Transgaming Technologies and Mac Developers

First to post by luketheduke · 2006-08-09 12:56 · Score: 3, Funny

All we need is DNF!!!

Re:First to post by Joe+The+Dragon · 2006-08-09 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

No we need good gaming hardware first and the Mac pro costs way too much for most gamers. The iMac does work with people want to have there own monitor and the mini gma 950 sucks with games. Apple needs a min-rage Mac with a video card in slot to fit in the gap form the low end Macs to the Mac pro.

Warning! by 0racle · 2006-08-09 12:56 · Score: 5, Funny

result in a paradigm shift

Nonsensical statements ahead.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."

Re:Warning! by Ruff_ilb · 2006-08-09 15:50 · Score: 1

On the contrary, all you have to do is implement the next generation of leverage by using a synergistic polychronistic time system to wield the golden hammer in order to...

Oh, I give up!

--
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Re:Warning! by TheRaven64 · 2006-08-09 22:53 · Score: 1

It's a paradigm shift, but not a radical paradigm shift. As such, it only scores 7.5 on my buzzword-o-meter.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Warning! by Jesus_666 · 2006-08-10 01:28 · Score: 1

On the contrary, all you have to do is implement the next generation of leverage by using a synergistic polychronistic time system to wield the golden hammer in order to...

But if we did that the main reactor could lose containment! I tell you, we're better off with reversing the main deflector's polarity and running a level five diagnosis.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)

Great! by rhesuspieces00 · 2006-08-09 12:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Duke Nukem Forever is coming to the Mac!

Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by mrchaotica · 2006-08-09 13:01 · Score: 5, Informative

There's also Crossover Mac coming, from Codeweavers. Not only is this better because the user can buy it instead of waiting on game makers to port stuff, but it's also better because unlike Transgaming, Codeweavers contributes back to WINE.

Of course, there's also vanilla DarWINE, but I haven't had any success with it on my Intel iMac yet.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by samkass · 2006-08-09 13:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

it's also better because unlike Transgaming, Codeweavers contributes back to WINE.

This must be some metric of "better" that I, as a software consumer, am unfamiliar. I've heard of better performance, better user experience, better return on investment... but "better because some developer I don't know helps out some other developer I don't know" does not trump the others in my book. As long as everyone's following the rules and licenses they acquired their code under, which they are, this really won't be an issue to Mac consumers. So really, I see this as one case in which open source is being judged along with the products... if sharing with WINE makes Codeweavers a technically better product, then your point may be valid-- if not, it's evidence that open source is not working in this case. I prefer to follow the evidence, not the religion, and not pre-judge the situation.

Besides, I *VASTLY* prefer Transgaming's approach to the market. I want to see Mac ports of games, with Mac installers, Mac support, and possibly even a mention of minimum Mac requirements, all of which Transgaming is implying they'll provide. I do NOT want some compatibility box I can buy that lets me run Windows retail boxed games if I can get them installed and translate their requirements to Mac models and operating systems. Considering how easy Transgaming claims they're going to make things, if a company is not willing to put in the little extra expense, I'll find one who is.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 13:49 · Score: 0

Have you used Transgaming on Linux? Transgaming doesn't do Mac ports of games. They do exactly what you described: a compatibility box that you can buy that lets you run Windows retail boxed games if you can get them installed and if the subset of DirectX those games uses has been voted on by the Transgaming users--otherwise you're SOL if it's not a FPS.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Lord+Kano · 2006-08-09 14:33 · Score: 1

As long as everyone's following the rules and licenses they acquired their code under, which they are, this really won't be an issue to Mac consumers.

I know that you're trolling, but for the benefit of those who don't know what we're talking about I'll explain.

The difference is that when one product was acquired under a license that allows them to make a proprietary fork of the project and not contribute back to the community and another product makes contributions back to the parent, the latter project is "better" for everyone that isn't paying money to them.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by mrchaotica · 2006-08-09 14:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

if sharing with WINE makes Codeweavers a technically better product, then your point may be valid

I'll wager that that's exactly the case.

More importantly, however, paying Codeweavers gets me a better bang-for-my-buck, because the work it funds will improve WINE for my Linux box as well. In contrast, buying a "Cider-ported" game won't do me any good when using WINE because Transgaming forked WINE before it became GPL. Whether they're complying with the legal requirements or not, they're still assholes for closing it and I refuse to support them because of that.

I also don't like Transgaming's business model, both for Cider and Cedega. I don't like Cider because I'd basically be re-buying most of the same technology for every Cider-ported game, and I don't like Cedega because it's a subscription (i.e., also re-buying it over and over again).

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by bensode · 2006-08-09 15:17 · Score: 1

Hey wow there's an insight! I can pay CodeWeavers to run most software that's already available on the MAC OS natively without emulation! Absolutely FANTASTIC!

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

What Applications Will it Run?

We intend for it to run all the applications that our current CrossOver Office product runs, with some new additions in the Microsoft 2003 version products. We also hope to offer support for a limited number of games.

List of apps.

Please mod the parent down ...

--
"Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by murdocj · 2006-08-09 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, he's not trolling, he's making a valid point. In general, there's NOTHING that I'm aware of in open source / free software licenses that requires that you "contribute" any changes back to the original project. In fact, as I recall there's been quite a bit of criticism of companies that have semi-open licenses that require that changes be passed back to and vetted by the originator. If a company takes open source, modifies it, uses it, and redistributes it, they are following both the letter AND the spirit of open source / free software movement.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 16:08 · Score: 0

Cross over doesn't really seem like a good option for games. It says "some games" in thier description and seems more like an after thought than anything else. I doubt the selection will be large and likely end up being things like the simms etc that aren't as demanding and have greater general appeal. Thier current list of products doesn't have any games at all on it that I saw. It would be great to have more options but crossover doesn't really seem to be that viable.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by WatertonMan · 2006-08-09 16:15 · Score: 1

However Office for the Mac is not the same as Office for Windows. Some things simply don't work on the Mac version. Some things are slower. (I don't know how Wine does speakwise - so I don't know if that'll be a factor) So if you need absolute compatibility and don't want to run it under parallels, then Wine would be a nice choice. Minus what I understand to be problems of cutting and pasting anything other than text.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Lord+Kano · 2006-08-09 16:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

In general, there's NOTHING that I'm aware of in open source / free software licenses that requires that you "contribute" any changes back to the original project.

You are not required to submit anything to the original project, but if you distribute binaries you have to make available the source code. The maintainters of the original project are free to choose if they want to incorporate your changes.

If the company closes off a project like Cedega, then they got access to the original source for free and are keeping all improvements for themselves. No one is suggesting that this is illegal or evil, but it's not as good as if they made the source available.

If a company takes open source, modifies it, uses it, and redistributes it, they are following both the letter AND the spirit of open source / free software movement.

That is true if they make their modified source available too.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by jwhitener · 2006-08-09 18:12 · Score: 1

Unlike Transgaming, Codeweaver's doesn't run GAMES:)

Thats the entire point of getting Transgaming heh. My linux experiences with Transgaming have been spotty at best. So I really hope that they manage to make the Mac port function more consistently, as well as provide better older game support. Way too buggy for many of the games I play.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by pAnkRat · 2006-08-09 19:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Cedega ist available from CVS.

The difference between Cedega from CVS and the commercial package is mainly the copyprotection stuff.
Commercial cedega is able to play games from the original disc using the original binaries with copyprotection.
Transgaming cannot release the code for this because it is the IP from another company, Transganming is licesing the code.

If you use Cedega from CVS, you have to use some hacked binaries from gamecopyworld for most of the games you play.

AFAIK wine does not incorporate CEDEGA's code because they implement their own way of DirectX 9.0
For some games it works even better then the cedega version, YMMV

--
we need an "-1 Plain wrong" moderation option!
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Res3000 · 2006-08-09 22:38 · Score: 1

He claims something other... Link
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by mrchaotica · 2006-08-09 23:57 · Score: 1

Codeweavers isn't focused on running games, but that doesn't mean they won't work. From what I hear, vanilla WINE (and therefore Crossover [Office|Mac]) actually supports DirectX 9 pretty well. Depending on the game, it sometimes runs better than Cedega.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-10 03:04 · Score: 1, Informative

CVS is almost always way outdated and last time I looked missing much more than the copy protection, and besides, it's not under an open source license.

But, yeah, at this late stage the WINE people have just said fuck it, we're not going to get anything from Cedega, and wrote their own stuff.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-08-10 05:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This must be some metric of "better" that I, as a software consumer, am unfamiliar.

