I think the dual boot ability will do funny things to the OS market share statistics. If I have legal copies of OSX and Windows installed, the OSX statistics go up by one, but so do the Windows statistics. If I use OSX most of the time and Windows only when absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be fair to be counted as a real Windows user.
Sorry Telomar. but I don't find your theory that compelling.
Guess you've never tried a dual boot system. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If developers wanted to abandon the mac platform they could have done it at any time. In fact many already do tell you to straight out go and buy a PC now. Apple switching platforms really does nothing to change the status quo. People want native apps for convenience to run on their OS of choice not because of their processor choice and they will continue to want them.
Short of marketshare changes I'd be very surprised to see that I'm wrong. That's why you'd find most developers and analysts are pretty unphased.
I can't believe you are all actually having this discussion. Of course you will be able to run Windows, through dual-boot (pain) or VPC - thats the whole beauty of this Intel move. No more excuses for people not to buy a Mac, plus all those crappy little programs and do-dads that people need for their work that will never be Mac Native. It makes absolutely no difference to Mac developers and MS sell more copies of LongWait. OS X has nothing to fear form Windows running on the same Mac - its going sell a shitload more machines. OS X on PC however would be an absolute disaster fo Apple for obvious reasons.
In addition, when considering ports, there is the cost arguement. I have seen this expecially WRT game ports. Many have said that if a mac can run windows (inside VPC) or as dual boot, game developers will abandon the mac platform and force you buy the PC version.
This won't happen. In addition to the inconvenience issues already mention (and as a PPC linux/MacOS dual-booter for manmy years prior to OSX, I heartily agree with BTW), there is a cost issue. A stand alone copy of windows in VPC casts, what... 500 smackers or so? For 500$ I could buy a freaking computer (with windows!) and KVM switch (almost).
If any current game dev thinks they can retain their position in the mac market while doing no mac port, you can rest assured that they won't sell many games to mac users. Its a marketplace, and a large one at that. Some lightbulb will move in and make money where the current porter was uncompetitive.
I don't know.... something in me says it is unwise to have dual-boot machines. Running Windows within a window seems like a better situation: that way it would protect the mac system from getting screwed up by the windows insecurity probs as well as the instability issues.
The development angle is really the crux of the matter: how to get developers to develop for Macs alone when they can boot Windows and run their programs seems to reduce development for the mac to a labor of love. Market possibilities will trump ease-of-use & superior mac architecture any day, is my guess. Forcing some inconvenient partitioning etc. to make it happen might insulate the Mac-experience as well. Just SOMETHING to make the Mac still a Mac.
I think that facilitating the ease of PORTING to Mac would be a far better, solution--and one that would much better serve Apple's interests in the long run.
how about other non-windows OS's on the new Macs like linux? Just because Apple's not supporting/crippling/avoiding like hell windows on macs, are they doing anything about other OS's?
how about other non-windows OS's on the new Macs like linux? Just because Apple's not supporting/crippling/avoiding like hell windows on macs, are they doing anything about other OS's?
Big deal. You can run Linux on just about any Mac now. Before Apple bought NeXT, it had its own distribution of Linux.
Ok, then I don't think it will be possible. It's better for Apple is if it isn't. 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. I think Apple being on x86 makes them appear as a more attractive, and viable option now as a port, but if they can have their app running natively on a Mac under a different OS booted what's the point?
Why would someone buy a Mac at a premium price to run Windows? What you're saying, if I read it right, is that Mac users will just start buying Windows versions of apps (or Windows apps, if there is no Mac version) and running them in Windows on their Mac. Then, over time, these Mac users will eventually run all of their apps in Windows and wont even bother booting into OS X.
So Mac users would all use Windows if only Macs could boot into Windows? If so, then I'd suggest you have a very misinformed stereotype of Mac users. Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows. They pay a several hundred dollar premium to run OS X, and most of them prefer OS X over Windows enough that they do not run Windows in VPC unless absolutely necessary.
