23-12-2001 21:26									#1
	How Does 3D Mac Gaming Keep Up? Got spare money?

So they're porting Return to Wolf, they've already done UT and Deus Ex...my question is, how do they run on macs at all?

Most mac video cards are ATI Rage 128s, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Geforce2s and Radeons aren't listed in any requirements from any mac porting company (and aren't in wide use either). Most PC games out there, especially FPS games, NEED a Geforce or Radeon card to run well. How is it that something like Quake III Mac will run fine, at full detail, on something like a Rage Pro (8mb SDRAM) with a 400 MHz G3 processor? A PC couldn't dream of doing that, I would think (after looking at those minimum specs for RTCW especially).

I don't get it.

	06-01-2002 08:57									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Inside every macintosh there resides a small green rabbit foot on a chain, attatched to the motherboard.

Been like that ever since they got rid of the clones; they were able to standardize, make 'em all uniform.

	09-01-2002 06:31									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Do a find for "Apple System Profiler" and tell me the VRAM total, would you? Odds are it's not above 16.

Isn't that a little interesting? Only the new iMacs have started to incorporate the 32mb MX card, as opposed to the Rage, but even that's a bit behind the PC market of Geforce3s and 8500s. How do games like RTCW sell or run well at all on our side of the court with those limited resources?

	09-01-2002 07:26									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I am a PC user so I wouldnt know. But one guess is that maybe the Mac OS is more efficient than Windows at running stuff.

And dont ask how I got here, I dont know myself. I clicked a wrong link I think.

	09-01-2002 07:50									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I am a PC user so I wouldnt know. But one guess is that maybe the Mac OS is more efficient than Windows at running stuff.

I'd think it's more of a hardware issue than a software issue, actually. What operating system you have probably wouldn't make the biggest impact (more demanding ones like XP probably slow things down though). I'd guess it's just more efficient coding in games and lower resolution/detail, but somehow that just doesn't click either.

quote: And dont ask how I got here, I dont know myself. I clicked a wrong link I think.

By all means, stick around. It's great to see new faces around here.

	09-01-2002 08:12									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If he doesn't know how he go here he may not know how to come back, but I hope he does.

	10-01-2002 13:05									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Isn't that a little interesting? Only the new iMacs have started to incorporate the 32mb MX card, as opposed to the Rage, but even that's a bit behind the PC market of Geforce3s and 8500s. How do games like RTCW sell or run well at all on our side of the court with those limited resources?

MacOS 9 was actually pretty bad for 3D gaming. MacOS X is supposed to be great, if the developers start taking advantage of some of the tools it has.

I guess your whole perception of "runs well" is in the eye of the beholder. John Carmack (the guy who made the engine RTCW runs on) says the x86 hardware is faster for 3D gaming, mostly because his engine is very memory-bandwidth hungry. Something current Macs don't really have.

And the 32MB GF2MX is more than a "bit" behind the GeForce 3s and 8500s. It's actually about 1/4 to at most 1/3 of the speed of the GF3s/8500s. But you can get those for Macs too.

I think the thing here, Wiglaf, is you're making something out of nothing. I bet you an old 500MHz G3 + Rage 128 performs just as well as a P3 800 + Rage 128. And I guarantee you a 2.2GHz P4 with a GeForce 3 Ti500 would waste even a dual 866 G4+ with a GeForce 3 Ti500.

I'm patiently waiting for those G5s though. If the benchmarks I've seen are real, that thing will be a real screamer.

	12-01-2002 08:59									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh Christ, look who's here.

quote: MacOS 9 was actually pretty bad for 3D gaming. MacOS X is supposed to be great, if the developers start taking advantage of some of the tools it has.

How was 9 "pretty bad" for 3D gaming? Actually it posted very high fps in QuakeIII with only 8mb VRAM to deal with, in my experiance...(powerbook)

quote: I think the thing here, Wiglaf, is you're making something out of nothing. I bet you an old 500MHz G3 + Rage 128 performs just as well as a P3 800 + Rage 128. And I guarantee you a 2.2GHz P4 with a GeForce 3 Ti500 would waste even a dual 866 G4+ with a GeForce 3 Ti500.

**yaawwwwnn**

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Intel's method of measuring clockspeed is ridiculous now, if you honestly believe they made the 2GHz-3GHz jump overnight with the Northwood. And it took a card with 32mb VRAM and a 700 or so processor on the PC side to post similar results to the powerbook I tested, actually (assuming similar resolution and detail settings). That's what I'm so screwed up about atm...how a so called "inferior OS" with a mobility 128 can equal a PIII700 and a Geforce2 during normal gameplay.

quote: I guess your whole perception of "runs well" is in the eye of the beholder. John Carmack (the guy who made the engine RTCW runs on) says the x86 hardware is faster for 3D gaming, mostly because his engine is very memory-bandwidth hungry. Something current Macs don't really have

Ok, but we're still seeing RTCW now running very well, according to apple, on a Geforce2MX equipped iMac with 32mb VRAM and 256SDRAM. A PC, for optimal performance, would take up a bit more than a budget card and a "less than hardcore" RAM total.

