Apple Reference & Presen…rary 8 (Internal Edition)/Apple R&P Lib Internal v8.0.iso/3-Presentations/Apple Computer Inc./Industry Competition/ROMs/Software/Mac->PC Porting 87

Text File | 1990-06-24 | 30.0 KB | 535 lines | [TEXT/GEOL]

Apple Confidential / Need to Know

By Dave Garr


Porting Applications between Macintosh and IBM Compatibles (1987)


Executive Summary

Popular applications are moving between architectures.  The best selling PC
applications are being ported to the Macintosh, and the best selling Macintosh
applications are being ported to the PC.

Huge PC installed base.  According to InfoCorp, there are about 12 million
MS-DOS machines in the U.S., and about two million of them can run Windows with
acceptable performance.  As demonstrated by the success of PC PageMaker, a
Macintosh developer who can port an outstanding application to Windows stands
to collect substantial revenue.  Therefore, we expect that the best Macintosh
applications will continue to be ported to PC compatibles.

People may perceive that they can buy IBM and get the best Macintosh
applications.  If this trend in porting software between the IBM compatible and
Macintosh environments continues, customers may begin to think that they can
buy an IBM or compatible personal computer and be assured that the best
Macintosh applications will be available for them immediately or in the near
future.  For example, the four best selling Macintosh applications—Word, Excel,
Works, and PageMaker—all run on PCs today (although Word and Works are
character-based applications on the PC which makes them function differently
than the Macintosh versions).

Microsoft Windows environment is becoming more popular.  Macintosh applications
that are ported to the PC usually require Microsoft Windows, since the Windows
environment provides a look and feel similar to the Macintosh.  In the future,
we believe that Windows and the OS/2 Presentation Manager will be the
environments of choice for developers porting applications between the
Macintosh and the PC.

PC developers will keep porting to the Macintosh.  The over one million
installed Macintosh machines will continue to lure MS-DOS developers to port
their programs over to the Macintosh.  By developing programs for the
Macintosh, PC developers not only increase their potential market, but also get
the added benefit of gaining experience with a windowing/graphics environment
similar to the Presentation Manager.  However, porting the Macintosh
audiovisual interface may violate Apple's proprietary rights.

Porting is good and bad for Apple.  As more applications become available on
both machines, Apple benefits in that the Macintosh will become more acceptable
to corporations that have standardized on PC applications.  However, having the
same programs on both machines could cause IBM customers to think that they can
continue to buy PCs and be assured that the best Macintosh applications will be
available for them in the near future.

Macintosh currently has advantages over similar PC applications.  Even when the
same applications run on the Macintosh and the PC, the Macintosh version should
usually have some advantages over the PC version, such as better performance,
easier configuration, and more consistency with other applications.


Introduction

Software applications are increasingly being moved between different hardware
architectures.  The most significant movement appears to be occurring in the
IBM PC and Macintosh environments.  The past year has seen many applications
moving from IBM PC-based architecture to the Macintosh and vice versa, and many
more "ports" are expected to be announced in the next few months.  This
situation presents a significant challenge to Apple, since the continued
migration of the best Macintosh applications to the PC might decrease
corporations' incentive to standardize on more than one microcomputer
architecture.


Overview of Porting

Description of a port.  This ROM discusses applications that are available on
one machine becoming available on a machine with a different architecture.
There are many words which attempt to describe that event:  move, transfer,
translate, convert, port, etc.  Those words will be used interchangeably
throughout this ROM to refer both to situations when applications are totally
rewritten for another architecture, and when much of the code for the old
application is used when writing the new application.  The applications
mentioned in this ROM span the spectrum from being totally new programs that
try to offer some compatibility (like dBASE III Plus and dBASE Mac) to
applications that share a majority of the same code (like PageMaker).

