Seriously, why does anyone think it's easy to design something that works on both Windows and Mac.  It has nothing to do with the fact that Macs have Intel processors now.  It has everything to do with software platform, and Apples closed policies don't help.  For some reason Mac people think they are this giant growing contingent and WoTC is ignoring they're complaints, but it just isn't worth it for them.  The "MacOS only" crowd is just too small a percentage to justify the amount of work and cost for negligable or negative profit.  It's as simple as that.

I would consider this to be especially true since you can simply use Parallels or VirtualBox or any other Virtual Machine software you can find.  If you are nerd enough to play MTG like the rest of us, you are nerd enough to figure that out! 

Also does anyone REALLY want a web-based version of MTGO? I for one don't ever want to play MTGO in my browser. Ever.

I haven't fired up the new UI beta for awhile, but when I did, it was somewhat promising.

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:42AM, cycotron14 wrote:

Seriously, why does anyone think it's easy to design something that works on both Windows and Mac.  It has nothing to do with the fact that Macs have Intel processors now.  It has everything to do with software platform, and Apples closed policies don't help.  For some reason Mac people think they are this giant growing contingent and WoTC is ignoring they're complaints, but it just isn't worth it for them.

Furthermore, this is not new news. We have known for a long time that the new client was not Mac compatible.

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:49AM, Xarby wrote:

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:44AM, alextfish wrote:

Jul 12, 2012 -- 7:23AM, Soulflame wrote:

What is even more important is the 'feel': does it feel smooth? is the clicking responsive etc. So I hope that's ok (will of course check that Monday when I can try it out )

That's a very good point. My puter's pretty nippy (Starcraft II loads in 3-4 seconds), but the MTGO client v3 is horribly, painfully slow at responding to clicks in a large number of cases. Horrible UX. I really hope the new client is much, much better at that.

As of recent builds, yes, the interface feels very responsive.  I'm not sure what beta testers are and are not allowed to say at this point, so I'll just say that I find the new interface to be an upgrade in many ways.  It's not 100% finished and polished yet - and they admit as much in the article - but it is quite usable and has a lot of promise/potential.    

Agreed. Also, Ryan is not exaggerating about the download/install process. It is MUCH faster, and there is no "second download" to update (nor will there be).

Jul 11, 2012 -- 11:17PM, 420gabriel wrote:

As someone who is has been on this beta for a long while, and was on the original v3 beta I have a few comments. Some positive, some not.
1) It is not ready, and is clearly still a beta. Wotc are kidding themselves if they think that this is anywhere near a finished product.
2)It is functionally worse than our current v3 in nearly every way. Almost every "improvement" is useless or worse than useless.
3)It is substantially uglier than the current v3, and thats saying something.
4)Chat is actually worse than on current v3! Who knew that was possible?
5) it still looks and feels like a 3rd rate program made many years ago. It does not look or feel like a program written within the last 2 years.
6)As with the original v3 beta, wotc has ignored many of the issues brought up by beta testers.

Ok, and some good stuff:

1) Making your deck while drafting is nice.
2)installing is easy and much much quicker. Smaller hd space needed though I doubt that a few hundred megs matters to anyone nowadays.
3)Decks autosave and there is more options to sort cards with
4)when someone is dc you actually know, instead of trying to guess whether its you or them.

Will I be switching over?
No way.

There needs to be massive changes before the new version is something I would pay to play on.

Have you played with recent builds?  Perhaps this is personal preference, but I strongly disagree with many of your negatives.

1)  They admitted right in the article it is still beta and unfinished.  No one is saying it is ready for release.
2)  Mostly disagree.  There are only a few minor things I miss like the ability to see how many players are online and the 'average CMC' calculation in the deck stats.  Chat is better, the duel scene is better, the graphics are better, drafting/sealed building is better, deck building/saving system is better, collection/deck filtering options are better, there is more help/support for newer players (though i still think a true tutorial or link to one would go a long way as being new can be very overwhelming)...i could go on.  
3)  Are you aware you can change themes?  Some look better than others.  I like most views way better than the obselete look of v3.  Liliana them is the one i like best, personally.  
4)  Chat's dramatically improved with better docking options, ability to have it float (on another monitor entirely), splitting game actions from chat in a logical way, and especially none of the current nonsense with text being cut off until you re-size.  This improved dramatically recently (along with a lot of other things), so again not sure if you have tried beta recently.
5)  Are we playing the same client?  Feels much more modern to me.
6) Having been in the beta for a long while now, totally disagree.  Again, most progress has been made in the most recent few builds IMO.

In any case....everyone can give it a try soon and see what they think.
 

I am mostly interested in multiplayer, no mention in the article.