Slashdot Mirror
Codeweavers to Support Mac OS X on Intel
An anonymous reader submits "It's official. CodeWeavers is planning to support Mac OS X on Intel chips. Many say this could stifle Windows to OS X ports of apps, but nonetheless this may make it a lot easier for people to switch to OS X from Windows."
While I'm sure that these great apps won't go away once we switch to Intel, I'm afraid they'll get lost in the dreck that's out there for PCs as things get ported over.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
This may be part of what you are mocking, but a lot of Intel's development tools are included with the developer's transition kit.
I had originally thought this as well. But I don't think it is so. From what I understand the Intel compilers will only be out around January. All the development tools are gcc 4.0 based. So it is more akin to the set of tools you have under Linux. I don't know if Intel will even make their tools available for free. I hope so. However IBM's xlc compiler, while available for free as a beta, cost a fair bit of money during its final release.
The real issue with this is that WINE on OS X may run 'essential' windows apps 'good enough'. That's the problem.
Now, if it's going to cost you quite a bit of money to do a native port to OS X of your app, why bother? I mean your app runs 'good enough'.
This is a massive negative for mac users who (unlike most linux and windows users) are used to a consistent user interface and extremely high quality, innovative software.
These apps that will run 'good enough' in Wine will not deliver this experience, but as far as the corporations are concerned they do not need to do a mac port now their product is usable on the mac platform.
Don't get me wrong, I love Codeweavers... I'm not only a customer, but I've recommended their products to some people who were very satisfied with the results.
I just don't see the point of Crossover Office for a platform on which MS-Office is already available.
Granted, the current MacOS version of MS-Office is compiled for ppc, but since it is a current product, is obvious they'd recompile it under x86 to sell it for MacOS on the new intel Macs.
(before you flame me or mod this a troll, make sure you know what Crossover Office really _is_ - it is NOT an Office suite, it lets you run MS-Office via a modified WINE)
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
If you want to provide an application which is seamlessly integrated with the user's OS experience, you probably already do. If you want your product's ability to run on a platform to be dependent on a third-party piece of software, this doesn't change things for you.
Virtual PC already exists. This just provides competition for it ( though only on Intel-based Macs, I guess ). Is there more here than that ? Why would this prevent ports more than Virtual PC on Intel, which it's probably pretty safe to assume will eventually appear ?
Companies which don't port to OS X are making the bet that someone can't or won't come along and poach their potential customers with a similar, OS X-native application. It may be a reasonable bet, but it's still a bet...
Yes, Office already exists on Mac OS X (for now), but there is a plethora of other software that exists only on Windows. Well, with CodeWeavers working on WINE for Mac OS X on Intel, we'll have all that other software running in Mac OS X.
(Half-Life in Mac OS X?)
Gabriel Ricard
Because there's no crossgrade price?
This is GREAT for Mac, absolutely wonderful and fantabulous, because it means you don't have to buy a Mac copy of Office if you already have the Windows version. Or Photoshop, or whatever. Software inertia is a major factor in switching. Eliminate that and a lot of people, who suddenly don't have to cut their losses on their software investment, will See the Light. And more users means more developers -- both commercial and F/OSS -- that want to make stuff for us.
This factor hasn't been such a big deal on Linux/BSD, because there aren't many major commercial apps for them. If you wanted to use Photoshop on your Linux box, you learned to love the GIMP. But it's a definite factor with Macs. I don't know how many people have told me, "I'd switch, but I'd have to buy all my applications all over again." Of the non-geeky types, only those driven truly desperate by malware have willing to chuck major investments. (Not to mention the time invested in the learning curve...)
And anyway, sometimes the Mac ports of popular applications are a little lacking. Quicken is vile, to put it really bluntly. I've never used Office X, but I've heard it's not up to the Windows version's, er, high standards.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
Providing developers with a toolkit to port their apps to the Mac is nice, but I don't think it will have much impact on the Mac software ecosystem.
Take a look how Java applications have been accepted by the Mac masses -- not very well. (Server side, it's a different story, of course.)
The problem is that these Java apps don't feel like a Mac app. menu bars are in the wrong place, keyboard shortcuts are wrong or missing, control layouts are poorly aligned, fonts that are hard to read, etc.
To make a good Mac app, it takes more than a recompile against a new toolkit. In many cases, it requires a total re-think of the UI.
Still, I'm glad to hear about this development. It will make apps that have a marginal market available to Mac users. There are apps that are available on Windows that I'd like to have on the Mac -- and I don't care if the UI sucks.
-ch