, then it would have been shown as superior. But, a 10% faster OS is no game changer. Who needs more speed?

Apple’s security will be greatly improved in the 64 bit kernel, by default. There is little point in Apple talking about that now; It tried to crow about its enhancements in April and got shot down.

Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL will improve the Mac’s ability to run many threads through Intel’s many cores. The first advantage is more speed for computation intensive apps. The second is flexibility, because the processor can juggle more concurrent processes. More processes will be carried on in background without denying the foreground app its full speed. A third thing is security. The numbers of cores can greatly increase now. Naturally, one of those cores will be assigned permanently as a hypervisor to keep track of what the other cores are doing.

Googles’ Chrome OS will be placing a great strain on Microsoft’s upgrade plans. This stress should be enough to distract Microsoft from poky old Apple’s doings. That would be a mistake.

The real game changer is the iTunes Application store. This is a great success. The idea that the iPhone has over 85 thousand apps and two billion downloads, in just a year, is mind boggling. The App store is an efficient marketplace. A developer feeding frenzy going on, because developers are getting paid for every app. The practice in other software markets is that 70% to 80% of the apps in use are stolen.

Apple will be extending the App store to regular Mac Applications, but not within the year. It cannot do this quickly, because it has logistical problems it must solve. The App store has strained Apple’s software delivery system, so it had to add Limewire to Akamai. Apple is breaking ground for a 500 thousand square foot data center in North Carolina. Pundits think this is a foolish location, because it is so far removed from the major data trunks. One pundit asked “How can Apple think of delivering large files, like video, from there?” The answer is that Apple is likely to use that data center for taking orders, not delivering them.

Apple is likely to use a distributed delivery system. It will do this because, when the economy recovers, the Internet Backbone will increasingly be placed under stress. Large files, like video, are consuming ever more of the Internet’s resources. Internet congestion is coming.

Google has been positioning itself to take advantage of that congestion for five years. It has been buying up Dark Fiber and positioning servers in tractor trailer rigs all across the country. The plan is that when the local ISP discovers that the backbone is bogged down, it will find that whatever file it wanted is locally mirrored in Google’s trailer. It will pay Google a premium for that file.

Regular Mac applications can be as large as video files, so it will be in Apple’s interest to let Google be its content delivery system—but, not yet.

What will extending the Application store to Mac apps do for Apple? It will create the same feeding frenzy among Mac Developers as on the iPhone App store. IPhone and Mac applications use the same development tools, so many new developers will be coming from the iPhone app store. The numbers and complexity of native Mac applications will increase. The Developers will be forced to move into every wider arenas to gain market share. Eventually, they will move in on business applications which have been exclusively Windows.

As Steve Ballmer said some time ago that it is the applications which makes the computer platform successful. More and better applications will pull enterprise customers to Apple. And they will be forced to buy Macintoshes to do so.


UB - my point is nothing to do with Apple, per se, more the view that there is no business value in moving off XP - i.e. that businesses may as well stick with what they know.

I’d go so far as to say that if you can’t make a good pitch for upgrading to Windows 7, you’re not going to be able to persuade anyone to go OS X, as many of the reasons to do so are the same.

The point of John’s piece is that if you’re going to advocate something in IT, it’s best to do it from an informed position. You need to show why a Mac is the best answer to a specific requirement, not why the Mac is a superior platform.


there is no business value in moving off XP

I agree and I think that MS will be very surprised at how many business just ‘make do with XP’ rather than upgrade. At my company we run XP Terminal Sessions for most desktops and we haven’t even discussed upgrading. Our servers mostly run Server 2003 and we’ve not talked about upgrading them either. Freestanding machines mostly run XP as well. There are a couple of new Vista systems, mostly VIP laptops but we more work around Vista than integrate it. Win 7 will be the same for the foreseeable future. (I should mention that as old systems expire we first look at Linux based OSS replacements before we go to a newer MS solution.)

MS is suffering from a corollary to the Peter Principle. MS products have gotten to the point that, flawed though they may be, they are good enough. Newer products seldom offer enough benefit to push an upgrade.


“UB - my point is nothing to do with Apple, per se, more the view that there is no business value in moving off XP - i.e. that businesses may as well stick with what they know.”

I agree. That is why I believe the Government and Big Business markets will be dead for a while. The action will be in the consumer and SMB markets. The end user has more control over what to buy in the latter.

