Since the Windows installer can't be prevented from installing on the Mac OS X partition, I have to wonder whether these users didn't select the wrong partition, overwriting OS X? Becuase that's exactly what is seems like they've done.
You paint a magical picture of the perfect operating system, when it has plenty of issues.
That's called a "straw man". It's not an argument I'm making (I've pointed this out many times), yet you keep trotting it out and skewering it, and pretending like you've just defeated my argument. You haven't. How many times do I have to say, "OS X isn't perfect" before you stop saying "aha, but don't you know? OS X isn't perfect! I bet you didn't know that!!"?
you think it's a valid "attribute" of an operating system, I think it's a subjective term
"Valid" and "subjective" are not mutually exclusive. I absolutely agree that it's subjective. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. You might as well claim a Mercedes doesn't have that "luxury" quality any more than a Chevy Nova, since "luxury" is subjective and used by Mercedes' marketing firm. It's certainly possible to make and defend such a claim--all you have to do is ignore any measurement of "luxury". That doesn't change the fact that the Mercedes really is more luxurious, it just makes you look like... Well, let's just say it doesn't put you grasp of the subject in a very good light.
This is about the point where you jump in with "Ah! But OS X can't have the quality of 'it just works' because it is imperfect!"
<sigh>
I'm not saying OS X 100% "just works". Just that "it just works" is a significant attribute of Mac OS X. Not a perfect and absolute attribute, just a significant one. And that it's an attribute OS X has in great excess when compared Windows or Linux. That's not to say Windows and Linux don't excel in other areas, just that in the "it just works" dept, they are notably inferior to OS X.
So then say an older game like say Starcraft will support widescreen display with an expanded battlefield and properly sized interface? Because the OS told it that it's using a widescreen monitor? That would be interesting to see. It's exactly what you are implying.
Sometimes, yes, that's exactly what happens. For a game that's hard-coded to 4:3, for whatever reason, it's my experience that OS X will do a sort of "letterboxing", except that the black bars are on the either side of the game, so that the game is still 4:3, and not awkwardly scaled to the widescreen ratio.
I can think of no technological reason why a graphics interface (DirectX, on Windows) can't do this automatically for a game, even if that game was written prior to the availability of modern widescreen displays.
Apple puts a lot of effort into making things work correctly with a minimal amount of effort on the end-user and the developer. Microsoft does not. I don't see why you're finding it so hard to believe that such a disparity of effort won't manifest itself in the end product. For a Windows (or Linux) user switching to a Mac, things "just work" so often it's amazing. Booting from an external drive? It just works. Networking? It just works. How do you install an app? Just run it--you don't have to install (but you'll generally want to copy it to the Applications folder so you know where it's at). How do you uninstall? Put it into the trash. How do you install a screensaver? Just double-click on it. Same with dashboard widgets. How do you tell the OS what application can open a file type? You don't have to do anything. So long as the appropriate application is merely on a drive that the OS can see, it will use it to open a file. These things all "just work" and they do so because Apple put the effort in to make them work. These things don't "just work" on Windows because MS hasn't put in the effort.
And, no, not everything in Mac OS X "just works", and sometimes things can go horribly wrong. But OS X "just works" far more often than Windows does.
Now you're being abundantly silly. By your definition, absolutely nothing can be said to "just work". Nothing doesn't just work if the proper conditions aren't met.
You adding conditions to the phrase are attempting to reinvent the language.
No, I'm not. There is no requirement in the English language that all phrases must be absolutely and unqualifiedly true.
OK, your initial reaction is to take the phrase as an absolute and unqualified statement. You're not omniscient, and the language isn't perfect, so we're all bound to get things wrong now and then. But I've pointed out that the term is not meant to be taken that way. In other words, I've qualified the statement for you. At this point you really have no excuse for continuing to get it wrong in the exact same way.
If I tell you my car is hot, and you touch the air conditioner and say, "no, it's very cold", was I lying? If I say the ocean is deep, and you wade a few yards in and say, "no it's not, it barely comes to my knees", was I lying? Yes, both statements were said unqualified, but that doesn't make them wrong, except in a universal and absolute sense. Do you think it would be reasonable to hold every unqualified statement made to such a standard? You could try, but you're going to find that a lot of people will avoid talking with you at all costs.
You're deliberately treating the phrase "it just works" in a sense in which it's not meant. I'll attempt to explain it to you once again, but if all you're going to do is try to disprove the "unqualified and absolute" sense of the term, you're just wasting time, because no one is meaning it that way.
Take "it just works" as a quality, an attribute. Like a color. To what extent can an OS be said to "just work"? Similarly, to what extent can a building be said to be red? Your standard brick wall might be very red, with just a small amount of grey mortar. It's not "unqualifiedly and absolutely red", but it's not wrong to call it red. Given the processes which users go through, adding and removing hardware, adding and removing software, running software, accessing the Internet, and so on. To what extent does Windows "just work"? Under Windows, just about everything requires user interaction. Just about everything requires a wizard, or a choice of options, or installation of drivers, etc. None of these interactions are terribly difficult, but they are annoying and wholly unnecessary. Windows has a very low "just works" quotient. That's not an absolute. Sometimes Windows does just work. For example, you no longer have to reboot after plugging in a USB mouse.
For Mac OS X, the amount of work the user has to do to get something done is far less. Far, far more things are automatically and correctly configured. Installing applications virtually never requires any sort of "wizard" to set up. Mac OS X has a very high "just works" quotient.
Does that make sense to you? Do you understand now what people mean by "it just works"? Do you understand how something can be said to have a quality, even if that quality is not universal and absolute? (and in fact, rarely does an object have a singular quality universally and absolutely)
What im thinking is that the ATI card is specific to the Mac and they dont have the windows drivers ready for it - mabe im wrong i dont know what the ATI card is.
No, there are Windows drivers for all the video cards in all the Intel Macs.
The reason why it 'just works' is because the HW is made to Mac standards not the million and 1 different HW setups for windows - this is why windows drivers are important.
Drivers are important for the Mac, as well. Mac OS X currently supports a large number of ATI and Nvidia cards.
Your argument doesn't hold up. This isn't some oddball, no-name, Taiwanese video card which doesn't work well with the chipmaker's drivers. This is a high quality ATI card with ATI-supplied drivers for both OS X and Windows. In other words, this isn't some strange situation that MS couldn't possibly foresee, and which is the exact opposite of what on would normally want to happen.
This is exactly the point I've been making. On the Mac, things just work. The user doesn't have to futz around with changing the scaling options on their display, or on their video driver.
On Windows, even with a brand-name card with brand-name drivers and a high profile game, it doesn't get things right. All Windows would have to do is notice the game is asking for a 4:3 screen, and the display is widescreen, and slap two black rectangles on either side, and it should be automatic unless the application specifically requests otherwise.
Widescreens are common, ATI cards are common, 4:3 games are common. There's absolutely no reason Windows shouldn't automatically and accurately handle this sort of situation.
Temporarily, perhaps, but there is little honour amongst thieves. Sooner or later, a major player will realise that by offering products without DRM in a world that usually demands it, they can gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Not in the case of a monopoly. If you want to buy the Lord of the Rings trilogy on DVD, you have no choice but to accept DRM. Music, movies and television are not fungible.
Fox can't, for example, decide to undercut New Line and sell the LotR trilogy without DRM.
