[iDoctor]

Here is the question that always worried me ..
Do you guys think that if the Mactels will boot Windows that no company will port/build new software for macs?
You would think that they will say .. why shall I port my software .. they can run in fast in the Mactel with good speed with windowas installed?
Just like some software companies recommending Vitual PC if you wanted to run their software on current Macs !!

[slugslugslug]

The people who buy Macs get them because they want to use Mac software. Therefore, presumably, when people buy Macs, they'll buy Mac software as well, and developers will see that there's money to be made in Mac software, so they'll keep making it.

Apple and the Macintosh are doing really well right now, and I don't think any company that has decided to continue making Mac software as of now is going to stop just because Mac users can run Windows quickly..

Now if Apple's marketshare somehow drops precipitously, that's another story...

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by iDoctor

Just like some software companies recommending Vitual PC if you wanted to run their software on current Macs !!

What companies?

There are a small handfull of programs that are Windows only that I would love to see come to the Mac. AutoCad being an example of one of them... but for the most part, if a company wants my dollars... they need to offer a Mac version.

For me, I like the idea of being able to dual boot into Windows... that's one less Dell I need to buy.

[tooki]

The processor isn't what makes it a Mac. Just as the ability to run Windows apps hasn't killed Linux software development, it won't on the Mac. In fact, the switch to Intel will make things easier for a lot of developers to develop for Win and Mac.

Only the most shortsighted developers would ask their Mac users to run Windows (like the few stupid developers that claim to run on Mac, since their program can run in Virtual PC). I think we're in no danger.

tooki

[Horsepoo!!!]

Yes...it's the big fat end of Mac OS X software.

Lock 'er up.

[Maflynn]

My concern is companies that Adobe that support dual platforms may look at this with the idea of reducing their development and support costs and drop OSX.

Why develop a software package for the same hardware (different OS) for a small market, where as you (adobe) may offer incentives to purchase an windows upgrade instead of a OSX upgrade.

I think the danger is real and if a company thinks it can reduce costs they will. Just look at how enticing out sourcing is.

Mike

[alphasubzero949]

Let's see...

MS Office? Trust me, I wouldn't be weeping if they did pull the plug. Not when OpenOffice is more compatible with MS Office formats than MS Office itself. Then again, why pull the plug on something profitable?

Adobe Photoshop? Fat chance, especially when a sizable chunk of their sales are to Mac-using customers.

You can say the same about the other big players.

Face it: Mac users will dole out a lot of cash for their systems and buy up the apps they need. As long as there is profit to be made, software companies will be shooting themselves in the feet if they suddenly stop making Mac OS X-compatible software.

Look around at what apps were discontinued. The majority of them were either freeware or didn't turn a profit because hardly any Mac users bought and used or cared for them.

The little guys are another story. Chances are, someone else picks up the slack.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by tooki

The processor isn't what makes it a Mac. Just as the ability to run Windows apps hasn't killed Linux software development, it won't on the Mac. In fact, the switch to Intel will make things easier for a lot of developers to develop for Win and Mac.

Only the most shortsighted developers would ask their Mac users to run Windows (like the few stupid developers that claim to run on Mac, since their program can run in Virtual PC). I think we're in no danger.

tooki

And with WINE coming to OS X we won't even need Virtual PC.

[ghporter]

The big software houses are already in the business of making plenty of money from titles for both platforms-why should they kill the goose that keeps laying golden eggs? As tooki points out, the processor is not what runs the software, it's the OS. There are significant technical differences between OS X and Windows that make OS X more robust, flexible and stable, so tons of people have been flocking to Macs ever since OS X came out, in spite of the fact that Macs are typically more expensive than PCs with comparable capabilities.

There may be delays in finding native-Intel coded OS X apps for a while, but they will most assuredly still be there.

[CaptainHaddock]

Most of the good Mac software isn't even available on the PC end (Apple apps, Panic apps, Toast, etc), so I wouldn't be too worried. And the other big boys, Adobe and Microsoft, find Mac software too profitable. Some software industry group recently revealed that 18% of all software purchased is Mac software.

And with all the amazing development APIs OS X now has (Core Image, Core Data, etc), I'd be more worried if I was a Windows user.

[osxrules]

I doubt they'd force you to run Windows but I wonder if developers might be enticed to compile their apps as apps that run under a VM (like WINE) though as it should just mean a recompile instead of learning the Mac APIs.

Probably the most important reasons against this however are performance and stability. Not only would they have to test the stability and performance of their application but also that of the VM, which might be just as much work as a port.

