Apple’s Boot Camp has stirred things up quite a bit around the net. eWeek states: “CIOs have a lot invested in Windows and aren’t going to junk the OS for Apple. However, if a CIO can get a twofer – Windows XP and Mac OS on one machine – a flyer may make some sense.” In an analysis, eWeek concludes: “Boot Camp might give businesses and consumers another reason to look at the Mac, analysts and IT managers say.” Cnet wonders if all this is good news for MS, while Ars looks at the limitations. Apple also released firmware updates for Intel Macs, which supposedly add BIOS support to EFI so you can just boot an XP (or Linux!) CD without using Boot Camp.
If Mac users can now boot Windows, why would any games developers bother to develop Mac native games?
because not every mac user wants to spend one billion dollars on a copy of windows.
Edited 2006-04-05 19:47
Yeah, they’d rather spend that billion on their mac hardware.
If Mac users can now boot Windows, why would any games developers bother to develop Mac native games?
Because no sane mac user will run something on windows when he can run it on OSX ?
Because no sane mac user will run something on windows when he can run it on OSX ?
I hate to point this out, but Mac users are in a minority.
If resellers feel enough pressure then they will see an opportunity of selling a piece of snazzy Mac hardware, but with the benefits of running Windows. This is a big opportunity for them, and one that is far, far, far bigger than continuing to run OS X on Apple hardware. Application availability for users will be an absolutely huge reason for doing it. Apple will have to bring in some pretty draconian restrictions for their resellers to keep them in line.
@Tyr:
If the games developers decide to only develop a Windows version on the premise that Mac users can just dual boot Windows the ‘sane mac user’ may have no choice but to ‘run something on windows’!
My point is, for the Mac user hoping that developers will produce more native Mac games (or any other software for that matter), this move by Apple may well damage those chances.
@Tyr:
If the games developers decide to only develop a Windows version on the premise that Mac users can just dual boot Windows the ‘sane mac user’ may have no choice but to ‘run something on windows’!
As a Mac user, I can positively tell you most Mac users don’t use their computers for gaming purposes.
My point is, for the Mac user hoping that developers will produce more native Mac games (or any other software for that matter), this move by Apple may well damage those chances.
As a Mac user who also own a Windows machine, I can positively tell you I use the Windows machine almost exclusively for gaming purposes, to open Office documents that refuse to render correctly on Office 2004 and to run the odd *nix clone/derivative when I’m sick of Windows.
Bottom line is: if you’re a gamer, you WILL already have PCs, gaming consoles, or both. If you’re a Mac user and you’re fond of gaming, the above applies too. But from now on, if you buy a state-of-the-art Mac (I’m thinking those that will be introduced later this year), you can forgo the PC alltogether.
Before Boot Camp (nee narf’s hacks), you had no choice but buying another computer if you absolutely needed full on-metal Windows compatibility. Now you can just buy a Windows license. It’s evident that (cost of a mac + cost of Windows license)/2 is way lower than (cost of a PC with comparable features + cost of a Windows license).
It’s a win-win situation in every way you cut it.
As a Mac user, I can positively tell you most Mac users don’t use their computers for gaming purposes.
Err, you can’t possibly tell; it’s a chicken and egg situation. Are there no games for Macs because Mac users are not gamers, or are Mac users not gamers because there are no games for the Mac (or at least, far less than for Windows) ?
Edited 2006-04-05 21:27
Err, you can’t possibly tell; it’s a chicken and egg situation. Are there no games for Macs because Mac users are not gamers, or are Mac users not gamers because there are no games for the Mac (or at least, far less than for Windows) ?
It’s not a chicken-and-egg situation. It’s cause and consequence. Mac users do not, currently (well, at least not until the 5th of April, 2006, the date when Boot Camp was unveiled), use their computers primarily for gaming purposes, period. For whatever reason, be it taste or unavailability, they don’t. Would they rather, given the possibility? In my case that’s a resounding yes! But that’s not the point I made.
What I said in the other half of my post is that this situation has changed somehow, since now you CAN actually run the very same games enjoyed in the Windows world on current and future Macs.
That’s not to say they’re running games on OS X, but on Macintosh computers. Would they rather not dual-boot? Of course! Was that the point I made? Nope. If they were gamers in the first place they’d have no choice but buy consoles or a Windows PC. Now (except if you happen to buy current Intel-based Macs with onboard graphics hardware, not the ones to be introduced later this year), a secondary PC gaming rig is unnecessary.
My point is, for the Mac user hoping that developers will produce more native Mac games (or any other software for that matter), this move by Apple may well damage those chances.
My $0.02:
Game developers will write games for Mac (or Linux, or BSD or Zeta) when the number of people using that platform reaches a critical mass. Preventing people from running Windows on their Mac will not increase the number of people using Macs, if anything, it would decrease the number of Mac users. This same argument is used against VMWare, Wine (Cedega), or anything else that lets people run Windows software on Linux. It’s not true. I am a developer. If there are a significant number of people running a given platform that could use my software, I am more likely to write software for them. Period.
If Mac users can now boot Windows, why would any games developers bother to develop Mac native games?