People will buy their DRM-encumbered DVD, HD-DVD and BD players, because they will have no choice. They will buy their DRM-encumbered PCs and portable media players, because they will have no choice. And once all their hardware is DRM-encumbered, and all their commercial media is DRM-encumbered, why would they revolt?
Their only alternative will be to not buy the films, shows, and music they want, and I don't see DRM becoming so restrictive that people will go to that extreme. Macrovision has circumvented our legal right to back up our physical property for well over a twenty years now, and there hasn't been a backlash.
No. He just means consumers will stop using Linux if they can't use it to access the content they want.
Linux will be around for quite a while as a server and engineering OS, consumer success is really going to require the ability to play modern media formats (which are ever increasingly being restricted with DRM).
History furnishes few examples of big business successfully forcing the people to accept something not in their interests for extended periods. Once the public get wise to something, it will stop.
Except when business forms monopolies and trusts. Then the public has no open market recourse, and government intervention is required.
If all the TV shows, films, and music that people want are encumbered with DRM, the consumer will have no choice but to accept DRM with the goods they buy.
Unfortunately, the current government in the US is very, very pro business and anti-intervention.
In the long run, I'm optimistic like you are. I'm just annoyed that we are being subjected to a wholly unnecessary and nonsensical interim, where the consumer is forced to pay to hinder progress.
Fortunately, the market is still capable of providing relatively consumer-friendly DRM (iTunes).
"It's the OS's job to tell the driver what to do (and, optionally, the application's job to ask the OS to scale or not)."
So let me get this straight - it's the OS's responsibility to tell the underlying hardware what features it has?
No. You even quoted me and got it wrong. I didn't say the OS should tell the hardware what it can do, but what to do.
You keep ignoring this video card issue as a perfect example. The card supports scaling. Mac OS can tell it to scale. Whether or not Windows can tell it to, it clearly did not.
An intelligent OS should be able to query the driver to find out if it supports a feature. If it does, it uses it, if it doesn't, and the feature is reasonable to implement in software, it should do that, entirely transparently to the user and the application. Windows clearly did not do this at all.
I would change that to "for some hardware you just plug in and it just works most of the time except for when it doesn't".
Then you would change to it mean absolutely nothing. That statement would be true for even the most obscure, least usable, poorly supported OS in the universe. But clearly, some OS's "just work" more than others. For example, MS DOS could hardly be said to "just work", Linux can, but usually doesn't, "just work", Windows rarely "just works", but doesn't take a lot of effort to get most things working. OS X is the only OS where the phrase "it just works" is a reasonable claim.
XP has come a long way, but it's still a far cry from OS X with regards to "it just works".
Of course the Production camera's work because we bought them specifically to be Mac compatible, but really shouldn't the OS support any camera by your logic?
Of course not. It should support any camera with drivers. If there was no Windows driver for the X1600, I wouldn't blame Windows for that. But if there is a driver (and there is), Windows should be intelligent enough to handle things that the user should not have to concern themselves with.
It does not always "just work" and sometimes fixing the problem is far from trivial.
I never said it always "just works".
It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about OS X or Macs in general because of this whole starry eyed "it just works" oh thanks my savior Jobs viewpoint.
No, it's not impossible at all. It might be impossible for you, but that's because you don't understand the terms being used. "It just works" does not mean "it always just works" or "nothing can ever go wrong" or "all hardware works flawlessly". It means that the OS takes care of things so you don't have to. There are absolutely situations where this fails to be true, but it happens far, far more often on Mac OS X than it does under Windows or Linux.
If you re-read my posts, you'll realize I've tend to use qualifications ("it usually", "most of the time", "tends to", "it should", things like that), but you are ignoring them and pretending like I said, "it always". Obviously, if you hold me to that standard, I can't be right, but that's not what I'm claiming. You're wasting time disproving a claim no one is making.
Or let's put it a different way. Which OS, Windows or Mac OS X, tends to "just work" more often? Which does the right thing without requiring user intervention? Without popping up dialog boxes asking what you want to do? Without flashing icons everywhere letting you know it did exactly what you should expect it to do? Without running a wizard every time you first do something--a wizard which over 99% of the time is just an exercise in clicking "Next" a half dozen times?
*That's* what "it just works" means. In the "it just works" department, OS X is vastly superior to Windows--it's virtually impossible to have used both OS's for any significant period of time and not realize this. That doesn't mean a person is stupid for using Windows, that there's no reason to use Windows, or that Windows is not good at
Apple supports a small subsection of hardware. Windows runs on a vast selection of hardware. I don't see this as being particularly comparable.
Because you aren't paying attention. It has nothing to do with the video driver, and everything to do with what services the OS provides.
It's not the driver's job to decide whether or not to scale the video. It's the OS's job to tell the driver what to do (and, optionally, the application's job to ask the OS to scale or not). Windows, apparently, doesn't do that. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "Windows has to support a vast amount of hardware".
I use and work with OS X. It's a decent OS but it has it's problems and this bullshit "it just works" crap is getting seriously tired.
You simply just don't understand what that phrase means. It doesn't mean things can't or don't go wrong. It means that you don't have to go through so many hoops to get things working. For most hardware, you just plug it in and "it just works". This scaling issue is just another example of that. For most things, you don't have to tinker around, you just use it.
Do you realize how abysmally ignorant you sound when you say something doesn't exist, when this entire thread is about an example of that very thing? If "it just works" isn't true, why does the Mac have no problems with varied aspect ratios and video scaling (in other words, "it just works"), yet on Windows it's a grab-bag where sometimes it works, sometimes you have to mess with the OSD on your display, sometimes you have to tinker with the video driver settings, sometimes you can choose the right setting in the game, and sometimes no matter what you do you can't get it to work right?
You see third party companies make the hardware - not Microsoft. ATI in this case makes the video chip in the MacBook Pro.
How is that different with Mac OS? ATI still makes the card, either way.
So first stop for blame should be ATI for not implementing this.
No, first stop for blame is Windows for not taking care of this sort of thing. This is exactly what OS's are supposed to do.
So you've clearly missed my point. It's this sort of thing that make Macs "just work". If MS doesn't take the initiative to make Windows "just work", and instead rely on third parties, they will always lag behind a company which takes these things seriously, like Apple does.
Weird, I never had trouble with 4:3 resolutions on my 8:5 HP f2105 monitor, I find it odd that Apple failed to include options such as the following on their wonderful hardware:
Notebooks don't have on screen displays for LCD settings.
But ignoring that, Apple's hardware and OS properly support their displays, making the OSD controls you mention unnecessary.
In other words, you're asking why Apple doesn't have kludgey workarounds for a problem that doesn't exist on the Mac. It's not Apple's fault for not including unnecessary hacks, it's Windows'/F.E.A.R.'s fault that they need them.
In case you're wondering, this is what Mac users mean by "it just works". Why should a person have to worry about something the computer is fully capable of correctly doing itself?
For what its worth, I agree OS X for generic PC would probably sell well. But I think potential damage it would do to Apples reputation for quality and the issue of cannibalized hardware sales could easily do Apple more net harm than good.
I agree that your fears are all possible. It could harm Apple more than it could help. But you seem unwilling to realize the fact that it could easily triple Apple's market share in a very short amount of time as well. And I don't mean "yeah, if everything happens to work out perfectly, without a single problem, and three other almost impossible things happen, too". I mean that it's a very realistic possibility.