That's because you don't give a shit about the long term. Other people do. The comment was directed at them. Deal with it.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-08-10 05:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Cedega ist available from CVS.

I assume you're talking about this, which hasn't been updated since June, and which barely has any discussion except about internationalization. Or maybe you're talking about ReWind, the BSD-licenced fork of WINE, which is even more lifeless.

Contrast that with WINE, which is actively developed, discussed, and used enough to justify "weekly" news articles.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by samkass · 2006-08-10 06:24 · Score: 1

That's because you don't give a shit about the long term. Other people do. The comment was directed at them. Deal with it.

Stop flaming and trolling. Of course I care about the long term. This code sharing has still not been proven to be the best long-term solution. If it can't produce better products, in which "better" isn't a self-referential value assigned to "open source", then caring about the long term has nothing to do with it. At that point it just becomes a religious argument, analogous to brand loyalty or buying things because you like the color of the box.

In my opinion, the long-term is best served by putting money on the technologies that produce the best products. Generally, that's easy-- buy the better products. But if the word "better" gets co-opted to mean something other than direct, measurable improvements, then you lose all qualitative measure of what's leading to the best solution.

In short, I'm not going to buy a worse solution just because it's open source. If open source produces a better product, it will get my money and will flourish. If not, it won't. Either way, the long term is best served.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by jwhitener · 2006-08-10 06:52 · Score: 1

The problem is, with that lack of focus, individual game quirks make it largely unuseable. The whole point of transgaming is to hunt down and resolve those quirks. Without a commitment to maintain that focus on games, products like crossover office and wine are always behind, and always more buggy running games.
Re:Transgaming is NOT the only solution! by mrchaotica · 2006-08-10 07:22 · Score: 1

I guess it depends on which quirks the particular games you want to play exhibit.

Of course, there's also the issue that Crossover or WINE gives you a chance to see if whatever arbitrary game you want to play can be made to work, while this Cider thing relies on the game manufacturer deciding to use it on their own.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

bootcamp by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 13:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

i think boot camp revolutionized the way games are brought to the mac.

Re:bootcamp by EXMSFT · 2006-08-09 14:08 · Score: 1

Not really. It didn't bring them to the Mac. It doesn't help the average consumer. Until virtualized hardware allows for Windows UNDER OS X to run DirectX based games, it's not a consumer solution. Boot Camp, while technically neat, is a geek tool.
Re:bootcamp by NosTROLLdamus · 2006-08-09 15:48 · Score: 1

2.2. Does Windows emulate a full computer?
No, as the name says, Windows Is Not a (CPU) Emulator. Windows just provides the Windows API. This means that you will need an x86-compatible processor to run an x86 Windows application, for instance from Intel. The advantage is that, unlike solutions that rely on CPU emulation, Windows runs applications at full speed. Sometimes a program run under Windows will be slower than when run on a copy of OS X, but this is more due to the fact that Apple has heavily optimized parts of their code, whereas mostly Windows is not well optimized (yet). Occasionally, an app may run faster under Windows than on OS X. Most apps run at roughly the same speed.
Re:bootcamp by marshallbanana6 · 2006-08-09 16:50 · Score: 1

It's a bit more than a geek tool I would say, with how easy mac makes it to use! All you need is someone who understands "buy a copy of windows, run bootcamp tool, put in windows cd. install windows (anyone can do this nowadays), burn drivers, voila"

The trickiest part is actually installing windows, but seriously, anyone who wants to and is willing to drop the cash on windows can do it if they know so much as how to click through an automatic installer. Now, whether a non-geek apple user will -want- to do this... maybe that's what would make it a geek tool.
Re:bootcamp by StarkRG · 2006-08-09 17:23 · Score: 1

Bootcamp is pointless and stupid, I've done the whole dual boot thing (in fact, am doing so now), and you always end up using one OS 99% of the time, and figuring ways around the programs you're unable to run on your OS of choice.

You're much better off using one of the virtual machine programs, or, better yet, something like wine. Wine is good in that you don't have to buy Windows to run windows things, and the programs run as programs and not within the virtual machine window. Generally interactions between programs and the window manager are pretty seamless (copying, pasting, saving, etc.). I think that Apple should have come out with its own, integrated wine-like product. Imagine windows software running just like any of your Mac software, possibly even looking similar. Showing up in the dock like any other, double click any .exe as if it were a Mac program, etc. They've done similar things with the likes of classic.
Re:bootcamp by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-10 00:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

I disagree. Boot Camp has been the perfect solution for my sister. Her case may be rather unique, or maybe there are others like her.

My sister likes to play Unreal Tournament (the original from 1999). Her Blue and White G3 just wasn't cutting it any more for playing UT or doing any 'general computing' stuff. She's dead-set against buying/using an windows pc. After Boot Camp came out, she bought an Intel Mac Mini, and I helped her install Boot Camp, Windows XP, and UT on it. Now she uses OS X for all her computing needs and boots into windows and plays UT with us. UT plays *flawlessly* under Boot Camp (with the latest Direct3D8 drivers). UT is basically unplayable with Parallels.

Again, her case may be uncommon, but it works very well and certainly isn't "pointless and stupid."
Re:bootcamp by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-10 01:28 · Score: 0

UT99 is open source now. I expect a native intel mac version shouldn't be too hard to arrange. If there isn't one already you could try asking some of the developers nicely.

p.s. The latest DirectX version is 9.0c, D3D8 is old. Not that it matters for a 1999 game.

Why game on any other platform? by Tim_sama · 2006-08-09 13:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Pshht. Why would you want to play Windows games on a Mac? Added stability, you say? Well let me tell you something, mister. I'm running XP here, and it's the most stable OS I've ever!@^&AF3@%***NO CARRIER***

Re:Why game on any other platform? by StikyPad · 2006-08-09 14:02 · Score: 1, Troll

Ah man, a dig at Windows stability! That's clever! No really, that's pure genius! You know, because of problems MS has had with stability. And what a setup! First you start off from the point of view that there's no point in playing Windows games on a Mac. But then -- and this is the genius -- you use your supposed diatribe to launch the actual punchline: A "NO CARRIER" signal, indicating a disconnected dialup connection, presumably due to some sort of malfunction under Windows -- the very platform which you were supposedly defending! Man, whew.. let me catch my breath. You, sir, are a born comedian, and it is a privelage for us all to have witnessed your wit here on Slashdot.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Why game on any other platform? by heinousjay · 2006-08-09 15:33 · Score: 1

And it's modded funny at that. A sterling example of a statement from the deep philosopher Barney Coopersmith: Everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, even people who don't.

--
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Re:Why game on any other platform? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 15:40 · Score: 0

Man, this joke is OLD. I don't think I've seen a NO CARRIER text since last century.
Re:Why game on any other platform? by steveo777 · 2006-08-10 02:00 · Score: 1

Everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, even people who don't.
Except, perhaps, Bob Dole and Al Gore. I think someone finally told them.

--
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...

Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-09 13:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Honestly I take the opposite perspective on Cider - I think it's going to be horrible for the Mac gaming community. Now, as Apple's market share grows, instead of publishers beginning to consider making native versions (not crappy ports) of their games we're going to see everyone using technologies like Cider that reduce performance instead. I guess it's fine for older games but its advantage in terms of development time is offset by the fact that the latest games won't have "good enough" performance.

--
Haiku for you!

Re:Not Good by DeathPenguin · 2006-08-09 13:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see why you're worried about "crappy ports." Anyone seeking to make a profit off of a games in any operating system, including MacOS or GNU/Linux, is going to need to keep their level of quality up no matter if they use Transgaming technologies or do a native port.

At least now MacOS users will have a few extra titles made available that would otherwise remain out of reach.
Re:Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-09 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

What I'm saying is that Cider is a performance hit. It's great for ports, but it really can't be used for the latest and the greatest because you need native performance. I'm concerned that its existence will act like a cane that all game developers will lean on instead of deciding to actually make Mac native versions of their games (or even better, Mac only games).

--
Haiku for you!
Re:Not Good by rhesuspieces00 · 2006-08-09 13:56 · Score: 2, Informative

if you are including every headless beige box that gets assembled and stuck in a corner to serve files, that might be true (although I think you're making up statistics), but among computers purchased and used by actual people (the part of PC sales interesting to game developers), apple is most certainly growing, across the board but in laptop sales especially.
Re:Not Good by kfg · 2006-08-09 13:57 · Score: 1

The entire point of WINE/Cider is to make ports unneccasary, to run the software natively under an alternate OS, because it is running on the same hardware for which it was compiled.