Only a small handfull of games I play work on MacOS. I doubt anything will change, certain game developers make games for MacOS and thats the way it will always be.
Let’s say that Apple currently have a market share of X%.
By reassuring POTENTIAL buyers that a Mac is a safe bet by enabling the buyers to run Windows in case OS X doesn’t work out for them, Apple gorws their market share to, say 2X.
2X means (more or less) double the amount of installed OS X systems and double the amount of potentail buyers for any Mac application/game.
Double the number of potential buyers and you’re likely to double the amount of sold copies.
So, this move will definetly grow the Mac application/game market. Now, if Apple only could add a second button to their portables I’d be able to recommend/sell Macs to all my corporate clients…
I think ultimately, the fact that the development tools available for Mac are so much better than what you ca get on Windows will make an impact. As John Carmack– no Mac “cultist”– about NeXTSTEP.
I see it this way:
10 Mac Boots Windows
20 More Windows users buy Macs
30 More Mac users
40 Bigger market for Mac games
50 More Mac ports OR original Mac games
60 More Macs sold to game players
70 GOTO 40
My evidence is, admittedly, personal. Although I am a dyed-in-the-wool Windows user, my next machine will probably be a Mac, because I really would like the best of both worlds. Now, if Macs are as good as they say, I am likely to be converted to using Mac most of the time. If that happens, I would prefer any software I buy (games or otherwise) to be Mac format rather than Windows format.
That is what I think will happen.
Who will bother to port their apps to OS X now?
Thay might just shrug and say – just install windows…
Ithink this might backfire on Apple.
Anyway… this move really seems to show that Apple is more a hardware company than a software company.
Iwonder what the implications are for the long term future of OS X?
(PS – Remember the high-level departures from the Apple software division recently?)
Browser: Mozilla/4.51 (compatible; Opera 3.62; EPOC; 640×480)
Backfire? Have you ever used a mac? Nobody in their right mind wouldn’t feel sick to have to boot into windows after using OSX for a few weeks. If I had an intel mac (I wished so) I’d rather have a nice menu hiding me the fact that I run xp to launch my games.
Backfire? Have you ever used a mac? Nobody in their right mind wouldn’t feel sick to have to boot into windows after using OSX for a few weeks.
That’s beside the the point. Many application developers will just shrug and say, “Well, Windows runs on a Mac now. That’s our job done”.
It will backfire spectacularly, and signals the beginning of the end of OS X. Those selling Macs will be under pressure to install Windows simply because of hard economics (the number of applications for one thing), unless of course Apple brings in some draconian restrictions for resellers which won’t work.
I bet you Microsoft can’t believe its luck.
Edited 2006-04-05 20:34
That’s beside the the point. Many application developers will just shrug and say, “Well, Windows runs on a Mac now. That’s our job done”.
I actually just don’t see it that way. That’s the equivalent to them saying “Well, our clients can now go spend an extra few hundred dollars on a copy of Windows to install on their computers, so that should to do them.” (assuming they aquire their Windows license legally, of course). Fine, but today I can buy a Dell for close to that price, and I don’t see a great number of software companies that already develop for the Mac canning their product and pointing me to Dell.com (sure, some do, before you argue that, but the Mac development community as a whole is not disappearing because of cheap Dells).
I’m not sure this will grow the number of Mac developers, but I’m hard pressed to see how it shrinks it any. Companies commited to Mac will continue to build for Mac – being able to install Windows on my Mac doesn’t mean I _will_ install Windows on it, which means they can’t sell their product to me if they stop Mac development. Mac users are crazy, they are fanatics, and proud of it, and companies who develop for that, know that.
In fact, Windows doesn’t cost anything as like as much as people think. Anyone who buys a retail copy is nuts. You obviously buy a hard drive, which you need anyway for backups, and an OEM copy with it. Its perfectly legal and the bundle costs less than the retail version alone.
And you get those backups you always knew you ought to have!
You obviously buy a hard drive, which you need anyway for backups, and an OEM copy with it.
This is no longer legal, Microsoft has changed this about 6 months ago: http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2005/09/07/461950.aspx
Edited 2006-04-06 09:26
Are any of those OEM rules actually legally valid? Copyright only covers replication and use of a piece of software, but not the selling of it.
“This is no longer legal….”
Yes, you’re right, that’s what the link says. Amazing. And yet a month or so ago, I bought a barebones kit from a large Euroland supplier for a friend, and along with it a copy of XP. It wasn’t preinstalled, as the link says it must be, and it certainly wasn’t sold with a complete computer system, more a collection of bits that hopefully might become one, if our hands didn’t slip on the way.
I don’t quite understand how you are supposed to put together an XP barebones PC legally now. But that must be a legal activity, surely?
Edit: I guess, silly, that you are supposed to buy at retail. Good luck with that one!
Edited 2006-04-06 09:54
“Nobody in their right mind wouldn’t feel sick to have to boot into windows after using OSX for a few weeks”
The world doesn’t agree. The world has voted with their wallets, the other way. No point arguing are they right or wrong, its over.