But it *is* a problem, and its not going to solve itself.
No, but that's Apple's job. If problems solved themselves, companies like Apple wouldn't need to exist. My point is that not only is it a solvable problem, but it's exactly the type of problem Apple is good at. You may not realize this, but one of the reason OS X works so well with Apple hardware is because a lot of the drivers and interface software they use is open source. They're a smart company, and very good with making technology work.
But you've already lost the argument on this point. I can already think of at least three or four ways for Apple to address this problem, and it's not even my job to do so. The easiest one is like I said, they could have you download a program that will tell you *exactly* which pieces of hardware you have which will not work, will only partially work, and which will work just fine. Or they could sell only directly to OEMs. Or they could list overly conservative system requirements (fast cpu, no PCI cards, only the most recent video cards from ATI and Nvidia, only SoundBlaster, only Intel chipsets).
Or the disc could be a dual live/install disc like many Linux distros have. First you run the live, and it tells you what isn't working, and if it's a no-go, you can return the discs at any Apple Store, and they will refund, no questions asked other than, "would you like to buy a Mac?"
Seriously, it's a problem, but it's most definitely solvable.
Mac clones all over again. Mac OS hardware sales would be raped. They tried that.
So? How many copies of OS X does it take to offset the loss of one Mac sale? How many future Mac sales would be created by the exposure to OS X that result from non-Mac sales of OS X? I don't know the answer to those questions, and I'm certain you don't, either. So how can you state so absolutely that this can't work?
I can't guarantee success. I can guess at it, though. You are guaranteeing failure, which is something you cannot truly do. You have reached a conclusion, and completely ignoring contrary evidence. I know such a thing could backfire on Apple. I know success isn't guaranteed. But I also know that there's nothing inherent in the process which makes success impossible, and I also know that the potential pitfalls are all surmountable. Sure, it'll be tough, but doing tough things is what Apple is good at.
The majority of people who get there OSes via infringing torrents weren't likely to pay for them anyway.
Even if that's true (which I doubt--this isn't a product like Windows which people chose not to buy, it's an unreleased product which they were unable to buy), a non-Mac version of OS X would not be sold only to those who downloaded the torrent.
Meanwhile, having a legit OSX for PC would likely cannibalize Apple's hardware sales, much like the mac-clones did some years back.
At first, Apple would sell fewer Macs, but many, many more copies of OS X. If it takes off (which I believe it would), it's quite possible for Apple to sell more Macs, in the long run, than they would have otherwise. Right now, there is a relatively small percentage of consumers who seriously consider buying a Mac (say, 10%). As the market share for OS X increases (as it would, with a retail, non-Mac release of OS X), the percentage of people who would consider a Mac increases as well.
So right now, the number of Mac buyers is 100% of a small number. With the release of a non-Mac version of OS X, it will be a smaller percentage of a larger number. That does not guarantee success, but success is much more likely than you and the other naysayers seem to realize.
A side issue: a version of OS X for generic PC is still going to need drivers, and lots of them. Where are these going to come from? I don't think we can count on OEMs to produce them, especially for even slightly older product, and it would be a monumental task for Apple to do it.
Not my problem, and not an insurmountable problem. BSD runs just fine with your various and sundry devices.
Perhaps Apple would, at first, only OEM OS X (no OEM is going to include OS X if it can't work on their PC). Or maybe only via online order, which first points you to download a "compatibility test" program which will list any devices which won't work.
Like I said, not my problem, and not insurmountable.
"I tried OS X on my old emachine and it failed to see my scanner, didn't work with the e-button on the case to launch internet explorer, and sleep never worked properly either -- no way I'm buying a crappy apple computer..."
Why would they think the Apple computer is crappy, when it's their eMachine that sucks? I realize your average consumer isn't necessarily a genius, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think Apple would sell a Mac with a bunch of hardware that isn't supported.
But the funny thing is that your scenario is one that already exists with the Mac mini, with the exception of sleep not working. People are already buying minis and finding they have some hardware that doesn't work (like scanners), and using keyboards with little e's on them which don't launch Safari.
How about replacing the bold part with, "I guess OS X doesn't work well with crappy hardware, so I should go out and buy a Mac"? Or the more ambivalent, "I guess OS X doesn't support much hardware yet. I guess I'll pass for now until they get their act together."
Apple has also had a very strong relationship with Microsoft in recent years, and I don't see them competiting head-to-head for Dell's sales.
Why not? Just because they are friends, they aren't going to compete with each other?
Aside from the fact that they already compete in the OS arena, there is also: iWork, iTunes, iPod, Safari, and QuickTime, all of which directly compete with MS products or standards, and, with the exception of iWork and Safari, all run quite well on Dells.
Face it, whoever's installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is not Apple's target market anyway.
"People who want to run OS X" is not Apple's target market? Because "installing OS X on a non-Apple computer" is most certainly a subset of "people who want to run OS X".
They're not paying now and wouldn't pay if Apple released a legal version, just like they pirate Windows today.
You're saying Apple would not sell a single copy of non-Mac, x86 OS X? Or that no one who downloaded and ran the hacked version of OS X would buy a copy were it available? Because both are wrong.
I'm really very sure that this will happen eventually, if Apple odes virtualization.
So am I. But that is not going to happen universally. That will happen even if Apple doesn't do virtualization.
The dynamics of the market, where the Mac loses some apps here, gains some apps there, is separate from the notion that OS X is now doomed like OS/2, or that all incentive to port a Windows app to OS X has just vanished (or will with full virtualization).
The overall effect is arguable and speculative. I believe Boot Camp, and eventually virtualization, will help boost the market share for OS X.
Look at it like this: Right now there are Windows users, Switch-hitters (people who have Windows and OS X), and OS X users. This product will increase the number of switch-hitters (but also get a lot of them to ditch their PC and just use their Mac + Boot Camp, which won't add to their numbers).
If Boot Camp were to only work its way into the Mac user market numbers, it would be negative (although not to the ends you are predicting: you still have to buy and install Windows, so there will always be Mac-only users--In OS/2, Windows support was built-in). However, Boot Camp will move into the Windows-only numbers as well.
So the odds are very good the total number of OS X users (switch-hitters + Mac-only) will increase by a significant percentage, while even if 50% of Mac users used Boot Camp (or virtualization), the number of Windows users (switch-hitters + Windows-only) will have not increased by a significant amount.
It's possible that this could backfire badly, but it's extremely evident that there are: a.) many people who use Windows, but would prefer a Mac except their need for that one app, and b.) many Mac users who would like to use Windows to run a game or some Windows-only app, but would much rather run OS X and OS X apps (so much so that they bought a Mac). Boot Camp (and virtualization) serves both camps, and can only increase the overall number of Mac users--Mac users who will significantly prefer OS X apps, and who will be more quick to spend money on Mac apps than over Windows apps.
OS/2 users also preferred native apps over Windows apps.
I already addressed that. The Mac market is many times more mature than the OS/2 market had ever been.
That could be a significantly smaller number, and it might even be negative!
That doesn't matter. All that matters is the number people who will pay for a Mac version that won't end up buying the Windows version. Your group "Y" is just another word for "Windows users" or "Mac users who also have a Windows PC" or even "Mac users who run VirtualPC". Group Y already exists, and even so, there are still Mac apps. All that Boot Camp does is increase the number in group Y. The added number is far less than the number already in group Y (which is, we are told, 95% of the computer market).
