Windows Games on Macs Without Windows 316
Dotnaught writes "TransGaming Inc. is making its 'Cider' portability engine for Apple's Intel-based Macs available to Windows game developers. The software promises to let Windows games run on Intel Macs without Windows or Apple's Boot Camp. 'Cider works by directly loading a Windows program into memory on an Intel-Mac and linking it to an optimized version of the Win32 APIs,' the company claims. Cider is a software for game developers, not end-users. Cider-enhanced games are scheduled to appear as soon as October. If Cider works well, will there be any more Mac-specific game development? And if not, will it matter?"
Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
Cedega is a fork of Wine from back when Wine was BSD licensed. It's really cool; I play lots of Windows games on Linux with it.
Presumably Cider is a Winelib-style toolkit to generate OS X games from Windows games. I, for one, welcome our Cedega-lib powered OS X overlords
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)
The weirdest and most extreme is SimCity 4. For whatever reason the hardware accelerated r
Re:Cool! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)
That is because Wine is not an emulator but rather a set of libraries. Running a set of libraries is very similar to running the game native. You could think of Wine more of a directx install for linux, however the problem lies in the fact that Wine does not provide support for ever
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Based on the Sims2, various posts on the transgaming forums and a little bit of investigation.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
I completely agree, and right now -- when Apple is actually advertising Macs directly against Windows, and Microsoft is weakened by the Vista delay -- is the perfect time for this to come together.
Oh, by the way: IIRC, WINE and React already do keep their code in sync. It's just the two commercial forks that are, uh, forked.
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)
As a support for developers, it could raise the number of games that get ported and make porting easier, because developers don't have to rewrite the graphics from DirectX to OpenGL (or, god forbid, think about such issues before commiting to a proprietary single-platform graphics API).
But a "Cedega for Macs" is something that I - as b
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Funny)
And thats how it works !
Oh, that and the dynamic API linking thingy...
Parallels (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Parallels (Score:3, Interesting)
NOT COOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Transgaming brags about all these great results on their website but the sheer number of workarounds and hacks to get a game to play are unbearable. And what's worse is that the games, once installed, randomly crash, screw up graphics, display incorrect fonts, lose mouse control, can't position correctly on the screen, takes an inordinate amount of Microsoft software to even function... BLAH.
I bought (and still pay) for Cedega because of their promises of Civilization IV stability. Nope. Will their tech support help you? Nnnnope. Will Fixraxis ever consider putting out a Linux binary? Why should they? Transgaming's site just brags and brags about how well Civ IV works under Cedega. Now take a look at Transgaming's forums and see just how successful their product is at running Civ IV: it isn't.
Add Transgaming's SHIT license and restrictions (We steal from Wine. We Do not GIVE to Wine. And don't even think about adding Cedega to your distribution.) and you have a complete turd of a product.
Cedega's major improvements to their software in the last two months has been: Interface improvements and a patch for Guild Wars. That's it. The end. I'm not just asking for Civ IV support either. There's scores of games that are supported by edega that just don't work. Just check their forums.
If this is the future of gaming on the Mac, there is NO future of gaming on the Mac.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually what stops me, not the poor quality of the software. You've got to start somewhere, right? But they promised to give back to Wine in a timely fashion and they are not doing so. People who break their promises to other people will probably break their promises to you, too.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:3, Interesting)
We are speaking about a year or 2 years in the future.
I don't think Transgaming has "geek" support with their license and those stuff they do. So I don't think there wouldn't be 2000 slashdot support posts.
Now see Apple fans partying they can run those hundreds o
Re:NOT COOL (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they didn't want to run Windows, that's why most of them don't buy a normal PC. They want to run MacOS, but they still want to run certain Windows programs.
