From: Support For Mac And Linux! A Sacrilege?

[ROCO*AFZ*]

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

Not correct. Currently there are very few apple server solutions (do you know anyone with an apple server? LOL) and linux is still limited mainly to webservers and special apps servers that require them. The bug fixes in windows aren't usually bug fixes. They are security patches because some person found a way to create a backdoor that didn't exist. If you think these aren't in Linux, you are very wrong. You know how many times apache has been hacked on the webserver hosting that i use? Especially when i was using Mysql based open sourced postnuke. Ask the moderators here, Mysql has been hacked. It's included with and runs on a linux server correct? And like with windows, there is no patch till someone finds a way to break it.

If we all switched to mac's... guess what O/S would have the most viruses? Same with linux. Virus writers know, if they want to get there code out fast, they need normal non technical users that socialize with other users to keep the spread going. What better platform then the one with the most home users.

As with any properly maintained network, if your IT staff keeps up with things, maintains the backups, and keeps up with technology for all O/S's, the big bad billable technicians like me don't have to be called in. lol

And to wrap that up.. you don't need better and bigger hardware. You realize you still can run windows 95 or 98? No one forces you to upgrade unless your hardware fails (which is not due to windows LOL). You do it to keep up. To make your workers more productive, which means you get more work done for less cost. Did Microsoft tell people to stop making antiviruses for lower o/s's ... no! blame that on the antivirus publishers - They want you to upgrade. . If you want to compete with the big boys then you need the hardware and software to do it. If you don't want to grow then stay where your at.

[Gache]

<OT>

Apex, I think you got a bit carried away there. OS X and Linux have security updates too.

Roco, you might want to read up on Xserves and how security bugs work.

There is a qualitative difference between security on Windows and on Unix/Linux/BSD based OSs. For example, the latter three regard unauthorised privilege escalation as a high-priority security bug. In Windows 7, it's a feature.

Oh, and Apache/MySQL are no more 'part of Linux' than they're part of BSD, Solaris or Windows (to name a few other platforms they run on). Web and database servers are some of the most heavily exposed pieces of software out there. Keep them patched or you'll get hacked, whether you're running Apache or IIS, MySQL or MS SQL Server Enterprise Edition. (If you manage to get a fully up-to-date LAMP stack hacked, chances are either your setup is all wrong or you're not filtering input properly.)

None of this is practically relevant to the issue of cross-platform game development & tech support, though. Shall we get back on topic now?

</OT>

• The technical obstacles to cross-platform games are either solved or easily solvable
  
• The Windows gaming hegemony is maintained through non-technical means.
  

(At any rate, no-one seems to be posting to disagree with these right now. Feel free... )

[ApexMods]

Apex, I think you got a bit carried away there.

Yep. But I enjoyed it a lot!

None of this is practically relevant to the issue of cross-platform game development & tech support, though. Shall we get back on topic now?

I completely agree. Sorry for wandering off there for a while.

• The technical obstacles to cross-platform games are either solved or easily solvable
  
• The Windows gaming hegemony is maintained through non-technical means.
  

Very well put! An excellent summary of what I tried to express with my uncontrolled babble!

[Nightwolf]

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.

Now that I agree with. Just because I don't care for other operating systems doesn't mean I feel people who do should be left out. Also, whatever is done must not affect the quality of the product being released. Cross-platform is nice, but not at the expense of the product. Bottomline is we should all be able to enjoy a good game. As stated, the more the merrier.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Yeah in my babble i forgot to get to my point. I think Cross platform gaming would be cool, but i think the publishers won't do it as they only see windows as the gaming platform and they want to sell games fast without verifying (or spending the timeto get) it working in 5 different operating systems + the anticheats.

[Nightwolf]

Yeah, it's a time is money thing. And they are in the business of making money. I seriously think all game programmers start out wanting to make the games they would love and the way they should be hammering out every detail. After they get in there they have other things to worry about.

Making what a large number of people would want versus their bottomline doesn't always balance out. Which is why some games get rushed I think.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Yeah, it's a time is money thing. And they are in the business of making money. I seriously think all game programmers start out wanting to make the games they would love and the way they should be hammering out every detail. After they get in there they have other things to worry about.

Making what a large number of people would want versus their bottomline doesn't always balance out. Which is why some games get rushed I think.

Yeah think about GR1. There was a lot of time involved. Then expansion packs + there was a mac version. I forget the amount of time it took to develop. Sure they sold lots of copys but they also didn't get to sell 5 brand new gr games during that time and many of us didn't move on to other games because it was good.

Now look at GRAW1. Less time to develop, less support (time frame wise... no bust on Grin as they can only do so much in so little time). We all bought it being fans of the series and when it was done... no expansion. Buy GRAW2.

Now look @ other games. COD4. COD5 wasn't an expansion and neither will be COD4 modern warfare 2. They get to sell it all over again with a common theme.

Now if theyt would have done multiplatform, they increase the risk of peeps moving on to other games while it's being developed and essentially the risk of losing players since there is no expansion packs in between to keep the interest (Sure they may throw us a map or 2)

What ever happened to expansion packs? They kept the multiplayer team vs team type game alive.

