I am very interested to see what will happen to Mac gaming once the transition has started. Or more specifically once Intel Macs will run Windows games at native speeds either through VPC/VM Ware or dual-booting.
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
I don't know what is going to happen here, but I don't think developers will resort to being lazy enough to assume that people can just run their software through Virtual PC.
I think that the Intel Mac opens the "Mac door" to so many software developers. I don't know much about architectures, but from what I have read many developers will have a much easier time porting their Windows-only software to the Intel Mac than to the PowerPC Mac.
Actually, as I think I understand it, it may be more difficult for existing software that already runs on the Mac and uses the vector part of the PowerPC to transition to Intel.
Either way you slice it, I'm optimistic. Good times lie ahead.
How about a sticker for Windows PCs that reads "Warning: in less than 24 hours this computer will be infested with viruses, worms, trojans and malware".
I am very interested to see what will happen to Mac gaming once the transition has started. Or more specifically once Intel Macs will run Windows games at native speeds either through VPC/VM Ware or dual-booting.
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
I don't know what is going to happen here, but I don't think developers will resort to being lazy enough to assume that people can just run their software through Virtual PC.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
here is something i haven't heard explained very well (or it was and i forgot):
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
i ask because usually i buy the last of a line, just before a rev a. of a major transition in hardware. i usually get a great break on price, a very good machine, and usually they remain compatible for a long time. also, being the end of a line, those machines usually have had every bug worked out of them (my wife's pismo powerbook is a testament to that philosophy... so is my dual-G4 that can still boot into classic... though i never need to).
i am pretty sure apple wouldn't ABANDON those folks who were recent adopters of yesterday's macs, but how will the performance break down? could i buy a quad-g5 at the eleventh hour and still be able to use upcoming intel-apps, too? at full-speed?
here is something i haven't heard explained very well (or it was and i forgot):
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
I have never heard something like that. My impression is that intel-mac software will run exclusively on intel CPUs and there will be no a backwards (ppc) compatibility layer.
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
Hopefully when developers release Intel mac versions of their software, they won't be pure Intel, but rather Universal Binaries. A Universal Binary contains two separate versions of the program joined together, one of which runs natively on Intel and one of which runs natively on PPC.
Well, this is assuming someone has that PC directly connected to the internet and not behind a firewall/router. Anyone who does that is daft and shouldn't own a computer anyway. (Or, they should be buying a Mac, obviously.)
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
As I said, it depends on the implementation details. If Apple makes it easy enough (just like installing Windows on a standard PC), then expect a real tsunami of people that will do it. Who does not have somewhere a Windows copy? This would mark the end of Apple as we know it today (mind you, not the end of Apple). And almost certainly the end of the Mac software ecosystem, to use Dave's terms.
My hope is that the new Intel technologies Apple will adopt, will make this substantially more complicated and not worth the trouble. We will see.
This is great news, and I can't wait to see these machines come out; however, I certainly won't be buying any first generation Mactels. I'd rather wait for a second gen. Mactel so that both Intel and Apple can work out the kinks in their systems, and also so that third party software developers will have had time to work on and release universal binary versions of their products. Also, in general, I'm more interested in a dual-core Merom PowerBook than a Yonah PowerBook.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Personally, I'd rather have VirtualPC than dual boot. The advantage of VPC is that your Mac is still running away in the background, you can drag and drop between the Mac and PC side, you can have multiple VPC installs and even multiple VPCs running. It's the only sane way I've found of running IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 which makes testing for browser bugs easy. Yes, it's slow on PPC now though it doesn't matter for me.
For users that can go almost completely Mac apart from one application it's definitely the way to go. If you dual boot then I think you'll find more users will be stuck using Windows more often than just the occasional application and buying and running Windows Games will be the norm.
Hopefully when developers release Intel mac versions of their software, they won't be pure Intel, but rather Universal Binaries. A Universal Binary contains two separate versions of the program joined together, one of which runs natively on Intel and one of which runs natively on PPC.
Well, this is the obvious solution and will be put in use for some time. But I think rok's question is about pure intel software. In this case, as far as I know, the answer is no.