It is not an emulator. You only need to emulate when you are translating the intsruction set of one chip to a chip with a different instruction set.

Does software under Cider take a performance hit? Yes, sometimes. Sometimes it won't even run at all. This isn't because of an emulation layer, it is because Cider is incomplete.

KFG
Re:Not Good by BigCheese · 2006-08-09 14:05 · Score: 1

Unlike Cedega, Cider is used by the developers and that means support. If it's slow or makes the game act weird on a Mac they have to fix it.

I think it gives game developers a lower risk way of trying the Mac market. If the Mac ports are successful they may do a native ports next time.

Besides, then the developers will have cool new Macs to play with and they may insist on doing a native port to play with all the new developer toys.

--
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
Re:Not Good by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 14:09 · Score: 0

The fact remains, regardless of whatever blips Apple has experience in sales it has done nothing to stop their continued slide lower and lower in worldwide marketshare.

Apple can keep increasing their sales every quarter till they go out of business AND continue to slide lower and lower in marketshare.
Re:Not Good by apflwr3 · 2006-08-09 14:33 · Score: 1

I'm concerned that its existence will act like a cane that all game developers will lean on instead of deciding to actually make Mac native versions of their games (or even better, Mac only games).

If it means multiplayer games-- particularly FPS's-- can come to the Mac at the same time as their Windows counterparts I'm all for Cider. In the past most ports were months if not years late. Nothing like learning a new game when everyone else had a year to learn all the tricks.

Often there were also compatibility problems-- as in, you could only play against other Mac players (meaning, no one.) It's pretty common to have to wait another six months for an update so you can go on the standard servers. I believe Halo was a prime example of this. Civ3 might be another.

Then there are the expansion packs-- which often don't make it to the Mac, or also suffer the same delays. Even important updates tend to lag behind and often had to rely on the community rather than developer for support. As in, you can no longer play the game online because all of the servers are using a new version or that Aspyr or Macsoft doesn't support.
Re:Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-09 14:34 · Score: 1

Apple's market share is growing fast. Macs sales are growing much faster than those of most PC manufacturers.

--
Haiku for you!
Re:Not Good by Enrique1218 · 2006-08-09 15:02 · Score: 1

I don't think the Mac gaming community can go any lower than it is now. Apple needs to reach critical mass before game developers will consider native versions. I think Apple is moving in that direction but until then we could use all the games we can get. So, this technology, which will probably be buggy as hell, might help us to reach that critical mass by attracting those users who are sitting on the fence.

--
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Re:Not Good by alienw · 2006-08-09 15:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Considering that most Macs are either laptops or iMacs (both with relatively slow Intel graphics chips), I don't think the slight performance hit is going to be substantial. You won't be playing anything that demands a fast videocard, anyway. And hey, spending 50% more resources to get an extra 2% of the market is not exactly a great idea.
Re:Not Good by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 15:43 · Score: 0

iMacs have ATI Graphics cards in them.
Re:Not Good by catwh0re · 2006-08-09 16:27 · Score: 1

I had similar thoughts, I'd personally rather software that was written for the Macintosh platform directly (especially since there are lots of great technologies in OS X that developers can use, where there is no straight forward comparison to windows.)
Having an inbetween state, such as cider, no matter how efficient can lead to two problems. 1.) Developers not designing for the mac by default, instead only as an after thought. 2.) Slower performance on the same hardware.
There is one up shot of all of this. It will encourage Asypr(and similar) to make more efficient ports of games, as I've noticed that many ports aren't as fast as they could be and in many cases not as fast as they _should_ be. For example take the sims 2 on the mac, it is painfully slow despite not appearing any more visually and computationally complex than warcraft 2 which operates flawlessly on the Mac.
On a slightly different topic, many developers need to reorganise how their software internally functions, particularly Adobe with Photoshop.. why does a 3D graphics suite such as Maya Unlimited load significantly faster than Adobe Photoshop? Adobe should also embrace OS X technologies such as coreimage for their filter sets, and start using actual GUI elements instead of bitmaps.
Re:Not Good by vegasmacguy · 2006-08-09 16:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Where the fuck do you Apple kooks get this crap! Apple's worldwide marketshare has been in a constant decline ever since Jobs took over.

Where do you get yours? Are you reading financial reports from 6 years ago? Apple has been in steady growth cycle for the last several years. They have consistently reported that 50% of thier sales or more were not previous Mac owners.

Apple Financial Results
Here's some more links on the subject
http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/12/02/safari.popu larity.growing/
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun 2006/tc20060615_080175.htm
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/19.18.s html
Explaination of the Myth of Market Share (Google Cache)
Re:Not Good by nexcomlink · 2006-08-09 17:17 · Score: 0

I think you forgot one major important factor, so let me ask it to you...

How long will it last?
Re:Not Good by Time+Doctor · 2006-08-09 17:36 · Score: 2, Informative

You have an interesting definition of emulation. From wikipedia:
A software emulator allows computer programs to run on a platform (computer architecture and/or operating system) other than the one for which they were originally written.

Note the part about "operating system" emulation. Just like Gnu's Not Unix, Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are just names, Wine most certainly is an Emulator, and Gnu's Not Unix when they can't pay for the name, but it sure is Unix otherwise.

--
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
Re:Not Good by kfg · 2006-08-09 18:19 · Score: 1

Well, if it says it on Wikipedia it must be true.

Gnu's Not Unix when they can't pay for the name, but it sure is Unix otherwise.

And that makes WINE . . .Windows, but SHHHHHHH! Don't tell the Linux/Mac people that.

KFG
Re:Not Good by prockcore · 2006-08-09 19:36 · Score: 1

Wine most certainly is an Emulator

Wine is as much an emulator as Firefox is a Mosaic Emulator.
Re:Not Good by squiggleslash · 2006-08-09 21:41 · Score: 1

This quarter, yes, the quarter before that no, it was in decline (went from 2.2%MS to 2.0%, IIRC.)
The thing to remember is that now is not a good time to be making any statements on the Mac's market share growth. For 5 of the last 13 months, Apple has essentially been selling a range of machines it had all but publicly declared obsolete. Since January, individual machines have been updated, but until last Monday at least one popular range of Macs was still selling solely in the "obsolete" form. As a result, there's been a period where nobody's wanted to buy a Mac, and then spikes where six to thirteen months of pent-up demand has finally been satisfied.
I don't think anyone should judge where Apple is going for another year at the earliest.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Not Good by gutnor · 2006-08-09 22:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

We are not talking about a platform that used to be a leader in gaming and is slowly sliding into oblivion. This is not the final nail on the coffin like it would have been for Amiga or Atari back in the days.

There is no gaming scene for Mac. Don't lure yourself, people that want to play games or think game s are even midly important on their home computer already have Windows somewhere. People buying Mac have given up gaming.
Anything that could drive down the cost of development of game for Mac is welcome. Companies don't invest in costly cross platform development if they don't think they could get their money back. And considering what I just said, Mac market is not something appealing ( wasn't Steve Jobs saying that Mac is not and will never be a game platform or is that an urban legend ? ) With this techno, they can try the Mac market for cheap and if they make a few buck out of it, they may consider developing for Mac in the future.
Also throwing more games to the market can only dynamise it, and maybe convince a number of current moderate gamer ( like me ) to switch to Mac ( why dual booting and pay for both Windows and Mac OS ?? )

Note, I'm aware that WoW exists on Mac. But games like WoW are exclusive, it is very likely that because of the subscription involved, playing WoW means not playing anything else for years, so I think the WoW port effect is somehow limited for the Mac Game Market as a whole.
Re:Not Good by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 23:19 · Score: 0

(or even better, Mac only games).

Sorry? How are Mac-only games "even better"?
Platform exclusivity sucks as it stands (although the economics are usually pretty clear-cut) - but you'd rather see the situation get inverted than go away altogether? I smell a fanboi....
Re:Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-10 00:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, if they're not going to code natively for OS X why not just switch to Windows to run games? I know everyone says they don't want to install Windows on their Mac, but I'll have one installed either way for research purposes. I'm not going to go around buying Cider versions of games when I can buy the Windows version and get better performance on the same machine.

As for the market share thing, you kids are living in the 1990s. Apple's sales are exploding, they've got a 12% market share in US labtops alone.