I'm not guaranteeing that there will not be a net negative effect. I don't believe so, because the forces are already in play (although in a different dynamic). Additionally, this means that the Mac has just become a more realistic option for a very large number of people (gamers and corporate users, for example). What I am refuting is the notion that this means that OS X has just become the next OS/2, or that companies will now have "no incentive" to port to the Mac. Both notions are very, very wrong.
Now with a virtualization solution, Apple would really be in trouble. OS/2 trouble, that is. People switching mac-win-mac all the time really removes any incentive to port an app to the mac.
I've highlighted the two errors people keep making on this topic.
OS X is not OS/2. OS X is a well-established OS, with a large user base, and has a very healthy ISV ecosystem. OS/2 had its fanatics, and it had its corporate success stories, but it never did very well in the home, and it had a very limited/specialized commercial software market.
The other error is that I keep hearing that there will be "no incentive" to write software for OS X if Mac users can run Windows programs directly. People will still prefer OS X native apps over Windows apps under virtualization. That preference equates to demand and demand equates to incentive.
If the user was satisfied with Windows and Windows apps, they would have just bought a Dell. But the Mac user isn't satisfied with Windows and Windows apps. Now that Macs can run Windows (and probably do so better than most Windows PC's), expect a lot of gamers and corporate users to switch, further increasing demand for OS X apps.
Thats is sloppy on the BBC's part, they should have put the State in there.
Why? They don't care anymore than we (Americans) care that Tijuana, Mexico is more appropriately, "Tijuana, BC, Mexico".
To us, the state is important, but to the British, it's really not that pertinent. The point is that the detector is in the US, not what particular state it's in.
Given how awful most Americans are at geography, your complaint comes off trite and arrogant, sort of like you require people to call you by your full name and title, yet you don't really care whether you get anyone else's name right at all.
Your hair-splitting over trivial terminology is getting in your way.
You mean it's getting in your way.
If you're referring to my point over your use of the word "need" (and then just skimmed over the rest), it's the only place I do that. I had to because I can't argue in any way that ISVs "need" to support the Mac.
None of the rest is "hair-splitting" nor is it trivial.
For example, you claim a user has a choice to make their voice heard. Yes, a user can choose to use the Windows version of a program or not, but they can't choose the Mac version when there is no Mac version. There are *TWO* relevant choices, but you only seem to require one. In other words, a user can choose to "vote" for the Windows version or not, but they can't "vote" for the Mac version if it doesn't exist.
That may be true, but if they buy the Windows version, the vendor has no need to make the investment in a Mac port.
You are wrong. First, you are wrong to use the word "need". No matter what, there is no "need" for the vender to do anything (I only point this out because I can't argue that there is a need, because in no case is there a need--in other words, you've altered my argument into one that's impossible). But there is still demand. Even if the user buys the Windows version, there is still demand, from that very user, for the Mac version. If you bought some Windows program for your Mac, you'd still buy (at some price, maybe full price, or maybe a "side-grade" price) a Mac version if it became available.
Again with Linux, everyone who boots into Windows just to play a game or run some program would much rather buy the program for Linux. However, if they keep buying the Windows program, they show themselves to be satisfied without it.
You are wrong. They have no other choice for using that program. They didn't want to run it in Windows. They would have rather run it on Linux. They regret the fact that they have to run Windows. They are not "satisfied" with that solution, they merely accept it as necessary.
In other words, while running a Windows program via dual-boot, or VMware, or WINE, directly satisfies the specific need (Tax Software, Exchange client, game, etc), the user is not satisfied with the solution--it's merely their only or their best option to meet the need. Merely meeting a need does not imply it's an optimal or a satisfactory solution. Wearing a garbage bag might satisfy your sense of modesty and local laws regarding nudity, but that doesn't satisfy your clothing desires, it merely satisfies some basic minimum requirements.
You do have a choice.... You can go without.
Those are two different choices. The first is, "do I want this product?", the second is, "do I want it on the Mac or PC?"
For a program that is only available on the PC, the first choice might be yes, but the second choice is not available.
I respectfully disagree. There are many reasons why Linux has fewer ports, and this is one.
You misunderstand me, but I wasn't very clear what I meant for brevity's sake. What I mean is that once a vendor decides to port a program to Linux, they encounter many problems. Most of these problems don't exist for Mac ports. Linux users aren't exactly amenable to buying software (they will, but they're used to "apt-get" or "rpm -i"). Once they do buy software, it's hard to support a significant portion of Linuxes at any given time (do you make rpm's? do you test that they work only on the current Red Hat? How about derivatives? Same with deb's, and Ubuntu, etc.). Even if you've solved that, you have the problem that Linux distributions are usually updated multiple times per year. This is great for the user, but hard for developers. The only reason it works so well on Linux at all is that most software is compiled for that specific iteration of that specific distribution.
These hurdles make commercially supporting Linux very difficult, above and beyond any difficulties of actually porting the program in the first place.
"Voting with your dollars" is merely a flawed analogy for supply and demand. There are no "elections", the market has none of the fairness of a democracy, it just pits supply against demand, and vice versa.
No matter how easy it is to run Windows programs on a Mac, there will always be demand for a Mac native version. The only pertinent question is, is that demand enough to convince the developer to supply it.
Every ISV would gladly sell a Mac version of their software if they could. They're happy if a Mac user buys it to run in a dual-boot mode, but they'd rather have a native port--it means happier customers, and customers who are more likely to run your software now and in the future. It all boils down to the cost of porting, vs the money they'd make.
1. Being able to run Windows on a Mac means fewer and fewer ports of Windows software.
Being able to hack your Mac to run Windows does not reduce demand for Mac ports. Everyone who installs Windows on a Mac just to play a game or run some program, would much rather buy the game or program for the Mac, if given the choice. What it does do is increase (slightly) the demand for the Windows version.
Absolutely nobody would prefer to hack their Mac to run Windows, then reboot into Windows just to play a game, over doing so natively on OS X.
You mention Linux, but that's a faulty comparison. The main reasons for fewer Linux ports of Windows software is that Linux is harder to support commercially. Yes, it can be, and has been, done, but it's still significantly harder.
2. Voting with your wallet.
This sounds nice in theory, but does not work in practice. The first problem is the comparison to democracy. In ideal democracy, each person gets an equal vote, and those votes don't cost you money or opportunity. In "voting with your wallet", those with more money have more votes.
The second problem is that if you "vote for the Mac" by not buying Counter-Strike 2 to run on Windows on your Mac, then you have to do without Counter-Strike 2. The only way "voting with your wallet" counts is when you have a choice. If you have the choice between buying CS 2 for Mac or Win, then when you buy the Mac version, you are voting for the Mac version. How can you vote for the Mac version if it's not on the metaphorical ballot?
The best compromise between "voting with your wallet" and reality would be to buy the Windows game only if you really want it, and to make sure you contact the developer asking for a Mac version. If they see the demand is high enough, they may do one of the following: port the game to the Mac; contract out porting of the game to another company; (or at the very least) consider strongly making their next game for Windows and Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the Windows installer can't be prevented from installing on the Mac OS X partition, I have to wonder whether these users didn't select the wrong partition, overwriting OS X? Becuase that's exactly what is seems like they've done.