And I bet you'll see people pulling it off with excellent fps using only 128RAM and a Rage Ultra (16mb). It happened with Elite Force and Deus Ex after all.

	12-01-2002 11:06									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf Oh Christ, look who's here.

Haven't you always been here?

quote: How was 9 "pretty bad" for 3D gaming? Actually it posted very high fps in QuakeIII with only 8mb VRAM to deal with, in my experiance...(powerbook)

Essentially it had inefficient code. A similar clocked P3 outpaced a G3 running Windows 2000 vs OS 9 using the same video card, which should not happen. G3s should definitely be faster clock for clock, the OS' inefficiency (or perhaps lack of good drivers?) slowed down performance.

quote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Intel's method of measuring clockspeed is ridiculous now, if you honestly believe they made the 2GHz-3GHz jump overnight with the Northwood.

I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it again until you seem to understand. The method of measuring clockspeed has not changed, last I checked it still worked by amount of cycles per second (Hertz or Hz). That said, I know what you're trying to say. And what you're saying is irrelevant, I don't really care what the clockspeed is on any processor. I care about (Instructions Per Clock) X (MHz rating). I don't see what your point is, at all. Every time we mention a processor you go on some tangent about "oh it's not fair you think the other processors are faster based on clockspeed!" Huh? No one said that. G4s do more per clock than P3s, which do more per clock than P4s. It's part of Microprocessor design: With each design, every processor seems to be getting longer pipelines, which means higher frequencies and doing less per clock. There are some very distinct advantages to doing this method, as well as some disadvantages. I won't bother explaining that to you, because you aren't even reading this. In fact, you're just going to reply saying "Intel is BS, they just make 2.2GHz processors because they suck" or something. Whatever. 2.2GHz processor owns the current G4s in every benchmark out there. The G5 may change that, though.

quote: And it took a card with 32mb VRAM and a 700 or so processor on the PC side to post similar results to the powerbook I tested, actually (assuming similar resolution and detail settings). That's what I'm so screwed up about atm...how a so called "inferior OS" with a mobility 128 can equal a PIII700 and a Geforce2 during normal gameplay.

Well that's certainly interesting, because literally every benchmark I've seen is the complete opposite of what you're saying. If you want anyone to believe that, you're going to have to post me some Quake 3 timedemo scores and screenshots. You can email them to me as well if you want. Otherwise it's complete bull, and you know it.

quote: Ok, but we're still seeing RTCW now running very well, according to apple, on a Geforce2MX equipped iMac with 32mb VRAM and 256SDRAM. A PC, for optimal performance, would take up a bit more than a budget card and a "less than hardcore" RAM total.

RTCW doesn't even require a GeForce 2 MX, it only needs a GeForce for good performance. You're pulling figures and benchmarks out of your ass, I'll believe it when I see concrete proof. You're just spouting rhetoric and hoping everyone here believes you.

I'm calling your bluff. I want proof. Else you're useless.

	12-01-2002 20:57									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Essentially it had inefficient code. A similar clocked P3 outpaced a G3 running Windows 2000 vs OS 9 using the same video card, which should not happen. G3s should definitely be faster clock for clock, the OS' inefficiency (or perhaps lack of good drivers?) slowed down performance.

I know you've got one bookmarked, so can I see a link for that? What version of OS9 are we talking about?

quote: I've said this before, and I'll continue to say it again until you seem to understand. The method of measuring clockspeed has not changed, last I checked it still worked by amount of cycles per second (Hertz or Hz). That said, I know what you're trying to say. And what you're saying is irrelevant, I don't really care what the clockspeed is on any processor. I care about (Instructions Per Clock) X (MHz rating). I don't see what your point is, at all. Every time we mention a processor you go on some tangent about "oh it's not fair you think the other processors are faster based on clockspeed!" Huh? No one said that. G4s do more per clock than P3s, which do more per clock than P4s. It's part of Microprocessor design: With each design, every processor seems to be getting longer pipelines, which means higher frequencies and doing less per clock. There are some very distinct advantages to doing this method, as well as some disadvantages. I won't bother explaining that to you, because you aren't even reading this. In fact, you're just going to reply saying "Intel is BS, they just make 2.2GHz processors because they suck" or something. Whatever. 2.2GHz processor owns the current G4s in every benchmark out there. The G5 may change that, though.

I'm not saying a 2.2 GHz P4 isn't faster than an 867 G4 (although I haven't seen any direct comparisons, guess it's still a safe bet), but that's to be expected. The Northwood was released just this month after all, and the G5 is currently in the works to bring Apple processors right back on top. Of course, if you want to bring up the fact that the 867 is now more than enough to handle any mac game or app out there (by quite a bit actually), or that it increases Photoshop productivity like no one's business over the P4 (only natural), then we've got something to talk about. See the inside mac games hardware review.

