[Nobody]

Peter Cohen,
Absolutely right: "And when more people own Macs, more people will be looking for Mac softwareincluding Mac games."
Expect the Mac market share to explode in the next few months and years. Expect more and more people to love the Mac OS X. Expect more and more native Mac OS X software.
Now, if Windows Vista is as awkward and cumbersome as Windows XP is, expect the process to accelerate at a faster pace! And if Vista keeps on delaying for ever, more Mac switchers and faster...

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

Bit silly to use them for gaming machines.

---

They'll probably be cheaper than Alienware.
To weigh in on the "will mac developers make games for mac now", I think that in the short term, we might see a decline.. because right now, the mac ports are made by Aspyr and MacPlay, and we can blame the old PPC architecture all we want, but I suspect a lot of the problems with the end product were due to the ports being ports. Possibly bad ports, or possibly just victims of difficult porting.
Also, the prices were too high. Why would I pay $59.99 for the Mac version of the Simcity 4 deluxe pack, when I can get it on Windows for $29.99 new? And most likely, it ran a lot slower, too. It would probably run slower on a pimped G5 than the Windows version ran on a middling mid-range P4.
I have bought Civ for the mac in the past, but now maybe I won't. Not until it gets released and its performance is on par with the windows version. Since mac game developers now have this "competition", they will either have to really improve things, abandon the porting business, or abandon ship.
Hopefully, Apple can whip OpenGL in shape, and it can become a competitor again. The only other hope is for DirectX to become so ubiquitous that it becomes platform agnostic. Until there is a decent, common graphics API, the game situation will remain grim.

[dreadnought27]

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.

---

I had one of those Mac/DOC machines, and no - it wasn't so expensive that I could have bought a regular Mac and a PC too. I bought a PowerMac 6100/66 with the DOS card, and without the additional 16 mb of RAM that cost $500, the machine cost $2300. This was the entry level PPC at the time, and the DOS option cost only a few hundred dollars more - and I don't seem to recall any $300 PCs back in 1996.
I was able to load Windows 95 on it, and it ran OK, but not well.
Of all my Macs in the past 20 years, it was the one I used for the shortest amount of time - I upgraded to a G3 in 1997.

[Steve_S]

In reply to:

---

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.

---

Possibly, but hardcore PC gamers do just that all the time. Take a look at one of the gaming magazines for example. Having 1 $600 video card isn't enough for them, they need two to work in SLI mode for that whopping extra 10% performance increase. Some of these high end gaming rigs make a G5 Quad look like a real bargain.
Steve

[leroybrown]

In reply to:

---

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?

---

Yeah - cuz it was great. Really. But unless you had a severe space limit, you wouldn't do it, because you could get two whole machines for less.

In reply to:

---

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?

---

They are 3 completely different tactics - you can't seriously think they're the same thing. Yes, they may have the same end goal of making money, but come on. General Mills makes Cheereos to make money, but that's completely different from Apple selling the mighty mouse.
I see three possible outcomes:
1) All the wafflers come out of the woodwork and say: "heck, you know, this machine will boot windows and the mac os (which I like more than windows anyhow) for a tiny amount more than that other machine that just does windows." This grows the market share and BOOM Apple has a two-digit market share.
2) Companies stop selling Mac versions because all macs run their windows products, and Apple shrivels up and dies.
3) The $100-$300 windows premium and dual boot are such negatives that this really doesn't have much of an impact at all. Everyone yawns and it's business as usual.

[spimster]

In reply to:

---

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.

---

Heh ... my current year 2000 G4 500 MHz was the top end of the time(which I use for making my living).
I will buy whatever the high-end is available in about a year (maybe this Christmas).
Difference now is that I can use the same machine for running these PC games, instead of buying a separate game PC.
I am stoked to do this ... I can hardly wait.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

I thought the whole move to Intel was going to make it easier for developers to adapt their software to work on OS X.