What will happen? The world will end up feeling that Windows is not so bad after all…and Apple will end up opening the OS having opened the hardware. And we will all discover that OSX is not the crown jewels, it was the main and leading impediment to selling designer hardware.
I know it doesn’t feel this way to mac enthusiasts, but it is like trying to sell a set of designer luggage, where the only airline you could take it on is Air Rwanda. Now all of a sudden you can fly with it on American. Surprise surprise, sales take off.
Yes, I know this is not how it feels, or how you want it to be.
Nobody in their right mind wouldn’t feel sick to have to boot into windows after using OSX for a few weeks.
Obviously my mind must be very wrong. I’ve had an iBook for a couple of years and thus used OSX on a regular basis. I have also worked with OSX on a couple of video editing/compositing projects I’ve worked on. However both at home and at work I have a Win XP and a Linux (Ubuntu) workstation and I certainly don’t feel sick when switching form one OS to the other. They all have things that I think are better compared to the other OS’s and they all have things that annoy me compared to the other two OS’s. OSX isn’t the be all and end all of OS’s and it isn’t _that_ much better than XP.
And as it always happens when the devil catches a cold, Apple shares boomed, rising almost 10% today.
If that’s what happens when Apple screws up, their shareholders must be craving for some more stupidity!
Look at it this way: OS X is candy, the hardware is the meat. That’s how their profit is made. Now I’m positive Leopard will have unbelievable eye-candy and real (heh) features with way less hardware requirements than Vista, and people will rather happily upgrade to Macs running Leopard than some exorbitantly-priced PC (yay, who in a righteous mind would have spoken these words before Vista?), particularly in the notebook camp.
Edit: typo
Edited 2006-04-05 20:30
I have windows XP on a few pcs here, but stay on Mac OS X all the time. It will be nice though when I get my new Mac to have XP on it too. So I can fiddle with Windows when I want to without using the other boxes.
This has to be a win situation for everyone wanting a mac, but I’m sure Apple fell short again in their minds. Maybe it’s the cost again or macs have to many usb 2 ports, etc.
Dual booting is okay, but I’d rather find a virtualization solution that always you to run a Windows or Linux VM while OS X is still running in the background.
I have a question about the supplied windows drivers…
What I want to know is if those drivers could somehow be repackaged/engineered for linux and made to help run the hardware of all Macs (ie. the sound on my iMac G5)… Like how there are proprietary Nvidea drivers – could this mean we could have proprietary Apple drivers and I could finally get my Apple system running properly??!?
Any driver could be ported to Linux, but these won’t be.
Apple never released Linux drivers before, so I don’t see any reason why they would start now. Most of these drivers aren’t new and aren’t written/owned by Apple; they are existing Windows drivers for commodity components. Apple is just distributing them to Mac users.
you won’t have time to play any games becorse you have to reinstall windows every week or day
Edited 2006-04-05 20:43
I work at a university that has a centralized IT Organisation. We have a campus that is over 50% mac desktops which mainly deals with students of the Arts. The other problem we have is that computers are only supported inside thier warrenty period.
Problems we have face with intel macs:
No support for our corp. standard antivirus (Symantec AV 10). Don’t tell me we don’t need to have it installed because macs don’t get viruses (they do), policy is that every computer is supposed to have it.
Photoshop underperforming under rosetta. Due to the fact that computers are on a replacement schedule, people are being left forced to either switch to PCs or suffer poor photoshop performance. This could plauge a lot of the adobe range, but the major one I know about is photoshop.
There are more, but you get the drift.
I must say that almost everything else worked like a charm, Lotus Notes, MS Office, etc. So we are only suffering a handfull of problems.
Photoshop is the big one, This will finally allow the lecturer whos department will only pay for an iMac contiune teaching the app with it running at reasonable speed. It may require a reboot but will do until CS3 comes out.
It will also allow a lot more, any lab filled with macs can now also boot our windows lab environment as well. This allows the reduction in the ammount of labs required.
Hail the Apple for finally helping us enterprise support guys!!! Now all they need to do is fix their hardware support processes.
You need ClamXAV– free and open-sourced virus protection.
I have known lots of people at different software companies. I have also read comments by execs at software companies. Often the reason for dropping Mac support has been because it wasn’t cost effective to maintain to different sets of hardware. I have read and heard numerous times from developers that Mac support would either start or would continue if they didn’t have to shell out the cash for two different sets of hardware.
Apple booting Windows means that development companies can now buy 1 set of hardware, and target two operating systems at the same time. That is an attractive possibility.
Developers know that there are a LOT of people out there that are simply NOT interested in leaving the Mac OS for Windows even if it can dual boot. It is easy enough, if you write code properly and use the right tools to make your apps easy to port to both operating systems. Though it isn’t always easy to do so, the tools are available to get apps ported to both sides. Now using one set of hardware, it is possible to target two very popular operating systems.
Developers know that there are a LOT of people out there that are simply NOT interested in leaving the Mac OS for Windows even if it can dual boot. It is easy enough, if you write code properly and use the right tools to make your apps easy to port to both operating systems. Though it isn’t always easy to do so, the tools are available to get apps ported to both sides. Now using one set of hardware, it is possible to target two very popular operating systems.