Many flavors of ports are occurring.  Four different kinds of ports have been
occurring or are expected to occur:

•  Macintosh applications porting to character-based IBM applications.  This
kind of port has not happened very often, and is not expected to occur much in
the future.  Microsoft Works and InBox are examples of this kind of port.
•  Macintosh applications porting to Windows (and eventually OS/2 Presentation
Manager) applications.  This kind of port is becoming more common, and will
continue to increase in frequency.  Excel and PageMaker are examples, and rumor
has it that many more of these ports are in process (such as Illustrator and
ReadySetGo).  This kind of port appears to be fairly difficult.  Even
Microsoft, the developer of Windows, took a long time to port Excel to run
under Windows 2.0.  Other developers, who do not have as much expertise with
Windows, can expect to have even more delays than Microsoft.
•  IBM character-based applications porting to the Macintosh.  This kind of port
is common, and should continue for the near future.  SideKick and WordPerfect
are examples of this kind of port.
•  Windows (and Presentation Manager) applications porting to the Macintosh.
Thus far, we do not know of any application that originated under Microsoft
Windows being ported to the Macintosh.  (Perhaps the closest example is PC
Excel, which was so highly optimized that it is being ported to the Macintosh
and will become Macintosh Excel version 2.)  However, this should change as
more developers begin to focus on Microsoft Windows and the OS/2 Presentation
Manager.

IBM compatible machines will increasingly be running in a graphics-based
environment, either under some version of Windows or under OS/2 Presentation
Manager.  Therefore, the most important ports (for our purposes) are between
the Macintosh and PC graphics-based environments.  Ports between those two
environments will be the focus of this ROM.


Applications Moving Between Environments

Implications of this porting.  According to InfoCorp's retail survey, the five
best selling Macintosh applications in November 1987, were:

1) Excel (Microsoft)
2) Word (Microsoft)
3) Works (Microsoft)
4) Print Shop (Broderbund)
5) PageMaker (Aldus)

All of these applications are available on PC compatibles.  (Microsoft Word,
which was originally developed on the PC, looks different on the Macintosh and
the PC.  However, the perception is that it is the same program on both
machines.)  This is very significant, since customers may begin to think that
they can buy an IBM compatible PC and be assured that the best Macintosh
applications will be available for them immediately or in the near future.

These are the five best selling IBM compatible packages (according to
InfoCorp's November retail survey):

1) 1-2-3 (Lotus)
2) WordPerfect (WordPerfect Corp.)
3) dBASE III Plus (Ashton-Tate)
4) PFS:First Choice (Software Publishing Corp.)
5) Word (Microsoft)

Four of these packages have been, or will be, ported to the Macintosh.  Lotus
has pre-announced a version of 1-2-3 for the Macintosh (which will probably be
available in early 1989).  In 1Q88 WordPerfect should ship WordPerfect for the
Macintosh, which is very compatible with WordPerfect for the PC.  Ashton-Tate
offers dBASE Mac (which is perceived by the press to be like dBASE III Plus,
although the interfaces are very different and the programming languages are
incompatible).  We have no indication that Software Publishing is going to port
PFS:First Choice to the Macintosh.  As mentioned above, Word is available on
the Macintosh.  Since applications will continue to move between the Macintosh
and IBM environments, customers should be informed about the positive side—that
many of the most popular PC applications are migrating to the Macintosh.

Why have applications been moving from the Macintosh to the PC?  The main
reason is the large installed base of PCs.  InfoCorp estimates that the total
number of MS-DOS personal computers (IBM and compatibles) in the U.S. is about
12 million.  That is a huge market for a software developer to target.
InfoCorp estimates that the number of machines capable of running Windows-based
applications with acceptable performance is about 2 million.  InfoCorp's
qualifications for running Windows with acceptable performance were the
following:

•  286- or 386-based PC
•  Hercules, CGA, EGA, or VGA graphics adapter (although CGA, which has a
substantial installed base, provides poor resolution for Windows applications)
•  512 KB of memory
•  Hard disk

In comparison, InfoCorp estimates that the installed base of Macintosh systems
(excluding 128K machines) in the U.S. is slightly less than 1 million, which is
about one half the size of the Windows market.  (In April 1987, Apple sold its
millionth Macintosh, but that was worldwide and it included 128K machines.)

PageMaker became available for the Macintosh in July, 1985.  PageMaker became
available for the PC (running under Windows) in 1Q87, well over one year later.

Other Macintosh developers are doing, or are planning to do, the same thing
that Aldus did, and are hoping to obtain a similar boost in sales.

