Apple Improving Open-GL?

[MacRumors]

Apple appears to be actively recruiting individuals to improve their Mac Open-GL implementation according to a post on the Mac Open GL mailing list (http://lists.apple.com/archives/mac-opengl/2005/Mar/msg00199.html).

The Apple, ATI and NVIDIA OpenGL software teams are looking for a diverse set of talented engineers who would like to be a part of the fast paced world of 3D graphics. Apply your skills to help make Mac OS X the best OpenGL implementation in the industry.


Open GL is the programming interface for 2D and 3D graphics used by game programmers to provide graphics acceleration to their applications. Apple's interest in accelerating the Mac implementation may come from recent disappointing (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050315-4704.html) Mac Doom 3 benchmarks.

[BrianKonarsMac]

finally, maybe they realized all of the PC switchers were still buying PC's to game...

first post for the win!

seriously though, i'm so surprised this wasn't a top priority before, at least apple is taking some initiative.

[Mord]

nothing could be better for apple than haveing the best 3D performence, they loose too much on 3d apps like cinima 3, and they may lure 3d studio max if they optimize open gl enough

[nitriletiger]

... the mac gaming industry is needing some improvement, maybe better 3D graphics might encourage more companies to create more games? The mac game selection has gotten better over the years, but still not good enough.

-nitriletiger

[vollspacken]

this is good news since better Open GL perfomance should hopefully also speed up quarz extreme on older/cheaper grafics cards...

vSpacken

[BenRoethig]

Excuse my language, but its about damn time.

[supergod]

If Apple is serious about improving open GL, maybe they'll get serious about providing quality GPU options. Having only two products that ship with respectable graphics options (power macs and powerbooks) is disgaceful, especially considering that the iMac target demographic is certainly interested in gaming.

[combatcolin]

Maybe they will change track, of course they have to balance costs and try to provide what there target group customer expects,

BUT

For example , the old PB had an option of a 128MB Graphic card in the top range model, but why nothing similar in the 20" iMac G5?

The top range model is always going to be expensive, so why not push the boat out further?

[combatcolin]

Bugger me!

Just noticed i've made it to a 6502!

Cool, off to play WOW now.

[iKant]

I suspect there's more to this than simply improving consumer game performance. Apple is making great efforts, apparently with some success, to win back the armed forces. The navy currently trains surface fleet officers and submarine officers using simulations that run openGL on windows computers. Perhaps with better performance, some of those dollars will be coming Apple's way.

[iris_failsafe]

finally professional graphic cards. Apple is loosing tons of sales for that

[weezer160]

This is something I've always been pointing out; Apple should be focusing on graphics development because that was the driving force of the Macintosh in the first place! What a bunch of dorks.

[jared_kipe]

... the mac gaming industry is needing some improvement, maybe better 3D graphics might encourage more companies to create more games? The mac game selection has gotten better over the years, but still not good enough.

-nitriletiger

Doubtful, only thing that is going to make people start making more mac games is when we get some reasonable market share, and it is profitable to do so.

[d.perel]

How do they exactly improve FPS benchmarks? would that be through new hardware, or through software releases/updates?

[Kagetenshi]

Software.

~J

[scotty321]

Someone needs to tell Apple and Steve Jobs:

It's the games, stupid!

PC users are not going to switch to the Mac with our MEASLY selection of games and POOR performance! Apple needs to be courting as many game developers as possible!!

[Abstract]

Doubtful, only thing that is going to make people start making more mac games is when we get some reasonable market share, and it is profitable to do so.

Or how about when Apple makes it easier for companies to make their games run well on a Mac. Its not like it was easy to get Doom 3 to run, as was said in an interview concerning Doom 3 and Apple, so maybe it'll be easier to make a particular game not suck on a Mac, which is encouraging enough.

[hob]

PC users are not going to switch to the Mac with our MEASLY selection of games and POOR performance! Apple needs to be courting as many game developers as possible!!

I did. I just bought an XBOX and a PSP as well. The only thing I miss out on is Half-Life 2. That alone almost made me regret it!! SUCH a good game, and no PC for me to play it on... or mac version!! Maybe companies like ID have demanded that Apple improve opengl support so they can release better games, or at least not have embarrassing minimum specs.

[Trekkie]

finally, maybe they realized all of the PC switchers were still buying PC's to game...

That, or Core Video in Tiger isn't as fast as they'd like too. It could be a combination of things.

[hob]

Or how about when Apple makes it easier for companies to make their games run well on a Mac. Its not like it was easy to get Doom 3 to run, as was said in an interview concerning Doom 3 and Apple, so maybe it'll be easier to make a particular game not suck on a Mac, which is encouraging enough.
...what he said!

[Trekkie]

Someone needs to tell Apple and Steve Jobs:

It's the games, stupid!

PC users are not going to switch to the Mac with our MEASLY selection of games and POOR performance! Apple needs to be courting as many game developers as possible!!

:rolleyes:

Whatever. Stop talking to your friends about what computer they'd buy, and go look at the real market. If you look at a 'normal' person who doesn't live to play games or play with their computer you're going to find them running an inexpensive, stripped down, Intel 'graphics' that use main memory system bought at Best Buy when MSN or whatever internet provider of the week offered some big rebate that actually signed them up for three years of service at more than twice the rebate they got.

There are other components of an operating system and application layers that use 3D that are Apple's core market. Like professional workstation stuff, or even video editing could be improved some by Open GL improvements. It's not only the games, not by a long shot.

[applekid]

I'll be happy once we see the results of any OpenGL improvements on the Mac. For now, this is all talk.

If Apple really wants gaming to catch on, they should make their games site (apple.com/games) as a tab on the front page. Then at least it would be advertising correctly.

The only "optional" thing I want Apple to do now are ditch the low-end cards (9200 and FX 5200, for examples) and get some mid-level cards for the iMac and 12" PowerBook. I don't mind seeing iBooks, Mac Mini, and eMac with the low-end cards (you seriously shouldn't think about any serious gaming with those machines in the first place), but the iMac and low-end PowerBook are the middle of desktop and laptop lines, so they deserve better.

Anyways, this might be a step in the right direction for gaming. It's quite possible CoreImage and CoreVideo and Quartz are the APIs that'll benefit, however they seem to be quite good as is. Have you tried getting a PC to draw the GUI using the graphics card? Go to nVidia's control panel on a PC, tell it to draw the windows and even make them transparent if you want. It's choppy as hell. Quartz is leaps ahead of that technology. With Longhorn, they might catch up though. Longhorn as Avalon which is Quartz's equal, pretty much. But it requires 64MB of VRAM, more than Quartz Extreme. They haven't shown too many interesting demos with it though.

But, I still think games will be reaping the benefits. It's good news for everyone really.

[Kagetenshi]

I don't mind seeing iBooks, Mac Mini, and eMac with the low-end cards (you seriously shouldn't think about any serious gaming with those machines in the first place)
Oh gee, no one told me. I guess I'd better stop playing UT2k4 on my iBook, then.

~J

[chaosbunny]

Game developers should take blizzard as an example. WoW, one box for pc and mac! :) Would like to see this more often...

[Phat_Pat]

Game developers should take blizzard as an example. WoW, one box for pc and mac! :) Would like to see this more often...
Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(

[Some_Big_Spoon]

was wondering when this would hit this site.. been a few days already.. anyway, I don't care a lick about games at all.. just plain boring, BUT, I do care about pro apps that make use of open gl, so I don't care how they do it, or who they do it for, as long as we all benefit in the end.

My only question is, why did this take so long? I know Steve's not big on listening to consumers, even faithful ones, but graphics has been the driving force in buying for years, and with the options on 2 macs to have decent graphics cards, you'd think they'd throw some muscle behind it. While I hit on it, why can't I upgrade the gfx card on an imac? I want an imac, not a tower, so why can't i pay an extra $whatever to get a real card? that's just plain bad thinking. One size does not fit all.

[BeigeUser]

Doubtful, only thing that is going to make people start making more mac games is when we get some reasonable market share, and it is profitable to do so.

Yes, and the mac gaming marketshare will improve tremendously if OpenGL becomes significantly faster. Right now, the latest games only play well when run on a high-end PowerMac. That's a small market.

If OpenGL can be accelerated enough to allow iMacs, eMacs, powerbooks, and ibooks to be a decent gaming machine, the chances of a profitable software launch will multiply.

