Slashdot Mirror
Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs?
An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au is forecasting Windows gamers will be flocking to Intel-based Apples, saying many 'have been looking for an excuse to switch to Macs.' The article says: 'Of course, games enthusiasts who like to customise their systems and upgrade their hardware (such as graphics cards) at the drop of a hat may still prefer the tinkering freedom a PC allows. But then there are the legions of more casual gamers who only upgrade every several years or so -- as long as they can play what's available at their local games shop, I'm sure they won't be fussed that they're not running off the latest gear from ATI or NVIDIA.'"
Is for someone to tell me whether or not you can run Oblivion on Mac hardware.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Considering that when many people say that they need a Windows machine to do "work" on, they actually mean they need it for playing games, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see more people make the switch. Admittedly, as the summary states, this would be the lower to middle end gamers. The high end gamers will still spend 500 bucks every 6 months on the newest graphics card, all the while bitching about how expensive Macs are...
This guy's the limit!
That sounds like most PC gamers to me, actually. Casual gamers are more likely to stick to a console. In any event, gamers are a crowd where looks matter. A Mac can be sexy, but an Alienware box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass, and that's what gamers like.
Microsoft heaven, Apple users actually buying copies of Windows at full retail prices!
Common sense is not so common
Personally I would rather spend money on a PC that is probably a more capable at playing games (given the graphics card) than a Mac. Though I wouldn't put myself in the casual gamer category I can't see why a casual gamer would pay more for a Mac if a bit of casual gaming is one of the buying factors...
Yup. And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC.
At the Valve Developer Community, a few of us are logging how Valve games run on these new Macs, so if you've got any new information, feel free to contribute.
I do think it will kill most native MacOS gaming, or at least cause a major shake-up. But I'm not surprised - paying through the nose for years-old ports of PC games just didn't appeal to me, to be honest.
But what I've got now is a Universal Computer, capable of running Mac software (both PowerPC and Intel), UNIX stuff (thanks to Fink and X11.app) and now Windows stuff. I've been dual-booting on my PCs between Linux and Windows for years, so I'm familiar with the drawbacks, but the advantages are great. By day, for work and for my photography, I have a high-powered Mac laptop, and by night, for gaming and modding stuff, I've got a high-powered PC laptop.
Not bad!
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
this. As they say, "Ever hear of a Mac gamer? Neither have we."
WoW runs on a Mac. All they need to do is port Oblivion over, and I'd be set.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Also, another major factor is pirating things. Lets not get into the moral/ethical/legal arguments over this. The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people who are PC gamers...there is no good source of pirated Mac software (not that I've found at least). Believe it or not, that affects a lot of peoples decisions, especially since a decent Mac for gaming is quite expensive on its own.
However the one thing I'd LOVE for a PC is Frontrow, since my PC is also my media center. If they came out with that for the PC, complete with a remote and possibly a wireless adapter to stream to my TV, I'd buy it in an instant.
As it is, I'm considering getting a Macbook so I can dual-boot into Windows and have hte best of both worlds...although I'm really wondering how the Macbooks stack up comparison wise to a regular PC notebook when it comes to running games.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?
I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole "boot camp" thing. I don't want to see Dvorak's prediction come true.
if you just buy a mac and install XP and play games? I personally love building PCs. Each time is just as much fun as the previous. Apple hardware IS pretty but I feel a lot of the people who build their own PCs will just stick with building...
"These same gamers often look forlornly at their Mac-wielding mates and their groovier-than-thou machines, and wonder why they're stuck with their beige-coloured HP or Dell boxes (obviously Alienware owners have no such envy)".
Right. Because style is way more important than functionality, availability of software, or ability to upgrade. The reason Apple's products sell well is because they tend to combine out-of-the-box style with ease of use. Having to set up your machine to multi-boot and then manage/maintain dual operating systems does not qualify as "easy to use" in my opinion.
I have nothing against the new macs -- in fact, I think it would be cool to have one to tinker with. But this article gives no real reasons other than the style-factor why gamers would actually want to switch to mac machines. Consequently, this article is useless prognosticating based on someone's gut feeling. I think we can do better than that.
I prefer building my own gaming rig and putting in the parts I want and upgrading when I please, how I please. And god knows any gaming rig I put together will be cheaper, both in the short and long run, than any advertised "gamer" or "power user" system, Mac or PC.
To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.
No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it. They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X, but they have a few stubborn applications that they need to run on Windows, and until now couldn't justify the risk of switching and losing access to them. People on here would say "Just keep a second computer!", but most people aren't interested in that.
It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac. The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X. Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows - if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!