Two, three, four, five… The BSDs, Solaris, Linux, Haiku, SkyOS… The door is open now, you know
If the new Intel-based Macs aren’t developer’s dream*, what else is?
(well, except for drivers if Apple doesn’t happen to open them up for Linux — and they probably won’t, releasing binary-only drivers –, but crazier hardware have been reverse-engineered before under WAY worse conditions)
(* well well, except for being little endian. I hate debugging little endian software with a passion. We all learn to massage our debuggers into making sense of those inverted bytes, but it’s so convenient to just look at them in big endian order…)
The same reason people are writing games for linux.
Because customers would like it.
some people don’t like windows, therefor they might not be a potential gamer to a company if they wont install windows.
why?
The same reason people are writing games for linux.
Because customers would like it.
Hahaha. You can’t be serious. Oh, you meant Tux Racer…
This will probably boost sales through the transition. Give mac users the option to run photoshop at native speed. But what about long term?
How is Jobs going to market this one? “New and improved OS X makes it easy to transition to the 5 year old worn out Windows XP!*”
*Vista support to follow.
There are 7 links in the news post and none of them link to the Apple site.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
Check the writing from this mofo:
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS.
This looks like it was written by a a retard. Or by one of the OSNews’ Mac zealots. Probably both.
Just for the record, the 64 bit Vista uses EFI.
This looks like it was written by a a retard. Or by one of the OSNews’ Mac zealots. Probably both.
Just for the record, the 64 bit Vista uses EFI.
From various March news reports found all over the net:
On Thursday, at the Intel Developer Forum in San Fransisco, Microsoft development manager Andrew Ritz revealed that Windows Vista, the successor to the aging Windows XP expected to be released later this year, will not support EFI booting. Ritz admitted that EFI support will not be seen until Longhorn Server is released in early 2007, and on top of that it will never support a 32-bit processor.
Now who’s the retard.
Most 64-bit sales are server systems not desktops. 32-bit is still the most common processor on the desktop. EFI works perfectly fine on 32-bit systems, so there is no reason that support had to be dropped by Microsoft.
Maybe MS themselves wanted people to not be able to run Vista on the current Macs, being only 32-bit, you can’t run a 64-bit OS on it.
Besides, according to Paul Thurrot we won’t be seeing EFI capable Vista until the release of the Server edition. So it still seems like they are behind to me. It’s not planned to be released until 90-120 days after the client version.
The question is, is it worth it dropping a hundred bucks on Windows XP so that I can play Counterstrike Source on the Mac?
Especially now that all my non-work hours are devoted to World of Warcraft?
OTOH, I’ll be able to access our ERP at work from a Mac.
If you have linux you want Windows by side…
If you have OSX you want Windows by side…
Hey i have Windows and i dont need Linux and OSX by my side… O_o WTF?
“Hey i have Windows and i dont need Linux and OSX by my side… O_o WTF?”
And you are writing a post in this topic?
You need a brain by your side. 🙂
This whole argument that this is bad for Apple because games won’t be ported is absurd.
The fact is that gives a choice to mac users to install XP. Some users really need to run a particular application only availabe on Windows.
Additionally, the whole porting argument has no basis in fact. Developers could say, why port to intel when rosetta exists. Most developers are porting, even Microsoft.
Edited 2006-04-05 21:38
Personally, I think Apple should just become the hardware company that they used to be, and just sell computers, pre-installed with OS X, but also let people just buy OS X and put it on their generic hardware. This would get more users, and with more users they’d get more developers. If they really don’t make much money on OS X, they should open source all that they can on it.
Apple could become the new Alienware, with nicely designed cases, and killer hardware in them. Not everyone likes Dell or will buy PCs from them. Apple designs some very nice and stylish cases and their computer hardware works well together. Opening it up to install Windows XP on it may as well be the death sentence for OS X. Since Photoshop runs faster on Windows right now than the Intel Macs, that’s just a kick in the teeth, since from my understanding, that’s what most people buy Macs for in the first place!
If you apply a little logic, this is what you find:
The argument that software developers will stop making software for Mac OS X because Macs can now run windows makes no sense. Are they any more likely to tell you “boot up into windows, we don’t write for Mac” now then they were to tell you “buy a pc, we don’t write for Mac?” No. They write software for Mac OS X because IT SELLS! Do they sell more windows copies? yes. Is the number of Mac copies they sell sufficient to invest effort into porting said software to Mac? yes. So what has changed? nothing. Buying a PC to run Photoshop on it has ALWAYS been an option but despite that Adobe has kept making it for Mac. Same for MS Office, they make good profit on Office for Mac and will continue to make and sell it.
Now my $0.02, the Boot Camp thing is a bait-n-switch tactic. I know many people who are curious about MAc or outright want one but for one or more reasons “need” windowsXP in their life (for work/play) or are uncomfortable buying a computer for the first time in their lives that will NOT run windows. BootCamp takes care of that. Now after they buy the Mac and realize OS X is a really good OS and they like it, maybe they will switch to using OS X as their primary OS.
Actually it does make a little sense.