I, too, want to run windows games, but on linux. There is a certain amount of truth to the idea that if I want the games to be on linux, and not on windows, that I should pay for them. The problem is that the only game I actually want to play that is available for linux (at least, the only commercial game) costs more than twice as much for linux as it does for windows. I'm just not going to support that kind of behavior. I'd rather dual-boot. Or, as I am now doing, I'd rather run windows, and put linux in a vm so I can run linux software.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:2, Funny)
All the user-friendliness of Linux, combined with all the stability of Windows, eh?
Re:NOT COOL (Score:2)
Ditto. If Transgaming GPL'd all of Cedega's code tomorrow, I would begin subscribing. But since they won't, I'll make due with either vanilla WINE or nothing at all.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:2)
The only thing I dislike about Cedega is the licensing issue - ultimately, that's why I stopped using it.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:2)
It sounds like Cedega would do well to just drop linux support where people feel somehow "cheated" because a company took a BSD-licensed product, followed the licensing terms, and produced a great product (oh, the humanity!). Mac users seem to be more worried about just paying a little more for something that works, so they'll probably do all right in that arena.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:4, Informative)
But this is Firaxis's programming - this is the state of the game under windows. And sadly it has improved a hell of a lot since the shipped version...
As far as installation goes. This was a bitch at first, but most of those forum posts are about how to get the game installed *before* Cedega supported it. Now you just run the installer (selecting XP mode or whichever way round it is) and then hit properties afterwards to set the right windows version. Everything else is automatic.
Re:NOT COOL (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I don't use Cedega. I've already paid for the games, and if I have to spend MORE money to play them, I'm just going to spend $400 for a Windows PC. Yeah, it's more expensive, but it'll play 100% of my games 100% of the time. It doesn't make sense to pay for something that doesn't work.
I guess that's a benefit of only playing older games.
Perfect emulation (Score:5, Funny)
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
This will *not* mean more Mac ports ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this will not mean more Mac ports. If anything it may mean fewer. Developers considering Mac may be able to blow off native Mac ports using the same reasons that they blow off native Linux ports: (1) Dual boot. (2) Emulation of the Win32 gaming APIs. Under PowerPC dual booting was not an option and emulation would mean emulating a CPU not just a gaming API. Since running the Win32 version of a game on Mac hardware was not realistic, a native port was justified. If Ciders allows Win32 games to run "well enough" then there is no economic reason to do a native Mac port.
The market for a game is *not* the number of Mac/Linux purchasers. Yeah, that sounds odd but hang on a minute. The market is really only those who refuse to dual boot or emulate and won't buy unless they have a native port. Those who are willing to dual boot or emulate and run the Win32 version don't count because they do not add any revenue. They are already customers buying the Win32 version. A native Mac/Linux version would generate no additional revenue from these people, it would only move a sale from the Win32 column to the Mac or Linux column. So there is no new revenue, but there are the expenses from development and support, and these expenses have to be paid for by those who would never buy the Win32. Under Linux there are too few of these people.
Today Mac has the advantage over Linux that Mac gamers have a proven track record of spending money. If developers can get Mac gamers to to accept Cider in large enough numbers then native Mac ports will no longer occur.
Winelib? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. (Score:2)
Re:Yep. (Score:2)
(I'm actually an American pretending to be a snotty Brit.)
I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that Linux and Mac aren't technically viable game platforms, but that's not their general use.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
if games really work with this.. i know i would end up with an Apple.. they are so tempting - and this would push it over the edge
Don't need two comps - dual boot (Score:2)
You don't need two machines. You can dual boot Linux and Windows on PC hardware or Mac OS X and Windows on Apple hardware. Only one machine on your desk.
Now, you may not want to dual boot for this reason: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193063& t hreshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=15842981# 15843808 [slashdot.org]
Re:I don't get it (Score:3)
Besides, Windows started out as just a "work" OS (as all computer were for "work" back in those days). People got used to Windows and when computers became more common in homes they went with what was familiar (or the only thing available), which was Windows. Developers st
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, Windows started out as just a "work" OS (as all computer were for "work" back in those days).
