Will Leopard Actually Help Vista By Making it Look Bad?
IT managers are a weird bunch. They must be - most of them choose Windows afterall. They’re also conservative. (That’s why I fitted in.) They don’t like to change - especially to something that’s so glitzy as OS X, it’s totally unfamiliar. They want that staid, old, boring Windows look.
If Vista ever comes out they’re in for a shock. In fact we’ll all be pretty shocked if it ever comes out. (Although they will be reluctant to upgrade, whilst their users will be chomping at the bit for it.)
However, by the time Vista does come out, Leopard will be making it look old-fashioned (and then they’ll probably happily upgrade to Vista.)
Leopard is going to come out with more flair, pizzazz and eye-candy than Tiger and Vista put together. But will IT managers find that some how intimidating or scary, and therefore off-putting?
Will IT managers act like the middle-aged dad when his nice daughter starts dating guys?
Up come suitor number one. He looks a little dull, wears a jacket and pants, a white shirt and rather plain tie. And he drives an old Ford. Dad knows he’s no world-beater, but he doesn’t threaten dad’s status.
Up comes suitor number two. Slicked back hair, trendiest clothes, red corvette that burbles up your street. Even the wife is swooning. Dad feels his status is under serious threat.
Likewise, the IT manager feels comfortable with number one (Windows). Sure there’s problems, but he understands him. He’s non-threatening. He doesn’t pose any threat to his authority.
But number two (Leopard)? He’s a threat to everything. With number two around users say “Why can’t we have that?” With number two, the IT manager can see his authority, expertise and whole little kingdom getting eroded. Number two, Leopard, empowers people.
(Now I know some of you are itching to say, no, the windows guys will have several STDs, a snotty nose, blood-shot eyes and so on, but let’s be nice, we don’t have to stoop that low.)
So Mr IT Manager says, “Yeah sure Leopard looks pretty snazzy, but let’s stick with good old Windows. We know all its quirks and you know how to use it. That OS X though? All that glimmer and glitz looks a bit scary. We don’t want that, we want familiarity.”
(Geez, Time Machine would have fried their eye sockets!)
There’s an adage that “familiarity breeds contempt”. That may be so in some circumstances, but in computers and especially among IT managers, “familiarity breeds content”. That is one of the reasons for Microsoft’s success ten years ago with Windows and Office. Microsoft convinced IT managers that if they standardized onto all Microsoft, everything would be nice and familiar.
Mac OS X is about as unfamiliar as you can get. You and I know just how easily Macs could replace many, many workplace PCs, but Mr IT Manager doesn’t want to hear that. That’s his kingdom you’re threatening.
Eye-candy may sell to the average Joes, but their friend of a friend of a friend who’s an IT Manager warns that OS X is a bit scary, it’s too unfamiliar - all that glitz and pizzazz, you can’t trust it.
There’s another adage that says “Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all.” It’s that fear of the unknown that they really fear. The more different OS X looks to Windows, the more eye-candy Apple adds, the more it looks unknown and foreign and the more threatening it becomes to them.
And hence they will stick with the familiar and non-threatening Windows, even Vista eventually.
So is too much eye-candy in Leopard actually going to make Windows (including Vista) more appealing to IT managers by making it look ordinary?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
“familiarity breeds content.” Couldn’t have said it better - and it’s the reason why Vista will get a very slow uptake by IT departments. Heck, a lot of them haven’t made the leap to XP yet, relying on 2000 Pro to handle their needs.
I think the other issue that will slow down IT buying into Vista is the fact that there will be a lot of hackers just waiting to get their hands on Vista and see what they can do. With a lot of “new stuff” residing in Vista there will probably be a lot of opportunities for malware developers. Let that settle down a bit and IT might be interested. Until then Vista distribution will basically be limited to the average consumer buying a new computer.
I was talking to a university lecturer the other day and he told me that a major ISP in Australia still runs off Windows 95! They are familiar with all its programs and quirks and do not wish to upgrade. Case in Point.
