Hey...I tried playing UT in "Classic" on my G4/400 but it is not playable. The framerate is dredfull and UT hit the trash bucket only 30 minutes after it was installed. Will we have to wait months to play UT?

[austintas]

What version are you using? UT (latest version) launches but when I try and do anything it crashes out on me.

Same here...UT launches beautifully(as always ) but the game renders unplayable. a shame really...I hope this gets fixed soon as this is one of the only games I play

[nagromme]

They were considering a Carbon port of UT--cross your fingers.

I think (hope) there are some things left to improve in X that will help regardless. My regular apps in Classic run very fast, despite X itself seeming rather slow (PowerBook 333).

------------------
nagromme

Mac.Descent3.net / Beginner.Descent3.net / RedFactionMac
Rear Admiral, Apple Corps High Command

[schwa]

Yeah, OS X is pretty pitiful in its support for gaming in the Classic environment. UT is laughable on my dual G4/500, and Diablo II is slow and has weird graphics artifacts everywhere.

Here's a question for the pros: given that most games have their own UI, are games easier than most programs to port to Carbon? From what I remember, a big chunk of updating an app to Carbon is in modifying the UI to support the new sizes of Aqua's UI elements.

Apple really needs to push (and HELP) its game developers to update their apps to Carbon for their big blitz this summer, or it's going to be a debacle.

[G4ME]

You dumbasses, why didn't you partition your HD before installing X, I did it and I have OS 9 and OS X in two different partitions an d I can start up for either X or 9, and when playing games in the original 9 it is fine but, I won't play game in X untill they are carbonized or even coaco. I am not surpried that you are getting such horribal frame rates while playing in x because you are running two OSs in one and that takes more on your computer. You all should have done your homework.

------------------
I Have a Super Computer

[Archangel]

Wow, G4ME, that was a really helpful post.

I already emailed Westlake Interactive to find if they are going to carbonize UT soon. I'll post the response when I get which should be any day now. .

For the time being, it's multiple partitions for me because I can't live wo/ UT.

------------------
"This is absolutely fascinating. . ." the blonde chick in Arizona Werewolf

[Macfreak7]

UT SUCKS... play q3 (with the OS X patch)

Excuse me ??? Dumbasses?? First of all.....I don't need a second partition because of my second internal HD with OS 9.1. on it but I 'd suspect from an OS as advanced as X that I do not have to switch HD's everytime I want to play a freakin' game. Next time you want to post a reply....DON'T!

[Leonard]

Why are you emailing Westlake about carbonizing UT. They have already said that they have to carbonize (is that a word) one of the newer games based on the UT engine, and that carbonization (hey, I'm really on a roll creating new words here) will be in the form of an update or patch that will most likely be rolled back to UT since UT is such a popular game.
Since the carbonization is paid for in the budget of the new game and since it will be in the form of a patch or update, it should be easy to roll the patch or update back into UT.



[This message has been edited by Leonard (edited 03-27-2001).]

[austintas]

Originally posted by G4ME:
You dumbasses, why didn't you partition your HD before installing X, I did it and I have OS 9 and OS X in two different partitions an d I can start up for either X or 9, and when playing games in the original 9 it is fine but, I won't play game in X untill they are carbonized or even coaco. I am not surpried that you are getting such horribal frame rates while playing in x because you are running two OSs in one and that takes more on your computer. You all should have done your homework.

You are a complete ****. I have 2 partitions, I "did my homework." We're just discussing the possibility of UT under OSX. Don't bother posting in the future.


Back to the discussion: I reinstalled UT (ie. version 400) and this ran, unlike version 436. However:
a) The framerate was bad, as expected: about 15-20fps at 640x480 I think (G4 450, 320MB, Rage 128 Pro)
b) I could only configure 1 button of my intellimouse (although this may be fixed if I update the Input Sprokets under Classic 9.1, someone on another board said)

If anyone manages to get any further, please post. As long as your name isn't G4ME, of course. Does the ME denote the version of Windows you are running?

