or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Intel Macs do Windows?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Intel Macs do Windows? - Page 2

post #41 of 90
I never meant they would literally say it. I'm saying thats what they will think. Why bother, they can run it now if they want anyway. So keep sending the same generic email saying "We have looked into the matter, but have no intension of doing a Mac port at this time."

Blah Blah Blah
Technical guy.
Softimage.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #42 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I never meant they would literally say it. I'm saying thats what they will think. Why bother, they can run it now if they want anyway. So keep sending the same generic email saying "We have looked into the matter, but have no intension of doing a Mac port at this time."

Blah Blah Blah
Technical guy.
Softimage.

Say it, think it, whatever. They still have to be pretty dim to use dualboot as an excuse, when they've had so many, much more compelling excuses before.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #43 of 90
I think Tulkas makes a pretty convincing argument. I wouldn't say I was worried about the future of Apple hardware, but certainly uncomfortable with the uncertainty of it all. Tulkas does a nice job of spelling things out in a way that seems highly plausible.

The future holds all the answers.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
If a developer says "hey, users can just boot their Macs into Windows, so I can avoid doing a Mac version", they are either a) retarded or b) looking for an reason to not do the Mac version. In either case, they already have a better reason for not doing Mac version for Mac users...that reason is cheap Windows PCs. If all they need is to say "you can already use it", they already have that excuse.

Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here. One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
rebooting is a pain, and no intelligent developer is going to say "hey, people can reboot their Macs into Windows, so they don't need a Mac version". None. Before they get to that point, they would have already found far more intelligent and compelling reasons not to do Mac software, i.e. cheap PCs, tiny Mac marketshare, dominance of Windows etc.

Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.

Agreed. This whole fixation with running Windows on a Mac so misses the point. Based on what we know now--strongly suspect, anyway--the Windows experience on Intel-based Macs will be substantially better than it is on PPC-based Macs. That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.
post #45 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here.

Virtual machine or virtual environments are a much different situation for Apple than alowing dual boots. I agree that anything that allows users to run Windows apps at full speed within their Mac environment, presents a risk to Apple, and has to be treated as such. I would still hold that even that will be too confusing for some users.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me

One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.

Agreed.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #46 of 90
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM". I know I will use it when I get an x86 Mac. Apple needs to make sure that writing Mac native software is a good experience and rewards the developer. They could provide support for porting it to Windows, for example. Another possibility would be to support Microsoft's .NET fully so that Windows apps built using that technology don't just run on the Mac, but they are "native" and leverage the Apple GUI and other technologies.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM". I know I will use it when I get an x86 Mac. Apple needs to make sure that writing Mac native software is a good experience and rewards the developer. They could provide support for porting it to Windows, for example. Another possibility would be to support Microsoft's .NET fully so that Windows apps built using that technology don't just run on the Mac, but they are "native" and leverage the Apple GUI and other technologies.

bingo

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #48 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM".

And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.

Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?

They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.

Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?

They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.

Tell me the difference between Maya, or Photoshop on windows, and on OS X? There isn't any. Other than I'd rather be running May aon a Athlon, than on a G5.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #50 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.

That potential loss has to be weighted against the very significant cost of porting to OSX. Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users. As if that wasn't bad enough, after Apple starts selling X86 machines it will take several years before a sizable fraction of OSX users are actually using X86 machines. People aren't going to dump their perfectly good PPC machines for X86 ones overnight.

If I am a Windows developer who has been avoiding OSX for all these years, VirtualPC running at native speed is a very powerful reason for continuing to avoid OSX even as OSX market share grows. If I am a Windows developer who has already ported to OSX, VirtualPC running at native speed could make me reconsider having native OSX support.


Now, if Apple used the nuclear option (offering OSX86 for all modern X86 hardware), that could make OSX irresistible to even the most hardcore Windows developers out there.
post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
... Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users.

