Switched On: Where's Windows' welcome wagon?
Each week Ross Rubin contributes Switched On, a weekly column about the future of technology, multimedia, and digital entertainment:
"[O]ne of life's most perplexing decisions – whether to buy a Macintosh or an IBM PC – can now be made with the greatest of ease." This hyperbole appeared in a 1985 ad for a pricey contraption called MacCharlie, a PC clone enclosure into which the original Macintosh slid, offering -- as the ad noted -- "the best of both worlds." MacCharlie, named in the days when IBM's PC business was represented by a Chaplain impersonator, was offered by Dayna Communications, a company that would enjoy a good run as a cross-platform solutions company before being purchased by, of all companies, Intel.
What had wrought this monstrosity? When Apple developed the Macintosh, it made a decision that would have long-term implications. Choosing Motorola processors over those from Intel meant that the Mac couldn't run DOS or Windows-based software at anywhere close to the speed of contemporary PCs. Sure, there had been a long history of slow software-based emulators dating from at least the first version of SoftPC for the Mac in 1988 and even a hardware solution that Apple offered with its Power Macintosh 6100/66 DOS Compatible in 1995, but it was hard to escape the realities of binary compatibility. The little ends did not justify the means.
Even with technology working against it, though, Apple had long sought to reach out to PC users through means such as encouraging popular ports (much fanfare preceded the sour notes of Lotus 1-2-3 for Mac), supporting PC-formatted media and eventually file extensions, promoting Microsoft Office for the Mac, adopting (or popularizing) PC standards such as IDE, USB and DVI Even in the post-iMac era, Apple launched its Switcher campaign with mixed success. Today, Apple's Windows outreach efforts focus primarily on its retail stores, where it can showcase the Mac's approach and ecosystem in person to the iCurious.
With Apple switching to Intel processors over the course of the year, though, one of the biggest traditional roadblocks to switching will be removed. Once some technical details are worked out, Mac users should be able to run at least Windows Vista at native speeds in a dual-boot configuration, or perhaps even Windows XP or Vista at nearly native speeds using virtual machine technology. You'd think, after tilting at this Win mill for over 20 years, Apple would open its arms to Windows users like prodigal sons.
Rather, the company's reaction toward compatibility with its long-time operating system rival has been so blasé that it's a wonder the Intel Macs' new startup sound isn't a yawn. Rather than emphasize that these new computers will soon offer, as MacCharlie sought, the best of both worlds, Apple simply assures that it won't do anything to prevent running Windows on them. Exhibiting such laissez-faire overlooks the best opportunity Apple has ever had to get PC users to switch. Finally, they will soon be able to take their applications with them and switch to Mac applications at their own pace.
Instead, Apple is touting the abstract speed improvement benchmarks of its recent heart transplant recipients. Not only have its claims been challenged by independent publications such as Macworld, but such a dramatic speed improvement would have limited impact on most Mac users, who value the computer's ease and integration above raw performance.
Professional users, for whom speed is more important, will have to wait until at least Apple's programs are ported to see benefit. And Mac staple third-party applications such as Photoshop may still require months before they are available as universal binaries. Windows Vista may even ship before such a binary is ready, in which case the fastest version of Photoshop on Intel-based Macs may run under Windows.
A relatively small percentage of Mac users will be interested in running multiple operating systems, but many of them represent potential customer wins. Clearly, there's a limit to how warm an embrace Apple can extend to an operating system with which it competes and satisfying its installed base comes first, but the company should be more aggressive if it can supply a solution at the expense of Dell or HP.
Perhaps Apple will surprise us at its Worldwide Developers Conference with an update that enables Windows to run now. The next version of its operating system, known as Leopard, might include functionality to ease a dual-OS configuration. However, it seems just as Apple is on the cusp of providing its strongest migration proposition to Windows users, it's rolling up the welcome mat.
Maybe the journey was the reward.