Before, if a mac user wanted to run software that was made for windows, they would have to buy another computer (I don’t think the average user knows about VirtualPC or whatever). Most people are MUCH less likely to do this. So to up sales, some software makers would port their apps to mac.
Now, if someone wants to run windows software, they just need to buy Windows (presuming they have an intel mac). They are MORE likely to do this, because it certainly costs a lot less. The more users willing to do this means less reason for developers to port to mac, as they can still sell their software to Mac users.
“We haven’t done anything to explicitly prevent it, but we haven’t done anything to encourage it either,” Apple Senior Product Line Manager Wiley Hodges said of running Windows on Macs.
The intelligent game companies will make like ID Software, making multiplatform games using OpenGL and other multiplatform technologies. They can make windows + Mac + linux + … games.
Only stupid game companies remain using MS-only proprietary technologies like MS DirectX.
The intelligent game companies will make like ID Software, making multiplatform games using OpenGL and other multiplatform technologies. They can make windows + Mac + linux + … games.
Only stupid game companies remain using MS-only proprietary technologies like MS DirectX.
Wow, I just knew that most of game companies are stupid!
They are
Look at a lot of the tripe that is coming out of them. There are few jewels here and there, The Elder Scrolls 4, for example. Though still a lot of people are complaining it’s too “console-like”. A good majority of games are just re-hashed ideas. Very rarely in fact does anything come along that makes you think “Wow, that’s pretty innovative” as far as gameplay. Graphics are getting outstanding, but graphics does not make a great game.
Honestly, why wouldn’t it make sense to use OpenGL over DirectX since then it’s easier to port it to all systems, and then getting a much larger user base. Even if Mac and Linux only has a 3-5% share each, that’s still millions of users, considering how many computer users are out there in the world. That’s millions more of possible sales of your software.
I think one of the biggest problems that face multi-platform gaming is that Macs and Linux computers usually don’t have the latest and greatest hardware. Why? Because they don’t need the latest and greatest to run well! After you install XP, it’s pretty fast, but then you have to install an anti-virus, firewall, anti-malware, Office, etc. Once everything that is installed that is required for the computer to be useful, then you don’t have a whole lot of resources left. Since both Linux and Mac use the libraries that are there, instead of creating their own as many Windows apps are known to do, they are less resource intensive.
This I would think would make them better gaming platforms, myself, but as I said, they usually don’t have as high end of systems simply because they usually don’t need to. Unless of course they’re running Doom 3 based games….
Now the Apple marketing machine needs to start referring to Windows as the “Legacy OS”. It’s a classic IT marketing tool.
“Dual boot to support your old legacy Windows applications while you move into the more powerful, more secure world of OSX”
I can see it now…
how can the first thing to come up as an arguement be about games??… “I bought a mac cuz im a gamer, and everyone knows, if your a gamer, you get a mac” are you serious?? the laaaast thing on my mind reading this was about gaming!!
the windows xp hacks on macs werent used for gaming, and trust me, they wont be now. my understanding is that gamers hate macs. fine. whatever. this is a game to me. buy the mac because ive always thought they were the coolest but never used one- now i can hav my windows. then as always, something happens to my precious windows and what am i left with? OSX, and I’ll never go back.
i personally would like to have linux to dual boot with my mac… but hey whatever is clever.
also perhaps this will lead to MORE games on the mac, if thats whats on your mind. personally i find gaming as a waste of time, and believe a mac deserves better.
> If Mac users can now boot Windows, why would any games
> developers bother to develop Mac native games?
Why would any application developper bother with MacOS when Win32 is the de-facto standard ?
As soon as possible developpers will cut the duplicate work.
For the broader audience Windows will be the OS, MacOS will be a candy interface bonus.
Larger Windows market-share, MacOS still entranched, seems like Apple strategy is “Windows everywhere”.
I guess next step is a WindowsCE iPod.
Edited 2006-04-06 01:40
WindowsCE iPod? Gah! I think I’m gonna be ill, just THINKING of such a horrendous amalgam…
If your reasoning was valid then there would be no software availalbe for other platforms than Windows. Well, since there is I guess your reasoning is invalid.
> If your reasoning was valid then there would be no
> software availalbe for other platforms than Windows.
> Well, since there is I guess your reasoning is invalid.
What other platform than Windows ?
Do you mean FOSS ? It’s not commercial software.
Do you mean MacOS software ? It’s (it was) a hardware protected niche.
As an MS user i want free competition, i want to be free to buy a commercial alternative, Linux is not commercial and this new Apple move is risky at best.
May be Steve Jobs is a marketing genius, may be he can counter the Embrace-Extinguish effect, may be Vista will fail and OSX will conquer hearts (it deserves to) or may be it’s plain reality distortion field.
To me, seems like Apple satisfies the hardware hype and sacrifies the OSX enthousiast.
Edited 2006-04-06 18:22
Getting dumped by IBM put an end to the Mac games market.
There will still be little shareware games and possibly an few titles like WoW that Apple convinces companies to port, but outside of that any hope of making money on porting games to the Mac is gone.