[Punani]

Open-GL, Open GL, or OpenGL? :p

Seriously though, I suspect this may be due to the somewhat "beta" status of Mac OS X. In the WWDC 2004 - Graphics and Media State of the Union, it is mentioned that Tiger should fill in the "last of the big holes in Quartz" (I realize Quartz is 2D). Which leads to the idea that Tiger is probably the finalization of the graphics frameworks. And that if graphics don't directly improve in Tiger, they should by 10.5 because the major groundbreaking changes are over for a bit.

[iGary]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

[chaosbunny]

Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(

WoW comes on 4 CDs. Would not mind if games would come on 2 or more DVDs. Will happen sooner or later anyway. ;)

[Darwin]

This is good to hear

I guess its also Pro Apps making use of OpenGL and not just games that has made Apple think about this

Hopefully this means new graphics cards as well

[chaosbunny]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

Personally I like PC games much more than console games. They are more complex, because they can store GBs of data on the harddisc and still have the cd/dvd in the slot. In console games, with the exception of GTA, there often is just one way with slight variations to play through. Once you did that the games are boring. I'm more fascinated of games like Diablo2, Age of Mythology, WoW (when I have a new computer) because the long time motivation is better.

I played "Lord of the Rings-the two towers" on a friends Playstation. We were through in one evening, 10 hours and 5 beers. 50 € wasted. Diablo2 I played for over a year due to the random dungeons and until I had my sorceress on lvl 95. 50 € well spent...

[wdlove]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

I'm not one of those that cares anything about playing games on a Mac. Since it sounds as though Open GL will benefit more than just gaming, then this is a positive move on the part of Apple. It will allow the Mac to appeal to a broader range of customer. Not just those for games, but those into 2D & 3D graphics. Can't afford to forget about the professional user either

[Lacero]

Apple finally realizes their OpenGL is so pitiful. They are busy working on an update so they can show off Doom 3 running on a PM 3.0 Ghz at WWDC and saying, look, 90 FPS at 1600x1200. And it'll just get sneers from the audience.

[DPazdanISU]

its obvious this is one of the biggest complaint switchers have is that they give up the gaming moving to mac osx. So since apple is oriented towards switching now they are working feverishly to increase the gaming experience. I've heard the tiger increases doom3 frame rates significantly (due to better drivers etc). I like this news cuz since i've move to apple (past 3 years) i haven't done much shootem' up gamin

[deanbo]

seriously though, i'm so surprised this wasn't a top priority before, at least apple is taking some initiative.

I agree. This should of been a priority long before now. The article also stated that Apple is trying to make it much easier to port from DirectX to OpenGL.

Is Apple finally starting to get gaming?

[chameeeleon]

If Apple does want to start taking gaming on the Mac seriously, they shouldn't wait for third party developers to catch up. With Apple making iLife and iWork updates (hopefully) every year, why not also get a first-party team together to develop one big game each year? One thing they could guarantee is that if the game was impressive enough, EVERY Mac user would buy it, much like iLife. Bundling the game with every new consumer Mac would also be a huge boost. But this thing's got to be superb.
So Apple, if you're listening - court some big names to come to you guys and blow us away at MacWorld 2006 with a 3 part bundle - iLife, iWork and a game for $199.99 (and with a hefty student discount for me and others, of course).
Ah, who am I kidding - it'll never happen.

[SteveC]

Ah, who am I kidding - it'll never happen.
I think you're right. ;)

I also think there would be *tremendous* pressure on Apple to create the best game on the market if they WERE to create a game. And we all know how tough the competition in the gaming industry is. Plus, if they only make ONE, what kind of game would they create? A FPS, RPG, sports game? The list goes on, and not all Mac owners would buy the game just because it's a Mac game.

[DrNeroCF]

Why is openGL improvement important even for a console gamer like me? Cause my 400 mhz gamecube can run insane video filters on a game like Viewtiful Joe, yet Final Cut Pro staggers after putting two videos together, and Motion just plain looks like poop when it's able to run realtime. 1.6 ghz powerbook!!! An xbox can run Doom III better than me??? Apple fix it!!!

[AoWolf]

Good Good Gaming is something macs have always sucked(if we are honest with out selfs) in. But I am curious to know how will this help games that are already out. Such as wow....

[hob]

For PC switchers like myself, I think a lot of us want our mac to be able to do most things our PC's could do, and that includes gaming.

Example, some friends of mine at uni all live in the same corridor. 2 of them have PC's one has a mac. The PC users started to play Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and my Mac buddy noticed you could get a mac version! So he did! And..... it didn't work! I'm not an idiot when it comes to macs and even I couldn't get it to work. (No problems on my 12" Powerbook, but never worked on his 15")

Anyway, so what I'm saying is that the fact that he couldn't play a game that all of his friends could on a computer that we both felt was far superior really put us on a downer. PC gamers are a different breed to console gamers. I'm slowly turning into a console gamer, but only as I dislike windows...

[HAViK]

This is DEFINITELY good news! I would like to see the true power of the mac graphics cards to come. This machine needs to quit being so bottlenecked. The Doom 3 performance on my machine is a let down to say the least.

[crpchristian]

With the whole 'year of HD' bit i'd imagine this might have a lot to do with motion graphics/video/3D programs as much as it would have to do with gaming. These programs can rely a lot on open GL and 'can' tax a GPU a lot more than a game ever will. This is, in a sense, a bigger issue since its more of an industry currently on the mac and its a bigger problem when you have to work a lot slower with annoying non real time feed back than when you just get 20fps in a game.

I love games but i hope this is more of their focus but it will bennefit both either way.

[applekid]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

It's more about preference I guess.

I prefer non-FPSes, so console gaming is ideal for me. It seems you only have three genres on the Mac/PC these days: FPS, MMORPG, and RTS. In essence, every shooter from the last decade is pretty much the same. MMORPGs have been gimmicky on the most part, and RTSes are great on computers. Hey, if you like those genres, more power to you, and game on. But, I just had enough of them, not to say I've completely quit. :)

Also, any computer nerd loves to show off his toy, so what's a better way than to use a game to benchmark you machine? Honestly, that's partially the reason computer gaming is so appealing to the nerd-types. And all that tweaking to your machine is nerd's dream! And computer gamers are so shallow. God, it's just disgusting what kind of gamers we have today. They don't care about gameplay. It's all about pretty graphics. At least most consoles gamers aren't like that.

---------

For people comparing consoles to computers: please don't.

Two major reasons:
1) Console hardware is dedicated and lacks overhead from an OS and other useless hardware a computer has.
2) Graphics quality in consoles are utter crap. At best, you'll get HDTV resolutions, but the pixels on a TV are bigger and blurs the picture so it looks good. Hook up your console to a DVI display (with the proper adapters). You'll see how crappy it can get. Yes, Halo 2 (even at an HDTV resolution) looks like crap when you compare it to Doom 3 or Half Life 2.

-------

Apple, if you care about gaming, get Havok ported to the Mac. I don't care how. Just get it done. Havok is hurting us more than you think.

[thoroughbred]

That idea about making 1 huge game every year is not such a bad idea.They should make them online that way they can release updates to them consistently throughout a year. But I think they will need help in doing so. The ideal partnership would be Nintendo however. Best games, desperate, online venture, exclusivity etc etc, and they both have simialar ideals and aims.

[aafuss1]

Good to hear-I first read something along the lines of this at MOSR. This would definetely benefit developers and Apple's pro-apps and gaming on Macs

[Sol]

Good Good Gaming is something macs have always sucked(if we are honest with out selfs) in. But I am curious to know how will this help games that are already out. Such as wow....

You must be a new Mac user. There was a time before Windows when Macs had colour screens and PCs did not. There was also a Mac-only game called Marathon which out-doomed Doom in graphics and gameplay. The company which made this game was called Bungie. They also worked on a game called Halo, which was first demonstrated during an Apple Keynote on a PowerMac with a 64 MB graphics card. Another game which was first demonstrated during a keynote was Doom 3.

Low frame rates in 3D games started being the norm in Mac games after the games industry decided that Direct X was the bee's knees. Most Mac games today are Open GL ports of Direct X games. Almost nothing takes advantage of Mac-only features like wide-screen displays, Altivec, dual PPC processors and 64 bit processing. Even if some games featured optimisations like these, PC gamers would still reject Macs because more games are available on Windows.

[HiRez]

Open-GL, Open GL, or OpenGL?OpenGL is the correct one.

[Yvan256]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

One thing, mainly: keyboard and mouse will always beat gamepad. Try playing Halo on a PC/Mac against people on Xbox. They won't stand a chance.

I wish/hope the next consoles will have something like a speedpad n50 and a mouse. Not optionnal, or at least make all games support it as a requirement (first person shooters at least).

