110 réponses à ce sujet

[Burglekut]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Mac and PC development are two totally different things. 

Actually, they were two different things. Back in the 90s-early 00s, Macs used PowerPC chips and Windows PCs used Intel processors. This made porting a very difficult and laborious task. 

Now Macs use the same processors. It makes porting easier - especially if you use technologies like Cider. Unless, of course, you just don't care about porting. 

Just be lucky you can use Boot Camp to play it.

I don't consider myself lucky: I do it because I have to. I can play the Mac native version, but unfortunately, miss out on most of the stuff people are complaining about. 

There are still people who believe in releasing everything for both platforms & on the same day, and I praise them for doing so. Blizzard is the main company that does. Obviously it's doable, if you give a sh*t about doing it. 

Ironically, as I said, the one good fact about Awakening being delayed for the Mac is when it does finally come out it will probably include patches for it -- assuming they ever do release any. 

If you were that concerned about gaming, you'd have purchased a PC.  You knew when you got a Mac that gaming isn't as developed on it.  Regardless, with Boot Camp you can get the PC release just as all of the other PC gamers can.  

Mac versions typically take longer to come out, so if they waited for it on every game that comes out, they are going to have longer waits for each game.  You have to look at the bigger picture from a developer perspective. 

[CybAnt1]

i don't see a "mac" kind of a person fiddling around with trying games to run on the mac. better to buy a separate gaming rig (pc, console, or what have you).

What is a "Mac" kind of person? A Mac is the kind of PC I like to use. It obviously runs games just fine; on it at the moment I'm running quite a few games natively ... Rise of Nations, Heroes of Might & Magic V, Jedi Academy, WoW Client.... 

etc. 

Mac people like to play games. Hence, macgamer.com, insidemacgames.com, etc. We'd even like to tinker with them and mod them if you give us the tools. 

Hey it's fine; I'll reboot to do it; someday I'd prefer not to, I'd even be extra nice to the company that doesn't make me do it. 

But whatever. It's all becoming an ever more silly discussion, because PC gaming is going to down the tubes (that means both Mac & Windows PCs), and the consoles are taking over the market. 

[CybAnt1]

i would have taken to the mac if boot camp was available from the get go.... but no... "you had to buy your software and hardware from a single company" model is a wee bit too greedy for me.

Don't understand. Every Mac comes with Boot Camp pre-installed. 

It can't come pre-installed with Windows, because Microsoft won't give Apple the license to do so.

Run Boot Camp ... install a Windows disc ... wait 45 minutes... you have a dual booting machine. 

OR: buy Parallels ... run Windows and Mac apps at the same time. (Except Parallels blows for gaming.) 

Apple does make both the hardware & the Mac OS. However, you can also run Linux on Mac hardware, BSD, OS/2 ... anything you freaking please. 

You can buy software for the Mac OS from anybody you please. They just have to write it. 

[Burglekut]

Mycrus Ironfist wrote...
i would have taken to the mac if boot camp was available from the get go.... but no... "you had to buy your software and hardware from a single company" model is a wee bit too greedy for me.

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

[CybAnt1]

If you were that concerned about gaming, you'd have purchased a PC. 

There's nothing about Macs that makes them unable to play games.

I do know market conditions though and I also know my own ten plus year history with Mac gaming (and getting pissed every time I didn't get the expansion, didn't get the sequel, didn't get the toolset, didn't get the patch, or got them 6 mos.-1 year or more late) -- that's why I gave up and installed Bootcamp. 

You knew when you got a Mac that gaming isn't as developed on it. 

Don't know what that means. Apple the company seems to not care about gaming for whatever reason. (See previous posts). The userbase is something different. 

Macs can play games just fine, and Mac users want to play games. OK? 

Mac versions typically take longer to come out, 

This is bullsh*t, if you develop right, you can do it -- BLIZZARD DOES IT. Simultaneous release of everything, often both versions on one disc. I don't know how long it holds them up, but they do it. 

I understand that others don't think it's worth doing -- but there's at least one company that does. 

[Burglekut]

CybAnt1 wrote...

If you were that concerned about gaming, you'd have purchased a PC. 

There's nothing about Macs that makes them unable to play games.

I do know market conditions though and I also know my own ten plus year history with Mac gaming (and getting pissed every time I didn't get the expansion, didn't get the sequel, didn't get the toolset, didn't get the patch, or got them 6 mos.-1 year or more late) -- that's why I gave up and installed Bootcamp. 

You knew when you got a Mac that gaming isn't as developed on it. 

Don't know what that means. Apple the company seems to not care about gaming for whatever reason. (See previous posts). The userbase is something different. 

Macs can play games just fine, and Mac users want to play games. OK? 

Mac versions typically take longer to come out, 

This is bullsh*t, if you develop right, you can do it -- BLIZZARD DOES IT. Simultaneous release of everything, often both versions on one disc. I don't know how long it holds them up, but they do it. 

I understand that others don't think it's worth doing -- but there's at least one company that does. 

My point is, your complaining is irrelevant.  You're not understanding anything you are reading and it's hilarious. 

