Since IT replace all the Thinkpad to Macbook, now many engineers are complaining why Creo don't support Apple MacOS say NX supports Macbook, why not replace Creo by NX, this is a big trouble for me. It wastes a lots of times to install two operation system and switch each other day by day.
It can cost as much as 50% of the original development cost to rehost, test, and market to a secondary operating system. I expect that the proportion of Macbook owners relative to Windows will never exceed this, so there is no economic reason to try.
You can see the limited support Siemens has for NX on OSX: Hardware and Software Certifications: Siemens PLM Software It isn't extensive except for Windows and appears to be decreasing over time. Redhat and SUSE Linux appear to have better support than OSX and are probably the reason it is available on OSX due to the similarity of OSX to Linux.
In order of expected rehost for any Windows software:
2) AmigaOS ( I can wish can't I?)
3) BeOS ( keep the dream alive)
5) NeXT ( because Display Postscript deserves a chance)
It isn't quite as bad as all that for a product like Creo, which was designed for platform independence from the beginning (and supported VMS and Unix before Windows). It's still a major undertaking, and will happen as we find enough customers wanting a particular platform to make it a good use of our limited resources.
(Note I don't have authority to comment on any specific plans we may or not have, and please do not take this note as saying there are or aren't any. Thanks!)
How bad would it be? Sure, keep those options open.
I am looking at about 30 years of software development and the small number of companies that have been able to support multiple OSs. Wordperfect was the last one to really make an effort. A certain big company has enough cash to port their office products, but I know they weren't designed to be portable and they don't do it for the income.
I know that PTC originally split the underlying code from the GUI, such as MOTIF et al, so it could be ported among the various UNIXes with the resulting custom code for the supporting the interface moved to Windows. Perhaps I'm mistaken but the last time I looked WF used almost no standard Windows dialog boxes, making interfacing with tools like AutoIt almost impossible. Being not-native makes porting easier, but then it doesn't fit so well on the target with user expectations; one of the reason that Solidworks seems to feel better to those who like it.
I worked with Pro/Engineer when it was only usable on UNIX (HPUX, Solaris, Ultrix, et al). At the time it seemed to be UNIX only and it still bears that mark, though a lot of changes to the outside interface have occurred to obscure them. A lot of users were looking forward to Itanium before HP and Intel screwed that up for the HPUX side. I recall my disappointment when I was moved to the Windows NT version.
I know it ran on DEC equipment, but I don't recall a VMS version**. Even at the time that would have been a clear waste of money to develop. Ken Olson had enough missteps at the time the writing was on the wall.
**It could have, but I don't see any docs. We were a VAXn company and would have given priority to VMS if it was available, but we ended up with HPUX. Still, Cutler took VMS and made WNT (one letter down, lucky coincidence) so, in a way, it now runs primarily on VMS.
OSX support was justified as Apple uses NX for their own product design. I know the port was done about 3 versions before it was made available to other NX customers.
I wonder how much that cost Apple. In any case, the Linux versions predate the OSX versions by a number of years, suggesting that the groundwork for the port was already in place and not done cold.
"those that have a Mac version, i.e. UG NX require X11 and you generally have a compromised experience." from What mechanical CAD programs are used by Apple to design their products? - Quora
The Mechanical CAD engineering job listings for Apple mention NX/Team center
Since then it seems that NX runs afoul of OS protections and they are still pending resolution for the NX11 on the latest OSX version. They are also TBD on the latest Linux versions.
As I stated in my previous reply, Apple has been a Siemens NX customer since 1991 and fully committed to it with the release of UG2 V10 in 1994. At that time Apple used SGI workstations. After NX was released in 2004 or so, Apple and Siemens worked together to port NX to MacOS. This was released to Apple at NX4 and available for the general customer base at NX6.
With the current capabilities of Windows workstations and their lower cost, I do not see any Unix ports coming back to Creo.
Pretty sad IT group if they make decisions like that without figuring out the software that is used by the company to make money...
Well, maybe pretty typical IT solution, if they can solve all their problems by changing hardware, the rest of the company can figure out how to do their tedious tasks on what they are given.
I don't see PTC porting to anything in the near future. They have dropped support in the last few years for all of their Un*x systems. It would take a big chunk of money for PTC to port to a new OS, IMHO.
They are even dropping some Un*x OS servers from their Windchill family.
Don't hold your breath for a port of Creo to MacOS.
There is no business model that supports such a move.
Unless some company is willing to fund the port, I do not see any reason for PTC to invest in this.
You have Windows virtual machines for MacOS, use them and run a Windows version of Creo.
The reason Siemen's NX is on MacOS is that Apple funded part of the port back at NX4. They did not release the MacOS version to others until NX6. Apple has been a Unigraphics/NX customer since 1991 and committed fully to it in 1994 when UG V10 was released. Before the MacOS port, Apple used SGI workstations.