But Windows wasn't Microsoft's brain child. It was the brain & love child of Microsoft and IBM. When the collaborative license was due to be renewed, Microsoft bolted, putting Plan B into effect: making one of their own. For a while after that, OS/2 and Windows software were interchangeable. There were even OS/2 focused books ~1993+ (Win 3.1 was ~May '92) before the publishers saw the spraypaint on the wall. I've probably got one somewhere in my unusual stack. (e.g. The first Internet book - Ed Krol ~Fall '92, the last OS/2 (user) book, a VB/DOS book, etc.
This should not prove to be a surprise. Ethically or Financially, Right or Wrong, Microsoft has made a lot of money (and saved a lot of time) purchasing & modifying the work product of others. See OS/2 & Windows (above), Microsoft providing HQ service & support with Compu$erve (someone asked me what I thought would happen then and I told them: "Micro$oft is preparing for an online service by seeing the ins and outs of how someone makes theirs work." M$N. Front Page. Visual SourceSafe, GIANT software, etc. Heck, look at DOS. Bought it a leverage of $50'000, hoping IBM would license it. (whew! they did). No chance for Microsoft Bob. The marriage to WHG III got in the way. So they scrapped it for pieces -- that's how Clippy was born.
People have talked about submarining patents, Microsoft has done the same thing with products. Never write what you can buy or steal. Or, as Nathan said after getting his JD: "You can't out-develop Microsoft, but you can out-invent them." The part re: not-develop is because they can buy a couple of companies in an extremely short period of time, out-developing someone else in what amounts to a short period of time. And Nathan should know, as his JD focused upon patent law and his group has focused specifically upon investing in or purchasing patents and been rather open about it. In fact, he and Microsoft have invested in the same companies (despite claims of animosity). The danger of trying to out-invent them is hearing the spooky voice of a landshark saying one word, over & over: " Farnsworth ".
This just in: Bush announces Exit Plan: January 20, 2009.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
When lots of mainstream softwa
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Um, I currently have installed ATM (I cycle through them to keep down on HD space):
Doom III
Quake 4
WoW
Civilization IV
Lego Star Wars
SW KotOR
Call of Duty 2
RollerCoaster Tycoon 3
and Homeworld 2.
I do little other than play games on my Mac, outside of the normal browse and E-mail check, and a little iMovie/iDVD stuff. Check some of them out [apple.com]. But with BootCamp I won't have to care. I can just boot to Winblah to play those few that I may want to play th
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're working from some very old data. In the late eighties and early nineties, Apple somewhat misguidedly tried to bolster its reputation in the business market by discarding the "toy" image and not encouraging game development. However, once their market share began to seriously tank in the mid/late nineties, App
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
What are you talking about? There's Breakout... Superbreakout... photoshop? [youtube.com]
--Rob
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
In fact I can't understand why any business would focus on an obvious niche that any one can see represents a minority of the population. Be it something like exotic cooling solutions for nvidia gpus, left handed golf clubs, spinners to stick on your ri
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
I also think it would help widen the appeal of the Mac as a family machine, if the kids could use it for gaming.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
For the game developers, the cost of Cider is minimal, and they instantly get a much larger market, without the usual low demand due to porting times.
For TransGaming, the revenues from Cider are likely significant.
For Apple, they get a shot at one of the last markets they're very weak in.
For end users, they get games much faster.
This is just a win-win-win-win all around.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Except compared to getting a native OpenGL/SDL/whatever game instead (which, coincidentally, wouldn't have any downside running on XP either).
As long as they perform well enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
With games then they're usually full screen and you see none of the usual OS user interface and so a game does not need a Mac look and feel like for example a word processing application.
So for apps an approach like this would be bad, imagine companies stop producing their mac apps because they could easily port over using something like winelib then you'd lose the mac experience, but for games it does not matter as they don't follow platform conventions anyway.