This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.
post #52 of 90
bring on the VPC (Fast Lane Version). I want a mac at work and I can't have one until AutoCad can run good.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
I continue to fail to see the reasoning behind this argument. If people are switching away from Windows the last thing they want to have to do is reboot to load software. It defeats the whole purpose of switching and is a royal pain. VPC and other virtualisation software will sell better but companies aren't going to stop porting just because Macs could run Windows simply because it'll be too much of a hassle for people to want to. I expect all current major developers will switch and customers will have the benefit of being able to switch to Macs and not run the risk of being without windows apps. I expect this will help Apple if anything. If marketshare rises so will the number of developers.

Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by mynamehere
Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.

Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.

It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.

The percentage of OSX users is relevant because only they will want to buy the OSX version of my software. If I am already selling software for Windows, adding an OSX version will increase revenues by a tiny percentage because the total pool of potential buyers will only increase by a tiny percentage in many cases. So it is that tiny percentage of potential revenue increase that needs to be compared to the potentially significant cost of porting to OSX.

I can capture some of the potential OSX revenue without having to spend one dime in porting if I tell OSX people to get a copy of VirtualPC. If I am the only Windows developer asking OSX users to get VirtualPC then maybe you are right in thinking that many would look for alternatives, it all depends on how compelling my Windows product is. However, chances are there will be other Windows developers telling OSX users to get VirtualPC. In particular, Microsoft itself might at some point start telling OSX users the same thing. So, chances are my product won't be the only reason to get VirtualPC, and that makes it much more likely OSX users will decide to get it.
post #56 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.

It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.

So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #57 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.

bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.

Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #58 of 90
Stupid if they don't, in my opinion.
post #59 of 90
One thing to consider is whether or not Microsoft cares to rewrite VPC; it most certainly will not fall under the requirements for Rosetta, and probably isn't transitioned to XCode already; even if it were, it is currently designed to translate x86 code to PPC code. No doubt a lot of the abstract work has already been done in VirtualPC for the various versions of Windows, but I'm not sure how much that will really help Microsoft.

And the effort isn't the only gotcha. Will Microsoft justify the development of a project that could potentially help drive their customers away? Only time will tell.

As far as emulation as an arguement against software porting; I think it's only a valid arguement for those developers that do not utilize Apple's technologies to make better products; and those whose software is unimportant enough for the 10-20% performance hit to be important. To quote economic reasons would generally mean that the developer wasn't commited to producing and improving a product of value to Mac users in the first place, generally.
post #60 of 90
Microsoft could make VPC transparent and run Windows apps seamlessly like Classic. This would definitely hurt Apple as an "emulated" app may be good enough at that point.

I personally would want native apps and I think these VPC apps would look weird, weirder than Classic apps mixed in with OS X. In fact I'd want VPC to emulate a standalone windows box just as it does now, this way its a far more valuable and authentic test environment.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.

Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.

I already did. My opinion is different than yours. We disagree, but you don't speak for all developers, so stop pretending you have a clue as to what all developers are considering. All of them don't think they same way about the "Apple switching to intel" issue I can guarantee you that. Although, I have spoken to a few, being that I am in a position to do so, and none seem to share your opinion on this issue. So pipe down.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #62 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I already did. My opinion is different than yours. We disagree, but you don't speak for all developers, so stop pretending you have a clue as to what all developers are considering. All of them don't think they same way about the "Apple switching to intel" issue I can guarantee you that. Although, I have spoken to a few, being that I am in a position to do so, and none seem to share your opinion on this issue. So pipe down.

That's really great that you have had the opportunity to speak to to an actual developer

I would question the intelligence of a single developer that would consider Windows on Macs to be even remotely a deciding factor to their decision to continuing or starting a Mac version.

As far not not speaking for all developers, perhaps you shouldn't make statements like "Nobody will bother to port their apps to native Mac OS if you can run both. How will Apple get any new possible developers with this switch if they really don't need to port anything."

You sure seem to be speaking for all developers. Besides, you have yet to articulate in any reasonable manner, why a dualboot Mac would hurt Apple in any way. You claim it, can't explain it.

Please explain the excuse your 'developer friends' gave you for dualboot being a factor in their decision not to do a Mac version of their software. As you say "So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest.", which seems reasonable and fairly obvious. I would love to hear their explaination. Truly.