[Archangel]

I did not hear about what Westlake was doing w/ the new game. Maybe that's why they haven't responded to me yet. I just hope they hurry up.

------------------
"This is absolutely fascinating. . ." the blonde chick in Arizona Werewolf

[xyber233]

This should answer your questions.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/s...ArticleID=2278

[Leonard]

I guess I not in as much as a hurry as you Archangel, since I'm hoping to migrate to OS X late this summer. Sometime in August or September sounds about right - after MacWorld in July. After I get a G4. Hope they have it carbonized by then.

[a2daj]

It has been mentioned numerous times for at least the last year, that gaming in the OS X Classic environment would not be the ideal situation. All of you who 'did your homework' should have know this by now. Games running under classic cannot hog the CPU like it could in Mac OS Classic's cooperative multitasking. The Mac OS X Classic environment is just another app to Mac OS X. Games written for Mac OS 9.x and below are usually programmed with the assumption that the game will be able to monopolize the CPU. This is obviously not the case with Mac OS X.
Remember, Mac OS X is a completely different OS than Mac OS 9.x and below. There is going to be a long transistion period for Mac gaming. The percentage of Mac OS X gamers is going to be very small compared to the current Mac OS market. There are still a number of people using computers older than the Beige G3s and buying a new machine for Mac OS X isn't necessarily an option for them. So many game developers are still programming with Mac OS Classic in mind, Carbon when they can. But the Carbon gaming related APIs are still up in the air, which is sort of putting a hold on many of our favorite games getting Carbonized.
Just because Mac OS X is so 'advanced' doesn't mean it can do everything. It Mac gamers will have to go through the exact same transition that DOS gamers did when Windows 95 came out, the dual boot strategy.
One thing to keep in mind. Mac OS Classic != Mac OS X (!= means not equal). Writing a program for Mac OS Classic does not guarantee that it will work with Mac OS X. Opera doesn't even start up on Mac OS X, and that's just a web browser.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by a2daj:
It has been mentioned numerous times for at least the last year, that gaming in the OS X Classic environment would not be the ideal situation. All of you who 'did your homework' should have know this by now. Games running under classic cannot hog the CPU like it could in Mac OS Classic's cooperative multitasking. The Mac OS X Classic environment is just another app to Mac OS X. Games written for Mac OS 9.x and below are usually programmed with the assumption that the game will be able to monopolize the CPU. This is obviously not the case with Mac OS X.
Remember, Mac OS X is a completely different OS than Mac OS 9.x and below. There is going to be a long transistion period for Mac gaming. The percentage of Mac OS X gamers is going to be very small compared to the current Mac OS market. There are still a number of people using computers older than the Beige G3s and buying a new machine for Mac OS X isn't necessarily an option for them. So many game developers are still programming with Mac OS Classic in mind, Carbon when they can. But the Carbon gaming related APIs are still up in the air, which is sort of putting a hold on many of our favorite games getting Carbonized.
Just because Mac OS X is so 'advanced' doesn't mean it can do everything. It Mac gamers will have to go through the exact same transition that DOS gamers did when Windows 95 came out, the dual boot strategy.
One thing to keep in mind. Mac OS Classic != Mac OS X (!= means not equal). Writing a program for Mac OS Classic does not guarantee that it will work with Mac OS X. Opera doesn't even start up on Mac OS X, and that's just a web browser.

Duh.. It's less then a week since X came out in stores. Give it some time.

(By the way. W95 didn't have directX to start with, and games runned better in real dos. Bill didn't know that games was that important area for users, and w95 was more like a office OS in his eyes, I guess. One more thing is that Microsoft had world wide TV ads, and I think that made many users to upgrade, even if they didn't actually need to. It seems like Apple is going to push quality over TV ads at users, so personaly I don't really think it's fear to compare 3.11/dos - w95 against 9.1 - X. Apple ships a "ready" product, something that I can't really say about the first w9x versions.. W95 crashed 1 week after instalation when I tried it. It was a real crash, I couldn't boot my computer even. And the first thing happend after the 2" try too.. Apple seemed to do a much better job then MS did when they shipped version 1 of its new OS. Wonder how Cocoa games will fly. Have heard that they will really boost over 9.1!? )

------------------
---------
sniffer
.' '. __
. . . (__\_
. . . -{{_(|8)
jgs ' . . ' ' . . ' (__/`
(www.ascii-art.com)

[This message has been edited by sniffer (edited 03-29-2001).]