Why have applications been moving from the PC to the Macintosh?  For a similar
reason—it increases developers' potential market by offering their application
on a different hardware platform.  The one million Macintosh systems installed
have lured many MS-DOS developers to port their applications to the Macintosh.
Here are some other reasons why PC software developers are moving to the
Macintosh:

•  They feel that if they get into the Macintosh market now, while it is
relatively new (compared to the PC market), and establish themselves as
leaders, they will be well positioned if Macintosh sales continue to grow at
their current pace.
•  Some developers know that research has shown that Macintosh owners buy more
software than PC owners.
•  They gain experience with a windowing/graphics environment.  Therefore, as
the IBM compatible world moves toward Windows and Presentation Manager, those
companies with Macintosh experience will have an edge on other PC developers.
•  They believe that their character-based MS-DOS application can become better
when converted to run in the graphics environment of the Macintosh.


Porting should Accelerate in the Future

Many developers have already ported their products, and it is expected that
this trend will accelerate in the future.  Some of the reasons why porting
applications between the Macintosh and IBM machines will increase in the future
are described below.

Mergers.  There have been a number of mergers of IBM compatible and Macintosh
developers recently, and these mergers may encourage those companies to offer
their applications on both machines.  With the merger of Living Videotext and
Symantec, analysts have speculated that the newly merged company may bring out
Living Videotext's MORE on the PC, and Symantec's Q&A on the Macintosh.
Symantec also acquired the Macintosh developer Think Technologies which
developed Lightspeed C, Lightspeed Pascal, and InBox.  Ansa became a wholly
owned subsidiary of Borland, and Borland has indicated that it will port
Paradox over to the Macintosh.  Microsoft bought out Forethought, and we expect
Microsoft to port PowerPoint to the Windows and Presentation Manager
environments.

Windows is the future graphical user interface for PCs.  In the two years since
Microsoft has been shipping Windows, relatively few customers have adopted
Windows, primarily because it was too slow and not many applications were
available to run under it.  There are now 30-40 Windows applications shipping,
most notably PageMaker and Excel.  Windows is increasing in popularity, as
indicated by the fact that Windows applications are being announced weekly.
Furthermore, IBM has implicitly endorsed Windows by incorporating its interface
in its future operating system (OS/2 Presentation Manager), and by bundling
Windows with the "Collegiate" configuration of its Model 25.  Since the Windows
environment is similar to the Macintosh environment, the popularity of Windows
will increase the likelihood of applications moving between the IBM and
Macintosh environments.

OS/2 Presentation Manager.  The OS/2 Presentation Manager will encourage
non-hardware specific applications.  This is because the Presentation Manager
encourages developers to use a high-level applications program interface (API),
and not write directly to the hardware.  This will allow those applications to
be ported somewhat more easily to the Macintosh.

Companies are preparing for both architectures.  Developers are beginning to
develop applications with both the Macintosh and the PC architectures in mind,
thus making it easier for them to move the from one environment to the other.
A company named PS Publishing is doing this with PS Collage, which is a
PostScript drawing program like Illustrator.  They began from scratch to write
it for both the Macintosh and the PC, and they claim that the code is 85% the
same between the two packages.  Microsoft (with Excel) and Aldus (with
PageMaker) have attempted to offer their programs with a "core" module, which
makes up the majority of the code and is the same in both programs, and an
"edge" module which is written specifically for each machine.

Tools to facilitate porting will appear.  Because of the need to port packages
between the two environments, tools will begin appearing that are designed to
make the porting process easier.  One potential solution are programming
environments like Actor, which will allow application code to be written in one
environment, and then recompiled and run in other environments.  Actor should
eventually allow a program to be written under Windows, and then transported to
other systems (OS/2, Macintosh, and UNIX) with little modification.  Other
tools that we expect to see eventually are Windows cross-compilers which would
turn a Macintosh application into a Windows one with little code modification
(and vice versa).  In fact, at the Boston MacWorld Expo, one programmer was
trying to sell Macintosh developers a Windows cross-compiler.  Products such as
these will help a developer convert a Macintosh application into a Windows
application quickly.