[johnnowak]

Open-GL?
Open GL?
OpenGL?

Pick one, eh?

edit: Eh, I see I'm late to the game. It's so flagrant though, I'll leave my post anyway...

[MrJohnson]

Also, any computer nerd loves to show off his toy, so what's a better way than to use a game to benchmark you machine? Honestly, that's partially the reason computer gaming is so appealing to the nerd-types. And all that tweaking to your machine is nerd's dream! And computer gamers are so shallow. God, it's just disgusting what kind of gamers we have today. They don't care about gameplay. It's all about pretty graphics. At least most consoles gamers aren't like that.



Halo and Halo 2 are considered the best games on XBOX but when Halo was ported to the PC people realize how mediocre the game was. It's the same game as every other FPS multiplayer.

Great graphics help make a game. It's truely a mixture between modability, story and graphics that make games the best games.


Consoles are great, don't get me wrong. They have some of the best games ever like the gran turismo series, but there will always be games that are on the PC that are better. For instance Starcraft is still one of the greatest games but when it was ported to the N64 it sucked because it was impossible to control.

[HiRez]

WoW comes on 4 CDs. Would not mind if games would come on 2 or more DVDs. Will happen sooner or later anyway. ;)They should easily all fit on a single DVD, with lots of room to spare. 700 MB * 4 CDs = 2.8 GB, and even single-layer DVDs can hold something like 4.7 GB. There have been a few games that offered a single DVD instead of multiple CDs (I recall one of the Myst games did this), but that's extra cost to offer the option and until everyone has a DVD reader, they won't switch. Just look how long it took them to stop shipping software on floppies, I can remember installers with over a dozen floppies.

[jouster]

That idea about making 1 huge game every year is not such a bad idea.

Except that the most recent two huge games - Doom 3 and Half Life 2 - took about five years each to develop.

I think expecting one every year might be a little optimistic.

[MrMacMan]

Thank God.

Apple realizes that to a great degree, IT IS ABOUT THE GAMES.

Kids buy computers, or force their parents into buying a computer that can play their games, and too bad apple can't get people to make good optomized games.

You need to retool OpenGL, you need to make it 30% faster for any of the 'usual' windows gaming companies to even look at a port.

Want to see the next half-life come to mac? thats how you are going to do it, make it easy to port, and make it able to run on something that isn't a Dual G5 system!

[Sol]

I think expecting one every year might be a little optimistic.

Apple knows fark all about game design so I think the idea of an Apple game is flawed. However, if Apple were to develop a 3D engine every year, developers might find it easier to make Mac-only games. Most FPS games today use 3D engines from other games like Quake 3, Unreal, Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004. Apple could develop the middleware and companies like Aspyr could port games with it. I have read of a project to port the Halo gameplay to the UT2004 game engine so it is not like something like this has not happened before.

[jouster]

Apple knows fark all about game design so I think the idea of an Apple game is flawed. However, if Apple were to develop a 3D engine every year, developers might find it easier to make Mac-only games. Most FPS games today use 3D engines from other games like Quake 3, Unreal, Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004. Apple could develop the middleware and companies like Aspyr could develop games with it. I have read of a project to port the Halo gameplay to the UT2004 game engine so it is not like something like this has not happened before.

Did the original comment imply that Apple would develop the games? Holy crap - I didn't notice that. I meant that games devs would have trouble releasing one huge game per year.

Apple will certainly never have a problem in this area, as they will never attempt to develop a game.

[Kagetenshi]

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)
Because it's a good platform to play games on? Consoles have their place, but the computer is a superior platform for many. I'm just in opposition to the people who say that the Mac isn't already good for games (not that I'd argue against it getting better).

~J

[BenRoethig]

---------

For people comparing consoles to computers: please don't.

Two major reasons:
1) Console hardware is dedicated and lacks overhead from an OS and other useless hardware a computer has.
2) Graphics quality in consoles are utter crap. At best, you'll get HDTV resolutions, but the pixels on a TV are bigger and blurs the picture so it looks good. Hook up your console to a DVI display (with the proper adapters). You'll see how crappy it can get. Yes, Halo 2 (even at an HDTV resolution) looks like crap when you compare it to Doom 3 or Half Life 2.

-------


3. Consoles and computers tend to be better at different types of games. PC are better at first person shooters and RTS. Consoles are better at third person action games and sports.

4. With First Person shooters in particular, the mod community is also as big a selling point as the original game itself. Console = no mods.

[Nermal]

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

For me there are two reasons.

1. I can't afford a console, as I'll also need to buy either a TV or a video capture card in order to use it (unless newer consoles have VGA or DVI ports).

2. I need a mouse! I simply cannot 'point' by using a stick.

[RichCoder]

Halo and Halo 2 are considered the best games on XBOX but when Halo was ported to the PC people realize how mediocre the game was. It's the same game as every other FPS multiplayer.

I don't agree with that statement. Halo for the PC came out a two years after its xbox release and still put other FPS games to shame. Graphics looked great and gameplay was revolutionary. Halo is on a short list of truely great games and an original FPS. It came out in 2001 for the xbox and 2003 for the PC and it still stands up to todays games. Mediocre? I don't agree at all.

-rich

[~loserman~]

Any OpenGL improvements will always be welcomed.

[Kagetenshi]

I don't agree with that statement. Halo for the PC came out a two years after its xbox release and still put other FPS games to shame. Graphics looked great and gameplay was revolutionary. Halo is on a short list of truely great games and an original FPS. It came out in 2001 for the xbox and 2003 for the PC and it still stands up to todays games. Mediocre? I don't agree at all.
Halo was a bad game, pure and simple. It was an embarrassment for Bungie to have released it. Level design was nonexistent, balance was out of whack, the way it dealt with inventory made no sense whatsoever, I could go on all night.

~J

[iris_failsafe]

The future of graphics are 3d graphics both for games and content development. You need them so for example Shake can run as fast as Discreet's Flame or that professional 3d programs such as XSI and CATIA pro enginneerr have the power to be translated to the mac...

Steve it's the graphics, you need to make the mac what SGI was in the early 90's...

[Platform]

This sounds good, more speed is always needed. :D

But will this be for Tiger or can it also come as an up-date to Panther :confused:

[Sol]

This sounds good, more speed is always needed. :D

But will this be for Tiger or can it also come as an up-date to Panther :confused:

According to the Mac news sites OS X 10.3.9 will be the last update before OS X 10.4 comes out. Whatever next generation OpenGL update Apple has in mind will most likely be for later versions of Tiger.

[pizzach]

Thank God. Mac Gaming is horrible. OpenGL needs any improvements it can get. I barely get 1 frame a second on chess. I wonder if Chess was just a testing ground for Apple doing openGL games so that they can make a kick butt FPS. :D

[nitriletiger]

Or how about when Apple makes it easier for companies to make their games run well on a Mac. Its not like it was easy to get Doom 3 to run, as was said in an interview concerning Doom 3 and Apple, so maybe it'll be easier to make a particular game not suck on a Mac, which is encouraging enough.

Exactly my point, right now it isn't exactly easy to transfer games from PC to Mac, but if it is easier, faster, cheeper (etc.) than more games will come out. But also the mac market share isn't doing so well, but has increased over the years (200-2005)

-Nitriletiger

P.S. It also takes longer to convert games which means macs get left in the dust for 3 months utill a mac version comes out.

[MrJohnson]

I don't agree with that statement. Halo for the PC came out a two years after its xbox release and still put other FPS games to shame. Graphics looked great and gameplay was revolutionary. Halo is on a short list of truely great games and an original FPS. It came out in 2001 for the xbox and 2003 for the PC and it still stands up to todays games. Mediocre? I don't agree at all.

-rich


Have you ever played any good PC FPS? As for graphics Halo still has good graphics (except for the lack of textures...). When compaired to todays PC FPS's though (CS:S, DOD, HL2:DM, and all the upcomming mods) it seriously was nothing revolutionary.

[jeffbax]

:rolleyes:

Whatever. Stop talking to your friends about what computer they'd buy, and go look at the real market. If you look at a 'normal' person who doesn't live to play games or play with their computer you're going to find them running an inexpensive, stripped down, Intel 'graphics' that use main memory system bought at Best Buy when MSN or whatever internet provider of the week offered some big rebate that actually signed them up for three years of service at more than twice the rebate they got.

There are other components of an operating system and application layers that use 3D that are Apple's core market. Like professional workstation stuff, or even video editing could be improved some by Open GL improvements. It's not only the games, not by a long shot.Huh? Gaming PC's are premium computers.