I'm glad you aren't using clockspeed to judge the processor worth, but you seem to be convinced that a 2200 MHz setup inherently crushes one hovering below the 1GHz mark, which obviously isn't true. Although the strong majority of Intel/computer buyers just don't know any better.

quote: Well that's certainly interesting, because literally every benchmark I've seen is the complete opposite of what you're saying. If you want anyone to believe that, you're going to have to post me some Quake 3 timedemo scores and screenshots. You can email them to me as well if you want. Otherwise it's complete bull, and you know it.

www.q3center.com/benchmarks/q3test/

Mac G3-400, 128 MB RAM, ATI Rage 128
Avg: 45
Max: 100 Use OpenGL 1.1.2, Q3Test
-
PII 400, 128MB RAM, RIVA 128
Avg: 25
800X600, decent image quality, Q3Test
-
P3-550, 256MB RAM, ATI Rage 128
Avg: 40.9
640x480, Q3DemoTEST v1.09, 32bit

Ouch.

quote: RTCW doesn't even require a GeForce 2 MX, it only needs a GeForce for good performance. You're pulling figures and benchmarks out of your ass, I'll believe it when I see concrete proof. You're just spouting rhetoric and hoping everyone here believes you.

At such a high resolution, no way could a PC nail RTCW with an MX. No waay. Especially since XP is widely considered to be slower than 9x in gaming, it'd be a mess (you trade stability for speed, oh goodie). OSX, or maybe OS9, is now crunching the sucker at amazing framerates with much less juice than the average PC "hardcore" rig (1.2 PIII, Ti200). Again, just check out Aspyr's site and the system reqs there. The Sims on a 233 with 96 RAM? Yup, worked for lots of people apparantly (check the IMG forums and search). Harry Potter (UT engine) on a first rev iMac? Easily done.

Something, whether it be more efficient coding or hardware, makes macs much faster at handling an older generation video card than a PC.

	13-01-2002 04:09									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf I'm glad you aren't using clockspeed to judge the processor worth, but you seem to be convinced that a 2200 MHz setup inherently crushes one hovering below the 1GHz mark, which obviously isn't true. Although the strong majority of Intel/computer buyers just don't know any better.

Again, you don't understand. Clockspeed means nothing, I'm talking total performance.
The fact that the G4 is under 1GHz means nothing to me, it could be 100GHz for all I care. What I do know is its performance is quite a bit less than PC processors now, but the G5 is supposed to change that.

quote: www.q3center.com/benchmarks/q3test/ Mac G3-400, 128 MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 Avg: 45 Max: 100 Use OpenGL 1.1.2, Q3Test - PII 400, 128MB RAM, RIVA 128 Avg: 25 800X600, decent image quality, Q3Test - P3-550, 256MB RAM, ATI Rage 128 Avg: 40.9 640x480, Q3DemoTEST v1.09, 32bit Ouch.

Did you read the full site? You left out some numbers like:
P3-450, 128MB, ATI RAGE128
Avg: 51

That site is extremely poor, can you find one with standardized settings and whatnot?

quote: At such a high resolution, no way could a PC nail RTCW with an MX. No waay.

My P3 600 + GeForce 2 MX runs it fine in 1024x768. Think what you will.

quote: Especially since XP is widely considered to be slower than 9x in gaming

Oh come on. XP is faster in some games than the latest Me, it's SLIGHTLY slower in others. Performance difference is negligable at best. You keep acting like XP is 25% slower or something. The numbers are like 2-3%.

quote: Something, whether it be more efficient coding or hardware, makes macs much faster at handling an older generation video card than a PC.

Perhaps that's because no one on a PC uses older generation video cards, so those drivers don't get tweaked like the Macs? I mean, PC users can save the money saved on their PC and buy GeForce 3s.

You've still not proven a thing. I want real benchmarks with standardized settings. The ones you cited have P3 450s beating G3 400s as well as G3 400s beating P3 550s. Which is it?

	14-01-2002 09:44									#12
	Got spare money?

I don't know if this has been beaten to death or not yet, but one of the main reasons one of the Quakes (I forget which one) was put on a Mac first (yes, I said that a game actually came out for a Mac first) was because of the fact that with a Mac you don't depend a whole lot on this DirectX garabage... you just put in the CD and go... with anything. Clockspeed? Who cares? You're right on that one. My cousin with an AMD and a 1.2GHz enjoys pointing and laughing at my G4 500... then I point and laugh at the fact that he's lost I don't know how many hard drive partitions and my Mac is still running fine... no reformatting or anything.

But I digress.

The point is, unlike the Dark Side... we don't depend on DirectX and Microsoft for our graphical drivers, so our graphics don't have to be emulated by some other program before our video cards see them, our video cards just run them, with the lesser VRAM.

	14-01-2002 10:04									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash then I point and laugh at the fact that he's lost I don't know how many hard drive partitions and my Mac is still running fine... no reformatting or anything.

Heh. Yeah, I'd point and laugh at him as well. I've reformatted my computer once, and that was because the Linux partition program froze up during a resize. (Linux...ugh)

quote: The point is, unlike the Dark Side... we don't depend on DirectX and Microsoft for our graphical drivers, so our graphics don't have to be emulated by some other program before our video cards see them, our video cards just run them, with the lesser VRAM.

Er...just what are you talking about? I think you have some serious misunderstandings on what DirectX is and how Drivers work.

The video card manufacturer makes the drivers (ATI, Nvidia, etc.). Not Microsoft.