“I?d go so far as to say that if you can?t make a good pitch for upgrading to Windows 7, you?re not going to be able to persuade anyone to go OS X, as many of the reasons to do so are the same.”

But, we’ll have to see how good Google’s Chrome OS is. That is where is see much of the threat to Microsoft coming from. Apple and Business are not a good match for many reasons.

The point of John?s piece is that if you?re going to advocate something in IT, it?s best to do it from an informed position. You need to show why a Mac is the best answer to a specific requirement, not why the Mac is a superior platform.

That is where the software front is. There is not enough Mac business software, but that is unlikely to continue.


Another try - my point is that there IS a business value in moving off XP to Windows 7 - it should provide better productivity for staff, which should therefore give you a business edge.

Essentially this is the argument we make for OS X as a system (it ‘just works’).

My experience of both Office 2007 and Windows 7 is that they are big steps forward in the ‘just works’ stakes - even as I complained about not being able to find stuff in the new Office menu, I noticed that things like cutting and pasting formatted text actually did what I wanted more often - I waste less time reformatting pasted text.

But these things rarely figure in many people’s upgrade calculations. Mostly because they didn’t figure when they started buying PC compatibles over better alternatives (anything from the Apple II to the Atari ST) in the 80s.


The Windows XP market is very wide. Many people will not be able to use System seven’s services. We will have to see how many of those there are as time unfolds.

I just don’t see it as a dangerous time for Apple.


I think most will - most PCs are less than 5 years old, and it will run reasonably on any modern machine.

Interestingly, story on MacNN says Windows 7 pre-orders on Amazon UK have beaten the last Harry Potter - but a LOT of that is to do with the fact it was under 50% of the RRP if you advance ordered in August.


it will run reasonably on any modern machine.

I don’t know what the minimum specs are on W7 but I’ve learned over the years not to push the bottom edge with any MS product. The product may run on system X but I find that 2X RAM and 1.5X to 2X processor is needed to really use most Windows OSs and MS apps.


I just got a note from my brother, also a Sysadmin.

Win7 is a BIG improvement, it’s what Vista should have been. I’ve been running it for 6 months or so on all sorts of machines, this is an old Dell 430 tablet for example, and it runs great on everything I’ve tried. I even put Win7 on a 6 year old Acer tablet a few months ago. Initially I installed XP on the Acer but had trouble with the wireless card and the tablet pen functions. Took me months to get XP working properly but it was too underpowered for Vista so I never even tried. Well I tried Win7 and it found everything, loaded appropriate drivers and made it all work without intervention! I was impressed, works like a new tablet.

So perhaps it WILL run on all that old hardware.


don?t know what the minimum specs are on W7 but I?ve learned over the years not to push the bottom edge with any MS product..

The same does really apply with OS X - even if each version has offered performance improvements, these have often come at the cost of additional RAM (Snow Leopard is an exception in that respect).

I still stand by the point that most systems sold in the last 3-4 years are Windows 7 capable, and it seems they have definitely reacted to the move towards netbooks and bottom-end Dell laptops. (Vista was based on the presumption - which had held true for most of the previous decade - that users will upgrade).


I wish you had been around, John, during the last 15 years of my IT career when we were struggling with all the SAP issues (JIC you don’t know, SAP is technically deep enough to drown most people!).
A brilliant insight - and not restricted to the PC v Mac story. This should be required reading for any IT professional who is about to embark on a systems/software selection project.
Great stuff.


We run a Windows NT domain with Windows 2000 clients. We develop windows software and our business systems also run in this environment. The only new hardware we’ve purchased are workstations for new hires. So we do have a few XP Pro clients on our domain, but it’s mostly 2000.

We’d all love whizzy new fast machines, but there’s no business reason to do so. The only reason to buy a copy of the latest OS is to make sure that our apps run well.

Also, we have customers who still run Windows 98 so we have to support them along with the Windows 7 folks.

While we’ve become “System 7 Savvy” we don’t use it ourselves. Office 97, gcc, keil etc. does all we need thank you very much.


It’s down to two basically different attitudes to business - the ‘it does what we need’ approach that seeks to minimise change, and the type that sees technology as way to gain business edge.

For what it’s worth - I manage a development team and my business case for faster machines for my developers is always based on a simple bit of maths showing the time spent, each year, on waiting for software to compile. Or in some cases, deferring compilation as something to be avoided as it takes 15 minutes.

(We still don’t use high end machines - it’s more cost effective to be in the mid-market - below where Apple even start - but replace machines rapidly)

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account