How Porting Helps Apple

There are some clear benefits of having applications ported between the
Macintosh and the PC:

Many of the best selling PC packages are coming to the Macintosh.  The top
three selling PC packages, along with many other popular PC packages, have been
(or will be) ported to the Macintosh.  This porting of popular PC packages
provides a richer software offering for the Macintosh.

Macintosh will become more acceptable to some corporations.  If the Macintosh
runs the applications that corporations have standardized on (like WordPerfect
and PageMaker), the Macintosh will more easily play in an IBM environment,
something very important to many MIS managers.  Current IBM users will be able
to move to a Macintosh more easily, since their PC package now runs on the
Macintosh.  Having the same program on both machines will reduce training and
support costs.  And data exchange will be simplified, since PC and Macintosh
file formats will (in many cases) be compatible.  Thus, Apple should continue
to encourage file compatibility across architectures.

When PC buyers see the excellence of Macintosh software, they may consider the
Macintosh.  As Macintosh applications get ported to the PC (like PC Excel) some
PC buyers will see how excellent the graphics interface is.  That could open
the door for Apple, since we have hundreds of other applications that have that
same superior interface.


How Porting Negatively Impacts Apple

Applications being ported between the PC and Macintosh environments has
negative implications for Apple as well as positive ones.  Here is a listing of
some of the negative consequences of this porting:

"I can get everything on the PC."  IBM customers may begin to think that they
can buy an IBM or compatible personal computer and be assured that the best
Macintosh applications will be available for them immediately or in the near
future.  This could remove any incentive they might have had to standardize on
more than one microcomputer architecture.

Decreased Macintosh margins.    As the software applications on the PC and on
the Macintosh become more similar, the differences between those machines will
become more subtle.  Today, since the Macintosh is not viewed as being similar
to MS-DOS machines, the price decreases in the MS-DOS world do not have a
direct effect on Macintosh pricing.  However, as both classes of machines
become more similar (which would be a consequence of offering similar
software), the Macintosh may be forced to compete more directly with
inexpensive IBM clones, thus limiting Apple's pricing options.

Some applications have improved when ported to the PC.  Both Excel and OMNIS
Quartz (which was a conversion of OMNIS 3 Plus) became better products when
moved from the Macintosh to run under Windows.  They both have many more
features on the PC; features that are not inherent in the PC architecture but
are simply due to greater development effort.  When applications become
superior on the PC, it decreases the Macintosh system's competitive advantage.

Macintosh software is delayed.  Developers who focus their efforts on porting
Macintosh applications over to the PC often delay new releases on the
Macintosh.  For example, Macintosh Excel has not had a major upgrade in the two
years that it has been available, presumably because Microsoft has been
focusing its development efforts on PC Excel.

Developers limit features.  Some developers, in an attempt to make their
applications very similar (and therefore leverage their development efforts
more easily), may not take full advantage of the Macintosh interface.  Instead,
they might develop for the lowest common denominator between Windows and the
Macintosh.  To combat this tendency, Apple should encourage Macintosh
developers to take full advantage of the Macintosh interface.  This will help
them offer products that are superior to those which only take advantage of a
subset of the Macintosh system's capabilities.


Macintosh Advantages over Similar PC Applications

Even when the same applications run on the Macintosh and the PC, the Macintosh
version should have a number of advantages over the PC version, such as:

Better performance.  Windows has a graphical user-interface which, like the
Macintosh, requires substantial overhead.  This additional overhead decreases
the performance of IBM compatible machines.  The Macintosh benefits from this
trend toward graphics, since Motorola processors have an advantage over Intel
processors in performing graphics, and since Quickdraw appears to be better
optimized for graphics performance than equivalent Windows graphics routines
(and presumably Presentation Manager routines).  Therefore, similar
applications should usually be faster running on the Macintosh II than under
Windows on the PS/2 Model 80 (or other 386-based systems).  PageMaker is an
example of that, as it is 60% faster on the Macintosh II than on the Model 80.
And we expect that OS/2 Presentation Manager will have performance degradation
similar to Windows.

However, the Macintosh graphics performance edge could be minimized by the
advent of inexpensive graphics coprocessors.  As the price of these
coprocessors decreases (the cheapest are currently priced around $750), more PC
users will purchase them and thus significantly improve the speed of their
Windows-based applications.

