charliebrownau Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I would like to see more pay commerical games that are on the x86 PC available on Linux and Mac made by the orignal devs not ported by a second company . If the game used OpenGL3 (Which is supported on Linux , Windows and Mac) then at least the graphics wouldn't have to be ported , making it easier for multi platform editions of games . Then again certain current game companies are doing such a bad job of ruining game series by chaning it , dumbing it down , releasing buggy half ###### competed POS games , can we trust these current game companies in coding for Mac and Linux when the Windows editions have so many issues . GR1 for PC is still the best of the entire series in my view , GRAW1 was okayish but GRAW2 just moved so far away its not worth supporting . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davros Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 GR1 for PC is still the best of the entire series in my view , GRAW1 was okayish but GRAW2 just moved so far away its not worth supporting . Hi charlie, can you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand the large move "away" from GRAW1 to GRAW2 you mention (In order to make sure the dev's do not make further moves away from the ideal). Dav. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobblers Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Very interesting post Apex! Sadly, there is still this preconception that people who play games on a "PC" will always have a machine based upon the Windows system. And that people who own a Mac are in it for graphic design capabilities etc.... huh I've never used mine for that and certainly wouldn't know where to start. Since owning a Mac for little over a year I am finding more and more friends who own one and like me, swear by them. Again, sadly many game devs do not see it this way and still do not consider Mac's to be worth their while. Extremely frustrating, however, not enough to make me want to back track and go back to my old Windows based machine. Neither does it fill me with joy when I'm told I should instead install 3rd party software to enable Windows to be run on my beloved Mac "and just lose a bit of gaming performance..." So it appears as though I will have to wait for a Mac version to be released or never see the newer version of GR. Another sad point as I very much like the sound of the new version. This most likely leaves me to play the BF series of games until other developers see the light and cash in on the potential of the Mac market. I do understand why people would be reluctant however to supply their game on the Mac, sales still aren't great when compared to other formats. My argument to that would be "well release regular good titles on a Mac and people will buy them" - oh and not to have them released months after everyone else have received them and subsequently moved onto possibly another game. In fact, I think sales are so low on Macs that many, like I have done in the past, spent so much time playing World of Warcraft as it's about one of the best titles released for it so far. Either way, my rant is coming to an end. However Mac's are becoming more and more popular, with many "finding the light" and sticking to it and like me, wondering where I would be if it weren't for my beloved Mac.... playing more games yes, but boy these systems kick ###### though.... again shame more don't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clone_Ranger Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Sorry, I am coming to this thread a little late, but as a MAC user (yes, it's my MAIN computer), I have clear thoughts about this issue... First things first, I FIRST started playing [GR] on a MAC! I was a regular [GR] player on GameRanger (which I am now told supports PC players! Yay!), and I *only* wiped Classic Ghost Recon off my iTunes server last year! It ran superbly - and best of all it was an excellent cross-platform game. I worked in an IT department of a university, and Ghost Recon was one of teh few games that we could run reliably on our network between PC and Mac players. IN a way it makes perfect sense that [GR] 4 should return to the Mac, because as far as I am concerned that's where it all began for me and many others... It's actually funny that we have this conversation now, as for many years of playing Ghost Recon I played over the Internet with many, many excellent PC players - nobody noticed I used a Mac and nobody cared... It's about the game and not the platform. I look forward to the day I will be playing a [GR] on my Mac again. It's really heart warming to think it might happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly2442 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 As a Linux user I think it would be great. Linux is a small minority right now but Linux users are quite supportive of any games that come along. Personally, I would much rather buy a game that has support for Linux than one that doesn't. The large amount of press that comes along with releasing a Linux game can also help Windows sales. Some people like having options are are supportive of companies that give these OS choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cell Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I fell in love with GR because it was on the Mac. Played if for 3 years straight. Then some Raven Shield and COD United offensive. Mainly because they were the best games Mac OS had to offer. Since then I have built a PC for gaming, mainly because of GRAW, but 99% of