Moving to Mac Made Easy

Jaguar777 writes "According to an article on CNET, Apple has a new weapon in its campaign to woo PC users: a $59 piece of software that makes the switch to Macintosh easier. Detto Technologies has started selling Move2Mac, a combination of software and a custom USB cable that helps PC users move many of their files, settings and even background pictures to a new Mac running Mac OS X 10.2. Sounds nice. Is there anything like this in the works for the penguin masses?" Detto has had software to move settings from one PC to another; Apple requested them to make it to move from a PC to a Mac, and will carry it in their retail stores.

Great

[Hi_2k]

Now, get me one for linux that also includes a good windows emulator. But, more to the point, the problem has never been ease of use or cusomisibility, but a lack of specilized software that has hurt both mac and linux as a desktop OS. Just getting the neat wallpapers over wolnt convert many people. Still, a step in the direction of instant easy access to all data.

Make it free

[dhardman]

If I were Apple (which I am not) I'd have this bundled with 10.2 and promote the living daylights out of it. This is the type of tool that PC users have been waiting for. This is one of those rare software applications that would be worth it's weight in gold to the OS company to take under it's corporate wing.

Very nice

[Omkar]

Tools like this can help shake MS's Windows monopoly. When people can move to different OSs easily, and work with people of different OSs, differences in quality will finally start to drive decisions.

Apple's next step

[steve.m]

A better move would be for Apple to sell cheaper Mac's - I can't afford an iBook and I don't want an iMac or an eMac:

I want a Mac about the size of a SPARCclassic, with a fast 3D card, a dvd+burner and all the rest of the Apple goodness, but with no monitor. I've got my own perfectly good 17" sony. Why can't I get one of those!

How about....

[ZoneGray]

If they want to make it easier to switch, all they have to do is drop the price 50%.

Re:most important feature

[larien]

For some (l)users, their background picture is very important...

I won't move to Mac. Make Mac move to me

[ThaReetLad]

If i've spent £1000+ on a uberPC with everything, I dont want to have to switch hardware to run MacOS. Apple will never seduce Windows users while their investment in hardware cannot be transported over.

We all know that M$ is an evil monopoly but I think the reason why they're a monopoly is because Apple refused to compete with microsoft on the commodity PC platform. For years microsoft had no decent rival on platform that brought computing to the masses. OS2? I was a joke at best. Apple had (and has) decent software, but until they grow some balls and decide to play with the big boys.

We see the effect and penetration that Linux is developing on the desktop in the Red Hat and SuSe form, and that is fighting against the established monopoly. This proves that there is, and probably always has been, a market for a real alternative to Windows for existing windows users, but which has been left sadly vacant for years. Had Apple decided to stop making hardware and just sold software, perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are now in regarding MS vs DOJ etc.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Microsoft may be evil, but Apple could be accused of having done nothing to stop it, when perhaps they were the only ones who could have.

Re:Hands up if you want this?

[thisisatest]

Ah, but ease-of-use products like this are exactly the type of thing that sells.

Sure, you could duplicate it with a crossover cable, a shell script or two, and an ftp server, but that's not the point. The point is that something like this appeals to the broad segment of the computer-using population that is incapable of generating such a setup themselves, and is equally unlikely to find the freeware equivalent on the web which we'll imagine is named 'desKtopKopier' or 'Klone' or the totally descriptive 'Imperiator'.

I'm pretty damn good at creating search queries, and I still have a hell of a time finding simple little applications online of this sort - the kind of thing that I could create myself, but would rather save myself the time.

Marketting money is great fun. Not so sure about the name 'Move2Mac', either, but whatever.

Re:All my files?

[sirinek]

If you are writing custom scripts to do stuff like connect to servers automatically on bootup, then you are not in the majority of users who dont know how to move their stuff over from one computer to another, and are not one of the people being targeted with this product.