We also don't DEPEND on DirectX for our games at all. You can use OpenGL for graphics, there's other open audio methods too, etc. DirectX is popular BECAUSE it is a Good Thing.

DirectX doesn't emulate a single thing at all unless your video hardware doesn't support a certain feature, at which point it emulates it in software. You CANNOT do this on a Mac. OpenGL does not support it. It's one of the DirectX's main features.

You seem to think that somehow PCs are slower for doing 3D gaming because of "emulation" DirectX does. Heh. Whatever, that's just so totally off for how it works.

You write directly to the hardware through an API (Direct3D, OpenGL, etc). On the Mac, you're restricted to OpenGL. PC has DirectX and OpenGL. DirectX is popular because it makes game development easier overall. OpenGL is popular for portability, because Macs and Unix don't run DirectX.

Edit: Which Quake came out first for the Mac? This is certainly news to me! Also, NO Quake games use DirectX. So what you're saying is BS, whether you meant it to be or not.

You have some deep misunderstandings on how PC 3D games work.

	14-01-2002 21:34									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Asher, you are the unchallenged king of Mac vs. PC trolls on this board. I bow before your ability to make Mac champions scramble for esoteric benchmarking data and trivialize those areas where Macs reign supreme (i.e. photoshop). The only question I have is why? Did Steve Jobs steal your lunch money as a child? Did some guy with an Apple IIe mock your Commodore 64 so much that you swore a lifetime of revenge?

Seriously, what gives? Do you even own/use a Mac? If not, why do you bother?

	15-01-2002 03:36									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Did you read the full site? You left out some numbers like: P3-450, 128MB, ATI RAGE128 Avg: 51

How a computer with a 100 MHz slower processor and 128mb less RAM (not to mention a sharper resolution) can post a higher score like that is beyond me with details maxed. That's a pretty big blip on my bullshit detector.

quote: My P3 600 + GeForce 2 MX runs it fine in 1024x768. Think what you will.

You own a P3 600 and a Geforce 2 MX? Since when? MX200 or 400?

quote: Oh come on. XP is faster in some games than the latest Me, it's SLIGHTLY slower in others. Performance difference is negligable at best. You keep acting like XP is 25% slower or something. The numbers are like 2-3%.

I don't consider Me to be a part of the 9x series, it's total garbage. XP really has some small issues that make the performance issue worse, that's all I was trying to say. 2-3% is cutting it a little low though.

quote: Perhaps that's because no one on a PC uses older generation video cards, so those drivers don't get tweaked like the Macs? I mean, PC users can save the money saved on their PC and buy GeForce 3s.

No one on a PC uses an older video card? You sure about that?

quote: You've still not proven a thing. I want real benchmarks with standardized settings. The ones you cited have P3 450s beating G3 400s as well as G3 400s beating P3 550s. Which is it?

Not until I get a link to back your "OS 9 has inefficient coding" remark. For whatever reason you totally ignored that point immediatly after bringing it up...

quote: Seriously, what gives? Do you even own/use a Mac? If not, why do you bother?

He's not really trolling in the traditional sense. Actually some of his points are valid, so you probably shouldn't cut him off so quickly, even if he is a little brat at times about "kiddie tables" and whatnot.

quote: You have some deep misunderstandings on how PC 3D games work.

So do you, if you think a PIII450 with a Rage and 128 of RAM can post 50 fps in any real benchmark at 800x600. I've only seen that done with G3s or systems with much more RAM and processing power. In reality the number would be around 35-41 or so. Not an average of 50.

	15-01-2002 06:56									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf How a computer with a 100 MHz slower processor and 128mb less RAM (not to mention a sharper resolution) can post a higher score like that is beyond me with details maxed. That's a pretty big blip on my bullshit detector.

That was my point. The site is not reputable, find real benchmarks.

quote: You own a P3 600 and a Geforce 2 MX? Since when? MX200 or 400?

Since about October 1999. Got a Dell P3 600 with a TNT2 Ultra. When I worked for SidGames, I received a free GeForce 2 MX from InnoVision (before they were released, too) to review. I put that into my personal box (P3 800), but have since upgraded my GF2MX to a GeForce 3, and put the GF2MX into the old P3 600. I've also got a Radeon powered computer in the house. And it's not an MX200, or MX400, it was around before the number ratings (so it was essentially a MX400).

quote: No one on a PC uses an older video card? You sure about that?

You'd be very hard pressed to find a gamer who plays the 3D games we're talking about on a Rage 128.

quote: Not until I get a link to back your "OS 9 has inefficient coding" remark. For whatever reason you totally ignored that point immediatly after bringing it up...

There is no specific link to prove it, that's why I've ignored it. It's speculation, supported by the fact that the G3s should be considerably faster than they are, in comparison to P3s. That, and OS X offers a big speed jump, which tells you something in OS 9 was slightly inefficient.

quote: So do you, if you think a PIII450 with a Rage and 128 of RAM can post 50 fps in any real benchmark at 800x600. I've only seen that done with G3s or systems with much more RAM and processing power. In reality the number would be around 35-41 or so. Not an average of 50.

Errm...you missed my point. My point was your site was BS, because of all of the BS results in there.