You paint a magical picture of the perfect operating system, when it has plenty of issues.
That's called a "straw man". It's not an argument I'm making (I've pointed this out many times), yet you keep trotting it out and skewering it, and pretending like you've just defeated my argument. You haven't. How many times do I have to say, "OS X isn't perfect" before you stop saying "aha, but don't you know? OS X isn't perfect! I bet you didn't know that!!"?
you think it's a valid "attribute" of an operating system, I think it's a subjective term
"Valid" and "subjective" are not mutually exclusive. I absolutely agree that it's subjective. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. You might as well claim a Mercedes doesn't have that "luxury" quality any more than a Chevy Nova, since "luxury" is subjective and used by Mercedes' marketing firm. It's certainly possible to make and defend such a claim--all you have to do is ignore any measurement of "luxury". That doesn't change the fact that the Mercedes really is more luxurious, it just makes you look like... Well, let's just say it doesn't put you grasp of the subject in a very good light.
This is about the point where you jump in with "Ah! But OS X can't have the quality of 'it just works' because it is imperfect!"
<sigh>
I'm not saying OS X 100% "just works". Just that "it just works" is a significant attribute of Mac OS X. Not a perfect and absolute attribute, just a significant one. And that it's an attribute OS X has in great excess when compared Windows or Linux. That's not to say Windows and Linux don't excel in other areas, just that in the "it just works" dept, they are notably inferior to OS X.
So then say an older game like say Starcraft will support widescreen display with an expanded battlefield and properly sized interface? Because the OS told it that it's using a widescreen monitor? That would be interesting to see. It's exactly what you are implying.
Sometimes, yes, that's exactly what happens. For a game that's hard-coded to 4:3, for whatever reason, it's my experience that OS X will do a sort of "letterboxing", except that the black bars are on the either side of the game, so that the game is still 4:3, and not awkwardly scaled to the widescreen ratio.
I can think of no technological reason why a graphics interface (DirectX, on Windows) can't do this automatically for a game, even if that game was written prior to the availability of modern widescreen displays.
Apple puts a lot of effort into making things work correctly with a minimal amount of effort on the end-user and the developer. Microsoft does not. I don't see why you're finding it so hard to believe that such a disparity of effort won't manifest itself in the end product. For a Windows (or Linux) user switching to a Mac, things "just work" so often it's amazing. Booting from an external drive? It just works. Networking? It just works. How do you install an app? Just run it--you don't have to install (but you'll generally want to copy it to the Applications folder so you know where it's at). How do you uninstall? Put it into the trash. How do you install a screensaver? Just double-click on it. Same with dashboard widgets. How do you tell the OS what application can open a file type? You don't have to do anything. So long as the appropriate application is merely on a drive that the OS can see, it will use it to open a file. These things all "just work" and they do so because Apple put the effort in to make them work. These things don't "just work" on Windows because MS hasn't put in the effort.
And, no, not everything in Mac OS X "just works", and sometimes things can go horribly wrong. But OS X "just works" far more often than Windows does.
Now you're being abundantly silly. By your definition, absolutely nothing can be said to "just work". Nothing doesn't just work if the proper conditions aren't met.
You adding conditions to the phrase are attempting to reinvent the language.
No, I'm not. There is no requirement in the English language that all phrases must be absolutely and unqualifiedly true.
OK, your initial reaction is to take the phrase as an absolute and unqualified statement. You're not omniscient, and the language isn't perfect, so we're all bound to get things wrong now and then. But I've pointed out that the term is not meant to be taken that way. In other words, I've qualified the statement for you. At this point you really have no excuse for continuing to get it wrong in the exact same way.
If I tell you my car is hot, and you touch the air conditioner and say, "no, it's very cold", was I lying? If I say the ocean is deep, and you wade a few yards in and say, "no it's not, it barely comes to my knees", was I lying? Yes, both statements were said unqualified, but that doesn't make them wrong, except in a universal and absolute sense. Do you think it would be reasonable to hold every unqualified statement made to such a standard? You could try, but you're going to find that a lot of people will avoid talking with you at all costs.
You're deliberately treating the phrase "it just works" in a sense in which it's not meant. I'll attempt to explain it to you once again, but if all you're going to do is try to disprove the "unqualified and absolute" sense of the term, you're just wasting time, because no one is meaning it that way.
Take "it just works" as a quality, an attribute. Like a color. To what extent can an OS be said to "just work"? Similarly, to what extent can a building be said to be red? Your standard brick wall might be very red, with just a small amount of grey mortar. It's not "unqualifiedly and absolutely red", but it's not wrong to call it red. Given the processes which users go through, adding and removing hardware, adding and removing software, running software, accessing the Internet, and so on. To what extent does Windows "just work"? Under Windows, just about everything requires user interaction. Just about everything requires a wizard, or a choice of options, or installation of drivers, etc. None of these interactions are terribly difficult, but they are annoying and wholly unnecessary. Windows has a very low "just works" quotient. That's not an absolute. Sometimes Windows does just work. For example, you no longer have to reboot after plugging in a USB mouse.
For Mac OS X, the amount of work the user has to do to get something done is far less. Far, far more things are automatically and correctly configured. Installing applications virtually never requires any sort of "wizard" to set up. Mac OS X has a very high "just works" quotient.
Does that make sense to you? Do you understand now what people mean by "it just works"? Do you understand how something can be said to have a quality, even if that quality is not universal and absolute? (and in fact, rarely does an object have a singular quality universally and absolutely)
What im thinking is that the ATI card is specific to the Mac and they dont have the windows drivers ready for it - mabe im wrong i dont know what the ATI card is.
No, there are Windows drivers for all the video cards in all the Intel Macs.
The reason why it 'just works' is because the HW is made to Mac standards not the million and 1 different HW setups for windows - this is why windows drivers are important.
Drivers are important for the Mac, as well. Mac OS X currently supports a large number of ATI and Nvidia cards.
Your argument doesn't hold up. This isn't some oddball, no-name, Taiwanese video card which doesn't work well with the chipmaker's drivers. This is a high quality ATI card with ATI-supplied drivers for both OS X and Windows. In other words, this isn't some strange situation that MS couldn't possibly foresee, and which is the exact opposite of what on would normally want to happen.
This is exactly the point I've been making. On the Mac, things just work. The user doesn't have to futz around with changing the scaling options on their display, or on their video driver.
On Windows, even with a brand-name card with brand-name drivers and a high profile game, it doesn't get things right. All Windows would have to do is notice the game is asking for a 4:3 screen, and the display is widescreen, and slap two black rectangles on either side, and it should be automatic unless the application specifically requests otherwise.
Widescreens are common, ATI cards are common, 4:3 games are common. There's absolutely no reason Windows shouldn't automatically and accurately handle this sort of situation.
Temporarily, perhaps, but there is little honour amongst thieves. Sooner or later, a major player will realise that by offering products without DRM in a world that usually demands it, they can gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Not in the case of a monopoly. If you want to buy the Lord of the Rings trilogy on DVD, you have no choice but to accept DRM. Music, movies and television are not fungible.
Fox can't, for example, decide to undercut New Line and sell the LotR trilogy without DRM.
