Aye as I replied to you above some games even work better in WINE than Windows. Still I think it will be awhile before GOG starts officially porting WINE games to Mac. In general its tricky and more difficult. Plus they have a lot of DOSBox & ScummVM releases to get through and also who knows what the licensing agreements they have with the publishers are for non-DOSBox games. One day it may very well happen, but it may take awhile. Honestly I'd expect official Linux support first. ;)

Thank you so much for listening to your customers GoG! I am so happy that this wish of mine (and many others') has been fulfilled.

Honestly, I'd choose a distributor, or any other company for that matter, who speaks truthfully and openly, over companies that use market speech and lies to hide the truth.

GOG isn't bad in that matter, but if I ever saw a company that isn't afraid to publicly speak about their disadvantages, faulty decisions they've made, their doubts and other "weaknesses", I'd be willing to support such a company much more than one that claims it is the best and that no competition even exists.

If I ever saw a company admit "Well, if you prefer stable solutions, you'd better try one of our competitors", I'd definitely search no longer, but help this one improve it's stability issues.

Surprisingly, I only see such levels of honesty in non-profit organizations, but maybe it's just that such companies don't advertise too much and are less known?

In any case, I see GOG.com around the middle of the spectrum - they are willing to go against the tide to some degree, but they do succumb to some overwhelming bad market practices at other times. (One thing I'd love them to stop is to advertise games as "addictive" - I mean it's a really bad thing if a game causes an addiction, so you play it even when you don't want to and you no longer enjoy it. I personally play many of the "Just one more turn" games and I don't find them as addictive as advertised, and I'm really glad about it. On the other hand many modern games use special techniques designed to cause addiction (such as "play everyday or you'll lose some free bonus"), and this is a really evil practice that should be banned.)

Mostly not. But the "...so I can get support" part is usually implied with the "everyone else has one...". It's like back in the day when they sold software at actual stores. If they wanted to pop out to the store and get something, it was available for Windows. So they got Windows. I'm thinking back to the pre-Win95 days here, when I saw exactly what you're seeing, except on Windows. It had nothing to do with cool, unless you consider peer group support to be something trivial.

I wasn't suggesting that you distribute packages, but that you post instructions. For some of them it would be "innoextract, cp and dosbox" I'm sure.

I don't think I was saying you expected every GOG game on Linux today any more than I expected every GOG game on Mac today. Prior to this announcement I bought a few things elsewhere because they actually included the (developer provided) Mac binary, whereas GOG just buried it. I wanted them to just post a link to the existing binary as well, but they don't work that way. They want to support what they sell.

You can use a "normal" mouse just fine. Because bundled Mac mice are junk, much like every other bundled mouse with any computer.

The whole logic of the single mouse button was that right-clicking was non-intuitive and "hidden" behaviour. Mac OS was designed so that right-clicking was generally unnecessary. Apps designed according to their guidelines should either make some kind of standard menu item, button or drag and drop action instead of a hidden menu. And it does make for a nice clean design, I must say.

That being said, being an old timer with computers, I just plug in my Logitech mouse and start right-clicking. Done. Or you can go into settings and basically check a checkbox that says "let me right-click". That's it. Nobody's "stuck" with anything.
If you're getting a Mac mainly to run Windows stuff, you're probably not going to be happy.

AFAIK Apple will take back custom built computers, check the refurbished list on their site; there's all sorts of non-standard upgrades available. I would have leaned much more heavily on them, if I was you. (And if you had Apple add the RAM you got soaked for it...)

Bow, no, they wouldn't.

I called several times, spoke to 3 managers and threatened a lawsuit (they told me when I bought the thing it was fully returnable, even with the extra RAM then changed their mind).

My time was better spent just selling the godawful thing, taking a loss and remembering never ever ever buy an Apple product again. 9 years later, and I never have :)

Please, son, I've got Amigas. I do 68000 assembly. You're preaching to the choir.

I just happen to be one of those people that are asked repeatedly "can you use this old machine" and I say... "why, yes."

Except now, cuz I'm out of room ):

That's very odd, but then 9-10 years ago they possibly had a different policy. It's a long time to hold a grudge :)

Nah, no grudge. But when a company charges me $2,000 for a computer and then doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, you can guaranfuckingtee it that I'm never going to buy a product from them again :)

I need POSIX; and various engineers at Apple don't understand POSIX but they understand os7/8/9 cruft. Things like "oh, you don't REALLY mean for that to be a read only file, I'll change it for you." (A finder thing. No, finder, you may NOT change my files.)

Yes, I'm a Unix person more than a Mac person, and when they were a damn fine POSIX "under the hood, it's Unix" setup - it was great. Now, it isn't. Things I set change on me, which is a Windows-like thing. No good. Ain't putting up with that. Thus, why I won't use any of the crippled osX's - that means anything above Leopard. And, honestly, I'm not too thrilled with Leopard.

(So I agree with you 100% on Lion, and above.)

I'm basically not using osX these days, instead, using Linux and BSD, mainly because of this. But I have no problem supporting GOG and it's nice to use the old PPC machines for gaming (:

Oh, and don't get me started on the broken EFI implementations. Even worse than their buggy Open Firmware implementations.

You did assume I only have PPC macs and that I haven't upgraded. I have a nice 13" Macbook from work, but it's screen is far too small. It runs ArchLinux just fine, tho. Much nicer than Lion. Which is the version Apple supports on it. Nope, not downgrading... will just use Arch (:

(And will, of course, try to support both older osX things as well as Linux for games.)

If you're happy with Windows, ..if you're happy with anything in general really, then it's because something else probably doesn't offer you much to "switch sides." Asking us to convince you won't change your mind since you're clearly not ready to switch, or you would've explored it yourself.

As for the mouse buttons, why stop at 2? Why not 3, 4 or 5, as many as the fingers we have? (⁊_⁊) The vast majority of everyday computing can be performed well enough with just one button - ask any modern smartphone or tablet user.

Don't you realize that all the touchscreen mobile devices you see today have effectively only ONE button? Yes you can tap with multiple fingers in different places, but that's the equivalent of having multiple pointers (mice) not multiple buttons.

I'd been using Windows all my life too and only recently made the switch to  OS X a few months ago (and boy am I going to stay ^^.) I got one of those Magic Mice by Apple and even though it supports "right"-clicking I thought I'd try the single-button mode that Mac users had been accustomed to for so many years - and guess what, it works surprisingly well! In the end it's all a matter of what you're used to.

Parallels Desktop works great and lets me play some Direct3D games in OS X at 60 FPS :)
EDIT: Oh nevermind you said PPC :( Yes you should upgrade :D I'm on Mountain Lion and can't see why one'd rather be on an older OS.

nnah, people with PCs switch/return to Macs, not the other way around (^_-)

There's nothing practical I can complain about, so I'll just say the announcement prickled my pear in the wrong way.

;)

I'm glad that reason has prevailed in this thread over irrationality and emotion.

I just realized that the Imperial Glory Mac version is not only true Mac-native, but it's from Feral Interactive! Whoa. (Usually they're much more expensive because it's from a different publisher... and a highly regarded studio at that).

They've explained it several times now, mostly through answers on the forums. Providing support for Linux is much harder due to the high amount of different distributions - additionally it seems that more people are using OS X than Linux. I don't like Apple either but it's a solid argument why Mac support comes first.