# Why does WotC hate Macs?



## breschau (Apr 24, 2008)

So, I've railed against Gleemax for some time due to my inability to log in, read links posted here that direct to those forums, and my fear that D&DI will be linked to Gleemax in some way.

It is common knowledge that D&DI will _not_ support Mac OSX, much to the chagrin of us Mac users. Automatically cutting off 10% of your customer base is bad business. I'm using the general Apple market share here, though there are strong arguments for a higher % of Mac users in the RPG community.

What I've found is that—like Hotmail—Gleemax simply doesn't work with Safari anymore. I have made the transition to Safari a while ago, switching from Firefox, because I can't stand IE. At first when I've attempted to log onto Gleemax with Safari I got the "we own your brain message," but in the last few days, it has utterly failed to open. My Gleemax forum bookmarks don't work (fail to open), opening fresh links from the main D&D site fail to open, nothing. Gleemax simply doesn't work with Safari. Now, just on a lark, I tried getting onto Gleemax with Firefox—lo and behold—it worked just fine.

Woo-hoo! Just like Microsoft, WotC seems to be actively preventing the Mac community from accessing their sites. Now, this is not a "I'll boycott" thread, so don't get into that. I'm just pissed that after a few months of Gleemax working on a spotty basis—or not working at all—they have simply ceased to exist for Safari users.

As a note: Safari is a free browser that works on all PCs and Macs, so denying Safari isn't just limiting Mac users, it's limiting lots of other people as well.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Apr 24, 2008)

Because catering to 90% of your business is a good model?

No, seriously, I don't know but you gotta follow the money no?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 24, 2008)

Cause Mac supports Terrorist! (old joke amongst my friends)

Seriously, I dunno. Does WoTC actually own Gleemax, or is part of a conglomerate of stuff? There could be some backdoor issues there.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 24, 2008)

The programming community has, by and large, avoided dealing with Apple software, hence the smaller number of programs that actually work on the things without virtualization or dual-booting.

It's just the nature of the thing.  MS is more open, but more hazardous, Apple is more secure and robust, but with fewer options.


----------



## ascendance (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm just wondering why anyone would be using Safari.  Unless you're browsing from an iPhone, there's just so many other robust browsers out there... Firefox, Opera...


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 24, 2008)

Safari is supposedly the fastest thing out there, browser-wise.

I might use it myself but the thing it does to fonts is like stabbing myself in the eyes.


----------



## Kvantum (Apr 24, 2008)

It's all about browser market share. IE 7 - 22%. IE 6 - 30%. Firefox - 37%.

Safari... 2%. (As of March 08, according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)

Hey, at least you're beating Opera! (I know, I know, cheap shot.)


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't know anything about software development but what would it cost to write the whole DDI to be both PC and Mac (and while your at it Linux!) compat? Too much, I guess, for the 10% or so to be a worthwhile market. 
As for Gleemax, I have never had any problems on it (and I use IE, FF and Opera) so are all the Gleemax complaints from Mac/ Safari users? Just because I am nosey Any issue with Safari is probably the same as you get some issues on other sites with FF, IE is the most 'slack' browser when it comes to reading your web page therefore will accept a lot more 'not wuite right' stuff. I would imagine Safari is quite strict. Who's fault is this? Well both Safari (because it is no use being too strict if it reduces your usefulness) and WotC (for not making Gleemax more compliant with web standards). Just IMO, and a guess from experience, rather than a fact from real knowledge about these things


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 24, 2008)

Because that apple puzzle game makes them want to kill people.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 24, 2008)

Just IM'd a software writing friend of mine and to add Mac compat to something like this could cost in the region of 30 to 50% more. For 10% of the market place, is big money


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 24, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Just IM'd a software writing friend of mine and to add Mac compat to something like this could cost in the region of 30 to 50% more. For 10% of the market place, is big money




It's the same reason that multi-console games very carefully consider that approach, especially since development on one console can be completely different than others.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Woo-hoo! Just like Microsoft, WotC seems to be actively preventing the Mac community from accessing their sites. Now, this is not a "I'll boycott" thread, so don't get into that. I'm just pissed that after a few months of Gleemax working on a spotty basis—or not working at all—they have simply ceased to exist for Safari users.



Works fine with my Safari.

I'd say that you either haven't updated Safari, or you have a page refreshing problem, or permissions are corrupt or you're using add-ons or you have settings in Safari that block certain data, etc.

In other words, it's bound to be something on your end and has nothing to do with Gleemax.

Having said that, there really aren't any good reasons to be going to Gleemax anyway, so not sure what you're upset about 



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> The programming community has, by and large, avoided dealing with Apple software, hence the smaller number of programs that actually work on the things without virtualization or dual-booting.
> 
> It's just the nature of the thing.  MS is more open, but more hazardous, Apple is more secure and robust, but with fewer options.



Yeah... this is so not true.

Ever since the advent of OS X and Darwin, there has been an explosion of software for OS X. It's only when you start getting into niche markets like Virtual Table Top software that you start seeing any disparity between the software available for Windows and OS X.

And I hope by 'open' you don't mean source... 'cause... Darwin...



			
				Kvantum said:
			
		

> It's all about browser market share. IE 7 - 22%. IE 6 - 30%. Firefox - 37%.
> 
> Safari... 2%. (As of March 08, according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)
> 
> Hey, at least you're beating Opera! (I know, I know, cheap shot.)



Eh, I've never trusted those statistics. In some browsers there is the option to change the 'user agent' identification of the browser to some other browser.

I don't find the need for it much these days but in the past there was a lot of MS Java around that would ONLY load if the browser identified itself as IE. Now, it's important to note here that the java code would work in any browser, there was just malicious code within the application that prevented it loading on anything but IE.

My bank used this and I couldn't log in to internet banking without disguising Safari as IE.

I think it's done automatically now. At least, I think Safari does it automatically, so even now those stats are somewhat meaningless unless they bypass the user agent id.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 24, 2008)

Doesn't this thread violate ENWorld's "no religious discussion" rules?


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 24, 2008)

Wizards doesn't hate macs in the same way I don't hate tampons.  Actually, tampons are used by a larger percentage of the market, but I think the analogy holds.  If, for some reason, the word tampon offends you, then substitute shower cap.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 24, 2008)

It's a good thing you didn't post this to Gleemax! WotC would practically own your rant! 

Cheap shots aside...I don't think WotC hates macs so much as likes making a profit, and found that making things for Macs wouldn't be very profitable, and...

Wait a minute, Safari? And Gleemax?

Nevermind, I'll go elsewhere, I've got nothing but cheap shots to offer here.  



> If, for some reason, the word tampon offends you, then substitute shower cap.




I'm not a woman myself, but I'm not sure that would work?


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 24, 2008)

Clearly, WotC doesn't like Blizzard's approach.

Most of the WoW players I know are on Macs. At MWP, we work exclusively on Macs. A significant amount of the design and publishing industry work on Macs.

I would be somewhat surprised if WotC's own computer network didn't also have a bunch of Macs. If they're all done on PCs, then there's something rotten in Renton. 

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 24, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Clearly, WotC doesn't like Blizzard's approach.
> 
> Most of the WoW players I know are on Macs. At MWP, we work exclusively on Macs. A significant amount of the design and publishing industry work on Macs.
> 
> ...





...   


...


Blizzard is WEIRD for always providing Mac support.  (Weird among computer gaming companies).  Just because they currently dominate the pc gaming industry doesn't mean that mac support is at all common or a good idea financially.  Blizzard does lots of odd things.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 24, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> A significant amount of the design and publishing industry work on Macs.




That's because you're all smarmy college types, like that smug Justin Long kid in the "I'm a Mac" commercials!


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Yeah... this is so not true.
> 
> Ever since the advent of OS X and Darwin, there has been an explosion of software for OS X. It's only when you start getting into niche markets like Virtual Table Top software that you start seeing any disparity between the software available for Windows and OS X.