I don’t know a single IT manager who “likes” Windows. They use it because, for the most part, they have no choice. In every organisation that I deal with there is always at least one critical application (and usually more) that uses Windows.
For the most part, IT Managers come close to despising Windows, and Microsoft. It is incredibly diffifult to keep running properly so it consumes a lot of resources in maintenance. Where possible, many IT managers are deploying Citrix and thin clients - or at least restricting Windows to a single “build” which they can reinstall whenever Windows throws it legs in the air and falls over.
For an IT manager / professional, Windows is, after all, just an operating system - an “enabler” which is, by definitiion, nothing to get excited about. Would they run Leopard? Not unless they can run their applications on it. Which they cannot, for the most part…
However… Many organisations have “single purpose” machines which run a specific application or application suite. Perhaps a retail client application, or a banking terminal application. If Vista is a dog then those organisations who need to redevelop such an application may choose to do so on Leopard - and we may well see a major bank or retail chain roll out a Mac-based deployment because the Apple O/S is more stable, less prone to viruses, faster, and a better development platform.
In the long term, if the Apple O/S is a better platform, it will prevail. But it will take time. There is a lot of development in the Windows environment - and these guys will have to retrain if they are to develop in the Apple equivalent…
Still, we will see the odd Mac turning up now in most organisations - there is no reason NOT to deploy Macs, and senior execs in pretty much every organisation will be buying them so IT managers will find themselves having to understand Leopard anyway - and they probably are curious…
I am in NYC this week. I visited the Apple store on a Sunday afternoon and it was packed… Almost every available Mac machine (and there are lots and lots of them) was being prodded and tested and played with. Many of the people walking out with a Mac under their arm work for a corporation. We already know that 50% of Mac buyers at these stores are new to Apple. IT professionals the world over are going to be exposed to Leopard whether they like it or not…
I don’t know a single IT manager who “likes” Windows. They use it because, for the most part, they have no choice
Gotta disagree with this. They more than anyone else in the industry have the choice. They are the ones who have the power to change things. They are the ones who had the choice ten years ago to make or break Office.
They are the ones who continue to choose Exchange in preference to Groupwise or Lotus Notes. In the last twelve months of my previous job (2004/05 working for a local council), two IT managers at other councils, replaced Lotus Notes with Exchange for no valid reason, simply because of the MS logo. Familiarity.
IT managers put out tenders all the time that ask for applications that run on Windows only. They have the power to ask for cross platform software.
Developers give the IT managers what the IT managers choose.
Although their environment places restrictions on them, they can slowly change their environment.
IT managers have the choice. They make the choices.
IT managers have the choice. They make the choices. -CH
I was evangelizing the Mac Pro’s heavenly capabilities to our IT manager this week telling him how he will be able to manage the entire company’s network of PCs via the Mac or the Windows personality of MP. Add that the power of the quad-Xeon hardware and he owns the bragging rights (momentarily anyway) of the fastest Windows machine.
What he verbally infused in my awareness was that it isn’t the issue of [IT managers] not wanting a Mac. It comes down to “adding” support for them when they got their hands full with Windows and all its quirks - viruses, malwares, trojans, worms, the daily upkeep and maintenance, etc.
IT managers have their hands full at the moment and they are not willing to have any more on their plates. When Vista comes out, and knowing how it is as holed and hollow as a Swiss cheese, IT managers may finally have a reason to start gravitating towards OSX (slowly but surely).
If OS X’s eye candy can give a technological advantage over Windows then the people using OS X will always stay ahead and make more money. If a user can undelete a file in Time Machine in one minute and it takes a Windows user 2 hours, right there saved probably $100.
The majority of the population doesn’t like to take risks. It’s the one’s who do who will make the most money and stay ahead of everyone else.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t imagine “eye candy” is a real selling point to corporations. And even if it were, Vista’s steely design seems much more suited to that environment. I find the OS X and XP interfaces much more bubbly and homey in comparison.
Maybe that’s a key point, Beeb.