What are Macs? Premium computers, I don't know many people who go the Apple route for piece of **** PC uses.

Ignoring the game problem is completely stupid, its a problem, why would you WANT it to go ignored?

[jeffbax]

Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(Why not? Most of the heavy files is all art and sound that easily works on both platforms.

World of Warcraft is a 4 Gig game that comes on 4 CDs that work with PC and Mac.

[eXan]

Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(

How needs CDs or even DVDs for more than 1 version of game? HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are coming!!! :D

[eXan]

LOL 2 posts in a row with the same quote :D

[GulGnu]

I don't agree with that statement. Halo for the PC came out a two years after its xbox release and still put other FPS games to shame. Graphics looked great and gameplay was revolutionary. Halo is on a short list of truely great games and an original FPS. It came out in 2001 for the xbox and 2003 for the PC and it still stands up to todays games. Mediocre? I don't agree at all.

-rich

Halo for PC was a plain mess - buggy, and needed a top-of-the-line PC just to get a decent framerate. And no, it didn't put anything "to shame". Halo is a decent shoot-em-up but that's about it.

[Lacero]

Doom 3 frame rates don't seem to go past 50 fps which tells me Apple's drivers need to be overhauled. It might go deeper than this, right down to the abstraction layer.

[Dippo]

I don't agree with that statement. Halo for the PC came out a two years after its xbox release and still put other FPS games to shame. Graphics looked great and gameplay was revolutionary. Halo is on a short list of truely great games and an original FPS. It came out in 2001 for the xbox and 2003 for the PC and it still stands up to todays games. Mediocre? I don't agree at all.

-rich

Multiplayer for the Xbox was about the only good thing about Halo.

The graphics were only okay, the gameplay was very repetitive.
The first few levels of the game were good, but the rest just sucked.

Halo certianly doesn't stand up to today's games!!!
Haven't you played Half Life 2??

[shyataroo]

I did. I just bought an XBOX and a PSP as well. The only thing I miss out on is Half-Life 2. That alone almost made me regret it!! SUCH a good game, and no PC for me to play it on... or mac version!! Maybe companies like ID have demanded that Apple improve opengl support so they can release better games, or at least not have embarrassing minimum specs. Half Life 2 is coming for Xbox

[Sol]

Doom 3 frame rates don't seem to go past 50 fps which tells me Apple's drivers need to be overhauled. It might go deeper than this, right down to the abstraction layer.

I remember reading that the Doom 3 engine has this limitation on Windows as well. A more powerfull computer will not be able to display more than sixty frames every second, at any resolution.

[Abstract]

:rolleyes:
....If you look at a 'normal' person who doesn't live to play games or play with their computer you're going to find them running an inexpensive, stripped down, Intel 'graphics' that use main memory system bought at Best Buy.....

(snip)

.....or even video editing could be improved some by Open GL improvements. It's not only the games, not by a long shot.

So according to you, the games market isn't that big, and so OpenGL improvement is not meant mostly for games? You serious?!? Games are a HUGE issue, and yeah, the market is big enough for Apple to worry about.

And from your logic, I'd bet that video editing is an even SMALLER part of the market than gaming. After all, most "normal" people are buying inexpensive, stripped down machines with Intel integrated graphics anyway, right? So maybe Apple shouldn't bother improving OpenGL for video editing either.

[jiggie2g]

I'll be happy once we see the results of any OpenGL improvements on the Mac. For now, this is all talk.

If Apple really wants gaming to catch on, they should make their games site (apple.com/games) as a tab on the front page. Then at least it would be advertising correctly.

The only "optional" thing I want Apple to do now are ditch the low-end cards (9200 and FX 5200, for examples) and get some mid-level cards for the iMac and 12" PowerBook. I don't mind seeing iBooks, Mac Mini, and eMac with the low-end cards (you seriously shouldn't think about any serious gaming with those machines in the first place), but the iMac and low-end PowerBook are the middle of desktop and laptop lines, so they deserve better.

Anyways, this might be a step in the right direction for gaming. It's quite possible CoreImage and CoreVideo and Quartz are the APIs that'll benefit, however they seem to be quite good as is. Have you tried getting a PC to draw the GUI using the graphics card? Go to nVidia's control panel on a PC, tell it to draw the windows and even make them transparent if you want. It's choppy as hell. Quartz is leaps ahead of that technology. With Longhorn, they might catch up though. Longhorn as Avalon which is Quartz's equal, pretty much. But it requires 64MB of VRAM, more than Quartz Extreme. They haven't shown too many interesting demos with it though.

But, I still think games will be reaping the benefits. It's good news for everyone really.


I Don't think an extra 64MB Vram will be a problem , can u even find a video card with less then 128MB . maybe at a bargin bin or ebay u might find an old Geforce 4 MX or Radeon 9000. even the crappy cards these days come with 128MB and are moving to 256MB.Quartz only requires 32MB because it was developed at a time when 32MB vram was still considered acceptable. now i dare u 2 find a PC with less then 128MB Vram , even the intergrated intel crap used 128-256MB of your system ram for video.

you can be sure by late 2005. 256MB vram will be standard once ATI and NVIDIA put out thier new cores and 512MB vram is placed in high end cards.

[loneAzdgari]

I just thought I'd leave my input on this discussion.

I'm a writer for Inside Mac Games so I've got a lot of experience with the front end of Mac games, as well as the workings behind them. I think the Mac platform is an excellent vehicle for gaming, although it is often misunderstood.

As far as I see it, the main problem with the Mac gaming market is the perception that all innovation comes from the PC side of things. People look at the latest Battlefield 2 movies over on PC systems, then load up the 2 year old mac port of Battlefield 1942 on their top-end G5 and cry. If people keep using the age old adage "Macs aren't for playing games", nothing will change.

As the Mac stands, it is an excellent platform for independent and innovative game development. The tight integration with OpenGL, excellent support for Altivec, Dual Processors and the possibility of 64 bit, along with the excellent relationship between ATI, nVIDIA, Apple and nearly every game porting/dev house out there shows great potential. 90% of the time when a Mac game runs slower than a PC game, it's down to proprietary decisions by guys over on the PC side. You just have to look at the Quake 3 port. This was an excellent example of a cross platform game done well. At first release the game was slightly slower on Macs compared to equivalent PCs. The game got worked on by OS X friendly guys, and in it's present state no PC can come close to a top end G5 running this game. Dual processor support and Altivec has been implemented. Hopefully this OpenGL news will bring speedier deliveries to OS X ports.

In terms of talent, the Mac has more than it's fair share of excellent game developers. People like Brad Oliver and Ryan Gordon go out of their way to bring popular or interesting games to OS X. You only have to look at the recent OS X port of the free game, Enemy Territory. If you look on the credits list for the OS X port, ONE GUY is listed amongst a sea of PC programmers.

If people just went out looking for games, they'd find the Mac is a goldmine. There are so many excellent games that have little publicity it's nearly a crime. A good example of a obscure game getting rare publishing/publicity is Kill Dr. Cote. A uDev Games entry a while ago that recently got made into a commercial game by Freeverse. The Mac has a good deal of influence in the gaming world. You just have to look at Bungie. In their time as a Mac exclusive publisher they made classics like Myth, Marathon and Oni. I still play all three of these game series on a regular basis in arranged games. Could you necessarily say that you play nearly every game from a PC exclusive house upto 6 years after each game was made?

Sorry if I ranted a lot, but I get sick and tired of hearing my work in the Mac gaming industry is a waste of time. By the way, I also own an Xbox. (Halo 2 kicks ass :) )

[a2daj]

Apple, ATI, and NVIDIA have been trying to hire more OpenGL engineers well before the Doom 3 issues. They've been understaffed for a long time. This is nothing new. The only difference this time is that a consolidated job posting was sent to their developer list. Unfortunately, not enough people have stepped up to the plate to fill in the teams.

[eji]

Waaaay back when, games like Caesar and Sim City almost always had screenshots of the Apple versions on their packaging. I remember the sinking feeling I had when the game on my computer looked nothing like the flashy images on the box.

This nostalgic foray has little to do with OpenGL, but it might counter the perception that Apple computers have never been worth their salt in the gaming category. And though I no longer play anything but the rare fruitless hour or two (or three, or four) of Civ III, improvements to OpenGL are always welcome. I'd also like a decent GPU in the iMac (been waiting six months for the update before buying) to take advantage of future OpenGL improvements instead of being outdated from the day of purchase.