Also, for high-end apps, this wouldn't be much of an option because they wouldn't take the risk of the VM updating and breaking their software. They might look into bundling a custom VM into their software but it might dramatically increase the size and again you get issues about whether it would be easier to just do a port.

I think what the X86 switch will do is make it easier for a lot of developers of low-end software who don't necessarily have the resources to port software across. So overall, high-end or commercial apps should still be native but lots of free and useful tools that were once Windows-only should be runnable under a VM.

Concerning games, I think they will have to go the way of the VM too though and I do think this move will mean trouble for Mac game developers. The main reason for the lack of ports is because a lot of developers see the Mac as a non-profitable base and if you can run Windows games anyway then they can just consider Mac users as part of the PC gamer base. That's something I'd like to see because I don't like when Mac users get separated from PC gamers.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

My concern is companies that Adobe that support dual platforms may look at this with the idea of reducing their development and support costs and drop OSX.

Why develop a software package for the same hardware (different OS) for a small market, where as you (adobe) may offer incentives to purchase an windows upgrade instead of a OSX upgrade.

I think the danger is real and if a company thinks it can reduce costs they will. Just look at how enticing out sourcing is.

Mike

Oh ****...this thread hasn't been locked yet?

Adobe has just announced an upcoming Mac-first release of LightBox (an Aperture-like app)...does this sound like a company that is reducing their dev and support costs by dropping OS X?

[echosphere]

Oddly enough, now would be the best time to develop for the Mac. Universal Binaries aside, the process and documentation for building OSX apps is mature and solid. Thanks to the growth of spyware on the PC and increased adoption rate of the Mac OS due to the iPod popularity (along with Safari adoption), companies can justify more programming development for the Mac. I believe in the future we'll see more software for the Mac with much more frequent updates and better drivers.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Adobe has just announced an upcoming Mac-first release of LightBox (an Aperture-like app)...

Um, link? I read a rumor report on AI that Adobe might announce such a thing at Macworld (which hasn't started yet), but no other corroboration and certainly not an official announcement. Also, AI called it LightRoom, and LightBox is already (and as of today, still) the name of a shareware iPhoto-esque app.

Not saying I have any reason to think it's not gonna happen, but it's not announced either.

Otherwise, I think we agree that there's nothing to fear. And this thread probably properly belongs in the Lounge, where it would've already turned into a flamewar by now (though all the flamers would probably be in agreement about the actual topic at hand) and gotten locked.

[Leia's Left Bun]

I understand what he means.

He is thinking that if OSX for Intel has some sort of Classic that runs windows apps slightly slower or uglier then companies like Adobe will only make a windows version and tell mac users to live with the slower speed as the development costs to make a Mac version aren't worth it.

I am sure some companies will take this approach for sure but not the big ones.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Um, link? I read a rumor report on AI that Adobe might announce such a thing at Macworld (which hasn't started yet), but no other corroboration and certainly not an official announcement. Also, AI called it LightRoom, and LightBox is already (and as of today, still) the name of a shareware iPhoto-esque app.

Not saying I have any reason to think it's not gonna happen, but it's not announced either.

Otherwise, I think we agree that there's nothing to fear. And this thread probably properly belongs in the Lounge, where it would've already turned into a flamewar by now (though all the flamers would probably be in agreement about the actual topic at hand) and gotten locked.

Alright...you're right, it's not official and only a rumor. I shouldn't have been so hasty saying Adobe was developing a Mac-first app. And you're right that it's LightRoom, not LightBox.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

And with all the amazing development APIs OS X now has (Core Image, Core Data, etc), I'd be more worried if I was a Windows user.

To be fair, Vista has some very nice API's. Their window server is much nicer than the one we have technically (even though the interface coded for it still sucks), they still have a much nicer media center API then we do (please fix that Tuesday Steve), their search API is nicer.

[iDoctor]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

..... And this thread probably properly belongs in the Lounge, where it would've already turned into a flamewar by now (though all the flamers would probably be in agreement about the actual topic at hand) and gotten locked.

If admins agree .. then lets move the topic to the Lounge

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Alright...you're right, it's not official and only a rumor. I shouldn't have been so hasty saying Adobe was developing a Mac-first app. And you're right that it's LightRoom, not LightBox.

And it's out now (in beta), so you can safely use it to make your point. I had somehow missed in the AppleInsider report that Lightroom would be Mac-first. That's pretty cool..

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by goMac

To be fair, Vista has some very nice API's. Their window server is much nicer than the one we have technically (even though the interface coded for it still sucks), they still have a much nicer media center API then we do (please fix that Tuesday Steve), their search API is nicer.