If developers start killing critical applications for OS X, people aren't going to buy Macs to boot into Windows, they're just going to buy Wintel boxes and save some dough. Maybe a few fanatics will pay extra for the style of the Mac boxes, but that will be a rare event.
Even for games, most people would rather not reboot the system into Windows. The hardcore gamers won't buy Macs anyways, so the Mac market is left with more casual gamers who tend to play games to take a break from doing other things. Who wants to close all open documents and shut down OS X to take a 30 minute Quake 4 break? Even Linux users scream for their own versions of popular games like Quake 3A. They could just boot into Windows, but they'd rather not, because it's a hassle, and because they're running Linux so they don't have to run Windows.
Mac users run OS X because they don't want to run Windows. They already have the option to buy a Wintel, but they don't. Making Windows an option on Macs doesn't change anything.
Furthermore, this post is moot, because Macs will never run Windows out of the box. Only bad-ass h4XXo4s will be able to run Windows on their Macs.
Guess you've never tried a dual boot system. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If developers wanted to abandon the mac platform they could have done it at any time. In fact many already do tell you to straight out go and buy a PC now. Apple switching platforms really does nothing to change the status quo. People want native apps for convenience to run on their OS of choice not because of their processor choice and they will continue to want them.
Short of marketshare changes I'd be very surprised to see that I'm wrong. That's why you'd find most developers and analysts are pretty unphased.
Hey whoa there trigger. That's not what I was saying, you got it backwards.
I said new developers that are not currently developing applications for the mac wouldn't see any need to port their apps to the Mac OS now, {even though It may look like a more attractive porting option now that they are using intel processors} because all Mac users could now use their applications on these Macs without the trouble of porting them.
Why would a developer like softimage bother to port XSI now that they don't have to? That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go and buy a copy of windows to run that app than it is for them to start porting it for you.
And just to add fuel to what I said in brackets {}. I think a lot of developers that have had repeated emails asking for Mac versions of their applications may now be looking at an Apple version because of the intel switch. It must look less menacing to a developer now that the Mac is essentially an x86 PC, having only the (Unix) Mac OS separating it from the rest.
That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
Well, perhaps they would bother if they could sell more copies of their software that way? Isn't it a simple question of 'if Mac marketshare goes up, then more users will demand a seamless Mac OS X experience', instead of a hackish windows/wine/dual-boot/vpc- solution? Wouldn't a 'perfect' application be well integrated with the OS..?
Look at windows users - how many of them really bother to install cygwin, compile, etc. to get access to unix-only apps, etc?
So, in my eyes, getting the developers attention is dependent on Apple gaining market share in the longer run. In the short run, they have secured their developer base by publizising the shift to Intel this early.
Why would a developer like softimage bother to port XSI now that they don't have to? That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go and buy a copy of windows to run that app than it is for them to start porting it for you.
Windows needs to be locked out!
If my customers were buying Macs to use for Work, I would be pretty foolish to expect them to just reboot their systems throughout the day to use my software. Even home users would find it just way too inconvienient to have to reboot all the time. During the MacOS->MacOSX transition, did you find it convienient to have to boot into Classic often? This is such a non-starter of an issue. It does not harm Apple, nor discourage development, to allow Windows to run on Mac hardware.
Most people have more than one computer. Recent statistics say that most Mac owners also have a PC. This would be, by far, more of an incentive for developers to stop Mac development or stop consideration of Mac development.
The only issue for Apple in regards to Windows and Window apps, is if Windows apps can run within OSX. And even here, things like WINE and VPC are non-trivial for your average home user to setup.
This thread is going painfully awry. Many of you are oblivius to the huge movement that has been underway for some time. Virtualization. By 2007 over half of Intel's chips will support hardware VT right in the CPU.
The next major upgrade to PCI-Express will contain virtualization features which is important when the bus doubles in speed.
