[Macworld.com]

If you're curious about game performance running Windows XP on an Intel-based Mac, Peter Cohen can tell you one thing unequivocally: It works really well. [more]

[montgomery_burns]

A lot of people are painting rosy pictures of mass adoption of the Mac due to the ability to run Windows. "Buy a Mac and run Windows on the same computer!" "Mac users will demand Mac software, and companies that don't listen will be left in the dust."
Pardon the skepticism, but we've heard many of the same bright and rosy predictions before:
Apple used to sell DOS Compatible Macs and I'm sure people made the same arguments back then.
Apple also tried to increase marketshare through cloning.
In their Switcher campaign, Apple tried to go after "the other 95 percent" of computer users.
Many developers have been successfully ignoring the Mac market for years, despite the demands of Mac users. AutoCAD is a popular example. Haven't Mac users been demanding and screaming for AutoCAD for the past decade? Sure, there are alternative applications that Mac users can use, but the architecture and engineering industry is dominated by AutoCAD. It's like comparing GIMP to Photoshop. The makers of AutoCAD don't feel they have been left in the dust. Neither do the developers of applications used in the real estate business. Or banks with web sites that only work in Windows.

[ghmetcalfe]

It is a rosy picture...sort of. For developers out there porting PC games to the Mac (at least for the next two years) all I can say is "Do the initials 'G5' mean anything to you?" The present Mac user base is still predominantly Moto/IBM based. To ignore that in the short run will mean a fair amount of lost revenue for game developers.

[spimster]

well ... i for one will be definitely be purchasing a new Mac because of this (but not for a while).
A year ago, I caved and built my own PC in order to be able to play Unreal Tournament (at a decent frame rate) and then for Guild Wars (so, the PC is essentially an $800 console). This was instead of buying a new, replacement Mac.
My year 2000 G4 (with a CPU upgrade) still handles Photoshop and other apps I use for work.
But now with Boot Camp, I am planning on buying the high-end Intel Pro Mac (promised by Steve) by early next year. I'll buy a copy of XP and will only need the one machine and get presumably great performance for everything I want to use.

[iron_chef]

wall street seems to approve. 13% jump since the news came out.

[iggybird]

"People who keep an eye on the Mac game market are worried about this turn of events"
I guess I must be mistaken since I haven't seen anyone else bring it up yet, but:
I thought the whole move to Intel was going to make it easier for developers to adapt their software to work on OS X. If that's the case, its still too early to tell what the repercussions are from that, right?

[scottellsworth]

We are going to lose some games - those from studios that overcharge for their dev license, or that do not give enough support to the porting house to do the port reasonably quickly. That said, I suspect the games we will lose are the marginal ones.
Consider - Sierra did Caesar 3, a game that had a lot of potential, but that needed some serious patches to really be a star. It was not in any of the stores around town, and I finally had to mail order it. Gamers lacking mail order never saw it, and Sierra acted surprised when it undersold. They then left the market, because 'games do not sell', This is a marginal studio, and a marginal game. We would not have been likely to see it on the platform anyway, and had we, they would have wanted to pull out as fast as they could.
For a company like Sierra, running Windows is the only way to run the game. Thus, a gamer who just has to have a specific game might use Boot Camp, and the mac publishers, who could not have afforded the license, will likely not lose much.
The pain of a reboot and the cost of Windows will keep most users from using Boot Camp, but it will allow those who have one hit game that is marginal on the platform, or that need it for other reasons, to use that PC software. I have been known to launch civ and play a few turns during lunch. I could not do that if I had to reboot, so Boot Camp is not going to be of use for Civ, given a good Mac port.
Put more strongly, I intend to buy Civ4 and HOMM V when they ship for the Mac. I want those companies to survive, and I want to run the software without a reboot. Mac game makers will, I suspect, do ok, as long as they can continue to license games for a reasonable fee, and make enough to keep the doors open. Boot Camp does not change their value proposition.
On the positive side, some people need this feature to be able to buy a Mac, and there are a fair amount of us. Half our company's business comes from tools only available under Linux and Windows. We usually stay in a pure Java space, but we need access to things like the weblogic custom JVM. With Boot Camp, I can run that software, and thus I can take a WL contract that would have required me to get a PC previously. Further, I can do a fair comparison on the same hardware with software than allows other platform options. This makes it far easier for me to justify a Mac to the people I work with.
In summary, I do not believe we are going to lose the best games. Boot Camp makes the mac a safer bet for people with a few dedicated PC killer apps. Thus, we see more sales, more users, and a better Mac experience.
Scott

[montgomery_burns]

Now that the Intel Mac firmware update adds legacy BIOS support, does that mean future Intel Mac towers will be able to use off the shelf PC graphics cards?

[AlanCE]

In reply to:

---

Apple used to sell DOS Compatible Macs and I'm sure people made the same arguments back then.
Apple also tried to increase marketshare through cloning.
In their Switcher campaign, Apple tried to go after "the other 95 percent" of computer users.

---

1. Those Mac/DOS machines were so expensive you could buy a mac and separate PC, there was no real added value there.
2. Clones have nothing to do with booting a Mac into Windows.
3. Switcher Ad campaigns have nothing to do with booting a Mac into Windows.
I don't think we'll see many businesses switching to macs because of this news, but I do think more home users will head that direction now.

[derb]

I would love to buy an Intel-based Mac Mini but there are so many leading PC games it won't run because they require Geforce or Radeon cards that I will have to hope they change their strategy. I'm not just talking about shoot-em-ups there are other games which shouldn't really require such cards but seem to anyway and they don't even let you try to play them - the installer won't let you continue. I like the iMac (which would work) but it is nearly twice as expensive and includes a flat screen when I already own one...

[griffman]

I'm sure this will be taken care of in the new high-end Macs later this year...
-rob.

[Nobody]

The high-end Macs will have high-end prices judging by what we have had so far.
Bit silly to use them for gaming machines.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

1. Those Mac/DOS machines were so expensive you could buy a mac and separate PC, there was no real added value there.

---

And what has changed?

[montgomery_burns]

In reply to:

---

1. Those Mac/DOS machines were so expensive you could buy a mac and separate PC, there was no real added value there.

---

Sure, that's what you say now, but weren't people back then saying how great it was?

In reply to:

---

2. Clones have nothing to do with booting a Mac into Windows.
3. Switcher Ad campaigns have nothing to do with booting a Mac into Windows.

---

The clones were an attempt to increase marketshare. The Switcher campaign was another attempt to increase marketshare. And booting Windows is another attempt at marketshare out of many. A lot of people arer predicting this huge tidal wave of Mac adoption, but what makes the situation different now than it was back then?