People will buy their DRM-encumbered DVD, HD-DVD and BD players, because they will have no choice. They will buy their DRM-encumbered PCs and portable media players, because they will have no choice. And once all their hardware is DRM-encumbered, and all their commercial media is DRM-encumbered, why would they revolt?
Their only alternative will be to not buy the films, shows, and music they want, and I don't see DRM becoming so restrictive that people will go to that extreme. Macrovision has circumvented our legal right to back up our physical property for well over a twenty years now, and there hasn't been a backlash.
No. He just means consumers will stop using Linux if they can't use it to access the content they want.
Linux will be around for quite a while as a server and engineering OS, consumer success is really going to require the ability to play modern media formats (which are ever increasingly being restricted with DRM).
History furnishes few examples of big business successfully forcing the people to accept something not in their interests for extended periods. Once the public get wise to something, it will stop.
Except when business forms monopolies and trusts. Then the public has no open market recourse, and government intervention is required.
If all the TV shows, films, and music that people want are encumbered with DRM, the consumer will have no choice but to accept DRM with the goods they buy.
Unfortunately, the current government in the US is very, very pro business and anti-intervention.
In the long run, I'm optimistic like you are. I'm just annoyed that we are being subjected to a wholly unnecessary and nonsensical interim, where the consumer is forced to pay to hinder progress.
Fortunately, the market is still capable of providing relatively consumer-friendly DRM (iTunes).
"It's the OS's job to tell the driver what to do (and, optionally, the application's job to ask the OS to scale or not)."
So let me get this straight - it's the OS's responsibility to tell the underlying hardware what features it has?
No. You even quoted me and got it wrong. I didn't say the OS should tell the hardware what it can do, but what to do.
You keep ignoring this video card issue as a perfect example. The card supports scaling. Mac OS can tell it to scale. Whether or not Windows can tell it to, it clearly did not.
An intelligent OS should be able to query the driver to find out if it supports a feature. If it does, it uses it, if it doesn't, and the feature is reasonable to implement in software, it should do that, entirely transparently to the user and the application. Windows clearly did not do this at all.
I would change that to "for some hardware you just plug in and it just works most of the time except for when it doesn't".
Then you would change to it mean absolutely nothing. That statement would be true for even the most obscure, least usable, poorly supported OS in the universe. But clearly, some OS's "just work" more than others. For example, MS DOS could hardly be said to "just work", Linux can, but usually doesn't, "just work", Windows rarely "just works", but doesn't take a lot of effort to get most things working. OS X is the only OS where the phrase "it just works" is a reasonable claim.
XP has come a long way, but it's still a far cry from OS X with regards to "it just works".
Of course the Production camera's work because we bought them specifically to be Mac compatible, but really shouldn't the OS support any camera by your logic?
Of course not. It should support any camera with drivers. If there was no Windows driver for the X1600, I wouldn't blame Windows for that. But if there is a driver (and there is), Windows should be intelligent enough to handle things that the user should not have to concern themselves with.
It does not always "just work" and sometimes fixing the problem is far from trivial.
I never said it always "just works".
It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about OS X or Macs in general because of this whole starry eyed "it just works" oh thanks my savior Jobs viewpoint.
No, it's not impossible at all. It might be impossible for you, but that's because you don't understand the terms being used. "It just works" does not mean "it always just works" or "nothing can ever go wrong" or "all hardware works flawlessly". It means that the OS takes care of things so you don't have to. There are absolutely situations where this fails to be true, but it happens far, far more often on Mac OS X than it does under Windows or Linux.
If you re-read my posts, you'll realize I've tend to use qualifications ("it usually", "most of the time", "tends to", "it should", things like that), but you are ignoring them and pretending like I said, "it always". Obviously, if you hold me to that standard, I can't be right, but that's not what I'm claiming. You're wasting time disproving a claim no one is making.
Or let's put it a different way. Which OS, Windows or Mac OS X, tends to "just work" more often? Which does the right thing without requiring user intervention? Without popping up dialog boxes asking what you want to do? Without flashing icons everywhere letting you know it did exactly what you should expect it to do? Without running a wizard every time you first do something--a wizard which over 99% of the time is just an exercise in clicking "Next" a half dozen times?
*That's* what "it just works" means. In the "it just works" department, OS X is vastly superior to Windows--it's virtually impossible to have used both OS's for any significant period of time and not realize this. That doesn't mean a person is stupid for using Windows, that there's no reason to use Windows, or that Windows is not good at
Apple supports a small subsection of hardware. Windows runs on a vast selection of hardware. I don't see this as being particularly comparable.
Because you aren't paying attention. It has nothing to do with the video driver, and everything to do with what services the OS provides.
It's not the driver's job to decide whether or not to scale the video. It's the OS's job to tell the driver what to do (and, optionally, the application's job to ask the OS to scale or not). Windows, apparently, doesn't do that. But this has absolutely nothing to do with "Windows has to support a vast amount of hardware".
I use and work with OS X. It's a decent OS but it has it's problems and this bullshit "it just works" crap is getting seriously tired.
You simply just don't understand what that phrase means. It doesn't mean things can't or don't go wrong. It means that you don't have to go through so many hoops to get things working. For most hardware, you just plug it in and "it just works". This scaling issue is just another example of that. For most things, you don't have to tinker around, you just use it.
Do you realize how abysmally ignorant you sound when you say something doesn't exist, when this entire thread is about an example of that very thing? If "it just works" isn't true, why does the Mac have no problems with varied aspect ratios and video scaling (in other words, "it just works"), yet on Windows it's a grab-bag where sometimes it works, sometimes you have to mess with the OSD on your display, sometimes you have to tinker with the video driver settings, sometimes you can choose the right setting in the game, and sometimes no matter what you do you can't get it to work right?
You see third party companies make the hardware - not Microsoft. ATI in this case makes the video chip in the MacBook Pro.
How is that different with Mac OS? ATI still makes the card, either way.
So first stop for blame should be ATI for not implementing this.
No, first stop for blame is Windows for not taking care of this sort of thing. This is exactly what OS's are supposed to do.
So you've clearly missed my point. It's this sort of thing that make Macs "just work". If MS doesn't take the initiative to make Windows "just work", and instead rely on third parties, they will always lag behind a company which takes these things seriously, like Apple does.
Weird, I never had trouble with 4:3 resolutions on my 8:5 HP f2105 monitor, I find it odd that Apple failed to include options such as the following on their wonderful hardware:
Notebooks don't have on screen displays for LCD settings.
But ignoring that, Apple's hardware and OS properly support their displays, making the OSD controls you mention unnecessary.
In other words, you're asking why Apple doesn't have kludgey workarounds for a problem that doesn't exist on the Mac. It's not Apple's fault for not including unnecessary hacks, it's Windows'/F.E.A.R.'s fault that they need them.
In case you're wondering, this is what Mac users mean by "it just works". Why should a person have to worry about something the computer is fully capable of correctly doing itself?
For what its worth, I agree OS X for generic PC would probably sell well. But I think potential damage it would do to Apples reputation for quality and the issue of cannibalized hardware sales could easily do Apple more net harm than good.
I agree that your fears are all possible. It could harm Apple more than it could help. But you seem unwilling to realize the fact that it could easily triple Apple's market share in a very short amount of time as well. And I don't mean "yeah, if everything happens to work out perfectly, without a single problem, and three other almost impossible things happen, too". I mean that it's a very realistic possibility.
But it *is* a problem, and its not going to solve itself.