Take my dad, for instance. He loves to play chess against Fritz 8 and over the net with Playchess.com, which I bought him a few years ago. But it only runs on Windows. He's been wanting to get a Mac when his current computer dies, but until now he wouldn't be able to run his favorite software. He doesn't mind the hassle of dual-booting.
This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear. Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks, and OS X just keeps humming along.
I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.
This space intentionally left blank.
It's about time somebody said it. In fact, I'd say that not even 5% of gamers are so hardcore that they upgrade anything in their PC every six months or less. I usually just get construct a cheap rig and upgrade it after a year or two and then jump to the next cheap rig and re-use any parts that I can. I do have a desktop replacement that I replace every two years or so as well. I'm one of the legion, I suppose.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
It's boring as shit.
Clearly whatever the Mac has up to now has only been compelling enough to make some people switch-- when are you going to get off your butts and make a compelling reason for the average guy to switch (read: Killer App).
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Why? Future Macs will just be Wintel machines with a pretty face. Gamers had their chance to switch. After 2007 there will be no switch, unless Apple finds true enlightenment and moves away from the herd and towards the Alpha chip. Man, what a bunch of cattle. Simply doing something because "everybody else" is doing it. Apple didn't go to Intel because it was better. It was a cost cutting move, with all the implicit degradation. UGH! It doesn't matter how smooth you look when the underlying architecture crumbles under the slightest load.
What?
As long as Apple is using commodity hardware, wouldn't you still theoretically be able to plug the latest and greatest graphics card into it (if it supports the interface), and still have it run fine with the Windows install? The graphics card working to its full potential in OS X would be in question, but for games in Windows it might still work. Interesting concept that someone might now be able to make their Mac have all the compatibility problems Windows systems are known for. (I'm not trying to troll. Control of hardware does help stability, and when you've got a few hundred options for memory, CPU, Video, Sound. etc. devices, it creates a competitive market (thus more features and better prices), but it is also more likely somewhere along the line you could get something that doesn't work well together)......
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Seems to me the majority of the gamers who are still on the PC platform nowadays are also into hardware tweaking and/or building their own system.
If Apple starts shipping SLi/CrossFire systems with AMD CPUs then maybe I'll believe this article was more than pay for press/fanboi-ism....
Gaming on a Mac won't catch on until most of the really popular games are availible for Mac as well as PC. I don't see dual booting as the gateway to Mac gaming for the average user- it's pretty much just the power users now who even know dual-boot systems exist, much less how to create one. The /. crowd, though, will have fun with it...
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
would gamers, CASUAL gamers at that, flock to Mac just because they can now also run Windows on the Mac? Gamers still won't have a huge available library of games on Mac computers. Last I checked, Windows was still required to run the majority of games coming out these days. Yippy! dual booting. We're talking about casual gamers here right? the kind who just like to jump in and jump out of games and don't necessarily know how to do a whole lot with their computers beyond entry level functions? They're going to be masters of dual booting? Interesting.
So, the article posits that gamers, the same gamers who don't "tinker" with their systems very often to upgrade parts to play the latest games, will pay far more for a Mac only to run Windows on it to play their games. Lesse, a reasonable desktop from dell with an LCD monitor is running $400-$1000 these days depending on specs, if you get the "top of the line", you get into the $2000+ area for something on the bleeding edge that won't necessarily be obsolete by June of this year. Meanwhile, iMacs enter at $1299 and scale up from there with comparable specs to the $400-1000 system. Assuming these "casual gamers" aren't pirates, they're going to have to shell out for an XP SP2 OEM installation disc just to play the games they would already have been able to play on a PC! Why are they going to be flocking to Apple? This does not make sense.
Also, Mac gaming that includes Boot Camp to use XP is still Windows gaming. It's only Mac gaming if it's running native in OS X and not in XP! That's like saying PSP gaming is going to take off once Sony legitimizes homebrew apps for emulation. PSP gaming isn't taking off, homebrew gaming is taking off and people are spending a retarded amount of money to make it happen. Bah!
Macs have supported multi-button mice for years. They came with single button mice for a long time, for a myriad of design reasons, but they can use multi-button mice. I've been using a standard 2 button mouse with a scroll wheel on my macs for years, and the new ones (ie the iMacs) come with apples new 4 button mouse (on of the buttons is also the scroll ball, which allows you to scroll up and down and left to right).
BitTorrent
(or is that two words? Intercaps are always confusing)
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
What kind of pseudo-journalistic crap is this, seriously? "We think that gamers want to switch to intel macs! They'll love it!" Umm. Ok. Show me some market research? No, all you've got is "i know gamers who like macs"? I see. Well clearly this is worthy of being placed as a news piece and linked to as "stuff that matters."
