time for us to eat our words 8 of august, 1996 by johnmichael patrick monty monteith

Oh, what happened to the Macintosh days of yester-year? They were so grand. Being able to make fun of Windows 95 because it was over two years late. Or how about all of the good laughs we had about the introduction of Windows "3.1" because "3.0" was so buggy? Those were the good old days. Unfortunately, those days are coming back to haunt us.

Mac OS8, aka Copland, will be well over two years late when it ships, and far from the original package predicted. Apple is scrambling to get something out within the next year, developing a temporary System 7 upgrade called "Harmony" to take Copland's place sometime mid next year. As you can well imagine, Harmony will not include any of the much needed upgrades that Apple needs to bring the Macintosh into the 90's. Mac OS8 likely will not be seen until 1998, and when it does ship there will probably need to be a ".1" incremental version a few months later. Yet, even when the full version of OS8 finally ships, it will not be as feature rich as the competition (example: multitasking subroutines instead of true preemptive multitasking programs like Windows 95 & NT). Things do not look good in the foreseeable future for Apple.

Unfortunately, when you look over in the enemy bunkers, things start to look downright dismal.

The roll out of Windows 95 was a phenomenal success (ignoring the delayed release). Microsoft had the operating system in the hands of developers two years before it was mustered out, allowing almost all software conflicts to be corrected long before the public began to "start it up". In fact, very few bugs were found in the operating system, despite all of our guesses that the results would be very different. To this day, no "Windows 95.1" was ever needed. This says a lot of Microsoft and the homework they did. The amount of Windows 95 specific software available today is a testament to how well the transition was organized.

On the flip side of the coin, Apple is now on release 2 of System 7.5, and all indications from the number of conflicts in this latest release would state that a release 3 is near on the horizon. Copland beta (DR1), as of August 1996, is still not in the hands of developers, and it looks unlikely that developers will have anywhere near the two years Windows 95 developers had.

If you have not noticed the current trend in the Windows 95 versus Mac OS debates, you might be even more concerned. In the "good old days" of Mac versus Microsoft, Macintosh owners could name all of the neat features their system had over anything on the other side. Those days are obviously over. The only thing that the Mac users shout about now is ease of use. "The Macintosh costs less to support ..." [because it is easier to use]. "The Macintosh takes less time to set up ..." [because it is easier to use]. "It costs less to train people on a Macintosh ..." [because it is easier to use]. It is safe to say that if there is another "buy a Mac" argument, the folks at Apple Computer and on Guy Kawasaki's Evangelist have not found it.

Yet, these ease of use arguments are falling on deaf ears. Why? Savvy computer shoppers know better. A Macintosh Plus is easier to use (costs less to set up, to train people, and to support) than the current generation of Macintosh. Does this make the Mac Plus a better machine? Of course not. Obviously any machine that has as many extra features over the previous generation is going to be more complicated to use. Most WinTel buyers have caught on to something the Mac public has not: Windows 95 has more features than the current Mac operating system. That is one of the reasons why Windows 95 is not as "easy to use", yet people continue to buy. Ease of use is not going to make someone buy a product. A VW Bug is far easier to use, cheaper to maintain, and easier to learn than a Porsche 911 Turbo. Mr. Kawasaki thinks most users would rather have the VW Bug. Your average computer user would tend to disagree.

The already dark cloud is about to get darker. Apple recently announced that they have no plans to ever ship a large scale release like that planned for OS 8. Instead they are opting for small incremental upgrades to the operating system. When the CEO of Apple Computer was asked three times how Apple plans to make small incremental upgrades for multitasking, program fault protection, increased stability, or file management to compete with Windows 95, he had no answer. The reason? These much needed changes can not be done in "small incremental upgrades". It is my sincere hope that Apple Computer seriously re-think this new scheme.

Even a best case scenario would have a new version of Windows (97?) reach store shelves before a complete version of Mac OS 8. If you thought the already feature rich Windows 95 is making people think twice about buying Mac, just wait until Microsoft releases a new version. The bottom line is that the average computer shopper will buy the computer with the most bang (features) for the buck. Until Mac OS8 ships, Windows 95 is going to continue to win the only argument that matters in this great debate: sales.