You've yet to cite any real benchmarks, and when I point out the invalidity of your benchmarks you get on my case because they're BS?

Echinda: I hate, hate, HATE, Apple marketing. The Apple users seriously think a G4 can defeat a modern day Pentium 4 or Athlon at the same price point, when in all honesty it can't even hold a candle. The hardware of today's Mac's are obsolete, I'm just dispelling some misconceptions a lot of you have. If I hear one more person say the G4 is 128-bit...

I also don't really mind Macs, though. The G5 is supposed to kick ass, I'm really looking forward to that thing. That may be the chance for Apple to have actual fast computers, not these old clunkers. I'm also sitting on the fence with OS X, I hate Aqua, but I really like much of the OS' design.

The point is, current Macs are slower than current PCs, for more money, with less software. It's hilarious how people try to argue with that. When the G4 came out, years ago, it was VERY fast compared to the PC counterparts. But it hasn't gotten much faster since, while PC processors (and memory systems) have gotten MUCH faster. We'll see how the G5 turns the tables.

	15-01-2002 10:14									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

After all that hype about how the Mac ports are so high quality, it looks like Civ3 for Mac is shite. Anyone want to comment on that?

	15-01-2002 21:31									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Asher After all that hype about how the Mac ports are so high quality, it looks like Civ3 for Mac is shite.

Oh? What bugs are you encountering? And here I had thought that you didn't even like Civ games, and you've bothered to play and compare both versions. I must admit I'm flattered. I know a person of your intellect wouldn't want to make such a sweeping statement without having firsthand knowledge of what he was talking about.

And I can't help but pass this one up:

quote: Originally posted by Asher DirectX doesn't emulate a single thing at all unless your video hardware doesn't support a certain feature, at which point it emulates it in software. You CANNOT do this on a Mac. OpenGL does not support it.

You certainly can, and OpenGL on the Mac supports it. If a feature is not hardware accelerated by a video driver, the OpenGL software renderer picks up the slack. I don't know where you get your information about OpenGL on the Mac, but you need to start finding more reliable sources, or stop guessing.

How is it that you bumbled back into the Mac forum? Finger slip? Either way, I'd like to ask you to leave, or at minimum take your off-topic Mac-bashing back to the appropriate forums where it belongs.

Brad

	15-01-2002 22:00									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Er...just what are you talking about? I think you have some serious misunderstandings on what DirectX is and how Drivers work.

Then why did Quake III come out for the Mac first? (I asked the Wintel user "friend" of mine who WAS waiting for a DirectX driver update which is what Quake III release for Wintel was supposedly waiting for... yes, that's second-hand info, but it's still info that says my Mac is better with graphics than his Wintel.

quote: The video card manufacturer makes the drivers (ATI, Nvidia, etc.). Not Microsoft.

Ah, so this is why Linux users sit back and wait for drivers that are written by usually fellow Linux users rather than harassing ATI, etc?

quote: We also don't DEPEND on DirectX for our games at all. You can use OpenGL for graphics, there's other open audio methods too, etc. DirectX is popular BECAUSE it is a Good Thing.

Uh huh... that's why I was saying, again, why Macs were better... I never said Macs depended on DirectX, so you've misquoted me there. Macs DON'T use DirectX, you're right, it IS OpenGL for graphics... and how often does OpenGL get updated compared to DirectX? Exactly, that's why OpenGL is better, that's why Quake III was able to be launched on Mac first.

quote: DirectX doesn't emulate a single thing at all unless your video hardware doesn't support a certain feature, at which point it emulates it in software. You CANNOT do this on a Mac. OpenGL does not support it. It's one of the DirectX's main features.

Exactly my point... again, it's Wintel computers and hardware produced for Wintel that when the hardware DOESN'T support a certain feature it goes software side. OpenGL DOESN'T need to do that just for that main reason. Mac processors aren't number punchers, somebody who says otherwise should size up their Mac with a Wintel number-cruncher, but Mac DOES do graphics, as was mentioned earlier, which is why Mac is Photoshop King.

quote: You seem to think that somehow PCs are slower for doing 3D gaming because of "emulation" DirectX does. Heh. Whatever, that's just so totally off for how it works.

That just stinks of my signature... nothing new or that I can reply to there.

quote: You write directly to the hardware through an API (Direct3D, OpenGL, etc). On the Mac, you're restricted to OpenGL. PC has DirectX and OpenGL. DirectX is popular because it makes game development easier overall. OpenGL is popular for portability, because Macs and Unix don't run DirectX.

The only reason DirectX is even "popular" is because Microsoft writes it and The Microsoft Collective undoubtedly requires program writers to write in DirectX for when there aren't plans for a Mac port. No wonder they have a monopoly.

quote: Edit: Which Quake came out first for the Mac? This is certainly news to me! Also, NO Quake games use DirectX. So what you're saying is BS, whether you meant it to be or not.

I answered that earlier... if no Quake game uses DirectX, then I'll have to go beat my Wintel "friend" with the ugly stick... or is that since you're an all-knowledgeable PC user that you never had to bother to install DirectX when you installed a new game because you have the latest DirectX beta?

quote: You have some deep misunderstandings on how PC 3D games work.

