The MacBook Neo is everything Microsoft dreamed of with the disastrous Windows 8
It was 2012 and Windows 8 He defied all canons. The mouse and keyboard were no longer enough: Microsoft wanted let’s touch the computerthat we handle it like an iPhone. That ambition led to the birth of one of the operating systems most original and brave in history. And also one of the most hated. Its greatest architect, Steven Sinofskyhas compared that launch almost 15 years ago with that of MacBook Neo which has just occurred and has left a clear message: with Windows 8 Microsoft was right. The only problem is that they arrived too soon. The Mac Neo is a “paradigm shift”. In its ‘Hardcore Software’ newsletter, Sinosky counted how he had bought one of the new MacBook Neo in “citrus” color with 512 GB of storage and “it completely blew my mind. It is a computer that changes the paradigm.” Their impressions coincide with other independent reviews: the performance of this device is indistinguishable from that of a conventional MacBook Air in everyday tasks. And that despite use a phone chip and not a “pure” laptop one. Windows 8 nostalgia. The use of the Neo has generated a feeling of melancholy and sadness in Sinosky when remembering his time at Microsoft. This Apple product is in fact the culmination of a concept that he tried to push more than a decade ago. At Microsoft they believed that a Windows laptop with an ARM processor made sense, and Sinofsky led that vision that led to the launch of Windows 8 and later Windows RT and the Surface RT. we were right. The MacBook Neo is for this former Microsoft executive the demonstration that he and his company were right when they tried to launch that product. According to him Windows on ARM and the Original Surface from 2012 They were not a technical error: that computer had an NVIDIA Tegra chip, 2 GB of RAM and 64 GB of storage, and “it had no problems running Office or browsing.” In his opinion, the hardware and software were not green – a very debatable point – and the failure was something else. People don’t like changes. Sinofsky explains that the mistake was trying to move the ecosystem to a new application model too quickly. “People wanted the old Windows application model,” but there was no way at the time to make it more efficient or secure, “it was designed for another era.” Microsoft certainly had the problem that its installed base was mostly conservative users: proposing a change as big as that, jump to an ARM architecture for goodit was unviable. Apple knew how to transition. Apple’s triumph with its ARM chips was due to the fact that its transition process has lasted almost two decades. During that time the company has been eliminating old code and obsolete APIs, allowing a smooth transition to its own Apple Silicon chips. Being early is not being wrong. Sinofksy also highlights how often being first on an idea—as was the case with Windows 8 or the Surface ARM—is often mistaken for being wrong, when in fact the problem was the execution of the ecosystem transition and not the concept itself. Reasonable sacrifices. Although there are clear hardware limitations (fewer ports, slightly different screen, smaller trackpad), they are irrelevant compared to the efficiency and portability of the device. The MacBook Neo is the definitive Chromebook. Apple’s affordable equipment is for this manager a “better Chromebook” focused on productivity, which is just the rescue plan he proposed for Windows RT after his departure from Microsoft in 2012. His vision, he argues, was the right one: the transition to ultra-efficient ARM devices was the inevitable future of personal computing. Yes, but. Sinofsky’s arguments are powerful, but also debatable. To begin with, Windows 8 and RT were designed to be much more “touchable”, but the touch interface has never gone beyond being an accessory in convertibles with Windows. Apple has in fact not touched the MacBook Neo operating system and has moved away from the idea of the iPad converted to laptop. This is a MacBook with a cell phone chip, yes, but with a desktop operating system designed to be used with a keyboard and mouse. Without further ado. The condemnation legacy. There is another element that made it almost impossible for Windows RT to succeed: Microsoft had been feeding a monster called Windows on x86 architectures for a quarter of a century. End users could certainly have assumed an architectural change, but things were much more complicated in companies, where Windows adoption was massive. And of course, there are the apps. Applications that ran well on x86 ran poorly or not at all on Windows RT with ARM chips. Although Microsoft tried to address that problem —keep doing it with the “standard” of PC Copilot+—, he never completely succeeded and the public perception was clear: I don’t trust that the app I use on my x86 PC works well on an ARM PC. Apple overcame that obstacle with its Rosetta emulation layer (an invisible bridge) and the support of users and developers, but for them it was clearly simpler: they did not have the burden of millions of computers running legacy applications in offices and servers. Microsoft attempted a radical “clean slate” that left users without their long-standing programs. The Copilot+ PCs promised something like this. Microsoft actually wanted to resurrect the concept recently. The launch of the Copilot+ PCs relied heavily on ARM chips such as those manufactured by Qualcomm. The promise was that we would have cheap laptops, with enormous autonomy and that also no longer had compatibility problems with the software. The reality? The prices are basically the same as those of Intel/AMD equivalents, and although there are improvements in autonomy, the perception is that there is nothing particularly differential in this bet by Microsoft and some manufacturers. This is an opportunity. But all is not lost. Microsoft and manufacturers have in the MacBook Neo a demonstration that the concept … Read more
