Until Apple finds a way to run Windows applications without the customer having to buy Windows, users will probably continue to choose operating systems by the quality of available applications. There needs to be much more head-to-head comparisons of these applications. This is territory I have never actually seen a commercial reviewer tread.

Deprived of sound data and good comparative appraisals, users must resort to rules of thumb. Here are two generalizations I want to offer for criticism:

1) The most innovative applications will be more apt to *arise* on the Macintosh than Windows, both because of the characteristics of the users but also because the small base makes it easier to gain an initial impressive market share.

2) Windows will have an overwhelming edge when comparing *mature* applications, because any application enormously successful on the Mac that is able to compete with Windows applications, will migrate to Windows. Those applications that refuse to migrate (except for niche products) are probably inferior to Windows applications, as their refusal to migrate is best explained by their inability to compete.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

2) Windows will have an overwhelming edge when comparing *mature*
applications, because any application enormously successful on the Mac that is able
to compete with Windows applications, will migrate to Windows. Those applications
that refuse to migrate (except for niche products) are probably inferior to Windows
applications, as their refusal to migrate is best explained by their inability to
compete.

Well, it is actually possible to be a successful Mac-only publisher. Refusal to migrate may actually be a wise move for many -- it's typically easier to develop quality apps on a Mac, and I think it's a lot easier to sell as a small developer. Why dilute your development and marketing, only to compete with Microsoft?

One difference I would derive from some of the discussion here: the average Mac application is a whole lot more capable. I strongly suspect that ALL of the Mac OS X outliners can handle Greek text, for example. (Opal handled Japanese kanji characters with no work from me, and I suspect the other Mac developers would do things similarly.)

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Deprived of sound data and good comparative appraisals, users
must resort to rules of thumb.

You know, there's one way to get generate solid comparative appraisals for yourself... the old empirical approach ;)

Here are two generalizations I want to offer for
criticism:

1) The most innovative applications will be more apt to *arise* on the
Macintosh than Windows, both because of the characteristics of the users but also
because the small base makes it easier to gain an initial impressive market
share.

I would agree with your generalization, but for some different reasons as well. Certainly you're right in saying that the users -- and their willingness specifically to both try new things (this is implicit in their choice of a minority platform) as well as to pay for innovative software -- are a big factor. The Linux community is willing to try new things, but they won't pay for software, and hence there is less incentive for innovation. Interestingly though, there is an increasing amount of evidence that Mac users buy more software than Windows users. Adobe's Aperture is a case in point. It's an identical product on both Mac and Windows, yet their installed base of users is larger on the Mac. Another case in point is Rogue Amoeba's Airfoil, which again is available on both platforms, but despite a 20x larger WIndows marketshare, their sales numbers on both platforms are close to identical. Not all applications are like this, but clearly the user bases are different.

But there is another major aspect to the innovation too, and that's technical. There's no question Macs have become the geek platform of choice... you only have to go to a programming or technical conference these days to see that, and developer mindshare comes with that. Moreover, Mac users adopt newer technologies faster. Reinvented Software, a small developer of a new PIM called Together, recently blogged that based on trends, it looks like 90% of their user base will have moved to Leopard in the next six months. That brings a huge number of new technologies to the table which makes it easier to quickly develop technically innovative software. Certainly the unified PIM store is one important and relevant new OS-level feature for people in this group.

2) Windows will have an overwhelming edge when comparing *mature*
applications, because any application enormously successful on the Mac that is able
to compete with Windows applications, will migrate to Windows. Those applications
that refuse to migrate (except for niche products) are probably inferior to Windows
applications, as their refusal to migrate is best explained by their inability to
compete.

I don't see any evidence to support this proposition. Just comparing outliners, there's a major difference in maturity between something like OmniOutliner and something like MaxThink (which still feels trapped in the stone age), yet there has been no move to push OmniOutliner over to Windows, despite commercial opportunity created by Notemap being left adrift. Instead, OmniGroup has chosen to reinvest their profits in new Mac apps, like the new somewhat Ecco-like OmniFocus. That seems like a perfectly valid growth strategy. I can't think of a single major mature app that has moved over to Windows. Some have promised to (Tinderbox and Aquaminds Notetaker come to mind), but nothing has come of either of those promises. (There is definitely movement the other way, e.g. MindManager's recent move to Mac.) Why would a small shop move to Windows? The market for big apps on Windows is calcified. Individual Windows users buy less software than individual Mac users. The only real gem in the Windows market is selling to corporate customers, but it's suicide to try to compete with a 10,000 pound gorilla like OneNote that gets bundled with a variety of corporate Office licenses, no matter how good your competing product is. Even relatively unique (for Windows) products like Notemap have trouble getting any traction and end up withering on the vine. And development is harder because you're stuck targeting the lowest common denominator -- installed bases of users who refuse to upgrade their operating systems. It's a tar pit that's best avoided. By staying Mac only, apps can mature faster. And the operating system is moving faster too. They're pushing out major updates with big features for developers every two years, versus the wait until 2010 or 2011 for Windows 7.