Re:Very nice

[Anonymous Coward]

People often chose the OS by looking at what software they want to run. This only moves a few files around, doesn't make a Mac run Windows software.

Re:I won't move to Mac. Make Mac move to me

[andy_geek]

I think you're mistaken on this. Yes, your hard-earned 1000 quid went into that box, but we both know it'll be obselete within a year (oh, quit moaning: it's true!). Computer buyers are becoming savvy enough to know this (I know, not ALL of them, but many of them). Therefore, I don't think it's a stretch that some people will think: "Hmm, I gotta blow a buttload of money on an item that'll last me about as long as an ice cream sandwich - how about I get one that does stuff better, looks better, and doesn't crash?" No, we're not talking about scads of people using this logic, but some do. Apple is beyond trying to win back substantial marketshare from WinTel (face it, they lost), but modest gains are suitable, and the types of users who might think this way are precisely the people Apple wants as a user community.

I am certain Apple is happy to have an idiot like me pontificating about what THEY want. :)

You're not thinking like a 'user'

[splateagle]

judging by the posts so far most of you are missing the point here: this isn't aimed at those of us who could cope with the (ahem) complexities of copying files onto a CDR, it's aimed at Mr. and Mrs. Joe User - people who just want their computer to work, but bought a Windozer first time 'round.

These people are Apple's target audience with the whole Switch campaign (of which this gizmo is a devlopment). Chances are that if you're the kind of user who can do this for yourself (and lets face it copying files ain't rocket science) you'll already have made the switch (assuming you're not a: happy with what you've got and/or b: convinced that the hardware is too expensive... but I'm not going *there*)

Re:How about....

[Daniel Dvorkin]

They drop the priced 50%, they go from generally decent profits and occasional losses to big losses all the time. Sales would go up, but not fast enough to get them out of the rut they were in during the Amelio days -- they were selling lots of machines and had a viable long-term stragegy, but people didn't buy Macs because quarter after quarter of red ink had Wall Street convinced that Apple was going out of business soon and so a Mac purchase would be wasted money.

Also, a lot of the price premium you pay goes into R&D (vs. the "Windows tax" you pay when you buy a new PC from just about any major maker, which goes straight into Microsoft's PR and legal departments.) The reason Apple's software is "insanely great" -- and their hardware, if not i.g., is pretty damn good -- is because they spend the time and money (especially the money) to do things right.

Yes, yes, Linux has accomplished great things with a largely open, low-cost development model. But there are a few viable ways to develop great software -- open source is one (although it's worth noting that an awful lot of Linux goodness comes from paid developers) and real corporate R&D is another; perhaps the best model is what Apple's doing, which is combining the two. The MS way, which involves a complete lack of real R&D and a team of developers which seems dedicated mostly to ripping off other people's work, is not one of these ways.

Before you write this off as mindless anti-MS, pro-Apple propaganda, consider this: I was one of the very few who did switch from PC to Mac during the Amelio years. I did so because I realized just how bad MS software (which I'd been using for years) was getting, and I decided that I didn't mind paying a few more bucks if it got me a computer that did what I wanted it to, when I wanted it to, with a minimum of fuss. And I've never regretted that decision.

Penguin masses

[wheany]

Is there anything like this in the works for the penguin masses?

It would never get done. First of all: Nothing on Linux is easy. Second: When when you finally decide something like this needs to be done, you'll spend the next 2 years arguing about open formats and extendability just in case you need to migrate from Linux to BSD in the future. Third: You'll probably name it something like Gnuve2Gnuc...

Re:Why is this a problem?

[BlueGecko]

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, but both versions of Office interpolate very well. I have never, ever sent a Word document to a colleague that he could not open, even when I use extremely advanced features, and similarly have never had any problem opening any Word document (except that an embedded WMA file would not play for obvious reasons). Ditto for Excel and PowerPoint, and again, even for very complex documents.

Please...