what I do (cg) is on my Mac. I know a whole community over at damnr6.com that would be psyched if GR4 was released for Mac. Not all Mac users are as open to building a PC just for gaming as I was. Hell, most of them are afraid to create a boot camp drive in Windows for gaming. Besides the performance is not as smooth as a native PC. I think multi platform personal computer support would be a great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApexMods Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Maybe it's time to bump this a bit. According to the NPD Market Research Group, as of June 2009 Apple holds a market share of over 90% for $1,000+ PCs. As most of you will probably agree, a "serious" gaming rig can easily set you back at least that much, so in view of these figures it makes a lot of sense for game makers to re-evaluate their position on multi-platform releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangurdead Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Maybe it's time to bump this a bit. According to the NPD Market Research Group, as of June 2009 Apple holds a market share of over 90% for $1,000+ PCs. As most of you will probably agree, a "serious" gaming rig can easily set you back at least that much, so in view of these figures it makes a lot of sense for game makers to re-evaluate their position on multi-platform releases. you do realize that Apple doesn't sell but 2 things under 1000.00 they being 1. The Mac Book @ 999.00 2. The Mac Mini @ 599.00 also most Macs around the 1000.00 range come with 2.5ish Ghz Dual Core Processors and 2GB of Ram... hell a 800.00 dell (which only needs 300.00, 200 for a decent Video card, and 100 for a monitor) comes with 3GB of ram and a 2.6Ghz QUAD core CPU... so as far as believing most "gaming" rigs are macs would be absurd, hell I built a serious gaming rig that makes the dell offer look absurd for 800.00 let alone the 1000.00 for the sub par parts... not to mention that Far Cry 2's recommended specs are barely met today by the base specs of the macs @ 1000.00 Edited September 2, 2009 by bangurdead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApexMods Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 you do realize that Apple doesn't sell but 2 things under 1000.00 they being 1. The Mac Book @ 999.00 2. The Mac Mini @ 599.00 also most Macs around the 1000.00 range come with 2.5ish Ghz Dual Core Processors and 2GB of Ram... So? Unlike Vista, the Mac OS runs pretty well on those specs (and I don't even want to get in to the Dual Core/Quad Core debate when it comes to gaming) - and yes, you could even play some decent games on those machines, but I am talking PCs in the price range above $1000 - the ones that are actually aimed at gamers for the most part. hell a 800.00 dell (which only needs 300.00, 200 for a decent Video card, and 100 for a monitor) comes with 3GB of ram and a 2.6Ghz QUAD core CPU... so as far as believing most "gaming" rigs are macs would be absurd, hell I built a serious gaming rig that makes the dell offer look absurd for 800.00 let alone the 1000.00 for the sub par parts... not to mention that Far Cry 2's recommended specs are barely met today by the base specs of the macs @ 1000.00 You are missing an important point here. As you say yourself, even for a (gaming-ready) Dell people will have to spend over $1000 and at that price range 91% simply choose a Mac. Of course, as you mentioned, there are people willing to build their PCs themselves to save money (if one considers build time required being worthless). But I don't think that this represents the majority of customers, as most people just want to buy a ready-to-use system and be done with it. And this is the point I'm trying to make here - while there are plenty of expensive gaming PCs offered by e.g. Alienware (Dell), Falcon Northwest, etc. and most of the top PC gaming systems range from $1500-3000 (without monitor and peripherals), in this price range they are still outsold by Macs at a rate of about 10-to-1. From a business perspective this means that a game aimed at the high-end PC market has a target audience consisting of 90% Mac users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangurdead Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 you cannot stand sit there and look at the following example and say "well apples OS runs better with less" to summarize your previous post... so without further a due... lets shoot this flying myth before people think Mac's are somehow superior with games... Call of Duty4 Modern Warfare * Mac OS v10.5.4 or later * 2Ghz or faster Intel Core 2 Duo processor * 1GB of RAM * 9GB free hard-disk space * ATI Radeon X1600 or NVIDIA GeForce FX7300 video card * 128MB of VRAM Minimum # CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon # 64 2800+ processor or any 1.8Ghz Dual Core Processor or better supported # RAM: 512MB RAM (768MB for Windows Vista) # Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space # Video card (generic): NVIDIA® Geforce 6600 or better or ATI® Radeon® 9800Pro or better Recommended # CPU: 2.4 GHz dual core # RAM: 1GB for XP; 2GB for Vista # Harddrive: 8GB of free hard drive space # Video card: 3.0 Shader Support recommended. Nvidia Geforce 7800 or better or ATI Radeon X1800 or better whats this mean? well honestly you're going to spend too much money on a "gaming" machine built by Apple that will run/look worse due to porting or cheaper hardware than evil money grubbing Microsoft... wait Mac's cost more than a machine built by "money grubbing Micro$oft?... the reason is