[olePigeon]

I was wondering if anyone else has any ideas. If you can run Windows on a new Intel based Macintosh, and if Apple implements a "Classic" style OS layer for Windows to run side-by-side with OS X, what's the incentive for developers to even bother writing for OS X if Mac users can install Windows?

Until the Intel based Macs come out and a newer version of XCode that we can really test, here're a couple of my guesses:

1) XCode easier and better to use than Visual C++/Codewarrior
2) XCode somehow gets .NET
3) OS X is noticeably a lot faster and offers the same (if not more) features than XP and Vista.
4) XCode transcodes DirectX to/from OpenGL with little or no extra effort.

From the users' perspective, no or very few viruses and/or trojans plus enhanced security are big incentives to switch to the Mac. Having the Windows compatibility layer would allow switchers to use existing Windows apps while making the switch to OS X. And the users' incentive for purchasing "Built for Mac" software would be number 3 on the developers' list.

[mduell]

Who cares if developers write for OSX when you can run Windows apps so easily? The answers to that question are the reasons why developers who care about the Mac market will still produce native OSX apps.

Most developers I know prefer Visual Studio to anything else (including people developing for *n?x systems, which surprised me). MS knows that developers are critical to a platform (anyone remember Ballmer jumping around like a monkey chanting "Developers! Developers! Developers!"?) and put a lot of effort into making them happy. Xcode isn't up to par with Visual Studio yet (see this series of posts on phanfare for details), but it's getting closer.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by mduell

Who cares if developers write for OSX when you can run Windows apps so easily? The answers to that question are the reasons why developers who care about the Mac market will still produce native OSX apps.

Most developers I know prefer Visual Studio to anything else (including people developing for *n?x systems, which surprised me). MS knows that developers are critical to a platform (anyone remember Ballmer jumping around like a monkey chanting "Developers! Developers! Developers!"?) and put a lot of effort into making them happy. Xcode isn't up to par with Visual Studio yet (see this series of posts on phanfare for details), but it's getting closer.

XCode is also considerably cheaper than Visual Studio, from what I understand (ie, free).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mduell

Who cares if developers write for OSX when you can run Windows apps so easily?

You use the term easily very liberally.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by goMac

You use the term easily very liberally.

Yes, and I think my use of the term was correct given the premise of the OP's question.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

... if Apple implements a "Classic" style OS layer for Windows to run side-by-side with OS X ...

If running Windows apps in OSX is like running Classic apps in OSX, then "easily" is a fair term to use.

Originally Posted by Brass

XCode is also considerably cheaper than Visual Studio, from what I understand (ie, free).

For professional developers, I doubt the $150-800 price is much of a barrier to using Visual Studio. For hobbyists, novices, and students there's the $49 Express version which is free for the first year.

[Chuckit]

Your topic line is deceptive. You aren't asking, "Once Apple goes to Intel, what's the incentive?" You're asking, "If Apple makes OS X completely compatible with binaries intended for Windows, what's the incentive?" The latter is somewhat unlikely.

Anyway, there's as much incentive as there was for devs to Carbonize their applications.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I was wondering if anyone else has any ideas. If you can run Windows on a new Intel based Macintosh, and if Apple implements a "Classic" style OS layer for Windows to run side-by-side with OS X, what's the incentive for developers to even bother writing for OS X if Mac users can install Windows?

Apple will never do that, for very obvious reasons. They exist to sell hardware and OS X-based programs, not to promote their competitor's OS.

They would not prevent you from trying to install a full version of Windows (why would they?) on a separate drive, let's say, but who is supposed to write all the device drivers for the hardware?

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, the hardware is essentially the same in both peecees and Macs, so the drivers already exist.

[Salty]

I don't think Apple is going to make it that easy to run Windows binaries. I'm not sure MS would want to allow them to do that then they'd lose the strangle hold they have on Windows users and they wouldn't want that. At the same time it'd be bad for Apple because it would kill all things special to Apple. So the question is who dies first? Apple or MS? I could sooner see MS making it easier to run some apps for OS X get devs to convert to coding on Windows for Macs then break compatibility.
That said if Apple did the whole Yellow box thing they could do the reverse. Convince devs to code once in Xcode and simply add some goodies into OS X exclusively. Essentially simple apps could be written on a Mac for other platforms, but some higher end features that could be included would only be for OS X.