Thus it's rather daft to think Apple should be locking out other OS vendors when it's the antithesis of what's happening in the market at large.
Within the decade it'll be common place to run 3 or more OS simultaneously "without" the need to reboot. Whether or not this causes developers to develop native apps is really unknown but what would it matter really. If I'm running Final Cut Pro 7 on my OS X and I want to run XSI 5 on Longhorn that's not a pain point for me because accessing either OS is just a mouse click away.
Nay Apple shouldn't block anyone because they stand to benefit from virtualization themselves if they can develop a cadre of apps that make OSX Intel indispensable to a large portion of the market. Apple will have more doors open than close. I guarantee it.
Correction: VPC is trivial to set up. All that is required is to run the installer.
Also, know the recommended allocation of resources for the guest system. Ensure that you have the required amounts of disk space required. Be familiar with the Windows installation process.
All in all, I would say it is a non-trivial processs for grandma. It isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean non-trivial.
Well, perhaps they would bother if they could sell more copies of their software that way? Isn't it a simple question of 'if Mac marketshare goes up, then more users will demand a seamless Mac OS X experience', instead of a hackish windows/wine/dual-boot/vpc- solution? Wouldn't a 'perfect' application be well integrated with the OS..?
Look at windows users - how many of them really bother to install cygwin, compile, etc. to get access to unix-only apps, etc?
So, in my eyes, getting the developers attention is dependent on Apple gaining market share in the longer run. In the short run, they have secured their developer base by publizising the shift to Intel this early.
How would they sell more copies? If you want it, or need it, you will buy it. It's that simple. It's going to be that simple an answer to a developer too. To me it looks like you can already use it on your Mac, so why should I have to go through a bunch of crap to satisfy your whining butt. I don't. And that's why it's going to take me that much longer to port any application to that OS of yours. Because you can already use it. I think I'm going to spend my time developing new tools, and making my app more responsive, and attractive to the minions who already admire it, and the ones already using it. That's a hell of a lot easier for me. If you want it, Run it in windows. You have that option.
How would they sell more copies? If you want it, or need it, you will buy it. It's that simple. It's going to be that simple an answer to a developer too. To me it looks like you can already use it on your Mac, so why should I have to go through a bunch of crap to satisfy your whining butt. I don't. And that's why it's going to take me that much longer to port any application to that OS of yours. Because you can already use it. I think I'm going to spend my time developing new tools, and making my app more responsive, and attractive to the minions who already admire it, and the ones already using it. That's a hell of a lot easier for me. If you want it, Run it in windows. You have that option.
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.
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.
If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.
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."
Comments
Originally posted by Bigc
That's a good point...
I second that
Originally posted by onlooker
Sorry Telomar. but I don't find your theory that compelling.
Guess you've never tried a dual boot system. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If developers wanted to abandon the mac platform they could have done it at any time. In fact many already do tell you to straight out go and buy a PC now. Apple switching platforms really does nothing to change the status quo. People want native apps for convenience to run on their OS of choice not because of their processor choice and they will continue to want them.
Short of marketshare changes I'd be very surprised to see that I'm wrong. That's why you'd find most developers and analysts are pretty unphased.
This won't happen. In addition to the inconvenience issues already mention (and as a PPC linux/MacOS dual-booter for manmy years prior to OSX, I heartily agree with BTW), there is a cost issue. A stand alone copy of windows in VPC casts, what... 500 smackers or so? For 500$ I could buy a freaking computer (with windows!) and KVM switch (almost).
If any current game dev thinks they can retain their position in the mac market while doing no mac port, you can rest assured that they won't sell many games to mac users. Its a marketplace, and a large one at that. Some lightbulb will move in and make money where the current porter was uncompetitive.
The development angle is really the crux of the matter: how to get developers to develop for Macs alone when they can boot Windows and run their programs seems to reduce development for the mac to a labor of love. Market possibilities will trump ease-of-use & superior mac architecture any day, is my guess. Forcing some inconvenient partitioning etc. to make it happen might insulate the Mac-experience as well. Just SOMETHING to make the Mac still a Mac.
