BRLawyer said:
I don't wanna repeat myself...but my assumptions are: (1) IF Apple officially (as with BootCamp) makes it easy for people to install Winblows; AND (2) we consider software that is NOT YET ported to the Mac = RESULT: no prospective software developers (like for Autocad and games) will make an effort to creat native OS X versions.
I am still waiting for reasonable counter-arguments to my theory here...
I like you. You make me laugh. - memorable quote from the movie Gung Ho. That last line is one of the best jokes I've read on this forum in awhile. If your sarcasm detector is disabled, turn it on now. It's easy to excuse the numerous drive-by "OS X development is d00med" postings but you seemed to have missed a number of rational posts in many of the previous Windows on Mac threads when you posted the exact same theory. Worst of all, you had to go on in one of those other threads about why all of these "newbies" have suddenly appeared and therefore must be Microsoft shills to which I say, some of us may be new to the forums but are longtime computer users of many different platforms and therefore, aren't as narrowminded about the pros/cons of each platform compared to some of those users who are blinded by hardware and software zealotry, who act no different than the lemmings in the original Apple commercial marching to the old Guy Kawasaki Macevangelist beat, and look at their computer as some icon of worship as opposed to being the multipurpose tool that it is. I fully expect this reply to be glossed over just because it is too long but what the hell, since you can repeat the same, so will I.
Some of us prefer Mac OS X by choice but have certain needs which requires running Windows based applications (some occasionally, some more than others). Being able to do this on an Intel Mac without the great performance tax of emulating the complete x86-ISA like with the PowerPC version of Virtual PC is a serious benefit to those who can make use of this. No one is putting a gun to yours or anyone elses head requiring you to buy a retail copy of Windows to dual boot (and the same will apply to a virtualization product as a guest OS would still need to be acquired). This one fact makes this notion of OS X development being killed off pretty much a flawed theory.
Using your logic, free opensource software should have overtaken the Mac application space by now given that the BSD subsystem is installed by default. Adobe could have told Mac users to just use the GIMP. Microsoft could have told us to use Open Office. Did that happen? NO.
Yet you and others keep bringing up this theory about prospective developers no longer having any reason to create native OS X versions of applications and games. Well you said it yourself, NOT YET ported. What if anything has changed? These companies weren't creating those native versions to begin with (even before this Intel switch was announced) when they could have been doing it all along. We haven't lost anything since we had nothing to begin with.
Using AutoCAD as an example, how long has Mac OS X been out on the market? Using that as a gauge, Autodesk has had that many years to bring out a version of AutoCAD for the Mac. They equally could have told Mac users to purchase VPC and a copy of AutoCAD for Windows but they never did because companies like this aren't that stupid to "market" their products in such a manner since doing so destroys any goodwill which would have serious repurcussions if they ever do decide to enter the Mac market in the future. Someone else posed some of this before but you and so many others seem to selectively ignore this fact. Sure, the move to Intel presents the ability to run Windows natively via dual boot or with far better performance in VPC-like fashion via some future virtualization product (which is what I'm waiting for) but bottomline, it is still a Mac where the primary operating environment is Mac OS X and native OS X apps will continue to be the primary choice when available (and for some, the only option). The move to Intel does not make porting such an application any easier as the difference is still programming for Windows and Mac OS X. The same thing goes for game software companies. They weren't exactly tripping over themselves and beating down the doors to develop or port their games to the Mac before. There is also the issue of DirectX which many game developers utilize.
If you are talking about possible future development since the time the Intel Mac's were released, than we'd still be getting the shaft waiting for who knows how long as the bottomline to these ISV's is Mac marketshare. Everything Apple has tried since Jobs took over before the switchover to Intel has failed to yield sizeable marketshare gains. It has been a little-by-little process. If providing enabling technology to make running other operating systems an easier prospect (which then allows those who can make use of this capability to get the most out of these systems) and this ability potentially attracts new customers resulting in increased Mac hardware sales over time, this would be the needed growth in marketshare numbers that will provide the catalyst for companies business decision with regards to Mac OS X software development. That sort of stuff does not happen overnight though and will also require Apple's developer relations to reach out.
If we're talking about those companies who now port games to the Mac reconsidering that move because these Intel Mac's are able to dual boot, it is still going to be a small niche within the Mac market as there is still the larger demographic who have no intention of purchasing a copy of Windows, purchasing a copy of a Windows-only game, and then dual booting in order to run that game. The majority of Mac users are going to opt for Mac-native versions.
If you cannot understand this simple fact, take a look at yourself and others who detest Windows so much that you refuse to ever consider putting it on your own Mac and will use whatever means to find a suitable Mac alternative as opposed to ever running Windows. Companies who enter or are already in the Mac market fully realize this as they aren't as clueless as users think they are. It's called understanding your market demographic. To push that point further across, I'm sure some folks who have been using Mac's since the early to mid 90's remember that atrocity known as Microsoft Office 4.2 or more specifically, the Word 6 app which was a port of the Windows version. Many including myself stuck with Version 5 for the longest time because the new UI was not Mac-like. This is one of the other reasons why the Mac BU came into existence as Microsoft learned the hard way about the sort of expectations Mac users have when it comes to how their programs work. Office 98 revealed that and also showed how different both Word 98 and Excel 98 were from their Windows Office 97 counterparts.
Apple with these Intel Mac's are offering customers plenty of options. In the absence of OS X native software and/or the requirement to run a specific Windows based software for which there is no Mac equal (even if there is some other equivalent by another developer) as mandated by a company, the only alternative for some of us is to run Windows. The ability to either dual boot for the best performance and in the near future, use virtualization solutions (with much higher performance than what VPC on PPC could ever deliver) means being able to consolidate computing hardware into one system. For dual platform companies, this is a big deal because this will result in cost savings in not only hardware purchases but also with other things like support contracts and electric bills. Some companies may follow Aozora Bank's lead but that scenario won't be as common since corporations have many man hours invested in staff training for operating a Windows desktop.
For potential consumer switchers, these options are going to be a boon as it will make their transition much smoother. Most casual consumers who are switching aren't going to switch to Mac hardware (and pay a slight premium in the process) just to run Windows as their primary OS but being able to run Windows at or near native speed as a safety net makes things more attractive. Additionally, Apple isn't supporting Windows as they are not shipping the OS with their hardware. All they are doing is providing the enabling technology and associated Windows drivers to make the process easier in Apple-like fashion and a better Apple-like experience for their customers who can make use of this functionality.
Finally, those who think this is another OS/2 scenario probably don't realize that it was a variety of circumstances which led to it failing against Windows. Furthermore, IBM licensed the Windows source in order to make the necessary modifications for seamless mode and therefore (as others have pointed out), included a full copy of Windows as part of WinOS/2 (the Mac solutions require the user to purchase a copy of Windows). I was an OS/2 user before switching to the Mac in 94 and recalled a candid discussion after an OS/2 demo with both Lee Reiswig and OS/2 demonstrator David Barnes about how their group was pretty much fighting an uphill battle even within IBM (think lack of communication and engineering resources). An original OS/2 ISV Stardock System has
this article and
this other one which contains tidbits about the sort of issues which OS/2 ran up against. Read the note about the support issues and it should become clearer why Apple is making a point that they are not officially supporting Windows because doing so would become a major technical support expense.
