Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 16, 2007, 10:11 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
Most of the 'first person' 'shoot-'em-up' games that run on PCs were developed on the Mac.
Where'd you get this notion from? Very, very few 3D games are ever released for the Mac.
Correct. The games were never released for the Mac, but they were developed on the Mac. This has been a major disappointment for Mac users for years. Some great games were never released for the Mac, even though that's where they came to life.
My point is that nobody would do this unless the game was destined for the Mac, otherwise it would be a complete waste of time. It would be like writing a novel in French, translating it to English, then never releasing the French version. For every novel.

Besides, if they did create it on the Mac first, there would be no reason not to include the Mac version on the Windows disc since 95% of the file space is taken up by artwork and video. Of course, they wouldn't run very good on the outdated video cards included with most Macs.
Game developers developed games on the Macintosh because it was faster and easier to develop games on the Macintosh because of the superior graphics.

Game developers chose not to release the Macintosh versions of their games because the Macintosh only holds (or held) 5% of the market, and their regular distribution channels wouldn't support it.

Game developers generally have a 'game engine' that they can attach different componets to. The components can be developed on any computer, and simply hang off of the game engine for the host computer. Components for many games were developed on the Macintosh, and attached to an existing PC game engine.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 1:59 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
... Macs are more expensive because they are better built.
Um. No.
Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by "anecdotal" which is why you turned it into "..."

It means that in my personal experience they are. By saying no the only possible thing you can be saying is that I'm lying. Why would I? What possible reason could I have? I have no particular platform preference, I use PC + Windows for my day job. I have no axe to grind with Microsoft, I make my living programming .NET, I have Microsoft certifications coming of of my ears. Nor do I have any axe to grind with any particular PC manufacturer.

I have beenclosely involvedat various times with the purchase and maintenance of hundreds if not thousands of PCs and Laptops. I also started out many years ago working in a small company that built and supplied computers for its customers. But only have experience of a handful of Macs.

The Titanium powerbook is without doubt the best laptop I have ever used. Of course its specs are dated now. The MacPro system I have at home is without doubt the best built and designed workstation hardware I have ever used. Have you ever looked inside one, changed disks, RAM, upgraded graphics cards? I have.

In my personal experience Macs are more expensive because they are better built.

Most of my family and friends are also involved in IT in various capacities and the pattern amongst us is all pretty clear. We get our work done on PC architecture with Windows and Linux and we all use Macs at home. Because when we're at home we use our computers for leisure purposes and Macs don't give us hassles, they just work. It's not that we can't fix, tune and maintain Wintel systems. We just don't fancy it in our leisure hours.

It is no doubt possible (and I'm sure someone has done it somewhere) to compile statistics which will give a more accurate picture than my personal experience. I tried to make this clear in my original post. Your personal opinion and experience may be different (that's what collecting anecdotes is all about) you may have access to industry studies that show that my personal experience is not representative, I would not be particularly surprised. I have only personal experience ofatiny sample of the equipment produced as a whole.

You maydislike Macs, find them overpriced and overhyped. Your prerogative.

You appently also have no love for Vista. Your prerogative.

You may disagree with me. Your prerogative.

You may believe my experience is not representative. Your prerogative.

But you don't get to call me a liar without annoying me.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 8:07 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

peripatetic,

I wasn't calling you a liar. I was disputing your assertion. If I had said that Ferrari makes the best automobiles in the world, you and others would be free to dispute my assertion, and very good arguments might be made for the products of Mercedes Benz and Rolls Royce, among others.

I've worked with computers since 1980, with PCs since 1982, and with Macintoshes since 1984 (Have you ever heard of the Lisa?). I was a beta tester for Microsoft Excel, not the Windows version, the first version, version 1.03, for the Macintosh. My company specializes in developing and supporting cross-platform applications and networks for bothMacs and PCs. (Microsoft calls Windows XP and Windows 98 'Cross-Platform'. :lol: ) The last job I did for my former employer was to create a network of Macintoshes and 'Desktop II' Zenith PCs for the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. In 1986. During that effort, I was indirectly directing funding intended to advance the state of the art in the field.

And I have given up on certification programs. They don't prove anything. (I have met MCSE's that didn't know how to add users to a domain.) The last experience I had with any of Microsoft's certification programs was when my wife took the MCP tests for the Macintosh, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. She scheduled them all for the same afternoon, and when she arrived at the testing facility, three people, including two managers,warned her that the tests were quite difficult and that they would reschedule one or two of the tests for her at no additional cost. She persisted,and received passing grades in all three tests, one in the 90th percentile, and two in the 95th percentile. She is good. But I'm better (:-)).

