Impact of (possible) decline of gaming on Windows use?

[zetec452]

Very soon Microsoft is giving OSX a .NET runtime - so at least it will gain some interest/respect from Windows developers, but only then does the game begin really.

It's quite interesting that MS are developing these kind of tools for OS X. Personally, I didn't think they'd take it any further than office. If OS X does gain ground and start eating a bit of market share I wonder if MS would stop development of software for OS X?

 

[AJUK]

They have already stopped development of Office for Mac, which is one of the driving forces behind Apple developing iWork, which is soon to be updated with a spreadsheet. I wasn't aware of .Net for OS X though - interesting.

 

[NathanE]

It's quite interesting that MS are developing these kind of tools for OS X. Personally, I didn't think they'd take it any further than office. If OS X does gain ground and start eating a bit of market share I wonder if MS would stop development of software for OS X?

Well Microsoft is only doing it so that WPF can start to displace HTML/CSS. WPF, as you probably know, is 99.5% written in C#.NET - with 0.5% being some kernel code to interact with the graphics hardware (on Windows this is DirectX, for OSX they are working with Apple). They no doubt have bigger plans for their OSX .NET runtime though.

Also, the Xbox 360 has now got the .NET runtime (as of about a week ago) although for some annoying reason they decided to call it the "XNA Framework" and oddly they openly admit that "XNA" doesn't actually stand for or represent anything Notice a pattern emerging here?

 

[ic1male]

For me, absolutely. I've never liked consoles because of the poor resolution compared to PCs but the 360 has changed all that now. I am starting to build a nice collection of 360 games.

In the coming year, I envisage buying a Macbook for my computing needs and the PC will be "ticking over" for the likes of Crysis and Halo 2. No more upgrades for it, I'm afraid.

 

[Tunney]

The irony is that Microsoft's own Xbox 360 will eventually drive me over to the MacOS camp.

I used to do the majority of my gaming on the PC. There was a time when the majority of cutting edge games were PC-based and I enjoyed PC gaming immensely. However, the market is certainly in decline now and it has come at a time when consoles, like the Xbox 360, are beginning to offer a lot of features that PC gamers have come to expect (a decent online experience, HD graphics, surround sound, etc.). There's still a few PC games coming out that I'd like to play, but the Xbox 360 experience is so well integrated that PC gaming seems like a royal pain in the arse to play by comparison.

And that tight-integration works for other things too, including operating systems. MacOS is so much better integrated into a single product that Windows and I find the user experience to be far nicer. As the saying goes "it just works". Yes, Windows has much more software available for it, but how many different FTP clients or text editors does one person need? The majority of decent software packages (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Firefox, Eclipse...) are released for Mac too and there's decent alternatives for those that aren't. My mobile phone even syncs with MacOS far nicer than it does with Outlook, because Apple are interested in open standards! Mac Office might be shelf-ware, but how many users really need the additional features found in later versions of Office? Not many outside of the business world, I would imagine.

I'm in no rush to upgrade at the moment but when I do, it will no doubt be to a shiny Mac.

 

[PinkPig]

Also, the Xbox 360 has now got the .NET runtime (as of about a week ago) although for some annoying reason they decided to call it the "XNA Framework" and oddly they openly admit that "XNA" doesn't actually stand for or represent anything Notice a pattern emerging here?

That's not quite true - the XNA Framework (which is available both on the XBOX 360 and on Windows) is based on the .NET Compact Framework 2.0, and includes libraries and features specific to simple game development. It's certainly not just the .NET Framework by another name.

As for not standing for anything, XNA actually stands for "XNA's not acronymed", which is certainly no more ridiculous than lots of the open source acronyms out there.

 

[Glaucus]

So, ultimately, the only thing countering the multitude of reasons to switch from Windows to OS X (aside from gaming purposes, of course) is the stubborness of existing Windows users who don't like change

*av

Why would they change, they use windows, office, outlook ect at work. If they bring files home they'll need these programs to open them properly. (even openoffice messes up .doc formatting subtley but still there is change). People aren't going to relearn everything they know about computers just for free software especially when all computers come with windows. They use it at work and thats what they know.

 

[Caged]

They have already stopped development of Office for Mac.

Since when?

 

[ic1male]

Considering the MacBU is working on a new version of Mac Office 2007 for Intel computers, that statement must be untrue.

 

[NathanE]

That's not quite true - the XNA Framework (which is available both on the XBOX 360 and on Windows) is based on the .NET Compact Framework 2.0, and includes libraries and features specific to simple game development. It's certainly not just the .NET Framework by another name.

I accept all that. I just didn't anticipate somebody sniping my post for what little it was worth

 

[Al Vallario]

Why would they change, they use windows, office, outlook ect at work. If they bring files home they'll need these programs to open them properly. (even openoffice messes up .doc formatting subtley but still there is change). People aren't going to relearn everything they know about computers just for free software especially when all computers come with windows. They use it at work and thats what they know.

If you didn't notice, I'm touting OS X more than linux. Therefore, in the case of OS X, people can purchase Microsoft Office for Mac 2004 (just as anyone using Windows would have to purchase Microsoft Office or be stuck with Notepad/Wordpad). It includes all the usual Office applications, there are no compatability issues I am aware of, and contrary to what one or two people have stated in this thread, a new universal binary version is in the works, due for release sometime next year.

Al Vallario you are completely misguided and appear to be blinded from reality by Apple's marketing.