The Mac software market right now reminds me of how the PC software market used to be, between 1990 and 1997, roughly. Lots of scrappy independent companies fighting it out with new products, and a customer base that's excited, willing to try new stuff, and willing to pay for it. That era gave us gems that we all still talk about (and many of us still use!) like Lotus Agenda, Grandview, Ecco, MORE, Polaris Packrat, etc. Then Outlook bulldozed the market and killed all the competition, creating a scorched-Earth environment for developers, and then innovation died. We're still using the same old Outlook data schema we used in 1997, they didn't even bother putting the ribbon into Outlook 2007's main window, outline mode in Word is still as weak as ever... it's relative stagnation, and yet competitors like NoteMap can't get off the ground. On the Mac, we're seeing competitors getting off the ground. And it's exciting. For instance, just a few days ago a company released a personal project manager called Things that turns a lot of the old Ecco assumptions on their head with an innovative, carefully crafted interface. Software like this is fresh and exciting. (Not to mention, compare its user interface to something like MaxThink and it's almost painful... they're not even in the same century in terms of usability.) It feels like the early 90's again on the Mac, and that's a great thing.

-- Chris

Chris is absolutely right. Why should a successful Mac developer risk a bankroll in developing a Windows product? Here's why s/he shouldn't:

Microsoft hides some capabilities of new Windows OSs from developers to insure that MS will have an easier and quicker time of developing a competing product;

or

Microsoft will buy out an independent developer a fire sale price by threatening to develop and give away a competing product (example--the original PC Tools), Hmm, reminds me of the Mafia.;

or

MS will develop and give away a competing product as occurred with Netscape and Ecco;

or

MS will "arrange" to have its OS or other software cause problems when using non-MS products, such as happened with some Web pages developed with MS software not displaying properly on Netscape;

and, of course, there is the abomination called the Registry.

-c

Just to add one other item to Cassius' list:

MS prevents access to some of its sites when you use a browser other than the Internet Explorer. And even if you can successfully navigate to one of its sites that contain fixes, you cannot always install them (and get such messages as that the upgrade is "not applicable" to your system.

There used to be a saying that went "Windows ain't done until Lotus won't run." I never believed it. Given my experience with Firefox I now do.

The European Union has -- successfully -- gone after MS for this kind of behavior.

Oh, and I did make a mistake and, against better knowledge, bought a new machine with Vista (in addition to the Mac Notebook. I added an nVidia video card. The system crashes with beautiful regularity at least once a day.

MS blames nVidia.

Manfred

I've got to say, I'm a little skeptical of Microsoft conspiracy theories. I don't think they add anything valuable.

Macs stand on their own now, on the comparative merits of the platform, without having to resort to allegations of improprieties.

I took myself mainly as reporting facts.

It is a fact that I cannot access certain MS sites with FireFox, and that you MUST use Internet Explorer.

And it is a fact that Vista crashes daily because of a know issue with nVidia drivers.

It is also a fact that the European Univion successessfully sued them for monopolistic practices (largely having to do with the Browser issue).

Manfred

Applications that have successfully migrated to Windows, after originating on the Mac:

Inspiration
Life Balance
Excel (I think, under a different name. Not sure of this one.)
Sciral Consistency
NovaMind

This list is just off the top of my head. Inspiration introduced graphical outlining to the computer and it now fluorishes in the education market on both Mac and PC. LifeBalance introduced a powerful hierarchical method fo assigning task priorities, which is now used by leading task management programs with todo management functionality such as My Life Organized and Achieve Planner. NovaMind introduced hand-drawn-resembling mind mapping to the Mac and recently to Windows. (Excel, if I'm right about it, is too easy to comment on; Sciral is too hard.)

So I think there's good evidence that some excellent Windows programs or concepts have originated on the Mac and were able to prosper on Windows.