No, but that's Apple's job. If problems solved themselves, companies like Apple wouldn't need to exist. My point is that not only is it a solvable problem, but it's exactly the type of problem Apple is good at. You may not realize this, but one of the reason OS X works so well with Apple hardware is because a lot of the drivers and interface software they use is open source. They're a smart company, and very good with making technology work.
But you've already lost the argument on this point. I can already think of at least three or four ways for Apple to address this problem, and it's not even my job to do so. The easiest one is like I said, they could have you download a program that will tell you *exactly* which pieces of hardware you have which will not work, will only partially work, and which will work just fine. Or they could sell only directly to OEMs. Or they could list overly conservative system requirements (fast cpu, no PCI cards, only the most recent video cards from ATI and Nvidia, only SoundBlaster, only Intel chipsets).
Or the disc could be a dual live/install disc like many Linux distros have. First you run the live, and it tells you what isn't working, and if it's a no-go, you can return the discs at any Apple Store, and they will refund, no questions asked other than, "would you like to buy a Mac?"
Seriously, it's a problem, but it's most definitely solvable.
Mac clones all over again. Mac OS hardware sales would be raped. They tried that.
So? How many copies of OS X does it take to offset the loss of one Mac sale? How many future Mac sales would be created by the exposure to OS X that result from non-Mac sales of OS X? I don't know the answer to those questions, and I'm certain you don't, either. So how can you state so absolutely that this can't work?
I can't guarantee success. I can guess at it, though. You are guaranteeing failure, which is something you cannot truly do. You have reached a conclusion, and completely ignoring contrary evidence. I know such a thing could backfire on Apple. I know success isn't guaranteed. But I also know that there's nothing inherent in the process which makes success impossible, and I also know that the potential pitfalls are all surmountable. Sure, it'll be tough, but doing tough things is what Apple is good at.
The majority of people who get there OSes via infringing torrents weren't likely to pay for them anyway.
Even if that's true (which I doubt--this isn't a product like Windows which people chose not to buy, it's an unreleased product which they were unable to buy), a non-Mac version of OS X would not be sold only to those who downloaded the torrent.
Meanwhile, having a legit OSX for PC would likely cannibalize Apple's hardware sales, much like the mac-clones did some years back.
At first, Apple would sell fewer Macs, but many, many more copies of OS X. If it takes off (which I believe it would), it's quite possible for Apple to sell more Macs, in the long run, than they would have otherwise. Right now, there is a relatively small percentage of consumers who seriously consider buying a Mac (say, 10%). As the market share for OS X increases (as it would, with a retail, non-Mac release of OS X), the percentage of people who would consider a Mac increases as well.
So right now, the number of Mac buyers is 100% of a small number. With the release of a non-Mac version of OS X, it will be a smaller percentage of a larger number. That does not guarantee success, but success is much more likely than you and the other naysayers seem to realize.
A side issue: a version of OS X for generic PC is still going to need drivers, and lots of them. Where are these going to come from? I don't think we can count on OEMs to produce them, especially for even slightly older product, and it would be a monumental task for Apple to do it.
Not my problem, and not an insurmountable problem. BSD runs just fine with your various and sundry devices.
Perhaps Apple would, at first, only OEM OS X (no OEM is going to include OS X if it can't work on their PC). Or maybe only via online order, which first points you to download a "compatibility test" program which will list any devices which won't work.
Like I said, not my problem, and not insurmountable.
"I tried OS X on my old emachine and it failed to see my scanner, didn't work with the e-button on the case to launch internet explorer, and sleep never worked properly either -- no way I'm buying a crappy apple computer..."
Why would they think the Apple computer is crappy, when it's their eMachine that sucks? I realize your average consumer isn't necessarily a genius, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think Apple would sell a Mac with a bunch of hardware that isn't supported.
But the funny thing is that your scenario is one that already exists with the Mac mini, with the exception of sleep not working. People are already buying minis and finding they have some hardware that doesn't work (like scanners), and using keyboards with little e's on them which don't launch Safari.
How about replacing the bold part with, "I guess OS X doesn't work well with crappy hardware, so I should go out and buy a Mac"? Or the more ambivalent, "I guess OS X doesn't support much hardware yet. I guess I'll pass for now until they get their act together."
Apple has also had a very strong relationship with Microsoft in recent years, and I don't see them competiting head-to-head for Dell's sales.
Why not? Just because they are friends, they aren't going to compete with each other?
Aside from the fact that they already compete in the OS arena, there is also: iWork, iTunes, iPod, Safari, and QuickTime, all of which directly compete with MS products or standards, and, with the exception of iWork and Safari, all run quite well on Dells.
Face it, whoever's installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is not Apple's target market anyway.
"People who want to run OS X" is not Apple's target market? Because "installing OS X on a non-Apple computer" is most certainly a subset of "people who want to run OS X".
They're not paying now and wouldn't pay if Apple released a legal version, just like they pirate Windows today.
You're saying Apple would not sell a single copy of non-Mac, x86 OS X? Or that no one who downloaded and ran the hacked version of OS X would buy a copy were it available? Because both are wrong.
I'm really very sure that this will happen eventually, if Apple odes virtualization.
So am I. But that is not going to happen universally. That will happen even if Apple doesn't do virtualization.
The dynamics of the market, where the Mac loses some apps here, gains some apps there, is separate from the notion that OS X is now doomed like OS/2, or that all incentive to port a Windows app to OS X has just vanished (or will with full virtualization).
The overall effect is arguable and speculative. I believe Boot Camp, and eventually virtualization, will help boost the market share for OS X.
Look at it like this: Right now there are Windows users, Switch-hitters (people who have Windows and OS X), and OS X users. This product will increase the number of switch-hitters (but also get a lot of them to ditch their PC and just use their Mac + Boot Camp, which won't add to their numbers).
If Boot Camp were to only work its way into the Mac user market numbers, it would be negative (although not to the ends you are predicting: you still have to buy and install Windows, so there will always be Mac-only users--In OS/2, Windows support was built-in). However, Boot Camp will move into the Windows-only numbers as well.
So the odds are very good the total number of OS X users (switch-hitters + Mac-only) will increase by a significant percentage, while even if 50% of Mac users used Boot Camp (or virtualization), the number of Windows users (switch-hitters + Windows-only) will have not increased by a significant amount.
It's possible that this could backfire badly, but it's extremely evident that there are: a.) many people who use Windows, but would prefer a Mac except their need for that one app, and b.) many Mac users who would like to use Windows to run a game or some Windows-only app, but would much rather run OS X and OS X apps (so much so that they bought a Mac). Boot Camp (and virtualization) serves both camps, and can only increase the overall number of Mac users--Mac users who will significantly prefer OS X apps, and who will be more quick to spend money on Mac apps than over Windows apps.
OS/2 users also preferred native apps over Windows apps.
I already addressed that. The Mac market is many times more mature than the OS/2 market had ever been.
That could be a significantly smaller number, and it might even be negative!
That doesn't matter. All that matters is the number people who will pay for a Mac version that won't end up buying the Windows version. Your group "Y" is just another word for "Windows users" or "Mac users who also have a Windows PC" or even "Mac users who run VirtualPC". Group Y already exists, and even so, there are still Mac apps. All that Boot Camp does is increase the number in group Y. The added number is far less than the number already in group Y (which is, we are told, 95% of the computer market).