Then the stores aren't bothering to stock most of it anywhere that I've been, including the apple stores.  Apple is getting MORE, now that they're Lintels, but they're still playing catch up.

Thing is, there are ways to get around the compatibility problems without buying a new computer anyways.


----------



## Herodotus (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't think that WotC hates Macs, it's just that they recognize that most gamers have PCs. That's where the games are. Now, I am typing this on a Mac and I LOVE Macs, but I can understand why they've chosen to take this path. It makes sense, given their market.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's because you're all smarmy college types, like that smug Justin Long kid in the "I'm a Mac" commercials!




Ironically, there was a story on the NPR show Marketplace today about Mac marketing.  Listen to it here.

I owned a G3 for several years and it finally died last year.  I replaced it with a PC laptop for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Cam Banks (Apr 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's because you're all smarmy college types, like that smug Justin Long kid in the "I'm a Mac" commercials!




Justin Long is my hero.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> I have made the transition to Safari a while ago, switching from Firefox, because I can't stand IE.



Uh, what? You left Firefox because you can't stand IE?

Safari is an outright terrible browser. I use a Mac at work, and Firefox is miles ahead of the default browser.



> As a note: Safari is a free browser that works on all PCs and Macs, so denying Safari isn't just limiting Mac users, it's limiting lots of other people as well.



Calling Safari a "working" browser is really stretching things. There's a lot of sites that it has problems with, independent of WotC's goofy technical specifications for their vaporware.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Just IM'd a software writing friend of mine and to add Mac compat to something like this could cost in the region of 30 to 50% more. For 10% of the market place, is big money



Mysteriously, Blizzard Entertainment has been doing it for more than a decade, well before they became a juggernaut.

It's not that hard if you plan for it from day 1. It's not like WotC is creating an FPS.


----------



## jaerdaph (Apr 24, 2008)

No Mac support is another good reason to abandon 4e D&D and switch to Pathfinder!


----------



## Shawn_Kehoe (Apr 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Uh, what? You left Firefox because you can't stand IE?
> 
> Safari is an outright terrible browser. I use a Mac at work, and Firefox is miles ahead of the default browser.
> 
> ...




When I wrote the RPGA Herald Test a few years ago, I had to borrow a friend's pc ... the Wizards site wouldn't accept Safari OR Firefox.

And while I like Firefox, I find the OS X version has insufferable memory leaks that keep me with Safari.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Apr 24, 2008)

I am really disappointed too.  They won't support my Vic20 and the one other person in the US who still uses one.  I am offended.  I just canceled my pre-order, and am making a web site for the 4haters.com.  Really, you would think they could make a 3k interface for my Vic for DDI....


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2008)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> Blizzard is WEIRD for always providing Mac support.  (Weird among computer gaming companies).



Yeah, wanting EVERYONE to be able to buy your game is very weird. Good call, WotC, not making that mistake.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Apr 24, 2008)

Shawn_Kehoe said:
			
		

> And while I like Firefox, I find the OS X version has insufferable memory leaks that keep me with Safari.



I'm on a very non-cutting edge Mac and I routine keep a dozen or more tabs open in Firefox, and leave the browser up all week. (I currently have nine tabs open.)

I run into memory issues only if I have Firefox, InDesign, Photoshop AND Word open at the same time, but even my gaming rig at home (PC) starts to complain at that point.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, they might not hate macs, but they might not be up-to-date on Safari.  Each browser added with its quirks makes things even harder to test.  Until recently Safari was exclusive to the Mac.  While we're farther from IE only nowadays it's still the big two--Opera and Safari tend to be afterthoughts.

As far as programing goes for the DDI--really, WoTC, as far as I know, don't have a huge software budget with programmers, etc.  My guess is they are using an already-built engine and working from that.  I simply think they don't have the budget or time to QA it.


----------



## Torchlyte (Apr 24, 2008)

If you choose to use a Mac, you choose to forgo all the software that gets developed for Windows. Has it ever not been that way?


----------



## Campbell (Apr 24, 2008)

I wouldn't be too surprised if WotC is using the .net framework or making significant use of the Windows API for their rich client applications since IT staff in those areas are significantly easier to come by than those with Mac expertise.


----------



## breschau (Apr 24, 2008)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Clearly, WotC doesn't like Blizzard's approach.
> 
> Most of the WoW players I know are on Macs. At MWP, we work exclusively on Macs. A significant amount of the design and publishing industry work on Macs.
> 
> ...




I'm a book designer—among other jobs—and I work on a Mac. Everyone I know in publishing works on a Mac (designers, editors, management, everyone; except some of the guys at Oni Press that is, but they don't count, they're weird).

The funny thing is, there's a job posting on the WotC site for Mac Techs. They own some, need them maintained, yet they won't support them. Silly gits.

Blizzard: yeah, there's so horrible, they do such silly things as make sure everyone can play their games, and gee-whiz, they're head and shoulders above their competition. Those jerks.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 24, 2008)

With a limited budget, I would hope that WotC did customer surveys and marketing research that pointed them to devoting that budget to PC support.  That would be my guess.


----------



## breschau (Apr 24, 2008)

Quote taken from here. Bolds are my inserts.



			
				Mac Users Piece said:
			
		

> They found that Mac owners pretty much personify the Mac guy from the commercials. Among other things, they think they're more extraordinary than the average Joe *(shouldn't everyone? If you don't think you're the coolest guy in the room, who will?)*. That's according to Mindset co-founder Sarah Welch.
> 
> SARAH WELCH: This is a group that is not afraid to shout its accomplishments from the mountaintops *(why shouldn't you be proud?)*. They're happy and proud to talk about their successes and their accomplishments, and that can come across as possibly a bit conceited.
> 
> The survey revealed that Mac users often describe themselves as perfectionists *(as part of the publishing industry, that's almost a job requirement)*. They're also more likely than PC users to whiten their teeth *(nope)*, drive hybrids *(nope)*, drink Starbucks coffee *(can't stand them)* and eat organic food *(it's too expensive)*




The whole bit about tragically hip is the exact opposite of my experience. We're all inverted bookworms with low-paying jobs. We splurge on Macs because they work. I don't have to spend hours rebooting, reinstalling, finding drivers, updating security every week, no running three kinds of security software, no trying to setup wireless internet, no setup of ethernet, no weirdness, no opening the tower and swapping components, no shutting down every night (5-8 minutes every night) only to restart in the morning (5-8 minutes), and no crashing. Ever. It's like a dream.

My computer just works. Period. I've had it a year and the only issue I've had was when I tried to use Boot Camp. Instead of having to learn how to repair my computer, I can just use it.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah, I always sided with John Hodgman in those damn commercials.  I pitied Justin Long - so naive, willing to shell out twice the dough for a computer that's compatible with one tenth the software.  Just so...hipster-than-thou.  Yecch.  I mean, it's cool if you're looking to fluff the ego of people who are already buying your product, but thanks to Justin Long, I would never willingly buy a Mac.  Ever.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Perhaps it is because I've never owned a Mac and do not understand the limitations but.... you're saying that WoTC is shutting you out because they dont support the browser you personally prefer, while in the same post stating that you can easily pull up firefox if you need to?

Perhaps WoTC believes that others will do the same if their lesser-used browser fails?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 24, 2008)

Baka no Hentai said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Perhaps it is because I've never owned a Mac and do not understand the limitations but.... you're saying that WoTC is shutting you out because they dont support the browser you personally prefer, while in the same post stating that you can easily pull up firefox if you need to?
> 
> Perhaps WoTC believes that others will do the same if their lesser-used browser fails?



It has nothing to do with browsers and everything to do with operating systems. WotC's Digital Gaming Table and most of the other reasons to subscribe to the DDI are not going to work on any Mac, regardless of operating system. For people who prefer Macs, this is rather annoying, especially since WotC seems unwilling to offer some kind of alternative deal that lets Mac users who want the things that _will_ work for Macs, like Dungeon and Dragon and possibly the online Rules Compendium, without having to pay for features that won't work for Macs.