It's called Qt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's called Qt (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, there are already many ways to write games that run on Windows, Mac and Linux simultaneously. Qt is one. SDL is another.
Having yet another framework to program with doesn't change the fact that testing and quality control on multiple operating systems is a -nightmare-.
Devs don't ignore linux/mac because they lack a framework, they ignore it because their employers have told them it doesn't make monetary sense. Adding the cost of a game framework onto that cost won't help it any.
Re:It's called Qt (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't it?
Most of the time it didn't make sense to pay a company like Aspyr (who knew what they were doing) to port your game to the Mac and make it native. It made even LESS sense to do it yourself if you didn't know what you were doing (i.e. this was the team's first Mac game). It was much more productive (financially) to just make a new game.
Now, the cost is much lower because you don't need a full port. This means that it will take fewer sales on the Mac to pay off the development library costs compa
Re:It's called Qt (Score:3, Insightful)
I would bet good money that, given a reasonably (not even brilliantly) well-written program, designed with portability in mind, that the cost of doing a port is insignificant compared to doing QA on a new platform.
For example, if you use OpenGL for graphics, and SDL for input and audio, then your program should be immediat
Cider greatly reduces revenue (Score:2)
Re:It's called Qt (Score:2)
Re:It's called Qt (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck. Let's ask Mr. Developer:
Interviewer: "Mr. Developer: How many licks does it take to get to the...... Nevermind. Why not just use Qt and OpenGL?"
Mr. Developer: "We don't really have anyone who knows Qt, so that would take additional time. Our programmers already know the Win32 API pretty well. Also, developing with Win32 is free, while Qt costs money for development licenses."
Interviewer: "But wouldn't that let you also support Linux?"
Mr. Developer: "Yes, but at this time we get almost no requ
Re:It's called Q (Score:2)
A full Qt seat costs $3,000. This is NOTHING. Please! This is not even an argument that anyone would make in real life. The only time I have ever gotten any push back on stuff like this would be things that require royalty based licenses (which Qt does NOT require.)
A good example would be FMOD. FMOD is a cross platform sound API that runs on lots of computers and also the game consoles. You have to contact the company that m
Re:It's called Qt (Score:2)
"Visual Studio 2005 Team Suite with MSDN Premium Subscription"
$10,939
DirectX SDK is free to download of course. They already got your $11k!
I have a conspiracy theory that people trolling Trolltech products are not GPL etc. have nothing to say anymore as if you offer your code for free, it is GPL so they s
Re:It's called Qt (Score:2)
I have nothing against Qt. I've looked at it before, and I like it better than Win32. That said, the Win32 API is free. You can find reference material for free. You don't have to pay MS to distribute your program. If you develop with Qt and you don't pay Trolltech, you are not allowed to distribute your program.
Yes, you would pay for the MSDN subscription if you were of any size. I also understand that a developer of any size can afford the Trolltech license. But which would be cheaper to test out the Mac
Re:It's called Qt (Score:2, Interesting)
The Sky is Falling (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest road blocks I hear of for switching from Windows to a Mac are "price" and "games". I won't fuel the flamewars by making definitive statements about either point, other than to say that it looks like those blocks are starting to come down.
Microsoft has to be worried about this.
No not really (Score:2)
Re:The Sky is Falling (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they don't. Slashdot readers like to claim that "games" are a major roadblock to Linux adoption, but it's simply not true. Having worked in IT at several organizations, I can tell you that there are many reasons why companies keep using Windows. Some are political (resistance to change), some are practical (application compatibility), and some are a mix of both (lack of funding for migration). The fact is, Windows is cheaper for many businesses at the end of the da
Re:The Sky is Falling QWZX (Score:2)
Unless we're talking about Spotlight, Expose, Dashboard, and Finder's "Smart Folders". OS X is pretty helpful there.
Please ... NO!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
'Cider works by directly loading a Windows program into memory on an Intel-Mac and linking it to an optimized version of the Win32 APIs,' the company claims.