[Machead III]

Here's a three step guide to Apple and gaming success:

1) Make graphics a priority, this way you can kill both the high performance gaming and 3D graphics rendering birds with one stone. My 1Ghz iMac only just plays the original Deus Ex comfortably, when by all rights it should be whipping through it without a nanosecond of slowdown.

2) Develop some kind of software foundation that allows developers to make only minor tweaks to their games for it to run on a Mac. Rather than forcing them to re-write it all, meet them as half way as possible.

3) Advertise the **** out of games on the Mac. Game adverts always conclude with a screen displying the logos of each system its compatable with, but even in the unlikely event this game is available for mac, I see no Apple logo!

Do all this and you'll double the number of switchers by the end of the year. If Apple are going after the consumer market, look at the price of their hardware, low end net-sufers are not going to want one when Dell can provide it for 50% of the price. Geeky gamers spend thousands on their hardware, convert them and you'll start pulling in the casual gamers (such as myself) too.

[BillHarrison]

I would bet the gaming industry is much bigger than many people feel. I would wager that the number of people who buy PC's for gaming is either equal too or more than the number of people who buy macs altogether! Even if only 5% of pc owners buy them for gaming, thats still more Computer market share than the entire mac industry.

Games are big, and have surpassed the motion picture industry in income. So anyone who dismisses them as "niche market" is completely off base.

Personally, I have never done much "computer" gaming, I have always been a console fan. Flip the switch, play - Turn it off... come back to it 2-3 days later, pick up where i left off. I own an XBOX, and love the halo series, and look forward to picking up Doom 3 for it when its available. I am seriously looking forward to the XBOX 2 / Next, with its PPC processors :P (Even Microsoft knows where the real power is:P)

But gaming industry revenues are truly big, and for apple to dismiss their piece of the pie is rather stupid. I think things are happening for Apple, and this is just another step in the evolution. Focus on the things that made them great, but grow by becoming great in areas they were not before!

[ziwi]

This is a step in the right direction, but I think that people have been reading into it too much as far as gaming is concerned.

[Dagless]

ill probably get sectioned for this

but i had a dream last night about Nintendo helping Apple with their OpenGL... and i think i know why; because both companies use PPC. :rolleyes:

anyways this can only be a good thing. heres hoping my 12" PB will be blasting out Doom 3 in 1024x768 on ultra quality with UT2004 and Halo on in the background! *crosses fingers*

personally im not fussed about mac gaming. Ive got a fairly decent gaming PC in the study, ive got an Xbox and Gamecube in my bedroom. I actually bought HL2 and Doom 3 for PC (the first 2 games ive bought in a looong time) and ill be damned if im buying them again for Mac.
And i reaaally dont like Halo 2. well, compared to the original. :)

[csubear]

Here why apple is know looking to improve OpenGL. For the last 5 years apple has been working like crazy to OS X out of beta (pre 10,10.0,10.1) and into release (10.2,10.3). What they have done is brought us a stable OS with a UI that has been better in each version. What they haven't done is touch there OpenGL implementation for maybe 4 years, Until the last set of 10.x updates. Now that they have a very stable UI, and Core OS. They can start tinkering with the various sub-systems.

[rickvanr]

Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(
I've read many PC and Mac games files are nearly identical, and iirc, with Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it was only a mature of changing a few small files to make the PC version Mac compatible. I'm sure this is the same with other games as well.

[BenRoethig]

I've got a serious question (please no flames).

Personally, if I was going to get into games, I'd get an Xbox or something - its sole purpose is to play games (and much cheaper than putting a gaming computer together),

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

Why are so many Mac users dead-set against playing games on this platform? When you buy a general purpose home computer you expect that it should be able to do all the task you want including playing games. Also, the go buy an xbox line is really akin to telling a baseball player to go play hockey at the local rink if the field isn't quite up to spec. They may both be sports, but the way they play are entirely different animals.

[M@netic]

*puzzled*

why would anyone vote negative?

After Apple gets the best opengl performance, maybe they should allow some piracy on purpose since it's the thing that pc users like the most, then they will really dominate.

[Bendit]

For me there are two reasons.

1. I can't afford a console, as I'll also need to buy either a TV or a video capture card in order to use it (unless newer consoles have VGA or DVI ports).

2. I need a mouse! I simply cannot 'point' by using a stick.

You can afford a $200 console but you can afford an expensive Mac which requires ridiculously expensive video-card upgrades to play latest games? And you're willing to buy a TV or video capture card as well?

A console is cheap.

[swissmann]

I think the gaming is a big part of this but more important to Apple in my opinion is their dependancy on the graphics card with their pro apps like Motion etc.

Also, as my iPhoto library grows 6097 photos and with a 6 MP camera it really seems slow on my Dual 2 GHz G5 PowerMac. I have 1.5 GB RAM but only the stock 9600 (?) 64 MB card that came with it. Would a better graphics card speed it up, or is it more RAM? I kind of doubt it is the rest of the computer.

[a2daj]

Here why apple is know looking to improve OpenGL. For the last 5 years apple has been working like crazy to OS X out of beta (pre 10,10.0,10.1) and into release (10.2,10.3). What they have done is brought us a stable OS with a UI that has been better in each version. What they haven't done is touch there OpenGL implementation for maybe 4 years, Until the last set of 10.x updates. Now that they have a very stable UI, and Core OS. They can start tinkering with the various sub-systems.

Um... Apple has been constantly adding features to OpenGL since the beginning. Probably the biggest noticeable change was when 10.2 came out and that was due in large part to the features needed for Quartz Extreme. Each OS release has included not just bug fixes (and new bugs) but new features and optimizations. I really don't know how you can say they haven't touched their OpenGL implementation in four years.

[Eric5h5]

I've read many PC and Mac games files are nearly identical, and iirc, with Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it was only a mature of changing a few small files to make the PC version Mac compatible. I'm sure this is the same with other games as well.

Yes. The actual GAME, even these days, is generally only a few megabytes or so. 99.9% of the space used on the disc is graphics and sound files, which are platform-independent. There is no issue with having the Mac and PC versions on the same disc.

--Eric

[Flickta]

Halo certianly doesn't stand up to today's games!!!
Haven't you played Half Life 2??

HL2 is s***
Halo was also, but with Halo you desperately sought what was left of Bungie in it, of the old idea of the game with a borderless ring-world filled with ancient mysteries...
And when you saw some small glimpses of light, you were soooo happy, and could've even forget that long history of Bungie's demise...

HL2? Technology maybe... No GAME.

______________________
Rated the news positive. Perhaps not games... But maybe the interface will be smooth.

[Eric5h5]

Why are so many Mac users dead-set on playing games on this platform?

(I'm seriously curious.)

I see other people have said basically the same thing, but just to reiterate, console games tend to be short and shallow, whereas computer games tend to be more complex and involved. Not just the games themselves, but related areas: making maps, mods, etc. Can't do that on a console. Also there's the opportunity for smaller independent games on computers that don't necessarily have to be marketed to the biggest audience possible, with the dumbing-down and lowest-common-denominatorism that often implies. Plus some entire game genres are nearly non-existant on consoles....

Not that I have anything against console games (got Bionicle for the Mac recently), but I would hate to be stuck with no choice.

--Eric

[wrldwzrd89]

One thing, mainly: keyboard and mouse will always beat gamepad. Try playing Halo on a PC/Mac against people on Xbox. They won't stand a chance.

I wish/hope the next consoles will have something like a speedpad n50 and a mouse. Not optionnal, or at least make all games support it as a requirement (first person shooters at least).
I only partially agree with you here. For FPS games, you're correct. The exact opposite is true for racing games and flight simulators, though.

I would be all for making FPS support on consoles for accessories like the ones you mention mandatory. However, I wouldn't want to be REQUIRED to have these things, since I don't play games that could make good use of them.

[Dagless]

I wish/hope the next consoles will have something like a speedpad n50 and a mouse. Not optionnal, or at least make all games support it as a requirement (first person shooters at least).

one world; Revolution :cool:

but seriously about controllers, maybe its just me but i find using a controller a better experience and more user friendly. Halo is a daunting experience on PC/Mac i find because all the keys are dotted round and in the heat of battle I sometimes get confused. unlike the Xbox version which i took to almost straight away. And im a seasoned PC game player.

the only added bonus of playing a game with keyboard and mouse is the aiming, obviously a mouse is an amazing tool for shooting with. then again i find the DS to be the greatest for aiming, it is unbelievably easy to aim using a touchscreen. could Smash Bros Melee be played with a keyboard and mouse? no. the kind of games i play are controller orientated.