In terms of graphics cards, Mac desktops come with your choice of:

1x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
2x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
3x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
1x ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB
4x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
1x NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB

Methinks new game performance IS an issue.

--
Haiku for you!
Re:Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-10 00:49 · Score: 1

Where are you getting your info? Apple's market share was falling BEFORE Jobbs took over, since Mac OS X came out and got established it's been on the rise. There was a hiccup with the transition to Intel but now sales are exploding at a much faster rate than those of other PC manufacturers.

--
Haiku for you!
Re:Not Good by vhogemann · 2006-08-10 01:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

About performance,

Games running under Wine on Linux usually have a better performance than running "native" on Windows. I don't know why it happens, pehaps the Wine folks just did a better implementation of the WindowsAPI, pehaps Linux just handles things better, or a combination of these... but Warcraft3 and HalfLife2, in my experience, runs much smoother under wine/cedega than on WindowsXP.

So, I won't be surprized if games using this technology actually perform better on the Mac than on Windows.

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Re:Not Good by Lars+T. · 2006-08-10 01:51 · Score: 1

iMacs have ATI Graphics cards in them.
As well as the MacBook Pros.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Not Good by spykemail · 2006-08-10 02:26 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt that the games will run better than they would if they were coded for OS X in the first place, but I'll keep my fingers crossed that they'll run faster than their Windows versions would under Windows on the same machine.

--
Haiku for you!
Re:Not Good by mrxak · 2006-08-10 02:33 · Score: 1

You really are full of it. It's a well known fact that Apple has an increasing marketshare, selling computers at a rate much faster than any other manufacturer. Five years ago you might have been correct, but this isn't five years ago.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Re:Not Good by The+Eagle+Maint · 2006-08-10 04:00 · Score: 1

instead of deciding to actually make Mac native versions of their games (or even better, Mac only games).
Quick comment on that last line; making Mac only games is better for who, exactly? Game developers would lose 90% of their potential PC market, which mainly from killing them financially, would help ensure that no one may get to see another game from them. While it would be nice to see more games on Macs, Mac-only is definitely not the way to go.
Re:Not Good by doh123 · 2006-08-10 05:07 · Score: 1

I dont agree at all. most people looking at this are taking it from a complete outsiders perspective. Being a person that plays many gmaes on the Mac, I'm all for Cider.

Ive used Cadega a lot, and it works decent enough, and Cider can only be cleaner since it will be made specificly for the game being sold.

The problem with your arguement is your saying that Cider games will run worse than 'native' ported games. I seriouesly doubt that because most 'native' ported games absolulty suck on performance already. Many are already using built in things much like Cider in some areas so Code doesnt have to be re-written. Then the games coming out are a hodgepodge of poorly written OSX code with windows optimized code thrown in. If current OSX games ran decent, then Id hate Cider, but it really cant get much worse.
Re:Not Good by Gorbag · 2006-08-10 05:36 · Score: 1

I think the wikipedia article you cite does not distinguish between simulation, emulation, and other techniques. Wine is only an emulator if it does things a particular way.

--
-- I speak only for myself
Re:Not Good by Ilgaz · 2006-08-10 05:39 · Score: 1

There is gaming scene, selection of quality games which works happily on G4 / G5 systems and people pay for them.

This oportunist crap will result in NO GAMES CODED FOR OPENGL, OPENAL.

Steve Jobs? That guy calls peoples machines purchased just 3 days ago "4x slow" "5x slow" by suggesting Intel is 5x faster than G5.

Dell fanboy, he now suggests there are no games for Mac? Not surprised.

Why doesn't he ask his jerk, elitist coders why they give NO CHOICE over OpenGL accuracy and speed? There goes your frame rate at first hand.Why OpenAL bugs still not fixed and people has to change sample rate of system to 44.1 khz since they hear noise in 48 Khz? Why does people have to code seperate "joystick calibration" utility, a zombie from MS DOS ages of gaming? Would it be so hard to put a "joystick control panel"?

WoW exists on mac as well as Warcraft, Starcraft, The Sims II. Those games are not subscription based. What they have is a good/rich user profile who doesn't pirate and purchase games. Also they are coded by real companies who has programmers can code something other than DirectX. Also they don't have exclusive deals with Microsoft to offer Windows only products. Those are REAL gaming companies. Just to show how serious they are about supporting their consumers: They released a Starcraft (yes, that game!) update fixing some problems just 1 week ago. Would a "Cider" using, fake Windows API bound company would do it?

They get the return, check Amazon top sellers in Mac category: http://tinyurl.com/g4spk

Mac gaming does not exist?

Now they have excellent expertise on Power arch. they are happily enjoying their XBox 360, PS3, Nintendo releases since they are all POWER based.

Well, as a G5 owner , if all companies are STUPID to move to DirectX and prison themselves to windows, I will buy a PS3 and enjoy Cell Processor gaming. No reason those OpenGL, OpenAL standards based games not to be converted. Expensive? Did you check those "gaming edition" graphic card prices lately?
Re:Not Good by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-10 05:42 · Score: 0

Just WoW?
Try WoW, Quake 4, Doom 3, Call of Duty 2, UT2004, Civ. 4, The Sims 2, Warcraft 3. All A-list games, and only one of them is "exclusive". I use my Mac as my exclusive gaming machine, and it's terrific.
Re:Not Good by Taevin · 2006-08-10 06:38 · Score: 1

WINE is not an emulator. It is an implementation of the Windows API. As kfg said in a reply to your post, that makes WINE simply a different, and unfortunately incomplete, version of Windows.

Blizzard releases it's games nowadays for both Windows and Mac simultaneously (e.g. WoW). Does that make the Mac WoW client an emulation of the Windows one? No, it's a different implementation of the same thing.
Re:Not Good by Time+Doctor · 2006-08-10 06:59 · Score: 1

Your comparison to World of Warcraft is ridiculous. Wine most certainly emulates windows' api and running environment. World of Warcraft runs natively on the macintosh, without using any sort of windows emulation, or wine, or any such thing. Call it a pretendulator if you want, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't native. Just like my icculus.org/quake3 project runs on windows, mac, linux, solaris, and more, natively, without windows emulation.

--
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
Re:Not Good by Taevin · 2006-08-10 09:08 · Score: 1

Your comparison to World of Warcraft is ridiculous.
Of course it is. It was just an extreme example meant to show that just because two peices of software targeted at two different platforms perform the same function that does not make one an emulator of the other.

World of Warcraft runs natively on the macintosh, without using any sort of windows emulation, or wine, or any such thing.
Indeed, and WINE is compiled as a native library for whatever platform it's running on. So when I play a game or use a program through WINE, it's running "natively." All they've done is form a compatibility layer so that when a Windows program calls CreateThread or whatever, it uses the code the WINE developers have written instead of the code Windows uses. As long as we're quoting wikipedia, from the article about WINE: "Rather than acting as a full emulator, Wine implements a compatibility layer, providing alternative implementations of the DLLs that Windows programs call."

Call it a pretendulator if you want, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't native.
Right, because making up condescending words in an attempt to show your disdain for a company has any bearing on reality or WINE. Transgaming/Cedega are only related to WINE in the sense that they are both compatibility layers (with Cedega focusing on DirectX) and that Cedega got it's start from the WINE project. I'm sure we could have quite the debate about whether or not Transgaming's work and practices are beneficial to the Linux gaming community or are ethical but it really doesn't have any place in a discussion about what WINE is or is not.

If you must call WINE something to support an all-or-nothing attitude, call it a simulator. That's what it does - simulates Windows behavior so that programs written for Windows will work on another operating system.
Re:Not Good by Zerathdune · 2006-08-12 12:03 · Score: 1

They get the return, check Amazon top sellers in Mac category: http://tinyurl.com/g4spk

It should be noted that except for civ4 and call of duty 2, all the games on the first page are mac/win hybrids. There's no way of telling how many of those purchases were intended for use on an actual mac. The rest of your post was fine.

--
No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
Re:Not Good by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-08-14 04:41 · Score: 1

There is no performance hit. It's a myth.

On my Linux box, I run World of Warcraft WIN32 using Cedega, and get native (or better than native) performance. Wine, and hence Cedega, a Wine fork, or NOT emulation. They are binary API compatiblity layers. They are an implementation of WIN32 for Linux.

It's a userspace app that runs WIN32 EXEs. That's all.