competition honestly dell competes with HP, HP competes with dick... dick competes with tom... apple competes with themselves to see how much money they can rape from their customer's wallets lets see a gaming ready mac starts at 1199.00 sorry 2499.00 dollars (for an "upgradeable" tower) http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop...?mco=NzcwNjc4MA # One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon # 3GB of Ram 1066MHz DDR3 (3x1GB) # 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s # NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB # Apple Mighty Mouse # Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad what you will need to play on this thing when the next wave of games hits 1. monitor 100.00+ (apple store price 899.00 for a 24inch which is ridiculous) 2. mouse with 2 buttons 20.00+ (for a decent mouse anyways) 3. GTX 285 @499.00 probably around 200-300 by the time we get to the next wave of games for a grand total of 3118 dollars... This what I got for 3,118.00 from Alienware(dell) the A1-51 750i back 2 school edition (base price 1099.00)Intel® Coreâ„¢ 2 Quad Q9650 3.0GHz 12MB Cache 1333MHz FSB+$400(faster Processor) Alienware® 1200 Watt Multi-GPU Approved Power Supply +$350.00(because of the video card option)Dual 1,792 MB NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 295 +$650.00(fastest video card out now and it comes with 2 of em)8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 x 2048MB +$150.00(technically a slower and older ram architecture ) Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium (64-bit Edition) with Service Pack 1 plus Free Windows 7 Upgrade Option +0.00(so I can upgrade to basically a Windows Vista Lite)750GB SATA 3Gb/s 7,200RPM 16MB Cache +$50.00(bigger hard drive) 23" Dell S2309W - 1920 x 1080 (5ms) Widescreen Flat Panel+$299.00(got to have a screen tad bit pricey, compaired to newegg.com but oh well)it comes with all the other essentials such as mouse/keyboard...but to actually compete with Apple's bloated price I actually had to buy into the scam of SLI/Crossfire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteKnight77 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I didn't have to pay extra for a 3 year warranty either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApexMods Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 "well apples OS runs better with less" to summarize your previous post That does not summarize my post at all. Here is the summary: At a price of $1000+ over 90% of the people buy a Mac. Period. We could endlessly go on and on discussing why people willing and able to spend a lot of money on a computer rather buy a Mac than a PC, but that's beside the point. They just do. And they probably have their good reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Replying to: Support For Mac And Linux! A Sacrilege... For what it's worth, the more (playing) the merrier, as long as the extra lifting is pre-built into the budget and timeline and does not intrude whatsoever on the design or content of the overall product. Yes, you read that right: PC does not equal Windows! According to Apples marketing dept. recent ad campaign it does, speaking of which...why does this topic suddenly remind me of all of those pathetic Hip & Flawless Mac vrs the Stodgy & Buggy PC Apple commercials run on US TV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangurdead Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 and that's when I posted apple doesn't sell sub 1000.00 computers. so if we use logic, any business and schools (which is apple's real nitch) using/buying a mac has/will more then likely spent 1000.00 on each machine . even in the link you posted Mac ASPs have been higher for a long time, because Apple chooses not to compete at lower prices. The real entry price for Apple computers is $999 for the white MacBook and $1,199 for either the low-end iMac or MacBook Pro. By comparison, Windows netbooks sell for as little as $199, unsubsidized, and even some fuller-sized laptops don't cost much more. For example, HP laptops start at $349.99 after rebate. its not that those PC's cost more its just they charge more for less... which means their 1000.00 price tag means bout as much as Bush saying there's WMD's in Iraq... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApexMods Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 For what it's worth, the more (playing) the merrier, as long as the extra lifting is pre-built into the budget and timeline and does not intrude whatsoever on the design or content of the overall product. Thank you. That's the spirit! bangurdead, this seems to go nowhere, and before the discussion turns into a platform war I'd rather just stop right here. Strange that some people actually seem to be against multi-platform game support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Alright time to add some tech to this. One reason is game pirating. On a mac, you don't have to install. just copy and past the directory. It's a little hard to govern that. Mainstream realtors had to disable the usb ports on floor models because kids would walk in with an ipod and walk out with office for mac for free. Also with any free linux for example, the tech support would be difficult due to the amount of distro's (lol not sure if i spelled that right) and open source apps + limited direct x support. In both O/S's, also there is very little built in support from the creators. I for one would like to see multiplatform support, but as in the case with the xbox, i don't want my pc