I'm not sure why anyone would want a dual-boot situation when Microsoft will undoubtedly create a new version of VirtualPC which will integrate very nicely into the OS X workflow (like it does now) but doesn't suck! Microsoft will jump at the chance of dumping Office Mac and push the Windows version of Office on VirtualPC. [One Office to rule them; and in the darkness bind them!]
While WINE does handle some MS games, the reality is that DirectX is a tough nut to crack; so WINE won't be the answer (any time soon). So... It's either a dual-boot situation or a VirtualPC that accesses the processor and graphics card nicely.
A dual-boot situation won't kill the Mac gaming community (too putzy for the average consumer), but a good VirtualPC might. On the other hand, there are game developer houses that are really committed to OpenGL; so there may always be a Mac gaming community. If we're lucky, we'll get the best of both worlds.
By the way... WINE works pretty nicely when used to run specialized Windows word processor & accounting programs; which is why so many businesses have switched to Linux (and still be able to run the odd program that they can't live without). But Linux is ugly - and hard - OS X is pretty - and easy. When the dust settles, you might see a lot of movement to Mac x86 computers in the business community.
ps
I bet Connectix really wishes they hadn't sold VirtualPC to Microsoft!!!
The anonymous developer has a great point. I don't think this is the death of MacOS gaming, but it looks to me a tremendous blow from which it will take time for the already weak Mac gaming market to recover.
There is no arguing with the notion that porting for two different Mac architectures will take extra time, that's just common sense. And what's bitch #1 for Mac gamers? "Why do we only get our games a year after the PC people?"
Right : if I can run PC games on my Macintosh with Intel inside CPU, why the hell should I buy a Mac version, slower and who is shipping one year later ?
I consider myself a big gamer, and aside from a few incredible Mac only sharewares, I'd dual boot into Windows in order to play the latest and greatest titles.
I'd think that in the short term, someone would come up with some kind of launcher that would quit OSX, start Windows and then start the game (or even application). I mention quitting OSX because a gamer obviously wants to free up every last resource for the game. After you finish gaming, you could have an opposite launcher to quit Windows and re-boot you into OSX.
The speeds of relaunching are acceptably low already... imagine in 1-2-3 years time.
This could very well kill gaming for Mac platform. Heck, it could kill a lot of programs for Mac specific platform.
Why should MS get its feet into the door to the Mac-platform, shouldn't it be the otherway around?
Why should anyone bother to have ported apps for OS X prior to now? I mean mac users could just run out and buy a PC. Sorry as long as there's marketshare a good portion of people won't be satisfied to dual boot or download things like WINE. There will be as much a market for native apps as there was up until now and on the upside they should be quicker to port in some cases.
Back during Rhapsody days, and before that Next days, devs could 'write-once, run anywhere' using what is now essentially the cocoa framwork. Amelio even went so fars to to claim 'We are going to make Window invisible'
A Wine type environment, that allows Windows apps to run on Macs, would discourage development of native Mac apps. In addition, Windows will be able to run on Macs and likely be dual-boot capable, which also has been shown with other platforms, to discourage native development.
I'd like to see Apple bring back a platform agnostic development environment, aka yellowbox, aka openstep, and allow the opposite of the above. Mac developers could write for MacIntel and compile for both Mac and Windows. They would then have fast dual platform releases. In contrast, those Windows developers that decide to do Mac native releases, would release their Mac software later, if at all.
This would seem to be the best way to encourage Mac native development, something Apple will desparately need if the transition is to be a success.
Why should anyone bother to have ported apps for OS X prior to now? I mean mac users could just run out and buy a PC. Sorry as long as there's marketshare a good portion of people won't be satisfied to dual boot or download things like WINE. There will be as much a market for native apps as there was up until now and on the upside they should be quicker to port in some cases.
Because installing a bootleg version of Windows on your MacIntel will be easier/cheaper than running out and buying a PC. Besides, wouldn't it be more in Apples interests if you were to run out and buy another Mac instead of a PC?
The ability of users to easily dual boot and/or run Windows native apps in a Wine-type environment will always discourage some native Mac development. Simple math. If I am developing an app, it is generally cheaper to do one version, than two.
Now, if my App could run natively on both platforms with one write.....
The ability of users to easily dual boot and/or run Windows native apps in a Wine-type environment will always discourage some native Mac development. Simple math. If I am developing an app, it is generally cheaper to do one version, than two.
That has been just as true for Macs with PPC. In fact more true as ports often took longer than they will now. More than a few companies have never bothered to support the Mac for exactly that reason. Those that are already aren't going to jump ship over this. They'll jump if Apple loses marketshare, which I don't expect will happen. In fact I think this will grow Apple's marketshare as you can now switch and be confident of still running any app and native ports will follow with that simply because it's easier.