And it won’t matter regardless since Apple’s POS graphics drivers are going to have to compete with their Windows equivalents. No one is going to want to run the significantly slower OS X version when they can run the better running Windows version on the same machine.
“Getting dumped by IBM put an end to the Mac games market. ”
Apple dumped IBM because IBM was asleep at the wheel.
“Apple dumped IBM because IBM was asleep at the wheel.”
Bzzzttt!
Give the Apple damage control a rest clown.
@MediaSex
Bzzzttt!
Give the Apple damage control a rest clown.
But he’s right. The IBM PowerPC G5 class CPUs are an abysmal failure. Outgunned at every turn by x86 CPUs. Need 9 fans, water cooled, etc…
And I feel bad about it; I wanted RISC to win. It was looking good up until about ayear and a half ago. IBM just didn’t understand the importance of what it was doing.
The idea that mainstream businesses will buy macs because they now get a “twofer” doesn’t make sense. Face it, most corporate computer users couldn’t care less and don’t want to complicate their lives. And for sure most corporate IT departments don’t want to complicate their lives.
Just look at OS/2 if you want to know what will happen to OS X if Apple encourages users to run Windows dual booted…
…Developers knew that OS/2 was a more rich environment and a way better OS overall, but they still wrote applications for Windows 3.X because OS/2 had a Windows 3.X emulation built in. No reason to write software for both environments when the software could be run natively by both OS/2 and Windows Users. Same will happen with Mac users. Apple should just start selling MACs with Windows preinstalled at this point.
Also, dual booting sucks anyway. If you are on one desktop and need to run a Windows application…you have to shut down and stop what you are doing just to pull up that App…its a pain in the ass and not practical for the most part. Almost makes the machine look hobbled…Virtual PC for Intel Mac would be a much better option for useability. I am not even a MAC owner, but the reason I wanted to get a Mac is just too fool around with OS X.
Dano
As I understand it OS/2 failed because MS bundled Office with Windows, which made licensing Windows more attractive.
Office has never been bundled with Windows, although Microsoft Works has been bundled with some OEMs…Works is similar.
OS/2 failed because IBM has the same kind of marketing team as Novell. So IBM gave up and boom MS was the only player in the game. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to acknowledge this.
>>OS/2 failed because IBM has the same kind of marketing team as Novell. So IBM gave up and boom MS was the only player in the game. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to acknowledge this.
Not true. IBM heavily courted developers in U.S. colleges to write software for a superior operating system. Every one at my school said “What’s the point, there are WAY more Windows installations out there at this point…” At the time, every computer in our labs were running tricked out versions of Windows 3.1. This is a major university we are talking about here.
Dano
OS/2 failed because it was marketed by IBM; not Steve Jobs, or even Bill Gates.
Did it ever occur to any of you that this whole dual-booting situation is NOT permanent?
Sure, Apple throws out Boot Camp, gets everybody worked up.
New Macs come out along with 10.5, and now you can run Windows INSIDE OS X as well as dual boot.
Then MORE new Macs are released and 10.6 which conveniently introduce some “technical problems” (i.e. purposeful big honking roadblocks) that takes dual booting out of the mainstream and puts it back in hackerville.
Back to rely on VMWare/Virtualisation etc.
Now the only things changed is all the new users Apple got. Those “old” Intel Macs that support Dual Booting will have to be replaced sometime.
And if you think this is going to HURT Apple you are not thinking. It’s NO different than when Apple sold Macs with “DOS Cards” (i.e. Pentiums) installed. Yeah, that almost killed Apple back then too . . . oh that’s right … it didn’t.
Nobody saw this was part of a major way to boost OS X. You see, as Apple has jumped on the Intel plateform, now it can lower it’s production cost as much as other PC manufacturer can do, so it _will_ lower its price once all their product will have passed to Intel or it will struggle to death. Then, (I bet Jobs has already seen the move as a major market penetration mean) Apple having already the IPod halo effect, it will use it as much as it can. Once Apple get a major market penetration, say near 15%-20%, it will sell Mac OS X for generic PCs, without loosing any money as people will have the choice to use OS X or Windows on a Mac. Having a solid revenue behind itself (hardware sale) and a strong user base and ISV support, OS X will gain in profitability or will die, as simple as that.
Apple have seen in the arrival of Vista a good point to kick the MS bµtt and I think they have a good chance, as long OS X will be release. But it will have to be quick!
Has Linux hurt OS X? *BSD? Windows on a Mac will not hurt any more than those.
Windows running on a Mac is a threat to major PC manufacturers, not Apple.
Dell and HP are who should be worried about official dual-boot support. It means people can use a Mac and run many *n*xes, Windows, and OS X, in any combination they choose. Non-tech savvy people will easily gravitate to Mac OS (I’ve seen it–folks being happier with old G3 and G4 laptops that barely run OS X, that cost almost enough for a used Pentium-M laptop!).
Others of us will get it for being hardware for a good price. Others will be tempted with it, because it means they can try OS X, and still use Windows, which they know they are currently proficient in. This offers a safety net, and changing OSes should be a minimally difficult task with features like Hibernation. I couldn’t care less about OS X. It’s kind of nice, really, but I don’t like it. I like the hwardware design of the old and new Mac Mini and iMac, and could see myself upgrading to a Mac Mini–but not to OS X.