Saying that one computer is 'better built' than another is a pretty vague statement, open to many interpretations, so I'll try to narrow down what I think you might have meant. 'Better built' could mean either 'more reliable' or 'more maintainable'. Either case could be made depending on which PC you wanted to compare a Macintosh with, but for the purposes of this discussion, please permit me to narrow it down to the brand of PC I am most familiar with: Dell.

As to 'more reliable', both Apple and Dell have repeatedly received high marks for reliability, so when compared to Dell, I don't believe you can make your case. As to 'more maintainable', Dell's Service Manualsare available on-line, and one of which shows the procedure for removing and replacingthe hard disk drive of a Latitude D600 laptop computer (see http://support.dell.com/support/edoc...dd.htm#1123687 ). It's 2 pages long. Apple doesn't publish it's service manuals on-line for the general public, but the service manual for the Apple PowerBook G4 Titanium is available from other locations on the web. This link, among other things, shows the procedure for removing and replacingthe hard disk drive of a PowerBook G4 (see http://akserver.dyndns.org/macosx/hw...werBook_G4.pdf ). The procedure starts on page 57 and ends on page 68. I leave it to you: which do you think is 'more maintainable'?

And, yes, I have crawled around inside both Macs and PCs. Laptops, workstations and servers.
Quote:
You maydislike Macs, find them overpriced and overhyped. Your prerogative.
I have never said that that I dislike Macs, here or anywhere else, and don't let my 4 Macintoshes hear you say that. I do, however, find them overpriced and overhyped.

Quote:
You appently also have no love for Vista. Your prerogative.
I have never said that that I have no love for Vista, here or anywhere else. What I have found is that, since Microsoft stopped providing end user support, they have consistantly released products that are difficult to provided end user support for. That is my major beef with Vista, and Office 2007, btw.

I did say that there are multiple versions of Vista, and that some are more suitablethan othersfor the environment that the OP is in.

Quote:
You may disagree with me. Your prerogative.
Thank you.

Quote:
You may believe my experience is not representative. Your prerogative.
Thank you.

Quote:
But you don't get to call me a liar without annoying me.
I didn't call you a liar. I apologize if you got that impression.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 11:26 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Game developers developed games on the Macintosh because it was faster and easier to develop games on the Macintosh because of the superior graphics.

Game developers chose not to release the Macintosh versions of their games because the Macintosh only holds (or held) 5% of the market, and their regular distribution channels wouldn't support it.

Game developers generally have a 'game engine' that they can attach different componets to. The components can be developed on any computer, and simply hang off of the game engine for the host computer. Components for many games were developed on the Macintosh, and attached to an existing PC game engine.
What is your definition of "superior graphics"? A Macintosh workstation comes standard with a GeForce 7300 GT, a card that would have been considered outdated a year and a half ago to any gamer. Two of them running in SLI would perform about as well as an average single GeForce card. Their most powerful card option, an Nvidia Quadro FX 4500, is a $1650 upgrade that is very nice for working on large scale Photoshop projects, but for games isn't as fast as cards a third it's price or less.

Since all 3D game engines are Windows only programs (try licensing an engine that will run on a Mac), all programming has to be done in Windows. Some video and 2D work may be done on a Mac, but last I checked the most popular software for producing 3D graphics in games was 3D Studio Max, a program not available for the Mac.

And just because it's possible to create some content on the Mac, it doesn't mean there's any compelling reason to do so. If you're a 2D texture artist, it's much easier to work in Photoshop on a Windows machine so that you can quickly switch over to 3DS Max or the level editor and test out your textures on the models and maps. Even if you can make the argument that Macs are faster, how much speed do you really need to create 2D images that are 1024x1024 or smaller?
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 1:02 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

peripateticthinks I'm Anti-Mac, and Corpsythinks I'm Anti-PC.

You're both right! Sometimes. And sometimes you're both wrong.

Apple used to put in appearances at trade shows all over the country, doing their typical 'dog-and-pony' show. One of the things they would routinely do is display a Mac anda PC side by side. The Mac would be their top-of-the-line du jour, and the PC would be a comparable top-of-the-line model from a major manufacturer (Dell, HP, Gateway, Compaq, whatever.) They would both contain the same graphics card, and would be running the same high end graphics application. The Mac always ran noticeably faster than the PC. I'm sorry you missed it.

