It is currently Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:08 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 

What kind of Mac do you have?
Intel 57%  57%  [ 25 ]
PowerPC 23%  23%  [ 10 ]
Planning on buying an Intel Mac 20%  20%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 44
Author Message
 Post subject: Why Intel Macs only?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:00 pm
Posts: 4
Just read the announcement of the Beta test for mac, but it seems only Intel Macs are supported, so I'm wondering if this is considering that the majority of Mac users haven't yet made the jump to Intel, this doesn't make sense to me why they would shut out a large segment of their market. I have a 3 year old powerbook 1.4 ghz which works fine for most games, and I don't have the money to spend on a new Macbook since I'm a student. No-one I know with a Mac has yet bought a new Intel Mac, so I really have no way to play URU if PowerPC macs aren't supported. Any thing to clarify the issue is much appreciated.

_________________
BlightStrider

If you want peace, prepare for war.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
The porting technique they use doesn't allow for building on different architectures than the original code.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:40 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 1284
Location: UK
Please, don't take this the wrong way:

Mac users have been pleading for years to have URU compatible with Macs. Now Cyan have finally done it, to their best of their ability.

It is, I grant you, unfortunate that only Intel Macs are supported, but this is still a huge step forward.

My opinion: Something's better than nothing, and this is a whole lot more than 'something'.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
it also makes economic sense. the cost to port uru to non-intel macs would be vey costly for what is, essentially, a dead platform. not that i dislike non-intel macs (heck, im typing this on a g3 ibook), but theyre done. the intel macs are extremely similar hardwarewise to a pc which, while certainly not making the job trivial, makes it more economically feasible.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 1:16 am
Posts: 296
Location: Avoiding Direct Sunlight
woot, i be rockin' da macbook pro with intel core duo...

any word on a date we can expect this beta to commence?

_________________
The Starry Expanse Project - Rebuilding Riven!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:24 pm
Posts: 3120
Location: Aachen, Germany
Cyan is using TransGaming's Cider to run MOUL on Macs. Cider works mostly as a compatibility layer that translates Windows DirectX and Win32 api calls to Mac OS X calls. The technology is similar to WINE for Linux. Because Cider is not a virtual machine or emulator it works only for Intel compatible CPUs.

_________________
Image
[KI again #01792364]| Uru images | KI guide


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:50 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:11 pm
Posts: 206
Location: Dallas, Texas
I have both, but since that wasn't an option in the poll I voted for the one more pertinent to this discussion - Intel-based Macs.

Were it not for the existence of the Intel-based architecture, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion about a Mac port for URU in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
HeadCheese wrote:
I have both, but since that wasn't an option in the poll I voted for the one more pertinent to this discussion - Intel-based Macs.

Were it not for the existence of the Intel-based architecture, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion about a Mac port for URU in the first place.


actually cyan had always planned for a mac version of uru. if i remember right, it didnt happen before because the promised mac version of the havok engine either never materialized or came too late.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Firesign wrote:
actually cyan had always planned for a mac version of uru. if i remember right, it didnt happen before because the promised mac version of the havok engine either never materialized or came too late.


That's true, but that particular Mac version would
1) not have required Intel Macs (the architecture move hadn't even been announced then),
2) not have used a virtualization layer.

It would have been more of a "real" Mac app, which possibly means more optimization, but also a lot more work (possibly prohibitively so).

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:11 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
chucker wrote:
Firesign wrote:
actually cyan had always planned for a mac version of uru. if i remember right, it didnt happen before because the promised mac version of the havok engine either never materialized or came too late.


That's true, but that particular Mac version would
1) not have required Intel Macs (the architecture move hadn't even been announced then),
2) not have used a virtualization layer.

It would have been more of a "real" Mac app, which possibly means more optimization, but also a lot more work (possibly prohibitively so).


which was the point of my post and my original post. i guess i shouldve been more clear about that. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 1:16 am
Posts: 296
Location: Avoiding Direct Sunlight
chucker wrote:
That's true, but that particular Mac version would
1) not have required Intel Macs (the architecture move hadn't even been announced then),
2) not have used a virtualization layer.


3. take a lot longer and more money to make

_________________
The Starry Expanse Project - Rebuilding Riven!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:36 pm
Posts: 92
There is nothing inherent in the design of WINE that would prevent Cyan from making a universal binary. WINE actually consists of two things: the binary compatibility layer and WineLib, a source-level compatibility layer. In theory, compiling for PowerPC and linking with a PPC WineLib should produce a Unix native binary. This is what the Darwine project has mostly focused on.

It is hard to tell if Cider is simply Wine compiled for OS X on Intel, or if it is actually a WineLib based solution. If the latter, then it is probably third-party libraries that are keeping URU off PowerMacs now. If the former, there is no reason for Cider to be a publisher-only solution.

For what it is worth, I'm using an iMac Core2Duo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
isomorphic, you're assuming that:
1) Cyan can compile Uru Live for two architectures. Not so easy: Visual C++, the toolchain they use, has no support for PowerPC compilation, so they'd have to add a toolchain just to compile for PowerPC, with, say, gcc.
2) Cyan can get the developers of third party libraries they use to compile the libraries for two architectures, or to give Cyan the source code so they can do it themselves. In particular, OpenAL and PhysX. With OpenAL, perhaps. With PhysX? Not very likely at all.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting wrapping OpenAL and PhysX calls into QEMU and adding a PowerPC toolchain for Uru Live. Which is even more absurd: at that point, it would be easier to simply replace OpenAL with the Mac OS X-shipped version of OpenAL, which is already a Universal Binary, and to replace PhysX with some Mac OS X-available physics library (oh boy). And then you might as well make a Mac OS X-native Uru Live client application…

Sorry, it just isn't going to happen.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:24 pm
Posts: 3120
Location: Aachen, Germany
chucker wrote:
2) Cyan can get the developers of third party libraries they use to compile the libraries for two architectures, or to give Cyan the source code so they can do it themselves. In particular, OpenAL and PhysX. With OpenAL, perhaps. With PhysX? Not very likely at all.


OpenAL is open source and supports Linux, Mac and Windows http://openal.org/downloads.html

PhysX supports only Win32 on i586 compatible computers: http://www.ageia.com/drivers/drivers.html

_________________
Image
[KI again #01792364]| Uru images | KI guide


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Tiran wrote:
chucker wrote:
2) Cyan can get the developers of third party libraries they use to compile the libraries for two architectures, or to give Cyan the source code so they can do it themselves. In particular, OpenAL and PhysX. With OpenAL, perhaps. With PhysX? Not very likely at all.


OpenAL is open source and supports Linux, Mac and Windows http://openal.org/downloads.html


Yes, I know; I should have been clearer on that part. Mac OS X 10.4 actually ships with OpenAL, though its version may not be the newest.

Quote:
PhysX supports only Win32 on i586 compatible computers: http://www.ageia.com/drivers/drivers.html


Right.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SEMrush [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: