For a communications ministry, which includes functions like print media, website development, video editing, graphics and writing, I prefer Apple Macintosh computers.  The churches I have served all employ a mixed environment of Macs and Windows machines, but the Macs show up primarily in media and music (worship) ministries. 

I prefer Macs for several reasons. The foremost is that they are good stewardship for ministry. All purchasing decisions in a church are basically stewardship decisions, so I have bought Apples where needed because they are needed, and because the expenditure makes sense. At the churches I have served, I entered the position with few if any Macintoshes being employed, and saw their use grow substantially as the investment in Apples paid off in greater productivity and fewer problems.

They crash less often. Frankly much of the time I spend supporting information technologies is dedicated to keeping Windows machines from crashing. They crash constantly, even though people work diligently to employ virus, spyware and spam protection, standardized software and regular maintenance schedules. Windows, because it must run on a myriad of manufacturers' hardware, and is so broadly used worldwide, is just more susceptible to crash, virual, security and hardware compatability issues. Often Windows users must restart several times a day due to freezes and glitches.  My first IT support suggestion to a Windows user experiencing problems is to restart their machine--this fixes the issue well over 50% of the time.

I can run an iMac for weeks without a single crash or restart. Under MacOS X crashes on the Mac are rare--I operated for nearly 6 months without a single crash. This is a tremendous timesaver and productivity enhancer. When a machine just works, you can concentrate on using the machine for your task, versus "dealing" with the machine to get to your task. 

They are more consistent in software implementation.  This sound esoteric, but it's foundational to the Mac platform.  Apple employs some very stringent software guidelines--so much so that many developers do not make software for the Mac.  The reason is that Apple desires that the user experience is consistent no matter what application you are using.  The advantage is that applications work consistently across the board--you don't have one application acting one way, and then a completely different user interface for the next application.  Again, this saves tremendous time in training and operation.

The organization's networking structure also benefits from great software implementation at Apple.  Since the beginning, Macs have lived in a "Windows world."  Which is why sharing files with Windows users, accessing Windows networks and printing to Windows printers is seamless and efficient from any Macintosh. And I simply run a virtualization package like Parallels on my Mac to access a Windows environment when needed.

Apple makes "the whole widget".  Apple makes both the hardware and the operating system that runs on it.  In my case, it also makes much of the software I use day-to-day (like Final Cut Express, iPhoto and Mail).  This is a difficult advantage to explain, but one you can experience when you use a Macintosh.  The parts (hardware and software) just work, and work together seamlessly.  I especially like Apple's "zero configuration" approach, where setting up new hardware and software is basically "plug and play."  Windows simply cannot approach this--their "plug and play" implementation is light-years behind Apple's.

I'm often struck by the configuration time necessary to get a Windows machine on our network, or connected to one of our printers.  With the Macs, it's two or three clicks.  Sometimes with our Windows machines it's two or three hours.

The hardware is well made.  Apple consistently places in the top tier of all computer manufacturers for quality of hardware.  I have only had two Apple hardware failures in more than 25 years of using the Macintosh.  One was a hard drive failure--a non-Apple component in the machine.  The other was a power supply failure.  Never a logic board failure, memory failure, display failure.  Never a peripheral failure. Never a failure of a cord or connector.  Never. 

Years ago, JD Power and Associates, the consumer polling firm, did a study of "mean time between failure" for major computer manufacturers.  Apple's MTBF--the average amount of time a computer user could work on a machine before expecting it to fail--was three times that of its nearest competitor.  When we buy an Apple machine, our expectation is that it will work consistently throughout its life-cycle. 

Apples also last longer.  I have machines that are five years old that are still being used regularly. Because the Macintosh hardware and software are made by the same company, we experience better backward-compatibility.  Older machines often run the latest software with little more than a negligible speed reduction. 

They do creative tasks well.  Adopted early by creatives and designers, the Macintosh has always been at the forefront of the field.  More than half the nations newspapers, two-thirds of the magazines and most ad agencies use them for design and layout.  Final Cut Pro is a powerhouse in the video editing realm. Logic Pro is at the forefront of music creation and editing.  Shake digital compositing is used in films like Star Wars.  The first computer to offer font choices, Apples handle thousands of them with ease (try activiating 2,000 fonts on a Windows machine and see what happens).

They're an elegant experience.  While I would never buy a Macintosh for its industrial design or operating system alone--why pay more if something else is perfectly functional?--the fact is that using a Mac is like driving an automatic versus a stick-shift. Both will get you where you need to go, but one gets you there with far less effort.  It is purely a pleasure to work on a Macintosh--chiefly because I can work on it, focusing on my task or load, rarely dealing with hardware or software issues.  I am rarely frustrated by my Macintosh experience. 

Bottom line: what do you want to do?  In the networks that I have stewarded, if there is a creative task involved, likely the user will be given a Macintosh to do it on.  For database management, accounting, general use (mail and internet access) and specialized application (facilities management), Windows machines offer a wider variety of software that suits the need better.  But if the user can exist on a Macintosh, years of use have shown me that they will need less support and will have a better overall computing experience.  Ultimately, the ability to get the work done faster and easier drives a mixed-platform environment, and the Macintosh plays a tremendous role in my IT ministry strategy.

About the Author. Eugene Mason has more than two decades of experience in ministry communications and technologies. More...