The Macintosh makes better use of the advanced capabilities of any device connected to it. Whenever you want to run a high end game on a PC, the game takes over the screen, because Windows is the performance bottleneck. Years ago, Microsoft used to predict dire consequences for such actions, but have given up trying to keep game publishers from bypassing Windows. You can play a game on the PC that bypasses Windows, but you can't develop a game on the PC while bypassing Windows.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 3:11 PM   #26
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

What? I'm sometimes right and sometimes wrong?

Teach us more great guru. :-)
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 3:27 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I often long for the days when I had 2 HP 3000s. One half hour unscheduled downtime in two years of continuous operation. Of course, the 440MB hard disk drives were the size of washing machines and cost more than my car.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 5:24 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
peripateticthinks I'm Anti-Mac, and Corpsythinks I'm Anti-PC.

You're both right! Sometimes. And sometimes you're both wrong.
I'm not saying you're Anti-PC, I'm saying that your notion that games are created on a Mac first is completely wrong. You have yet to address any of the points I've made or to back up your claim with any evidence. When I went to art school for computer animation there were a lot of Mac fanatics making wild claims about the superiority of their platform, but certainly not when it came to game design.

The vast majority of 3D games are created for game engines that run in Windows, using tools to support that engine that are also run in Windows, typically using 3D Studio max which only runs in Windows, and with 2D art created in Photoshop which can be run on either platform just as easily, only that it's more convenient to do so in Windows where all the rest of the tools that make use of the artwork live.

Exactly what speed advantage would there be to using a Mac with a video card half the speed of your typical customer? How is typing code in C++ and compiling it into a Windows program faster on a Mac? How do you develop software that requires DirectX to run without DirectX? And before Mac started using Intel chips, how much faster was 3D Studio Max running in emulation mode?
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 7:44 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
...
Apple used to put in appearances at trade shows all over the country, doing their typical 'dog-and-pony' show. One of the things they would routinely do is display a Mac anda PC side by side. The Mac would be their top-of-the-line du jour, and the PC would be a comparable top-of-the-line model from a major manufacturer (Dell, HP, Gateway, Compaq, whatever.) They would both contain the same graphics card, and would be running the same high end graphics application. The Mac always ran noticeably faster than the PC. I'm sorry you missed it. ...
used to is a key point: why don't they do that any more? Perhaps because the Mac isn't enough faster to be able to tell the difference without a micrometer? The little bit of comparisons I've seen doesn't seem to show Mac to be faster unless it is withing a couple of months of the release of a new machine.

The fastest machine race has an ever changing leader - always has and always will. Whoever has the lead today will shout about it, but likely they won't have the lead in a few months.

Pretty much the same thing with digital cameras.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2007, 11:47 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

BillDrew wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
...
Apple used to put in appearances at trade shows all over the country, doing their typical 'dog-and-pony' show. One of the things they would routinely do is display a Mac anda PC side by side. The Mac would be their top-of-the-line du jour, and the PC would be a comparable top-of-the-line model from a major manufacturer (Dell, HP, Gateway, Compaq, whatever.) They would both contain the same graphics card, and would be running the same high end graphics application. The Mac always ran noticeably faster than the PC. I'm sorry you missed it. ...
used to is a key point: why don't they do that any more? Perhaps because the Mac isn't enough faster to be able to tell the difference without a micrometer? The little bit of comparisons I've seen doesn't seem to show Mac to be faster unless it is withing a couple of months of the release of a new machine.

The fastest machine race has an ever changing leader - always has and always will. Whoever has the lead today will shout about it, but likely they won't have the lead in a few months.
I said 'used to' because I haven't seen Apple's 'dog-and-pony' show in a while. They may still do it, but I don't know because I haven't seen it. The point they were making at the time was that high end graphics applications worked faster on a high end Macintosh than they did on a high end PC. They have always freely admitted that there were other types of programs that worked faster on the PC than on the Macintosh. They were just demonstrating that the Mac was consistantly better suited for high end graphics work than the PC.

You can believe it or not. That's your choice. I did, however, see them demonstrate it a number of times, though not lately.

I know of a number of organizations that continue to use Macintoshes because their major product is high end graphics, and they are certain that the Macintosh is better for that kind of work. I also know of large government contractors that, while they use PCs everywhere else, use Macintoshes for their high end graphics work.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:11 PM.