There's no emulation. It's wicked fast, and there's minimal overhead. The only "real" overhead is that you're paging code to run more types of binaries than are avaliable on Windows; XP only supports COM and EXE, while Linux (with a WINE-alike) support ELFs, A.OUTs, EXEs, and COMs. More APIs=more memory, and generally more paging.

There are some performance issues with particular titles, but this is not because of "emulation", and an architectural performance limitation. These issues are because of poor implementations of various DirectX/Direct 3D features, which Transgaming is constantly working on.

Furthermore, Cider, which is a rebadged Winelib, does much of the translation work before hand. There's no reason for Cider not to support the latest and greatest; in fact, Transgaming is positioning Cider as something you build into your project during development; when you compile, you can target either Windows or OS X, and Cider should handle all the work for you. Take a look at the Winelib documentation. I'll quote:

Compiling apps under Winelib should theoretically involve only makefile changes. In practice, you will encounter header problems, and the likes -- for these it is much better (and faster) to submit a patch, rather than document them. So for the remainder of the section, let's assume the Wine headers are good enough for the application in question.

So, why doesn't Valve, or Blizzard, or whoever, use Winelib to build games? Because Winelib has limited DirectX capabilities, and because it would require a fair amount of developer interaction with Codeweavers or Wine-dev mailing lists to get problems sorted out. Not to mention that Codeweaver's traditional focus has been on office applications, not gaming.

Enter Cider. Transgaming will offer, for a nominal fee, to deal with all those problems for you. Plus, Transgaming's already done much of the work regarding DirectX; they've currently implemented a substantial portion of SM 2.0, with 3.0 on the horizon. Direct Play, Direct Sound, Direct Input, yadda yadda, all work properly. Dollars to donuts Cider will utilize OpenAL, enabling EAX up to 5.0.

It's silly to think of Winelib, or Cider applications as "non-native". They use the WIN32 API, and they're probably not using QT/GTK2 widgets; but these are most definitely Linux/OS X applications. Heck, 99% of games use their own GUI setup anyways; it's not like your going to be look at MS widgets inside Doom 3.

It's just a different API. As the implementation improves, performance improves. Indeed, in certain regards the Wine (and Transgaming) people have actually surpassed Microsoft, and as such performance is better. For example, Linux's scheduler can perform vastly better than Microsoft's, and games load (and textures pop into place) quite a bit quicker. Comparing two similarly built systems (I have side-by-side desktops with my girlfriend), one on Windows, one on Linux, World of Warcraft loads textures faster, and experiences substantially less texture loading lag, on Linux. When I switch on Cedega's Windows Scheduler implementation, the behavior regresses to be similar to the Windows system.

There's no reason for WINE or Cider to be inferior to native Win32. There are plenty of issues in Win32 that can be "fixed", and run faster; and there are plenty of places that Linux's (and/or OS X) superior performance can be leveraged. It's not an "emulation" architectural issue, it's just a $$/Manpower engineering issue, and the gap has closed significantly. Working directly with developers while they are in the primary phases of development will enable high-quality, high-performance WIN32 applications on Linux/OS X.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Not Good by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-08-14 05:09 · Score: 1

What does "native" code mean?

What does "emulated" code mean?

Does Java count as emulated or native? Does .NET count as emulated or native? What about MONO code?

I'm going to look on wikipedia:

Native Code

Jump to: navigation, search

In Computer Science, native code is machine code. However, in the context of an interpreted language, native code is the platform dependent implementation of language features and libraries.

Hmmm... what's emulated code?

I'd argue that emulation means one of three things:
1. Just-in-time compilation. (Perl?)
2. Dynamic recompilation. (Psycho, Rosetta)
3. A synthetic, virtual machine environment. (Virtual PC, Qemu, .NET stuff)

Now, what does Wine/Cedega do? How do they fit in here?

Wine/Cedega does not:
A) Perform Just-in-time compilation,
B) Perform Dynamic recompilation, or
C) Provide a VM environment.

What DOES Wine/Cedega do?
Provide the WIN32 API and DLL environment on Unix-y systems. That's all; it provides the guts and hooks to run WIN32 code natively on Linux/OS X/Unix/BSD.

Wine is an emulator in the "coarse" sense of the word, in the same way that an automobile is emulation of a horse and buggy. (Horseless carriage, anyone?). Wine is just a Unix version of the WIN32 API; it's no more an emulator than an OS X OpenAL implementation, or X-Windows on Windows. That it runs Windows binaries _natively_, with no recompilation necessary, is a testament to the developers; it does not mean that it "emulates" anything.

Porting Wine to a platform is no different than porting ReiserFS, OpenGL, OpenAL, .NET, or Java to a platform. It's an API; nothing more. Using the word "emulation" to describe is misleading at best, and is usually done by folks with an agenda. Applications running under wine are most certainly running natively. Think about it; what about ReactOS? It "natively" uses WIN32 code for everything; but it's WIN32 implementation is pulled directly from Wine.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Not Good by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-08-14 05:12 · Score: 1

If you must call WINE something to support an all-or-nothing attitude, call it a simulator. That's what it does - simulates Windows behavior so that programs written for Windows will work on another operating system.

Even saying it's a simulator goes WAY too far.

Wine = reimplementation of Win32. It's an "emulator" in the same way that Compaq's reverse engineered PC BIOS was an "emulator" for IBM's BIOS. It's a "simulator" the same way that an airplane "simulates" bird flight.

Functionally, architecturally, and in practice, Wine is no different than OpenGL, BASH, or X. That's the long and the short of it.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell

Yes, just what games need... by Ant+P. · 2006-08-09 13:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

...another layer of indirection. As if they didn't run slow enough on OS X already.

Re:Yes, just what games need... by not+already+in+use · 2006-08-10 01:47 · Score: 1

What do you base this on? I run WoW on my MacBook Pro and it runs great. Better in fact, than i've seen it run on an acer laptop with identical specs.

--
Similes are like metaphors

HA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 13:23 · Score: 0

They can have thier crappy trandgaming cider ports.

Re:HA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 20:29 · Score: 0

http://curmudgeongamer.com/article.php?story=20030 806192631961
http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/08/transgaming-for sakes-gnulinux-gamers.htm

You can't say you weren't warned about there shady practices.....

Cider by kevin_conaway · 2006-08-09 13:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Since the summary didn't explain what Cider is:

technology that promises to convert Windows games to Mac OS X on Intel processors without the need for the long porting process traditionally required to bring titles to the platform. The company said that it has already forged agreements "with a number of the top tier video game publishers" to bring many of their titles to Intel-based Macs "in the next few months."

Re:Cider by mrxak · 2006-08-10 02:53 · Score: 1

I think I'll wait to see it to believe it. If Cider is supposed to radically shorten port times, then we should be seeing ports come out pretty soon. And then all this speculation and rumor will be come to an end.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You

Intel Macs market size? by mbessey · 2006-08-09 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, I understand that this guy's trying to sell the solution that his company produces. But it's pretty weird to say that these sorts of API translation technologies will be "the way" to bring games to the Mac when Intel-based Macs are a tiny minority of the total Macintosh user base.

I understand it's a lot less effort for the game developer to utilize something like this technology rather than porting the game to native MacOS X. But to the extent that game publishers claim that the Mac market is "too small" to justify porting games, I can't see how a small fraction of that too-small market is going to look any better.

I'm sure they'll claim that this is a zero-effort solution to supporting th Mac, and it's therefore 100% upside to add this in and get a few hundred sales to Intel-based Mac users. I'm sceptical that's really going to work out.

-Mark

Re:Intel Macs market size? by jasonditz · 2006-08-09 17:49 · Score: 1

Intel Macs aren't going to stay a tiny minority forever... its eventually going to be more or less the entire Mac market. There may be some benefit to the companies to be one of the first to embrace it as a platform.
Re:Intel Macs market size? by Rix · 2006-08-09 17:57 · Score: 1

Is Apple going to continue producing PowerPC systems, or are they slated for silicon heaven?

Former Mac Game Developer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 13:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

I use to port games to the Mac. It was a lonely, miserable life. Thankfully those days are behind me.

Apple is to the games market as Microsoft is to security - it is something each company just doesn't have a culture to ever have any competence in.

Just look at Apple's pathetic game development page:

http://developer.apple.com/games/

Some of the games I ported to the Mac only happened because I was a Mac user and wanted the game on my system. Companies greenlighted ports with the hope that Apple was getting their act together on the games front and my promises that Apple was changing their ways. But there were always big promises with each new cycle of Apple game evangelists followed by decline.