I own a PC, but it almost certainly not up to the specs needed for stuff like the Game Table, and I have no intentions of upgrading it any time soon. I prefer Macs, and my current Mac will serve my purposes for years without needing any kind of upgrade. Unless WotC throws Mac-users a bone, I have no reason at all to be interested in the DDI.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Then the stores aren't bothering to stock most of it anywhere that I've been, including the apple stores.  Apple is getting MORE, now that they're Lintels, but they're still playing catch up.



Who goes to a store to buy software these days?

If someone isn't downloading it illegally, then they're downloading it legally.

www.versiontracker.com



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Safari is an outright terrible browser. I use a Mac at work, and Firefox is miles ahead of the default browser.



Either provide examples that can be replicated and that prove your point or admit you're just mouthing off about something you know nothing about.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Who goes to a store to buy software these days?
> 
> If someone isn't downloading it illegally, then they're downloading it legally.
> 
> ...




You don't think people buy software in stores?  Someone should tell Best Buy.

Maybe not in Australia (Only Best Buy I saw in Melbourne looked like a liquor store), but in the States?  Yeah, people buy software in stores.


----------



## pukunui (Apr 24, 2008)

I'd just like to say that I _can_ log into Gleemax using Safari on a Mac with OSX. That's what we've got at school and I've been able to log in and access my account on a number of occasions (in fact, I can't log in using Firefox, but that's because of the school firewall. Fortunately for me, the firewall doesn't extend to Safari for some reason, so I use that whenever I want to do stuff like log into my Gleemax account or my Facebook or whatever ...).


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 24, 2008)

> Blizzard: yeah, there's so horrible, they do such silly things as make sure everyone can play their games, and gee-whiz, they're head and shoulders above their competition. Those jerks.




There is no particular technical reason Blizzard are above their competition. They had good IP, good timing.

They have lousy support, and a lousy development cycle.
Decent parts of that second problem may be cedable to supporting Macs, but I strongly doubt it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 24, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> Yeah, I always sided with John Hodgman in those damn commercials.




So you are a dedicated Mac user?
John Hodgman is.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Apr 24, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Woo-hoo! Just like Microsoft, WotC seems to be actively preventing the Mac community from accessing their sites.



I don't think they hate Mac users (or Linux users, not that you mentioned it), but I think WotC's choices are going to seen a poor ones.  D&D, as a group-based activity, is subject to network effects and Metcalf's Law.  That means that the value of their network increases in a non-linear manner with the number of additional nodes you add to it.  Meaning that capturing that last 10% of users would increase the value of DDI by a lot more than 10% - probably more like 30%.  They're leaving money on the table by not supporting the one guy in a group who has a Mac.

As a simple example, consider two products: DDI and generic online gaming platform (GOGP).  DDI has more feature and supports 4E specific stuff, but GOGP gets you 90% there - it has generic fantasy minis, a square-based grid a DM can draw stuff on, and interfaces with Skype group chat. The difference is that GOGP runs through a browser and can run on any system with a free Firefox add-on.

If your group has even one player who uses Mac or Linux, you have to use GOGP rather than DDI if you want to not kick that poor guy out of the group.  And while only 10% of the market uses Apple or Linux, I bet at least 30% of groups have at least one user that does.  So DDI could be leaving fully 1/3rd of the market to the competition (and there will be competition - it's a law of nature).


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 24, 2008)

It may simply be that they judged the development cycle for a broader platform to take too long to get to market.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Safari is an outright terrible browser. I use a Mac at work, and Firefox is miles ahead of the default browser.




I beg to disagree. I work Tech Support at Network Solutions and I open more websites then probably anyone on this board. By and large, Safari works fine. Of the issues you run into, some are browser-based while others have to do with Apple's poor Java Support. Don't get me wrong, I like Firefox a lot and I use it, but Safari is superior in a LOT of ways.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 24, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Doesn't this thread violate ENWorld's "no religious discussion" rules?




 Nice!


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 24, 2008)

Is bitching and moaning a requirement for owning a Mac? Sure seems so.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 24, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I'm on a very non-cutting edge Mac and I routine keep a dozen or more tabs open in Firefox, and leave the browser up all week. (I currently have nine tabs open.)
> 
> I run into memory issues only if I have Firefox, InDesign, Photoshop AND Word open at the same time, but even my gaming rig at home (PC) starts to complain at that point.



Firefox 2 is known to have annoying memory problems, it's one of the largest problems people have with it.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm sure WotC doesn't hate Macs. I'd imagine the majority (if not all) of their artwork and layout is done on Macs. Considering that they are in the publishing business, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a considerable amount of their computers are Macs. The majority of the designers and publishers I know use Macs as well. Kinda funny they went this route, but I think it was more from convenience than anything else.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Apr 24, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> The whole bit about tragically hip is the exact opposite of my experience. We're all inverted bookworms with low-paying jobs. We splurge on Macs because they work. I don't have to spend hours rebooting, reinstalling, finding drivers, updating security every week, no running three kinds of security software, no trying to setup wireless internet, no setup of ethernet, no weirdness, no opening the tower and swapping components, no shutting down every night (5-8 minutes every night) only to restart in the morning (5-8 minutes), and no crashing. Ever. It's like a dream.
> 
> My computer just works. Period. I've had it a year and the only issue I've had was when I tried to use Boot Camp. Instead of having to learn how to repair my computer, I can just use it.




Hey that's me!

A PC owner.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 24, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Firefox 2 is known to have annoying memory problems, it's one of the largest problems people have with it.




I've never had any memory issues with Firefox. The thing I hate with Firefox and tabs is it fully loads all of the websites so if you open a bunch of tabs that use Flash for instance, they all load the intros and the music starts playing. The nice thing about Safari is it won't actually start Flash until you switch to that tab. I wish Firefox had that feature.


----------



## Spenser (Apr 24, 2008)

Let's separate out two things. 

Writing a game, or really anything involving 3-D graphics, is tricky to do cross-platform. Blizzard is the only big game company that consistently puts out their titles on both Windows and OS X, without farming the work out to a porting company. And they have many years of experience doing it, and their core business is software. WotC's core business is *not* software. So I'm not surprised at all that they would focus on Windows. Just releasing the software at all is a big risk for them.

But then there's the forums, which is a whole different story. Not supporting Firefox and Safari is an indication that their web designers are Very Unsmart. Yes, there are fancy Javascript sites out there, like webmail, calendars, maps, and so on, and these can be tricky to get to work cross-browser. That can take expensive testing and expensive people. But any "professional" who can't get a frickin' _forum_ to work in Safari, in 2008 no less, is essentially getting paid for feeding BS to their bosses, not for doing any actual useful work.


----------



## Rel (Apr 24, 2008)

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Is bitching and moaning a requirement for owning a Mac? Sure seems so.




What would make you think that this kind of blanket insult was appropriate?  Don't post in this thread again.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Firefox 2 is known to have annoying memory problems, it's one of the largest problems people have with it.



 These problems are easily solved by upgrading to 3 GB of RAM.


----------



## jon_m (Apr 24, 2008)

*TransGaming Cider*

I know I would certainly love to see 100% Mac compatibility with all of the DDI material---as would the rest of Hollywood.  How about using TransGaming's Cider? It's not a perfect solution.---it only supports Intel Macs---but it's a start. 

Lots of "creative" industries are highly Mac-based. That's a good market to support. There have been many articles about how there is greater and greater Mac penetration into colleges over the last several years. That's another good market.

Jon


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 24, 2008)

Mutter mutter gleemax wouldn't load for me mutter mutter and neither would the rest of the internet mutter mutter AirPort Security Update my *grandmother* mutter mutter.

