Apple:- Intel computers and more news

[Xon]

Correct, and in Windows Vista there will be some crippling of OpenGL on the Windows side (basicly the new-oooh-shiny 3d compositer won't work with OpenGL except if the app uses the Microsoft supplied, now hardware accelerated implementation, which is based on OpenGL 1.4, while the implementations based on 2.0, likely to be supplied with video drivers, will kill the "shiny" effects and drop Vista to XP visual quality) which will probably cause it to start getting phased out of 3d modelling apps.

Hey moron, as it is now Windows XP ships with a software based version of OpenGL 1.0 unless you use vender supplied drivers. And even then running an OpenGL app will prevent DirectX from being able to access the actual video buffer.

The only fucking difference for Vista, is that there is now a hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL 1.4 instead of a software OpenGL 1.0

Now, that won't effect full-screen apps like games, however it is yet another incentive for gaming houses to move away from OpenGL to Direct3d (which is supported on both Xboxes as well as Windows!), again causing porting to be less likely.

Switching between OpenGL and DirectGraphics is the least of the problems in porting.

[Xon]

Most Macs are crippled with horrifyingly slow frontside bus speeds.

That was true of Mac laptops. But most models are now either G5- or Intel-based, so that's not true anymore.

I was mainly talking about laptops. And I wasnt aware there where any G5-base laptops in existance (outside of Apple), hell Ars Technica have said a few times that was one of the posible reasons for moving to Intel form IBM.

Nor was I aware they where even selling intel-based Laptops for very long now.

[Praxis]

For some reason, the 2-3 or 3-4 times as fast line reminds me of the lines involved with the PS2/3 or XBOX 360, as in inflated and unrealistic for real world operations

Most Macs are crippled with horrifyingly slow frontside bus speeds.

Not the G5 Macs- those tend to have much, much higher bus speeds than PC's.

That's why I was somewhat surprised. I expected the Mac Mini and laptops to go Intel first, because they use the vastly outdated G4 processor with the horrid bus speed- the Mac Mini and iBook are still G4, but the iMac with the G5 is now Intel.

Because these new macs are using intel chips does that mean we are more likely to see Mac games now?

Not much more, it only makes it *barely* easier. However- it opens up the possibility of WineX/Cedega for Mac, letting Mac users run Windows games.

[Praxis]

The only fucking difference for Vista, is that there is now a hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL 1.4 instead of a software OpenGL 1.0

I think he was talking about this:

Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an OpenGL ICD is run - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience.

In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:

* OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%
* OpenGL on Windows will be fixed at a vanilla version of OpenGL 1.4
* No extensions will be possible to expose future hardware innovations

It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.

from opengl.org.

[Xon]

I think he was talking about this:

The version of OpenGL shipped is often brought up as an issue. Also full-screen OpenGL apps dont care about Aeroglass.

As for running OpenGL under Aeroglass, there are some fairly complex technical issues with sharing OpenGL and DirectX access to the same bit of hardware.

In practice this means for OpenGL under Aeroglass:
* OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%

Hmm, smell the unsubstantiated bullshit.

Not the G5 Macs- those tend to have much, much higher bus speeds than PC's.

I was refering to the laptop line. Also AMD's HyperTransport is a little faster than the 1ghz G5-Mac frontsize buses.

That's why I was somewhat surprised. I expected the Mac Mini and laptops to go Intel first, because they use the vastly outdated G4 processor with the horrid bus speed- the Mac Mini and iBook are still G4, but the iMac with the G5 is now Intel.

It is technologically easier to produce desktop parts than laptop parts. You have more room, more power and better cooling to play with. It is the ideal choice for a new system when Apple has little experiance with designing Intel based systems.

[Netko]

Yay for reading comprehension...

Correct, and in Windows Vista there will be some crippling of OpenGL on the Windows side (basicly the new-oooh-shiny 3d compositer won't work with OpenGL except if the app uses the Microsoft supplied, now hardware accelerated implementation, which is based on OpenGL 1.4, while the implementations based on 2.0, likely to be supplied with video drivers, will kill the "shiny" effects and drop Vista to XP visual quality) which will probably cause it to start getting phased out of 3d modelling apps.

Hey moron, as it is now Windows XP ships with a software based version of OpenGL 1.0 unless you use vender supplied drivers. And even then running an OpenGL app will prevent DirectX from being able to access the actual video buffer.

The only fucking difference for Vista, is that there is now a hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL 1.4 instead of a software OpenGL 1.0

The diffrence is that the actual UI will now be using Direct3d with WPF while before the UI used (2d) GDI+. Thus the problem that OpenGL (excepting the Microsoft implementation) will not work in a window enviroment without forcing the rest of the UI down to GDI+ (the actual visual quality is not so bad actualy, however it is an obvious difference).

So yes, technicly nothing will be crippled, however the new UI will not work.

