| Home > Of things Mac > If Windows gets ported to an Intel-powered Mac, will it be a case of "More is Less"? Will it be necessarily "a good thing"? |
| If Windows gets ported to an Intel-powered Mac, will it be a case of "More is Less"? Will it be necessarily "a good thing"? | | Date Created: 01 Jan, 2006, 09:05 PM |
 Happy New Year.
In about a week or so, we'll get to see the next chapter in Apple's relationship with Intel unfold.
It might be merely a portion of Steve Job's Keynote updating us on the rollout of the timeline, telling us that Apple is on track for a June or sooner release of the first Intel powered Mac.
Of course, rumour sites amongst others sites with more than a passing interest in the subject are predicting we'll actually see such a product on stage at the Moscone Centre, and a date when they will be purchaseable.
If, say, it's the iBook that is the first recipient of a new heart, I predict that not just will Steve show it in all its glory - and I think it will be a very thin model as Asus has the capacity to manufacture them in quantity - but I I think Steve will also announce a major bulk sale to a school district to whom significant incentives have been offered.
When the all white iBook replaced the "toilet seat" coloured iBooks at a special media conference (a Quicktime movie of which is floating about), it included such an announcement. So I am expecting the same.
There is an outside chance that amongst the developers who may be called on stage to speak of their softwares' readiness for Intel Macs, we might also glean what for many is the Holy Grail of modern computing: A single device that will run both Macintosh and Windows software, without the need for speed-reducing emulation.
Long-term Mac users will then face an interesting dilemma, not one unfamiliar to me as a psychologist. You see, one of the things those of us old enough to remember Apple's "beleaguered" days can recall, is the daily release of new software which was only for the Windows platform.
We had to sit back and watch and make do with what seemed like a tiny drop in the ocean range of software, and of course, whenever a platform war broke out on a discussion list or over the dinner table, that criticism of Apple was always thrown up.
And it had validity.
So Mac users had to make do, and any Mac software that stayed the distance was top of the range, high quality, and developed with care and passion for the platform.
Meanwhile, when the growth in commercial and shareware software for Windows increased like topsy, something strange happened.
Apple released OS X with its UNIX underpinnings, which proved attractive to a new cohort of developers. And it renewed or revived interest from stalwart Apple developers who saw how serious Apple was about OS X, and the advantages of developing for a refreshed and re-invigorated Apple. An Apple that had a vision of a digital lifestyle with a simplified product line-up.
Over in the Windows side of life, with all the abundant software supposedly a primary advantage, security holes, malware, and adware also came along for the ride. With Windows you got more of everything.
As I have noted elsewhere in this blog, more can sometimes also mean less.
And in the Windows world, there was certainly more choice of software. But with these extra choices, came dilemmas. How to select the right software from the tens or hundreds of other software purporting to be do the same or similar functions? How to sort the wheat from the chaff.
And because Microsoft never quite expected or seemed to care about developers sticking strictly to interface guidelines, unlike Apple even in pre OS X days, moving from one software to another was never quite as easy as it was for Mac users.
In fact, having spent my share of time in Windows, from 95 through 98 (I gave Me a wide berth) and then onto 2000 and now Xp (both in emulation and on Pentium 4 machines), the lack of uniformity and the idiosynchrasies of software functionality makes me wonder of how useful it would be for these to be easily ported to a new Intel-powered Mac.
To be blunt: Every so often I come across a website or software i would very much like to use, and for which I am shut out because it can only be seen or used in Windows or using Internet Explorer. Mind you, it happens less and less, and now in 2006 will perhaps occur much less frequently.
But still, it seems there is still an extra tax to pay for being a Mac user. I don't mind because I can get on and do what I need to do with the current Mac software (except for my Virtually Reality and Biofeedback equipment).
But I do fear for those software developers who have stuck with the platform all this time, and those new to the scene, should Windows applications become easily ported. Will users be overwhelmed with choice? How will they handle it, splitting time between Windows and Mac interfaces?
Many will welcome the incorporation, should it happen, of Windows on to their Intel-powered Macs. What I don't want to see is the spoiling of a neatly balanced ecosystem of software, such that developers keep producing software of the highest quality, if only because Mac users demand nothing less. Surviving on the Mac platform means lesser-quality software gets found out very soon via the variety of communication channels Mac users have - from discussion lists, through MUGs, updating websites, and the huge welter of professional and blogging software.
It reminds me of the release of cane toads in Australia's sugarcane fields to keep the vermin propulation down, and then they proliferated such that they became a danger to the local indigenous fauna. One problem solved, another begun.
Or how psychologist colleagues in the US are wanting prescription rights so that like psychiatrists they may add drugs to their toolkits. Not everyone thinks this is a good idea, citing concern that prescribing will be seen as an easier answer than the evidence-based and successful interventions psychologists can use without medication.
For me it would be nice to have one G6 desktop Mac to run all the Mac and Windows software I need for business purposes. And I doubt I would need to run non-essential Windows software because, frankly, I have yet to see the equivalent in the Windows world which betters what's exclusively on the Mac for day to day use.
Applications such as the iLife and iWork suites, Notetaker, the abundance of browsers (I swing between Safari and Camino), RSS aggregators which are best of breed, Quicktime, Comic Life, GraphicConverter, Preview, Megaseg and Toast, to name a few.
So while next week may bring exciting news for Apple followers, I am sparing a thought for developers whom I want to see coming up with intriguing and Mac-like software that enhances the creative process.
I just don't want to see them drowning in a sea of mediocrity. |
|
|
|