I'm not guaranteeing that there will not be a net negative effect. I don't believe so, because the forces are already in play (although in a different dynamic). Additionally, this means that the Mac has just become a more realistic option for a very large number of people (gamers and corporate users, for example). What I am refuting is the notion that this means that OS X has just become the next OS/2, or that companies will now have "no incentive" to port to the Mac. Both notions are very, very wrong.
Now with a virtualization solution, Apple would really be in trouble. OS/2 trouble, that is. People switching mac-win-mac all the time really removes any incentive to port an app to the mac.
I've highlighted the two errors people keep making on this topic.
OS X is not OS/2. OS X is a well-established OS, with a large user base, and has a very healthy ISV ecosystem. OS/2 had its fanatics, and it had its corporate success stories, but it never did very well in the home, and it had a very limited/specialized commercial software market.
The other error is that I keep hearing that there will be "no incentive" to write software for OS X if Mac users can run Windows programs directly. People will still prefer OS X native apps over Windows apps under virtualization. That preference equates to demand and demand equates to incentive.
If the user was satisfied with Windows and Windows apps, they would have just bought a Dell. But the Mac user isn't satisfied with Windows and Windows apps. Now that Macs can run Windows (and probably do so better than most Windows PC's), expect a lot of gamers and corporate users to switch, further increasing demand for OS X apps.
Also eyebrow-raising, Apple's take on the XP logo:
Yeah, it's a black diamond.
Leave it to Apple to re-stylize the Windows logo to look better and be more informative.
Thats is sloppy on the BBC's part, they should have put the State in there.
Why? They don't care anymore than we (Americans) care that Tijuana, Mexico is more appropriately, "Tijuana, BC, Mexico".
To us, the state is important, but to the British, it's really not that pertinent. The point is that the detector is in the US, not what particular state it's in.
Given how awful most Americans are at geography, your complaint comes off trite and arrogant, sort of like you require people to call you by your full name and title, yet you don't really care whether you get anyone else's name right at all.
Are you trying to tell us you've changed "flavors"?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Your hair-splitting over trivial terminology is getting in your way.
You mean it's getting in your way.
If you're referring to my point over your use of the word "need" (and then just skimmed over the rest), it's the only place I do that. I had to because I can't argue in any way that ISVs "need" to support the Mac.
None of the rest is "hair-splitting" nor is it trivial.
For example, you claim a user has a choice to make their voice heard. Yes, a user can choose to use the Windows version of a program or not, but they can't choose the Mac version when there is no Mac version. There are *TWO* relevant choices, but you only seem to require one. In other words, a user can choose to "vote" for the Windows version or not, but they can't "vote" for the Mac version if it doesn't exist.
That may be true, but if they buy the Windows version, the vendor has no need to make the investment in a Mac port.
... You can go without.
You are wrong. First, you are wrong to use the word "need". No matter what, there is no "need" for the vender to do anything (I only point this out because I can't argue that there is a need, because in no case is there a need--in other words, you've altered my argument into one that's impossible). But there is still demand. Even if the user buys the Windows version, there is still demand, from that very user, for the Mac version. If you bought some Windows program for your Mac, you'd still buy (at some price, maybe full price, or maybe a "side-grade" price) a Mac version if it became available.
Again with Linux, everyone who boots into Windows just to play a game or run some program would much rather buy the program for Linux. However, if they keep buying the Windows program, they show themselves to be satisfied without it.
You are wrong. They have no other choice for using that program. They didn't want to run it in Windows. They would have rather run it on Linux. They regret the fact that they have to run Windows. They are not "satisfied" with that solution, they merely accept it as necessary.
In other words, while running a Windows program via dual-boot, or VMware, or WINE, directly satisfies the specific need (Tax Software, Exchange client, game, etc), the user is not satisfied with the solution--it's merely their only or their best option to meet the need. Merely meeting a need does not imply it's an optimal or a satisfactory solution. Wearing a garbage bag might satisfy your sense of modesty and local laws regarding nudity, but that doesn't satisfy your clothing desires, it merely satisfies some basic minimum requirements.
You do have a choice.
Those are two different choices. The first is, "do I want this product?", the second is, "do I want it on the Mac or PC?"
For a program that is only available on the PC, the first choice might be yes, but the second choice is not available.
I respectfully disagree. There are many reasons why Linux has fewer ports, and this is one.
You misunderstand me, but I wasn't very clear what I meant for brevity's sake. What I mean is that once a vendor decides to port a program to Linux, they encounter many problems. Most of these problems don't exist for Mac ports. Linux users aren't exactly amenable to buying software (they will, but they're used to "apt-get" or "rpm -i"). Once they do buy software, it's hard to support a significant portion of Linuxes at any given time (do you make rpm's? do you test that they work only on the current Red Hat? How about derivatives? Same with deb's, and Ubuntu, etc.). Even if you've solved that, you have the problem that Linux distributions are usually updated multiple times per year. This is great for the user, but hard for developers. The only reason it works so well on Linux at all is that most software is compiled for that specific iteration of that specific distribution.
These hurdles make commercially supporting Linux very difficult, above and beyond any difficulties of actually porting the program in the first place.
"Voting with your dollars" is merely a flawed analogy for supply and demand. There are no "elections", the market has none of the fairness of a democracy, it just pits supply against demand, and vice versa.
No matter how easy it is to run Windows programs on a Mac, there will always be demand for a Mac native version. The only pertinent question is, is that demand enough to convince the developer to supply it.
Every ISV would gladly sell a Mac version of their software if they could. They're happy if a Mac user buys it to run in a dual-boot mode, but they'd rather have a native port--it means happier customers, and customers who are more likely to run your software now and in the future. It all boils down to the cost of porting, vs the money they'd make.
Your post contains two myths:
1. Being able to run Windows on a Mac means fewer and fewer ports of Windows software.
Being able to hack your Mac to run Windows does not reduce demand for Mac ports. Everyone who installs Windows on a Mac just to play a game or run some program, would much rather buy the game or program for the Mac, if given the choice. What it does do is increase (slightly) the demand for the Windows version.
Absolutely nobody would prefer to hack their Mac to run Windows, then reboot into Windows just to play a game, over doing so natively on OS X.
You mention Linux, but that's a faulty comparison. The main reasons for fewer Linux ports of Windows software is that Linux is harder to support commercially. Yes, it can be, and has been, done, but it's still significantly harder.
2. Voting with your wallet.
This sounds nice in theory, but does not work in practice. The first problem is the comparison to democracy. In ideal democracy, each person gets an equal vote, and those votes don't cost you money or opportunity. In "voting with your wallet", those with more money have more votes.
The second problem is that if you "vote for the Mac" by not buying Counter-Strike 2 to run on Windows on your Mac, then you have to do without Counter-Strike 2. The only way "voting with your wallet" counts is when you have a choice. If you have the choice between buying CS 2 for Mac or Win, then when you buy the Mac version, you are voting for the Mac version. How can you vote for the Mac version if it's not on the metaphorical ballot?
The best compromise between "voting with your wallet" and reality would be to buy the Windows game only if you really want it, and to make sure you contact the developer asking for a Mac version. If they see the demand is high enough, they may do one of the following: port the game to the Mac; contract out porting of the game to another company; (or at the very least) consider strongly making their next game for Windows and Mac.