[Gruneun]

Give me a break. Part of Apple's problem is that they put a halt to third-party clones, which lowered the all-around cost for Macs. The only reason that Apple sells anything is because there are Mac-cult fanatics and people who are attracted to shiny metal and colored plastic.

Don't get me wrong and assume this was meant as flamebait. Macs are great machines, but they just aren't great enough to justify their price. If they were proportionally more powerful, or priced even remotely close to a bland, beige PC, we would have a third Mac in our house.

Re:Definitely for newbies

[glh]

I don't know, but based on the marketing speech, there is not much "intelligence" in this software. The reason why it sounds easy, safe and secure for the Joe Average, is probably the fact that it is marketed as a software created just for this "single task" and it is therefore much more easy to buy and understand it.

Yes, the software is definitely for Joe Average. However, that is what sells. Things that are simple and easy and don't require any intelligence on the part of the user. That is why Linux has such a hard time being adopted by the AOL population-- they're not L33T or anywhere close to it.

For instance, I had to explain to my mother-in-law the other day what a web browser was as opposed to "AOL". She just couldn't understand the concept that AOL provides the internet connection and that she could use any "browser" that she wanted (something wasn't showing up right on a site she was using so I told her to try it with IE). The thing was, she didn't WANT to know anything outside her AOL sandbox. All she wanted was for her "pictures to work". On that same note, I think this mac switch software is ingenius! If it weren't for the high price of Mac's, it may be the "silver bullet".

Re:most important feature

[Broken Bottle]

Not to be condescending to them, but considering your average Mac user (and Apple) put a much higher priority on asthetics and usability than, say, a Linux user, this is a big deal feature. I'm a network / PC support consultant. Whenever I migrate a user to a new PC, the rule is this: the less tech savy the user, the more important Windows dressing like screen savers and background photos are to them. It's a major comfort issue for them. I think that your typical switcher is going to be one of the people that's less technical than a Windows user NOT making the switch, so things like background photos are a big deal in keeping the new computer comfortable and nonthreatening. It's pretty smart of them to have that feature in the migration software.

Chris

Re:Great

[feldsteins]

...but a lack of specilized software...

Specialized software is just that: specialized. Thus not widely used so I don't think there is much to be learned there.

I think what this company is doing is very smart. Ordinary people do agonize over this issue. "New computer? What will I do with my old stuff?" Even when they got a new machine many of these people never moved their documents over because they didn't know how. They end up having a "legacy box" sitting there which only gets used for Quicken (version 2 possibly) or some such thing. Migrating data is a huge worry for average folks.

And that's going from a Windows box to another! This product just greases the wheels - it's one less thing for the reluctang buyer to worry about so they can go ahead and make the purchase they want. Smart.

My guess, however, would be that the product itself is an utter waste of time for anyone who knows the difference between applications and documents, where each can typically be found, and who knows how to use removable storage media of any kind.

That is to say, millions of people will love it.

Re:most important feature

[kootch]

it's all about the comfort level. Apple is trying to make the users that they're moving feel as if nothing really has changed visually... it's still "their" computer. Once they are visually comforted, they'll start using it, and hopefully notice how things work better/faster...

makes complete sense to me

The real reason people don't switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear and ignorance prevent people from changing.
I've taught 1000s of people to use computers(nerdmaker.com), from what's a mouse to developing oracle apps. The single most important element in computer use is.... fear and comfort. If a linux distro had a: lets have fun, I'll hold your hand and we'll get through this linux stuff together, instructional video, then people would be much more likely to enjoy the switch. The most important factor in computer use is the human factor.

Re:most important feature

[Ponty]

The desktop background isn't all that important, but a novice user's e-mail settings, inbox contents, and downloaded digital camera pictures sure are important.

This is a great move, and really funny, too boot.

Re:How about....

