We use whole disc encryption, here at work
If the laptop gets stolen it still counts as 'data loss', but at least everything on it is AES 256-bit encrypted. It puts a small extra load on the read-write operations of the laptops, but since most of my files are actually read from, and written to, mountpoints that are often physically located in other countries, the actual overhead of encrypting local disc-writing is fairly small, compared to the cost of sending data over ssh pipes to Paris, or Bantry Bay, or wherever.
However, since most of our desktops are XP pro, we still have to buy this as a third party (PGP) add on. It would not suffice for our own needs, but I cannot understand why Bitlocker is still only offered as an 'Enterprise' solution for the top end licenses of the more modern versions of Windows: they are only using a proprietary implementation of 128 bit AES, after all (which is pretty damn weak). It looks, to me like they are charging the premium price because they can, and not because it costs that much to maintain the code-base being used.
It is regrettable, but true, that while enforcing basic levels of encryption requires the addition of free or paid for third party tools, many companies will just continue to not-bother doing so. Even a free implementation of 128 encryption, shipped as standard, would be better than nothing. Filevault ships for free on all versions of OS X - even if it will only encrypt the user's home folder.