[tullamore]

Originally posted by G4ME:
You dumbasses, why didn't you partition your HD before installing X, I did it and I have OS 9 and OS X in two different partitions an d I can start up for either X or 9, and when playing games in the original 9 it is fine but, I won't play game in X untill they are carbonized or even coaco. I am not surpried that you are getting such horribal frame rates while playing in x because you are running two OSs in one and that takes more on your computer. You all should have done your homework.

Did you ever stop to think that even though it is two different partitions it is still the same drive, the heads still have to do just as much moving around if not more with separate partitions.

[tie]

Originally posted by tullamore:

Did you ever stop to think that even though it is two different partitions it is still the same drive, the heads still have to do just as much moving around if not more with separate partitions.

This is true but he's right; there are many advantages to having a copy of OS 9 or earlier on a separate partition. Hard disk speed isn't such an issue if you put your documents and your applications in an early partition (the OS is all loaded into RAM anyway).

[a2daj]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Duh.. It's less then a week since X came out in stores. Give it some time.

(By the way. W95 didn't have directX to start with, and games runned better in real dos. Bill didn't know that games was that important area for users, and w95 was more like a office OS in his eyes, I guess. One more thing is that Microsoft had world wide TV ads, and I think that made many users to upgrade, even if they didn't actually need to. It seems like Apple is going to push quality over TV ads at users, so personaly I don't really think it's fear to compare 3.11/dos - w95 against 9.1 - X. Apple ships a "ready" product, something that I can't really say about the first w9x versions.. W95 crashed 1 week after instalation when I tried it. It was a real crash, I couldn't boot my computer even. And the first thing happend after the 2" try too.. Apple seemed to do a much better job then MS did when they shipped version 1 of its new OS. Wonder how Cocoa games will fly. Have heard that they will really boost over 9.1!? )

Were you 'Duhing' me? I was pointed out to the people that were complaining that they shouldn't be complaining about something that has been known for a while... that gaming using Classic in OS X was going to suck. Of course, you could give Classic more processing time, but the InputSprocket support is still pretty bad. Game in Mac OS 9.1 and people will be happy.

I think it's perfectly fair to compare the two OS releases based on a gaming point of view (which I was also doing in my other post). Mac OS X still doesn't have a clear strategy on gaming APIs when it comes to Carbon.
And games still run better in Mac OS 9.1 than they do in Mac OS X Classic environment, unless the game has been written for Mac OS X. Many of the Carbonized games still have issues. Look at Oni. It's being re-ported and it's not going to be Carbonized but instead be Cocoa-Puffed

It's been less than a week and I've had my issues with OS X. I've reinstalled a few different times on the two computers which I have it installed. Admittedly, only one of the installs was Mac OS Xs fault.
As much as I like Mac OS X (I've been using Unix and Mac OS for almost 10 years now so this 'mating' of technologies is pretty cool) a 'Ready' product is a little subjective, but I agree, it's in a much better state than Win 95 when MS released it.

[blizzard]

Classic games notwithstanding, I'd love to know exactly what the dilly is with Quake 3 Cocoa. I downloaded the patch, installed Q3 1.17, measured my max fps in OS 9.1 (37.9 fps) and then booted into X Final to see what the difference was. I have to admit, I was expecting OS X to be faster than OS 9.1, as that is what I had heard. And what did I find? OS X can only pull of a max of 26.7 fps at exactly the same settings as OS 9.1, and its lows are much, much more pronounced than OS 9.1's. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Supposedly, OS X has much better openGL than 9.1, and the sound was even off in OSX, which should result in an even higher fps count compared to the OS 9.1 version. So, there's gotta be something else going on here. I'm running it on a completely stock Power Mac G4/466 RAGE 128 - nothing has been added so far (as I don't have the money at this point) and it's a completely stock version of OS X. It could be that somehow it's the fact that Quake 3 X was designed to run on the PB...I hope it is. Because if this little trend doesn't pick up, then this is going to be one sad little Apple customer over here.

