Cost, interoperability, inertia, market share, raw number of software titles available, etc.
You kind of have to answer this question in two parts. First, you need to go back in time to when personal computers were in their infancy. Say you’re the guy in charge of purchasing decisions at some big company, way back then. A decision has just been made to get some large number of personal computers for some group or groups at your company. Let’s say, oh, a hundred computers, just to pick an arbitrary round number. You can buy from manufacturer A, who charges $2500 per machine, or from manufacturer B, who charges $2100 per. For 100 machines, that’s a $40,000 difference. Kind of a no-brainer. That the A machines are far easier to use and have this so-called WYSIWYG interface, and the B machines use some arcane thing called DOS that takes a lot more time to learn and is costlier, in manpower terms, on an ongoing basis, that’s all irrelevant. Forty thousand bucks is forty thousand bucks.
Now fast forward to now. You’re that same guy, in charge of purchasing for the now much bigger company. The company is growing, more employees coming on board all the time, each needs a computer. Now, even if you could be convinced that that $400 difference per machine would be more than made up for by increased productivity – or heck, even if you saw that the A machines are now the ones that are cheaper – your hands are pretty much tied. You’ve got all these Windows boxes already. Your IT staff is trained to address Windows problems. You don’t need the hassle of having to purchase and maintain two versions of every piece of software used at your company. You want to be sure that all the computers can talk and play nice with each other. You can be sure that the vast majority of new employees will be familiar and comfortable with Windows, and so will be able to sit down on the first day of their job and get to work, rather than having any amount of re-learning of computer usage. Again, it’s pretty much a no-brainer.
Hey, I’m a staunch Mac user, at least in my personal life. I’ve owned eight Macs over the years for my home use, and there’s no question in my mind that the Mac and Mac OS X is superior to a PC running Windows in every possible way. I’ve talked in person and on these boards to Mac-haters, and they’re all just wrong.
Nevertheless, the reality is clear: If you’re buying computers for a big or small company, the rationale for buying a Windows box is overwhelming. Unless you have employees that have a specific need or desire for a Mac, like graphic designers or artists or musicians or movie makers, you just can’t justify getting Macs. Sad but true.
Now, in a year or two, when you can buy one box that can run both Mac OS and Windows natively, that all could change . . .