Add me to the chorus of voices that's entirely unsurprised to see that a *book-publishing company* elected to write a *3-d graphics intensive application* for the OS that makes it relatively easy to write said application.

Yes, they could indeed write it on OpenGL. Because *that's* not fraught with technological mishap waiting to happen. ActiveX really does let you develop your app without caring about system configuration -- OpenGL development has been, in my experience, the death of a thousand configurations.

Yes, they could write it twice, once on Aqua (Carbon?) and once on ActiveX. Pay twice as much now and wait twice as long now, please. And bugs.

Yes, they could make public the communication protocol so that the community could provide their own port of the -- say, wait a minute! 

(not gonna happen -- removes the ability to monetize it since you could rewrite the backend and use the table without paying them, given the protocols. Poof, there goes all their money for programming the darn thing, not to mention immediate vaporization of 3-d modeling investments!)


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Apr 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I beg to disagree. I work Tech Support at Network Solutions and I open more websites then probably anyone on this board. By and large, Safari works fine. Of the issues you run into, some are browser-based while others have to do with Apple's poor Java Support. Don't get me wrong, I like Firefox a lot and I use it, but Safari is superior in a LOT of ways.




color managed icc profiles for jpgs... yeah sexy. Thats the only thing I want from firefox. Its said to be added in v3


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 24, 2008)

Macs comprise 10% of the market.  Macs are able to run Windows via Boot Camp or Parallels.  WotC looks to be using DirectX for their software. DirectX doesn't work on OSX.

It's really, really hard to justify the cost of porting to Macs, especially for a non-software company.  It's simple numbers.  Blizzard Entertainment is the only gaming company that does it on a regular basis, but they're rolling in cash.

Remember that DDI is a largely unproven venture. It may fail spectacularly. I suggest that starting with Windows and only porting to Mac if it is successful may be a more prudent strategy.

A larger issue may be that WotC appears to be targetting DirectX 8 (shaders) at a minimum.  This is going to cause a number of problems in the PC market, as many integrated video cards (especially in lower end desktops and laptops) will not be able to handle it.


----------



## Mad Mac (Apr 24, 2008)

> Why does WotC hate Macs?




 Rumour has it that Mearl's Great Grandfather was slain by rampaging Macs during a big game hunting expedition. He still carries a grudge. 

  Macs are also known to eat the last cookie you've been saving, and always insist on cuddling when you really just want to get some sleep. 

  Under the circumstances, I can't really blame them for the decision.


----------



## Orius (Apr 24, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Doesn't this thread violate ENWorld's "no religious discussion" rules?




Heh heh.

It's simple economics.  DDI isn't likely to get enough subscribers at least initially to warrant the cost of developing a Mac version.  If there's enough demand, and it's affordable enough, WotC may consider in the future.  

Honestly, Mac users should be used to this by now.  That's not a bash, just a simple observation.


----------



## Sphyre (Apr 24, 2008)

I'll chime in and say "Why does WotC hate Linux users?"

...oh, wait.  When I chose to use linux I knew my access to commercial software would be limited.  That's why I dual boot.  I know some people who triple boot.    Seriously, my feelings are not hurt.  I've noticed the trend with computers: what's most popular gets the most support.  Simple law of economics.

It wasn't always that way.  Back when I was in grade school every freaking school that had computers had Macs.  We all learned macs back then.  The linux community is actually thinking that it may be the next operating system of choice due to the fact that the Ubuntu distribution is getting so easy to use that in most cases it's easier than windows to use, while other parts take a bit of know-how.  Add to the fact that it's free, it lowers the bottom line of computer costs.  In fact, many manufacturers are loading linux on their machines to get the cost down and sell more.

Seriously, I don't play the victim.  I chose to load linux on my machine, much like the OP chose to buy a mac.  I knew my choice of OS wouldn't run everything so I dual boot.  With Macs using intel processors now, you have the same choice.



(And yes, to the admin who can tell which OS my browser is using, I'm currently in windows in this post)


----------



## Graf (Apr 24, 2008)

The "Windows-only" decision is a bad one, as people have pointed out before.
While mac users are small, many groups will have one person who is a mac/linux user.

They're cutting those people off completely and permanently.

The problem is mostly that they don't seem to have a particularly strong internal development wing. Gleemax has languished for a year, etc etc.

Given how utterly basic the program they're developing is (just some simple graphics on a grid basically) it'd be easy for them to have developed it multiplatform.

They probably made an initial hire who had very limited experience (can only code in Direct X) and just followed that person through.

Going forward I think they'll ultimately find they have to reverse themselves.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

The problem for WotC is that they have a more or less fixed time table. Blizzard puts out its software "when it's done". They might have internal milestones, but to the outside, they never have a fixed data. 
If you can take any time you want, it's possible to support all kinds of systems. If you have a release data, you have to make some shortcuts. You use off-the-shelve solutions, you use existing frameworks that do most of the work for you. And so, you end up with a DirectX solution for your 3D applications. The only way to get this working with Mac or Linux is if you dual-boot or use virtualization software (Parallels for Mac supports DirectX this days. I am not sure if DirectX 8 is enough for DDI, but it might.) This isn't a cheap solution for a customer, unfortunately. 

This has little to do with the Safari-Compatibility issue, though. I'd have to check at home if my MacBook has any problems with the site, but I am pretty certain I remember it having no difficulties. But it has been some time since I used it for the site.


----------



## MarauderX (Apr 24, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> ... Apple is more secure and robust...



 Ok, this is just conjecture stated as though fact.  Threads like this already exist in the software/computer forums.


----------



## kristov (Apr 24, 2008)

My thoughts:

1) when you go to develop actual software, its not worth the development hours for 10% of the market.

2) when you go to develop a web app (which this is), there is no good excuse - they are just bad programmers and/or lazy

3) wotc has shown they have no idea how to develop quality software
3a) magic - magic, great game, undisputable - one of the crappiest pieces of software ever. 
3b) new magic 3.0 - oh my god - you took like 5 years to make this?
3c) the original D&D tools/character generator they made for 3rd edition - once again - does anyone there use software, play games or even browse the web? you can easily find more robust and useful free tools on the internet - these guys tossed who knows how much money down a hole.
3d) check out the article on the news today about why their website is so terrible

Basically, they just dont have quality Software Producers who know what they are doing.

p.s. apple is more secure - thats not conjecture, its a fact. they are more secure because less people are trying to exploit it - so by that virtue, more secure.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 24, 2008)

Firstly - this thread isn't a generalised rant about WotC and Mac development (you can find other threads about that), so in the interests of helping Breschau to find a resolution to his problem, direct any generalised (e.g. DDI development) comments to a different thread.

Thanks.

Secondly - it is about the specific issue of the Gleemax site not working on breschau's Safari/Mac.

Interestingly it seems that there are at least two other people who are successfully using Safari/Mac.

Thus it would be useful if breshau, Kzach, Shawn_Kehoe (and any others) could report the version number of Safari they are using.

That might give people an opportunity to ensure that they have a version of Safari that works with the WotC sites.

Of course, IMO WotC should ensure that their site works everywhere - at worst that it degrades gracefully with browsers that it doesn't properly support. I'm a web developer and the release of every new browser fills me with mild concern as I wonder what tweaks will be needed to my sites to support the new vaguaries introduced into the browsers. For reference my main site is for physicians, we serve about 3/4 million pages a month and 2% of our visits are from Mac users; 2% doesn't sound like much, but that is thousands of pages every month that need to work properly for a 'minority' group. I imagine that WotC has far more visitors and pages served than us... 

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

MarauderX said:
			
		

> Ok, this is just conjecture stated as though fact.  Threads like this already exist in the software/computer forums.



