or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs - Page 10

post #361 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
... Games were, and to some degree still are the technical benchmark for a platform. You just can't abandon that ground to the competition without a serious fight.

I am sorry for the fate of Mac game developers but like it or not, I think their time is up. Frankly, I hope I'm wrong. You see, I don't really want them to leave anymore than you really want me to leave. Perhaps it is possible that all this focus on being able to play games on a Mac will inspire them to do something, well, out of the box. We will all find out together. Nobody's leaving the platform. Things are just now getting interesting.

That was my whole point. I didn't like the way you put it... 'good riddance'. Like you wanted them to leave. There are people out there trying to make a difference. I've actually spent the last 30 minutes browsing macgamestore and insidemacgames. I had no idea there were so many games for the mac. I haven't heard of a lot of them and they are from semi-large companies. I think this is the other thing that bothers me. I browse mac websites daily. Macnn, macworld, arstechica, macrumors, appleinsider, thinksecret, dealmac... I keep up on the mac news as closely as I can... and again... haven't heard of most of these games. I think that is a failure on our part. Not getting the word out so these games CAN sell and make a profit to INVEST into engineering NEW games. I am definitely adding insidemacgames.com to my daily list of websites now.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #362 of 511
For those of you wondering about mac gaming history...

Here is a cool list of 20 games that mattered most to the mac gaming platform

20 games that mattered most

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #363 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
For those of you wondering about mac gaming history...

Here is a cool list of 20 games that mattered most to the mac gaming platform

20 games that mattered most

BULL! no sim ant!
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #364 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
BULL! no sim ant!

LOL yah there were a lot of games I would have added to that list. Remember spectrum 2000? Chuck Yeager's Flight Sim? I miss the good old days when I had time to play games

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #365 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Also as far as I can think this is one rare occasion where major software dominates its industry is Windows only.

I can't think of much other major software in that same position.

Accounting, CAE, Case tools, reporting, project management, financial tools....

Macs have a good showing in creative applications but in business applications they really struggle to make a mark.
post #366 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
For those of you wondering about mac gaming history...

Here is a cool list of 20 games that mattered most to the mac gaming platform

20 games that mattered most

I am showing my age here, but I am very glad they have Dark Castle as number one.. what a super game.

Missing IMO are Ultima I II and III...
post #367 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Corey
The long term is the unknown. The Commodore Amiga went this route by being able to run multiple OS's. In the end, it died a horrid death as developers didn't bother to make Amiga software or made piss poor Amiga versions... As customers could boot in other OS's, why bother making an Amiga version?

I wouldn't attribute the death of the Amiga to Commodore shipping 286/386 Bridgeboards or to apps like Shapeshifter. The blame is firmly on Commodore trying to be a PC manufacturer and not updating the Amiga hardware and OS in a timely fashion.

AGA was late.
The A600 and A4000 were too little, too late.
The A3000+ Actuator hardware was canned by management.
Ed Hepler's Hombre chipset was never taped out.
post #368 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The thing was that there was a good community of OS/2 developers growing, at the time, and it was considered to be a good move by analysts in the industry.

Back when Windows 3.0 shipped I was working for a compiler company with software written on mainly DOS, OS/2 and UNIX/Motif. Prior to 3.0, nobody really took Windows seriously as a business platform to develop for but you could see the writing was on the wall for OS/2 as soon as Windows 3.0 shipped. It was cheaper, faster, needed less RAM and hard disk and ran more software. At the time OS/2 was at v1.2 remember, way before the nice Workplace Shell and being able to run Windows apps alongside OS/2 apps.

Sure, us techies proclaimed 3.0 do-do as OS/2 had proper multi tasking, networking, CommsManager, DB2 and was a fully formed modern OS with a flat protect mode memory space and no DOS legacy .

But Windows got the applications, Samna's AmiPro, Microsoft Excel, 123... On OS/2 you had Describe and a crappy port of Wordperfect who just didn't get GUIs at all.

Then, before OS/2 2.0, I was working with prototype Windows NT 3.1 as it became later. OS/2's goose was cooked in late 1993 as far as us developers were concerned. IBM weren't even using it on their PS/2s and developer support from IBM was terrible compared to Microsoft.
post #369 of 511
Originally posted by emig647
... And I stand by that comment because if you had any developing experience you wouldn't be saying these kinds of things....I'm insulted to be honest. I am a developer. I work my ass off. Just like most developers. A lot of blood / sweat / tears / money / time go into making games....



Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers
Developers, developers, developers, developers

(sorry for the smartass comment couldn't help it )
post #370 of 511
Microsoft just acquired another gaming company, Lionhead Studios. Why can't Apple at least TRY to take interest in gamers?
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #371 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Green
Microsoft just acquired another gaming company, Lionhead Studios. Why can't Apple at least TRY to take interest in gamers?

