OSX for PC

[Nothinman]

what's the point of solaris/x86?

Honestly, I'm not sure. And at this point I'm not sure Sun knows either. Solaris 10 is supposed to be open sourced, which depending on the license could be really cool for other OSS projects but I doubt i'll be GPL compatbile, otherwise Linux would make Solaris irrelevant faster than it already is. As far as I'm concerned there is no reason to run Solaris/x86 unless you want to learn Solaris without paying for the hardware and then if you have the chance it would probably make more sense in the long run to migrate your Solaris servers to Linux and kill two birds with one stone.

 

[TheGeek]

Is there any way to play my current Windows games on a mac without using PowerPC???? Also, are the graphics better on a Mac or a Windows PC with the same config?

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: TheGeek
Is there any way to play my current Windows games on a mac without using PowerPC???? Also, are the graphics better on a Mac or a Windows PC with the same config?

Do you mean VirtualPC? It's too slow to play any games.

 

[Nothinman]

Is there any way to play my current Windows games on a mac without using PowerPC????

Well considering that all Macs use PowerPC processors, no.

Also, are the graphics better on a Mac or a Windows PC with the same config?

"better" is really subjective and you can't get the same config, otherwise they would be the same machine and that would mean either OS X would have to run on an x86 box or Windows would have to run on a PowerPC box, neither of which is true currently.

 

[TheGeek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Is there any way to play my current Windows games on a mac without using PowerPC????

Well considering that all Macs use PowerPC processors, no.

Also, are the graphics better on a Mac or a Windows PC with the same config?

"better" is really subjective and you can't get the same config, otherwise they would be the same machine and that would mean either OS X would have to run on an x86 box or Windows would have to run on a PowerPC box, neither of which is true currently.

you know what i mean

 

[Nothinman]

you know what i mean

Not really. How would you describe better? I bet you it would be different from the way I describe it.

 

[TheGeek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

you know what i mean

Not really. How would you describe better? I bet you it would be different from the way I describe it.

Are the graphics on parr with those of a Windows PC? e.g.: Running Halo on a Mac with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details vs. running Halo on a PC with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details.

 

[thirdlegstump]

No it's not going to be any different as far as gaming graphics quality goes. Well the PC will probably be faster FPS wise.

When people say that Macs are better for graphics, they just mean that in publishing and 2D graphics, the set industry standard is working on a Mac using Mac versions of PS, ILL, QX etc. with Mac fonts so doing the same thing on a PC and trying to share files or send files for separation or printing will not be a smooth job..so it's in a sense, inferior...

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: TheGeek
Are the graphics on parr with those of a Windows PC? e.g.: Running Halo on a Mac with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details vs. running Halo on a PC with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details.

Do you mean framerates, or appearance? Appearance wise there were a couple of things in the PC version that weren't in the Mac port because the features (specular color was one IIRC) weren't present in the OpenGL drivers. This might have been fixed by now, though: Apple's been quick in making improvements to OpenGL; and the Halo 1.5 patch did a whole lot. 10.3.7 came out about a month ago and had a lot of OpenGL fixes, and 10.3.8 is in the works with even more.

Framerate wise, I'm not sure. But I would guess it might be lower than on a PC:

Something everyone needs to understand on Mac game performance is that high end games like this generally start out at a 30-40% slower frame rate right off the top from running on the Mac. There are a variety of reasons for this, from compiler code generation to OpenGL differences between PC and Mac. So for most games it is a HUGE optimization effort to even get the Mac version to run close to as fast as the PC. It's not a fun fact, but it's there. And it's something Aspyr spends an incredible amount of time worrying about and working on for each game.

That's from Glenda Adams, cofounder of Westlake Interactive and the current Director of Development for Aspyr Media, so she certainly knows what she's talking about.

 

[Nothinman]

Are the graphics on parr with those of a Windows PC? e.g.: Running Halo on a Mac with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details vs. running Halo on a PC with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details.

Does Halo even run on OS X?

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Does Halo even run on OS X?

Yes:

System Requirements:

Minimum: Macintosh computer with 800MHz G4/G5 or faster processor, Mac OS X v10.2.8 or higher, 256MB RAM, 32MB AGP Video Card (GeForce 2MX/ATI 7500 or better), 1.4GB hard disk space. Internet or LAN connection required for online play.