Security is... sketchy. Macs are relatively secure because few attack Macs. There was recently a contest where people had to hack into a Macbook, a vista notebook and a linux (Ubuntu) notebook. (Wrap-up
The Macbook Air was hacked first, under to strictest conditions for the contest. The Vista notebook fell in the second phase, where common applications could be used (in this specific case, they used an exploit possible due to Adobe Flash). The Ubuntu notebook remains unhacked. I may be of note that while the prizes for the contest weren't bad (the hacked book plus cash), but on the "exploit market", they would be worth even more. 
So, as it stands, Macbooks are not more secure by design. They still benefit from the lack of determination for the "serious" hackers. 

MacBooks are pretty stable, but so where my last 2 Windows PCs and my work notebook. Many instability issues with Windows seem to come from hardware drivers. 
One of the Macs strength definitely is that they only use a very limited set of hardware. It's a lot easier to create the "perfect" drivers for the Mac ecosystem. This gives you less options on how to equip your Mac, but honestly - who cares? I rarely change my system configuration on my desktop PC, and I'll probably never do it for my Notebook (the notebook I used before I got a MacBook Pro seemed impossible to turn apart to change anything. At least my work notebook has easy access to the RAM. But I don't see me or anyone else upgrading its Harddisk or CPU anytime so)


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The Macbook Air was hacked first, under to strictest conditions for the contest.



No, it wasn't.

It was hacked on the second day after the restrictions were relaxed to allow puppet access to the machine, ie. the hacker could direct someone to do whatever they asked.

Secondly, they were offering a Macbook Air vs. some crappy PC laptop (I think they were Sony's but still...). Which one do you think got the most attempts? Gee... wonder if it was the expensive, kick-ass, lightest notebook on the planet?

Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.

Fourth, the exploit was in Safari only and was patched within two days (some said two hours, but I personally remember getting the Software Update two days later). Considering Microsoft's track record, I think two days is pretty damn good.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Thus it would be useful if breshau, Kzach, Shawn_Kehoe (and any others) could report the version number of Safari they are using.



Fair enough.

I'm using Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18) on 10.5.2 on an iMac 2.4GHz C2D 20".

I have zero problems loading Gleemax pages from links or browsing Gleemax or anything else with Gleemax aside from the fact that it sucks


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 24, 2008)

1. Apple's market share is substantially less than 10%. Closer to 6%.

2. Of all the Mac users I know, exactly one is exclusively a Mac user. The rest are all using boot camp, or some scheme such as parallels to support windows on their mac hardware.

3. WotC, being a business, makes decisions for business reasons. Our mac using posters, who are individuals and not businesses, want WotC to make decisions for individual (read: emotional) reasons.

WotC don't "hate" Macs. They hate spending money on software development that will not prove to be profitable. Of course, the preceding sentence could well apply to the unproven DDI concept as a whole, but you have to start somewhere. Given the Mac OS's low market share versus Windows, and given the fact that so many Mac users are also Windows users, WotC's spending a lot of money to support a tiny market share for an already questionable software product makes absolutely no business sense at all.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.




Guess how most compromised systems get that way?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> No, it wasn't.
> 
> It was hacked on the second day after the restrictions were relaxed to allow puppet access to the machine, ie. the hacker could direct someone to do whatever they asked.



You're correct, it was the second day. I should have checked closer. Still, it "relied" only on Mac software (in this case, it was Safari that proved vulnerable). 



> Secondly, they were offering a Macbook Air vs. some crappy PC laptop (I think they were Sony's but still...). Which one do you think got the most attempts? Gee... wonder if it was the expensive, kick-ass, lightest notebook on the planet?



Yes, that might have been an additional motivation. But this isn't really a good reason, if you can also win 20,000 $? 



> Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.



I think basically all common exploits these days require user interaction. But the problem is that this actually works often enough! Maybe it would be better to not give computer access to some people, but that's unrealistic... 



> Fourth, the exploit was in Safari only and was patched within two days (some said two hours, but I personally remember getting the Software Update two days later). Considering Microsoft's track record, I think two days is pretty damn good.



I don't have much to add to this. I don't like Microsoft slow update cycles either. I suppose that's due to the fact that too many people rely on M$ products, and they really have to ensure that stuff keeps working, and thus need to test longer. (Consider how many old applications are "broken" due to the new security features in Vista...) Still doesn't mean I have to like it.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

Ingolf said:
			
		

> Guess how most compromised systems get that way?



I should also point out that Leopard and Safari have in-built protections versus this kind of idiocy that have to be manually by-passed, ie. warnings that you're downloading from an insecure source, warnings that you're running a program for the first time that was downloaded from the internet, and an admin password prompt to allow the installation.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I'm using Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18) on 10.5.2 on an iMac 2.4GHz C2D 20".




My configuration is:

MacBook Pro
2,16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB of RAM
Mac OSX 10.5.2
Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18)

No problems accessing Gleemax. Not that I do access it.   

/M


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Apr 24, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Interestingly it seems that there are at least two other people who are successfully using Safari/Mac.



My MacBook Pro with Safari works fine on Gleemax. Well, as fine as Gleemax works on my daughter's window's machine. Using 

Safari Version 3.1 (5525.13)
Mac OSx version 10.5.2
2.4 ghz with 4 gig mem.


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 24, 2008)

I can access Gleemax and post in the blogs, using Safari, but there are a host of formating tools which simply do not show up, unless I browse the blogs using Firefox. As I tend to only browse the web using Safari, I am less inclined to visit a site that requires a different browser.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

Just reminds me that I couldn't get Safari to load up the configuration site of my router. Very annoying. But then, the router was... old. I nearly said crap, but I suppose his shortcomings in connecting both the MacBook and the newer Vista PCs at home must have been from his age..
[/tangent]


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2008)

Eh, it's not a Mac-only thing. The main WotC site is horribly borken when I browse it from work in IE6.


----------



## smathis (Apr 24, 2008)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Macs comprise 10% of the market.  Macs are able to run Windows via Boot Camp or Parallels.  WotC looks to be using DirectX for their software. DirectX doesn't work on OSX.




Don't forget VMWare Fusion. Reportedly it supports DirectX 8.1. Using their Unity feature, it looks like I'm running Windows programs on my Mac. But you will need a copy of Windows XP to load on the VM.

Now I don't know how fast VMWare Fusion will be to run something like DDI on -- but it may be okay. Overall, I'd recommend it over parallels. Especially if Parallels doesn't give you access to DirectX.

As for WotC hating Macs... I seriously doubt that's true. What they were doing was developing DDI at a fairly rapid pace and choosing to use DirectX because, well, it's just a lot faster and captures the majority of their user base.

I don't think they were thinking about the group with one or two mac users having to pass on DDI. That's a valid point. In my group, we only have one or two Windows users. So, while I think WotC probably made the best choice for them at the time, I also agree that this was a major oversight.

What I don't understand is why WotC didn't just buy up one of the existing companies out there that already do this. Why design something from scratch? Something like Fantasy Battlegrounds (I think that's the name) is already built, stable and supports everything.

So instead of spending multi-millions of dollars to build something from scratch making obvious shortcuts to meet the deadline, they could have bought an existing application (or, heck, company) and then invested their money more wisely in improving that application.

I don't understand the reasoning behind building from scratch. But, then again, I wasn't privvy to the business dealings going on at the time.

As far as Gleemax...

It's frustrating to navigate and one of the best examples of how NOT to design a website.

I have no problem accessing it on the Mac. I use Firefox, though. One thing I will point out is that my bookmarks and links to the site don't work. But they've never worked all that well.

Basically, if I want to find something on their site, I have to log in and then try to find it by navigating (the search is worthless). And I've already pointed out how horrible it is to navigate so there you have it.

In a nutshell...

If you want to use DDI, VMWare Fusion might be an idea. I wouldn't buy it just for DDI. It costs around $70. I have it because I need access to Windows programs for testing purposes. So I had a need for it outside of DDI.

And I'll echo the forum member who said wait and see about DDI/Gleemax. It is an untested entity, for sure. And there may be changes coming down the pipe. Or it may bomb altogether. Who knows?