Hey, not dissing MACs or anything, but MACs are still a long way off from competing with the PC as far as games and upgradeability goes. Even casual gamers these days build up their systems and upgrade every year or so. MACs are EXPENSIVE! Compared to a DELL XPS model, bang for buck still goes to the PC where the gamer is concerned.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course, this is assuming we can't use normal video drivers, which I've yet to see a definitive answer on.
I find it unlikely that hardcore gamers would switch.
Maybe casual gamers, like me, would switch. An X1600 like in the iMac would suffice.
But the lack of options for faster graphics cards on the consumer machines will limit the total number of gamers choosing Macs.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So... some moron disagrees with my opinion and marks my post as a troll? Jeeze you just HAVE to love Slashdot moderation. So... what part of my post was a troll... the part that I think $2,500 for a PC that can run XP just like a $1000 PC seems an awful lot? The fact that the OS is nicer than XP? Is that the troll? Or was it my little joke about multi-button mice?
Would this have helped me? It would give me reassurance, but I doubt I would have used it. Frankly rebooting takes too much time and it's just a hassle. I never reboot my Mac except when it needs security updates that require it. Otherwise it is on 24/7. I take it back and forth to school every day but I just close the lid and it goes into sleep instantly, and wakes up in about 2 seconds.
Now when someone gets either something like WINE working so you could play games (TransGaming... you've got an opportunity here for tons of sales), or true virtulaization gets enabled (some say Apple will do that in 10.5) so that you don't HAVE to reboot, you can just keep Windows in "the background" then I would have JUMPED at the chance to switch to Mac.
There are three things in life. There is having UNIXy goodness (got that), there is having great applications (iLife, Safari, and the ability to run Office/Photoshop), and there are games (got some, missing others). I'd say my Mac scores a 2.3/3.0. Windows is a 2.0/3.0 (games and apps).
Keep up the great work Apple.
So what will most people use this for? Nothing. I expect that virtualization will come out soon enough. All this will do is provide that reassurance for switchers until they go full-on Mac, and I doubt they would use it much.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address.
Calling a Macintosh a "MAC" looks a bit funny, and detracts from your valid points.
Don't get me wrong. I love my Mac. But I can't envision playing any serious games on it. Why? I didn't buy a Mac with any intention of using it for gaming. I bought it for the various creative software, solid operating system and ease-of-use. I've been discovering hobbies and working on various AV projects due to the availability of software, be it first or third party.
And when I did game on my PC, I found it dificult being on a budget when a new title came out and required the purchase of a new video card that I couldn't afford.
I did find a way to make sure every game I buy works right out of the box. I bought consoles.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I suspect that the market for Mac games will only increase as the Mac market share increases, thus the people now producing Mac games will have a larger market to sell to.
nothing against Intel here, but the majority of PC gamers are in the AMD camp, and for good reason. Intel is not the excuse gamers have been waiting for. Why would a casual gamer spend more money on a Mac, when it's still got the same old Intel chip, Windows OS, and costs hundreds more than your average Dell? The CNET forecast is utter bullshit.
Frankly, I was considering this option as soon as the XP on Mac rumors were confirmed (thank you again, narf and blanka). Why? LAN parties. I'm relegated currently to lugging my entire rig to and fro (WITH fossilized CRT monitor), and, while it is an SFF machine, it's still a pain to take anywhere. And while a gaming laptop would suffice, the prospect of carting an iMac to and from LANs seems a bit more inviting - you don't have to deal with unreliable hardware (ala Alienware), and you can use the same machine for 'work' apps. Not to mention, it would be 500000000000000000 1337.... ...i should slap myself for saying that.
So let me get this straight. I am going to pay substantualy more for something I then have to install TWO operating systems on, and have less control the hardware inside because what..the case is prettier? Here is a quick bit of advice to the journalist. We have had choices other than beige boxes for about a decade now. Here is a quick link www.lianli.com to start with
I suspect that "native" software (of all categories) will sell better than identical non-native software...
I agree. Look back at the transition from OS 9 and Classic to OS X. There was a huge uproar at the time.
The only problem is that the bean counters will have no way of determining whether the purchase of "Band of HonorFront 2k7: Brothers in F.E.A.R." for WinXP was a native purchase for a PC owner or a non-native purchase by a mac owner who couldn't bear the thought of waiting for 6 months for a port. It just gets lumped into the sales figures and the company can look and see that they only sold a gazillion copies for XP and a handful for OS X. That then leads to less titles being ported and less money being sunk into resources (undermanned staff and delays), which just compounds the problem.