What about programs that don't migrate? The hypothesis is that they could not compete with Windows programs. I excluded niche programs, which somewhat overlap David's small developers. A good case in point is OmniOutliner. When I tried the empirical method at an Apple store, I was unimpressed with its performance, which I thought might be attributed to its excessive emphasis on interface appearance. Its features seemed unremarkable, as it lacked--as I think I recall--true mark and gather functionality. I thought NoteMap and Inspiration were both substantially superior, although I didn't spend much time with Omni. My impression was that Omni could not compete with NoteMap, which as I've said, is hardly dead, as Lexis is increasingly integrating it with the other programs in its Litigator Suite.

An aside. Since Omni and Inspiration each are Mac programs, there might be a side-by-side comparison somewhere among Mac program reviews.

To the list of programs that exist on both Mac and PC, you can add Super Note Card, which is Java-based.

On the other hand, you have Tinderbox, which has been promising a PC version for at least five years.

I owned a Mac II about 18 years ago. Since then, I've had virtually no experience with Mac computers or software. However, when I look at the screen shots and features lists of programs like Scrivener, DevonThink and OmniOutliner I get the impression that they are richer in features and more powerful. The closest thing to Scrivener on the PC might be Liquid Story Binder, a program full of functions. However LSB does not integrate these functions as Scrivener appears to. Sometimes I think the switch to a MacBook would be worth it just to get my hands on Scrivener.

But on the negative (at least to me) is the fact that most Mac software has a depressingly similar appearance. Contrast that to Zoot, MyInfo, LSB, EverNote, or even OneNote. I like that software can have its own personality on the PC -- something that seems to be lacking on the Mac (the impression I get just from looking at screen shots online).

Steve Z.

Chris Thompson wrote:

I've got to say, I'm a little skeptical of Microsoft conspiracy theories. I don't think they add anything valuable.

Macs stand on their own now, on the comparative merits of the platform, without having to resort to allegations of improprieties.

Well, maybe not conspiracy, but what about ethics? Here's an example I didn't mention:

Microsoft, in Win XP, gives the user a choice of downloading and installing updates in the background, or automatically downloading updates and chosing to install them manually or not, or downloading updates only when one wants to. A couple/few months ago, "PC World" reported that MS did a stealth download and install of some updates, even to computers that had been set to the manual install option. At first MS denied doing this, but then confessed. It pretty much had to, as one of the updates played havoc with the operation of some corporate systems.

So, at a minimum, MS can, at will, override some (possibly all?) of the settings you make on your PC. At maximum, MS may have included a "back door" in WinXP. Wanna bet hackers are busy finding MS's stealth entrances to your PC?

Also, MS often has bugs in its updates, causing other programs to cease working. It's happened to me. I no longer download MS updates. A major laptop company also told me not to install MS updates because some play havoc with special software the laptop company installs.

-c

I've just noticed a reference on 43folders.com to a recent review in the New York Times Magazine of Scrivener and other Mac writing apps. May be of interest to some here with NYT access.

See www.43folders.com/2008/01/06/nyt-magazine-covers-scrivener-other-os-x-writing-apps for further detail.

Jack

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Until Apple finds a way to run Windows applications without the customer having to buy
Windows, users will probably continue to choose operating systems by the quality of
available applications.

I used to feel that way, but things change.
* Apple computers now have customer satisfaction scores and likelihood-of-recommending scores that no Windows computers can match. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2183287,00.asp
In fact, some of PC Magazine's users of Windows are now recommending that people switch to Mac.

* Many long-term users of Windows (like myself) are unhappy with Vista. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2183281,00.asp "But a closer look at the initial setup experience shows that it is much worse with Vista desktops"

* The Windows registry is like the Hotel California, you can remove software, but it never leaves. When I was complaining to my son that I couldn't install a new version of a program I've used for years because some residual element from an earlier version was blocking installation, his comment was that I should plan to reinstall my Windows OS once a year to clear up problems. That seemed acceptable to him, but it doesn't to me.

* Many people who have switched to Macs state that Windows programs run significantly better under something like VMWare Fusion than on a Windows machine. Fusion can be used to install only as much of a Windows OS as it needs to run Windows software.

I'm switching to Mac computers because I'm tired of hassling with Windows issues, and though it will cost me time and money, I won't have to give up any Windows programs unless I choose to (and no doubt I will leave some behind). Given everything that I have read and that user surveys are showing, I have no doubt that a Mac computer and OS X will make my overall computing experience better, less frustrating, and more productive. I didn't want to make a switch, but I feel like Vista pushed me there.

R Shinn