And you need to go buy a Mac.

Edit: And I bow to the knowledge of bradman... he must have posted while I was originally writing this.

	15-01-2002 22:48									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher After all that hype about how the Mac ports are so high quality, it looks like Civ3 for Mac is shite. Anyone want to comment on that?

I've got the Civ3 Mac port and it works great. The only issue I've got is occasionally the unit sounds (fighting, sighing, grunting etc.) don't play, but they are pretty repetitive so its not like that bothers me much. I also managed to make the mouse stop responding, but it was 3:00 am and I was half asleep so I'm pretty sure that was a wetware error. No programmer (Brad included) should be held responsible for my random ham fisted keystrokes.

As for the positives, the game runs very smoothly and I don't get any pausing, jitteriness, animation glitches or other oddities that usually indicate a bad port. The advisor screens give smooth responses and flipping quickly between them works without a hitch. I've only played to the Industrial age, so I'm not sure about the end game, but with 8 civs each with 50+ military units and two big wars going on, the between turn pauses were only 5+ seconds (15 seconds max). Most of that time was attributable to watching units that move into your units' LOS fight or march around. When that didn't happen the pauses were negligible. Compared to SMAC on my old Celeron 400 with 228 Mbs RAM (which was admittedly a crappy machine but it did exceed the SMAC specs by close to the same amount my current machine exceeds the CivIII specs), this thing cooks. SMAC used to take eons to move units for the AIs. I'm not using a crazy powerful machine either - its an iMac G3 600 with 256 Mb RAM.

So I'm not sure what the complaints you've heard are about.

	15-01-2002 23:57									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by bradman Oh? What bugs are you encountering? And here I had thought that you didn't even like Civ games, and you've bothered to play and compare both versions. I must admit I'm flattered. I know a person of your intellect wouldn't want to make such a sweeping statement without having firsthand knowledge of what he was talking about.

Can't you see the forum here?
There are several threads complaining about sound issues, speed issues, etc.

quote: You certainly can, and OpenGL on the Mac supports it. If a feature is not hardware accelerated by a video driver, the OpenGL software renderer picks up the slack. I don't know where you get your information about OpenGL on the Mac, but you need to start finding more reliable sources, or stop guessing.

Well that's certainly different than how it works on the PC and UNIX.
So what you're saying is the OpenGL software rendering system on the Mac is continually updated so that it can support new features in software if the hardware doesn't support it? That's not how it works on any other system.

quote: How is it that you bumbled back into the Mac forum? Finger slip? Either way, I'd like to ask you to leave, or at minimum take your off-topic Mac-bashing back to the appropriate forums where it belongs.

Well, Wiglaf asked a question, I answered it. But you're right, let's move this thing over to the Off-Topic where more PC users will read it.

	16-01-2002 00:07									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by FlameFlash Then why did Quake III come out for the Mac first? (I asked the Wintel user "friend" of mine who WAS waiting for a DirectX driver update which is what Quake III release for Wintel was supposedly waiting for... yes, that's second-hand info, but it's still info that says my Mac is better with graphics than his Wintel.

Huh??
Quake III did NOT come out for the Mac first. And why would your friend be waiting for a DirectX driver update when Quake III uses OpenGL?? Your second hand info is grossly inaccurate.

quote: Ah, so this is why Linux users sit back and wait for drivers that are written by usually fellow Linux users rather than harassing ATI, etc?

Linux users sometimes do that (they don't do it for graphics cards, though: ATI and Nvidia either contract companies to make them or release them themselves) because the hardware is so old it's unsupported anymore, or simply because the company doesn't care about Linux. Your point is totally irrelevant when talking about Windows Gaming.

quote: Uh huh... that's why I was saying, again, why Macs were better... I never said Macs depended on DirectX, so you've misquoted me there. Macs DON'T use DirectX, you're right, it IS OpenGL for graphics... and how often does OpenGL get updated compared to DirectX? Exactly, that's why OpenGL is better, that's why Quake III was able to be launched on Mac first.

OpenGL gets updated far less often than DirectX. OpenGL is a committee of people that move slowly and behind the hardware curve to standardize everything. For YEARS, OpenGL 1.2 was the latest. Last year OpenGL 1.3 came out. For every .X revision in OpenGL, there's about 2-3 DirectX revisions coming out. And DirectX has more features (by a big, thick margin) standardized than OpenGL does. In fact, OpenGL is scrambling to make OpenGL 2.0 to compete with DirectX 8 and 9.

Why do you keep mentioning completely inaccurate Quake III numbers? 1) It did not come out on the Mac first, 2) It doesn't use DirectX at all, since Carmack ported it to the Mac and Linux as well.

quote: Exactly my point... again, it's Wintel computers and hardware produced for Wintel that when the hardware DOESN'T support a certain feature it goes software side. OpenGL DOESN'T need to do that just for that main reason. Mac processors aren't number punchers, somebody who says otherwise should size up their Mac with a Wintel number-cruncher, but Mac DOES do graphics, as was mentioned earlier, which is why Mac is Photoshop King.