Gleemax is horrible, though. I really wish they would do some usability testing on that site. It's like a 1990's level of bad.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 24, 2008)

I'll just give another mention to Boot Camp + XP (is Vista compatible with BC?  I doubt it, but I don't know).  Seems like the way to go for cross compatibility.


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Just reminds me that I couldn't get Safari to load up the configuration site of my router.[/tangent]



Try deleting the / after the router's IP address in your browser window, ie. instead of http://192.222.333.44/ change it to http://192.222.333.44

Seems like such a small and innocuous thing, but for me it meant the difference between being able to access my router's config menu and not. Safari likes to add that little /


----------



## Kzach (Apr 24, 2008)

smathis said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why WotC didn't just buy up one of the existing companies out there that already do this. Why design something from scratch? Something like Fantasy Battlegrounds (I think that's the name) is already built, stable and supports everything.



Actually... Fantasy Grounds really isn't that polished. It provides a very minimal level of what you need to play at a virtual tabletop. The level of interoperability with the system rules is virtually non-existent.

About the only thing going for it above Maptool is the fact that it looks much prettier.

The DDI VTT however is a whole level of complexity above any other VTT currently out.


----------



## Zil (Apr 24, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> It is common knowledge that D&DI will _not_ support Mac OSX, much to the chagrin of us Mac users. Automatically cutting off 10% of your customer base is bad business. I'm using the general Apple market share here, though there are strong arguments for a higher % of Mac users in the RPG community.



While I completely agree with you on the issue of multiple platform support, it's possible that they simply don't have sufficient depth or experience to deal with multiple platforms properly.  In a perfect world, they would think of these things up front, but I suspect their web/internet development team is either inexperienced or very entrenched in a windows only world.

My preferred platforms are Solaris or Linux, so I'm even worse off than all the Mac Users.   



> What I've found is that—like Hotmail—Gleemax simply doesn't work with Safari anymore. I have made the transition to Safari a while ago, switching from Firefox, because I can't stand IE. At first when I've attempted to log onto Gleemax with Safari I got the "we own your brain message," but in the last few days, it has utterly failed to open. My Gleemax forum bookmarks don't work (fail to open), opening fresh links from the main D&D site fail to open, nothing. Gleemax simply doesn't work with Safari. Now, just on a lark, I tried getting onto Gleemax with Firefox—lo and behold—it worked just fine.



This doesn't sound like a Mac issue ;  it sounds more like a Safari issue.



> Woo-hoo! Just like Microsoft, WotC seems to be actively preventing the Mac community from accessing their sites. Now, this is not a "I'll boycott" thread, so don't get into that. I'm just pissed that after a few months of Gleemax working on a spotty basis—or not working at all—they have simply ceased to exist for Safari users.



Did you try mailing the maintainers and let them know about the Safari problems?  Did you try another browser to see if it also works?  Opera?  It might be a bug in Safari.


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> The DDI VTT however is a whole level of complexity above any other VTT currently out.




   Personally I would have liked to have seen something along the lines of klooge.werks coupled with Dundjinni , perhaps with a bit of Bryce and Poser thrown in for good measure.


----------



## mmaranda (Apr 24, 2008)

*WotC is a .NET shop so it likes Windows*

.NET isn't platform independent and when doing anything with graphics processing it relies on DirectX (Windows only) graphics tools and libraries. Since they started in a Windows environment their code only runs in a Windows environment.  

If they were doing something platform independent it would take longer be more expensive and require more time to get the "polish" they have already achieved.  It isn't impossible just harder and with the already spotty track record of WotC web initiatives failing I can understand why they made the decision they made.  I don't agree with it but management can be blind to the advantages of taking the slightly harder route.


----------



## nnanji (Apr 24, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Eh, it's not a Mac-only thing. The main WotC site is horribly borken when I browse it from work in IE6.




Just wanted to agree with this. I stopped visiting the site long ago because it won't work with IE6, and for various reasons that's the browser I use most. Large areas of the main page just appear as black areas so it feels like I'm playing Russian Roulette when I navigate their site.


----------



## Zil (Apr 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The problem for WotC is that they have a more or less fixed time table. Blizzard puts out its software "when it's done". They might have internal milestones, but to the outside, they never have a fixed data.



I don't see how it is all that different.  If Blizzard slips a deadline, how is that any worse than Wizards slipping a deadline?   

The difference in my mind is that Blizzard has a large cadre of software designers and programmers whereas this is not WotC's area of expertise so they simply don't have the resources or experience.   Perhaps they should have made more of an effort in making it an area of expertise if they really were serious about all this DDI online stuff, but that is another topic.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I don't see how it is all that different.  If Blizzard slips a deadline, how is that any worse than Wizards slipping a deadline?




Blizzard is big enough and rich enough that it can tell its corporate masters to wait.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I don't see how it is all that different.  If Blizzard slips a deadline, how is that any worse than Wizards slipping a deadline?
> 
> The difference in my mind is that Blizzard has a large cadre of software designers and programmers whereas this is not WotC's area of expertise so they simply don't have the resources or experience.   Perhaps they should have made more of an effort in making it an area of expertise if they really were serious about all this DDI online stuff, but that is another topic.



I really don't know how Blizzard pulls it off with their timeline internally. Externally it's simple - if you don't give a release date until you're safe to make it, you will never disappoint people for missing your date. 
But what definitely is certain is that WotC is not a software company, and will probably never be. They need others to do the planning and execute the job. I think many businesses shy away from extending their area of expertise above their original core business. I don't know if there is a rational explanation for it, and whether it might actually be the best. And maybe WotC is doing it right now - but that was probably not soon enough...

But I suppose WotC just can't do it the same way as Blizzard. Maybe it's also a general timing issue - The 4E rules will be available in June. Gleemax and DDI better be ready by then, too! Maybe that was generally the wrong approach - they should have decoupled both aspects more. But maybe that also is impossible.


----------



## hexgrid (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm a Mac user who doesn't care at all if Gleemax or DDI are Mac compatible. 

After all, if it doesn't run on a Mac, it's probably not worth using anyway.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Try deleting the / after the router's IP address in your browser window, ie. instead of http://192.222.333.44/ change it to http://192.222.333.44
> 
> Seems like such a small and innocuous thing, but for me it meant the difference between being able to access my router's config menu and not. Safari likes to add that little /



It seemed to have been a problem with the login-popup of the router. Anyway, I already have a new one. (Needed one as other users weren't able to get WLAN.)


----------



## Halivar (Apr 24, 2008)

Because I know everyone was wondering, I can also verify that Gleemax also doesn't work on the lynx browser for the Unix command-line.

Absolutely unacceptable!


----------



## SteveC (Apr 24, 2008)

This issue has come up many times before. No, WotC doesn't hate Macs. When they decided to create the VTT they went with an outside company to build it for them. That company designs for a Windows based world, so they're using DirectX for their application. I imagine you had a situation where a number of companies bid for the job, and the company that won codes that way.

Yes, you can do everything the VTT does in cross-platform com compatibility, but the coders WotC has working on the project aren't doing it that way, most likely because out in Seattle it's very easy to find people to write code for any Microsoft based systems (for some reason   ). I know a couple of people who work for Microsoft that said they'd get involved with this project pro bono if they had the chance. I suspect they're not alone.

WotC knows the percentage of their market who use Macs. They've chosen not to make that a priority due to, one would assume, a cost benefit analysis. This is a similar decision that many companies make, and I can't imagine why it would be surprising to a Mac owner at this point.

--Steve


----------



## smathis (Apr 24, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> ...and I can't imagine why it would be surprising to a Mac owner at this point.
> 
> --Steve




Not surprising. Just disappointing.


----------



## smathis (Apr 24, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> The DDI VTT however is a whole level of complexity above any other VTT currently out.




 

Thanks for clearing that up. I had a hard time understanding why WotC was taking a more established road. I suppose that's because there's no road established at the moment.

