Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

phrenzy · Jun 6, 2005, 06:17 PM

I really don't have a problem w/ the CPU switch except for this:

We all know how developers already have to be begged and pleaded with to support OS X. They sometimes relent, having no other choice to placate the mac user base.

But NOW - with the completely obvious implication that Mac OS X will support Windows as any native X86 box would (See the quote "We won't do anything to preclude that") why in the hell would a software company re-make a huge software package for OS X when they can simply say "Just run it in 'windows' mode'?

This is precisely what will happen. And over time, companies will put more and more resources into making the windows versions of their software and just expecting the (tiny) mac user base to run it in windows. Now they don't have to spend lots more $$$ to support OS X.

And, more importantly. Why would a person writing new software take the time to accommodate OS X? Will it really be worth the time effort and money to do this? What's the benefit when you have the option of just running the binary in windows on the same box??

One thing is for sure also. Games development for mac will strangely both stop and explode at the same time. Nobody is going to bother writing a game for 'os x' - however those very games will undoubtedly be made to run on a mac as they would on any box (in 'Windows mode')

More than anything - this seems like it really runs the risk of sacrificing Apple's identity. My prediction is that Apple will be the only one writing apple only software anymore. At the very least every mac app that is developed for OS X will most likely be (easily) ported to run on Windows - thus negating any incentive to 'move over'

I have a feeling Apple is attempting a sort of 'trojan horse' trick here. By letting people buy a mac while still having a windows machine. Hoping that they will eventually ween them off of Windows and make them OS X lovers. I do not think this will happen. I think it overestimates the taste of your average consumer.

One thing's for sure. I won't be buying a new mac until X86 macs come out. In fact, I can't imagine ANYONE who would! Just think, people are going to walk into an apple store looking at obsolete computers on sale for thousands. WTF!?

I really think they should have at least had a Mini ready to go. How are people going to start writing for the 'X86' macs with no hardware?

invisibleX · Jun 6, 2005, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by phrenzy

I really don't have a problem w/ the CPU switch except for this:

We all know how developers already have to be begged and pleaded with to support OS X. They sometimes relent, having no other choice to placate the mac user base.

But NOW - with the completely obvious implication that Mac OS X will support Windows as any native X86 box would (See the quote "We won't do anything to preclude that") why in the hell would a software company re-make a huge software package for OS X when they can simply say "Just run it in 'windows' mode'?

This is precisely what will happen. And over time, companies will put more and more resources into making the windows versions of their software and just expecting the (tiny) mac user base to run it in windows. Now they don't have to spend lots more $$$ to support OS X.

And, more importantly. Why would a person writing new software take the time to accommodate OS X? Will it really be worth the time effort and money to do this? What's the benefit when you have the option of just running the binary in windows on the same box??

One thing is for sure also. Games development for mac will strangely both stop and explode at the same time. Nobody is going to bother writing a game for 'os x' - however those very games will undoubtedly be made to run on a mac as they would on any box (in 'Windows mode')

More than anything - this seems like it really runs the risk of sacrificing Apple's identity. My prediction is that Apple will be the only one writing apple only software anymore. At the very least every mac app that is developed for OS X will most likely be (easily) ported to run on Windows - thus negating any incentive to 'move over'

I have a feeling Apple is attempting a sort of 'trojan horse' trick here. By letting people buy a mac while still having a windows machine. Hoping that they will eventually ween them off of Windows and make them OS X lovers. I do not think this will happen. I think it overestimates the taste of your average consumer.

One thing's for sure. I won't be buying a new mac until X86 macs come out. In fact, I can't imagine ANYONE who would! Just think, people are going to walk into an apple store looking at obsolete computers on sale for thousands. WTF!?

I really think they should have at least had a Mini ready to go. How are people going to start writing for the 'X86' macs with no hardware?

Just to clarify, using an Intel chip (did they say x86? I don't think so) does not mean Windows will run natively (or even better than it does now). It will still use OS X and Mac and Windows Apps will be about as easy to port as they are now.

Game development will not change one bit, although with any luck they'll switch from OpenGL.

JoshuaZ · Jun 6, 2005, 06:58 PM

God I hope games will switch to OpenGL. It'll make life a lot better for everyone.

Plus it would be nice it run VPC without processor emulation.

olePigeon · Jun 6, 2005, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

God I hope games will switch to OpenGL. It'll make life a lot better for everyone.

Plus it would be nice it run VPC without processor emulation.

Fat chance. They're still going to use DirectX and DirectPlay, and Mac users (regardless of CPU) will have to wait over a year to see the game, only to have it run like crap.

Spliff · Jun 6, 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Game development will not change one bit, although with any luck they'll switch from OpenGL.

Ah, maybe you should go over to the Inside Mac Games forum and read Brad Oliver's posts. Doesn't sound like he's too happy.

Some samples:

Be careful what you wish for. If all those Win32 apps run natively on an x86 Mac, the incentive for developers to make Mac versions of their software drops dramatically. I have a pretty clear vision of how this would affect Mac game porters like myself.

Mark my words - for developers, this will be the most painful of the 3 big transitions. These 2 CPUs have totally different endianness, so a formerly PPC Mac-only app now has to add a large amount of code to deal with reading/writing binary data on an x86 Mac. Mathematica obviously doesn't have this problem since that code was written years ago when they first brought it to the Mac.