I have a hard time imagining that outside of the usual token Blizzard games and a few others that native Mac gaming is probably dead - for good this time.

Solutions like Transgaming will be bad enough to keep people playing games under Windows, and just good enough that the execs with the power to greenlight Mac ports will claim there is no point risking the expense.

It is really sad to think back after all these years. Apple could have been a fantastic gaming platform. But their outright incompetence in shipping up to date and decently performing OpenGL drivers gave the absolutely fantastic PowerPC systems a bad reputation in the gaming world. And I will skip ragging on the Apple game employees I've worked with over the years.

MMORPGs and piracy are really killing the PC game market - I think it has been in a steady decline for at least five years now. Most pc development houses I know are looking to consoles to save them. If there is any interest in other platforms it is Linux and not Apple that I see companies moving towards.

Re:Former Mac Game Developer by FerociousFerret · 2006-08-10 06:54 · Score: 1

WoW may be limiting the Mac Game Market since it takes up a lot of my game playing time. But what really started killing Mac gaming for me was DirectX and in particular DirectPlay. I used to play networked games with my friends (all Windows users at this point), but with every Windows game developer using DirectPlay for game networking, when the Mac port is released 3-6 months later, I wouldn't have much incentive to buy it since I knew I couldn't play against/with my friends. We tried to switch from Blizzard's games (Starcraft/Warcraft) to other games such as Command & Conquer, but DirectPlay stopped us every time. We did have Unreal Tournament and Quake, but we preferred to play the RTS genre. We got so tired of Starcraft that we were looking for ANYTHING that we could play cross platform. So pretty much every network playable game that was ported to the Mac was a possible sale (or sales since my friends would be buying the Windows version as well) that was lost because of the lack of cross platform networking.

market drivers by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2006-08-09 13:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

"... it's pretty weird to say that these sorts of API translation technologies will be "the way" to bring games to the Mac when Intel-based Macs are a tiny minority of the total Macintosh user base."

I've been told by those who do market research into such things that the overwhelming majority of game sales are transacted with people who have purchased a new system within the last 12 months. Assuming this is true (and it seems to be) then the relevant segment of the market for Mac OS X hosted game software will be almost entirely on the Intel based Macintosh models by February.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Re:market drivers by Shawn+Parr · 2006-08-09 15:56 · Score: 1

"... it's pretty weird to say that these sorts of API translation technologies will be "the way" to bring games to the Mac when Intel-based Macs are a tiny minority of the total Macintosh user base."
I've been told by those who do market research into such things that the overwhelming majority of game sales are transacted with people who have purchased a new system within the last 12 months. Assuming this is true (and it seems to be) then the relevant segment of the market for Mac OS X hosted game software will be almost entirely on the Intel based Macintosh models by February.
In addition to this, it is my understanding that developers and Mac sites that closely monitor their logs are seeing much larger adoption of Intel than they expected. It is reasonable to expect that there will be a rise in the figures for Intel since up to this week 3/4 of the Mac line was Intel, but even considering that the numbers have been growing quickly.
I personally wanted to upgrade for a long time, but I was able to put it off, especially when the Intel announcement came, as I was interested to see what would be brought to the table. For me it was the Macbook announcement that did it. I had waited long enough, and it fit into a great performance pocket for my use. Portable, powerful, rugged (compared to the pro), inexpensive (it cost less than any Mac I have ever bought, and is way more powerful and flexible), and it does everything I need with ease.
That coupled with the comfort factor for switchers (they can always put Windows on it and go back 'home') makes the Intel segment more considerable than one would initially think.

--
Shawn's Tech Articles

They have it backwards by Soong · 2006-08-09 14:01 · Score: 0

Because I am a Mac fanboy, if I were to write a game I'd write it on the Mac first, then port it to Linux which ought to be pretty easy, and then let some porting company produce the Windows port if they cared to.

--
Start Running Better Polls

Re:They have it backwards by EXMSFT · 2006-08-09 14:10 · Score: 1

I take it you weren't a business or finance major in college?
Re:They have it backwards by 91degrees · 2006-08-09 19:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Hey, don't knock niche markets.

If you wrote a game for the mac, then there would be no competition at all. Every single Mac gamer in the world would buy it. You'd sell dozens!

Transgaming? There will be some very shocked guys by SensitiveMale · 2006-08-09 14:06 · Score: 3, Funny

when they reach into the box and find a compact disc instead!

No plans to license? by dhasenan · 2006-08-09 14:07 · Score: 1

But their whole business model for the product depends on them licensing Cider so that people can develop games with it, I thought. Is he saying that they're not going to seek new customers?

That might be a fair enough move at first, while they're still developing and stabilizing the technology. After all, if he already has the deepest pockets, he shouldn't be wasting his time (or rather, developers) for spare change (even if that measures in the millions). (I like parentheticals.)

doomed by angrymilkman · 2006-08-09 14:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Gaming for the PC and Mac market is doomed anyway in the near future, look at Mark Rein's talk at develop conference in brighton the pc market is dead with intel putting only low end graphic cards on their motherboards. Everybody's moving to laptops anyway and high end graphic cards are energy wasters. There is just no purpose developing photo realistic games for the top 5% of pc market that can run those games. Look at games like halflife2 and doom3 which costed millions to develop I wonder whether they made a profit (well they do as they license their engine) as I could not run either of those games on my 3 year old laptop. I would just buy a Wii/Ps3/Xbox360 than at least you would know the next 5 years you'd be able to run any game.

--
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...

Re:doomed by Moridineas · 2006-08-09 14:59 · Score: 1

Why on earth are you comparing a laptop and a dedicated game playing console? Not hardly a fair comparison.

my *7* year old desktop can play a lot of games ok, and if I got a simple video card upgrade, almost all.

You could also be one of the many people that picked an enhanced video card for their laptop--ATI and Nvidia both make mobile chipsets.

Re:No Mac. Use UBUNTU. Get it NOW !! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 15:01 · Score: 0

I use both. Ubuntu is a nice try, at least compared to other Linux distros, but it's nowhere near the same league as Mac OS X.

Kevin Cloud -- Is that you? by bensode · 2006-08-09 15:26 · Score: 1

MMORPGs and piracy are really killing the PC game market

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/08/ 1357246

Hiding behind Anonymous Coward, eh?

--
"Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt

Re:Kevin Cloud -- Is that you? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 21:52 · Score: 0

Probably not. Kevin Cloud is a games artist, not a programmer. He wouldn't have been responsible for porting games to Macintosh.

Good riddence by hambonewilkins · 2006-08-09 16:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Having been a mac user my entire life, let me tell you that the only good mac developers are the independent developers (with Bungie leading the pack back in the day). If Aspyr goes belly-up, then I'll be happy - they bring nothing but incredibly bloated, expensive ports to the platform (and usually months...or years... behind schedule). The alternative cannot be worse. I'll continue to support original mac game developers, but porting houses blow and are run by incompetent and greedy people. Inside Mac Games, an online publication, has such a love affair with Aspyr that I rarely read it anymore.

--

God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?

Re:Good riddence by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-09 23:28 · Score: 0

The alternative cannot be worse.
Wow, Mac user who thinks Windows on their Mac is not the worst alternative.
Re:Good riddence by Jesus_666 · 2006-08-10 03:04 · Score: 1

Inside Mac Games, an online publication, has such a love affair with Aspyr that I rarely read it anymore.

OTOH, Inside Mac Games was where I found out about Escape Velocity Nova (which I bought) and the Mac port of Jets'n'Guns (which is next on my list).

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)

Cross platform gaming technology by DMJC-L · 2006-08-09 17:07 · Score: 1

I've got a great crossplatform porting technology to bring games to linux/mac. It's called OPENGL/SDL/OPENAL. And if developers would actually adhere to crossplatform code standards they could actually nail 3 markets at the same time. Heck it'll even cut down on your console port (ps3) supports opengl at leas tthe ES version afaik. I know someone at bioware and even he was saying they had to rewrite for opengl in the playstation port. companies that don't write for opengl in the first place are retarded.

Re:Cross platform gaming technology by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-10 01:33 · Score: 0

Why would they do that?

At this point in the game (pun intended) Direct X is superior to Open GL

When was the last time Open GL was updated? We are about to get a DX update.....

Take WoW not only do I get better frame rates on my PC than Power Mac but the textures look better to boot.

And its just not WoW every 3D game I have for both platforms, the DX version has better frame rates and has superior visual quality not to mention things like dolby/DTS surround sound.....