If I'm running models in Windows I don't want to be booting back to do my day to day work. I'm going to jump on the first software teams back about a port and I doubt I'd be alone.
That has been just as true for Macs with PPC. In fact more true as ports often took longer than they will now. More than a few companies have never bothered to support the Mac for exactly that reason. Those that are already aren't going to jump ship over this. They'll jump if Apple loses marketshare, which I don't expect will happen. In fact I think this will grow Apple's marketshare as you can now switch and be confident of still running any app and native ports will follow with that simply because it's easier.
If I'm running models in Windows I don't want to be booting back to do my day to day work. I'm going to jump on the first software teams back about a port and I doubt I'd be alone.
There is a market that can not afford 2 computers's for every user. For this market alone, ignoring those that simply choose to only have 1 computer per user, there has been a reason, maybe even a compelling reason to do Mac software. If user could just as easily simply run my Windows software in a another session on the Mac, at full speed, then what reason do I have to do a full Mac port?
There is a market that can not afford 2 computers's for every user. For this market alone, ignoring those that simply choose to only have 1 computer per user, there has been a reason, maybe even a compelling reason to do Mac software. If user could just as easily simply run my Windows software in a another session on the Mac, at full speed, then what reason do I have to do a full Mac port?
Because unless you're the only app in your market, your competition will, and you lose those sales. Someone who buys a Mac is *not* going to be happy with a company that says "Oh just deal with the Windows UI. Really." They're going to look for options.
Is it possible that by doing this, as I mentioned in another thread, PC developers might look more favorably on the Mac as the primary development platform, with XCode, etc. By writing apps in XCode, they could conceivably compile them for both Mac and then PORT to PC, with minimum performance hit? I am wondering if Apple is trying to pull a fast one on Microsoft, at least, perhaps, with the big developers like Adobe, etc.
Is it possible that by doing this, as I mentioned in another thread, PC developers might look more favorably on the Mac as the primary development platform, with XCode, etc. By writing apps in XCode, they could conceivably compile them for both Mac and then PORT to PC, with minimum performance hit? I am wondering if Apple is trying to pull a fast one on Microsoft, at least, perhaps, with the big developers like Adobe, etc.
Wouldn't that be great? But unless Macs get above a few % market share, I sincerely doubt very many people would move from a Windows development environment to Apple's. Why bother when you could just stick with the 800-lb gorilla?
The same reason anyone else might want to move to Cocoa... reduced workload to market.
Face it, there are a lot of developers out there, and up and coming students, who aren't yet steeped in Win32, .NET, or Carbon. They're starting from scratch, and a lot of them will be interested in nice tools and APIs. Cocoa is a good option.
A Cocoa/Windows or Cocoa/Longhorn solution would make Cocoa an attractive option for developers. Write to Cocoa, get the Windows market faster... oh yeah, and the Mac market too.
When it was Intel/PPC, this was a harder sell. With them both on Intel, I think it'll be much easier.
Apple will have to make yellowbox very compelling to get developers away from their current tools. It is even more unrealistic for currents students to spend time learning yellowbox while also studying the current procedures their profs teach them.
And yet KDE, Qt, etc, get new developers all the time.
In my academic experience, on both sides of the fence, profs (the good ones at least) don't teach proprietary APIs, they teach principles. Java is used more than anything for that, or C++ and gcc.
Because unless you're the only app in your market, your competition will, and you lose those sales. Someone who buys a Mac is *not* going to be happy with a company that says "Oh just deal with the Windows UI. Really." They're going to look for options.
Sounds much like what people said during OS/2 days.
Besides, for the big names, yes, people will run Windows apps, if they are painless and seemless. Sure, they may not be 100% Mac-like, but for the majority, they might be good enough.
OS/2 had a specific Windows support mechanism, and attempted to treat it equally. That isn't the case here, and I'm really tired of seeing OS/2 continually trotted out as why Apple is going to die.
Is it possible that by doing this, as I mentioned in another thread, PC developers might look more favorably on the Mac as the primary development platform, with XCode, etc. By writing apps in XCode, they could conceivably compile them for both Mac and then PORT to PC, with minimum performance hit? I am wondering if Apple is trying to pull a fast one on Microsoft, at least, perhaps, with the big developers like Adobe, etc.
Just a wild idea...
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
If the port is done right, there wouldn't have to be any performance hit. But, ports take time and money.
Better, to write once and compile for OSX or Windows at the same time...this was the promise of Rhapsody with NeXT, but it died on the vine. Perhaps, we can hope, that yellowbox/OpenStep is back.
