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."
How does the existance of another IDE stifle people from porting Windows apps to OSX? If anything, it should encourage more OSX software than less...
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
...to hear this one of these days. When I had lunch with Steven Edwards of Codeweavers a couple weeks back, he mentioned how this idea was being thrown around. I wish them the best of luck and hope this helps them get some more capital and market share. I only hope that it does not come at the expense of native ports.
the day i launch half life 2 on my mac, i'll weep a tear of joy. but to anyone in the know, this news is entirely obvious (and expected). codeweaver and transgaming will instantly have double the market. and not only is this new market bigger than linux, it's more standardized. no need to support 5 distros, 5 package formats, 10 different library versions of dependencies and no need to statically link things. they even can pick a single gui frontend (cocoa) and not worry about the huge amount of complaints. (omg you didn't use qt! you didn't use gtk!).
- tristan
I'm thinking of maybe getting a job as a pundit so I can get paid for this and have people respect me as an expert. Any suggestions where I should send my resume?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This is not a company making a GUI on top of Wine. This is a company that hired the most active WINE developers and told them to focus on getting programing like Microsoft Office and iTunes working in Wine. They provide support for anyone who wants to use Wine but needs help. This includes those looking for an easy port to of their Windows Application to Linux, and those who just want to see more applications work on Linux that are now Windows only.
True it only works with certain programs. However there are more are more all the time.
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!
Right now Wine support on *bsd is hit and miss. 90+% of the Wine developers only run Linux. They are not opposed to any other Unix, but they do nothing to help. Someone trying to get Wine running on *BSD will send a patch in, which will be accepted, but hours latter (sometimes before) some other patch is accepted in a different area that breaks Wine again.
Supporting OSX should clean a lot of this up. Just running on two platforms officially will force them to keep the code cleaner. This will make Wine useful to the other BSDs. Should also help Solaris support, which I understand works less often than *BSD.
"Many say this could stifle Windows to OS X ports of app"
I just downloaded NeoOffice/J for the Mac and man is it ugly.
Mac users won't tolerate bad ports of useful apps. They might tolerate using an occasional windows port, but the Mac software creators don't have anything to worry about.
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...
yeah, but icc is largely a drop-in for gcc. and it's fast. ( it's even faster than mvc/gcc on AMD hardware ). so what'll happen is that in january, people developing for mactel will suddenly get a speed boost if they compile with intel's compiler.
Sitting Walrus Blog
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.
I think this is a great thing. I know I have two major applications - Groove and Visio, both owned by Microsoft - that have no OS X support. Entourage supports Exchange, but not nearly as well as the original Windows MS Outlook.
;).
This announcement means that Virtual PC has some real competition - rather than wasting my time booting up a virtual computer, I can just run the apps I need. Could this hurt OS X with Windows developers saying "Eh - just run Codeweaver and leave us alone?". Sure - but I think more people running OS X, even if they are running Wine-enabled applications, will still be better in the long run, since the "average user" won't understand why they're being told to spend another $50 to get a program to run on their Mac - they'll either go with a PC, or, if they've grown to love OS X, they'll tell the developer to convert.
We'll just have to see. Here's hoping Transgaming announces a similiar announcement, just for competitions sake. Like another poster, I'm also looking forward to Half Life 2 on my shiny Mactel box
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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
many Windows-only applications, including Windows-based games, utilities, and business applications, will operate seamlessly and reliably
That would be a great incentive for people to switch, because in my experience many Windows-only applications do not operate seamlessly and reliably under Windows.
This is not a joke.
If I had to choose between Office and Appleworks? That'd be a toughie, since Appleworks is a piece of crap. Even then, I'd probably have to run into something I just couldn't do in Appleworks before I'd shell out the money for an emulated Office. Any less of a difference in quality, I'd take the native app in a second.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Well maybe the application is good enough, but if it runs, it cannot possibly run good enough.
I might run well enough, though.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.