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
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.
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.
... 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 )
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.
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...
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...
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Here is a cool list of 20 games that mattered most to the mac gaming platform
20 games that mattered most
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!
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
... 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
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.
and again! (That's Bill Gates in the car!
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?
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
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.