This would allow devs to have a no-brainer if they are considering dual platform apps. This would then allow Apple to focus on convincing people to buy a Mac.
Without it, Apple has to convince consumers, but also convince developers it is worth their time to do a full port. The number of developers doing this has been shrinking for years. Granted, ports should be less expensive/difficult, but they are still a barrier. Make it easy to do both, without having to port and they might stem this tide.
Comments
Originally posted by ZO
question about WINE: Is it actually vulnerable to Windows viruses and stuff? Or this is just the nitty gritty library?
Only if the app you're running has a vulnerability.
While WINE does handle some MS games, the reality is that DirectX is a tough nut to crack; so WINE won't be the answer (any time soon). So... It's either a dual-boot situation or a VirtualPC that accesses the processor and graphics card nicely.
A dual-boot situation won't kill the Mac gaming community (too putzy for the average consumer), but a good VirtualPC might. On the other hand, there are game developer houses that are really committed to OpenGL; so there may always be a Mac gaming community. If we're lucky, we'll get the best of both worlds.
By the way... WINE works pretty nicely when used to run specialized Windows word processor & accounting programs; which is why so many businesses have switched to Linux (and still be able to run the odd program that they can't live without). But Linux is ugly - and hard - OS X is pretty - and easy. When the dust settles, you might see a lot of movement to Mac x86 computers in the business community.
ps
I bet Connectix really wishes they hadn't sold VirtualPC to Microsoft!!!
Originally posted by groverat
The anonymous developer has a great point. I don't think this is the death of MacOS gaming, but it looks to me a tremendous blow from which it will take time for the already weak Mac gaming market to recover.
There is no arguing with the notion that porting for two different Mac architectures will take extra time, that's just common sense. And what's bitch #1 for Mac gamers? "Why do we only get our games a year after the PC people?"
Right : if I can run PC games on my Macintosh with Intel inside CPU, why the hell should I buy a Mac version, slower and who is shipping one year later ?
I'd think that in the short term, someone would come up with some kind of launcher that would quit OSX, start Windows and then start the game (or even application). I mention quitting OSX because a gamer obviously wants to free up every last resource for the game. After you finish gaming, you could have an opposite launcher to quit Windows and re-boot you into OSX.
The speeds of relaunching are acceptably low already... imagine in 1-2-3 years time.
This could very well kill gaming for Mac platform. Heck, it could kill a lot of programs for Mac specific platform.
Originally posted by ZO
This could very well kill gaming for Mac platform. Heck, it could kill a lot of programs for Mac specific platform.
And thus the Mac-platform in general...
Why should MS get its feet into the door to the Mac-platform, shouldn't it be the otherway around?
Originally posted by RolandG
And thus the Mac-platform in general...
Why should MS get its feet into the door to the Mac-platform, shouldn't it be the otherway around?
Why should anyone bother to have ported apps for OS X prior to now? I mean mac users could just run out and buy a PC. Sorry as long as there's marketshare a good portion of people won't be satisfied to dual boot or download things like WINE. There will be as much a market for native apps as there was up until now and on the upside they should be quicker to port in some cases.
A Wine type environment, that allows Windows apps to run on Macs, would discourage development of native Mac apps. In addition, Windows will be able to run on Macs and likely be dual-boot capable, which also has been shown with other platforms, to discourage native development.
I'd like to see Apple bring back a platform agnostic development environment, aka yellowbox, aka openstep, and allow the opposite of the above. Mac developers could write for MacIntel and compile for both Mac and Windows. They would then have fast dual platform releases. In contrast, those Windows developers that decide to do Mac native releases, would release their Mac software later, if at all.
This would seem to be the best way to encourage Mac native development, something Apple will desparately need if the transition is to be a success.
Originally posted by Telomar
Why should anyone bother to have ported apps for OS X prior to now? I mean mac users could just run out and buy a PC. Sorry as long as there's marketshare a good portion of people won't be satisfied to dual boot or download things like WINE. There will be as much a market for native apps as there was up until now and on the upside they should be quicker to port in some cases.
Because installing a bootleg version of Windows on your MacIntel will be easier/cheaper than running out and buying a PC. Besides, wouldn't it be more in Apples interests if you were to run out and buy another Mac instead of a PC?
The ability of users to easily dual boot and/or run Windows native apps in a Wine-type environment will always discourage some native Mac development. Simple math. If I am developing an app, it is generally cheaper to do one version, than two.
Now, if my App could run natively on both platforms with one write.....
Originally posted by Tulkas
The ability of users to easily dual boot and/or run Windows native apps in a Wine-type environment will always discourage some native Mac development. Simple math. If I am developing an app, it is generally cheaper to do one version, than two.
