Nearly two decades ago, Autodesk abandoned AutoCAD on the Mac. But now perhaps it is seeing too many sales lost to the likes of ArchiCAD to architecture clients, NX to mechanical engineering customers, and SketchUp to designers. Autodesk marketing calls it "trying to stay in tune with our customers," and are asking Mac and AutoCAD users to fill out a survey.
From the survey, we can get an idea of what the first (second, actually) version of AutoCAD for the Mac might not have:
- No paper space.
- No command line.
- No 3D modeling or editing.
- Fewer APIs, or none at all.
- Running in emulation mode (Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMware Fusion)
One option is to have an LT-like product for the Mac, initially. From the survey, we learn that Autodesk considers MicroStation, Ashlar, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks, PowerCADD, and SketchUp its primary competitors. Notably, Siemens' NX is missing from the list.
I know from Autodesk's first release of the Mac version (around 1990), there was much rumination over whether to make the software more like the DOS/Windows version or more like a Mac app. A hybrid approach is sure to annoy both camps.
Filling out the survey lets you sign up to be (maybe) contacted as a beta tester.
not McNeel ?
www.irhino3d.com
Posted by: Tom | Apr 02, 2009 at 12:49 PM
How fast do you wanna bet SolidWorks has Mac version now? This will be funny to watch.
Posted by: Matt Lombard | Apr 02, 2009 at 03:05 PM
The problem with most API's nowadays is that they're either tied into MFC/Win32 or even worse: the .Net. Outside Windows, that spells trouble. There are things like Wine but I'd expect any attempt to become another AutoCAD R13 experience.
Posted by: Henrik Vallgren | Apr 03, 2009 at 03:43 AM
The last version of MicroStation released for the (classic) Mac OS was version SE, which won't easily work on Intel Macs (or in versions from 10.5 onwards due to Apple's taking the classic OS behind the woodshed and shooting it in the head off-stage when Leopard came out).
The problems for both Bentley and Autodesk in producing Mac OS X versions is that they've tied themselves to Microsoft's apron-strings in the form of DirectX.
The same DirectX, which (and I say this between gritted teeth) can't deal with dual monitors, unlike OpenGL. Way to go, guys.
Posted by: DF | Apr 03, 2009 at 05:02 AM
(Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMware Fusion) are not emulators.
They run Windows no different than on a Dell--just that Parallels and Fusion run the 2 OS side by side. Virtual PC was an emulator.
Posted by: Gytis | Apr 03, 2009 at 08:20 AM
A non-OSX native version of AutoCAD is no Mac version. Mac users can already boot to Windows using Bootcamp, at which point it is just another PC running AutoCAD like everyone else. Emulators are not really an option as peformance is generally inadequate. It has to be native or there is no point really .. OSX is why you chose a Mac.
Posted by: os | Apr 03, 2009 at 10:08 AM
There is the mono project, which is a cross-platform, open source .NET development framework. Although I guess the original application code would need a lot of rewrite to make it work.
And what about Bricsys? They're working on a Linux version of Briscad. From there, how hard could it be to make an OS X version from it? It looks to me like it would be a smart move.
Posted by: Norm C. | Apr 03, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Unless you have run AutoCAD on Parallels properly configured to run in a Windows on a properly outfitted machine (ie. plenty of Ram), it is very unfair to give opinions about the speed of the performance. Most are shocked at just how responsive it is. A product such as the AutoCAD Clone progeCAD Professional ($399) simply flies. So, to all of you naysayers go check out http://www.autocadformac.com
Posted by: AutoCAD-IntelliCAD | Apr 03, 2009 at 02:04 PM
NX and other Inventor competitors probably would not be considered as competitive with AutoCAD.
If Autodesk is loosing seats of anything to NX running on MAX or Linux, it is Inventor seats, not AutoCAD seats.
Posted by: Tony Tanzillo | Apr 04, 2009 at 01:08 AM
Interesting to see what comes out of it. I agree with many of the opinions here: make it a proper OSX application or none at all.
But (and this is not always true in OSX apps) provide not the abundance of floating windows, make sure keyboard access is fully functional, make it compatible (plugins! scripting! files etc...).
Not an easy task with Direct3D for viewports, .NET for plugins and all the other Microsoft technologies they have embedded (e.g. VBA which seems to be going out, slowly).
RhinoOSX is a good approach (but currently incomplete and lacking plugins such as Grasshopper).
Posted by: Stefan Boeykens | Apr 06, 2009 at 03:02 AM
While an AutoCAD on the Mac would be nice, Revit on the Mac would be way nicer!
I haven't used AutoCAD in many years now, and doubt I could go back anyways. Revit is also owned by Autodesk, and already has a lot of people out there (like me) running it on Boot Camp/Parallels anyways.
But with the DirectX and .Net API I doubt we'll see it anytime soon.
Posted by: Jeffrey McGrew | Apr 07, 2009 at 08:11 PM
Nobody really gives a about Mac. We want a GNU/Linux version.
Posted by: Jack | Apr 09, 2009 at 08:57 PM
Do you all really believe that an Autocad for Mac survey posted on April 1st is for real?
Posted by: Larry Leake | Apr 12, 2009 at 09:13 AM
bring it on mac, get to the 21st century :)
Posted by: Alex | May 12, 2009 at 03:00 PM