---

You're right, you are mistaken. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Apple's stated case for switching to an Intel-based architecture is that Intel chips have a better power/performance ratio than PowerPC chips do, going forward.

[sigma8]

In reply to:

---

the machine cost $2300. This was the entry level PPC at the time, and the DOS option cost only a few hundred dollars more - and I don't seem to recall any $300 PCs back in 1996.

---

There were not $300 pc's, but there were plenty of sub $1500 ones, iirc. And someone who shopped for components could piece one together for under $1000. That is back in the day when I didn't use macs at all because they cost like twice as much, and gave me less than half of what I wanted--which was a quality pre-emptive multi-tasking OS and some games... Yep, you caught me. OS/2 with a win95 dual-boot /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(did you think I was going to say just windows?)
1996.. ah yes, a quick trip to Mobygames reminds me that that was the momentous year when Quake1 came out. I quiver at the thought.

[jldinsdale]

"To weigh in on the "will mac developers make games for mac now", I think that in the short term, we might see a decline.. because right now, the mac ports are made by Aspyr and MacPlay, "
You're a little out of date - MacPlay doesn't "port" AAA games to the Mac anymore, they're making their money selling AAA games from other publishers, and publishing low end, casual games for a wider audience.
In fact, MacPlay never "ported" any titles themselves in my recollection. They hired companies like Omni to handle the ports. You might be thinking of MacSoft, who publishes AAA games, but again, up until recently, mostly hired third parties to port the titles they licensed.
Aspyr does have an internal development (ie porting) team.

[somedude]

There was an incentive to bring software to the Mac OS because millions of Mac users were running that OS. Now, in a couple years you will have the same set of users, but the platform can still be Windows.
It seems to me that it's not just games that are at issue. Quicken is an easy example. It's no secret that the Mac version lags far behind the Windows offerings. Well, why not just use Quicken for windows? In fact, given the bad feelings towards Intuit, why not MS Money? Apple's strong in the "digital hub", graphics and publishing markets. But the only Mac OS software that isn't replaceable is the stuff made by Apple itself. For all anyone knows, Mac OS Photoshop might run no better than Windows Photoshop on the same machine. Those types of comparisons will finally be possible.
There seems to be this school of thought that says that the Mac OS experience is so incredible, that once Windows users buy Mac hardware, they will be out in the streets demanding Mac-native apps. Right now I think that the most likely "good" outcome is that users will run Windows in a VM, third party developers go away, and most of the native apps come from Apple. The worst case scenario is that people just get tired of rebooting and stay in Windows. It's that kind of inertia that had me switch to X -- I hated the experience of the first versions of X, and I've never thought much of the Classic VM, but eventually I just got tired of rebooting. Windows is where all the applications are, and I don't see people migrating away from applications.
What would save Macs from becoming Windows boxes is if Apple expanded their software development to encompass more productivity, finance, games, etc. That'd be a big change of direction.

[ibeetle]

Short version of all this...
WE CAN PLAY Sid Meier's Pirates!!!!!!
YOHO! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[derkathon]

But at the same time, everyone that uses a mac has already made the decision that the platform has enough software for their needs. The BootCamp announcement hasn't changed the current offerings, and for me, and I'm guessing many others, the current offerings are enough. If I own an intel mac, just because I can install windows doesn't mean that I'm actually going to. And just because you own a mac doesn't mean you don't also own a pc as well. I'd be willing to bet that many mac users do. Even if a few intel-mac owners do spend a large amount of time in windows, there is still a large installed base of PPC macs that require software. I don't think people will forget them. Sure, it may be much, much smaller than the installed windows base, but millions is a hard number to ignore.
To me, I see it as a convenience allowing users to only buy one machine instead of two, just in case you do need a windows machine every once in a while. But I think the main thing to remember is that people buy macs because they want OS X, period. I think the worries that people will boot into windows and never look back are unfounded. Those that want to use windows primarily are going to buy a pc, both because of the perceived price difference and the vendor support. Why buy a mac to use windows when you won't even get any help with it if you have trouble? Worst case scenario, a windows user buys a mac because of bootcamp, then prefers to stay in windows primarily. Their next purchase after that is going to be a dell, hp, what have you, and it will be as if they never switched in the first place.
Personally, I doubt that BootCamp will be used much by the majority of people. I think it is to primarily help those considering a mac for the first time to get over that mental hurdle of having to abandon all their windows software. I think most people would find current OS X offerings to be comparible at least.
I guess bottom line is, I can't see anyone who uses a mac to suddenly start using windows just because he or she can. I use a mac because of OS X: the fancy hardware design is just a nice addition.