[csubear]

Um... Apple has been constantly adding features to OpenGL since the beginning. Probably the biggest noticeable change was when 10.2 came out and that was due in large part to the features needed for Quartz Extreme. Each OS release has included not just bug fixes (and new bugs) but new features and optimizations. I really don't know how you can say they haven't touched their OpenGL implementation in four years.

Yes OS X's pdf/postscript(Quartz/Quartz Extreme) rendering engine has seen vast improvements over the last 5 years, but these are core, can't have a GUI without these, modules. OpenGL is a subsystem that they had to have, but once they had it, it wasn't on the high on the list for performance enhancements. Drawin,Cocoa,Quartz where on the list for performance enhancements.

[Kelmon]

This is definitely "Good News", although that hardly needs to be said. I switched from a Windows XP system about 18-months ago because it was driving me barking mad and trying to screw-up my part-time MSc by refusing to boot. At the time it was almost top-of-the-line and breezed through any games that I bought, with the curious exception of Neverwinter Nights that chugged despite games like UT2003 and Halo flying along. With the prospect of moving into our own house that had bugger-all space for a full PC, I bought a 15" 1GHz Titanium PowerBook and hoped that I might be able to play at least a couple of games on it. So far, unfortunately, the only game that I've bought that runs acceptably has been Call of Duty (no bad thing as it's by far the best shooter that I've played), although UT2003/UT2004 will run OK in wank-o-rez where you are attacked by blobs.

While a PowerBook is never likely to be a gaming powerhouse like my old PC was, I was kinda hoping that it would have been better than it is. An improvement to overall OpenGL performance would be most welcome since it would no doubt benefit my existing hardware, assuming that the Mobile Radeon 9000 won't be left out of the party, and a new Mac that (wife-willing) might be bought next year. I'm not massively fussed that the Mac misses out on a lot of games since what it does get tends to be pretty stellar and most of the big names in PC gaming tend to allow their games to be ported or make their own versions themselves (Blizzard, iD and Epic particularly spring to mind). However, being able to play what is available on something that, at the time, set me back a lot of money would be nice.

Something else that might need addressing is the price of Mac games. Not sure what the prices are like elsewhere but one of the principle reasons that I only own 1 game is because most games cost £40.00 whereas PC games regularly go for £25-30. I went to a store in Antwerp a few weeks ago and almost all the games were EUR 40-50, even ones like Diablo 2 that are like 5-years old. Mental...

[Kagetenshi]

Kelmon: I'd advise taking your Powerbook in for servicing. I play UT2k4 on low-mid specs on an iBook with 32 megs of VRAM, so unless you're exaggerating seriously there's something badly wrong with your machine.

~J

[JesseJames]

Geez, about friggin' time.
All this talk about gaming.
What's the prospects for the really high-end graphics accelerators coming to Mac with all of this?
Maybe finally, Discreet er, Autodesk will port some programs for the Mac platform? Instead of snubbing us?
Can Apple finally quash SGI and take its rightful place as THE graphics potentate?

[bushgreen]

i dont get why comes halo runs smoothly on an xbox, when a xbox has only 32mb video ram and 700mhz processing power. my pc with 64mb 5200 video ram 2.6 ghz p4 struggles on halo. how comes when my pc has a much higher spec than an xbox.

[Lynxpro]

[QUOTE=Macrumors]Apple appears to be actively recruiting individuals to improve their Mac Open-GL implementation according to a post on the Mac Open GL mailing list (http://lists.apple.com/archives/mac-opengl/2005/Mar/msg00199.html).



Gaming on the Mac platform won't improve seriously until Apple ditches the last vestage of proprietariness on the PowerMac line, that being the need for specialized Mac videocards. When Joe User can drop by Worst Buy or CompUSA and pick up the latest videocard and be able to drop it into their PowerMac will be the first day of the beginning of Mac gaming improvements. I don't understand why Apple still clings to this. They use standard memory, standard IDE/SATA hard drive connectors, PCI Express/AGP/PCI expansion slots, and made USB safe for the masses. Why cling to this last remnant of proprietary architectures? Its holding the Mac platform back.

Second, Apple should set up a limited licensing program with another vendor like Alienware that essentially created the high-end gaming computer platform. Unless Apple is serious about this niche, they should seek a more experienced player to partner on this. Having a major secondary OS X hardware vendor would extra credibility to the platform from the gaming companies perspectives, as well as the actual hardcore gamers.

Third, treat games as loss-leaders. The PC gamers market is much larger than the actual sales figures, since probably half the gamers pirate the titles. Apple should subsidize the cost of the popular titles being made available on Macs, or buy stock in many of the developers to insure Mac development. Apple has experience in this, since all Apple branded software is meant to be used as loss-leaders to encourage further Mac hardware sales...

Fourth, one would hope that there's some positive spill-over in terms of Mac gaming considering all three of the next generation consoles (Sony Playstation3, Microsoft Xbox Next, and Nintendo Revolution) use Cell/PowerPC G5 derived chips and most likely the development packages run on Mac hardware (the Xbox Next developer kits do for a fact).

[csubear]

i dont get why comes halo runs smoothly on an xbox, when a xbox has only 32mb video ram and 700mhz processing power. my pc with 64mb 5200 video ram 2.6 ghz p4 struggles on halo. how comes when my pc has a much higher spec than an xbox.

The xbox only has to deal with a TV resolution,IIRC 320x200. Half the resolution that any PC/Mac gamer would run halo at.

[hayesk]

The xbox only has to deal with a TV resolution,IIRC 320x200. Half the resolution that any PC/Mac gamer would run halo at.

Standard NTSC TV resolution is approximately 640x480 (it's actually wider, but the "pixels" aren't square).

Connect an iBook or PowerBook to a TV and you can see all of the pixels at 640x480.

But that's part of the reason a console doesn't need a fast CPU like a computer. Also, the path from the CPU to the graphics card is short and fast. It was designed to give priority over that than other I/O subsystems.

[hayesk]

Yes that would rock.... although large games wouldn't have room for both platforms on 1 CD/DVD :(

A CD/DVD can be burned with a shared section. You don't need level, music, character files, etc. to be platform specific. You only need one copy of those files.

Only the executable (a very small part of the game) needs to be platform specific, and thus separate copies.

[AidenShaw]

[Apple] use standard memory, standard IDE/SATA hard drive connectors, PCI Express/AGP/PCI expansion slots, and made USB safe for the masses.

No Mac has PCI-Express - did you mean PCI-X instead?

[sinisterdesign]

This is something I've always been pointing out; Apple should be focusing on graphics development because that was the driving force of the Macintosh in the first place! What a bunch of dorks.

yeah, kind of ironic. i used to snub my nose at all my PC friends w/ their paltry 256 colors when i had 16k or even MILLIONS. now i have to special order a 128MB grx card just to bump up the detail levels on Worlds of Warcraft.

(and i'm not complaining too much b/c at least i HAVE WoW. a few years ago i would have just been on the sideline watching the PC'ers play...)

it would be nice to have comparable texture detail & framerates again, though...

[sinisterdesign]

The xbox only has to deal with a TV resolution,IIRC 320x200. Half the resolution that any PC/Mac gamer would run halo at.

unless your Xbox is running it at 16:9 high-def, then it's cranking out a litte more than NTSC resolution (which is 640x480, as another poster pointed out), which mine does quite well.

i like both platforms (console & desktop) for games. i tend to go back & forth, i'll play Xbox for a couple months, then get hooked on WoW on my G4.

[Eric5h5]

i dont get why comes halo runs smoothly on an xbox, when a xbox has only 32mb video ram and 700mhz processing power. my pc with 64mb 5200 video ram 2.6 ghz p4 struggles on halo. how comes when my pc has a much higher spec than an xbox.

It's not that good of a port, apparently. Also your graphics card isn't helping...video RAM is only a small part of what makes them fast or not. With Halo, my 2.5GHz G5 with an X800 graphics card stomps all over the Xbox when it comes to resolution (stuck at 640x480 on Xbox) and frame rates (stuck at 30 fps max on Xbox). Well, it better, considering the price difference. But it could have been optimized a bit more for computers...although I think they added in some extra graphics detail.

--Eric

[bushgreen]

but what i still dont get with is that my pc has way more power than an xbox so it should run smooth on at 1024x840. my pc has more than double the power of the xbox so why can the xbox run halo so smooth.

games that come out on ps2 and xbox need much higher specs on pc why?