In theory, if this has the unrealistically huge effect that people are predicting and sends market shares through the roof, this will eventually turn itself around as people become sick of rebooting (or even switching through some virtualization option, most likely coming in 10.5 as well). After a few years of, "Look at all these games!" the cries become, "Hey, I'm sick of having to deal with XP on my mac."
That's the theory, at least. Well... my theory, at least.
The only problem is what happens to the porting companies - and more importantly the talent behind them (yes, you, Ryan Gordon and Brad Oliver) - during this transition?
One possible benefit of the porting business going on the back burner for a few years would be a rebirth of *gasp* original mac games. If you get a large enough number of people using their macs and switching to windows for the big budget gaming titles, you'll undoubtedly have a lot of people who:
a) are interested in games and
b) want to be able to make and play games without the hassle of the second OS.
Particularly when you consider how much easier it has gotten to distribute games yourself (compared to the film industry a few years back, for example), the independent developers could wind up doing quite well with the most innovative and genuinely fun stuff we've seen in years. One can hope.
I've been using Macs for years, but started using Windows for the games. Finally I can have the best of both worlds on my new Mac. This was the straw that broke the camels back for me, I'm going back to Mac, and never turning back again!
Like Ebaums World? You'll love Shizzville
People are accustomed to not buying their OS, since nearly every computer ships with one today. Microsoft's demand that OEMs install Windows before shipping the computer has this side-effect: You expect the OS to be part of the deal. You don't see that you've paid money for a copy of Windows, so in your mind, you've never had to pay for it before. Do you think that will somehow change? That people will suddenly start paying for something they never had to in the past?
If someone does a study on this a year from now and finds that more than half of the copies of Windows installed on dual-boot Macs are legal, I'd seriously question the study's methodology.
Meanwhile, because Apple is not a Windows OEM, that means that Microsoft (or other OEMs) must deal with the support calls made when things go awry. This increases Microsoft's costs, and the costs of Apple's competitors.
It gets worse for Microsoft: They are in no position to strong-arm Apple into an OEM contract of any kind. Apple doesn't want the contract, and the claim that they're shipping computers without an OS is leading people to pirate the OS falls flat. Apple is shipping an os, they can claim that what people do with the dual-boot is not Apple's responsibility, and they're right.
Microsoft can claim that Boot Camp is leading to more piracy, and they'd be right about that; however, the claim that Apple is somehow deliberately enabling this loss of sales -- although very likely -- is a subtle point. You can also see how Microsoft themselves, by strong-arming OEMs, have created a trap for themselves to where a company that Does Not Need Microsoft -- such as Apple -- can exploit that gap.
The more I look at it, the more impressed I am with the evil brilliance behind Apple's move. And yes, I meant it when I said "evil." This was truly devious. It benefits all of us in the short run, but in the long run it benefits Apple the most.
Hey does anyone know if it triple or more boots? Can you do Linux and Win98 too for example? Or is this a XP only cahoots deal?
Now they won't have to deal with the hassle of porting their games and software to OS X. Why bother?
It's easy, just go to the store and buy a copy of Windows for $200, then download this program from Apple and repartition and install Windows. Boot Windows and install the game. After that each time you want to play a game you just have to reboot while holding down a key and then switch to Windows and then click on the Start menu, then programs then run the game. Simple huh?
Yeah, that will fly.
90% or more of users never, ever install an operating system, ever. You expect them to pay for one, and install it in a dual-boot setup and reboot every time they want to play a game. And you expect this of the majority of Mac users? Can you say, "fat chance?"
Sure, some Mac users will dual boot to play games using a pirated, already owned, or new copy of Windows. Some will play native Windows games using virtualization, or something like WINE. Some companies will use something like WINE to do quick ports. Most users, however, won't settle for that and they are still a big enough market that they are profitable for gaming companies. If some companies count on people dual-booting, others will eat them alive. You think it is a complete coincidence that WoW is on top right now and they just happen to build the Mac version right alongside the Windows one? Nope. They utilize good coding practices and it makes it easy to reach the whole market. Their products are better as a result and for social games (like MMORPGs) it only takes one well-liked person with a mac to keep a whole group using a particular game.
That will have quad-core conroe Processors (2Xdual-core), upgradeable graphics, and water cooling. Start saving up now boys!!
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Note OS X's fast user switching. Did you know that Apple already has a patent on fast OS switching as well? After all, Boot Camp is a beta with more user-friendliness promised for even its full release in 10.5. Could we be looking at a future of seamless full-speed emulation ala Rosetta? That would be ideal, of course, but with OS switching potentially taking less than 30 seconds, it's not a far stretch to imagine a whole lot of people switching. Penny Arcade, who created a character specifically to pick on elitist Mac users, has switched and loves it. I do my gaming on a desktop replacement laptop now (had to sell the Alienware system in my cross-country moves), and the MacBook would be perfect for my needs. I'll be switching as soon as I can come up with the cash.