[CybAnt1]

semantics... aside from the hobby kits the first "PC" was a Mac.

If you're calling the Altair a hobby kit, then yes.

But the first PC was not a Mac ... it was the Apple I computer in the 70s. Later to be followed by the IBM PC around 1981.

The first Mac was in 1984 ... soon to be followed by Windows for IBM-compatibles, which previously only ran the non-GUI MS-DOS. 

[CybAnt1]

My point is, your complaining is irrelevant.   

To this company, yes. To Blizzard, obviously, they listen. I can praise people who listen, and not praise those who don't. That's my right. 

http://www.macworld....4/blizzard.html

As to Blizzard’s future on the Mac platform, the company added, “We have a recognized track record of native Mac OS support, and we have no plans to break with that tradition. We understand that our Mac player base prefers native software whenever possible, and our cross-platform development practice addresses that.”

Grok this fella; I get your point. However, nothing you say will stop me from praising people who do what Blizzard does, and not praising people (like Bioware) who don't. 

[Burglekut]

CybAnt1 wrote...

My point is, your complaining is irrelevant.   

To this company, yes. To Blizzard, obviously, they listen. I can praise people who listen, and not praise those who don't. That's my right. 

http://www.macworld....4/blizzard.html

As to Blizzard’s future on the Mac platform, the company added, “We have a recognized track record of native Mac OS support, and we have no plans to break with that tradition. We understand that our Mac player base prefers native software whenever possible, and our cross-platform development practice addresses that.”

Grok this fella; I get your point. However, nothing you say will stop me from praising people who do what Blizzard does, and not praising people (like Bioware) who don't. 

You can get the game on the same day the PC gamers can by using Boot Camp.  Again, you knew this would be this way when you got your Mac.  You know that the Mac clients are typically delayed by most companies.  Yes, it would be cool if every company released them on the same day on both Mac and PC, but that won't happen for a while, if ever.  It is cool Blizzard does, hopefully more will soon.  

[CybAnt1]

You can get the game on the same day the PC gamers can by using Boot Camp.  

That's what I'm doing.

However, I don't have to like it. Sorry. And I don't. I can ask, and they can do nothing. 

Seems to be the same situation with the patch & the Toolset update, BTW.

[Cyberpawz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

semantics... aside from the hobby kits the first "PC" was a Mac.

If you're calling the Altair a hobby kit, then yes.

But the first PC was not a Mac ... it was the Apple I computer in the 70s. Later to be followed by the IBM PC around 1981.

The first Mac was in 1984 ... soon to be followed by Windows for IBM-compatibles, which previously only ran the non-GUI MS-DOS. 

Actually the first PC wasn't an Atari, that was more of the first game console... the first PC was from IBM, the IBM 5100 Computer.

[CybAnt1]

No. The first PC was not from Atari.



It was the Altair. It did not have a monitor or keyboard. This is why most people don't consider it a PC, but it was a personal computer, not a mainframe, or system terminal.



http://en.wikipedia....iki/Altair_8800

(1975)



Yes, it was a hobby kit. Basically.



The first personal computer, with a monitor & keyboard option, the Apple I.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I

(1976)



http://en.wikipedia....Apple_II_series

(1977)



It was probably only the Apple II that would be recognizeable to you as a personal computer.



The IBM PC (which, in effect, has been "cloned" by everything most people today call a "PC") came out in 1981. It ran MS-DOS, it had no GUI.

http://en.wikipedia....rsonal_Computer



Apple released the Macintosh in 1984.



Windows 1.0 came out in 1985. Windows 3.0-1 came out 1992/95. The first Windows that wasn't basically a DOS shell was Windows 95, in of course, 1995.



I love computer history, btw.

[Cyberpawz]

Hate to say it and be forced to dissagree, but the IBM 5100 Computer was the first PC. Your computer as you said was a hoby kit, not a prebuilt personal computer. When we are using the terminology PC we are talking pre-manufactured computers for the masses, not just the technically inclined.



It is the same reason why Linux is still thought of as a geek or nerd playground and not trouncing MS but from here to kingdomcome.

[CybAnt1]

We're both wrong, Cyberpawz. At least according to this site.



http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml



Xerox Alto -- 1973



Hell this site gives the honor to a machine made in 1950. Guess it all depends on where you draw the line, as always.

[Cyberpawz]

CybAnt1 wrote...

We're both wrong, Cyberpawz. At least according to this site.

http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml

Xerox Alto -- 1973

Hell this site gives the honor to a machine made in 1950. Guess it all depends on where you draw the line, as always.

I knew about the Alto the reason I didn't count it as a PC is because it wasn't.

Yes it was a computer which we call today, monitor, keyboard, GUI, and a mouse, the issue was it was impossible to pay for. Before the HD was bought, it cost about $10,000 to purchase, not to mention there were something like only two thousands ever made. Most were bought by universities and used at Xerox. Very few ever made it to the public. The Hard Drive as massive as well...



The thing below is the HD.