This is absoultely the worst idea. Better to write your favorite company and tell them to use some open and standard technologies (e.g., OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL, etc.). What they want to do will only promote the status quo.
Re:Please ... NO!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Now if porting games was (almost as) easy as re-linking with an extra library, we'd see many more games for the Mac. The problem would be that they have to pay money to get the library, but it doesn't cost as much as a full port. Now they can do this and get a bunch more money.
Now the suits take over, as well as some logic from the programmers. "Sure, we made money off the Mac there. But with a little more time upfront and using OpenGL we can make this next game Mac too without having to pay for that library! It will probably perform better too."
Next thing you know, more and more games are Mac native. If that doesn't happen, then what's the loss? Mac gamers still get more games that we have now. It's not ideal, but it's a plus.
I agree that OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL is the ideal solution. But this may lead to that.
Now let's not forget just how many games these days (especially big name stuff like movie games, etc) are put on EVERY platform. They are put on the PS2/GC/XBox/360/Wii/PS3/PC. Guess what runs on almost all those platforms? OpenGL. If you want to make it easy to go on a console later (or multiple consoles) then just use OpenGL. Oh... look... now making it work on a Mac is trivial.
This is either useful, or will propel steps in the right direction. Either way, it's good.
Re:Please ... NO!!!! (Score:2)
Those G4, G5 will be left out in the cold.
Well that is what we (gamers and companies) deserve for trusting iPod company to finally fix the damned frameworks. OpenAL is so buggy on OS X for some games that one I won't name moved to Core Audio trashing whole OpenAL code in a very (I mean it!) competitive market segment. Glad they had a retired advanced coder customer who coul
Re:Please ... NO!!!! (Score:2)
You know, games happen to be on the bleeding edge quite often, portable code on the other side is seldomly bleeding edge and lacks support for essential new stuff (how long did it took to get render-to-texture in OpenGL compared to DirectX?). No big deal if you don't care about latest and greatest, game companies and plenty of gamers however do.
Lemme get this straight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:2)
A Linux user might be comfortable with the idea of starting cider and then pointing it to the Windows executable to run, but Mac users want things to be more seamless than that. T
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:2)
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:2)
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lemme get this straight.... (Score:2)
If not that, then you link to Cider rather than the Windows API. Then it would merely be a matter of recompiling--and thus not an option for end users. That implies that binary compatibility is lacking.
Like Cedega? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like Cedega? (Score:2)
Should be much better (Score:2)
In other words, the big and crucial difference
Re:Should be much better (Score:2)
Now, theoretically, Cedega and Cider will share a certain amount of common code base. Does this mean that one day, in the far-flung future, Cedega will be actually worth paying for?
Re:Like Cedega? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, you'll work your ass off trying to play them. I see a weekend worth of googling to broken forum links in your future, dear mac gamer.
But Cedega is still Linux-only? (Score:3, Interesting)
The implications of Cedega as a cross-platform product would be really interesting. Like, something I keep wondering is whether, once they've got DX10 support working on Cedega for Linux, Transgaming could release a Windows version that would enable DX10 [Vista] games to run on Windows XP.
Re:But Cedega is still Linux-only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:2)
YES!!! .....errr.....NO!!!!!.....errr...MAYBE!!!!!!
Stop asking me all these questions. I can't handle the pressure!!!!!!!
Don't forget about Lepord, people! (Score:2)
When Boot Camp was released, many speculated that it was only the begining of things to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see even tigter Windows integration in Lepord. Boot Camp being bundled in is given. But will it be taken to the next step even with some sort of solution that doesn't require rebooting? Would something like this be sufficient for gaming?
I guess we'll just have to wait until Monday [apple.com] to find out.
How about some equality... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about some equality... (Score:2)
You already can [bungie.org]...
Re:How about some equality... (Score:2, Funny)
meh (Score:3, Insightful)
It still doesn't run EVE right, so what's the point?