Good to know.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Apr 24, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> WotC knows the percentage of their market who use Macs.




I agree with everything you said but this. How do they know? I never filled out a survey by them that asked what Operating System I use. They may have an abstract number that someone in marketing throws around, but they aren't magically clued in to how many Mac users are among their fans.


----------



## davethegame (Apr 24, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> This issue has come up many times before. No, WotC doesn't hate Macs.




Especially given how many of their staff members own MacBooks and were using them at the D&D XP.


----------



## Counterspin (Apr 24, 2008)

They looked at the numbers and decided that they would lose money by offering Mac support.  I can't believe that there are four pages on this.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you said but this. How do they know? I never filled out a survey by them that asked what Operating System I use. They may have an abstract number that someone in marketing throws around, but they aren't magically clued in to how many Mac users are among their fans.




Because the percentage of Mac users amongst D&D players is most likely very close to the percent in the computer-using population as a whole. Anecdotes from people who play in groups made up entirely of OSX users notwithstanding, there is no compelling reason to suspect otherwise.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you said but this. How do they know? I never filled out a survey by them that asked what Operating System I use. They may have an abstract number that someone in marketing throws around, but they aren't magically clued in to how many Mac users are among their fans.



Here's where I'm coming from on that issue: they have two things: first, customer surveys, which if anything would tend to overestimate the number of Mac users, since anyone I've ever met who has any interest in Macs whatsoever will say they own and use a Mac on surveys...even if they use one only peripherally.

Second, they have traffic information on their site. I partially manage a couple of websites, and the tools that are provided by my vendor for free give me a pretty good idea of how many people use what OS and visit the sites. There are much better tools out there for this purpose that you can actually pay for.

I think between these two things, they have a good idea of what their internet savvy customers use. Now I think that the real reason they aren't supporting Macs is that the company they've contracted with is full of Microsoft employees, but that's just because of where they are. I don't think that the D&D Mac userbase is under reported in WotC's minds, especially among their designers!

--Steve


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Apr 24, 2008)

Maybe they were rolling too many d20's and missed the whole Web 2.0 App thing.  Cut out 10% and if geekdome is important to them, according to Revision3 numbers, 30% of online geeks.  So I guess that's nice that they can be so secure.  

This shows their short sightedness. 2.0 Apps guys thats the only way to go.

I will NEVER go back to a PC and after building Windows machines and d/l all 24 disks of "Chicago" back in the day, one would think I'd be all nostalgic: NO!  I'll always love D&D but my computers?  Naw, I just want something to work with no virus' and ease of use.  This will be the first time I'm encountering a problem.  Bad on WotC.


----------



## Ghaerdon Fain (Apr 24, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> They looked at the numbers and decided that they would lose money by offering Mac support.  I can't believe that there are four pages on this.




Maybe this tells them something that they missed!


_sorry for the double post_


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Apr 24, 2008)

They hate macs for the same reason so many other people with any involvement with software development hate them.

For the amount of effort that is required to support the platform, you could instead support a platform which will make you a great deal more money.

The typical strategy for this sort of problem is to do the PC version first, then debug the PC version, and then maybe port the PC version over to Mac if there is enough demand to make some sort of profit from the effort.  If the profit is not obvious enough, than it does not happen.

As a guideline, consider the sorts of games that do manage to show up on the Mac.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## RtrnofdMax (Apr 24, 2008)

While it may not solve all of the issues with DDi, HeroForge will be available to satisfy the char gen needs of those with Macs. In fact, it will run on PCs, MACs and Linux. Check out the link in my sig to sign up for the forums and get more information.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 24, 2008)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I never filled out a survey by them that asked what Operating System I use.




Have you ever visited the WotC website? If so, you've given them information about what operating system you use, what browser you use, what IP adress you use, and some other stuff.

/M


----------



## Wardook (Apr 24, 2008)

I just installed XP on my Macbook Pro. I don't run any windoze programs, but I'm going to try DDI for a year when it comes out. I figured on it taking me a month to get XP up and running. With the help of Bootcamp I had it running in three hours. I had VMWare running an hour later. I love Macs. The only hitch was a sound error, or lack there of. After  I Googled it, it was fixed in ten minutes. If you don't have an Intel processor, you are out of luck. 

Space


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 24, 2008)

Not to hijack (much), but what's up with Safari going viral via iTunes?  A few weeks ago my iTunes software started asking me if I wanted to download Safari.  I'd answer "no", but it would pop up again a few days later.  I never did figure out where to turn it off permanently, and my wife isn't as careful, so I came home one day to find Safari installed on my machine trying to take over my web defaults.

Bad spouse! Bad! Bad Apple! Bad!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 24, 2008)

Since the thread has been all about computers and nothing about 4e for a couple of pages, I'm moving it to the Computers and Software forum


----------



## Kzach (Apr 25, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Not to hijack (much), but what's up with Safari going viral via iTunes?  A few weeks ago my iTunes software started asking me if I wanted to download Safari.  I'd answer "no", but it would pop up again a few days later.  I never did figure out where to turn it off permanently, and my wife isn't as careful, so I came home one day to find Safari installed on my machine trying to take over my web defaults.



Yeah, that's been a pretty major complaint from Windows users ever since they did it. To be honest, I agree with them, it's a pretty stupid move by Apple. They want to win over PC users, not piss them off.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Apr 25, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Actually... Fantasy Grounds really isn't that polished. It provides a very minimal level of what you need to play at a virtual tabletop. The level of interoperability with the system rules is virtually non-existent.




The DDI VTT will have no interoperability with the system rules.  They've ruled that out.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Apr 25, 2008)

One reason:

WoTC is opposed to the idea of giving out free "software" upgrades and thus they chose to support windows PC becuase Microsoft's upgrade policy is similar to their own..


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 25, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> Blizzard: yeah, there's so horrible, they do such silly things as make sure everyone can play their games, and gee-whiz, they're head and shoulders above their competition. Those jerks.



Way to twist the point made into something entirely different.  The poster that said that Blizzard is wierd to support Macs is totally spot on.  But he's not making a judgement call, he's not saying Blizzard is stupid or jerky to support Macs.  He's simply saying they are outside of the norm, that most software companies (especially for games) don't support the Mac.

It's simple really.  The added costs of Mac support are not worth the added revenue of Mac users.  Or at least that's the way WotC and the majority of the software industry sees it.  Perhaps they have misjudged this, but I think not.

Macs are certainly more popular than ever and continue to grow their market share, so it might not be too long before this equation shifts.  But as of today, it's just not worth it for many software publishers.

I think it's AWESOME that Blizzard supports Macs.  Blizzard is known for being a software company that does things differently than industry standard, and it is certainly a part of their appeal.  But are they wildly successful because of this?  Maybe in part.  But I think the major reason why Blizzard owns the PC gaming market right now is that they simply make incredibly awesome and addicting games.  That they support Macs is simply icing on their already awesome cake.


----------



## Elephant (Apr 26, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about software development but what would it cost to write the whole DDI to be both PC and Mac (and while your at it Linux!) compat? Too much, I guess, for the 10% or so to be a worthwhile market.
> As for Gleemax, I have never had any problems on it (and I use IE, FF and Opera) so are all the Gleemax complaints from Mac/ Safari users? Just because I am nosey Any issue with Safari is probably the same as you get some issues on other sites with FF, IE is the most 'slack' browser when it comes to reading your web page therefore will accept a lot more 'not wuite right' stuff. I would imagine Safari is quite strict. Who's fault is this? Well both Safari (because it is no use being too strict if it reduces your usefulness) and WotC (for not making Gleemax more compliant with web standards). Just IMO, and a guess from experience, rather than a fact from real knowledge about these things




Speaking as a professional programmer, nothing I've heard announced for the DDI needs any features that they can't accomplish with a decently-designed website and perhaps some Flash programming.  They're doing one or more of:

Using a bad design (hmm, look at Gleemax.  This one's a gimme.)
Using inept programmers
Mandating stupid decisions in the development process


----------



## Elephant (Apr 26, 2008)

mmaranda said:
			
		

> .NET isn't platform independent and when doing anything with graphics processing it relies on DirectX (Windows only) graphics tools and libraries. Since they started in a Windows environment their code only runs in a Windows environment.
> 
> If they were doing something platform independent it would take longer be more expensive and require more time to get the "polish" they have already achieved.  It isn't impossible just harder and with the already spotty track record of WotC web initiatives failing I can understand why they made the decision they made.  I don't agree with it but management can be blind to the advantages of taking the slightly harder route.