I am not misguided, and neither am I "blinded from reality" by Apple's marketing. Infact, I would turn that statement right back on you, as you're looking at things from an enthusiast's point of view, which bears little-to-no use in the larger scheme of things. The general public do not treat hardware and operating systems as separate entities, and the vast majority of computer users are looking for an out-of-the-box solution they can pick up in a shop, take home and it will just work. In that case, Apple have hit the nail on the head so well when it comes to this sector of the market, it hurts.

But that's not to say they're ignoring enthusiasts either – just look at the MacPro systems and tell me those aren't "hardware configurations several magnitudes greater" than anything you've ever seen before; at very reasonable prices too. Infact, all of Apple's hardware is reasonably priced these days, and combined with special purchasing schemes for developers and students, it often becomes a no-brainer.

Furthermore, I wouldn't describe Apple's reluctance to release OS X as a standalone operating system for use on non-Apple hardware as stubborness. Whilst NathanE may be right (as he usually is, damnit!) that Windows' hardware abstraction layer makes it a technically superior operating system to OS X, it's all rather insignificant to the end user. The fact is, if you buy OS X and use it on Apple hardware it will just work. You don't have to spend an age hunting around for drivers (which would befuddle your average computer user), and all the while you retain the option to upgrade parts such as the hard drive and RAM if you feel the need.

Whilst Apple's "out of the box" approach to their computer system offerings may not suit you as an existing Windows user, it does suit the vast majority of people who are looking to purchase a new system for home – or office, for that matter – use. Infact, I'm sure next time you come around to starting from scratch hardware-wise, Apple's offerings will atleast catch your eye for a second...

*av

 

[the-void]

Yes Al you are misguided if you are going to make sweeping generalisation about Windows Users being stubborn for not using OSX without taking into consideration Apple's insistence in providing both the OS AND the hardware.
What if none of Apple's current hardware range is suitable for what I want. Can I configure it? How easy it to upgrade or replace parts. How cheap is it?

Maybe you could say Windows Users are stubborn if 90% of customers still picked Windows if they had the choice of XP or OSX from a certain online retailers than No competitor talk please!. Or if you had a boxed version of OSX next to XP at PC-Planet and people still picked Windows. Yes, then you could say Windows Users are stubborn.

Perhaps Windows Users don't like being dictated to what hardware their OS should run on. Now that is a company being stubborn.

 

[regulus]

Nope. Windows does it for me and I really can't be bothered trying to decipher Linux. I have a MacBook as well but the missus use that exclusively. I had a few virus issues a few weeks ago but that was my own fault. Never before that, and will never have again.

 

[Al Vallario]

Yes Al you are misguided if you are going to make sweeping generalisation about Windows Users being stubborn for not using OSX without taking into consideration Apple's insistence in providing both the OS AND the hardware.
What if none of Apple's current hardware range is suitable for what I want. Can I configure it? How easy it to upgrade or replace parts. How cheap is it?

Maybe you could say Windows Users are stubborn if 90% of customers still picked Windows if they had the choice of XP or OSX from a certain online retailers than rhymes with Bell. Or if you had a boxed version of OSX next to XP at PC-Planet and people still picked Windows. Yes, then you could say Windows Users are stubborn.

Perhaps Windows Users don't like being dictated to what hardware their OS should run on. Now that is a company being stubborn.

Perhaps I should clarify the point I was attempted to get across in that original post. It was a direct response to AcidHell2's post, and my conclusion was supposed to be more centered around the fact that little could be gleened from his post as to a reason why a Windows user would not want to switch to OS X, aside from the fact that Windows is what they are used to – and often what they use in other instances such as in the workplace where they do not have a choice about the operating system they use – and therefore they are reluctant to change. That was the conclusion I was attempting to put in place, anyway, and it's already been torn apart by NathanE for the same reason.

I wasn't making sweeping generalisations about Windows users, and indeed, far be it from me to brand all Windows users stubborn. The subject at hand, however, was the attitudes of Windows users towards switching operating systems, and I think it more than fair that stubborness (Dictionary definition being: "tenaciously unwilling or marked by tenacious unwillingness to yield") is a word which can be used in this context. Of course, the term stubborness alone does not define the reason for such an attitude, and I agree there are a number of justifications for stubborness in this case. For example, as you say, someone may be stubborn about changing because they don't want to use Apple hardware. I didn't gloss over that eventuality, I just didn't mention it.

*av

 

[Glaucus]

It doesn't matter whether its osx, linux or some other system..

People use windows at work, they are not going to come home and learn another operating system. They don't care what operating system they use as long as they can get there work done.


You don't seem to be getting this point.

What does osx offer a normal user over windows?
Absolutely nothing....

 

[Caged]

What does osx offer a normal user over windows?

Logical design and freedom from malware? To say "absolutely nothing" is just revealing that you have obviously never used it.

And I use the same OS at work as at home.

 

[zetec452]

What does osx offer a normal user over windows?
Absolutely nothing....

I agree, to the normal (read joe bloggs) user OS X doesn't exist. They will buy a pc, it has this thing called windows on it which looks kinda similar to the pc they use at work and they are happy.

Why would they start searching for anything else?

 

[Caged]

If that argument were true, Apples market share wouldn't be increasing.

 

[AJUK]

1.67 million Macs were sold in the last quarter of this year, 'nuff said.

 

[zetec452]

1.67 million Macs were sold in the last quarter of this year, 'nuff said.

And how many pc's with Windows were sold last quarter? How many pc's will be sold next quarter with Vista's public relase? 'nuff said innit geez.

Yes there are a number of people using OS X (i use it myself) but its still a tiny tiny percentage of those using a microsoft operating system.