Consistency of applications.  Today, Macintosh applications are much more
consistent than IBM applications.  The interface of Windows-based applications
is very different than non-Windows applications, which are the vast majority of
MS-DOS applications.  However, as Windows and Presentation Manager become
standards, applications in the IBM environment will become more consistent,
since they will all have a somewhat similar graphical user interface.  However,
we do not believe that applications under Windows and Presentation Manager will
achieve the degree of consistency that has been obtained with the Macintosh for
the following reasons:

•  Large developers may not follow Microsoft's lead.  For obvious political
reasons, the major PC developers (like Lotus and Ashton-Tate) may not let an
aggressive competitor like Microsoft dictate the look and feel of their own
products.
•  IBM developers are used to autonomy.  IBM software developers are used to
writing programs in the way that seems best and fastest to them.  They may
ignore recommendations from IBM or Microsoft when they feel they have a better
idea for their applications.
•  IBM developers already have a huge stake in existing interfaces.  To an
experienced 1-2-3 or dBASE user, any new interface—which presumably will
incorporate new ways to implement familiar operations—is likely to be more
confusing than helpful.  It's probable that a Windows-like interface will
someday be a standard for new applications, but mainstream developers may not
switch to a new interface without a fight.
•  Poor performance of OS/2 may lead to poorly-behaved applications.  If OS/2
and the Presentation Manager limit the performance of the application, then
developers will be tempted to write programs that circumvent OS/2.  This could
lead to applications with varying interfaces.

We believe that Macintosh applications will be more consistent than IBM
applications.  However, the fact that many Macintosh applications are being
ported to the PC will diminish that advantage, since those Macintosh
applications will be consistent on the PC.  We can see that in PC Excel and PC
PageMaker.  Since both are ports of consistent Macintosh applications, they are
also consistent when running under Windows.

Easier to share information between applications.  Macintosh users can easily
transfer information between virtually all Macintosh applications.  Windows
1.04 and Windows 2.0 allow sharing of information between Windows applications
(with the added benefit of Dynamic Data Exchange), but only limited sharing
between non-Windows applications (you can only copy and paste information a
screen at a time).  With Windows/386, which requires a 386-based machine,
Windows applications have better but still limited information sharing with
non-Windows applications.

Easier to configure.  Many PC applications are complex to configure.  To
install a PC application, the user must configure it to run with the correct
drivers, such as printer drivers.  In contrast, a user can install most
Macintosh applications in less than a minute.

Furthermore, the PC environment makes it very difficult to use more than 640 KB
of memory.    There are expanded memory work-arounds for this limitation (for
example, by using an EMS card supporting the LIM 4.0 specification), however,
many users do not want to bother with the complexity of installing and
configuring expanded memory.  The Macintosh supports up to 16 MB of memory
automatically.

Macintosh applications are lower priced.  As shown in Figures 1 and 2, many
Macintosh applications are priced slightly lower than similar MS-DOS
applications.  For example, PageMaker on the Macintosh is $200 less than
PageMaker on the PC.  OS/2 applications that are not simply ports from MS-DOS
are expected to be much more expensive than MS-DOS applications.  Yankee Group
predicts that MS-DOS packages that cost $495-$695 today will cost $895-$1,295
under OS/2.  The reasons for price increases for OS/2 applications are:

•  Developers must invest heavily to write OS/2 applications since OS/2 is a
complex environment and developing for it requires a lot of work.
•  Applications running under OS/2 will be larger and offer much more
functionality than MS-DOS applications.
•  Large system software vendors are used to charging more.  Very sophisticated
applications will be developed for OS/2, often from vendors accustomed to
charging tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for minicomputer and
mainframe applications, thus leading to ever greater per-application prices.
•  Customers (most likely Fortune 2000 corporations) who are willing to pay $325
for OS/2 Standard Edition or $795 for OS/2 Extended Edition are likely to be
willing to pay more for applications.

If OS/2 applications are much more expensive than similar Macintosh
applications, that could encourage customers to purchase the Macintosh rather
than an IBM compatible.  However, that might also give the perception that OS/2
applications offer more functionality than Macintosh applications.  Moreover,
developers may be motivated to write for OS/2 since they know they can charge a
higher price and still be competitive with other OS/2 applications.

