A common pattern over the years has been to watch Apple's popularity
come and go. When it gets popular all the Windows marketing people start
thinking "Our dodad is popular on Windows and with the Mac getting
popular we should port or stuff to that platform and gain a few jillion
new sales". This usually fails on a number of levels. Mac users have a
deep rich OS and so many of the Windows dodads sole purpose is to work
around bad Windows behaviors which just don't exist on the Mac. Mac
users also have a low tolerance for junky software. They are using a
polished refined OS and expect the same of anything they add to it. If
you only had an AM radio, that tape player might seem attractive
addition, but if you only had satellite radio you'd want to add
something of similar quality like a CD player. Anything less would just
be a glaring contrast. Often times, after they fail to realize much
fruit from the labor of their port the Windows guys will just claim the
Mac marketplace is too small, immature or whatever else they can come up
with to explain away the weakness of their product offering. The true
winners usually are the ones who port functionality, not just UI or
code. Analyzing Mac user's needs vs the functionality in some Windows
software will give a better perspective of its value if ported well.
CB
Dean Wilcox wrote:
I have no experience with the software but I'm sure they tested it
with Voice Over, that's just my opinion by the way! Staying on topic,
maybe the company thought the package working on Intel Macs only might
succeed because blind people are taking up the Mac in a bigger way
than before with Voice Over and maybe most have Intel Macs. Any new
user will get an Intel Mac but I don't know what they mean in the
hardware requirements by mactel, was it a miss print or is it a term
I've never heard before?
At 22:20 17/09/2008, you wrote:
and then, its chances of working with voice over are nill?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Blouch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS
X by
theblind" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: intel mac only?
Depends on what they are writing. If it's something built in XCode then
there should be no reason to not cross-compile for both PPC and Intel.
That said, a company porting a legacy PC app might have assembly code or
other cruft that would have to be re-written to work on PPC. So, for
whatever reason, they decide to port only to Intel Macs leaving the
cruft in place and kicking a portion of their market in the shins. Of
course there are specialized exceptions like PC hardware emulators
(VMWare, Parallels, VirtualBox) which by definition need some Intel
hardware to run on. Chances are that if they are porting legacy PC apps
then they have probably already been kicking Mac users in the shins so
they've all run away to safer, more comfy, havens and aren't coming
back. In other words, milk some old product a little more but don't put
a lot of engineering in or the return on investment won't pay off.
CB
David Poehlman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I saw a press release today about a windows package that is now
available
> for the Mac but it seems it is only available for intel Macs. I am
not
> quite sure I understand this from a software point of view although
I can
> certainly understand it from an hardware point of view.
>
> I know that the projection is that the next full itteration of the
Macos
> will be intel only but till then, why would or how could software
be for
> "Mactel" only?
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1676 - Release Date:
9/17/2008 9:33 AM