[starman]

Until the Intel based Macs come out and a newer version of XCode that we can really test, here're a couple of my guesses:

Um...

Xcode 2.2 is out and works just fine.

You can test an Intel Mac TODAY if you were a real developer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

You can test an Intel Mac TODAY if you were a real developer.

Not really, a lot of developers don't have money to rent an DTK for $1000. A lot of developers I know are running "unofficial" systems. This is my biggest complaint about the Intel transition. Apple knew it would get hacked anyway. They should have just given us install DVD's for normal PC's at WWDC and offered the DTK's for developers who don't already have an Intel box. End result seems to be the same.

In addition every time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X x86 they mess with the binary format so any software compiled in XCode doesn't work, and you have to get a newer version of XCode. So saying you can code for Intel today in XCode is slightly misleading, although I guess you can make sure your software works, it's not safe to deploy yet.

As for what spliff said about the drivers, that's just plain not true. One place where Mac OS X x86 is lagging is graphics card drivers. Mac and PC graphics cards are very different, both in the ROM and the id on the card. Because PC graphics cards have a different identifier, even if you could simply recompile the Mac drivers they wouldn't be able to find the card. On one hand it will be nice to be able to use any graphics card we want eventually in our Intel Macs. On the other hand, any graphics card's you already own for your current Mac will not work in an Intel Mac.

[Big Mac]

Apple's Intel PCs are the final step toward Apple Computer, Inc. becoming Apple Media, Inc.. Steve Jobs doesn't care about Macintosh computers.

[11011001]

Personally I wouldn't switch because I like Cocoa so much. I'm sure most Mac developers would agree that most of the time it's a joy to use.

[Cubeoid]

Mac users can not run Windows and never will be able to. Stop talking crap!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

Mac users can not run Windows and never will be able to. Stop talking crap!

Huh? With Apple pumping out Intel PCs, dual booting will be a reality.

[RGB]

The developers will not expect Mac users to drop $200 on a licensed copy of Windows to run their software in a subpar environment.

Seems that simple to me.

[Cubeoid]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Huh? With Apple pumping out Intel PCs

Apple pumping out Intel Pcs? What a bizzare idea. Go to the corner you hamburger, go now!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

Apple pumping out Intel Pcs? What a bizzare idea. Go to the corner you hamburger, go now!

Uh huh. You may dismiss my comments, but the truth is the truth. Apple will be producing genuine Intel PCs capable of running Windows just as standard PCs do. They will be Apple branded Intel PCs. So why should be shunned for calling them what they are?

[Seb G]

The incentive for developers? Mac users bying Mac OS/Intel versions of their software instead of Windows/Intel versions.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac

In addition every time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X x86 they mess with the binary format so any software compiled in XCode doesn't work, and you have to get a newer version of XCode. So saying you can code for Intel today in XCode is slightly misleading, although I guess you can make sure your software works, it's not safe to deploy yet.

.

goMac,
Trust me when I say this - you are DEAD WRONG. I'm under NDA and can't say anything more. When the time comes, I'll tell you why, but for now, you are very, very wrong.

Mike

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by starman

goMac,
Trust me when I say this - you are DEAD WRONG. I'm under NDA and can't say anything more. When the time comes, I'll tell you why, but for now, you are very, very wrong.

Mike

Oooooo. The NDA strikes again!

[Millennium]

The Intel switch, in and of itself, does not change the incentives to develop (or not develop) for the Mac, except perhaps at the lowest levels, where people will no longer be able to develop their lowest-level code on an elegant and clean architecture.

It's rare to develop on those levels today, however. Only game and language developers do it on a regular basis, and there is plenty of code available by people who have already suffered through the twisted, illogica, horribly outdated stain on the face of the computing industry which is low-level IA-32 coding. So for most developers, that doesn't matter.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

goMac,
Trust me when I say this - you are DEAD WRONG. I'm under NDA and can't say anything more. When the time comes, I'll tell you why, but for now, you are very, very wrong.

Mike

Huh? No. I'm dead right. It's already happened once. 10.4.1 uses a different binary format than 10.4.3. Programs compiled in XCode 2.2 won't run on 10.4.1 x86, and programs compiled in XCode 2.1 won't run on 10.4.3. 10.4.3 has to be patched in order to run 10.4.1 programs.

This isn't anything you can't find after a few minutes on Google.

[starman]

Why the hell should anyone with a Mac Dev unit be running 10.4.1?