Has anyone else got any reflections on Quake 3 X? I'd love to hear from someone that their copy is working perfectly...

Blizzard.

To get on the subject...does anyone know of GOOD games for OSX allready available...I don't mean the Oni's or the Quake's around. Just a simple game that is playable (if possible) over network. I used to love worms and netboxing a LOT!!

[itim55]

I think the patch for Q3A was for the PB, not final. Just an observation.

------------------
Kato! You have turned my apartment into a..a..Chinese nookie factory!

[iSilver]

i can't really imagine many of these games being played well in Classic, we will have to wait until they release carbonized versions - let's hope it doesn't take too long.

Just heared they released a Heavy Metal F.A.K.K. patch for OSX.
Too bad I don't like that game
But for all of those who do...here it is.
www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=10446

[SpeedRacer]

Originally posted by blizzard:
Classic games notwithstanding, I'd love to know exactly what the dilly is with Quake 3 Cocoa...OS X can only pull of a max of 26.7 fps at exactly the same settings as OS 9.1, and its lows are much, much more pronounced than OS 9.1's. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Supposedly, OS X has much better openGL than 9.1, and the sound was even off in OSX, which should result in an even higher fps count compared to the OS 9.1...

Same sit. here. The most logical explanation i've heard from multiple sources is that X's OpenGL implementation is simply not as mature as Classic's and therefore more prone to the dramatic fluctuations in FPS that are seen in the OmniGroup port of Q3A. I believe there was a discussion about this on Xlr8yourmac a few weeks/months back.

Personally, "super-modern OS" or not, i don't expect to be playing any good games on an OS that doesn't even have the video acceleration to straightened out enough to resize windows properly.



Speed

[This message has been edited by SpeedRacer (edited 04-17-2001).]

[blizzard]

I thought that Apple was trumpeting OS X as a 'multimedia OS'. Heck, Graeme Devine and Omni have both repeatedly stated that OS X's OpenGL is leagues better than OS 9's, which, as I understand it, is basically an extension of RAVE.

But then I guess that wouldn't explain what we're seeing now, would it?

Too bad. Someone's gonna have to get their act together is OSX is gonna take off. Hope it happens soon.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Blizzard, Quake 3 is not yet "officially" ported to cocoa. Id is working on this, so for now the cocoa version of Quake you are using is a 3rd party port. I'm sure that when Carmack work's his magic on it, Quake 3 Cocoa will be heavily optimized for OS X and will absolutely fly.

I'm more interested in when the altivec version of quake will arrive.

And for all you whiners here, why don't you reboot into OS 9.1 to play games? Dumbasses for sure, what made you think that games would run well in an emulation environment? It's like buying virtual PC and then complaining about the performance of Windows games on it! Pull yer head outta yer asses and use that startup disk control panel like it was made for.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Mr_Frost:
To get on the subject...does anyone know of GOOD games for OSX allready available...I don't mean the Oni's or the Quake's around. Just a simple game that is playable (if possible) over network. I used to love worms and netboxing a LOT!!

Have you tried Mega Mine Sweeper or Cow Catcher Game yet? Mega is just too bamn addictive! And Cow is a simple and sweet OpenGL game. I enjoy both of them. But if you do play CCG, don't run it above 1024x768 your fps will suck!

Tried the Cow catching game allready...didn't really like it.
Mega minesweeper I haven't tried but I have never been a fan of minesweeper games anyway.
I have just discovered Double2.0 on the other hand and it's great.
Looks great and is responsive....nice.