I have the exact opposite experience, honestly, running the IT of a 120 employee company. MS is too bloated with legacy systems, while I find Google very purposeful engineered to get the job done. I very much believe it’s more of a habit thing than anything else.
Would need 5 more people to run everything on MS compared to Google.
I do concede that sometimes it feels like MS began doing their stuff in the 90s, while Google began with theirs in the early 10s; some basic functionality Google haven’t gotten around to yet.
I can see a company of 120 needing 5 more IT staff to effectively utilize Microsoft productivity infrastructure, but you would likely be able to either cut that employee count down to 100, or more positively, have the same 120 people handling the productivity of 150 employees, increasing your company’s output and profit.
More knowledge work is required to make effective use of the entire Microsoft stack, but in the enterprise, nothing comes close for multiplying user productivity.
I have the exact opposite experience, honestly, running the IT of a 120 employee company. MS is too bloated with legacy systems, while I find Google very purposeful engineered to get the job done. I very much believe it’s more of a habit thing than anything else. Would need 5 more people to run everything on MS compared to Google.
I do concede that sometimes it feels like MS began doing their stuff in the 90s, while Google began with theirs in the early 10s; some basic functionality Google haven’t gotten around to yet.
I can see a company of 120 needing 5 more IT staff to effectively utilize Microsoft productivity infrastructure, but you would likely be able to either cut that employee count down to 100, or more positively, have the same 120 people handling the productivity of 150 employees, increasing your company’s output and profit.
More knowledge work is required to make effective use of the entire Microsoft stack, but in the enterprise, nothing comes close for multiplying user productivity.