Recommended: 1GHz G4/G5 or faster processor, Mac OS X v10.3, 512MB RAM, 64MB AGP Video Card (GeForce 4ti-ATI 9000 or better).

 

[Dennis Travis]

Nothinman,

Halo OSX

 

[Nothinman]

Interesting, I figured since MS owns them now they wouldn't want them wasting their time on a port.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
No it's not going to be any different as far as gaming graphics quality goes. Well the PC will probably be faster FPS wise.

When people say that Macs are better for graphics, they just mean that in publishing and 2D graphics, the set industry standard is working on a Mac using Mac versions of PS, ILL, QX etc. with Mac fonts so doing the same thing on a PC and trying to share files or send files for separation or printing will not be a smooth job..so it's in a sense, inferior...

It's mostly for legacy reasons..

You see apps like photoshop were originally made for the Apple line of computers because the graphic and sound capability of PCs were very inferior for a long time. Back when people were screwing around thinking that 256 colors on 640x480 resolutions were the bomb people were having SVGA-style and greater graphics on high-end Apple and Unix workstations.

Back before creative ever came out with the very first soundblaster cards apple users on macs had multichannel sound to play around with.

Also dealing with large files were nicer because SCSI was standard on Macs so you could do things like hook up to high end equipment and even play and BURN CDs!!! Which was not possible on PCs unless you bought expensive add-on cards. Plus there was a plethura of expensive hardware and software that would only work well with a Mac and the PC didn't have the horsepower to handle without paying thru the nose.

macs are still popular for graphical work becuase that's what people are used to and they are familar with Macs. Plus the cronic security, virus, worms that plague any network with large numbers of Windows machines are a non-issue pretty much with OS X.

OS 9 and the anemic G4 were beginning to drive people away in large numbers though. Apple was on a definate downward spiral for a while there.

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Interesting, I figured since MS owns them now they wouldn't want them wasting their time on a port.

Bungie did not port the Mac version of Halo; it was ported by Westlake Interactive and published by MacSoft.

 

[Nothinman]

Bungie did not port the Mac version of Halo; it was ported by Westlake Interactive and published by MacSoft.

Well they still had to allow them, which isn't exactly in their track record.

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Bungie did not port the Mac version of Halo; it was ported by Westlake Interactive and published by MacSoft.

Well they still had to allow them, which isn't exactly in their track record.

Who, MS or Bungie? It's certainly in Bungie's track record. They were a Mac-only developer for a long time, and when they started doing PC development, their releases were hybrid (both the Mac and PC versions on the same CD). In fact, Halo was first shown publicly during the 1999 MacWorld New York keynote address.* After MS bought them out in 2000, Bungie made a promise to their fans that there would be a Mac version of Halo. And it came (three years later).


*If you want to see it, there's a movie here (26.7 MB .mov)

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Are the graphics on parr with those of a Windows PC? e.g.: Running Halo on a Mac with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details vs. running Halo on a PC with 512MB RAM, a single 1.8GHz processer, and a 6800GT at maximum res and details.

Does Halo even run on OS X?

I happen to be a proud owner of Halo on my 1GHz Mac. Runs very well too!

 

[gwag]

seems the next x-box will have a Power PC chip so porting games may become easy, porting osX wouldn't be that difficult it been discussed. drivers, programs would be for developers, but since there are't many devices that dont work on a Mac who its not a big deal they already have ATI and NVIDIA all drives(CD HD DVDetc. work, no sound cards, but there would be no version of say photoshop to run on it. It owns for stability/virus/ adware crap.

 

[drag]

The actual proccess of porting isn't the issue. The issue is the economic realities of the deal.

Darwin, which is the core of OS X runs just fine on x86. It's partially based on NextStep Unix OS, that runs on x86. It's based heavily on *BSD and those run great on x86.

It's built using GNU tools, and all those were originally designed to run on x86.

This is UNIX. Unix is designed specificly to be easy to port. That's why it's still around and every "better" OS that it competed against is now dead or dying along with their obsolete hardware.