I think in the short term it makes sense for people to dual boot. Obviously 95 percent of the world uses Windows, and while most people can get by with using Mac OS X exclusively, there are instances when a Windows installation would be useful. And, if you're a gamer, even moreso. I wouldn't mind having a Mac with equal or better hardware than what I could put in a PC with Windows installed on the flipside when I'd like to do a bit of gaming. If the gaming arena wants to embrace the Macintel platform and help it catch up to Windows at some point, I'm all for it, but while this transition is happening, the more choice, the better.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Personally, I'd rather have VirtualPC than dual boot. The advantage of VPC is that your Mac is still running away in the background, you can drag and drop between the Mac and PC side, you can have multiple VPC installs and even multiple VPCs running. It's the only sane way I've found of running IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 which makes testing for browser bugs easy. Yes, it's slow on PPC now though it doesn't matter for me.
For users that can go almost completely Mac apart from one application it's definitely the way to go. If you dual boot then I think you'll find more users will be stuck using Windows more often than just the occasional application and buying and running Windows Games will be the norm.
I think in the short term it makes sense for people to dual boot.
It makes no sense to me.
The one windows application I have to use is internet explorer. I'm not going to design a website in MacOSX, then boot into Windows to test, then back to OSX to develop and read my mail, then back to Windows to test my change, then back again.
That's why VPC is good for me.
The alternative for IE testing/development is to boot into Windows and stay there for the duration of my work. I'd need all my email and tools there too. I hope you can see why that's bad for MacOSX expansion.
Dual booting only makes sense for gamers where you shut off for a few hours. It makes no sense for application usage. If you rely on one particular application you must use, you'll just stay in that environment.
VPC also lets me have 3 installs of Windows in virtual partitions (and Linux partitions too for that matter). The three separate installs have different versions of IE configured. You can also wipe them out and start again in no time when they become full of guff or infested.
Also, unless Apple improves it's OpenGL implementation then I can see gamers just booting into Windows for games anyway.
Comments
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by tacojohn
Sign me up for a 15" Intel Powerbook.
Me too.
Originally posted by Dave K.
what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
Dave K...
I don't know what is going to happen here, but I don't think developers will resort to being lazy enough to assume that people can just run their software through Virtual PC.
I think that the Intel Mac opens the "Mac door" to so many software developers. I don't know much about architectures, but from what I have read many developers will have a much easier time porting their Windows-only software to the Intel Mac than to the PowerPC Mac.
Actually, as I think I understand it, it may be more difficult for existing software that already runs on the Mac and uses the vector part of the PowerPC to transition to Intel.
Either way you slice it, I'm optimistic. Good times lie ahead.
Originally posted by 1984
How about a sticker for Windows PCs that reads "Warning: in less than 24 hours this computer will be infested with viruses, worms, trojans and malware".
24 hours? How nice from your part
Originally posted by Dave K.
I am very interested to see what will happen to Mac gaming once the transition has started. Or more specifically once Intel Macs will run Windows games at native speeds either through VPC/VM Ware or dual-booting.
Personally, I can't see how the Mac game market won't be destroyed as part of this change. From a consumer standpoint why would anyone wait months and months for a PC game to be translated to the Mac when I they could buy the game the day it comes out (not to mention the cost of Mac games).
The bigger problem I see here is not the games themselves, but what will happen to the Mac software ecosystem?
I believe the entire Mac software market acts like an ecosystem of sorts. You have business tools, artists tools, education tools, freeware, shareware, and games. If so dismantle/disrupt one portion of the ecosystem how will will it affect the other portions?
I am happy to think that I will be soon playing <insert next big PC game here> my Intel Mac soon. But I am afraid than once the Mac game starts to dry up, you will start seeing other portions start to dry up as well (imagine Photoshop 9 that you have to run through VPC).
Thanks
dave
A very valid concern Dave.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Dave K...
I don't know what is going to happen here, but I don't think developers will resort to being lazy enough to assume that people can just run their software through Virtual PC.
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Originally posted by PB
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
Microsoft has just as much pressure to ensure that VM'd linux doesn't become a standard feature of computers.
It actually bodes well for consumers in the way that we should expect better software.
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
i ask because usually i buy the last of a line, just before a rev a. of a major transition in hardware. i usually get a great break on price, a very good machine, and usually they remain compatible for a long time. also, being the end of a line, those machines usually have had every bug worked out of them (my wife's pismo powerbook is a testament to that philosophy... so is my dual-G4 that can still boot into classic... though i never need to).
i am pretty sure apple wouldn't ABANDON those folks who were recent adopters of yesterday's macs, but how will the performance break down? could i buy a quad-g5 at the eleventh hour and still be able to use upcoming intel-apps, too? at full-speed?