dumbed down to 1080p graphics and auto lockon's for targets as i have seen in some of the games since it's harder to use the gamepad to aim in 1st person shooters. (that's just an xbox example) One last thing... they want to sell games and move on. It would take years to get a game out the door that was tested under all these platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gache Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 (edited) Alright time to add some tech to this. One reason is game pirating. On a mac, you don't have to install. just copy and past the directory. It's a little hard to govern that. Mainstream realtors had to disable the usb ports on floor models because kids would walk in with an ipod and walk out with office for mac for free.What is there in Windows to prevent you copying a directory? Anti-piracy measures are built into the game precisely because Windows doesn't provide reliable copy protection. And using a binary blob to tie a copy of a game to particular hardware when activated is hardly a Windows-only trick. Also with any free linux for example, the tech support would be difficult due to the amount of distro's (lol not sure if i spelled that right) and open source appsThere are lots of F/OSS programs and apps for Windows too. And Windows apps are far more likely to cause 'dll hell' than than Linux apps are to cause dependency problems. Linux package managers are pretty good at handling dependencies these days. Producing different packages for Debian-based distros, RPM, etc, isn't a huge deal either. limited direct x support. You don't use Direct3D... you use OpenGL. Using cross-platform standards and libraries makes a big difference in multi-platform development. In both O/S's, also there is very little built in support from the creators. How long does MS provide free tech support for new Windows PCs? Apple includes 90 days tech support with new Macs... you'd have to pay for 'official' tech support on Linux, but it's there for the major distros... and the community support is excellent. Or are you suggesting that (home) Windows users are more likely to pay for extended support than OS X or Linux users? I for one would like to see multiplatform support, but as in the case with the xbox, i don't want my pc dumbed down to 1080p graphics and auto lockon's for targets as i have seen in some of the games since it's harder to use the gamepad to aim in 1st person shooters. (that's just an xbox example) Multi-platform support eating the resources needed to differentiate the PC version from console? It's certainly possible - where the corporate culture has multi-platform development as an exception rather than the norm. One last thing... they want to sell games and move on. It would take years to get a game out the door that was tested under all these platforms. Years? Not quite. I can think of 3 indie developers who've manage it recently: Wolfire, 2D Boy, and Frictional Games. And of course there's the big one: ID Software's Unreal Tournament, UT 2003, UT 2004 and UT3 all run natively on OS X and Linux. Many difficulties of multi-platform development stem from the conventional, Windows-centric viewpoint. For example, compared to OS X and Linux, Windows is quite lax about enforcing code quality. Invariably, this makes it difficult to port Windows code to other platforms. But start from the ultra-strict OS X, and suddenly the changes needed to port to Linux and Windows become much less. Edited September 5, 2009 by Gache Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funk Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 One reason why I havent ditched windows for linux is gaming, I need my pc as my gaming machine. I do not want a ps3 or an xbox! That is no excuse! With linux can you just set auto download if dependences are missing? I would be very happy to pay a donation for a linux copy, and I bet most gamers would do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gache Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 With linux can you just set auto download if dependences are missing? Yes, pretty much... the installer program will look through the software repositories for missing dependencies (libraries/apps, etc) and download/install them for you. You only have to intervene if it can't find them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cell Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) Alright time to add some tech to this. One reason is game pirating. On a mac, you don't have to install. just copy and past the directory. It's a little hard to govern that. Mainstream realtors had to disable the usb ports on floor models because kids would walk in with an ipod and walk out with office for mac for free. Not to disagree with my fine teammate, but that is not entirely true at all. I have plenty of applications for my Mac that are not simply drag and drop. Some of them are so annoying to transfer over that I have to contact the manufacturer when I want to move to a new machine. Most installers for applications are just that, an installer. Microsoft Office drag and drop? Yup...still needs a code...cough cough.... like that ever stopped anybody, but that is a fault of the software developer, in this casr, Microsoft, not the system. Edited September 11, 2009 by Cell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Cell, not to argue as you are a Mac user also but how about the adobe suites? The college basically just copied all there photo programs alongs with the newest mac O/S to my sisters minimac since she worked for them. No license keys