Honestly, I wouldn't call this a PC for the general public, only because of the cost, and the lack of real functionality for the general public itself. Not ot mention it had eithernet capabilities, which connected directly up to the internet back then, which is not as we think of it today.

The negeral public wouldn't be able to use it, or afford it... so it is the only reason I didn't post it as the first PC, because if you want to go that far, my grandfather used the first PC, but it was made by the government.

[Knuxson]

I too hope to get Awakening for my Mac. I was saving up money to buy the PC version when the Mac version came out and instantly went for that instead. My mid 2009 Macbook Pro plays it great and I actually haven't run into performance problems when playing mid to high settings.



I hope Bioware is considering releasing the xpac for Mac because I will feel a little shafted if they just totally forget about the people who purchased the Mac version. I agree with previous posts that Blizzard really does treat their Mac fans with the respect they deserve and not like they are irrelevant. Valve has just adopted a new policy to develop all their existing and future games natively for Macs. I can't wait to pick up Half Life 2, Portal, and Left 4 Dead 2 for my Mac next month.

[Dlokir]

CybAnt1 wrote...
...
Windows 1.0 came out in 1985. Windows 3.0-1 came out 1992/95. The first Windows that wasn't basically a DOS shell was Windows 95, in of course, 1995.
...

Well I suppose you never used Windows 3.1 (myself I don't remember 3.0 so not sure I used it), it's quite a non sense to quote it as a DOS Shell and it was quite before Windows 95.

[Cyberpawz]

Knuxson wrote...

I too hope to get Awakening for my Mac. I was saving up money to buy the PC version when the Mac version came out and instantly went for that instead. My mid 2009 Macbook Pro plays it great and I actually haven't run into performance problems when playing mid to high settings.

I hope Bioware is considering releasing the xpac for Mac because I will feel a little shafted if they just totally forget about the people who purchased the Mac version. I agree with previous posts that Blizzard really does treat their Mac fans with the respect they deserve and not like they are irrelevant. Valve has just adopted a new policy to develop all their existing and future games natively for Macs. I can't wait to pick up Half Life 2, Portal, and Left 4 Dead 2 for my Mac next month.

Half-Life 2 is coming out for the Mac finnaly? I wish Unreal II was coming out as well, now that was a game.

[CybAnt1]

Well I suppose you never used Windows 3.1 (myself I don't remember 3.0 so not sure I used it), it's quite a non sense to quote it as a DOS Shell and it was quite before Windows 95.

Ummm... I used Windows 3.1 plenty, thankyouverymuch, which always loaded after MS-DOS loaded first, because it ran on top of DOS. It was out in 92-93, that was a typo. 

[Knuxson]

Here is the link to the official news from Valve about releasing their Steam service and their games natively for Macs

http://www.valvesoft...m/news/?id=3568

[Dlokir]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Ummm... I used Windows 3.1 plenty, thankyouverymuch, which always loaded after MS-DOS loaded first, because it ran on top of DOS. It was out in 92-93, that was a typo. 

OSX runs on top of a core shell system, that doesn't make it match your description.

Windows 1 was a total crap I used a little bit, used Mac at same time. But Windows 3.1 was a full graphical system. You can't write "The first Windows that wasn't basically a DOS shell was Windows 95", As a user (I had Mac all the time but used PC at work) it makes no sense, I didn't even notice the point of Windows 95. From a system point of view it's a change but from a user interface not much, Windows 3.1 had already the main core of the graphical approach.

[CybAnt1]

Because Windows 95 was the first OS where you never saw a DOS prompt without looking for it yourself. It had DOS for retro-compatibility (many games ran only in DOS). However, it didn't run on top of it.

You started Windows 3.1 by typing >WIN at a DOS prompt. Windows 3.1 icons mapped to DOS paths and sometimes even DOS commands. You had to edit DOS files like CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to make WIndows work.

http://www.answers.c...oft-windows-3-1

Windows 3.1 is not entirely a new operating system, it is a graphical interface that is "built over" MS-DOS. This type of operating system is referred to as a DOS "Shell" utility. **Windows 3.1 translates a user's point-and-click instructions into DOS commands for DOS to execute**. Any request that is entered through the Windows 3.1 graphical user interface shell will inevitably be performed by the MS-DOS operating system.

** Windows 95 doesn't. That's the difference.

Whatever. It's hair splitting. But I used it myself, too, and I know what it was.

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 avril 2010 - 01:02 .

[rsongy]

CybAnt1, I just wanted to say thank you for showing me that not EVERYONE out there is an ignoramus. Your sense of intellectuality is formidable.

Modifié par rsongy, 24 avril 2010 - 10:28 .

[jsachun]

All it takes is AMD to make better CPU than Intel, and I wouldn't be suprised if MS dumped intel all together to go to a true 64bit windows platform for all Consumer market PCs. Whick makes similar coding for Intel Cpus for all OSs irrelevant.

As for choice of Apple vs Microsoft.

If you want to be the first to get your hands on brand spanking new tech use MS.

if you don't mind waiting years for that tech to become redundant because it can't be developed any further software wise because its perfect, use Mac.

Modifié par jsachun, 24 avril 2010 - 11:05 .