I would certainly hope so, considering Vista isn't out yet and OS X has been out for 4 years now. To be *fair* we'd have to compare 10.5 with Vista...which we can't do.

[osxrules]

Originally Posted by goMac

To be fair, Vista has some very nice API's. Their window server is much nicer than the one we have technically (even though the interface coded for it still sucks), they still have a much nicer media center API then we do (please fix that Tuesday Steve), their search API is nicer.

That may or may not be the case but what is true is that Vista is a major resource hog. They say that you will need a minimum of 128MB VRam to run Aero glass although they do provide less intense GUIs for older machines (something Apple should've done).

They are going to DRM the hardware and encrypt all the data transfers including the signal to your display. This means you can't bypass DRM video by streaming out to a recorder. This might please the c***sucking RIAA but it also means that AGP is suboptimal for it so PCI will be advised.

On top of all this, they want to quash OpenGL once and for all in favour of their proprietary DirectX BS and in Vista OpenGL performance is supposed to drop by 50% or so.

I could see Vista being a Microsoft killer. They seem to be pandering to the content providers who want complete lockdown on their DRM media instead of the people who actually buy their software who value their personal freedom.

If you can run Windows apps on OS X86 and use fast, low-cost, low-power CPUs then I could easily see a lot of switchers if Vista is all M$ is pushing.

[ghporter]

Please let me reitterate: the OPERATING SYSTEM IS WHAT RUNS THE SOFTWARE USING THE PROCESSOR. The fact that the underlying processor is an x86 is far less important (and often completely unimportant) than the OS being programmed for.

The whole point of a good OS API is to abstract the hardware into insignificance. If the OS is built properly, the programmer NEVER has to even think about what hardware the program will be run on.

[hudson1]

I know it's been speculated that it might be easier to port a Windows app to OS X on Intel than it was for porting to OS X on PowerPC. I don't know why that would be so, especially considering that OS X is essentially extracted from the hardware layer anyway. Any developers want to comment?

[osxrules]

Originally Posted by hudson1

I know it's been speculated that it might be easier to port a Windows app to OS X on Intel than it was for porting to OS X on PowerPC. I don't know why that would be so, especially considering that OS X is essentially extracted from the hardware layer anyway. Any developers want to comment?

Some of the code in certain software, especially lower level software depends on whether a processor is little endian or big endian - this probably matters more for drivers and things, so they shouldn't have to add ppc specific code any more. Also, if apps have special SSE instructions (similar to Altivec on ppc) then they should work too. I doubt the switch to Intel will make it easier to port general software across in the sense of the code being easier to deal with since apps tend to use proprietary APIs but what is nice is if Mactels allow running multiple OSs then developers can test their software for all systems and buy just one machine.

[SMacTech]

So will everyone's printers, scanners, and others devices for PPC OS X work on a MacIntel without problems? I would assume so, or there will be a lot of unhappy campers and we will return ourselves to poor peripheral support we had in 10.2 and prior.

[ghporter]

Very little production code for generally available commercial apps has hand coded assembly code in it. VERY LITTLE. Compilers are much better at tweaking and optimizing code than programmers tend to be, and if there is any machine language editing, it's done after the compiler does its thing if at all.

Porting is a process that (am I repeating myself here?) involves the operating system. The OS reads the code, does the right thing with it, and produces the results. The CPU is the tool the OS uses to do this.

Let's put it this way. A house builder uses lumber, hammer and nails, and saws to build a house, right? Does the SAW or the HAMMER build the house? NO. The builder does. He or she uses the hammer and saw to do this. The hammer and saw are equivalent to the CPU and other hardware; HOW THEY DO WHAT THEY DO IS ENTIRELY DUE TO THE OS.

[lkrupp]

The dual-boot enthusiasts are going to be sorely disappointed. If Windows EVER runs on the new Macs it will be only techno-weenies doing it just to say they can.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

The dual-boot enthusiasts are going to be sorely disappointed. If Windows EVER runs on the new Macs it will be only techno-weenies doing it just to say they can.

From the standpoint of a long-time Windows user, I can say categorically that we would NOT WANT Windows to run on an Intel Mac. Windows is too full of ancient code and/or ancient design to be stable or reliable in anything but a dedicated Windows machine.

On the other hand, you do not need Windows to run Windows programs; you can use Wine, for example, to run them quite well. As long as a program doesn't try to make too many direct system calls (outside of the Windows API) then it should run just fine under Wine.