I think that facilitating the ease of PORTING to Mac would be a far better, solution--and one that would much better serve Apple's interests in the long run.
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Originally posted by mynamehere
how about other non-windows OS's on the new Macs like linux? Just because Apple's not supporting/crippling/avoiding like hell windows on macs, are they doing anything about other OS's?
Big deal. You can run Linux on just about any Mac now. Before Apple bought NeXT, it had its own distribution of Linux.
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok, then I don't think it will be possible. It's better for Apple is if it isn't. 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. I think Apple being on x86 makes them appear as a more attractive, and viable option now as a port, but if they can have their app running natively on a Mac under a different OS booted what's the point?
Why would someone buy a Mac at a premium price to run Windows? What you're saying, if I read it right, is that Mac users will just start buying Windows versions of apps (or Windows apps, if there is no Mac version) and running them in Windows on their Mac. Then, over time, these Mac users will eventually run all of their apps in Windows and wont even bother booting into OS X.
So Mac users would all use Windows if only Macs could boot into Windows? If so, then I'd suggest you have a very misinformed stereotype of Mac users. Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows. They pay a several hundred dollar premium to run OS X, and most of them prefer OS X over Windows enough that they do not run Windows in VPC unless absolutely necessary.
If developers start killing critical applications for OS X, people aren't going to buy Macs to boot into Windows, they're just going to buy Wintel boxes and save some dough. Maybe a few fanatics will pay extra for the style of the Mac boxes, but that will be a rare event.
Even for games, most people would rather not reboot the system into Windows. The hardcore gamers won't buy Macs anyways, so the Mac market is left with more casual gamers who tend to play games to take a break from doing other things. Who wants to close all open documents and shut down OS X to take a 30 minute Quake 4 break? Even Linux users scream for their own versions of popular games like Quake 3A. They could just boot into Windows, but they'd rather not, because it's a hassle, and because they're running Linux so they don't have to run Windows.
Mac users run OS X because they don't want to run Windows. They already have the option to buy a Wintel, but they don't. Making Windows an option on Macs doesn't change anything.
Furthermore, this post is moot, because Macs will never run Windows out of the box. Only bad-ass h4XXo4s will be able to run Windows on their Macs.
Originally posted by Telomar
Guess you've never tried a dual boot system. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If developers wanted to abandon the mac platform they could have done it at any time. In fact many already do tell you to straight out go and buy a PC now. Apple switching platforms really does nothing to change the status quo. People want native apps for convenience to run on their OS of choice not because of their processor choice and they will continue to want them.
Short of marketshare changes I'd be very surprised to see that I'm wrong. That's why you'd find most developers and analysts are pretty unphased.
Hey whoa there trigger. That's not what I was saying, you got it backwards.
I said new developers that are not currently developing applications for the mac wouldn't see any need to port their apps to the Mac OS now, {even though It may look like a more attractive porting option now that they are using intel processors} because all Mac users could now use their applications on these Macs without the trouble of porting them.
Why would a developer like softimage bother to port XSI now that they don't have to? That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go and buy a copy of windows to run that app than it is for them to start porting it for you.
Windows needs to be locked out!
That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
Well, perhaps they would bother if they could sell more copies of their software that way? Isn't it a simple question of 'if Mac marketshare goes up, then more users will demand a seamless Mac OS X experience', instead of a hackish windows/wine/dual-boot/vpc- solution? Wouldn't a 'perfect' application be well integrated with the OS..?
Look at windows users - how many of them really bother to install cygwin, compile, etc. to get access to unix-only apps, etc?
So, in my eyes, getting the developers attention is dependent on Apple gaining market share in the longer run. In the short run, they have secured their developer base by publizising the shift to Intel this early.
