isgoed said:
Do you think that id will have binaries before they release the Mac version. That would be really sweet if they did, but Todd Hollenshead didn't say anything about that in his last .plan.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Doom 3 for Mac... Still Coming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you think that id will have binaries before they release the Mac version. That would be really sweet if they did, but Todd Hollenshead didn't say anything about that in his last .plan.
something tells me that we wont see the binary thing happen this time. they want D3 to be AS polished as the windows version, and that dosnt include buying the pc version and having to download binaries.A Mac Gamer said:Do you think that id will have binaries before they release the Mac version. That would be really sweet if they did, but Todd Hollenshead didn't say anything about that in his last .plan.
if you would though, could you explain how this would work? i was still on PC's when quake 3 came out, so i didn't have to do the binary thing last time. thanks,
Nick
it's fast as long as you stick with 4 GiB processes
I believe that you are confusing PAE (Physical Address Extension) with PSE (Page Size Extensions) and AWE (Addressing Window Extensions).
You are right in that remapping addresses to give the process more than 4 GiB of memory is expensive.
We're not talking about that - we're not talking about giving the process more than 4 GiB.
We're letting the system manage more than 4 GiB of total RAM, but only giving a max of 4 GiB to processes.
This is not inefficient, since the operating system handles pages via page numbers, not addresses. Since the page is 4KiB in size, a 32-bit page number can describe far more than 4 GiB.
There is no appreciable performance loss to running large memory Windows or Linux systems using PAE. The hit comes if you use PSE and/or AWE to force remapping in order to "cheat" and use more than 4 GiB in a single application.
The real issue here doesn't have much to do with the extension technology. There are two main programming models for 64-bit systems - ILP64 and LP64.
In the first, the "c" datatypes "int", "long" and "pointer" are 64-bits. In the second, "ints" remain 32-bits while "longs" and "pointers" become 64-bits.
ILP64 has the advantage that casting an "int" to a "pointer" (or vice versa) doesn't cause problems - but it has the disadvantage of using 64-bits for a default integer.
As long as the chip supports both 32-bit and 64-bit integers, it's an OS design choice whether to use ILP64 or LP64. Most choose LP64.
"Tiger supports the industry standard LP64 programming model supported by other 64-bit Unix systems. This means developers can easily port 64-bit code to Tiger. LP64 support in Tiger provides for 64-bit pointer, long, and long long but preserves 32-bit integer data types."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html
As far as the "crazy math" comment, note that all of your machines have 64-bit or larger filesystems (if you can have files bigger than 4 GiB, you need 64-bit filesystem data).
The system has to use 64-bit integer arithmetic to work with files - but fortunately this does not fall into the "performance critical" arena. There's so much else going on with file access that a couple of extra "add" instructions aren't important.
Trekkie said:
I believe that you are confusing PAE (Physical Address Extension) with PSE (Page Size Extensions) and AWE (Addressing Window Extensions).
You are right in that remapping addresses to give the process more than 4 GiB of memory is expensive.
We're not talking about that - we're not talking about giving the process more than 4 GiB.
We're letting the system manage more than 4 GiB of total RAM, but only giving a max of 4 GiB to processes.
This is not inefficient, since the operating system handles pages via page numbers, not addresses. Since the page is 4KiB in size, a 32-bit page number can describe far more than 4 GiB.
There is no appreciable performance loss to running large memory Windows or Linux systems using PAE. The hit comes if you use PSE and/or AWE to force remapping in order to "cheat" and use more than 4 GiB in a single application.
Trekkie said:
The real issue here doesn't have much to do with the extension technology. There are two main programming models for 64-bit systems - ILP64 and LP64.
In the first, the "c" datatypes "int", "long" and "pointer" are 64-bits. In the second, "ints" remain 32-bits while "longs" and "pointers" become 64-bits.
ILP64 has the advantage that casting an "int" to a "pointer" (or vice versa) doesn't cause problems - but it has the disadvantage of using 64-bits for a default integer.
As long as the chip supports both 32-bit and 64-bit integers, it's an OS design choice whether to use ILP64 or LP64. Most choose LP64.
"Tiger supports the industry standard LP64 programming model supported by other 64-bit Unix systems. This means developers can easily port 64-bit code to Tiger. LP64 support in Tiger provides for 64-bit pointer, long, and long long but preserves 32-bit integer data types."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html
As far as the "crazy math" comment, note that all of your machines have 64-bit or larger filesystems (if you can have files bigger than 4 GiB, you need 64-bit filesystem data).