"[O]ne of life's most perplexing decisions – whether to buy a Macintosh or an IBM PC – can now be made with the greatest of ease." This hyperbole appeared in a 1985 ad for a pricey contraption called MacCharlie, a PC clone enclosure into which the original Macintosh slid, offering -- as the ad noted -- "the best of both worlds." MacCharlie, named in the days when IBM's PC business was represented by a Chaplain impersonator, was offered by Dayna Communications, a company that would enjoy a good run as a cross-platform solutions company before being purchased by, of all companies, Intel.
What had wrought this monstrosity? When Apple developed the Macintosh, it made a decision that would have long-term implications. Choosing Motorola processors over those from Intel meant that the Mac couldn't run DOS or Windows-based software at anywhere close to the speed of contemporary PCs. Sure, there had been a long history of slow software-based emulators dating from at least the first version of SoftPC for the Mac in 1988 and even a hardware solution that Apple offered with its Power Macintosh 6100/66 DOS Compatible in 1995, but it was hard to escape the realities of binary compatibility. The little ends did not justify the means.
Even with technology working against it, though, Apple had long sought to reach out to PC users through means such as encouraging popular ports (much fanfare preceded the sour notes of Lotus 1-2-3 for Mac), supporting PC-formatted media and eventually file extensions, promoting Microsoft Office for the Mac, adopting (or popularizing) PC standards such as IDE, USB and DVI Even in the post-iMac era, Apple launched its Switcher campaign with mixed success. Today, Apple's Windows outreach efforts focus primarily on its retail stores, where it can showcase the Mac's approach and ecosystem in person to the iCurious.
With Apple switching to Intel processors over the course of the year, though, one of the biggest traditional roadblocks to switching will be removed. Once some technical details are worked out, Mac users should be able to run at least Windows Vista at native speeds in a dual-boot configuration, or perhaps even Windows XP or Vista at nearly native speeds using virtual machine technology. You'd think, after tilting at this Win mill for over 20 years, Apple would open its arms to Windows users like prodigal sons.
Rather, the company's reaction toward compatibility with its long-time operating system rival has been so blasé that it's a wonder the Intel Macs' new startup sound isn't a yawn. Rather than emphasize that these new computers will soon offer, as MacCharlie sought, the best of both worlds, Apple simply assures that it won't do anything to prevent running Windows on them. Exhibiting such laissez-faire overlooks the best opportunity Apple has ever had to get PC users to switch. Finally, they will soon be able to take their applications with them and switch to Mac applications at their own pace.
Instead, Apple is touting the abstract speed improvement benchmarks of its recent heart transplant recipients. Not only have its claims been challenged by independent publications such as Macworld, but such a dramatic speed improvement would have limited impact on most Mac users, who value the computer's ease and integration above raw performance.
Professional users, for whom speed is more important, will have to wait until at least Apple's programs are ported to see benefit. And Mac staple third-party applications such as Photoshop may still require months before they are available as universal binaries. Windows Vista may even ship before such a binary is ready, in which case the fastest version of Photoshop on Intel-based Macs may run under Windows.
A relatively small percentage of Mac users will be interested in running multiple operating systems, but many of them represent potential customer wins. Clearly, there's a limit to how warm an embrace Apple can extend to an operating system with which it competes and satisfying its installed base comes first, but the company should be more aggressive if it can supply a solution at the expense of Dell or HP.
Perhaps Apple will surprise us at its Worldwide Developers Conference with an update that enables Windows to run now. The next version of its operating system, known as Leopard, might include functionality to ease a dual-OS configuration. However, it seems just as Apple is on the cusp of providing its strongest migration proposition to Windows users, it's rolling up the welcome mat.
Maybe the journey was the reward.
Ross Rubin is director of industry analysis at NPD Techworld, a division of market research and analysis provider The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On, however, are his own. Feedback is welcome at fliptheswitch@gmail.com.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
PDubNYC @ Feb 1st 2006 5:20PM
"Exhibiting such laissez-faire overlooks the best opportunity Apple has ever had to get PC users to switch. "
If they pushed the idea, then they would have to support the functionality. By doing nothing to prevent it, letting geeks around the world do all the work, and leaving 100% of the risk to the user, Apple could just let nature take it's course, no sweat off their brow.