I can't see Lionhead making money if it became a Mac only shop though. It was having enough trouble doing PC games. Pity too, as Molyeneux has come up with some of the few games I actually like - games that require thought instead of tripe like Doom and all the FPS clones thereof (Quake, Halo, Half life. blech! - how original).

Last game I played that was any good was Darwinia and even that wasn't a patch on the old Bullfrog classics.
post #372 of 511
Ouch. Quake[4] and HalfLife[2] as "tripe" That's harsh. I like FPS because it's action, there's a plot, it doesn't require much thinking, and you get to kill lots of stuff and let all that rage out. Plus its nice to see how the developers are pushing 3d graphics to their limit. Plus other elements like physics, weapon design, character design, level design...
post #373 of 511
For those of you who didn't see half-life2 running smoothly on an iMac, here it is again!



and again! (That's Bill Gates in the car!)
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #374 of 511
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ireland
For those of you who didn't see half-life2 on an iMac, here it is again!


Heh.. Is that a F.E.A.R. icon somewhere there on the desktop?
post #375 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The Amiga died a horrible death because it was owned by a company that was useless. The Amiga didn't receive support from Commodore. It had nothing to do with multiple OS's.

I dissagree. The software companies did a terrible job supporting Amiga OS (as did Commodore as you point out.) As a result whenever friends were using their Amigas (I never owned one) they used another OS 80% of the time. The Amiga was a doer of all and a master of none that had a painfully low market share and thus encouraged software companies to take the cheap/easy road knowing that Amiga users had other options than just Amiga OS.

What is Apple's market share now hmmm? And this is happening right as some software companies are having a hard time porting to Intel Mac's...

Corey
post #376 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
It doesn't matter if steve made the decision or not. It was going to..... / ALREADY did happen. And from this point it was only going to get easier and easier to dual boot. Steve made the decision a long time ago when he decided apple was moving to x86.

This is true. But by releasing an Apple dual-boot solution, they fixed the problems that the Windoze hack had. It would likely have taken the hacker community until next year to make it as smooth as Boot Camp.

The hack wasn't nearly ready for prime time in many ways. Boot Camp runs so well that Windoze is now a legitimate option.

Corey
post #377 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Accounting, CAE, Case tools, reporting, project management, financial tools....

Macs have a good showing in creative applications but in business applications they really struggle to make a mark.

We are starting to get some good management tools coming. The lack of much of this kind of support is one of the reasons why larger companies give for not going to Macs. Hopefully we will see more of this, for larger companies;

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9153/
post #378 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I wouldn't attribute the death of the Amiga to Commodore shipping 286/386 Bridgeboards or to apps like Shapeshifter. The blame is firmly on Commodore trying to be a PC manufacturer and not updating the Amiga hardware and OS in a timely fashion.

AGA was late.
The A600 and A4000 were too little, too late.
The A3000+ Actuator hardware was canned by management.
Ed Hepler's Hombre chipset was never taped out.

Commodore was a strange company. for the very short time they advertised the Amiga on Tv, sales surged. But, they stopped after a few months. They were pretty good ads too. Remember, scientists and astronauts coming to this kids home so that he could solve problems for them with his Amiga? Good effects for the time.

But, like you said, they failed in every other way. I had friends who were developing for it early, but they gave up because of the lack of good tools, and the large number of bugs in Workbench.

I was using Atari St's at the time. Another good system wasted because of greedy management.
post #379 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Back when Windows 3.0 shipped I was working for a compiler company with software written on mainly DOS, OS/2 and UNIX/Motif. Prior to 3.0, nobody really took Windows seriously as a business platform to develop for but you could see the writing was on the wall for OS/2 as soon as Windows 3.0 shipped. It was cheaper, faster, needed less RAM and hard disk and ran more software. At the time OS/2 was at v1.2 remember, way before the nice Workplace Shell and being able to run Windows apps alongside OS/2 apps.

Sure, us techies proclaimed 3.0 do-do as OS/2 had proper multi tasking, networking, CommsManager, DB2 and was a fully formed modern OS with a flat protect mode memory space and no DOS legacy .

But Windows got the applications, Samna's AmiPro, Microsoft Excel, 123... On OS/2 you had Describe and a crappy port of Wordperfect who just didn't get GUIs at all.

Then, before OS/2 2.0, I was working with prototype Windows NT 3.1 as it became later. OS/2's goose was cooked in late 1993 as far as us developers were concerned. IBM weren't even using it on their PS/2s and developer support from IBM was terrible compared to Microsoft.

I remember. It was too bad. a lot of that was because they wouldn't put in their machines. Developers began to feel that if IBM didn't feel confident in it, then, why should they. The thing that killed it other than that, was that last gasp of allowing Windows apps to run. IBM's development moved away from desktops, as I said, and just remained with development for large internal uses. That was no way to compete with more general use OS's.