The only way i think we will ever see multiplatform is if someone created an engine with librarys that supported all the o/s's and didn't care operating system accelerations or developed some type of there own. (kinda like ms did with a few windows games that would work with xbox and pc players. but instead not limited to just 2)

[Nightwolf]

With C++ being the mainstream language, it runs faster on the PC with Windows and Intel processors. And that is partially why you don't see multi-platform games sometimes. In order to to make it more firendly to other platforms, they'd have to write the game in something like Java or C#. But then it would run slower on the PC.

So then they might write it in different languages, thus increasing the development time. A lot goes into just one game.

Would the speed difference be that noticable? That I don't know. But what I do know is multi-platform has it's advantages but so does single-platform.

I agree with you on GR1 and GRAW1. And look at Hawx! It could have been so much better too.

I hope they really put a good effort in GR4.

[Gache]

With C++ being the mainstream language, it runs faster on the PC with Windows and Intel processors.

C++ is slower on an AMD platform? That's news to me.

In order to to make it more friendly to other platforms, they'd have to write the game in something like Java or C#.

Nonsense. There's no appreciable difference between execution time of decently-optimised code on the major platforms.

Of course you can write code that performs better on one OS than another. Heck, you can write code that performs better in Windows under some languages than others. Or which prefers particular bits of hardware. But that's not something peculiar to C++: you can do it with almost any language.

BTW, C# is an odd choice to suggest as an alternative. It was created by Microsoft for its .NET runtime... which is of course Windows-only.

The only way i think we will ever see multiplatform is if someone created an engine with libraries that supported all the o/s's and didn't care operating system accelerations

ID Software has done this several times with their UT series, most recently with the UT3 engine.

[griz]

BTW, C# is an odd choice to suggest as an alternative. It was created by Microsoft for its .NET runtime... which is of course Windows-only.

Mono

[firefly2442]

I don't think the problem is what language to pick, it's the graphics API to use. DirectX is Windows only and most developers use that exclusively. OpenGL is cross platform but not many development studios use it. C++ runs perfectly fine under any operating system as long as you are using headers and libraries that are cross platform.

[Nightwolf]

Okay. Perhaps I was just mis-informed and I stand corrected.

At any rate, I suppose the graphics was the logical choice as mentioned by firefly2442.

[kpd001]

I would just like to point out that there is already a Linux version of PB out for America's Army, so it is possible to run PB on Linux natively. I would also love to a see it come to Mac, and Linux. Wine is great for old games (like the Ghost Recon ), but usually has terrible performance, or weird errors on the newer ones.

[Gache]

Another step towards multi-platform support: AnandTech reviews a tech demo of the Unreal Engine 3 running on iPod Touch!

So now Unreal Engine 3 supports all 3 major platforms - Windows, OS X, and Linux.

Well that would take care of any issues over what graphics/sound/netcode API to use, wouldn't it...

[Cobblers]

Seeing the "What about a Mac version" threads on most of the games I am looking into at the moment and most are not FPS games either. So the trend is being adopted throughout a lot of different titles.

Just a shame these game devs don't seem to be catching on too quickly.

[Burawura]

The only way i think we will ever see multiplatform is if someone created an engine with libraries that supported all the o/s's and didn't care operating system accelerations

ID Software has done this several times with their UT series, most recently with the UT3 engine.

Just wanted to interject that EPIC Games created the Unreal series and the unreal game engine technology. ID does quake/doom.

[twcrash]

I would like to see Mac and Linux tittles expanded. It would make more f us PC users/hater switch to a better operating system. I always said if they made OSX run on a PC and I could play my games id switch.

[Gache]

Well, it's technically possible to run OS X on generic PC hardware - they're called Hackintoshes. Unfortunately doing so is illegal because the license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple-branded hardware.

Just wanted to interject that EPIC Games created the Unreal series and the unreal game engine technology. ID does quake/doom.

Oops, my bad - the UT series does indeed belong to EPIC Games. id Software does Quake. They open sourced the Quake 3 engine (it became OpenArena) and shipped a native Linux installer for Doom 3. Looking forward, their idtech 5 engine has been demonstrated running on OS X, although it's not clear whether OS X and Linux versions of Doom 4 and Rage will actually be released.

- Gache

[AnthonyLunkwitz]

Interesting topic that always catches my attention as well.

Im a Linux user as well, I prefer it more then windows, I run two operating systems duel boot, Windows 7 and Linux. Now for those that reads my post see that, you already know why Windows - cause there is very few support for Linux and Mac.

Now the way I see it, it should be PC multi platforms, cause look at games thats made for consoles and windows. those are multi platform as well so why scratch the Linux and Mac user's out. With OpenGL 4 on its way out that appears at the moment going to hold up against DirectX 11 or better is another opportunity to seize that much more sales base.

It would be great to see developers to expand and capture more users from the Mac and Linux systems and they would get a lot more sales if doing so as the certain users that ONLY strictly uses the two OS's.

This is what I like about ID Software, they give Linux full support(not sure about Mac cause I refuse to use it). But also for the few commercial games that has been ported over after years of release is just as great, though its ruined for multiplayer as times change and people moved on to other games.