Oh, I see, you're one of those people that PIRATED it and run it on your PeeCee.

This is why it's called a TRANSITION MACHINE. Apple's making sure that they get it done right. SO WHAT if Xcode 2.2 apps don't run on 10.4.1? Developers with transition machines shouldn't be running 10.4.1 anyway! If you had access to the documentation, you'd know what you're talking about. You don't.

Xcode 2.2 is fine for deployment. If you're going to bitch about 10.4.1, then you're obviously running a pirated version of the OS.

Mike

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Huh? With Apple pumping out Intel PCs, dual booting will be a reality.

Why do you persist in saying this?

We don't have the final hardware in our hands yet.

We do not know if Apple is just going to use Intel chipsets for everything or if they will use some custom chipsets not found in ANY "generic PC."

If they do use custom chips, then it will be VERY HARD to run Windows directly on the hardware without proper drivers being written.

You may be right about what you're saying, but NOBODY will know until the final shipping products are in people's hands.

Again, THE DEVELOPER KIT SHOULD ***NOT*** BE USED TO DETERMINE WHAT FINAL SHIPPING HARDWARE WILL BE LIKE!!!

[production_coordinator]

My 2¢:

- I continue to buy Macs because of the OS and quality hardware.
- I really don't care about the chip at the heart of the computer.
- Intel seems capable of creating good chips, at high speeds in volume.
- Moto/IBM constantly seem to be playing catch-up.
- Why should Apple fight the strong current of x86 chips?
- If we don't like what Intel has, we can always look at AMD [with minimal difficulties]
- Intel seems to have some interesting low power chips coming along.

Sure our top of the line systems compete rather well with the x86 top of the line systems, but our mid and lower level systems simply get pounded in raw horsepower. 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 [Mac mini] vs. Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 521 w/HT Technology (2.8GHz,800FSB) [Dell]

[production_coordinator]

I hope the Mac does dual book Windows. It's not going to hurt Apple.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I hope the Mac does dual book Windows. It's not going to hurt Apple.

All (or a good percentage of) Intel Mac's also running Windows = No (or a very low) incentive for developers to develop Mac Apps = the end for the Mac OS and Apple turning into a iPod company that also builds expensive & cool Windows PC's.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

Why the hell should anyone with a Mac Dev unit be running 10.4.1?

Oh, I see, you're one of those people that PIRATED it and run it on your PeeCee.

This is why it's called a TRANSITION MACHINE. Apple's making sure that they get it done right. SO WHAT if Xcode 2.2 apps don't run on 10.4.1? Developers with transition machines shouldn't be running 10.4.1 anyway! If you had access to the documentation, you'd know what you're talking about. You don't.

Xcode 2.2 is fine for deployment. If you're going to bitch about 10.4.1, then you're obviously running a pirated version of the OS.

Mike

I said if you compile now on an unreleased version of OS X x86 you're not guaranteed to have your binary run on the final systems.. You just repeated what I said.

Are you just trying to argue with me? You just repeated what I said.

FYI: For the record, I'm a select member who went to WWDC. I really doubt you have any information I don't.

[starman]

goMac,
You'll be very, very surprised to know how much more info I have than you. Very.

Right now, you're completely, utterly WRONG.

Xcode 2.2 is THE FINAL VERSION you need to write Universal Binaries. It's now up to Apple to make the x86 version of OS X compatible with it, not the other way around. You assume that because the x86 version of OS X isn't finished that Xcode 2.2 creates broken apps. I can tell you with 100% assurance you're dead wrong.

Here's a tip - buy a Mac Transition Kit, stop reading bullsh*t rumor sites, and actually use this stuff.

And I'm a Premiere member. Whoo hoo.

EDIT:

I said if you compile now on an unreleased version of OS X x86 you're not guaranteed to have your binary run on the final systems.. You just repeated what I said.

1) You don't HAVE to build on an Intel machine to make an Intel binary. I don't know why you think you have to.
2) You're still wrong.
3) Xcode 2.2 does everything you need.

You going to argue with Apple?

The combination of the Developer Transition System, the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, the Sample Code, and Developer Technical Support gives you everything you need to move your application to the Universal Binary Format.

MIke

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

All (or a good percentage of) Intel Mac's also running Windows = No (or a very low) incentive for developers to develop Mac Apps = the end for the Mac OS and Apple turning into a iPod company that also builds expensive & cool Windows PC's.