The system has to use 64-bit integer arithmetic to work with files - but fortunately this does not fall into the "performance critical" arena. There's so much else going on with file access that a couple of extra "add" instructions aren't important.
This thread is exactly why I build a new PC about every 2 years and usualy upgrade the vid card every year. Work pays for my Macs and I love them. However I spend 8 hours a day supporting Mac Server and Client and by the time I get home I've had enough! So... I spend most of my time at home on my PC running Linux (FC2). BUT when I want to play a game i boot into XP Pro and I can play them when they come out and to be quite honest, on the platform they were really tweaked and developed for.
Don't get men wrong, I love Mac and I do use it at home (heh, mostly on the weekends). I also love gaming though and if I have to boot into Windows to play a game I will. I feel sorry for the really hardcore Mac users that most likely will never see HL2. MY windows instal has games and firefox and THAT'S it! Other than that it's in Linux all the time.
Don't get men wrong, I love Mac and I do use it at home (heh, mostly on the weekends). I also love gaming though and if I have to boot into Windows to play a game I will. I feel sorry for the really hardcore Mac users that most likely will never see HL2
. MY windows instal has games and firefox and THAT'S it! Other than that it's in Linux all the time.Most of the actual program files for Quake3 (and Quake1 and 2) are largly the same for every version that is available. This is also why companies like Blizzard release hybrid games because they only have to change a few key files for the program to be cross-platform. The binary switch works by downloading the newest point release (or patch) of the game you want to "port". Then, you simply copy the files necessary to run the game from your Windows install onto your Mac (or Linux) machine. Delete any useless files (.exe and so on) and fire up the binary from the patch that you just installed on your machine. Instant Mac version. I'm not sure of the legality of doing this, so consult your EULA before attempting. Although I don't see how this could be wrong, ID used to include instructions for getting the Linux version of Quake 3 to work on Windows, and even included links to the necessary files.zakee00 said:something tells me that we wont see the binary thing happen this time. they want D3 to be AS polished as the windows version, and that dosnt include buying the pc version and having to download binaries.
thanks,
Nick
zakee00 said:ho-ly-crap where did you learn all of that? what is your degree in?
Undergraduate double in Physics and Math. Masters in Computer Science.
More than 25 years in the business, in software, mostly for hardware vendors (Digital/Compaq/HP, now at a software house).
Spent a lot of time working on the Alpha 64-bit rollout and 64-bit NT on Alpha.
I've been on both sides - trying to hype 64-bits to people who didn't need more than 128MiB in their systems. Using PSE and AWE to get Oracle to run with a 20 GiB data cache on a 32-bit OS and showing people what a great advantage it was.
Bottom line - if you don't have more than 4 GiB of RAM in your system, you almost certainly don't need 64 bits.
If you have several apps that need a few gig, you need a 32-bit system that supports more than 4 GiB of RAM (like OS X on a G5, or Windows 32-bit server or Linux 32-bit (both support up to 64 GiB of RAM on a 32-bit system)).
It's only when you have more than 4 GiB and you need to give more than 4 GiB to an individual application that you need 64-bits....
While it's true that most games have included map, texture, sound, etc. files that work on all platforms, porting a game is much more complicated than that. The code for the game uses a lot of platform-dependent calls to open new windows, get joystick input, etc. and has to be manually ported to the Mac. This can take a lot of time and a lot of money, even if, in the end, the game install CDs have 99% of the same data.blueBomber said:
hm...so basicly they just take the source code from the windows exe, turn it into a .app file, and optimize the code for PPC? then all of the textures, shaders, maps stay the same cuz d3 is opengl....neat. i guess its harder when the game engine uses directx. i hope that i can just get the windows version and download the mac .app...mac games are expensive, and you have to buy them from special stores. d3 for windows will be EVERYWHERE..lol ill just go to walmart and buy it.
no one knows for mac, but pc is as follows:mmmdreg said:
found them on ebgames.com. im guessing that these are recommended, not required. aka, if u have this system you can run the game pretty good on med. settings or so. one thing i thought was cool was the broadband only thing, wansn't expecting that. good i guess. another thing: wasnt this game supposed to be opengl? whats up with 100% directXR 9.0b video card and sound card? any ideas? my guess is that it uses opengl, but it just says directx(r?) to make sure you have the shaders on ur vid. card. im confused.
no kidding, that's why this trick only works on games powered by the Quake 3 engine. Read my post again.pozytron said:
ps, nice sig.
fan of the classic DOTD or the new "28 Dawn Later"?