Now, I can and have explained why I think that dualboot will not be a bad thing. I can tell you, that as long enough of our customers need and buy a Mac version of our software, we will continue developing it. I can tell you that our customers would just about shit and my managers would piss themselves laughing if I said "let's drop Mac development, because they can just reboot into Windows". Sure, someone may someday convince the powers that be that we should drop Mac development (we contract it out anyway), but it will be for a viable business reason. Dual boot is not a factor.

Oh, and before you say you meant only new Mac software would be affected..as when you mentioned using dualboot as a possible reason for SoftImage not doing XSI for Mac...someone should wake them up over there and tell them their Linux version was a waste, because their Linux customers can just reboot into Windows they want to use their software....

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #63 of 90
So, and i'm honestly not trolling, why does it matter if the mac games market dies?

Games are a very different class of app

They don't use the mac gui, or have to be especially protected from viruses..
If close to realtime emulation works, how is there any downside to having access to the PC games library, how would i even know it wasn't a native game port?

No fun for game porters i know, but having one platform to write for would be good for the wobbly PC games market
post #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
[B]That's really great that you have had the opportunity to speak to to an actual developer

Can you not realize that all do not share your opinion? Just because you want something your way it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm sorry.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Can you not realize that all do not share your opinion? Just because you want something your way it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm sorry.

I expect people to disagree with me. That's part of what makes these forums. But, when someone starts telling me to pipe down, and generally trying to speak down to me because I present counter arguements to theirs, their arguements start to look pretty weak. We're done.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #66 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
The percentage of OSX users is relevant because only they will want to buy the OSX version of my software. If I am already selling software for Windows, adding an OSX version will increase revenues by a tiny percentage because the total pool of potential buyers will only increase by a tiny percentage in many cases. ...

You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage." The developers who are making money selling Windows software are not making money because of Windows's overall marketshare, but because they cultivate the market of potential buyers of their products. In a like manner, there are developers doing quite well selling Mac software because they cultivate their markets. The "tiny percentage" argument is valid only if you rely on random chance to drive your sales. Some of the biggest software titles on the market today were developed on the Mac. If you have a good product that satisfies a need, you will succeed. If you put crap on the market, then you will probably fail--as well you should.
post #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage."

Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX. If your Windows product is so generally useful that most or all OSX users would want to buy it, then the tiny OSX market share is probably more than enough to justify the OSX port. Unfortunately many specialized but useful Windows products aren't that lucky.
post #68 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
Microsoft could make VPC transparent and run Windows apps seamlessly like Classic. This would definitely hurt Apple as an "emulated" app may be good enough at that point.

I personally would want native apps and I think these VPC apps would look weird, weirder than Classic apps mixed in with OS X. In fact I'd want VPC to emulate a standalone windows box just as it does now, this way its a far more valuable and authentic test environment.

Like WINE for OSX?
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #69 of 90
Nobody seems to be considering the possibility of reverse-migration. As in, people see pimped Apple hardware, using all the latest and greatest (and I'm not talking rage 128 and 500mhz G4s here) in sleek, slim, tech little slabs of metal with a glowing Apple logo on it, and think about getting one... you know, just to run windows on. So they buy one, and boot it up, and see this OS from the future, that is a little different from Windows but really easy to use. It's all just so... pimpin'!

So they partition their hard disk and install Windows alongside OS X. Over time, and after playing with OS X, the time they spend in Windows/OSX goes from 90/10 to 10/90. All their old, shitty windows software works; they aren't having to dive into the deep end so to speak. But the allure of OS X is too great.

This ESPECIALLY applies to geeky types who want to triple boot Linux, Windows XP and OS X. Guess which one they become more and more drawn to? OS X. Because it has the Unix underpinnings and core utilities, and a plethora of free software, such as Apple's port of XFree. Windows for games and maybe Office. OS X for everything else.

And those geeky types? They tend to be developers. Get my drift?

The people who are writing Mono (Open Source implementation of Microsoft's C#) write their code on powerbooks. They boot into linux when necessary but spend most of their time in OS X.
post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX.

But as he said: looking at the overall market share is just wrong. Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #71 of 90
There's a lot of silliness going on here. Dual boot/VPC is a win/win situation for Apple; which is why they will take a neutral stance (and behind the scenes make sure that works OK). It will enable Apple to offer some extremely compelling hardware and marketshare can only go up.