Well, for game porters the endian thing won't be a big deal - we'll just turn it all off when running on x86 and keep the data strictly little-endian like we do now. It will add QA time though - I'm sure we'll have more cases where stuff works on x86 but not PPC simply because the original platform was x86.

The larger implications of this switch are for Mac developers who haven't done cross-platform work before, which I'm assuming is most of them. Going from endian-ignorant to suddenly having to add code to byte-swap all your data will be a pretty big bit of effort. Everyone else will now get to experience missing heads, polygons that shoot out of your arms and colors that don't look quite right.

Spliff · Jun 6, 2005, 07:33 PM

Initial reaction from Mac game developers and porting companies.

http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=355

tooki · Jun 6, 2005, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by phrenzy

I really don't have a problem w/ the CPU switch except for this:

We all know how developers already have to be begged and pleaded with to support OS X. They sometimes relent, having no other choice to placate the mac user base.

But NOW - with the completely obvious implication that Mac OS X will support Windows as any native X86 box would (See the quote "We won't do anything to preclude that") why in the hell would a software company re-make a huge software package for OS X when they can simply say "Just run it in 'windows' mode'?

Because it won't run Windows, that's why.

Besides, this will make it easier to port code, not harder. Sure, it's not the lion's share of the changes that need to be made, but it helps.

tooki

phrenzy · Jun 6, 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by tooki

Because it won't run Windows, that's why.

tooki

Umm, did you miss the post-keynote interview where a spokesman made it clear that they WOULD allow windows to run on the new Mactel platform?

tooki · Jun 6, 2005, 09:47 PM

He wasn't a "spokesman", he was a high-level executive. What he said is that it will not run Windows as-is. It will have to be hacked for that to work.

tooki

kikkoman · Jun 6, 2005, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by phrenzy

Umm, did you miss the post-keynote interview where a spokesman made it clear that they WOULD allow windows to run on the new Mactel platform?

Nope but I missed the part where Microsoft announced they will be bring Windows to Mac x86. What Phil Shiller said was Apple would not actively prevent Windows from running on these boxes. There's a big difference.

typoon · Jun 6, 2005, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by kikkoman

Nope but I missed the part where Microsoft announced they will be bring Windows to Mac x86. What Phil Shiller said was Apple would not actively prevent Windows from running on these boxes. There's a big difference.

Which means we could acutally get a decent version of VPC running on our Macs. Hell if I could run both a Mac and Windows on the same Box I could ask my work to ditch my Windows PC. I'd stick to working on everything on the Mac side and be able to run the 1 or 2 windows only Apps that I need at work on my fully emulated Windows running at actual speed.

Ganesha · Jun 6, 2005, 11:49 PM

Plenty of people (who need it now) will still buy PPC based Macs. Let's say your only computer, a mac, breaks right now. Are you going to deny yourself a computer for 1 year, because something better is coming? That's crazy talk. The same applies to people who need a new mac for a job, school... etc. Only the people who can afford to wait for a year will hold off on buying PPC Macs.

JHromadka · Jun 7, 2005, 12:33 AM

Imagine dual booting between Mac OS X and Windows. The mind boggles.

lngtones · Jun 7, 2005, 02:26 AM

Why aren't people going to buy Macs for a year. Even if this transition wasn't going on, you can be pretty sure faster Macs would come out in a year PowerPC or not...

tooki · Jun 7, 2005, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by JHromadka

Imagine dual booting between Mac OS X and Windows. The mind boggles.

Mindboggling hassle, more like it.

A non-emulated virtual machine (the same type of thing Classic is) would work great. Virtual PC could provide such an environment: a windowed, non-emulated copy of Windows running inside Mac OS X. THAT would be handy, because you really could have the best of both worlds, running simultaneously at full hardware speed.

tooki

Big Mac · Jun 7, 2005, 03:23 AM

But, as others have noted, running Windows too well is what killed OS/2.

tooki · Jun 7, 2005, 03:51 AM

Yes and no. OS/2 also had the little problem that their Windows license was for Win 3.1 compatibility only, and when Win95 came out, MS refused them a license.

tooki

phrenzy · Jun 7, 2005, 08:34 PM

The problem is, at the very least, developers will have virtually NO incentive to 'macify' their apps. They will be able to virtually liquidate their entire Mac OS dev teams with the realization that their windbloze versions will run w/ a few mods.

Worse yet, I predict that some 'middleware' company will come out with a supported 'WINE' type thing to license to developers, that would basically allow a windows App to run straight in the mac OS using a sort of 'Rosetta for Windows' type of thing.

What do you think a bean counting executive is going to do at a software company?

Q.

"Hey, we just made this huge app, and there's this other tiny market ( >3% ) that we can also sell to. But we'll have to port everything over and the development time would require a team of workers for months to make a version that is consistent with Apple's OS X'

Q.

"Isn't there any way we can do it cheaper?"

A.

"Yes, we can just run the program in a sort of emulation window - and really require no new code at all"

Whoever brought up OS/2 - that is a great analogy. Only, in this case OS/2 doesn't run on anything other than Apple's (more expensive) systems.

While these things haven't panned out yet - I will bet money that:

1. Macs will be capable of running windows within a few months of the first MacTel release.

2. Any number of the MILLIONS of *nix/Windoze hackers will figure out a way to allow OS X to run on ANY Intel box.

Ever hear of XPostFacto?