used @ all. Gache - Depends on support if you mean retail or oem? OEm is up to the pc manufacturer. Retail is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gache Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Cell, not to argue as you are a Mac user also but how about the adobe suites? The college basically just copied all there photo programs alongs with the newest mac O/S to my sisters minimac since she worked for them. No license keys used @ all. Some Adobe volume licensing schemes don't require activation of individual copies. Retail, OTOH, you'd have to crack. (It's not unheard of for institutions to use illegal copies, but it's at least as much of a problem on Windows as OS X.) Installing OS X itself doesn't need require any activation. (Funnily enough Apple doesn't feel the need to resort to ineffective copy protection measures...) That doesn't, however, affect the ability of software developers to include their own activation/copy protection. Gache - Depends on support if you mean retail or oem? OEm is up to the pc manufacturer. Retail is not. Well as an example, the basic Dell support package seems to be 30 days for software, and after that you have to pay. Is that generally representative? (They have an extended support option, but so do Apple, Novell and Canonical, to name just a few. There's no need for game developers to officially support more than a small number of the most popular desktop Linux distros, anyway - and the list needn't include any without pay-support available.) For oem/retail support to be a real problem, there'd have to be some statistical evidence that home Windows users are more likely to purchase extended support than Apple or Linux users, that they're likely to actually use it as a result of game issues, and that the issues are most likely to occur within the extended support period. Otherwise the picture's the same for all 3 platforms: support is available to those willing to pay to have their problems solved. Does a game studio need to worry about any more than that? Edited September 15, 2009 by Gache Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No, but the publisher does. Think about how long it takes just to develop the antipiracy for windows. Now times that by the number of O/S's you'd like it to support. Now add on the different ways to support the game for example direct x. Wine in linux still doesn't cut it. Then lets add anticheat.... Try to get punkbuster (yeah i said the p word) on other platforms and netcode that performs well under each. As for oem, i currently work for one. We support it for the life of the pc. Granted we aren't microsoft but we can speak with them directly if needed. We however cannot support the 3rd party apps but we can point you in the right direction. retail is handled by microsoft and we don't sell retail so i can't exactly remember. I of course am not a developer nor claim to be but i can see why the publishers won't do it and the game studios need to make quick cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gache Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) No, but the publisher does. Think about how long it takes just to develop the antipiracy for windows. Now times that by the number of O/S's you'd like it to support. Now add on the different ways to support the game for example direct x. Wine in linux still doesn't cut it. Then lets add anticheat.... Try to get punkbuster (yeah i said the p word) on other platforms and netcode that performs well under each. [...] I of course am not a developer nor claim to be but i can see why the publishers won't do it and the game studios need to make quick cash. For games, the Wine experience is never quite as good as under Windows. That's why we're not asking for a Wine or Cider port, we're calling for native versions for OS X and Linux. Like I said before, building cross-platform apps quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively requires a change from the Windows-centric mindset. For example, you don't use platform-specific APIs where you can possibly avoid them. Instead of using DirectX graphics (Direct3D), you use OpenGL. Instead of DirectX audio (DirectSound), you use OpenAL. For networking, you use something like the Torque Network Library API. These are all cross-platform APIs - code once, work everywhere. Maybe there isn't a cross-platform version of something like Punkbuster: but under the skin, what it does is scan memory for known cheats. There are cross-platform memory scanners - just add your own signatures. Maybe there isn't a cross-platform activation scheme, but if as you say it's the publisher's concern - someone like Ubi can certainly afford to have one created. And if one publisher takes the plunge, it's there for everyone else too... Would it be cost-effective for OS X? Definitely. Would it be cost-effective for Linux? Perhaps, perhaps not. But from OS X it would only be a small step - and it would reach a very vocal, very loyal community of gamers. As for oem, i currently work for one. We support it for the life of the pc. Granted we aren't microsoft but we can speak with them directly if needed. We however cannot support the 3rd party apps but we can point you in the right direction. retail is handled by microsoft and we don't sell retail so i can't exactly remember.I presume you mean free telephone support for the preinstalled software, for the life of the PC, included in the base price of the system for home users? Well, if that's definitive for Windows PCs, I can see why Apple's shorter support period (and the possibility