Finally, this will be all the sweeter once we have working and supported hardware virtualization. I believe all of this work should translate well into making for an easy, KVM-like, swap between OSes.
When Dell, HP, or even Shuttle, come out with comparably well designed hardware to Apple, then Apple may be in trouble. Until then, they’ve got an edge.
You people that like Mac OS? Keep it. Same with iTunes, which many adore. Just don’t think that it is absolutely the best: for some of us, it’s crap, and we like having chocies.
renders the Mac (of whatever flavor) nothing more than an Apple-brand PC. I sensed this was coming. Now it’s here.
I am a Mac user, NOT a Windows user! “Just run MacOS X”, is not a good enough argument. I don’t use a Mac JUST for the hardware and I don’t use a Mac JUST for MacOS X. They are a symbiotic relationship, tightly interwoven, to create a unique computing experience.
If you can slap Windows XP/Vista/whatever into a Mac without any effort/hacks or whatever, then all you have is an Apple-branded PC.
Sure, you can run MacOS X, but EVERYTHING is written for Windows already, so why run MacOS X? Because it’s a “nicer environment” to compute in? Who cares about nice looks, when the app/game/whatever, is already available for Windows, but isn’t available (or the most recent version) for MacOS X.
Not me.
If all running MacOS X on a Intel Mac offers is a “different UI” (that’s essentially all an OS is, really), then I’m outta here. I am not going to own an Apple Mac, just becuase it’s called a Mac, if it’s not going to offer me difference in BOTH the hardware and software!
I sense I will be running MacOS X on my G4 Digital Audio until it dies and then switching to Haiku. If I’m gonna be using a PC, I am going to run an OS that is FREE, on hardware that is cheap. Not some over-priced Apple-branded PC hardware. I didn’t buy my G4 because of it’s looks. Not because of the OS, alone. I bought my G4 because it was a Mac! And Macs are NOT PC’s! The name may remain, but the heart has stopped beating.
If Apple is going down thr path it appears they’re now on, then whether Apple lives or dies now means nothing to me any longer, because the Apple of the past, since the 128 on up to the G5 is… dead.
In case anyone needs reminding, Mac has *ALWAYS* been non-Intel. The 128 up to the 840AV used Motorola 680×0 processors. The 6100 up to the G5 have used IBM or Motorola/Freescale processors. Intel processors of ANY kind were NEVER in a Mac.
I’m glad I’m content with my G4 Digital Audio, running Panther (10.3.9), because this is probably the last Mac and version of MacOS X I’ll ever own.
It’s been fun… but I think the ride is just about over.
Luposian
In case anyone needs reminding, Mac has *ALWAYS* been non-Intel. The 128 up to the 840AV used Motorola 680×0 processors. The 6100 up to the G5 have used IBM or Motorola/Freescale processors. Intel processors of ANY kind were NEVER in a Mac.
What like the 6100/66 DOS Compatable? with the inbuilt 486/DX2 66mhz as well as the 66mhz PPC 601 chip?
Do you see “PC compatibility cards” made for Macs anymore? Nope! And, I’m sure you can count on two hands how many people still use those few aged computers that actually use those “compatibility cards”.
And, I’m sure you knew what I was talking about. I meant as the *MAIN* CPU. Compatibility cards are secondary “co-processors”. Macs hace always been non-Intel/PC systems. Oh, sure, people have TRIED making tham compatible, but the lines were drawn long ago…
Mac users
PC users
Anyone using Windows on a Mac (in whatever form) does so because they HAVE to, not because the WANT to (and anyone who WANTS to run Windows on an Intel Mac is probably the same type of person who guts a G5 and sticks some AMD/Intel board inside, just because they like the case). But when the Mac BECOMES a “compatibility card” (A PC with a Mac name stuck on it), then you’re just running MacOS X on a PC, instead of running Windows on a Mac.
Sad, really.
The Mac era is over. In cometh the Apple PC! *sigh*
I can’t even count on one hand people I know who run PC compatibility cards.
There won’t be a mac card nor do you need one unless you want to run classic applications which are not supported on OS X on intel.
Mac OS X hasn’t always just been on PPC anyway it’s descendent of NeXTSTEP which ran on intel and other processors before being ported to PPC and turned into Mac OS X and now it’s ported back (having been maintained in secret for the past 5 years). Mac hasn’t been the same beast for a while now it didn’t just start happening yesterday. It started happening the day Apple switched to new world firmware and OS X.
I also beg to differ on the type of person who would dual boot with windows if they where going to gut their mac they would already instead of doing this since they apearently don’t care about OS X. This is more for those people who want to run OS X but also want to run those PC only programs that won’t ever be ported to the mac.
Edited 2006-04-06 05:59
You are dead wrong. Apple sold Mac with Intel CPU’s.
i8086, i286, i386, i486, and even Pentiums were all sold by Apple inside Macs since the SE and the Macitosh II.
It helped Apple then, and it will help Apple now.