Seems pretty simple to me, but perhaps I am over simplyfying things a bit.
MUTEMATT @ Feb 1st 2006 5:43PM
I totally agree with #1. Why in the world would they want to venture into territory where they could potentially have to support Microsoft Windows? Even if it did bring in more customers, the headaches alone wouldn't make it worth while.
mike @ Feb 1st 2006 5:53PM
I agree with #'s 2,3,4 and 6. Number 5 - that's just crazy talk. Being a design professional I personally would switch in an instant to a mac if it could run Photoshop. snark.
David T @ Feb 1st 2006 6:31PM
#8: huh? http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/adobe/>
How many people would switch to Mac just because they could dual boot? you'd need to remember which programs ran on which system. you'd need to restart to change to a particular program. your files probably won't be compatible (or perhaps even accessible) unless you spend time configuring stuff properly.
there is no GENERAL consumer trend toward this at all. so even if Apple came up with a patch that lets users dual-boot XP, i (and most of the rest of the population) would hardly sit up and take notice! after all i can hardly name one thing i can do on the PC that i can't on the Mac.. or vice versa, for that matter.
Harvey @ Feb 1st 2006 6:44PM
Along the same line, I was browsing through a copy of MacWorld's premiere issue, February 1984, and there's an interview in which Bill Gates makes some very complimentary remarks about the Macintosh. Find a copy if you can. Library archives? eBay? Your attic? Very interesting!
Thrasher @ Feb 1st 2006 6:47PM
#8, Mike, I guess that's supposed to be a joke somehow?
Photoshop on a Mac, yeah that'll be the day...
mike @ Feb 1st 2006 6:56PM
#9: Being sarcastic. Actually - being an architect is hard to do on a mac. Autodesk has as far as i know made PC their priority, having worked with architects that use Macs I can tell you that interoperability between competing cad packages leaves much to be desired.
Maybe now that both operating systems run on similar hardware, it will be easier for software companies to provide cross platform versions of their software. I don't really have any experience in how this works, just hoping. I do envy the style of the Mac but I am too used to autocad and 3ds max to ever think about switching and leaving them behind.
2 cents.
mike @ Feb 1st 2006 6:58PM
#10: I remember you used to be able to order a free cd-rom from the Apple website 6-8 years ago had a bunch of Mac propaganda on it including a video clip of Gates declaring the Mac OS to be the best out there.
mcloki @ Feb 1st 2006 7:04PM
Wait till Fridays virus does a bit of damge. I'm switching because of the programs for Windows. The virus programs. The Mac Pro Desktops can't come out fast enough for me. I will play the occasional game thought. Windows is the best Games OS oout there. Ironic isn't it. Windows fans used to call the Mac a toy computer, Now Windows is a fine "Toy/Game" OS.
"i can hardly name one thing i can do on the PC that i can't on the Mac.. or vice versa, for that matter."
How about run free of virii,
Jason @ Feb 1st 2006 7:13PM
You have to wonder what Apples intends to do long term... maybe they will become more of a Hardware manufacturer than a software/hardware company! I would love to get a mac that can run Windows... the problem with Macs isn't that they aren't good they just dont have the same amount of software that the PC does... Maybe Apple will become a Dell type company in the Computer world... I don't see why not...
One thing that I can't understand is why the PC world always had to hear from mac people about how much more powerful the PowerPC chip was than the Intel chip... why the complete turn around?
Also... how do all the other hardware manufacturers out there feel about that Mac/Intel commercial??? I kind of slams ALL pc makers out there... i know that wasn't intels intension and was more something apple did but it had to get some people in the industry upset... maybe that is why more and more manufacturers are starting to sell alot more AMD products!
I dont see why apple would want to NOT support windows on their hardware... basically they would just have to write drivers for everything... how hard would that be to support! Bring it on!!! There is nothing better than choice for the consumer!!!