It's different with OS X, of course. X has plenty of apps, and a small, but vibrant, user base that is expanding.
post #380 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Corey
I dissagree. The software companies did a terrible job supporting Amiga OS (as did Commodore as you point out.) As a result whenever friends were using their Amigas (I never owned one) they used another OS 80% of the time. The Amiga was a doer of all and a master of none that had a painfully low market share and thus encouraged software companies to take the cheap/easy road knowing that Amiga users had other options than just Amiga OS.

What is Apple's market share now hmmm? And this is happening right as some software companies are having a hard time porting to Intel Mac's...

Corey

The software companies didn't support it well because many found out from the beginning that Amiga's OS was so buggy, that it was difficult to develop for. A few companies stayed with it because it offered unique, for the time, features.

But, Commodores failure to fix the many problems, as well as the failure to continue to upgrade the software or hardware properly, or to advertise it well, caused many to give up in disgust.

Please don't compare Apple to Commodore. There is nothing in common there. Commodore had one app that was major Lightwave. And, from the same company, Toaster. That was it! The rest of the programs, except for two good publishing programs that were also on the Atari St, and ran much better on the Atari, they had nothing important.
post #381 of 511
Don't forget. Microsoft does NOT make computers. They are primarily a software company with their main software being Winodws OS and Microsoft Office. So it actually HELPS Microsoft to be selling more copies of Winodws OS than before.

As Apple makes both an OS and a computer, but computer sales are the main business within the company (excluding iPod of course) allowing Dell or eMachine to sell $300 POS machines with Mac OS X would take greatly away from Apple's revenue.

In the near future as Macs become more popular (this is assuming they will...as they have been the past few years), both Apple and Microsoft markets will grow. This is because as Apple's market grows and the pure Windows/PC market shrinks, people will still want Microsoft on their new Mac.

But, Eventually people will use Mac OS X more and more, and subsequently Windows less and less untill the Mac market is fairly large and those with windows are people who need it for a specific reason only. Then again, if the Mac market increases as much as described above, games and business/enterprise software will be more available for the Mac, elimiating the need for windows.

On a seperate now about Windows and Mac OS X on a Mac, Apple via Leopard needs to make it more integrated to have the best solution. For those users that have smaller hard drives, creating partitions will be very annoying in terms of disk usage. Also, I think it is important that people be able to run windows applications without running windows itself. I know I for one would make use of the ability of running Windows as a seperate OS, however many people don't give a shit about what OS system they are running... as long as it runs the programs they want to run, is fast, looks nice, and is secure. Thus for many people, Mac OS X running Windows programs with a full-speed emulator (programs run at the same speed or close to the same speed they would run under windows) would be the best solution.
post #382 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Green
This has to be a low point for Apple. Sure it made them money, but Apple is known more for class than sheer greed. One thing you'll never see is Ferrari supporting Ford parts because there are more Ford parts available to their customers.

This whole Windows on a Mac thing makes me sick in principle alone. The fact that so many Mac users are jumping in bed with Bill lets you really know the state of affairs for Apple users.

For those of us that still believe that Steve is looking out for us rather than selling us out, I'd like to think that this wasn't Steve's idea and that this was forced on him. It's like Boeing telling Airbus that they will start buying their avionics from them.

It's a sad day when people get on their knees and beg for Windows on a Mac.

It really is a cold day in Hell.

Yeah, okay.
post #383 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Accounting, CAE, Case tools, reporting, project management, financial tools....

Macs have a good showing in creative applications but in business applications they really struggle to make a mark.

Here's new support from Symantec. pcAnywhere 12.

If this continues to pick up, Macs will become integrated before too long.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/04/...canywhere.120/
post #384 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
On a seperate now about Windows and Mac OS X on a Mac, Apple via Leopard needs to make it more integrated to have the best solution. For those users that have smaller hard drives, creating partitions will be very annoying in terms of disk usage. Also, I think it is important that people be able to run windows applications without running windows itself. I know I for one would make use of the ability of running Windows as a seperate OS, however many people don't give a shit about what OS system they are running... as long as it runs the programs they want to run, is fast, looks nice, and is secure. Thus for many people, Mac OS X running Windows programs with a full-speed emulator (programs run at the same speed or close to the same speed they would run under windows) would be the best solution.

Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #385 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P

I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.

running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all

I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.

At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.

I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.

At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #386 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.

I went through this in previous posts...