That would be my guess. Since people are much more aware of what version of DirectX their card supports than what version of OpenGL, it's probably just easier to say the DX specs.zakee00 said:...whats up with 100% directXR 9.0b video card and sound card? any ideas? my guess is that it uses opengl, but it just says directx(r?) to make sure you have the shaders on ur vid. card. im confused.
DooM3 OSX can still be a long wait.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/532/532505p1.html?fromint=1
Based on this I guess it is at least a 3 month wait before DooM3 OSX comes out (so that will be october). Next thing will be that virtual PC is even released before DooM3, so you will be playing it in emulated mode before native mode.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/532/532505p1.html?fromint=1
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/preview_6103236.htmlIGN said:
GameSpot said:
Based on this I guess it is at least a 3 month wait before DooM3 OSX comes out (so that will be october). Next thing will be that virtual PC is even released before DooM3, so you will be playing it in emulated mode before native mode.
I can't even play the new games anyway. I am still stuck with a bondi blue rev B iMac. However, I am glad to see these games coming out for the Mac.........That is very important!
I think John Carmack once posted in his .plan about how he hates Directx. John is old school, and loves opengl, Doom 3 is all opengl, no directx, im almost 100% sure.
More than hates, he is completly AGAINST it. He feels that openGL is much more robust and compatible than DX, which is half right. DX has surpassed openGL for gaming purposes for speed, features, and ease of use. Of course even Carmack can't escape the ease of using the other DirectX technologies like DirectInput and DirectSound.A Mac Gamer said:
Well, I've never heard of "28 Dawn Later"blueBomber said:
but I did like both the original Dawn and the remake. They each have their own merits. The original had very cheesy makeup effects, but still is a great movie in its own right. The remake actually was quite good too. I love the special effects in the remake, they are so awesome! I actually have not seen all of 28 Days Later, but I'm sure (based on what I have seen) that Dawn of the Dead is better Hidden Advantage of GeForce
This is something I stumbled across when reading about the introduction of the ATi Rage 128. Most reviewers said it had very decent 32 bit performance- though 16-bit performance is lacking. Compared to other chips of the day, the Rage 128 had little more than half the performance at 16-bit color levels.
How is this relevant now? Well, ATi Radeons still seem to have this deficit- 16 bit and 32 bit performance is roughly identical. But GeForce's don't. My rev. A Powerbook 12" barely plays Halo at 32 bit XGA- regardless of the graphics settings, but it does perfectly fine at 16-bit on all but larger scenes with a lot of motion. I can even turn particles on and medium textures!
That's the key folks: if you want decent performance out of your somewhat older machine with a GeForce, turn color down to "thousands" instead of "millions." I don't notice a quality difference, but the difference in speed is astounding. It may help people bordering on the low end of the requirement scale.
Of course, this only helps if your system is graphics card limited- meaning any system running an MX processor of any sort, and most likely any system running a 5200.
This is something I stumbled across when reading about the introduction of the ATi Rage 128. Most reviewers said it had very decent 32 bit performance- though 16-bit performance is lacking. Compared to other chips of the day, the Rage 128 had little more than half the performance at 16-bit color levels.
How is this relevant now? Well, ATi Radeons still seem to have this deficit- 16 bit and 32 bit performance is roughly identical. But GeForce's don't. My rev. A Powerbook 12" barely plays Halo at 32 bit XGA- regardless of the graphics settings, but it does perfectly fine at 16-bit on all but larger scenes with a lot of motion. I can even turn particles on and medium textures!
That's the key folks: if you want decent performance out of your somewhat older machine with a GeForce, turn color down to "thousands" instead of "millions." I don't notice a quality difference, but the difference in speed is astounding. It may help people bordering on the low end of the requirement scale.
Of course, this only helps if your system is graphics card limited- meaning any system running an MX processor of any sort, and most likely any system running a 5200.
I got a couple of eMacs (1GHz, 1.25GHz) and a 2.8GHz P4 laptop.. but they both have like the same/similar graphics card :S which is only 32 meg so.. yeah.. tho the PC runs games better than the Macs I think..
So the only Mac that Doom will be able to be played on is the G5...no laptops.that really sucks, although I'm not surprised
looks doubtful
I don't think Doom 3 will come out. This is from the mouth of Carmack.
Read this slashdot link.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/14/227248&tid=112&tid=10
I don't think Doom 3 will come out. This is from the mouth of Carmack.
Read this slashdot link.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/14/227248&tid=112&tid=10
Nermal said:
Thanks, I can't be held responsible for crappy servers
I raise the question, what about the 6800 card?! This is hardly a crappy vid card.