Macintosh operating system is easier to use.  The Macintosh environment has a
number of advantages over the Windows environment (and presumably the OS/2
Presentation Manager environment, since Microsoft claims that it is identical
to the Windows 2.0 and Windows/386 interface).  PC Magazine (11/24/87, p. 98)
states that "The Windows Executive is laughable when compared with the Mac
operating system and interface."  An easier to use operating system will
benefit application users.  Here are a few reasons why application users can be
more productive on the Macintosh than on the PC:

•  Fewer file name limitations.  All MS-DOS applications require that file names
be limited to eight characters plus a three character extension.  Macintosh
file names can be up to 31 characters long, which allows them to be much more
descriptive.
•  PC users must understand MS-DOS.  The MS-DOS Executive is only a shell over
MS-DOS (and presumably OS/2); it is not a replacement for them.  Therefore,
even when working with Windows or Presentation Manager, a user must still know
operating system commands.  In contrast, a Macintosh user never needs to type
in a command to work with the Macintosh operating system.
•  Folders more intuitive than subdirectories.  Using Windows' MS-DOS Executive,
it is difficult to navigate through the various subdirectories, especially when
files have to be moved between assorted directories.  A user has to deal with
back slashes (\), periods (..), and path names when working with
subdirectories.  The Macintosh, on the other hand, has folders that are easy to
open and close and move files between.
•  Opening documents is easier.  Using MS-DOS, the application itself must be
loaded before any document can be opened.  Using the MS-DOS Executive, opening
the document may load the appropriate program, but it may instead load an
incorrect program which uses the same filename extension.  With the Macintosh,
each document has a file header (invisible to the user) which tells the
Macintosh which program originally created the document.  When the document is
double-clicked, the operating system looks through the entire disk to find the
appropriate application, loads it, and then opens the document.


PC Advantages over Similar Macintosh Applications

The PC version of a program may have the following advantages over the
Macintosh version:

Dynamic Data Exchange.  Windows and OS/2 support Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE),
which is an interprocess communications protocol that allows applications to
provide other programs with information that is continuously updated.  The
concept is similar to the HotView facility in Jazz, where information that is
changed in a spreadsheet will also be changed in a word processing document if
the documents are linked together.  In Windows and OS/2 this facility will work
between various applications.  For example, a communications program could
connect to a mainframe, download current financial information, and
automatically update a spreadsheet.  Each time new information was available,
the spreadsheet would be automatically updated.  One current limitation of DDE
is that it only works within a single machine; one application cannot provide
information to another application across a network.

Apple is developing an interprocess communications protocol for MultiFinder.
This protocol will offer capabilities similar to DDE.

Better text transfer.  Windows offers Rich Text Format which extends the
capabilities of text processing and desktop publishing.  Currently, on the
Macintosh, text information that is copied to the Clipboard loses its
formatting information, such as typeface, style, and size.  Document level
information such as margins, tab stops, headers and footers, and footnotes is
also lost.  Rich Text Format defines formats to retain these kinds of
information about text.  Programs that operate on text files from many
different sources, such as spelling checkers and desktop publishing programs,
will be able to take advantage of these extensions.

Additional capabilities due to extra development work.  When developers
perceive that the market potential for applications on the PC is greater than
that for the Macintosh, they may put extra resources on the PC application.
This could lead to additional features on the PC product that are not inherent
in the PC architecture but are simply due to greater development effort.  PC
Excel and Blyth's OMNIS Quartz are applications that have significantly more
capabilities on the PC side, and we believe that the additional capabilities
were caused by the developer working harder on the PC product than on the
Macintosh product.


Summary and Outlook

This ROM discussed the fact that applications are increasingly being moved
between the Macintosh and the PC, and that this movement has both positive and
negative implications for Apple.  The negative implications primarily occur
when the best Macintosh applications are ported to the PC and the PC version
leapfrogs past the Macintosh version in functionality.  In light of the
negative consequences, it is important for Apple to continue exploring ways
encourage developers to write for the Macintosh first and keep the Macintosh
application superior.