That has been just as true for Macs with PPC. In fact more true as ports often took longer than they will now. More than a few companies have never bothered to support the Mac for exactly that reason. Those that are already aren't going to jump ship over this. They'll jump if Apple loses marketshare, which I don't expect will happen. In fact I think this will grow Apple's marketshare as you can now switch and be confident of still running any app and native ports will follow with that simply because it's easier.
If I'm running models in Windows I don't want to be booting back to do my day to day work. I'm going to jump on the first software teams back about a port and I doubt I'd be alone.
Originally posted by Telomar
That has been just as true for Macs with PPC. In fact more true as ports often took longer than they will now. More than a few companies have never bothered to support the Mac for exactly that reason. Those that are already aren't going to jump ship over this. They'll jump if Apple loses marketshare, which I don't expect will happen. In fact I think this will grow Apple's marketshare as you can now switch and be confident of still running any app and native ports will follow with that simply because it's easier.
If I'm running models in Windows I don't want to be booting back to do my day to day work. I'm going to jump on the first software teams back about a port and I doubt I'd be alone.
There is a market that can not afford 2 computers's for every user. For this market alone, ignoring those that simply choose to only have 1 computer per user, there has been a reason, maybe even a compelling reason to do Mac software. If user could just as easily simply run my Windows software in a another session on the Mac, at full speed, then what reason do I have to do a full Mac port?
Originally posted by Tulkas
There is a market that can not afford 2 computers's for every user. For this market alone, ignoring those that simply choose to only have 1 computer per user, there has been a reason, maybe even a compelling reason to do Mac software. If user could just as easily simply run my Windows software in a another session on the Mac, at full speed, then what reason do I have to do a full Mac port?
Because unless you're the only app in your market, your competition will, and you lose those sales. Someone who buys a Mac is *not* going to be happy with a company that says "Oh just deal with the Windows UI. Really." They're going to look for options.
Just a wild idea...
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Just a humble prognostication.
Originally posted by Mandricard
Is it possible that by doing this, as I mentioned in another thread, PC developers might look more favorably on the Mac as the primary development platform, with XCode, etc. By writing apps in XCode, they could conceivably compile them for both Mac and then PORT to PC, with minimum performance hit? I am wondering if Apple is trying to pull a fast one on Microsoft, at least, perhaps, with the big developers like Adobe, etc.
Wouldn't that be great? But unless Macs get above a few % market share, I sincerely doubt very many people would move from a Windows development environment to Apple's. Why bother when you could just stick with the 800-lb gorilla?
Face it, there are a lot of developers out there, and up and coming students, who aren't yet steeped in Win32, .NET, or Carbon. They're starting from scratch, and a lot of them will be interested in nice tools and APIs. Cocoa is a good option.
A Cocoa/Windows or Cocoa/Longhorn solution would make Cocoa an attractive option for developers. Write to Cocoa, get the Windows market faster... oh yeah, and the Mac market too.
When it was Intel/PPC, this was a harder sell. With them both on Intel, I think it'll be much easier.
In my academic experience, on both sides of the fence, profs (the good ones at least) don't teach proprietary APIs, they teach principles. Java is used more than anything for that, or C++ and gcc.
Win32 specific teaching is rare.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Because unless you're the only app in your market, your competition will, and you lose those sales. Someone who buys a Mac is *not* going to be happy with a company that says "Oh just deal with the Windows UI. Really." They're going to look for options.
Sounds much like what people said during OS/2 days.
Besides, for the big names, yes, people will run Windows apps, if they are painless and seemless. Sure, they may not be 100% Mac-like, but for the majority, they might be good enough.
It simply doesn't wash as a comparison.
Originally posted by Mandricard
Is it possible that by doing this, as I mentioned in another thread, PC developers might look more favorably on the Mac as the primary development platform, with XCode, etc. By writing apps in XCode, they could conceivably compile them for both Mac and then PORT to PC, with minimum performance hit? I am wondering if Apple is trying to pull a fast one on Microsoft, at least, perhaps, with the big developers like Adobe, etc.
Just a wild idea...
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
If the port is done right, there wouldn't have to be any performance hit. But, ports take time and money.
Better, to write once and compile for OSX or Windows at the same time...this was the promise of Rhapsody with NeXT, but it died on the vine. Perhaps, we can hope, that yellowbox/OpenStep is back.
This would allow devs to have a no-brainer if they are considering dual platform apps. This would then allow Apple to focus on convincing people to buy a Mac.
Without it, Apple has to convince consumers, but also convince developers it is worth their time to do a full port. The number of developers doing this has been shrinking for years. Granted, ports should be less expensive/difficult, but they are still a barrier. Make it easy to do both, without having to port and they might stem this tide.