In regards to the extra money spent on Apple hardware, that's less true than it used to be-- Alienware systems are actually MORE expensive than Macs these days. Are homebuilders and 'hardcore gamers' gonna be making the switch? No. But who gives a flying fuck about that 5% of the computing population? Regardless of what many people think, the 'hardcore' are not the ones out buying games-- the more casual gamers make up the vast majority of purchases. Most PC gamers (not the 'hardcore' minority) buy a handful of games a year, and replace their system every 3 years, with a few upgrades in the meantime.
Which brings me to my next point: Apple hardware retains its resale value much much better than other brands (including Alienware). That leads to an interesting cycle that is even cheaper than the homebuilding route, for achieving reasonable performance with excellent polish and style and OS X exclusive software. In short:
Step 1:
Buy MacBook Pro for $2500.
Step 2:
Use it happily and effectively for 2 years.
Step 3:
Sell it for $1200 when you can no longer play with heavy graphical goodies.
Step 4:
Buy New MacBook Pro for $2500.
Looking at it that way, you spend $650 a year after an initial $2500 investment to have a fantastic laptop that can play games. Now, before you jump all over me, be sure to look up your numbers. 2yo PowerBooks really do sell for $1200. Even for 12-inch. Additionally, PC laptops are what, $300 or so cheaper AT MOST at purchase. Yet they don't retain the same kind of resale value. You get back every penny you spent on the more expensive Apple product at resale and then some.
So yeah. I'm gonna switch ASAP. And it's the right decision.
Peace out.
"It just gets lumped into the sales figures and the company can look and see that they only sold a gazillion copies for XP and a handful for OS X. That then leads to less titles being ported and less money being sunk into resources (undermanned staff and delays), which just compounds the problem."
You forgot the flip side of the equation:
Apple: "Sales of Intel-based Macs quadrupled in year-to-year sales."
Software executive 1: "How many of those sales went to folks dual-booting Windows XP?"
Software executive 2: "Dunno. But do we really want to miss that growing market by not doing a Mac version of our stuff?"
Software executive 1: "Good point. Okay, item 1 is now 'increase funding for Mac ports'."
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
"Normal" gamers won't switch because they'll spend most of their time in Windows so they can play their games, thus defeating the purpose of buying a computer that costs much more than a non-Mac equivalent. There's also the hardcore gamer that has to be on the bleeding edge of everything, and Macs don't allow that sort of crazy upgrading.
Casual gamers won't switch because they would've already switched to begin with if that was the only thing holding them back. Stuff like Solitaire and PopCap games has always been available on the Mac, and you don't need to dual-boot for it. (And no, if you're one of those gamers who plays a certain Windows-only game enough to where you're willing to use an OS you don't like just to play it, you fit in the first category, not this one.)
Who are the people that will switch?
One thing that might happen is that these people switching will increase the marketshare significantly, which would encourage the big game developers to make OSX ports for all of their popular games, and then you'd see gamers start to switch. I'm sure this is what Jobs is hoping for. But it's not going to happen right away.
Rob
This is great news for multi-platform users like me who play PC games. When I finally buy a MacBook of some kind (probably when Leopard is released and Boot Camp comes standard) I'll be able to play games like Guild Wars on the go. If I decide to be crazy, I could even try to run Half-Life 2 and its derivatives.
Mac gaming isn't for hardcore PC gamers who upgrade their machines every 3 months. It's for everybody else.
Hats off to Apple for supporting Windows XP on their machines. They're one step closer to having a platform that everybody can use.
Good point but you could easily add another line to that dialogue:
... Yes, my glass is currently half empty. How did you know?
Software executive 2: "... Or we can just stick a 'Optimized for Dual-Booting Macs!' sticker on the box and target that same booming crowd for the price of a sticker instead of developing a port."
switcher \'swi`ch &r\, n.
A person who thinks that they are a Mac user but are really just trying to be. The mistake they make is to try to become a Mac user, when real Mac users are all about not trying to be anything and following your own rules. There is no fashion code to being a Mac user. There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.