What is this "polish" you speak of?  We ARE talking about WOTC's software, right?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 26, 2008)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Speaking as a professional programmer, nothing I've heard announced for the DDI needs any features that they can't accomplish with a decently-designed website and perhaps some Flash programming.  They're doing one or more of:
> 
> Using a bad design (hmm, look at Gleemax.  This one's a gimme.)
> Using inept programmers
> Mandating stupid decisions in the development process



So, you haven't heard about the Virtual Game Table yet? Or the character visualizer?


----------



## Mercule (Apr 26, 2008)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Speaking as a professional programmer, nothing I've heard announced for the DDI needs any features that they can't accomplish with a decently-designed website and perhaps some Flash programming.  They're doing one or more of:



Speaking as a professional web programmer, the first sign of an inept programmer is to make something that doesn't need Internet connection into a web application.

Personally, things like the Google word processing app and it's ilk annoy the crap out of me.  If there is no good reason for me to not be able to take my laptop to a mountain shack and do whatever it is the app's main purpose is, then the app should be built to allow it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Speaking as a professional web programmer, the first sign of an inept programmer is to make something that doesn't need Internet connection into a web application.
> 
> Personally, things like the Google word processing app and it's ilk annoy the crap out of me.  If there is no good reason for me to not be able to take my laptop to a mountain shack and do whatever it is the app's main purpose is, then the app should be built to allow it.



The only benefit I see for something like Google Apps is that your documents are available anywhere (at least to you). But I'd prefer to be able to work offline. At least as long as I can't take my DSL flat rate with me everywhere


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2008)

The mac users I know personally are a peculiar lot. They spend equal amounts of time expressing their smug self-satisfaction over joining in the minority of folks who have escaped the terrible clutches of Windows and expressing their bitter resentment that they don't enjoy all the perks of belonging to the majority. "Yay, my computer never freezes up. Boo, I can't play City of Heroes".

Anyway, just run a virtual Windows session and be done with it.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Apr 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The only benefit I see for something like Google Apps is that your documents are available anywhere (at least to you). But I'd prefer to be able to work offline. At least as long as I can't take my DSL flat rate with me everywhere




Google Apps is currently deploying offline access, phasing it in over their account base.  I just got it this week....

Will DDI support it?


----------



## Elephant (Apr 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, you haven't heard about the Virtual Game Table yet? Or the character visualizer?




Both of those could easily be done in Flash.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 27, 2008)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Both of those could easily be done in Flash.



Please direct me to a Flash application with a similar 3D qualities and user interaction. They might exist, but I certainly don't know any, and in this case, I have to see it before I can believe it.

If the 3D Gametable could be done in Flash, then Neverwinter Nights 1 could also have been done in Flash.


----------



## azhrei_fje (Apr 27, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> The mac users I know personally are a peculiar lot.



I bought a MacBook Pro last summer.  I have never owned a Mac before.

I didn't buy it because I love Macs or because I love Apple.  In fact, Apple's practices regarding OSX are starting to piss me off as much as Microsoft's practices regarding Windows.

I bought it because more and more of the students in my corporate training classes have Macs and I wanted to understand the environment so that I could relate better to those students.  When students ask me if I like my Mac, I admit that some things are a joy to use and other things are annoying.

I've been a Unix bigot since the late 1970s.  Back then I had pity for the people stuck with an Apple ][ or DOS.  In addition to having Unix V7 running on a M68K 32-bit chip with a flat addressing space, I also owned two Amigas in the early 1980s -- they also used a flat addressing space and programming was easier than the segmented architecture that the Intel 80x86 line has been saddled with.  And first and foremost I'm a programmer.

While I like some of the features of the Mac (it runs a modified BSD Unix after all!), there are also a few things that annoy me.  I can see myself wiping OSX off this machine and putting Kubuntu Linux on it within 8-12 months.  By that time, I will have had my fill of Apple's proprietary policies.

Not all Mac owners are Mac fans.  Or Apple fans.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 28, 2008)

Alan Shutko said:
			
		

> Google Apps is currently deploying offline access, phasing it in over their account base.  I just got it this week....



So, one could use it to store docs locally and privately, then?  I don't mind my game notes stored online, but I've used Word to write contracts, wills, resumes, and other sundry private docs that I don't want stored on Google's servers for posterity.

Not that I'm likely to switch, given that I've already got Word and actually use some of the VBA and other proprietary features, but I am curious.


----------



## Elephant (Apr 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Please direct me to a Flash application with a similar 3D qualities and user interaction. They might exist, but I certainly don't know any, and in this case, I have to see it before I can believe it.
> 
> If the 3D Gametable could be done in Flash, then Neverwinter Nights 1 could also have been done in Flash.




A 3D gametable to "help" play D&D online really misses the point.  I stand by my original assertion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 28, 2008)

Elephant said:
			
		

> A 3D gametable to "help" play D&D online really misses the point.  I stand by my original assertion.



I suppose a software developer trying to say his client that the software he wants is not needed is also missing the point. 
I am very much in favor of solid requirements engineering, but this seems to go a little too far.


----------



## heruca (Apr 28, 2008)

Here is a virtual tabletop program done entirely in Flash. So yes, it's doable, but probably not ideal, despite being multi-platform.


----------



## caudor (May 27, 2008)

I'm a D&D player and Mac user.  In both ways, I'm pretty much in a minority of people who enjoy something that most people do not.

Does it really cost more to develop cross-platform applications?  I'm not qualified to say.  I'm just disappointed with the "Windows Only" solution.        It's like...yeah, let's all do our little part to help the monopoly become more necessary--even to enjoy D&D's new online tools. 

Nevertheless, it's not going to stop me from using the DDI though; it will simply be less convenient.  I bought my current Mac knowing that it could run Windows in addition to OS X.  Thus, I can have both.

I'm not surprised, just disappointed.


----------



## Raevynn (Jun 3, 2008)

RtrnofdMax said:
			
		

> While it may not solve all of the issues with DDi, HeroForge will be available to satisfy the char gen needs of those with Macs. In fact, it will run on PCs, MACs and Linux. Check out the link in my sig to sign up for the forums and get more information.





Well if that is true.. you just sold a pre-order and I will see you at the booth...

And to be honest.. its not about mac vs PC vs Linux...  think of it like this...  it should be about platform choice.. that is why things like Adobe Air, Java, Web 2.0 apps exists...  I for one use a mac.. I have windows running in VMWare/Parallels for 2 applications.. HeroForge (damn macros) and QuickBooks (mac version sucks)...  Will I try out DDi.. sure.. *if* it works in VMWare/Parallels.....  if not..  I wont use it...  

And the argument of "many companies dont make windows and mac software" is getting old... the logic is flawed...  MICROSOFT OFFICE windows and mac, QUICKEN windows and mac... OpenOffice... etc....

Blizzard isnt the only company doing this...  


but again... it comes down to choice... hell what about OLPC... would that be nice for developing countries to have access too?  

But hey thats my 2cp...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 3, 2008)

heruca said:
			
		

> Here is a virtual tabletop program done entirely in Flash. So yes, it's doable, but probably not ideal, despite being multi-platform.




Hmm, I just had a look at it and on Windows it is unusably broken for me 

Plus, it isn't anything like the 3D implementation of DDI


----------