He is right. However, it would be hard for Apple to prevent VirtualPC from running significantly faster

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

goMac,
You'll be very, very surprised to know how much more info I have than you. Very.

Right now, you're completely, utterly WRONG.

Xcode 2.2 is THE FINAL VERSION you need to write Universal Binaries. It's now up to Apple to make the x86 version of OS X compatible with it, not the other way around. You assume that because the x86 version of OS X isn't finished that Xcode 2.2 creates broken apps. I can tell you with 100% assurance you're dead wrong.

Here's a tip - buy a Mac Transition Kit, stop reading bullsh*t rumor sites, and actually use this stuff.

And I'm a Premiere member. Whoo hoo.

EDIT:


1) You don't HAVE to build on an Intel machine to make an Intel binary. I don't know why you think you have to.
2) You're still wrong.

MIke

Huh? Right, you can build an Intel binary on any machine, that doesn't mean it will work. This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone codes just in Cocoa where endianness doesn't matter really. You have to have an Intel machine to test.

All I said was every time Apple has released a new version of OS X x86 the binary format has changed. From what you've posted, I didn't say anything wrong. You're grasping for an argument here. Apple has changed the binary format.

I don't care about your NDA or what level member you are. I know things that an ADC membership wouldn't tell you. You're not impressing me much, and you're not arguing anything. I said Apple has changed the binary format before. You said the same thing. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[starman]

You originally said:

In addition every time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X x86 they mess with the binary format so any software compiled in XCode doesn't work, and you have to get a newer version of XCode. So saying you can code for Intel today in XCode is slightly misleading, although I guess you can make sure your software works, it's not safe to deploy yet.

Get ready for an "in your face" moment when the time comes.

Mike

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The Intel switch, in and of itself, does not change the incentives to develop (or not develop) for the Mac, except perhaps at the lowest levels, where people will no longer be able to develop their lowest-level code on an elegant and clean architecture.

Sure it does. If you can install Windows on an Intel Mac, why bother writing software for Mac OS at all? The developer can make more money just writing it for Windows, then tell Mac users to go buy and install Windows on their Mac.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

You originally said:



Get ready for an "in your face" moment when the time comes.

Mike

Right, Apple has changed the binary format so far for each release. I don't know about you, but most professionals don't release software on beta OS's or tools.

Also, if you know information that's under NDA, why are you posting it on a public message board?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Sure it does. If you can install Windows on an Intel Mac, why bother writing software for Mac OS at all? The developer can make more money just writing it for Windows, then tell Mac users to go buy and install Windows on their Mac.

I've had publishers tell me literally on the phone in previous jobs that their software was Mac compatible, you just had to use Virtual PC.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac

Right, Apple has changed the binary format so far for each release. I don't know about you, but most professionals don't release software on beta OS's or tools.

Xcode 2.2 is not beta!!!!!!!!!!! The OS doesn't MAKE the apps, Xcode does.

Are you intentionally being dense?

Originally Posted by goMac

Also, if you know information that's under NDA, why are you posting it on a public message board?

Because I haven't stated anything that's proprietary, have I? Xcode is public. How is that breaking NDA? Apple says on their own site that Xcode 2.2 is what's necessary for Universal Binaries. That's also public. YOU are making assumptions. I am not. Apple fixed a ton of bugs with Xcode 2.2, a dozen of which I reported myself.

Mike

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

Xcode 2.2 is not beta!!!!!!!!!!! The OS doesn't MAKE the apps, Xcode does.

Are you intentionally being dense?



Because I haven't stated anything that's proprietary, have I? Xcode is public. How is that breaking NDA? Apple says on their own site that Xcode 2.2 is what's necessary for Universal Binaries. That's also public. YOU are making assumptions. I am not. Apple fixed a ton of bugs with Xcode 2.2, a dozen of which I reported myself.

Mike

Except you're targeting for a beta OS... They've already changed the binary format before. It's not that hard really.

Your response to this is that the binary format has been frozen in XCode 2.2. Either you're sharing something that is under NDA, or you're assuming something that hasn't been stated. I wouldn't treat a marketing blurb on Apple's transition website as fact. I would bet they used the same blurb for XCode 2.1/OS X x86 10.4.1.

[starman]

FACT: The binary format's defined on Apple's site. That's public.
FACT: Xcode 2.2 is final. That's public.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2+2 together.