It will have very little effect on developers - for Windows only dev's it will be entirely invisible to them. Dev's under pressure for a Mac port will either see the business argument or not. Saying 'run it under VPC' is an affirmation of the status quo not a negative. For many companies in the creative markets the Mac sector usually accounts 25 - 40% of their sales (Alias, Adobe, Macromedia, Newtek, etc.) Its a market that's knowledgable, high-profile and loyal and most dev's do not regret the move. Apple must of course continue to develop (and simplify) X-Code and the abstraction of the Core Technologies (there's some fantastic stuff for audio developers in Tiger for instance)

Dual boot/VPC will NOT encourage any healthy dev's to abandon the Mac. History has shown time and time again that particular move to be the first steps toward oblivion.
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.

Of course. Any developer in that situation must have ported to OSX a long time ago. However I though we were talking about developers who haven't ported to OSX yet.

By the way, on what sofware categories would a Windows/OSX developer find 70% of potential customers on the OSX side?
post #73 of 90
Here is one Windows developer complaining about the tiny OSX market share:

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
Here is one Windows developer complaining about the tiny OSX market share:

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/

Boo-hoo! This guys have the temerity to claim that MacOS 9 was a better environment for them than MacOS X. At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.
post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
Here is one Windows developer complaining about the tiny OSX market share:

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/

And oddly they mention Qt which is indeed cross platform. It's sad they see 16% as not enough, but reading between the lines they are dropping Mac development because it's too hard.
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #76 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.

Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.
post #77 of 90
Quote:
CodeWeavers Inc. on Wednesday announced plans to support Intel-based Macs. CodeWeavers makes CrossOver and CrossOver Office. The software allows Linux users to use software designed to work on Windows operating systems without needing to have Windows installed. Whats more, CodeWeavers offers custom software porting services based on CrossOver.



http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...over/index.php
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #78 of 90
so if i want to run a program that relies on IE (a teleradiology program)will ithe above program --run it and where is virtual PC??? i need windows only for this program. i'd love to boot windows/IE on a mac.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.

You never quit, do you? The fact is that a lot of developers make money catering to Mac users and a lot of other developers lose money catering to Windows users. The thing that separates the successful developers from the unsuccessful ones is the same things that separate success from failure in any market. If you identify a need and satisfy it, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are, of course, those businesses that scavenge their markets like those sidewalk jewelers who sell Rolax watches.
post #80 of 90
1337_5L4Xx0R nailed it. If anything, a Mac that can boot Windows eases the transition for Switchers. Instead of being forced to buy all their software over again, they can just start by buying a couple of their most often used apps for OS X and running the rest in Windows. This is perfect for Apple, because it seems, based on my experience, that one's affection for OS X grows over time. After a little while these new switchers will be erasing their Windows partition and going for broke with OS X software. And for those few switchers who decide they like using Windows better, for whatever reason, they only lost a few hundred bucks on the Apple premium, and they can go back to Windows and still run it on hardware that both looks cool, and performs.

With a MacIntel, switching is no longer a major life upheaval. This is a HUGE win for Apple.

As for OS X apps disappearing because we'll be able to boot Windows on a Mac, that's just...insane. Why do Mac users spend hundreds of dollars extra to use computers that are usually slower than Wintels and have less compatibility with work and friends? Well there's lots of reason, but the primary one is OS X! Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows, and it's not an idle choice, it's a costly sacrifice to go the route of using OS X.

Will some boneheaded developer pull OS X support because Mac users can "just boot into Windows"? Maybe. But then another developer will move in to fill the void. It is highly unlikely that a company with a large OS X market presence, such as Adobe, will just give up the market because they feel like it.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what some developers think. Give me a couple days and I can round up a dozen freaks who will tell you the sky is falling. Just because developers are not of one opinion on this doesn't mean there is no truth; it means some developers are right, and some are wrong. Just because someone is a talented h4XX05 doesn't mean they're a good businessman, in fact the reverse is often true.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Intel Macs do Windows?