Recent converts like you are ruining the old school Mac community because you are posers. Apple releases one OS that popularizes Fitts' law and the Genie effect, and suddenly people assume being a Mac user is all about owning a Mac. But a real Mac user is born, not made. You "switchers" are misrepresenting yourselves and the Mac platform. You're giving people the wrong idea of what Macintosh is.
switcher: shops at hot topic, thinks Firefox is a good Mac app, waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000, follows any hint of a fashion trend (instead of setting them!), wouldn't know Clarus from Carl Sagan.
real Mac user: someone true to who they are, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.
Yeah, but they only have to do it ONCE
They only have to install it all once. They still have to reboot twice every time they want to play a game and stop everything else they are doing. Mac users aren't used to rebooting more than once a month or so. And really, once is too much for most. Most people never install an OS or know that they can. If a game seller actually recommends that customers go spend hundreds of dollars on another OS in addition to the price tag of the game and then perform or get someone else to perform a complex install process they will be laughed at. Sure some people might do it, but not nearly enough. It just is not going to happen as a marketable solution.
Must have been the multi-button mouse. The moderator can't respond though - no moderating threads you participate in. I'd be curious why the followup question is a troll through. Off topic, but not a troll.
Anyone else intrigued by the thought of the a grand all-in-one machine that incorporates the best of Windows, Mac, and Linux?
I could really see myself one day throwing down the cash for a really powerful Mac with a massive hard drive and throwing Windows and Linux on there. Windows for gaming, Mac for apps, and Linux for programming. This idea excites me to know end.
This article really hit me on the nose. I'm a gamer who's always been looking for a good reason to switch to Mac, and this really is the perfect answer. Too bad I just bought two new PCs about a year ago...it's gonna be a while before I make the big switch, but I'd guess I definitly will one day.
The day where I can boot Fedora, Final Cut Pro, and Halo 2 all on the same machine will be a happy day indeed...
...because the Intel Mac Mini has the Intel GMA950 onboard graphics which use system memory and the performance is pretty bad, even by PC standards. Sure, you can get Half Life 2 to run, but you aren't going to get performance even matching a low-end PC with a dedicated graphics card. The G4 Mac Mini had the Ati 9200 chip - which in the PC arena is a low-end laptop chip - which was much better than Intel's current offering.
The iMac however, would fare a lot better as it's got a dedicated ATi graphics chip which is on par with mid-range PC stuff, although then you've locked yourself into a machine with a built in monitor and no ability to upgrade the CPU or anything.
The other bit of bad news is that dual-core doesn't have much impact on games - they're not designed to be run on multi-core chips and will invariably only use one core. So, don't be under any illusions that you'll be playing the latest and greatest PC games on a dual-core Mac Mini, you won't. A Mac Book Pro or a iMac however would not have any problems at all, but you'd lose the upgrade path and it would cost you a fair few pence (at which price you could get a faster PC laptop and a Mac Mini!).
What would I do? Get a moderately good graphics card for your PC (A 9600XT or X600) and buy a Mac Mini, but please don't get a Mini for games, because I think you'll be disappointed, although as the owner of a dual-core Dell, I definitely recommend saying "fuck it, give me dual core!" - because for multitasking apps, it's the mutt's nuts!
Parallel's VM is supposed to be pretty good, and developing in a VM is better anyway. You can do much more destructive testing because you don't need to worry that your whole system will be hosed. That's why Microsoft makes a VM to run on Windows.
I agree, except to add: Why do people "look for excuses" to switch to anything? If you wanna use a mac, just use a mac. If you want to use Windows, use Windows. There's no need for an excuse.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
sorry, trying to play off a new slashdot cliche :p
Microsoft heaven, Apple users actually buying copies of Windows at full retail prices!
Last time I purchased XP I was able to buy an OEM version since I was purchasing a hard drive. A motherboard also qualified you at the time. Since then I've been told the OEM qualifications have been relaxed. I googled "Windows XP OEM" and several online stores seemed to be selling the OEM version for less than US$90 with no mention of other hardware purchases to qualify.
Aren't macs generally considered over priced for their products? So would it be accurate to say, then, that these casual gamers would therefore be willing to pay near high-end price for those middle end graphics cards?
It only takes 2 minutes to reboot if I don't have a bevy of applications open, with lots of data I'm working on.
I have spare HDs with Win2k and Mac OS X for Intel on them. They get used roughly never because I'd have to close all the work I perpetually have open in Linux (which has been my desktop OS for over half a decade now). If I could instantly suspend and resume Linux in a stateful manner, and MacOS X had this same feature, then you could treat going into Windows as a dedicated gaming environment.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Apple makes its money from selling hardware, not from licensing software. That makes them a software company.
Apple is making positive steps towards allowing the product of a direct competitor in the OS business (Microsoft) to run on their hardware, while taking positive steps towards prohibiting their own operating system from running on the products of direct competitors in the hardware business.
