Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Horsepoo!!! · Jun 8, 2005, 08:11 PM

Lets lay the cards on the table. I've heard a lot of people complain that Rosetta will be useless for gaming because it doesn't translate Altivec. But lets be honest now...how many of *your* games actually have *any* Altivec code in it?

Here's the preliminary list of games I know have a bit of Altivec code:

NASCAR Racing 2003
NASCAR Racing 2004
Quake 3 (Altivec-enhanced version)

Unless developers have been very secretive, these are the only Mac games that contain any Altivec code. Normally developers would tout the use of Altivec in their games...I'd be surprised if they didn't. But this is what this thread is about...if you didn't feel the need to shout it out loud, let us know right now if you put any Altivec in your game.

I also know Emulator Enhancer blitters have some Altivec code...but they can fall back when they are run on G3s and these are likely to actually be recompiled anyways (and I'm in the process of convincing Bannister to use CoreImage for this kind of stuff.)

Another note is that games that run under Rosetta but make use of frameworks and libraries such as OpenGL or OpenAL apparently make use of the native frameworks.

Blizzard has said that WoW runs under Rosetta but the speed is not quite there and that they were committed to making it run on the x86 Mac...but 'the speed is not quite there' makes it sound like the speed ain't all that bad. Considering this game is up there with the CPU/videocard hungry games and considering Intel will undoubtedly have some faster chips in 1-2 years from now, things are looking good for most 3D games. Maybe an unaltered WoW will actually run at ok speeds in 2 years. I'd really like to know for sure what Blizzard meant by 'the speed is not quite there' though to be sure I'm not completely off the mark.

Krypton · Jun 9, 2005, 06:06 AM

Most apps that take advantage of Altivec are able to run without it (i.e. running on a G3), thus I feel people are over reacting a great deal when they claim Rosetta will be useless.

It's OS 9 games and apps you need to mourn.

[Sim City 2000 sob

]

Horsepoo!!! · Jun 9, 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Krypton

Most apps that take advantage of Altivec are able to run without it (i.e. running on a G3), thus I feel people are over reacting a great deal when they claim Rosetta will be useless.

It's OS 9 games and apps you need to mourn.

[Sim City 2000 sob

]

Yeah...but this ain't so bad either thanks Mac emulators such as Basilisk.

Krypton · Jun 9, 2005, 12:15 PM

Hmmmm there aren't any Mac emulators for OS 9 are there? Even if someone decides to write one, it'll take a while.

Horsepoo!!! · Jun 9, 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Krypton

Hmmmm there aren't any Mac emulators for OS 9 are there? Even if someone decides to write one, it'll take a while.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Basilisk handles OS 9. If not, PearPC or SheepShaver would.

Luca Rescigno · Jun 9, 2005, 12:24 PM

I'm pretty sure Basilisk can only emulate a 68040, and therefore can only run up to OS 8.1.

Millennium · Jun 9, 2005, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Basilisk handles OS 9. If not, PearPC or SheepShaver would.

SheepShaver isn't an emulator, so it wouldn't handle older Mac games on Intel at all. PearPC might, assuming it supports OS9, but I'm not sure anyone has ever tried that.

Horsepoo!!! · Jun 9, 2005, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

SheepShaver isn't an emulator, so it wouldn't handle older Mac games on Intel at all. PearPC might, assuming it supports OS9, but I'm not sure anyone has ever tried that.

Oh, believe me...it's an emulator too.

Millennium · Jun 10, 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Oh, believe me...it's an emulator too.

I didn't realize it was back in active development; last I'd checked it wasn't even Open-Source. Sorry for the error; my data was old.