Hello all. I recently switched over to mac and I was wondering if and how I can run the games from Good Old Games on it. Is there going to be any support for it in the future?
Also, what solution would be recommended. I don't really feel like booting into Bootcamp when I just want to play one of the game I got from here.

Yeah, though wrapping the Windows binaries in a Cider sauce isn't "porting", and that's what most companies are doing. Blizzard's been doing the right thing since after StarCraft (and with re-releases of that game as well), native Windows and Mac versions on the same disc so the Mac version doesn't have to compete with the windows version for shelf space.

You could try as well a virtualizer like virtualbox, which now has support for direct3d on windows guests. There's a mac osx port of vbox i think.

Note that to use Direct3D functionality in VirtualBox you need to install WineD3D; additionally, the OS X version of VirtualBox is for Intel CPUs only. VirtualBox's 3D support is incomplete, so game support isn't anywhere close to what it would be running Windows natively.

Yeah, but it's better than nothing, and most macs are now intel-based anyways. Hmm, i didnt know VirtualBox needed any additional external applications for supporting direct3d.
Im seeing on virtualbox's site that wined3d is needed for direct3d support. But wined3d is free too, like virtualbox, so it's worth a try. : ) Virtualbox is working on 3d hardware mode on linux guests too! : D

As is (Dar)Wine (ok, not really, but good luck getting any real windows application to work on PPC, unless they have made large improvements since last I checked), VMWare, and Parallels, and the Cider thingy that many companies use to make their games compatible with Mac.
The only relatively modern non-Intel virtual machine I know of is Microsoft's (previously Connectix') Virtual PC, and they have long since stopped development on the mac version (they never made an MacIntel version).
For old macs (last century macs, that is) there were the OrangePC from Orange Micro (a NuBus or PCI card with an almost complete PC on it [CPU, RAM, graphics, and optionally sound, the rest was emulated], and a Mac program to talk to it and display the PC in a window, like todays virtualisation programs), and the software-only SoftPC from Insignia.

I would just dual boot (BootCamp). It's not that big of a deal and you would get much better performance rather than trying to use virtualization...

Yeah, except I'd rather hang myself than have Windoze anywhere NEAR my hard drive.
Parallels does pretty well with most games that don't require a super-high-end graphics chip (heck, it plays Fallout pretty doggone well).
I was thinking about this (after going back & forth with the GOG team re Descent 2), and I think I may have a solution. Rather than have full Mac compatibility from the outset, have PARTIAL Mac compatibility (those games that use DOSBox and/or ScummVM) to start, and then slowly add in Mac compatibility for the Windows-only titles.
That might work better, and maybe the tech support guys can add a few Mac geeks like myself to the GOG team, thereby ensuring the same customer support for Mac owners as well.
Plus, there are only a very select few digital distribution platforms that work with both Windows AND Mac.
I'm pretty sensitive overall to cross-platform compatibility, and if GOG wants help from its community, especially Mac owners, then they probably should attempt to give us a chance to help them really shake things up in the digital distribution industry.
Just my 2 cents.
BJ

I'm sorry, but just like with Linux, porting games to Mac and then supporting them after the fact is just not worth it to a small (but growing) company like GOG. There aren't enough "non-Windows" gamers out there to produce enough sales to cover the additional cost of doing that, even if the community were to pitch in and help. Maybe, many years from now, when Windows no longer holds a 95% market share (almost a billion machines), it might become worth it...
...of course, we'll all be using Google's OS by then and the Mac users will still be left out in the dark.

yes but allowing .zip download of source files is good enough support for linux imo.

if gog provides zip files, there are bound to be "stupid" windows people who download it instead of the installer and come complaining/asking on how to run the files inside.
Think that it might turn into a support nightmare

just call 'em linux files.

Qbix has an excellent point; zips could end up reflecting negatively on the very thing GOG is trying to provide, which is seamless, native (or native-like) presentation of classic games. Explicitly naming other platforms on the files list could imply that these platforms are supported by GOG, which they are not, and/or that their installation and operation is presented with a level of quality like that of the Windows packages, which is also not true, and this could also hurt GOG's good name.
Don't exaggerate the importance of this matter; the number of people wanting to play on OS X or Linux is extremely small, and most of those have access to Wine or Windows for manual extraction anyway. It makes much more sense to slightly inconvenience a niche audience rather than make things more confusing for everyone else.

these people are pretty smart too. ;)

given the amount of questions I get of windows people who don't understand that they have to download the windows installer for DOSBox. I think there will be people downloading the wrong stuff.

Try 88%, according to quite a few stats.