This not only underscores that Apple is a hardware company, but that they know it, and intend to continue being a hardware company. If they did not, they would shed the expensive R&D they do on hardware designs, remove any code preventing OS X from running on non-Mac hardware, and instead put in place copy protection so that installing OS X requires a license code. Right now, there is no license code needed to install OS X. They don't have to have one, because until OS X for Intel was released, OS X would only run on Apple hardware.
While they do sell software upgrades, there was absolutely no technical methods in place for enforcing upgrade pricing. Since those users were already Apple customer, there was no compelling reason to do so.
Apple may still yet change direction in this way, but I doubt they will do so at all, and if they do, it will have to be when OS X has a much larger market share than it does now. Fees for software licensing cannot possibly replace Apple's historically fat hardware profit margins without assuming an increase of five to ten times OS X's market share.
Having said that, although you underpinned it with the wrong reason, I think your conclusion is correct. People do buy Apple computers for the hardware. They are generally well made and stylish, regardless of the OS it runs.
That Intel-based Macs can now run Windows XP as well is an incentive to switchers who will have XP to fall back on if and when they need to. Should either Apple or Microsoft offer official support for such use, I think we could easily see large increases in Apple's marketshare. The MacBook Pro is a world-class laptop, and compares favorably to other high-end laptops such as those made by Sony. You might very well see executives toting MacBooks even though they run Windows XP all the time. And if Apple already has their money, who cares if they run OS X or not? They could, and perhaps one day they will.
I see the real advantage of Boot Camp being for users of laptops. For nearly anyone else, a cheap PC is a reasonable alternative to dual booting, emulation, or virtualization.
Someone who has opted for a laptop computer obviously has put a premium on size, weight, and mobility. Dual booting, emulation, or virtualization are all preferable in this case to a second computer. I can't think of too many people who want to carry around two laptops. I certainly don't.
Dual Booting is the most straightforward way to address this. When booted into the alternate OS, the machine should behave as much as possible like a real PC would. Which is no surprise, since with the exception of the BIOS/EFI issue, it is a PC; a well-made, stylish and attractive PC built by Apple, a company with consistently high consumer satisfaction ratings.
From the perspective of Apple pursuing not only a hardware sales marketshare agenda but also an OS useage marketshare agenda, I think that virtualization is the eventual goal. Although probably more resource-intensive, it removes the inconvenience of rebooting, and firmly positions customers as users of OS X. They might run Windows in a window, or even Windows apps in a window, but they'd be using OS X to do it. Dual booting is just a way of weaning Mac switchers off it.
Think of Boot Camp as methodone for Windows users.
Like what, really?
Short of inventing a new kind of application, I'm not sure what you could be expecting.
Apple already has a nice collection of apps. Let's take a look, shall we?
iPhoto. A decent, easy-to-use photo collector and editor. Organizes well and has built-in functions for ordering calendars, books, and other things. One can argue that FastStone and Picasa are just as good, but that's largely a question of preference.
iTunes. The world's largest legal online music store, made expressly to support the world's single most popular series of hardware MP3 players (which now also support photos and videos, at least the models that have a color screen, that is). Also cleanly designed and easy to use, it runs on OS X or Windows and is free for either platform.
iMovie. For my money, hands-down better than the closest comparable product, which is Windows Movie Maker.
iDVD. An excellent complement for iMovie, a great, easy-to-use apps that puts authoring DVDs within the reach of your grandmother.
GarageBand. Endless toys for playing with audio; great for tinkering, podcasts, or for getting your feet wet with digital audio before moving on to more professional tools.
Many of these programs are also well integrated with one another; you are offered simple ways of using audio from iTunes and video from iMovie and pictures from iPhoto when using iDVD to author a DVD with interactive menus, slideshows, the works.
What's more, when you buy a new Mac you get all of these programs for free, and updates (usually yearly) cost less than $100 bucks for the programs that you have to buy.
When you combine that with all the other apps you can easily find for other common tasks, such as Safari, Firefox, Opera or Camino for web browsing, Apple's own free Mail client or alternatives such as Eudora or Entourage, Microsoft Office or Open Office or even Apple's own new iWork suite that includes the PowerPoint competitor, Keynote, and the new Pages program that straddles the line between word processor and page layout, other than gaming there are really few things an average person needs a computer for where there aren't at least one or two options on the Mac that are as good or better than their Windows equivalents. Outside of gaming, the stuff that doesn't exist or can't be found is usually fairly niche stuff.