If a user can undelete a file in Time Machine in one minute and it takes a Windows user 2 hours, right there saved probably $100.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Time Machine requires an external firewire drive to function properly. I like the idea in concept, but the hardware seems a bit much for what’s essentially a fancy undelete more so than a true backup system. So in an IT dept, offset the cost of recovering a deleted file (which is probably nowhere near $100, btw, although in many cases the file is probably unrecoverable so the cost is difficult to calculate) with all of those additional firewire drives plus installation plus maintenence.
I see Time Machine much more suited to home users than the corproate world. I’ll definitely try it out for myself.
Yeha, I see Time Machine more for protecting you against screw ups. Just like Apple demoed. Like when you over write a file, or accidentally delete some files.
A backup is USELESS if you have to permanently keep it beside the computer being backed up.
There was no indication from Apple that TM could archive any point in time to removable media.
If there is, that could be a killer, but otherswise I don’ see TM being a threat to real backup systems which provide for offsite storage of backups.
I see Time Machine more for protecting you against screw ups. Just like Apple demoed. Like when you over write a file, or accidentally delete some files.
Exactly. But from what I’ve read, and again I could be wrong, but you have to have a seperate drive to make it work. If true, that would make it a very expensive proposition for large corporate networks (can you imagine implementing this?) and impractical for users with Macbooks who travel frequently.
So scratch Time Machine as a selling point for the corporate world.
I don’ see TM being a threat to real backup systems which provide for offsite storage of backups.
Agreed. It’s not really the same thing as a true backup. I think was misunderstanding what you were saying. We’re probably both dancing around the same point.
We’re probably both dancing around the same point.
Yeah, I agee with everything you said, Beeb. Iwas just elaborating on it.
And I also agree that Apple said you need a second hard drive - either inter or external which would be external for anyone except MacPro owners.
Interesting you know. You spend AUD$1200 on a Mac mini, then you gotta spend another AUD$200 to get Time Machine to work, and then another AUD$400 to get Boot Camp to work…
What other OS X features will (or do) require shelling out big bucks to get working?
Now, some folks (eg SuperDuper users) will argue “You’re gunna have to buy an external HDD anyway for backups”. Bollocks. There’s no reason Joe Average can’t use CDs for backups.
Seems OS X is going to get very expensive with Leopard. O hope it’s stick price is low.
What other OS X features will (or do) require shelling out big bucks to get working?
Some apps and features, while they don’t require .mac per se, are really crippled if you don’t have an account. I’m thinking of iCal and iWeb specifically, but there are certainly other examples.
Seems OS X is going to get very expensive with Leopard. O hope it’s stick price is low.
I don’t see if being any less than any other iteration of OS X, around $129US.
But hey, Macs ain’t cheap. No news there.
Whoah - hold on, re Time Machine:
I don’ see TM being a threat to real backup systems which provide for offsite storage of backups.
From the documentation I read Time Machine can be pointed at any mountable device - which includes file servers. I fully expect Leapard Server edition to include Time Machine services out of the box, so that every users machine is 100% backed up and versioned on an XServe SAN solution.
This integration (full life time versioning of every file coupled with enterprise wide backup management) is way ahead of most other options (incremental backups periodically rolled into an system snapshot anyone?).
Archive to removable media? I think the author is missing the point (and living in the wrong century). Time Machine users will typically have 50-100GB of archive data EACH - what sort of removable media did you have in mind? No it will be on a Terabyte SAN and nightly synced offsite.
The BIG BIG question that has not been answered for me as a developer: does time machine copy the entire file every time it has changed or just the differences (like a Code Versioning System such as Subversion). Possible clue - Subversion is included with Leopard. This makes a huge difference to the size of the archive, since cumulative diffs dont add up to much, but a new file copy every time the file changes quickly grow out of control.
Want a nightmare scenario? 100,000 users have purchased Parallels which puts a 10Gb virtual Hard disk file in your system. If you use Parallels every day that file changes every day. Imagine that Time Machine has to archive a new 10Gb file each night…
rgds
Ewan