Originally posted by rok
here is something i haven't heard explained very well (or it was and i forgot):
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
I have never heard something like that. My impression is that intel-mac software will run exclusively on intel CPUs and there will be no a backwards (ppc) compatibility layer.
Originally posted by rok
we know that current powerpc-based apps will run on intel hardware via rosetta. BUT, will intel-based apps run on powerpc hardware for some of us slower to upgrade our hardware?
Hopefully when developers release Intel mac versions of their software, they won't be pure Intel, but rather Universal Binaries. A Universal Binary contains two separate versions of the program joined together, one of which runs natively on Intel and one of which runs natively on PPC.
Originally posted by PB
24 hours? How nice from your part
Well, this is assuming someone has that PC directly connected to the internet and not behind a firewall/router. Anyone who does that is daft and shouldn't own a computer anyway. (Or, they should be buying a Mac, obviously.)
Originally posted by mynamehere
Even if apple does nothing to prevent people from installing Windows, how many people will actually do it? (ie: will Joe Schmo go through the trouble of partitioning his hard drive and installing it or not)
As I said, it depends on the implementation details. If Apple makes it easy enough (just like installing Windows on a standard PC), then expect a real tsunami of people that will do it. Who does not have somewhere a Windows copy? This would mark the end of Apple as we know it today (mind you, not the end of Apple). And almost certainly the end of the Mac software ecosystem, to use Dave's terms.
My hope is that the new Intel technologies Apple will adopt, will make this substantially more complicated and not worth the trouble. We will see.
Originally posted by PB
It is not about VPC. It is about Apple's decision to allow (read: make nothing to prevent) installing Windows on an Intel-Mac. This could have so devastating effects, that Apple would turn into a software company to survive. I am not saying it will happen, since we don't know nothing about the dual boot implementation details. But the danger is so evident, that I cannot imagine it is not part of an Apple plan. About what, I don't know.
Personally, I'd rather have VirtualPC than dual boot. The advantage of VPC is that your Mac is still running away in the background, you can drag and drop between the Mac and PC side, you can have multiple VPC installs and even multiple VPCs running. It's the only sane way I've found of running IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 which makes testing for browser bugs easy. Yes, it's slow on PPC now though it doesn't matter for me.
For users that can go almost completely Mac apart from one application it's definitely the way to go. If you dual boot then I think you'll find more users will be stuck using Windows more often than just the occasional application and buying and running Windows Games will be the norm.
Originally posted by ascii
Hopefully when developers release Intel mac versions of their software, they won't be pure Intel, but rather Universal Binaries. A Universal Binary contains two separate versions of the program joined together, one of which runs natively on Intel and one of which runs natively on PPC.
Well, this is the obvious solution and will be put in use for some time. But I think rok's question is about pure intel software. In this case, as far as I know, the answer is no.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Personally, I'd rather have VirtualPC than dual boot. The advantage of VPC is that your Mac is still running away in the background, you can drag and drop between the Mac and PC side, you can have multiple VPC installs and even multiple VPCs running. It's the only sane way I've found of running IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 which makes testing for browser bugs easy. Yes, it's slow on PPC now though it doesn't matter for me.
For users that can go almost completely Mac apart from one application it's definitely the way to go. If you dual boot then I think you'll find more users will be stuck using Windows more often than just the occasional application and buying and running Windows Games will be the norm.
People will have to wait a little, to take advantage of the full potential of the newcomings intel macs.
Originally posted by steppenwolf
I think in the short term it makes sense for people to dual boot.
It makes no sense to me.
The one windows application I have to use is internet explorer. I'm not going to design a website in MacOSX, then boot into Windows to test, then back to OSX to develop and read my mail, then back to Windows to test my change, then back again.
That's why VPC is good for me.
The alternative for IE testing/development is to boot into Windows and stay there for the duration of my work. I'd need all my email and tools there too. I hope you can see why that's bad for MacOSX expansion.
Dual booting only makes sense for gamers where you shut off for a few hours. It makes no sense for application usage. If you rely on one particular application you must use, you'll just stay in that environment.
VPC also lets me have 3 installs of Windows in virtual partitions (and Linux partitions too for that matter). The three separate installs have different versions of IE configured. You can also wipe them out and start again in no time when they become full of guff or infested.
Also, unless Apple improves it's OpenGL implementation then I can see gamers just booting into Windows for games anyway.