[jouster]

...But it could have been optimized a bit more for computers...although I think they added in some extra graphics detail.

--Eric


I think they care a lot more about the XBox version simply because they sell so many more than the computer version iirc.

[jouster]

but what i still dont get with is that my pc has way more power than an xbox so it should run smooth on at 1024x840. my pc has more than double the power of the xbox so why can the xbox run halo so smooth.

games that come out on ps2 and xbox need much higher specs on pc why?

Well, your PC has a far more complex and demanding OS to run at the same time.

[Kelmon]

Kelmon: I'd advise taking your Powerbook in for servicing. I play UT2k4 on low-mid specs on an iBook with 32 megs of VRAM, so unless you're exaggerating seriously there's something badly wrong with your machine.

Probably a reasonable suggestion. Both UT2003/2004 are playable at the lowest resolution both its no fun and nothing close to what I had with the PC that still sits unused with a P4 and GeForce4400 graphics card. Call of Duty, for some reason, runs pretty well in 1024*768 if the detail is turned down but Enemy Territory ran like crap earlier today when I tried it out, even at 800*600. I'm hoping that Tiger may sort some of these issues out when the laptop is scrubbed but aside from that I need to have a word with Apple about my Airport card as its playing silly buggers at the moment (won't connect to my Airport Extreme network without being turned off or even rebooted completely sometimes).

So, slight exaggeration... :rolleyes:

[BenRoethig]

[QUOTE=Macrumors]Apple appears to be actively recruiting individuals to improve their Mac Open-GL implementation according to a post on the Mac Open GL mailing list (http://lists.apple.com/archives/mac-opengl/2005/Mar/msg00199.html).



Gaming on the Mac platform won't improve seriously until Apple ditches the last vestage of proprietariness on the PowerMac line, that being the need for specialized Mac videocards. When Joe User can drop by Worst Buy or CompUSA and pick up the latest videocard and be able to drop it into their PowerMac will be the first day of the beginning of Mac gaming improvements. I don't understand why Apple still clings to this. They use standard memory, standard IDE/SATA hard drive connectors, PCI Express/AGP/PCI expansion slots, and made USB safe for the masses. Why cling to this last remnant of proprietary architectures? Its holding the Mac platform back.

Second, Apple should set up a limited licensing program with another vendor like Alienware that essentially created the high-end gaming computer platform. Unless Apple is serious about this niche, they should seek a more experienced player to partner on this. Having a major secondary OS X hardware vendor would extra credibility to the platform from the gaming companies perspectives, as well as the actual hardcore gamers.

Third, treat games as loss-leaders. The PC gamers market is much larger than the actual sales figures, since probably half the gamers pirate the titles. Apple should subsidize the cost of the popular titles being made available on Macs, or buy stock in many of the developers to insure Mac development. Apple has experience in this, since all Apple branded software is meant to be used as loss-leaders to encourage further Mac hardware sales...

Fourth, one would hope that there's some positive spill-over in terms of Mac gaming considering all three of the next generation consoles (Sony Playstation3, Microsoft Xbox Next, and Nintendo Revolution) use Cell/PowerPC G5 derived chips and most likely the development packages run on Mac hardware (the Xbox Next developer kits do for a fact).

The only thing that makes a Mac card a mac card and a PC card a PC card is the firmware. With marketshare what it is, there's not much of an incentive to make the Mac versions.

[Kagetenshi]

Just to clarify, I play UT2k4 on said iBook at 1024x768 resolution (though with detail mostly low), so if it's just playable at lower resolutions see my comment about servicing.

Actually, how much RAM are you working with?

~J

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
Gaming on the Mac platform won't improve seriously until Apple ditches the last vestage of proprietariness on the PowerMac line, that being the need for specialized Mac videocards. When Joe User can drop by Worst Buy or CompUSA and pick up the latest videocard and be able to drop it into their PowerMac will be the first day of the beginning of Mac gaming improvements. I don't understand why Apple still clings to this. They use standard memory, standard IDE/SATA hard drive connectors, PCI Express/AGP/PCI expansion slots, and made USB safe for the masses. Why cling to this last remnant of proprietary architectures? Its holding the Mac platform back.
I hate to break this to you, but my understanding is that's the case because Macs use PowerPC CPUs and no BIOS, therefore requiring different firmware to work. Apple would NEVER use a standard PC BIOS (they believe that Open Firmware is FAR better, which I agree with); the likelyhood of Apple switching away from PPC is close to nil, unless serious PPC manufacturing problems develop. Therefore, this issue you point out will ALWAYS be there.
Second, Apple should set up a limited licensing program with another vendor like Alienware that essentially created the high-end gaming computer platform. Unless Apple is serious about this niche, they should seek a more experienced player to partner on this. Having a major secondary OS X hardware vendor would extra credibility to the platform from the gaming companies perspectives, as well as the actual hardcore gamers.

Third, treat games as loss-leaders. The PC gamers market is much larger than the actual sales figures, since probably half the gamers pirate the titles. Apple should subsidize the cost of the popular titles being made available on Macs, or buy stock in many of the developers to insure Mac development. Apple has experience in this, since all Apple branded software is meant to be used as loss-leaders to encourage further Mac hardware sales...
I don't see how Apple could do this and not ruin themselves. They have found a distinct niche; attempts in the past to break out of that niche proved disastrous.
Fourth, one would hope that there's some positive spill-over in terms of Mac gaming considering all three of the next generation consoles (Sony Playstation3, Microsoft Xbox Next, and Nintendo Revolution) use Cell/PowerPC G5 derived chips and most likely the development packages run on Mac hardware (the Xbox Next developer kits do for a fact).
This I agree with 100%. Having more customers for PowerPC chips will help IBM more than it helps anyone else. It will help Apple only if the new customers aren't taking supply away from Apple, which I suspect will be the case.

[BenRoethig]

I don't see how Apple could do this and not ruin themselves. They have found a distinct niche; attempts in the past to break out of that niche proved disastrous.

The last attempt was a decade ago. At that time the only difference between a Mac and PC was a colored Apple on the beige case and the OS. Alienware and Apple are in distinctly different niches.

[Apple Hobo]

Allow me to reminisce about old 1990s-era beige-box Macs... ;)

Does anyone remember what Mac gaming used be like during the '90s? Same for regular software. I remember when stores would have less than one half-empty shelf devoted to Mac software/games. Even I was disappointed with the available software--games especially.

But now we have Apple stores with aisle upon aisle of games and quality software--many of which are also PC titles. Mac gaming still leaves a lot to be desired, but it's been growing over the years. It's great that we have titles such as Doom...even if doesn't run as well as some people would like.

Now I'm off to genuflect in the moonlight, remembering Macs of days past. :D

[BenRoethig]

Allow me to reminisce about old 1990s-era beige-box Macs... ;)

Does anyone remember what Mac gaming used be like during the '90s? Same for regular software. I remember when stores would have less than one half-empty shelf devoted to Mac software/games. Even I was disappointed with the available software--games especially.

But now we have Apple stores with aisle upon aisle of games and quality software--many of which are also PC titles. Mac gaming still leaves a lot to be desired, but it's been growing over the years. It's great that we have titles such as Doom...even if doesn't run as well as some people would like.

Now I'm off to genuflect in the moonlight, remembering Macs of days past. :D

I remember it well. Rex, Sears, WalMart, and Staples were Apple dealers. I could buy software at WalMart, Staples, and this cool little store across the street from the mall. The first piece of software I bought after I got my performa 5200 was the Mac exclusive Marathon, which was the first first person shooter on any platform to feature mission objectives. Now I have to drive three hours to the Apple store in either Milwaukee, Chicago, or Des Moines and the right to my beloved Marathon are owned by Microsoft.

[shompa]

Since the next generation consoles will use PowerPC chips.
Wont more games for Mac appear?

The Xbox 2 dev kit is Dual G5 computers afterall.

Xbox 2 PowerPC
NewNintendo PowerPC
Playstation 3 Cell

[shompa]

Apple should also start to working on SLI wrappers for the next G5case with SLI.

SLI Powermac G5 would be a real reason to someone to upgrade if its truly faster in applications like FCP, Adobe CS.

And of course games :)

[Kagetenshi]

SLI is like a department-store Santa, a lot of talk but nothing in the sack.

~J

[shompa]

SLI is like a department-store Santa, a lot of talk but nothing in the sack.

~J

I dont understand it.
SLI worked on the old Woodo cards.
Dual cards = dual perfomence.

The new Nvidia cards with SLI.
Why do tahy need wrappers to them?
Its strange.