Yes, it does (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm the proud owner of a MBP since about a week. Aside from the psychological pain of inflicting something as ugly as windos on something as slick as the MBP, there are a lot of practical concerns.
The two most important ones are the constant rebooting - on a machine I would otherwise pretty much never switch off, but only send to hibernate by closing the lid - and, probably worse, partitioning.
On a notebook, you get 100 GB or so. Games take a _lot_ of space. If you do anything else that takes space, music or digital photography or anything, then partitioning a 100 GB drive in such a way that you feel even remotely confident that it'll be enough for both systems for the forseable future is anything but easy.
Add the fears that some crazy windos virus does something bad to the harddisk that's bad enough to wipe out the OSX partition.
No, Sir. It matters a whole lot whether or not there will be Mac games in the future. And quite frankly, Linux gaming is as dead as it gets, and I'm not sure if transmeta and WineX/Cedega don't have a part in that.
Second class better than nothing (Score:2)
Support Microsoft by using this great product. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the most reliable trajectory to ensure increased dependence on Windows and Windows products, most of all through the technology lock-in that is DirectX. Anyone touting this as the boat that will carry them from the foul shores of Microsoft are clearly out of their dangling minds.
This is bad for OpenGL/SDL/Qt and bad for any platform which relies on these tools for both game and non-game applications; as long as people can author games on the Windows platform and run it in a WINE-like wrapper, they won't consider native releases. OpenGL will get less attention as the market consolidates on DirectX and the quality and feature-set of the code falls behind as a result. It really can, and in fact does, work like that.
DirectX has risen from near nothing in a few short years. MS invested alot of money strategically situating the platform dependent DirectX in opposition to the platform neutral OpenGL on the Windows platform through tools and API development, and to a large degree it has worked. Games are faster made for the Windows platform using these high-level Windows-only API's, and so now many developers consider DirectX on Windows as the only sane context for game development altogether. As a result, DX will continue to rise at the great expense of platform portable tools like OpenGL if it is blindly, yet directly, supported by idiocy like this. Let's not invite a day we have 'DirectX only' on the back of some graphic cards.
I'll say it again. Projects such as Cedega and 'Cider' ensure long-term codepedency with MS, as a technology provider, at the expense of high performing, native games. This simply takes Apple and Linux build targets 'off the map' from the perspective of game development and lets them get on with making great games for Windows - ensuring MS is always that arsehole you call when you're high, dry and have got the shakes.
Dumping Windows for Linux or OSX is only the first step to being free of MS products, the dirty blood runs deeper than that.
Re:Good. Encouraging portable WIN32 (Score:2)
I'd rather have native games, but I guess win32 emulation is better than nothing. Of course this only helps people with new Macs. I can't imagine there are that many people yet with intel macs. Is it cost effective to do this? How much
But on the plus side... (Score:2)
In any event, Apple's got a business model they achieve relative success with and know how to manage it. They don't know how transitioning to be of a software company would pay off or if they would be able to deal with the transition easier. The software is largely subsidized by their hardware sales today, with the standalone purchase revenue of OSX probably being little more
Re:Good. Encouraging portable WIN32 (Score:2)
There are a lot of smart posts, quite a few stupid ones, and some basic "what's going on?" posts. Yours, takes the cake. Let's look at your post, point by point.
"Good thing if it catches on, developers encouraged to test on [two platforms]." You're right, that's good.
"Writing Apple specific executables (DRM...) would no longer be important." That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot. Let's start with Apple does nothing to require DRM. Then we'll move into Microsoft is going full ste
Re:Cider that's distilled from WINE (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Commercial games only? (Score:2)
Re:Windows Games For Macs, Transgamers Get Played (Score:2)
You are shocked that they are putting more efforts into this product? Cedega is an entirely different animal that requires you to tweak settings to get binaries running whereas this will be a library used to compile the source code directly for OS X