[Mindflayer]

I posed this question to Glenda Adams the moment this was announced (but my blog is for friends, so no traffic):
http://www.mindflayer.net/?p=113

[skyeflye]

I was a long-time Mac User all the way up until the last release of OS9. I still have a 500Mhz G5 and when I turn it on, it runs the OS9 Finder nice and snappy and it still looks and feels better than Windows XP. But about 4 or 5 years ago I really wanted to play the latest PC games and I also wanted the most high-end Desktop PC components that money could buy. The Adobe and Macromedia Programs I used for income had finally gotten their acts together in Windows XP too. So it was tough, but I made the switch to Windows XP and that's what I am using as I type this. Now before you start hurling flaming bags of poop at me you should know that I have been a (big) OS X fan for the past few years even though I don't even own or use it (except when I go on a drool-fest in the Apple Store). I have actually been yearning for an excuse to get a Mac for almost a year now. At first, I couldn't justify it because the G5 was not exactly the lastest/greatest for quite a long time there. And now, it's just that I can't really justify a Mini, or an iMac or a MacBook Pro because the price/perfomace/upgradabilty ratio just doesn't quite meet my specific preferences. So, I've basically been planning to get an Intel PowerMac as soon as it makes sense to do so. I may not get the first ones released immediately since I've seen some folks speculate that even faster Intel PowerMacs (real super-machines) might follow the initial Intel PowerMacs released by just a few months (I somehow doubt that actually, but we'll see). And while I was willing to give up the ability to play the latest and greatest games on my forthcoming PowerMac running OSX, it did "sting" a little to think about not being able to play Half Life II (and especially its successors) anymore without booting up "the old PC" to do it. And eventually "the old PC" would become too old and I would face the choice of either not playing high-end PC games that were Windows-only, or buying a PC for gaming only (not likely since we all know how much "good gaming machines" can cost).
So the only point of this diatribe is that now that I know for certain that I will be able to easily install Windows on my forthcoming PowerMac and run it natively at 100% CPU-capacity, I have absolutely no reason to hesitate making the switch back to a Mac computer. I am dying to have OS X on my desk for all the obvious reasons, and for work-related reasons as well (can you say "BBEdit?"). And now, even if the forthcoming virtualization technologies don't quite allow 100% performace for PC games, I know I'll be able to just reboot into Windows and run any games I want to. So, I optimistically plan on utilizing both vitualization (such as Parallels or VirtualPC) as well as Boot Camp. I would use virtualization to easily test the websites I create in all the browsers I need to test them in without the need for a second computer box. And then I would use Boot Camp (if I even needed to) to play the latest Windows-only games.
In my opinion, as long as the Intel PowerMac hardware can always remain comparable to the latest higher-end Windows-only hardware, it would be VERY tough to NOT purchase the PowerMac simply as a matter of practicality. Let's see... I can buy a computer that runs the incredible Mac OS X AND/OR Windows (probably simltaneously) OR I can buy basically the same hardware (with a crappier case) that can only run Windows. Hmmmmm. Tough choice. Not! The Windows-only machine would have to be a lot less expensive (I think more than $500 less) for just about anyone who has a clue to justify the non-Mac purchase. This is why, I think, more Macs will be sold than would have been otherwise. I do think this is the mainstream start of something that has been brewing for a long time and it is going to be huge. I know it will make a big difference for me anyway.