[azav]

You should read up regarding data pipeline depths. Intel chips have a longer pipeline and this is not always a good thing. The chip used in macs today is not a PPC, but a G3-G4. These chips have shorter pipelines and can do more per clock cycle. So 800 mhz Intel 800 mhz Motorola.

Re:Please...

[constantnormal]

The clones did not lower the cost of Macs to Apple -- only to consumers. Apple was paying R&D expenses for the cloners -- nearly 100% of the software R&D was paid for by Apple.

The idea was that the existence of cheaper clones would bring over Wintel converts and expand the Macintosh marketplace. Instead of capturing market share from the Wintel world, the clones were cannibalizing Apple's own markets.

So Apple was in the position of subsidizing (via software R&D and product direction) the cloners, only to lose revenue to them. Apple and the cloners cannot both survive in such a scenario.

While it would have been nice for Apple to have been able to support a clone market segment (I bought a very nice Power Computing box that still works today), it just didn't work out.

And I don't mean to portray this as an entirely civil business decision -- the manner in which Apple backed out of their stated position of supporting a clone market for Macs was pretty slimy. But in hindsight it was necessary to save the company.

Macs have a lot of problems (the most significant of which will hopefully be solved by getting away from Motorola cpus) to go with their strengths, but the existence of a clone market never helps strengthen a company. Look at what happened to IBM in the PC business. If IBM did not have other product lines to carry their perennially money-losing PC business, there would be no Thinkpads today.

Re:Hands up if you want this?

[jez9999]

Does it worth 49$ to do it yourself ? How much does your time cost ?

Your time probably costs significantly more than $49. However, if this tool is ANYTHING like Microsoft's 'upgrade to Windows version x' tools, the only chance you have of not having a completely messed up system is to do it yourself, rather than letting a piece of software automate it.

Re:I won't move to Mac. Make Mac move to me

[andy_geek]

I'd definitely recommend staying with x86 if you are a power user. Leave the Mac for the artists and people who are confused by a mouse with two buttons.

Not to sound haughty and pedantic, but isn't it possible that it's not a confusion issue, but the fact that it's simply more elegant? Just a thought.

Re:Switching

[bpbond]

>What about a Macintosh Powerbook or a G4 makes them worth that much of an apple premium?

That's a reasonable question, but not in the context of this thread...the whole "Switch" campaign, and this software, is aimed at users whole will generally switch to a iMac or iBook. And those machines are actually pretty decent deals, especially compared to the pricey "pro" line.

And to a poster above...no, obviously this program won't transfer your custom auto-connect scripts. Duh. If you can do that, I bet you can get those puppies over yourself.

Re:The real reason people don't switch

[Jucius Maximus]

"The single most important element in computer use is.... fear and comfort."

I think those might be the two most important, but clearly they can't be the single most important ;-)

I agree that fear is an important factor because too many people are terrified to click on some button on a computer because it might mess up or they don't really know what it will do. Because of this, they will never do anything unless they are babysat.

The main reason that I never learned to be afraid of computers is because back when I was 7 years old my dad actually encouraged me to enter the autoexec.bat and remove the remark line before the command to load the mouse driver. Then I started noticing these lines about emm386.exe and reading those readme.txt that came with shareware and finding out about memory management.

I think that once a person in afraid of computers, it is very hard to make them un-afraid of them. I have been working on my mother for some years now and she is finally coming into her own with realising that you need a generalised knowledge of how things work, not a specific knowledge of every button, keystroke, etc., to be able to understand the machine.

Re:Switching

[CyberBry]

I would have totally agreed with all you people saying that Macs are too expensive, before I actually used one. I now own an iBook (along with my WinXP and FreeBSD boxen - it plays nicely on the network) and am considering getting a tiBook soon. After using a Mac for a few months, you realize that what's true with almost everything in life is true with computers: You get what you pay for.