But, no it takes more ram, cpu cycles, and northbridge cycles. OS X is the main os. Any application has to get permission to access any hardware or do anything. If it wasn't set up like this (like windows 98 wasn't) any application could grab a hold of part of the hardware (graphics card for instance), do something naughty and lock it. Because the OS gave up complete control it would have no way to recover. So it is set up now days that the OS always has complete control. So in order for windows be virtualized correctly it would need to ask permission to use these controls... where actually running windows (dual boot if you want) would be the controller instead of the controllee. Because it is the controllee it has to ask for these "permissions" to access things. Can it freely access ram? yah for the most part... (because it is thought of as an application), BUT it won't be able to freely access things like graphics cards, ports, etc without OS X. So there is always going to be some overhead from os x.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #387 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.

running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all

I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.

At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.

I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.

At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.

Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.
post #388 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.

Well damn, I wish I just would have used your short comment to be concise and clear.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #389 of 511
Personally I think Leopard will not have one being able to just run .exe files willy-nilly. Just creates too much of a mess. It would jack up the OS X interface massively. It is highly possible though that in addition to dual-boot, Apple will have Windows running "sandboxed" via their own VirtualPC-type application.

Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.

We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.

If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.

But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.

There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.

At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.

In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."

The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?

There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.
post #390 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Personally I think Leopard will not have one being able to just run .exe files willy-nilly. Just creates too much of a mess. It would jack up the OS X interface massively. It is highly possible though that in addition to dual-boot, Apple will have Windows running "sandboxed" via their own VirtualPC-type application.

Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.

We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.

If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.

But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.

There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.

At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.

In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."

The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?

There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.

I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.

Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.
post #391 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
internet cyberherpes

The bane of Windows users everywhere!
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 #392 of 511
FYI Here's the thread on virtualization and parallels:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=62515
post #393 of 511
Originally posted by melgross
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.



smartass
maybe he'll be giving free intel iMacs to all AppleInsider members
post #394 of 511
Would it not have been better for Apple to release Boot Camp (non-beta) with Leopard later in the year? That way the development of Universal Binary (UB) versions of most of the Mac apps would be well underway, and the risk of Mac development stopping completely would have been minimised. After all, this is the greatest fear most of us have here - that Mac development will dwindle and die. If you add the ability to boot into XP within a Mac, to the difficulty that some developers have in writing the UB versions, then there's another reason to drop support. However, the more development time that is committed to UB, the less likely they are to back out completely. So, a few more months delay in release of Boot Camp would have been sensible IMO. Of course the hacks were well on their way to getting a fully functional Windows-on-a-Mac (WOAM) solution, but this was for the adventurous few. The simplicity and ease of set-up that Boot Camp offers brings WOAM within reach of many more people.

Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.

Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.

Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything" Robert Zemeckis/Bob Gale/Robert_E._Lee
Reply
post #395 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
That was my whole point. I didn't like the way you put it... 'good riddance'. Like you wanted them to leave. There are people out there trying to make a difference. I've actually spent the last 30 minutes browsing macgamestore and insidemacgames. I had no idea there were so many games for the mac. I haven't heard of a lot of them and they are from semi-large companies. I think this is the other thing that bothers me. I browse mac websites daily. Macnn, macworld, arstechica, macrumors, appleinsider, thinksecret, dealmac... I keep up on the mac news as closely as I can... and again... haven't heard of most of these games. I think that is a failure on our part. Not getting the word out so these games CAN sell and make a profit to INVEST into engineering NEW games. I am definitely adding insidemacgames.com to my daily list of websites now.

Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?

However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.
post #396 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?

However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.

I wasn't insinuating to buy inferior mac ports. I was just saying he should have had more respect for the people that have worked hard to bring entertainment to the mac.

But either way, it doesn't hurt to throw a few dollars to a starving developer

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #397 of 511
I know a few things that will happen by the end of 2006! Leopard will be cool, apple's sales will rise, and the business world will sit up and take notice!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #398 of 511
It's all possible

Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.

If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.

And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #399 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.



smartass



Maybe so.

But, it does fit the concept of what you were saying doesn't it?

Quote:
maybe he'll be giving free intel iMacs to all AppleInsider members

Only if we're good, and eat all of our veggies.
post #400 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Mobius
Would it not have been better for Apple to release Boot Camp (non-beta) with Leopard later in the year? That way the development of Universal Binary (UB) versions of most of the Mac apps would be well underway, and the risk of Mac development stopping completely would have been minimised. After all, this is the greatest fear most of us have here - that Mac development will dwindle and die. If you add the ability to boot into XP within a Mac, to the difficulty that some developers have in writing the UB versions, then there's another reason to drop support. However, the more development time that is committed to UB, the less likely they are to back out completely. So, a few more months delay in release of Boot Camp would have been sensible IMO. Of course the hacks were well on their way to getting a fully functional Windows-on-a-Mac (WOAM) solution, but this was for the adventurous few. The simplicity and ease of set-up that Boot Camp offers brings WOAM within reach of many more people.

Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.

Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.

Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?

Eveerything you said here is right.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs