Despite the positive reception for Apple’s iTunes for Windows, nearly half (43 per cent) of Macworld Online readers believe the company should not port any more software to Windows.
However, a quarter (24 per cent) of readers say Apple should develop a version of iChat AV for Windows, while Safari for Windows is on the wish-list of a further 14 per cent.
A total of 6 per cent of readers would like to see a Windows version of iPhoto, but only 4 per cent are happy to see Final Cut Pro, iMovie, and Keynote port to Windows.
A Windows iChat, was a must-have for two forum users. One said: "At the moment I can speak to my PC mates only using MSN Messenger." The other stressed: "iChat should be compatible with AOL Instant Messenger. Currently it is a niche product for Mac nerds to say ‘Wow, I’m talking to another Mac nerd 6,000 miles away.’ It’s totally pointless."
The prospect of Safari for Windows caused the most heated debate. Some readers don’t think Safari is ready to compete head-on with Internet Expolorer. One said: "In my experience IE 6 on PC is noticeably faster than Safari on Mac, which offers less compatibility."
Other readers say Apple has the perfect opportunity to win over Internet Explorer users with Safari now that Microsoft is caught in the development of Longhorn.
Don’t give Windows an iLife For some Apple’s iLife apps should never be ported: "If they are then there will be less incentive to buy a Mac." Another said: "If Apple is planning to release a version of iMovie for Windows, major features should be removed, so that if a customer wants particular features, they need a Mac."
Poll respondees are spilt over whether Final Cut Pro should be ported. One said: "It might be worth converting just to see it become an industry standard." Another believes that "porting Final Cut Pro to the PC could be disastrous for Mac users, as Adobe might react by withdrawing Photoshop from the Mac platform".
Leave well alone For some Macworld readers iTunes for Windows is enough: "iTunes is all the taste Windows users need to be able to see how much better Apple's software is."
Another said: "iTunes for Windows makes commercial sense because it is a piece in the iTunes/Music Store/iPod jigsaw. It raises the profile of Apple. No other Apple software offers that sort of potential, and so there would be no commercial case for porting it to Windows."
As for Windows ports of Apple applications winning over Windows users, one reader prophesizes that "if Apple applications are the ones people use and like then they may well look at a Mac next time they buy a PC".
Even though there was no Mac OS X for Windows poll option, this didn’t stop one respondee demanding a Windows port of Apple’s OS: "If Microsoft is such a long way off releasing its next OS, Apple releasing Panther for PC would knock people's socks off! Apple would gain credibility, and Macs would be seen by PC users as a PC instead of a fancy computer for creatives."
Not all readers agreed: "The Microsoft OS deals with a mindbogglingly diverse set of hardware and peripherals. Apple on the other hand pretty much knows exactly what hardware it is dealing with when it writes an OS. I don't think Apple has the time or money to attempt to cater for the huge and diverse range of PC hardware."