How did Unity make the scene with MAC format before windows. Seems to me the user base was strangled by doing that. Not being an Apple or MAC user I lost interest in Unity when looking at new engines two years ago, luckily I have found a pleasant surprise.
With what I have seen so far it won’t take long too regain anything if it were lost, this program is just absolutely slick and the documentation is probably among the best effort by any company. Mucho successo
TRM
There’s a world outside of windows, and quite a few software companies make a living writing Mac-only software.
And the main reason that Unity is so “slick” is that it started out as a Mac program. You see, us Mac people we demand that our software is actually useable. 
I didn’t know Unity was written for Media Access Control format. Thats really slick if true.
Not really. It’s not that uncommon for dual-platform apps have around 40-50% of their sales going to the Mac version. It’s a mistake to assume that a much larger number of Windows machines automatically translates to a much larger user base.
–Eric
Except iPhone development just boosted Mac users by a huge number 
There are two things there that occur to me: first, by the percentages it doesn’t seem like there are a lot of Mac users. Going by browser stats, it’s usually somewhere between 5-10%. It’s not a huge chunk of the total number of computer users, true, but that’s still easily tens of millions of users.
The other thing is who those users are. A huge chunk of Windows’ market share is business users and the lowest of the low-end home users. None of those people will be in the market for a game creation tool anyway. Macs have traditionally been disproportionately represented in creative fields and higher-end home users (which has long been Apple’s strategy). It may be a niche, but it’s a niche that’s very compatible with what Unity set out to be.
Anyway, welcome aboard!
MAC is for people who know even less what they’re doing
To start, johan, MAC has to do with network identification. Mac is an operating system.
And to continue, Macs are for people who want to get things done without their OS getting in the way.
We (Apple users) have a lower user base, however mac users are in general much more demanding on the UI/GUI. Hence Unity’s UI/GUI.
Also ever since NS joined Apple, we have had superior dev tools, which I imagine played a part in at least the designing of Unity.
I agree that Unity could only have come from the Mac ecosystem. This is coming from someone who switched to OS X in order to use Unity. It’s hard to understand unless you’ve really immersed yourself in it, but the “Mac way” of doing things and the “Windows way” of doing things are vastly different.
Take one small example: To import a PSD into Unity, you copy the file into the project. Period. The Windows developer would–just by habit, because that’s how things are done–pop open a dialog box of some kind, because you have to, right? Do you want to separate the layers into sprite slots, or flatten? What resolution do you want this at? Color correction on, or off? What texture compression?
These small decisions add up, and make Unity the smooth-as-butter experience it is today. Unity’s experience is informed by OS X itself and the great software that exists on the Mac.
So I guess the people who made Unity didn’t know what they were doing?
It’s a computer. OS X is an operating system. (As long as we’re being pedantic here…)
–Eric
Touché Eric
You guess wrong.
Your logic is making no sense…
Well, from my personal experience…
You buy a Mac because you have no choice (you need Final Cut, or Shake, or some particular app that’s only on OSX).
Only pretentious (yet moronic) people in advertising actually use Macs for emails, web browsing, etc. (This isn’t made up, I’ve worked in advertising for years).
So, you’ve got pretentious idiots (and lets not forget the DJ/Indie musician crowd), or you’ve got people who use the platform for professional reasons only.
That sounds obscenely negative, but in fact it says to me that what you have is an obscenely profitable platform to develop niche software on
I’m a PC whore through and through, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect building a profitable enterprise around a niche market.
That’s just silly, and has nothing to do with reality. There are millions of regular people who use Macs because they like them better. They don’t sell that many per quarter to just professionals and pretentious people; there aren’t enough of them.
Yes. Might want to work on that, and find something constructive to contribute.
–Eric
MACs would get more users if they made os x open to other platforms, not only to their “special” computers.
If linux or windows had their own “computer” then rarely anyone would use them.
I love building and modding my own pc, and with mac that’s either very hard or impossible to do.
Maybe the reason is much simpler… for example, because the company founders were all Mac users? :roll:
Hehe, that’s certainly true. But think about it from a another perspective: How many game engines are out there? And how many of them are like Unity? Maybe there’s something special about a game engine (actually, I’d say “game authoring tool”) created by a company founded by Mac users
I’ve switched from C64 to Amiga to Windows, then had a couple of Windows versions (started with 3.1, then NT, ended with XP … never used Windows 95 or 98, or Vista - to keep my sanity ). Then I moved to Mac (still using XP for Visual Studio and Office … Visual Studio because I think it’s the best C# IDE available on the market, Office only because I own a license and am used to it). I’m currently moving from Firefox to Safari and considering moving from Thunderbird to Apple Mail. And that’s for good reasons: Stability and convenience of use.
In my opinion, in general, a typical game engine developed by and for Windows users will be looking somewhat like Torque. A typical game engine developed by a company founded by Mac users will look more like Unity.
Mac software usually has fewer features - but those features are usually designed in a more elegant way. Windows software usually has more features - but they’re in general more difficult to find/use because they simply are not designed as well (which is natural - you can only either add more features, or spend more time with improving less features). In the Windows world, you get millions of configuration possibilities (different hardware, different software, different variations of the same kind of software), in the Mac world, you get a few.
Of course, that’s a generalization. And of course, it’s also a matter of what you prefer (not so much about what’s “better” or “worse”): Some prefer more features (and more options for hardware combinations). Others prefer a “cleaner” design.
As I prefer being productive to spending time optimizing a vast configuration space, I’m now using more and more Apple Mac hardware and Mac OS X software