If it works as well as Cedega, then dont delete your boot-camp installations. You'll need them, belive me.

Now there is no excuse for developers to not make a Mac port. Those who allready do have an easier job with Cider.

If it adds a penny to a publisher's development costs, even if only for testing, well, buh-bye. Right now, publishers get full access to the Intel Mac user base just by telling them to spend $100 for a XP Home OEM license and then buy the Windows SKU of the game. With hardware level compatibility and BootCamp, why bother treating the Mac niche as a separate platform? Mac users get access to more games than ever before and publishers reach a slightly increased user base at no cost to them.

Far more important than Leopard at WWDC is the anticipated introduction of Core 2 models with PCI-E slots to allow installation of a serious video card, for a wide variety of professional needs as well as gaming.

Calm down everyone, let's see some benchmarks and then we'll see if this is worth anything. With the new "games for windows" initiative it will be interesting to see if microsoft sees this as a chance for additional sales or a reverse engineering suite to be crushed.

http://agentmoo.com

The chances of virtualization in Leopard are slim to none. Apple has consistently stated that they have no plans of supporting Windows. They have gone above and beyond by merely developing Boot Camp.

The logistics of it all are quite simple: virtualization means outright support for Windows, something I don't even think Microsoft enjoys doing all that much (hence the new OS for their new project...). With Boot Camp, Apple gets the best of both worlds: It attracts new consumers who are fresh to the Apple experience all the while washing their hands of the headache that is Windows troubleshooting.

If you want virtualization, you might as well break down and buy Parallels.

And as for Mac gaming, Cider is still not a happy win-win-win solution for Mac gamers (all three of them). You seem to forget the limits of the integrated graphics card. Face it, Macs aren't intended for games. At least not the current, wattage-usurping polygon-shader orgies that populate the PC gaming market. I'm content with that, and I have moved on in my Mac-using, PC gameless life.

Now if Apple were to introduce a consumer level tower with an upgradeable graphics card...

In case you missed the boat, current models including the PowerMac G5 have a PCI-E bus.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/pciexpress.html

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/graphics.html

Now that with Core 2 models is new, but you made it sound as if Macs never had th e ability for "serious" cards.

Another thing. If MS made DirectX for the Mac, there wouldn't be any reason for someone to use Windows over MacOS X for gaming. Most new games have a Mac version. The limiting factor is OpenGL, which isn't nearly as fast as DirectX, mainly because of optimizations done by developers.

It probably won't happen, but if MS did it, the MacOS X would be a viale solution for gaming.

Direct X does seem to be the biggest hurdle, but isn't that the point of Cider? It wraps the required APIs into its engine so the games run natively?

As to the drawback of integrated graphics, only the mini and the MacBook use those, as do many low end PCs. iMacs, PowerMacs, and MacBook Pro's use relatively powerful nVidia and ATI graphics cards.

I'm not asking that my MacBook Pro be able to play PC games the same as a top end PC rig, but it'd be nice if I could run an off the shelf PC game with middle of the road PC performance rather than waiting 1-2 years for a native port that runs poorly anyway.

KBeat

Ryan, you ignorant slut.

What limitations of the integrated video card? Anything I want that's too big for the card can either be scaled down or played on a 360 version.

Of course, thus far I've played Half-Life 2, Star Wars Empire At War, Sims 2, City of Heroes/City of Villains, and a few other games without any problems on my Mac mini core duo with an integrated Intel graphics chipset. They work fine. HL2 isn't turned up to 100%, but I'm not an anal-retentive gamer who needs every bell and whistle to enjoy a game (and besides, the version coming to 360 will blow the PC version away). Star Wars:EAW works without problems with about 75% of the graphics power turned up.

World of Warcraft flies on OS X (it's a Universal Binary), as does Warcraft III.

I keep hearing how this integrated chipset isn't made for gaming, but I have yet to find any problems with it. No, it doesn't do some of the newer tricks, but it does handle games just fine.

Other Macs perform equally well (or better) with Windows games on Boot Camp.

I'm not sure what more you'd want! SW:EAW is a newer game, and doesn't drag on my Core Duo Mac mini (granted I have 2GB RAM, but still...) and a trip through the software department at Best Buy doesn't reveal any games that I wouldn't be able to run on my Mac or find for my 360 eventually.

Mac gaming isn't dead. Mac gaming just isn't obsessed with getting every pixel out of a game, or running at frame rates that are indistinguishable to the human eye. The game runs, it looks decent... What's the problem?

As for that Mac tower with a graphics card- The Intel towers will be out eventually, and we'll see what happens. Maybe they aren't "consumer level" as in "cheap box of Taiwanese parts" like a Dell, but as PowerMacs are traditionally fully upgradable, the power-hungry gamer CAN count on them for their gaming jones.

Or, as I said, buy an Xbox 360. Everything good for PC is going to that system anyway. Since the 360 and Windows share basic coding ideals, it's not too hard for publishers to make a version of a game for PC and 360, and 360 is guaranteed to run it at optimum settings.

My Mac games just fine. I'm not out to impress people. I'm out to get my game on, and then go back to work once I've finished playing. For that, the Mac is perfect.

CodeWeavers is going to offer the same ability but be an actual product that Mac gamers can buy.

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

I've seen the early beta copies and they do in fact have games like Half-Life 2 and Prey running on an intel Mac.

Is there any reason why this would be/should be limited to games, and not other applications as well?

NateM: you can already run Windows apps in Mac OS X through Windows using virtualization software like Parallels. Gaming is different because of the direct hardware access needed, which software like Parallels can't provide.

#9 : "Or, as I said, buy an Xbox 360. Everything good for PC is going to that system anyway."

Really? I thought it was the other way around...
Seriously, what does the 360 get from the PC aside from a few FPS with worse controls?