Look you have OS X.
You port it to x86.
To make a profit your going to have to charge between 500 and 700 dollars per copy.
It's slow and most hardware isn't supported. People aren't just going to be able to throw random bits hardware at each other and make a OS X x86 PC.
No games are going to run on it.
No programs are going to run on it.
It's going to be very difficult to install and will be buggy for the first couple versions.
Hardware you buy at a local store probably won't work on it.


WOW, sounds like we have a winner of a OS here!!

You know that Linux supports roughly TWICE as much hardware as Windows 2000? And it still has a reputation for poor hardware support?

You know why? Because hardware manufactures don't give a jack sh!t about anything thats not Microsoft and Microsoft puts a lot a effort into keeping it that way. So it's up to the Linux guys to reverse engineer hardware and drivers for much hardware because people are to lazy to do research beforehand and buy hardware from manufacturers that support Linux officially or semi-officially.

If Apple ports OS X to x86 they are dead.

 

[hopejr]

Well said.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: drag
You know that Linux supports roughly TWICE as much hardware as Windows 2000? And it still has a reputation for poor hardware support?

You know why? Because hardware manufactures don't give a jack sh!t about anything thats not Microsoft and Microsoft puts a lot a effort into keeping it that way. So it's up to the Linux guys to reverse engineer hardware and drivers for much hardware because people are to lazy to do research beforehand and buy hardware from manufacturers that support Linux officially or semi-officially.

How do you define "support"? I realize that there is a great deal of hardware that will function under Linux, but not at full capacity (ATi cards come to mind). Unless Linux can support the same feature set as Windows, it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, isn't it?

This is, of course, generally the fault of hardware manufacturers who are hesitant to release open-source drivers and/or hardware specifications to the Linux community.

 

[Nothinman]

Who, MS or Bungie? It's certainly in Bungie's track record.

MS, obviously.

seems the next x-box will have a Power PC chip so porting games may become easy

I doubt it'll make a difference, games will still be written with higher APIs like DirectX so the chip underneath is almost irrelevant.

How do you define "support"? I realize that there is a great deal of hardware that will function under Linux, but not at full capacity (ATi cards come to mind). Unless Linux can support the same feature set as Windows, it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, isn't it?

But non-support in Windows is generally all or nothing, on Linux you can usually get at least minimal support. I would rather have X run slowly than not at all. And I believe drag was talking about non-x86 support when he said "roughly twice as much hardware", there's no way in hell I would get Win2K to install on my Ultra2 or PWS600au (RC2 did work, but the Alpha port was dropped after that).

 

[loic2003]

Man....

1) It's not Widows (or even windows) hardware, it's x86 hardware
2) No they wouldn't release MacOS for x86 machines. Ever.
3) Games do run very well on macs and macs can accept many of the very latest graphics cards (mac versions). With the G5's having Bus speeds 50% of the CPU speed, they are top-notch when it comes to processing power. Problems occur when porting a game as the original port is often designed for x86 hardware and so it doesn't work so well on the mac architecture. It depends on the game. Quake 3 took only a day or two to port because of Carmack's skills.... The problem is the game developers. There's a much smaller market of mac gamers so it's not financially worthwhile building a game for the two platforms. Because few games are developed, the market remains small. This is changing over time but it's a slow process.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: loic2003
3) Games do run very well on macs and macs can accept many of the very latest graphics cards (mac versions). With the G5's having Bus speeds 50% of the CPU speed, they are top-notch when it comes to processing power. Problems occur when porting a game as the original port is often designed for x86 hardware and so it doesn't work so well on the mac architecture. It depends on the game. Quake 3 took only a day or two to port because of Carmack's skills.... The problem is the game developers. There's a much smaller market of mac gamers so it's not financially worthwhile building a game for the two platforms. Because few games are developed, the market remains small. This is changing over time but it's a slow process.

Not quite.

Quake 3 was an'easy' port since the graphics were OpenGL. Most of the games today are developed with Direct3D, which is Microsoft's creation - it allows developers to develop rapidly but there isn't a platform port like OpenGL.

As long as developers choose DirectX to develop with, there won't be Mac games - there isn't a simple port, whereas OpenGL predates it's use for computer games and has a platform port to OSX