But
Dual graphic cards is the way to go.

[johan_tanying]

It has been said now and then but should be stressed more - OpenGL is more than games! ArchiCad uses OpenGL... ArchiCad is s-l-o-w.. need .. more ... speed ... ... now!

[Kagetenshi]

I dont understand it.
SLI worked on the old Woodo cards.
Dual cards = dual perfomence.
Nope. You get better performance for less money just upgrading to the next-best card unless you're talking the top-of-the-line cards, at which point you're talking over a thousand dollars for two of them.

SLI may someday be worthwhile, but that day is a long way off.

~J

[Val-kyrie]

In an article at AnandTech on Multi-core CPU's and gaming is an interesting statement by AnandTech in an interview with Tim Sweeney, the leading developer behind the Unreal 3 engine: (QUOTE)

AnandTech: The current OpenGL and DirectX are - AFAIK - not very well adapted to multithreaded programming. How did you solve this problem? Or wasn't it a problem at all?

Tim Sweeney: There is only one GPU in there, and though it is highly parallel at the pixel level, its execution is still serial on the granularity of state changes and triangle submission. So it is natural that the interface to the GPU remain single-threaded, and that part of one CPU thread be dedicated to submitting rendering commands.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=1


I am no engineer, but if AnandTech is correct, this statement might be seen as corroboration that Apple is preparing for a predominantly, if not eventually completely, dual-core lineup. At least in the near future, I expect the PMac (dual, dual-core?), iMac and PB to go dual-core, with the iBook, eMac, and Mac mini remaining single core. :o

[broken_keyboard]

It's good that Apple are recruiting in this area. 3D is one of the major parts of OS X still to be done IMHO. (Just based on PC results with the same hardware). I hope they can recruit some really top 3D experts...

[Kelmon]

Just to clarify, I play UT2k4 on said iBook at 1024x768 resolution (though with detail mostly low), so if it's just playable at lower resolutions see my comment about servicing.

Actually, how much RAM are you working with?

~J

I'm running with 1GB PC133 and bought the PowerBook with the optional 64MB VRAM on the Radeon 9000. Unfortunately, I bought the PowerBook about 2 months before the PowerBook line-up was revised with the Aluminium versions and got better graphics chipsets and DDR, so I was kinda kicking myself.

If my PowerBook is "below standard", then I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad since I've spent the last 18-months accepting that this was the way it was. Incidentally, when you say "take it in for servicing", can you clarify where this would be done and whether it would be covered under AppleCare? We're still waiting for Apple Stores in Europe (bar the one in London) so the best I have available locally are authorised specialist resellers.

[Kagetenshi]

I'm not clear what architectural differences there are between a last-model TiBook and a Summer 2004 iBook G4, but I'm only running on 768 megabytes of RAM. My advice would be to get in touch with AppleCare and check with them to see if that's the expected performance level (as I'm almost certain it wouldn't be, but it doesn't hurt to double-check), and any repairs ought to be covered since they're defects in the product rather than wear and tear or abuse. You may also want to run XBench and compare to some other results to confirm that yours are abnormal, and have it with you when making the repair request.

~J

[MacCoaster]

Gaming on the Mac platform won't improve seriously until Apple ditches the last vestage of proprietariness on the PowerMac line, that being the need for specialized Mac videocards. When Joe User can drop by Worst Buy or CompUSA and pick up the latest videocard and be able to drop it into their PowerMac will be the first day of the beginning of Mac gaming improvements. I don't understand why Apple still clings to this. They use standard memory, standard IDE/SATA hard drive connectors, PCI Express/AGP/PCI expansion slots, and made USB safe for the masses. Why cling to this last remnant of proprietary architectures? Its holding the Mac platform back.
Because PC manufacturers are still stuck to the 1980s-style BIOS. New-world Macintoshes have had the modern OpenFirmware for a while now. This is a much more advanced BIOS software than the antiquated PC BIOS and it's very much a standard. I don't see why PCs can't use it. :mad: It's also the reason why we need to have a PC and Mac version. If PCs had OpenFirmware, then there wouldn't be any need for PC/Mac versions. I recall Sun selling a Mac version of an ATI card for their workstations because Sun hardware uses OpenFirmware (it's Sun's invention after all).

Only if PC manufacturers got a clue and moved to OpenFirmware. *sigh*

[wrldwzrd89]

Because PC manufacturers are still stuck to the 1980s-style BIOS. New-world Macintoshes have had the modern OpenFirmware for a while now. This is a much more advanced BIOS software than the antiquated PC BIOS and it's very much a standard. I don't see why PCs can't use it. :mad: It's also the reason why we need to have a PC and Mac version. If PCs had OpenFirmware, then there wouldn't be any need for PC/Mac versions. I recall Sun selling a Mac version of an ATI card for their workstations because Sun hardware uses OpenFirmware (it's Sun's invention after all).

Only if PC manufacturers got a clue and moved to OpenFirmware. *sigh*
I agree! Open Firmware is FAR better than a standard PC BIOS. I wouldn't be surprised if its interface could be configured to resemble the configuration screens of a typical PC BIOS either. Of course, making this change would uproot all of the PC BIOS makers. As I see it, their sacrifice will be to the benefit of everyone (even the PC BIOS makers would benefit eventually, once they figured out that they can customize Open Firmware).

[jeffbax]

Kelmon: I'd advise taking your Powerbook in for servicing. I play UT2k4 on low-mid specs on an iBook with 32 megs of VRAM, so unless you're exaggerating seriously there's something badly wrong with your machine.

~JYou must have low standards for performance, because UT2004 on my 1.5 GHZ 12" PB left me with a terrible feeling coming from my Athlon XP 1800+ and Geforce 3 / 9600 XT cards.

[TheCheat]

Why is openGL improvement important even for a console gamer like me? Cause my 400 mhz gamecube can run insane video filters on a game like Viewtiful Joe, yet Final Cut Pro staggers after putting two videos together, and Motion just plain looks like poop when it's able to run realtime. 1.6 ghz powerbook!!! An xbox can run Doom III better than me??? Apple fix it!!!
To be fair, computers run at a much higher resolution than consoles need to. You can always get better speed (often considerably) by lowering the resolution... It's just a lot less data that needs to be pushed around in the system. That, plus consoles are able to put every resource available to them into the game, where computers have dozens of tasks at any given time. The software needed to run a computer therefore needs to be more complex, etc etc. There isn't really a fair way to compare computers with consoles.

[TheCheat]

Because PC manufacturers are still stuck to the 1980s-style BIOS. New-world Macintoshes have had the modern OpenFirmware for a while now. This is a much more advanced BIOS software than the antiquated PC BIOS and it's very much a standard. I don't see why PCs can't use it...

Only if PC manufacturers got a clue and moved to OpenFirmware. *sigh*
One very good reason why you can't just switch to Open Firmware overnight is the fact that software (in particular operating systems) rely on the BIOS... It's needed to boot the system and other important things. If you just switch to Open Firmware then every i386 operating system suddenly can't be booted from the new hardware, making your hardware practically useless. It would make a coordinated effort between hardware and software manufacturers (particularly Microsoft), and it certainly wouldn't be the nice, easy transition you think it would be. Add on the fact that they get very little benefit from using Open Firmware rather than a BIOS and you can pretty much bet it will never happen.

[wrldwzrd89]

One very good reason why you can't just switch to Open Firmware overnight is the fact that software (in particular operating systems) rely on the BIOS... It's needed to boot the system and other important things. If you just switch to Open Firmware then every i386 operating system suddenly can't be booted from the new hardware, making your hardware practically useless. It would make a coordinated effort between hardware and software manufacturers (particularly Microsoft), and it certainly wouldn't be the nice, easy transition you think it would be. Add on the fact that they get very little benefit from using Open Firmware rather than a BIOS and you can pretty much bet it will never happen.
If I was running Microsoft, and I had decided to stick with the decision to require a new computer purchase to get Longhorn, I'd require hardware changes like this as an excuse for the new computer requirement. This solves the completely valid issue you brought up. Unfortunately, Microsoft isn't smart enough to do this.

[rickvanr]

If I was running Microsoft, and I had decided to stick with the decision to require a new computer purchase to get Longhorn, I'd require hardware changes like this as an excuse for the new computer requirement. This solves the completely valid issue you brought up. Unfortunately, Microsoft isn't smart enough to do this.

If there was money in this for microsoft they would do it, but since they make no money on hardware, they would lose money if they required you by a new computer for longhorn because they wouldn't sell as many copies.