Who ever controls Open GL needs to pull their heads are of their ass's and up date Open GL to the point where its competitive technologically with DX 10 but I doubt this will happed do to the "committee" nature of open GL not only that they need to write a first rate development platform for open gl so developers have an easier time to write open gl games........
Re:Cross platform gaming technology by llbbl · 2006-08-10 03:25 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL

Adding to that is the fact that an OpenGL implementation is a complex piece of code. It is much more than a simple graphics driver that is just a low-level interface to hardware registers. It needs to keep track of a great deal of state information, and that requires a lot of code. In the early days of OpenGL implementations, the implementations themselves were quite buggy. Indeed, a perfectly functioning game could break when downloading a new graphics driver; this is a complication that many game developers didn't want to have to deal with. This feature is very useful if performance is not a primary goal, such as in professional graphics applications or off-line renderers; it guarantees the existence of functionality. However, in a game situation, where a loss of performance can destroy the feeling of the game, it is more desirable to know that the functionality doesn't exist and to simply avoid using it.

Direct3D didn't have these problems. A Direct3D driver is (or, was in those days) just a low-level interface to hardware registers. And D3D has a query mechanism that tells the application whether or not a particular feature is available in hardware. So game developers chose to use it because it did what they needed. While IHVs did resolve the bug issue to a significant degree, the issue of hardware specificity was never addressed. Even so, the need for it has decreased as more and more OpenGL specified functionality becomes implemented in hardware. Later versions of OpenGL would rarely add functionality that wasn't actually widely available in hardware. As such, the issue has, for the most part, become a non-issue.

At this point, the Windows Vista issue aside, the reason for using one over the other is typically inertia. It is what they have used in the past, so it is what they use now.

Good comparison article.
Re:Cross platform gaming technology by Taevin · 2006-08-10 07:26 · Score: 1
It is a good comparison article. I find it interesting however that you chose to blockquote the only section that, when taken out of context, seems to support Direct3D over OpenGL with paragraphs starting with "... an OpenGL implementation is a complex piece of code." and "Direct3D didn't have these problems."

Breaking down the article section-by-section:
1. Portability: Is any debate possible here? OpenGL is portable, D3D is not. Period.
2. Ease of use: This section highlights the differences between the ease of use of each API. Points out that until recent versions, D3D was clumsy and hard to use. Attempts to point out that OpenGL is easier to use because the implementation manages the gory details but has to include some FUD about how this makes it more susceptible to implementation bugs that the user cannot fix. The user also cannot fix Direct3D bugs so I can't imagine how that's relevant and besides that, I'd rather trust the implementation to the people who should know the hardware inside and out and not some overworked entry level game programmer on an impossible to meet schedule. Also does accurately point out the problem with OpenGL forcing the use of P-buffers for a while, but at the behest of many programmers like John Carmack the problem was able to be fixed due to OpenGL's extensibility. Section basically describes the history of each API and ends with saying they're about the same.
3. Performance: Describes how OpenGL has actually had better performance with a proper implementation throughout its life as opposed to Direct3D which needs to switch to kernel-mode frequently (surprise, surprise). Only in D3D10 will this be fixed and performance should be about equal.
4. Structure: Describes how OpenGL's extensible nature allows new features to be implemented sooner. This part deserves extra quoting: "The advantage of OpenGL's inclusive, extensible approach is limited in practice, however, by the market dominance Direct3D has achieved. In recent years, games have rarely implemented features until Direct3D has supported them, and graphics cards vendors have been reluctant to implement features that current or upcoming versions of Direct3D will not support." Having one vendor without much competition has caused stagnation in the development of new graphics technologies. Wow, just great although no surprise there either.
5. Extensions: Points out that too many extensions can be a problem, but only temporarily as they are periodically standardized. That practice seems to make the most sense to me anyway: test out a bunch of cool new stuff and then pick the best or most practical of all of them and then move forward. Also points out that because of the differences in graphics hardware, Direct3D's single code path was little more than a trick to begin with. Nowadays both major card manufacturers have standardized their pixel shaders enough where both OpenGL and Direct3D have unified code paths.
6. Users: This section is really just more history about the two and ends up saying that the reason Direct3D is used as much as it is is not because of technical superiority (the two seem to be about the same with OpenGL's portability being the main difference), but because of tradition and Microsoft's unbelievable dominance of the operating system market.
Now I'm not an expert on the history of either standard but I'm inclined to believe the wiki article as it conforms to what I do know about the subject and the ways and reasons Microsoft software continues to be used. In any case, a little reading comprehension will show that the article is slightly slanted in the favor of OpenGL, not Direct3D as you seem to have attempted to imply with your careful selection of text to quote.

I did think about the "early adopter==gamer" thing by mbessey · 2006-08-09 18:17 · Score: 1

I did think about the "early adopter==gamer" thing, but I wasn't sure whether that translated to the Mac market. It's certainly true that in the PC world, "serious" gamers are constantly updating their machines, so there's obviously a strong correlation between hardware purchases and game purchases. Among the Macintosh users I know, the rate of upgrades is considerably slower, and there really aren't any of the crazy gamer types that drive the PC hardware business (at least there aren't yet).

Do you happen to know if anybody's done research about the validity of that model in the Mac market, specifically? All I've got is anecdotal evidence.

No doubt, the balance will shift... by mbessey · 2006-08-09 18:21 · Score: 1

If Apple is as successful with the Intel machines as they hope, the day when Intel-based Macs outnumber PowerPC Macs will no doubt arrive within a few years. However, there are still a lot of PowerPC Macs out there, and will be for some time. There are still Macs out there that aren't even running Mac OS X yet...

I think the folks porting games to Mac OS X will still be around for a while.

Re:No doubt, the balance will shift... by jasonditz · 2006-08-10 02:57 · Score: 1

I know people still using original Apple IIe's as well, but they don't go out looking for boxed retail games.

please go away by Tom · 2006-08-09 19:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Please go and destroy some other market, Mr. State. You already wiped out the Linux native games market with your stolen technology (when exactly are you going to give back to Wine as promised?) - I sincerely request you don't do the same to the Mac market.

Besides, people have fallen for you once. I doubt they'll do it a second time. Your scam is over, no pick up your toys and get the hell out of here.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Missing the point by Tom · 2006-08-09 19:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

On a more serious note, Mr. State and his company and completely missing the point. If I wanted windos, I'd have bought a windos machine, right? The fact that I bought a Mac instead makes it clear that I don't want windos - I want something better. So how is bringing the very old, unreliable technology I consciously avoided back to me via some game libraries not a recipe for total fuck-up?

Game companies, if you're listening: I will buy your native Mac ports. I will not buy your windos versions, not even if you package the shit with a thin layer of Aqua and call it a Mac version.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Missing the point by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2006-08-10 03:07 · Score: 1

There is something wrong with your 'w' key :-)

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-13 02:10 · Score: 0

And maybe by meta-modding this not insightful, I too am missing the point. But there is a lesson to be learned here: No matter how cool or smart you seem to yourself, if you can't express yourself properly, people will not take you seriously. Seriously, you tried valiantly to make a good point, but your blatantly intentional incorrect spelling makes you painful to read.

not the silver bullet by oliderid · 2006-08-09 20:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Take a look at their support forum. And you will see the problem.
It looks like transgaming needs to tweak its engine for every video games. When the game receives a patch, some of them stop to work and gamers have to wait another tweak from transgaming. It looks like a lot of users are frustrated.

Transgaming may dramatically reduce the time you need to port a Windows based video game to Linux and MacOSX but it isn't such a clean way yet. They do not provide a 100% compatible DirectX 9.0 framework.

Not necessiarly by Sycraft-fu · 2006-08-09 20:17 · Score: 1

Unless Transgaming makes some big steps up form Cedega, it's not on the level of native Windows. A notable absense would shaders newer than 1.4. That's all Cedega supports right now. Graphics cards are up to 3.0 and DirectX 10 will bring another update. So this mean that new games are forced to run in reduced detail (there are effects only possible in SM2 and 3) and at reduced speed (SM2/3 programs are faster in many cases). So you do get a "2nd best" kind of game experience.

Developers may well decide that it's cheap enough to do it that way and just not worry about it. It make come down to something like:

Ok we could do a port, but that will cost us $100,000 in development and testing time, also we'll either have to miss our release date or do a late Mac release, which hurts sales. Sales projections are that we should at least break eve, but nothing for sure. Or we can license Cider for $5,000 and do minimal testing, maybe $10,000 more and be done. The game will be lesser quality, but we are almost certian we can make a profit, and we'll get it out on time for dual launch. Let's go for Cider.