of getting major Linux distros without any official support at all) would make publishers nervous. Having OEMs to deal with OS-related issues, point people at the correct support for 3rd party apps, and sometimes send issues back to, must greatly help game publishers get their users with problems to the right place - and save them from having to deal with a great many unrelated issues. I guess we'll just have to wait until the combined OS X & Linux market share reaches critical mass... Edited September 16, 2009 by Gache Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApexMods Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I really don't think there is any kind of disadvantage in customer support on the Mac side at all. On the contrary, when put in relation to the many inherent problems of the Windows platform with its archaic proprietary code foundation, lifetime support for PCs (which is not the norm) is the least they should do to at least try to keep those systems running in a semi-usable state for their - mostly extremely short - life spans. It comes as no surprise that Apple tops the customer satisfaction index for almost a decade, the last couple of years by a 10% margin over any competitor. If your computer just works there is simply no need to call a help desk - I never had to. Heck, I never even had to consult a manual and can probably count my trips to the help menu with one hand. IT departments and stores will always prefer to sell Windows - as it is a dream come true for payed support, repairs, and ongoing hardware upgrades, because it will always create its own market by breaking and self-decreasing performance. IT professionals hired to support a company-wide network of PCs are very aware that the vast majority of their jobs would simply be rendered obsolete if the machines ran an OS that just works without constant bug fixes, security patches, and a steady stream of help desk calls to figure out the most basic of tasks. And Windows has this 'great' build-in feature of performing worse and worse over time, forcing users to either format-reinstall (for the technically inclined) or buying new 'better and faster' hardware to tackle the issue (for the majority of users). So it's a win-win situation for anyone making money from hardware/software support. This includes (formerly) mainstream media outlets like PC magazines. With about 90% of their content being support-related like "How to keep your PC secure", "Increasing your PC's performance", and "How to fix your Windows problems" they have no interest whatsoever to enlighten their readers about possible alternatives, not to mention their fear of backlash from Redmond or the potential consequences on their 100% Windows-centric advertisement revenues. The inherent problem of this 'cartel of ignorance' is that it works on the presumption of uneducated end users. While the majority of people still has no clue about the technological background of different operating systems (some people are not even aware that there are alternatives to Windows), the age of media revolution (internet) is slowly but steadily changing technical awareness in consumers and begins to shine a light into those formerly dark corners of misinformation and FUD. Linux is certainly the most shining example of what can be achieved when a community of people 'in the know' decide to rise up against the atrocities brought upon us from The Dark Side. Linus Torvalds deserves a medal (well, he actually received quite a few) for shaking up the establishment and paving the road for new open standards, and it should be noted that Apple joined Linux on this road by adapting those open standards into the core technologies of its own operating system from the start. As a result, anything that runs on Linux can be compiled to run on Mac OS X by end users without too much fuzz - actually it just requires clicking a couple of buttons. Running a full Linux distro in dual-boot with OS X is just as easy as using Apple's Bootcamp software to dual-boot any Mac with OS X and Windows (but who would want that?). Just as any other secure operating system, OS X and Linux are both Unix-based, both run on open source foundations, and their main differences lie in their user interface and a couple of key API layers and Library functions. So to endorse multi-platform game development based on open standard technologies like OpenGL automatically means supporting all operating systems found in the world today, because even though Microsoft still fights desperately to keep open standards off their systems, every other software developer and hardware manufacturer has long since adapted those technologies - at least to some degree - and the open source community has not forgotten to develop technology bridges for easy open standard adaptation on Windows. Again, in the end it boils down to knowledge and awareness. As long as people can't shed their narrow Windows-centric world view it simply requires a lot of informing the public. The technological battle between Windows and the rest of the world has been long lost for Microsoft - and they know it. They will continue to do their utmost to keep the information at bay, and admittedly they have very deep pockets to fund their propaganda and suppression campaign for some time to come, but they are fighting an uphill battle with dwindling forces and once their war chest runs out of gold, the mercenaries will vanish from the battlefield and all that remains is a sad old dictator who hasn't been able to adapt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.