But I would love to see a true multiplatform game no matter what it is that supports Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Linux, Windows, and MAC. Hell, lets branch off to Solaris since its a widely used Unix.

[zeealice]

i can imagine that gr fs will be on mac and Linux if ubisoft had sense but i think with great benefits in the market come great losses too the reason is is that the game itself would cost millions to be created for Linux and mac because of the change in applications and operating systems as well as the fact that the graphics cards built into macs have been specifically tailored for macs and may not be supported by many games. that, i believe is the reason behind the singling mac out and putting it on the sidelines as well as only a few people these days can afford macs, as with Linux, i haven't studied into this is why when i got my mac, i kept the packard bell handy so i could play games maybe it's something mac users should also keep in mind

[ApexMods]

[...]graphics cards built into macs have been specifically tailored for macs and may not be supported by many games[...]

While some graphics cards are/were indeed specifically built for Mac, the chipsets are virtually identical to those of their PC cousins, and a game that e.g. supports an nVidia GeForce 8 Series card on PC supports this chipset just as well on Mac. You could compare the differences between the PC and Mac versions to the variations between a PC graphics card from different manufacturers, e.g. a GeForce GTX 480 from Asus, EVGA, XFX etc. - some of them feature just a different design or cooling solution, others differ in e.g. BIOS, video memory, outputs, or clock speed. While the differences between those cards may be substantial, they still share a common video chipset and are basically treated as equals by e.g. games.

[...]when i got my mac, i kept the packard bell handy so i could play games[...]

If you have an Intel Mac (any Mac released since 2006) you can use Apple's free Boot Camp software to dual-boot your Mac with Windows (or Linux for that matter). As you will see then, Mac graphics cards are fully supported by games under Windows on Mac. I play Windows-only games on my MacBook Pro - it runs Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7 in Boot Camp just fine, so I have no use for an extra PC anymore.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

One of our clan mates played GRAW2 on mac with boot camp (or one similar)

The problem is, is that macs don't come with the video processing power of gaming pcs. He eventually bought a pc for gaming and was much happier as his framerates were way more playable. Mac's do not come with the higher power supplies and extra connectors to even upgrade the video cards to play the newer titles as apple doesn't want you to change parts out. Linux has the upperhand over mac in this arena as most linux boxes can even be ran on gamer pc's where macs close off the O/S to make this very very difficult.

An example of a card would be an 8800gtx which i gamed off of. Mac's don't have the extra power to support this card... nor the room. Lower 8 series cards may work but aren't better then there lower 7 series cousins.

Until mac o/s can be installed to a pc besides a mac... i don't see them being used as a pc gaming pc in the enthusiast market... but then it wouldn't be a mac, just a pc witha a mac o/s lol.

[ApexMods]

The Mac Pro can power (and has the room for) up to four graphics cards and supports connecting up to eight 30-inch 2560 x 1600 displays (it also allows up to four internal HDs plus two DVD drives). Gaming enthusiasts could throw in a couple of nVidia GTX 285 for Mac to quench their thirst for graphics processing power. My MacBook Pro comes with an nVidia GT 330M 512 MB which runs most modern games just fine. A friend of mine is also quite happy with the gaming performance of his iMac with an ATI Radeon HD 4850 card. While a top-of-the line Mac gaming rig (Mac Pro) would set you back quite a few bucks, the 'normal' Macs are more than adequate for the average gamer.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

The Mac Pro can power (and has the room for) up to four graphics cards and supports connecting up to eight 30-inch 2560 x 1600 displays (it also allows up to four internal HDs plus two DVD drives). Gaming enthusiasts could throw in a couple of nVidia GTX 285 for Mac to quench their thirst for graphics processing power. My MacBook Pro comes with an nVidia GT 330M 512 MB which runs most modern games just fine. A friend of mine is also quite happy with the gaming performance of his iMac with an ATI Radeon HD 4850 card. While a top-of-the line Mac gaming rig (Mac Pro) would set you back quite a few bucks, the 'normal' Macs are more than adequate for the average gamer.

Note your macpro as it linked to specs.... http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

300W combined maximum for all PCI Express slots

That would fry in an instant with an 8800gtx. My newer gtx 275 requires up to 275 watts (that doesn't include processor ram and such @ full load.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-275,2266-14.html

just for the video card alone. The box said 500 watt and above power supply.

It only shows also a slot for one 16x pci express card. That means no sli (as if the board would have it). My 275 takes 2 slots... not sure if it even has another full height next to it.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

and frankly the video card selection with a 2499 price tag is not anywhere near a pc's specs.

http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MB871LL/A?mco=MTM3NDc3ODQ

And for the notebook...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html

26fps for medium settings on Battlefield Bad company 2 is NOT playable.

Heck... i hate wow... but only 42fps on high settings? Cmon... that game is old school.

I'm not saying it's not powerful for what it was designed for... video processing and imaging... but not even close in the gaming arena.

and now for a pc notebook spec...

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/laptop-alienware-m17x/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-alienware-m17x&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=mn

Note bad for 1799. It can support 2 cards also.