Take the “Intel” CPU out of a Mac or Power Mac… whoa… it still works! Why? BECAUSE IT’S A MAC! It runs on a Motorola/IBM processor! System [whatever], MacOS 7.5.x up to 9.x.x is the *NATIVE* OS to that processor!
But… try taking the Intel CPU out of an Intel Mac.
Hmm… doesn’t do much anymore, does it?
Whether it helps or hinders Apple at this point is irrelevant to me. Steve Jobs lost me as a customer, the instant the rumors became true about Apple going to the Intel processor.
Unlike others, I’m not platform agnostic. I am platform loyal. But I also have to have a platform to be loyal to. I was a Mac enthusiast til the day “Intel” was spoken out of Steve Jobs mouth. After that day, I stopped being enthusiastic about being a Mac user. I simple use it because it’s not a PC and MacOS X isn’t Windows. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I’ll stick with this Mac (or anything up to the last G5) as long as MacOS X will run on it and my Mac can fulfill the needs I have. The day it doesn’t, is the day I’m gone.
But… as I say… “Apple will do what Apple will do”. You either follow along or go elsewhere.
I’m glad I now have Haiku R1 to look forward to… because there’s nothing left to look forward to from “Mac”.
Luposian, You are DEAD WRONG. An Intel Mac uses OSX. OSX is still OSX, and always will be OSX. Just because you have the OPTION to dual boot XP and get work done on needed applications that are not and in some cases NEVER will be avalible for the Mac, How is that a bad thing? It’s a good thing and to me will make it easier for some who HAVE to use XP for say WORK to be able to own a Mac. Then they can OSX for all their other work or fun.
I am all for XP running on a Mac as long as they never get rid of OSX.
Imagine you’re a software developer.
If you target Windows you have to compete with heaps of other software developers and you’ll end up with a small part of a large market.
If you target OS X then there’s much less competition and you’ll end up with a large part of a small market.
Targetting both makes the most sense – double your market share without doubling the development time. The problem here is hardware costs…
IMHO “boot camp” is a very intelligent move.
This is exactly what happened with OS/2 and look what happened. When Windows Vista comes out Microsoft will gain more of the lead.
Really what is the reason for all this animosity towards apple? Is it because of the intel chip? Is it because it can now run Windows? People keep laying out the “choice” trump card. I like choice that’s why I hate this and that. Quite frankly when Apple went to Intel they enabled MORE user choice. How much more nix software is available for x86? How many more OS’s? How could it be that someone could even be upset that Apple is giving it’s users more choices? If you could really rest on the fact that OSX is that much better than windows wouldn’t this be a good thing? Now users who are iffy about OSX can really see side by side how crappy their Windows OS is. When they launch Explorer and are inundated with popups and trhen they boot into OSX launch Safari and it’s good to go they will come around.
“Really what is the reason for all this animosity towards Apple?”
From the horses mouth:
“Word to the Wise: Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.
“Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.”
Still wondering? Its the snotty, superior tone. It provokes hostility. The message is the manner. People don’t like it.
Its a good point but so is the one made by apple. Not supporting EFI in Vista is plain bizzare
its so funny. we have ms users doing there mac osx/apple bashing saying “apple should just give os x up and bla bla bla i dont know what im talking about”.. especially with the games and programs arguement.
and the apple fanatics following the apple will win and is the best and blah bla bla…
apple did fine before this and will continue to do so.
i have no idea what the agenda, if any, could be with this move. i know lately there hav been some xp hacks, and for what? gaming??!! i havnt read of any xp running on a mac to see how fast it runs counter strike… are you kidding me?
I’m not sure if this is a good move by Apple or not, but I do know that, the instant I read about it, I knew my next computer was going to be a Mac. I use Linux most of the time, but dual-boot into XP for serious matters (Morrowind comes to mind); I could never have done that with a Mac before, but now they have lost their disadvantage.
Long term, I don’t know how will this work for Apple, and it might be good for Apple and bad for OS/X. Not that I care too much about OS/X vs XP: they are two proprietary products from two fiercely … proprietary … companies and, given the choice, I will use the more technically apt. I won’t invest any passion in either, though; that is left for Linux, which has another set of goals on top of the technical ones which I feel deserve some passion poured in.
Exactly. Macs have been nice in the past, but represented a ‘xor’ choice, and Free OS support has not been stellar (not bad, but nothing like x86). Now it’s all plain ‘or’ and ‘and’, and you get a copy of OS X bundled with it, to boot, at lesser cost than hardware to build a comparable non-Apple box.
Apple stands nothing to lose from this. The argument that developers will drop the platform is nonsense. Linux apps are still being ported to Mac even though Linux can run on the hardware just fine. Virtual PC has been available for years.
Making Windows XP an option will drive up sales which will drive up OS X users (even if possibly by a smaller amount). This in turn increases the market size for mac developers. This is a win win win win (MS, Apple, User, developer) situation. The only people who stand to lose are other hardware manufacturers (and possibly MS in the long term- depending on Vista)
Lastly, there is no way that apple will allow macs to be sold with XP installed. This will always be a “nice bonus option” for the user.
Well, someone had to try it:
http://www.3dco.de/visu/zetaonimac.jpg