At 3/7/2006 01:37 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>Another head-to-head price comparison, this time of the Mac mini vs.
>Aopen's MiniPC:
>
><http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/06/aopen/index.php>
It's hard to believe a Finale user would need premium features to run the
program.
Dvorak always has an interesting column.
Will Apple Adopt Windows?
02.15.06
This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop
computing. There's just one fly in the ointment.
By John C. Dvorak
The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me
from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who
wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but
after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right.
This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop
computing.
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad
campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost
its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this
didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel
microprocessor.
Though these points aren't a slam-dunk for Epstein's thesis, other
observations support it. The theory explains several odd occurrences,
including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that
ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped.
Like, who cares?
But if Apple's saber-rattling was done to scare the community into backing
off so it wouldn't discover the Windows stratagem, then the incident makes
more sense. As does Bill Gates's onscreen appearance during Apple's
turnaround when Jobs was taking a pot of money from Microsoft. The Windows
stratagem may have been a done deal by then. This may also explain the odd
comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft
Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What
happens after that?
This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and
may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the
Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January. At Macworld, most
observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now.—Continue
reading...
Bigger companies than Apple have dropped their proprietary OSs in favor of
Windows—think IBM and OS/2. IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its
own AIX version of Unix. Business eventually trumps sentimentality in any
large company.
Another issue for Apple is that the Intel platform is wide open, unlike the
closed proprietary system Apple once had full control over. With a
proprietary architecture, Apple could tweak the OS for a controlled
environment without worrying about the demands of a multitude of hardware
add-ons and software subsystems. Windows, as crappy as many believe it to
be, actually thrives in this mishmash architecture. Products, old and new,
have drivers for Windows above all else. By maintaining its own OS, Apple
would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work.
As someone who believed that the Apple OS x86 could gravitate toward the PC
rather than Windows toward the Mac, I have to be realistic. It boils down
to the add-ons. Linux on the desktop never caught on because too many
devices don't run on that OS. It takes only one favorite gizmo or program
to stop a user from changing. Chat rooms are filled with the likes of "How
do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?" This would get old fast at Apple.
Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company.
Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS
development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally
get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell,
HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.
To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive
software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and
feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the
iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized
the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to
Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to
real growth.
The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking
the news to the fanatical users. Most were not initially pleased by the
switch to Intel's architecture, and this will make them crazy.
Luckily, Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now
everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives
Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows.
He'll cajole and cajole, and still hear a few boos. But those will be the
last boos he'll hear, for then the Mac will be mainstream. We will welcome
the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally.
Phil Daley < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