From:
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/ad...lbinaries.html

"It also includes Xcode 2.2 for building universal binaries, the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, Second Edition, and sample code that demonstrates the simple steps needed to ensure universal binary compatibility"

WTF else do you need?

Xcode 2.1 had issues. They were fixed, and stated in the PUBLIC release notes.

There's also a PUBLIC Xcode developer's mailing list.

Apparently, you just don't do your homework.

Mike

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

It also includes Xcode 2.2 for building universal binaries, the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, Second Edition, and sample code that demonstrates the simple steps needed to ensure universal binary compatibility"

What are you talking about? XCode 2.1 didn't have issues relating to the Universal Binary format. They changed the way the applications were built to keep people who pirated 10.4.1 from running applications. It was their way of insuring that the beta OS's couldn't be used in a final environment.

The marketing blurb you keep on posting no where says XCode 2.2 generates universal binaries compatible with the release version of OS X x86. It says you can test your app as a universal binary. That's it.

I don't know what you're trying to say but Apple has tweaked with it already, after the specs were released, after WWDC.

[starman]

What are you talking about? XCode 2.1 didn't have issues relating to the Universal Binary format.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????????????????????????????????

It had TONS of issues. It had so many issues that we had to go to Apple DIRECTLY to get them fixed. What have YOU done? Maybe SillyBalls worked for you, but in the Real World, Xcode 2.1 had TONS of issues. When you write real-world apps, you'll understand.

Why do you think Apple released Xcode 2.2? TO FIX THOSE ISSUES!

Mike

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????????????????????????????????

It had TONS of issues. It had so many issues that we had to go to Apple DIRECTLY to get them fixed. What have YOU done? Maybe SillyBalls worked for you, but in the Real World, Xcode 2.1 had TONS of issues. When you write real-world apps, you'll understand.

Why do you think Apple released Xcode 2.2? TO FIX THOSE ISSUES!

Mike

Thats great. XCode 2.1 had tons of issues. They had nothing to do with the binary format changing.

[starman]

The bottom line is this:

1) You don't have an Intel Transition Kit. Right off the bat, you're flying blind.
2) I don't understand how you can afford a ticket to WWDC and a Select membership, but not an Intel kit. Apparently it's not that important to you.
3) You're not a serious developer. If you were, you'd have an Intel kit and you'd have a better grasp of the situation.
4) You're running a hacked version of 10.4.1 on your PC and therefore you have an ancient view of the state of the transition.

Mike

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

The bottom line is this:

1) You don't have an Intel Transition Kit. Right off the bat, you're flying blind.
2) I don't understand how you can afford a ticket to WWDC and a Select membership, but not an Intel kit. Apparently it's not that important to you.
3) You're not a serious developer. If you were, you'd have an Intel kit and you'd have a better grasp of the situation.
4) You're running a hacked version of 10.4.1 on your PC and therefore you have an ancient view of the state of the transition.

Mike

I'm missing the point as to why any of this is relevant.

You've got a DTK. Congratulations. You have the bigger epenis.

[starman]

^^ says the person who stated "ooh, I have a select account". Well, guess what? If you had a transition kit you wouldn't have any problems.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman

Well, guess what? If you had a transition kit you wouldn't have any problems.

..What problems?

[awaspaas]

children...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by starman

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????????????????????????????????

It had TONS of issues. It had so many issues that we had to go to Apple DIRECTLY to get them fixed. What have YOU done? Maybe SillyBalls worked for you, but in the Real World, Xcode 2.1 had TONS of issues. When you write real-world apps, you'll understand.

Why do you think Apple released Xcode 2.2? TO FIX THOSE ISSUES!

Mike

SillyBalls kick ass!

I don't know exactly what it is, but I do know that it kicks ass!

Thank you, that is all.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c

SillyBalls kick ass!

I don't know exactly what it is, but I do know that it kicks ass!

Thank you, that is all.

Silly Balls is a small open source program that's shipped with most Apple developer kits (for as long as I can remember).

It's just a bunch of balls that bounce around on the screen.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Silly Balls is a small open source program that's shipped with most Apple developer kits (for as long as I can remember).

It's just a bunch of balls that bounce around on the screen.

PIC? WE NEED PICS!!!!!11111!111

That sounds awesome! Balls bouncing, like a video game or something! What will Apple think of next?