Regardless of how much cheaper/faster/beiger/etc that PCs are, I've yet to meet one person who genuinely enjoyed using one as much as people who use Macs, which I think is the point most people are missing. Sure my iBook is more expensive, slower, has a smaller screen, etc, than my desktop or my schoolmates with Windows or Linux laptops, but, they're the ones always huddled around my screen and coming to use my laptop to do things because they prefer it. That's the point.

Re:...even easier (and cheaper!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Neato! Look at all those commands which would mean absolutely nothing to 90% of computer users. Knowing what all that means, and executing all of it in the right order is certainly much easier than just plugging in a USB cable and going to get a sandwich while the program copies everything over for you

You should bundle up those commands and sell them for a competitive price, because you certainly have hit the jackpot here!

Oh wait, your instructions won't migrate setting to their respective applications nor does it provide the novice Mac user with any sort of useful interface since they will obviously be out of their element having just switched. In fact, it looks FUCKING USELESS.

Stop trying to look smart and think for a second about what audience this tool is aimed for. Hint: It's not you or anyone else who knows UNIX. I don't even know why you people bother commenting on these stories when all you do is say "nyeah! I can script that myself! I'm super smarty"

Re:I won't move to Mac. Make Mac move to me

[wormbin]

"Hmm, I gotta blow a buttload of money on an item that'll last me about as long as an ice cream sandwich - how about I get one that does stuff better, looks better, and doesn't crash?"

Everyone that I know (Mac and PC users alike) are reacting to the short lifetime of computers by buying the cheapest box possible. For Windows users this is buying the bottom of the line Dell, for Linux users this assembling a box out of used pieces or even buying that Walmart PC, and for Mac users it's used iMacs or refusing to upgrade. (I know a ton of non-techie Mac users who refuse to upgrade to OS X which boggles me)

People want a cheaper computer and the first company to make a decent $200 box (Sony? Panasonic? other?) will sell a million.

Re:Please...

[spankalee]

This is something I just don't understand about Apple and it's failed clone attempt. Why wasn't Apple making money off the clones? Why weren't the clone makers paying Apple for the R&D, was there no licensing agreements?

You make the comparison to IBM, but it's a little different than that since Apple owns the OS as well, it's more like IBM + Microsoft. At least one of those companies benefited from the clones.

Apple should have recouped their R&D costs through license fees from the clone makers. They should have charged appropriately for every copy of Mac OS, they should have charged for hardware reference designs. Maybe they could just sell motherboards to clone makers. There are companies that are profitable that only sell motherboards.

I understand killing the clones because of Apples obsession with quality and complete control of the user experience more than I do for economic reasons. Apple thinks too much like just a hardware company and doesn't run their software side to make a profit.

Re:i've seen the pc version

[Vagary]

Why do so few companies copy Epic Games' lead with UT [linuxworld.com] and give consumers all OSes for the price of one? After all, you've already paid for the code and it would be perfectly legal for you to use it in an emulator. Any pirating-prevention schemes that were developed for each OS should still work with combined media.

The only reason I can think of to sell different OS versions seperately is to finance the cost of porting. But Adobe can't use that excuse as they already have a huge market for both sides.

Question: Since you have a license for the software, would you be breaking any laws by pirating the version for the other OS?

Demographics could be Apple's best friend

[Zhe Mappel]

America's greying. For the home market that means a group of consumers with different expectations about computing -- they'll want ease of use, and they'll have less patience with the labyrinthine kludge that is the Windoze OS.

Anyone who's had the pleasure of showing senior citizens how to surf, word process and e-mail will know that 99% of the Windoze shell is irrelevant to this demographic, and worse, gets in the way of finding and doing what they need. The older users I've seen are excited by the potential of technology, and they turn on to it avidly. It's criminal that the majority of them are stuck trying to deal with Windoze. OS X is a natural for this market segment.

On the other hand there could also be a future in designing tunnel-vision apps and shell replacements for older people, stuff that narrows down the gui and weeds out the extraneous, that winnows Windows into something useful for them.