Short of giving its owner a blowjob or making a cup of coffee, I have difficulty imagining what kind of "killer app" would absolutely compel users to migrate to a Mac. Perhaps that is simply my lack of imagination. However, I tend to think that for the vast majority of users, computers running OS X or computers running Windows tend to perform the tasks required of them with nearly equal facility. It can perhaps be said that Windows computers, for various reasons, require more attention in certain areas, namely in terms of applying patches in a timely manner to prevent virus infections and other intrusions.
There are those, like myself, who find that what makes up the difference is that the experience of using Mac OS X to perform those tasks is logically satisfying, even pleasurable, in a way that we don't find using Windows and that even those who voluntarily (or compulsorily) use Windows don't find it to be.
Boot Camp simply offers users the choice to use either system at the time of their choice on the same hardware. Since Apple makes its money off its hardware, even if the software is the primary incentive for purchase, this is still a good move for Apple. The real obstacle to Apple increasing its marketshare at this juncture is not Microsoft. It is other PC makers.
See, the same rationale could have been made about Linux games. Yet tell that to Loki games. Oh wait, they went out of business, didn't they?
See, the issue isn't one of right vs wrong, nor game _developpers_ assuming that everyone has Windows. Noone is that stupid. The issue is simple one of market size and _publishers_ deciding if it promises much of a ROI.
To illustrate it, even without booting Windows, you didn't see many games released for Macs. Sure, there was the occasional big company deciding to go the extra mile and release a Mac version too, but by and large most publishers ignored the Mac market completely. At best they did't have anything against someone else porting their 3 year old PC game to the Mac. (I.e., long after it ceased making any revenue on the PC, so, sure, knock yourself out.) But that was about the extent of the importance the Mac market had for the average game publisher.
Why? Because it just wasn't a big enough market. There was no "but you could pay $300 for Windows" rationalization involved or anything. They didn't actually _care_ if you paid an extra $300 for Windows or for a game console or just stopped playing games completely. All that mattered is whether the market size promised enough of a ROI or not. Period.
So the same will happen here. If enough of the new people buying Macs also buy Windows, well, then the effective market has't really grown much.
And again, it won't be a matter of assumptions ("surely they all bought Windows"), it won't be a matter of morals ("surely it's morally OK to tell someone to go pay $300 for Windows to be able to play games"), it will just be a matter of money. It will just be measured in copies sold and dollars income.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, if I were a game company, I sure wouldn't waste money doing a Mac port just because Mac users are lazy.
If that is the kind of logic you applied to making business decisions, like which markets you should be addressing, you wouldn't be a game company for long. There is an old saying, "the customer is always right." They aren't, but it does recognize the truth that in order to make money you have to give someone something they want. If you don't give customers something they want (a game they can and are willing to spend the effort to install) they won't give you money. If you don't give it to them at a reasonable price ($200 for a second OS to play a game?) they won't give you money. If they don't give you money, they do give it to someone who does give them what they want. Does it cost Blizzard a lot of money to build for OS X as well as Windows? Nope. They build using OpenGL and other portable, open tools. Does it cost ID a lot? Nope, same deal. Does it cost Sierra? Yup, they went with DirectX and tied themselves to just one system. Sierra lost out on a significant market because it costs them too much to port to other platforms. Maybe it was the right business choice for them at the time, but I bet they didn't to it because "those mac users are lazy."
There is no compelling reason that I should want a Mac to play games on. Why pay twice as much for hardware? WinXP works better for gaming than any Windows before it, once you reign in System Restore and things like that.
About the only way OSX will gain market share is by running on non-Apple hardware, or if there are some very sought-after games that only run on OSX. And I doubt Apple would want to give up their hardware biz, that's what NeXT did before they went under.
Sure you can spend 1000 on a lower spec machine but the difference between a comparable Sony Vaio "notebook" and a MBP is quite small. When you consider the bundled software, it is a bargain.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The whole "build your own" argument is a straw man at the moment since there are no intel towers to speak of right now.
Take a look at the specs of the MBP and compare with the competition of similarly configured laptops. I'm not talking about the cheapest barebones Core duo you can find but a laptop with similar features and bundled software. The MBP is a good value all things considered.
Now you not only have a mac laptop with great features and great software like iLife but it can dual boot into windows to play games or run proprietary software only available on windows. It give you the best of both worlds.
I don't know how long it takes to reboot into linux from a windows session but OS X will reboot in a matter of seconds.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You're right, in a way. Most never ever install an OS, ever, themselves.
What happens instead will now be: Mac user family member/friend/colleague tells user they can run Windows on the Mac, user asks the nearest IT-capable family member/friend/colleague/whoever to install it for them, new OS gets installed, now happy user runs Windows app. Word of mouth travels awfully fast remember.