Originally posted by onlooker
Why would a developer like softimage bother to port XSI now that they don't have to? That's what I'm saying, If windows runs on everybodys Mac why bother porting it? It's a perfect application as it is. I sure as sh*t wouldn't bother. Who would?
It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go and buy a copy of windows to run that app than it is for them to start porting it for you.
Windows needs to be locked out!
If my customers were buying Macs to use for Work, I would be pretty foolish to expect them to just reboot their systems throughout the day to use my software. Even home users would find it just way too inconvienient to have to reboot all the time. During the MacOS->MacOSX transition, did you find it convienient to have to boot into Classic often? This is such a non-starter of an issue. It does not harm Apple, nor discourage development, to allow Windows to run on Mac hardware.
Most people have more than one computer. Recent statistics say that most Mac owners also have a PC. This would be, by far, more of an incentive for developers to stop Mac development or stop consideration of Mac development.
The only issue for Apple in regards to Windows and Window apps, is if Windows apps can run within OSX. And even here, things like WINE and VPC are non-trivial for your average home user to setup.
Originally posted by Tulkas
... VPC are non-trivial for your average home user to setup.
Correction: VPC is trivial to set up. All that is required is to run the installer.
The next major upgrade to PCI-Express will contain virtualization features which is important when the bus doubles in speed.
Thus it's rather daft to think Apple should be locking out other OS vendors when it's the antithesis of what's happening in the market at large.
Within the decade it'll be common place to run 3 or more OS simultaneously "without" the need to reboot. Whether or not this causes developers to develop native apps is really unknown but what would it matter really. If I'm running Final Cut Pro 7 on my OS X and I want to run XSI 5 on Longhorn that's not a pain point for me because accessing either OS is just a mouse click away.
Nay Apple shouldn't block anyone because they stand to benefit from virtualization themselves if they can develop a cadre of apps that make OSX Intel indispensable to a large portion of the market. Apple will have more doors open than close. I guarantee it.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Correction: VPC is trivial to set up. All that is required is to run the installer.
Also, know the recommended allocation of resources for the guest system. Ensure that you have the required amounts of disk space required. Be familiar with the Windows installation process.
All in all, I would say it is a non-trivial processs for grandma. It isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean non-trivial.
Originally posted by Token
Well, perhaps they would bother if they could sell more copies of their software that way? Isn't it a simple question of 'if Mac marketshare goes up, then more users will demand a seamless Mac OS X experience', instead of a hackish windows/wine/dual-boot/vpc- solution? Wouldn't a 'perfect' application be well integrated with the OS..?
Look at windows users - how many of them really bother to install cygwin, compile, etc. to get access to unix-only apps, etc?
So, in my eyes, getting the developers attention is dependent on Apple gaining market share in the longer run. In the short run, they have secured their developer base by publizising the shift to Intel this early.
How would they sell more copies? If you want it, or need it, you will buy it. It's that simple. It's going to be that simple an answer to a developer too. To me it looks like you can already use it on your Mac, so why should I have to go through a bunch of crap to satisfy your whining butt. I don't. And that's why it's going to take me that much longer to port any application to that OS of yours. Because you can already use it. I think I'm going to spend my time developing new tools, and making my app more responsive, and attractive to the minions who already admire it, and the ones already using it. That's a hell of a lot easier for me. If you want it, Run it in windows. You have that option.
Originally posted by onlooker
How would they sell more copies? If you want it, or need it, you will buy it. It's that simple. It's going to be that simple an answer to a developer too. To me it looks like you can already use it on your Mac, so why should I have to go through a bunch of crap to satisfy your whining butt. I don't. And that's why it's going to take me that much longer to port any application to that OS of yours. Because you can already use it. I think I'm going to spend my time developing new tools, and making my app more responsive, and attractive to the minions who already admire it, and the ones already using it. That's a hell of a lot easier for me. If you want it, Run it in windows. You have that option.
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.
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.
If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.
Blah Blah Blah
Technical guy.
Softimage.