Dear God...
First, 3D cards have nothing to do with Photoshop performance. Second, the Photoshop stuff you do *DOES* work off your processors, which *ARE* number crunchers. The whole AltiVec thing was to make massive parallel number crunching!
A Mac does NOT do decent 3D graphics, which is why all workstations for graphics tend to be IRIX-powered SGIs or x86-based computers.
And I fail to see why you think it's a bad thing when your computer can emulate hardware you don't have...

quote: The only reason DirectX is even "popular" is because Microsoft writes it and The Microsoft Collective undoubtedly requires program writers to write in DirectX for when there aren't plans for a Mac port. No wonder they have a monopoly.

That's not true at all. It's just that DirectX makes game development that much easier with DirectInput, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, Direct3D, etc. That's why DirectX is used.

quote: I answered that earlier... if no Quake game uses DirectX, then I'll have to go beat my Wintel "friend" with the ugly stick... or is that since you're an all-knowledgeable PC user that you never had to bother to install DirectX when you installed a new game because you have the latest DirectX beta?

Games don't require you to install DirectX betas, unless they are betas themselves. DirectX comes with Windows, btw. DX 8.1 ships with Windows XP, the latest.

Sometimes you will have to upgrade DirectX, but it's simply a matter of using the installer on the CD. 1 minute later you've updated DirectX to the latest. Is that so difficult?

quote: And you need to go buy a Mac.

Maybe when the G5 TiBooks come out.

	16-01-2002 00:12									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Echinda So I'm not sure what the complaints you've heard are about.

Here are the ones I'm talking about :

quote: This is what I've got: Mac Os 8.6, G3 (333 MHZ), vmemory (64 MB), Built-in (32 MB), RAM (128 or 256 MB, can't remember and don't know where to look). This is what happened: Four hours trying to get Civ3 running respectably - no luck. First, I had to upgrade QT 4.0 to 4.1.2 or higher. I went to QT 5.0. I was asked if I wanted the CD to install 4.1.2 but an error message came up everytime I tried, plus I never even saw it on the disc. After clicking on the Civ3 icon, it took almost two minutes for the main menu to pop up. The whole time the screen is dark and the machine is grinding like crazy. I tried changing the refresh rate 3 - 4 times but only auto would work. When I made choices of what type of land, how many civs, difficulty level, etc. there was probably 30 - 40 sec. of grinding before I could move on. I got as far as building a city (Beijing) before I closed ot down. I tried cranking my virtual memory up to 997K to see what would happen, but it only seemed worse. I allocated more preferred memory from 128000 to 200000, but I didn't notice any real differences. I left the minimum at 128000 because I had to increase virtual memory to compensate, I thnk. Its alla blur now.

quote: after playing Civ3 for few days on my G4, i'm rather dissapointed by the quality of the port. I also own the PC version of Civ3 (bought it when it just came out) which I run on a Athalon 600mhz and there is a big speed difference between the two. The mac version is really slow. I finally managed to run in OS X, and after disabling quartz text, the game is much more playable than OS 9 version. First off, a huge problem that bugs me is that preferences do not stick. by this i mean when i change preferences, such as turning auto-save off and always wait until end of turn on from the main menu, the changes I make to prefs dont stay. they revert to default no matter what. the only way i got around this is to start a game, change the prefs within the game and then save the game. that ensures one's own prefs to be saved, but only for that particular game session. and starting postion linked by culture will be always be true since that cannot be changed before the game starts. i have always turned that option in PC version because I want random neighbors. another minor issue that might be linked to this problem is that the difficulty level always goes back to chieftan when starting new game. and i never play anything other than diety. (i've actually won my first diety game last week on pc) Second, there is a huge performance problem under OS 9. It is almost unplayable on my G4 with 384 mb ram. i believe it needs some optimization work. everytime i scroll map or move units, there is a lag and i hear that clicking HD accessing noise. Imagine the lag when u have multiple units moving across the roads/rails. they should move smoothly, not pause and lag after every tile movement. However this does not occour in OS X. Im quite impressed by the X version, its much faster than the 9 version. One thing I figured out is that turning off quartz text for X gives huge performance boost and prevents crashes. The 9 version also seems to leak/fragment memory and leaves me about 100 mb short in memory when i exit the game. Both of the versions have some audio problems. Music gets choppy especially in main menu setting up a game. After experimenting with turning on/off "disable music" option, I no longer can get music back. but thats not a huge loss since civ3 music is kind of bad. another audio issue is there is no sounds during battle. Im not sure if some of these problems are specific to my mac, so if anyone else experiences these problems please post. although the mac version seems much slower than the pc version, some parts of the game is actually faster IMO such as the time it takes to start a new game and loading saved games. anyways i hope there is a patch soon to fix some annoying problems.

	16-01-2002 00:39									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Looking at those two posts, there isn't anywhere near enough evidence for your "shite" assessment.

The one guy has an old machine and it sounds like he tried to update QT in the middle of his install. The "shut all open programs" stuff is there for a reason in Mac OS 8. I wonder if he has tried to scrub and reinstall? In a Win9x environment trying to update software at the same time as you're installing something was a good way to hopelessly muddle the registry, so this kind of issue certainly isn't OS 8 specific.