Now of course I'm making up numbers here, but this could be the situation. A proper port is expensive and it's not always worht the money. Interplay ported Fallout 1 to the Mac but not 2. The reason was they said sales on the Mac of Fallout 1 were so low, they barely made back their costs. Thus they decided it wasn't worth it the 2nd time around.

Well if you give developers an easy, cheap out, they may take it even if it means lesser quality games. Much easier to convince the publisher to risk a few grand and hire maybe 1 extra guy than to risk 6 figures and hire a bunch. Plus I'm sure logic like "Well they can run Windows, so if they want the fill experience they can just install it on Windows," will fly around.

Never underestimate how stingy publishers can be, and how lazy programmers can be. Those are a bad combination when a crutch comes out for porting to a minority market.

Re:Not necessiarly by rgravina · 2006-08-09 21:55 · Score: 1

Interplay ported Fallout 1 to the Mac but not 2.

Bollocks. I played and finished Fallout 2 on Mac OS X!

OK, well Interplay didn't release it, Macplay did. Here's an old Apple page on the game:

http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2002/09/fallou t2/
Re:Not necessiarly by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-08-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Take a look at the Transgaming developer blog.

They've currently implemented much of SM 2.0. Adapating to OpenGL 2.0 has allowed them to speed up development substantially, particularly with OpenGL 2.0 being well supported by ATI and Nvidia. SM 3.0 should be along some time after that; before GLSL there was a lot more going on in reinterpresting shaders, but the direction that OpenGL is going has really helped them out.

AFAIK, most games that pick between SM 2.0 and 3.0 don't experience significant visual degredation, it's generally just performance. Either way, Transgaming is definitely picking up speed; and given that DirectX 10 is Vista only I don't expect any kind of rapid adoption.

By the time SM 4.0 or whatever, and DirectX 10 are requirements, Transgaming will already be there.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell

Re:WoW by skingers6894 · 2006-08-09 22:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Offtopic, Offtopic?

It's about Mac gaming, it's a succinct point about.... something .... wait my auction just came in...

PowerPC, it's over by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-08-10 01:30 · Score: 1

Is Apple going to continue producing PowerPC systems, or are they slated for silicon heaven?

Earlier this week Apple updated the last last two PowerPC product families, upgradable tower and server, to Intel Xeons. The only PowerPC based systems on Apple's online store are old systems that were returned and are now in the refurbished section, "special limited time offers". It's over, PowerPC is officially history.

Re:PowerPC, it's over by Rix · 2006-08-10 10:32 · Score: 1

Yes, exactly. Why would software companies build new things for a dead platform?

Re:I did think about the "early adopter==gamer" th by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2006-08-10 01:34 · Score: 1

I was specifically referring to the Mac market and to expensive official market research paid for by somebody else, not to anecdotal evidence. If you have a real need something better than anecdotal information (like a published report or something) you might be able to find something with Google, but unfortunately I can't help. The market research results were not provided to me under NDA, but were also not published (so far as I know) so I can't drop a URL on you. Sorry.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Same old argument by sgt+scrub · 2006-08-10 01:44 · Score: 1

http://www.linuxgames.com/ has had this discussion many times with Linux as the subject. Does emulation kill ports and/or original games. I think Apple is in the position to take the PC game spotlight away from DirectX. The popularity of OS/X on x86 and the performance of Apple's machines will decide the battle.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Yes. Need Mid range mac. by guidryp · 2006-08-10 02:36 · Score: 1

I agree. I am a potential convert. But there is no decent mid range mac.I want to use/choose my own monitor so the only macs for that are the Mac Mini (too underpowered) and the Mac Pro (huge overkill).

I want one graphics card slot. Room for 2 3.5" HDs. I don't need a whole card cage for a variety of cards. I just need a vid slot.

A Mac Midi...

I both agree and disagree by phorm · 2006-08-10 03:25 · Score: 1

Just a little while back I cobbled together some extra hardware and setup a secondary machine for home. This machine is linux-only, but I actually tend to use it more than my primary (which is generally used for video dubbing and more power-intensive but less interactive tasks).

I spend about a day trying to get "Warcraft III" - a game that previously worked without issues - on my fresh install of wine. The thing consistently segfaulted near the end of installation. Thinking it might be a scratched CD issues, etc, I downloaded some ISO's of the game discs, and tried various workarounds to no avail.

Eventually on a hunch I installed an old version of Cedega (5.0) and voila, the game worked again (so long as I set it to permanently use that version), but I failed to see why they're breaking one game in favour of another, and I might also be missing some bugfixes/features of the newer versions in the meantime.

Mac Gaming by anti-human+1 · 2006-08-10 04:32 · Score: 0

How about before we all jump in to Mac Gaming, Apple gives users a way to turn off mouse acceleration in system preferences? Anyone who has tried to play an FPS with mouse acceleration enabled knows it is infinitely frustrating. We, as power users, gamers, etc. shouldn't have to download a third party app/utility just to tweak a basic mouse setting.

I know i'm not the only one, I was just digging yesterday to find a utility that does this so I can finally dig into Aleph One.

Re:I did think about the "early adopter==gamer" th by mbessey · 2006-08-10 04:50 · Score: 1

Oh, okay. It wasn't clear to me from the original message whether the information was Mac-market specific. That's interesting. Maybe the Transgaming folks are on the right track, then. I'll still be bummed when Intel-only Mac games start appearing, though.

Of course, by the time that actually happens, I'm quite likely going to have an Intel Mac anyway - they're awfully tempting.

re: Doomed? That's crazy.... by King_TJ · 2006-08-10 04:51 · Score: 1

I *completely* disagree. Yes, many people are going with laptops as their new computer purchases, but many of those people ALSO still own a desktop machine. The occasional person I run across who only has a laptop usually uses it for a specific business-related purpose (traveling salesperson for example, or insurance auditor), so they were never part of the audience for gaming to begin with.

Just because Intel includes cheap, low-end video on their motherboards doesn't mean the majority of folks are "perfectly satisfied" with that. Rather, it means the cost of including it has gotten so low, it may as well be thrown in. People interested in better performance/better graphics quality will always purchase video cards for their desktop PCs.

And even laptops are starting to include much better video options (within their power/heat limitations). The Macbook Pro has an ATI Radeon x series chipset with up to 256MB of video RAM on it. That's a far cry from Intel's integrated video!

The next generation of consoles look like they're generally going to include big price-hikes, too. (PS3 coming in at around $1000 by the time you buy the accessories you'd want for it!?) So all the talk of PC gaming dying because of consoles seems like nonsense to me too. People are going to have to "pay to play" if they want the latest technologies - regardless of platform.

misread. . . by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-08-10 05:58 · Score: 1

did anyone else misread the title as "Transgendered Technologies and Mac"?

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.

No, you please go away by Doctor+Crumb · 2006-08-10 06:17 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Transgaming is under NO OBLIGATION to give code back to the WINE project.

"Wine is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

The LGPL (and the GPL), make no references to contributing patches to upstream, they only cover redistribution and the like. Nothing has been stolen, nothing has been wiped out. Your claims, in other words, are FUD. If you don't like it, go start your own project under a more restrictive license, don't waste your time complaining about a company that offers an excellent product while obeying the terms of the (L)GPL.

Re:No, you please go away by Tom · 2006-08-10 12:09 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Transgaming is under NO OBLIGATION to give code back to the WINE project.

I wasn't talking about obligation, I was talking about promises - they have promised to give back to the Wine project several times. They haven't. Why should I give more credit to any of their other promises, like that their product is any good?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

People don't buy software after one year ... by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-08-10 13:50 · Score: 1

Yes, exactly. Why would software companies build new things for a dead platform?

Actually the marketing types have figured out that 90-something percent of software is sold within the first year of a machine's life. So while PowerPC based Macs may be running and useful (running the software they already have) for many more years they will be dead to developers (who want to sell software) in less than a year. Why less than? The towers are far less popular that iMacs, Minis, and notebooks. All of which have been PowerPC for months.

Paradigm shift? by IntergalacticWalrus · 2006-08-14 13:39 · Score: 1

Congratulations on ruining all the chances you had of being taken seriously, Mr. State.

Slashdot Mirror

Transgaming Technologies and Mac Developers

141 comments