The other guy had no real issues in OS X other than his perception of the speed the game ran at (other than the audio, which I've also experienced and its no biggie - same thing always happened to me in CivII on a PC and that was still my favourite game for years). According to you, Macs are just slower, so that is hardly the port's fault, is it? As for his OS9 issues, if he thinks having to put in your preferences at the beginning of a game is a "huge problem", then I haven't got much respect for his sense of perspective. You had to do the same thing in SMAC and it never bothered me. I have a friend that goes ape if he has to wait more than a half second for any computer process. Clearly a "huge problem" to some is not even noticeable as a problem to others.

You were way too harsh, Asher. Are you sure Jobs didn't pick on you as a kid.

	16-01-2002 01:13									#25
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Huh?? Quake III did NOT come out for the Mac first. And why would your friend be waiting for a DirectX driver update when Quake III uses OpenGL?? Your second hand info is grossly inaccurate.

As I said, if that's inaccurate, then fine, I'll just go after him with the ugly stick (which I might anyway just for the fun of it)... but with the numbers and other garabage you've been throwing, I'm not going to trust your Wintel=good & Mac=bad scenario either. I'm also not going to take YOUR second-hand knowledge over somebody else's second hand knowledge. Besides, if OpenGL is used more often on a Mac... wouldn't it be more logical to beta test, and therefore release the program on a Mac first since it obviously uses OpenGL better with all the stat throwing mumbo-jumbo going on and the fact that no matter what you do, a Mac still doesn't need as much VRAM to run the same games as the game needs on a Wintel.

quote: Linux users sometimes do that (they don't do it for graphics cards, though: ATI and Nvidia either contract companies to make them or release them themselves) because the hardware is so old it's unsupported anymore, or simply because the company doesn't care about Linux.

*shrugs* Each of the arguement points on this matter has died in the retelling... I'm not even going to continue to kick it.

quote: Your point is totally irrelevant when talking about Windows Gaming.

So are quite a few of your points when taken out of context.

quote: OpenGL gets updated far less often than DirectX. OpenGL is a committee of people that move slowly and behind the hardware curve to standardize everything. For YEARS, OpenGL 1.2 was the latest. Last year OpenGL 1.3 came out. For every .X revision in OpenGL, there's about 2-3 DirectX revisions coming out. And DirectX has more features (by a big, thick margin) standardized than OpenGL does. In fact, OpenGL is scrambling to make OpenGL 2.0 to compete with DirectX 8 and 9. Why do you keep mentioning completely inaccurate Quake III numbers? 1) It did not come out on the Mac first, 2) It doesn't use DirectX at all, since Carmack ported it to the Mac and Linux as well.

I simply defer to Bradman's post regarding OpenGL, and I would like you to prove my Quake III release dates wrong before I'll even listen to you on that one... or allow you to mock me (see beginning of this post.) Besides... though I may be mistake on this forum, but generally forums are used to DISCUSS not mock, tear apart, ramble, etc... which, unfortunately is all you've seem to done. I'm simply trying to counter what actually makes sense to me, especially since you've made it your sole duty to reply to me it seems.

quote: Dear God... First, 3D cards have nothing to do with Photoshop performance. Second, the Photoshop stuff you do *DOES* work off your processors, which *ARE* number crunchers. The whole AltiVec thing was to make massive parallel number crunching! A Mac does NOT do decent 3D graphics, which is why all workstations for graphics tend to be IRIX-powered SGIs or x86-based computers. And I fail to see why you think it's a bad thing when your computer can emulate hardware you don't have...

Proof again? And I'll point out that it's funny you're actually defending a Mac failing that I pointed out regarding the number crunching end. What whole AltiVec thing, BTW or am I supposed to have the resources you seem to have right at my figertips as well? (Yes, I am annoyed, not ticked yet, but annoyed, and if somebody could refer me in a private message the URL of the forum rules for this site, I'd appriciate it... I'm too lazy to do much hunting.

quote: That's not true at all. It's just that DirectX makes game development that much easier with DirectInput, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, Direct3D, etc. That's why DirectX is used.

Uh huh... and who made all of those programs? When you have something to refute a point of mine, I look forward to reading it, but if you want to offer more evidence in my favor, go right ahead.

quote: Games don't require you to install DirectX betas, unless they are betas themselves. DirectX comes with Windows, btw. DX 8.1 ships with Windows XP, the latest. Sometimes you will have to upgrade DirectX, but it's simply a matter of using the installer on the CD. 1 minute later you've updated DirectX to the latest. Is that so difficult?

Well duh, this was my entire point... if Mr. I know everything about DirectX is who I'm talking to then you'd know when a beta and real version updates would come out, you'd never have to install the update from the CD... try reading my posts instead of lumping and scanning... it helps.

*sighs* Asher when you are willing to throw data, and not harass people who like their computers for what they are... even though there are some failings (just as in all computers) and even though we control a small (yes very small I admit) share of the PC market I simply recommend you go play in traffic... you've taken enough of my time.

	16-01-2002 01:56									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

for someone who doesnt have a mac you surely post a lot here asher

you've goten your responses once, you seem to be have come back for more. please taking your trolling comments out of this forum

thank you