I don't think Microsoft made a wrong choice here BTW. Especialy with the hardware accelerated 1.4. The resources invested in "fixing" this (in quotes since it is questionable if it should be fixed considering that all 2.0 implementations will be third party and as such unsupportable by Microsoft) can be better used elsewhere.

[EDIT]What Praxis quoted is essentialy correct, even if they are overstating the consequences. The 50% speed reduction is especialy unlikely. There is also the fact that if you really need OpenGL in a windowed enviroment you will use a ICD which will give you full capability and consider losing WPF's advanced features a tradeoff.

Now, that won't effect full-screen apps like games, however it is yet another incentive for gaming houses to move away from OpenGL to Direct3d (which is supported on both Xboxes as well as Windows!), again causing porting to be less likely.

Switching between OpenGL and DirectGraphics is the least of the problems in porting.

Are you noticing something here? A lot of the ports come from porting companies. Those companies could, theoreticly, port any game. However, while not that much of an issue, a Direct3d only game has one more item that needs to be done for the port. If it is Direct3d only (and I do mean only, not OpenGL-exists-but-is-disabled-and-unsupported) it is likely that the developer didn't have portability high on his list when doing a game. Such things add up in the don't-port column.

It won't stop the porting of a megahit, but it can stop porting of a smaller game. Which is exactly what Mac gamers complain about, is it not?

[Xon]

The diffrence is that the actual UI will now be using Direct3d with WPF while before the UI used (2d) GDI+.

GDI and GDI+ are 2 different interfaces to the GDI rendering engine, which is hardware accelerated since about 1995.

So yes, technicly nothing will be crippled, however the new UI will not work.

The new UI will work, just without the extra gloss which is doing fuckall anyway. We arent talking about any actual loss of functionaility in what the UI does, just in the appearance.

Oh-nooes, how will I ever live without my slightly transparent window edges!

Are you noticing something here?

The rendering interface really doesnt matter; 3rd party midware(a booming industry these days) like physics packages or entire game engines are vastly more important in how hard it is to port something.

But you still arent going to see too many more games for the Mac, because it is a fuckall business market.. PC gaming is tiny compared to console gaming market. And the Mac gaming market is virtually non-existant compared to the PC gaming market.

Linux gaming, which is x86 and has OpenGL, simple doesnt exist on the beyond for a few rare statistical outliers.

The likes of EA games(which are snapping up more and more developers and publishers) isnt going to target the Mac gaming market because it is simply too small.

[Netko]

The diffrence is that the actual UI will now be using Direct3d with WPF while before the UI used (2d) GDI+.

GDI and GDI+ are 2 different interfaces to the GDI rendering engine, which is hardware accelerated since about 1995.

You really fucking like to nitpick things to death, don't you? What next? Do you require me to write a complete history of the windows rendering engines for you to be satisfied?

Of course GDI is accelerated, that much can be made obvious to anyone (using generic video drivers and specific drivers for your graphics card for example). Of course GDI+ is just an upgrade to the basic GDI API.

So yes, technicly nothing will be crippled, however the new UI will not work.

The new UI will work, just without the extra gloss which is doing fuckall anyway. We arent talking about any actual loss of functionaility in what the UI does, just in the appearance.

Oh-nooes, how will I ever live without my slightly transparent window edges!

And why the fuck would you expect anything else? We are talking about a fucking rendering engine and not "backend" functionality.

Thing is, it puts you in a situation to use something less then you are capable of (hardware wise). It is someting that will bug people and a clear indication of "OpenGL not really wanted here" - which, of course, is fully understandable and expected. [EDIT] Both from the technical perspective and from the buisness perspective.

Are you noticing something here?

The rendering interface really doesnt matter; 3rd party midware(a booming industry these days) like physics packages or entire game engines are vastly more important in how hard it is to port something.

True, thats why all along I've been saying that this transition will have a very minor positive impact on portability of games. Its all in the APIs. (and don't fucking nitpick me to death here - I'm saying its all in the APIs because if the middleware doesn't support OSX's APIs it's unlikely that the port will happen).

But you still arent going to see too many more games for the Mac, because it is a fuckall business market.. PC gaming is tiny compared to console gaming market. And the Mac gaming market is virtually non-existant compared to the PC gaming market.

Linux gaming, which is x86 and has OpenGL, simple doesnt exist on the beyond for a few rare statistical outliers.

The likes of EA games(which are snapping up more and more developers and publishers) isnt going to target the Mac gaming market because it is simply too small.

Isn't that what I've been saying in the last x posts? That why I mentioned specialised porting companies in the first place! Except for developers (like Blizzard) which target the Mac as a platform initialy, the porting is done by such companies and they, because of the low percentage of overall marked (what was it, 4% at last count?), have razor thin margins and as such won't port anything that isn't either a hit or easily portable.

And that won't change with this transition because Windows and OSX have diffrent APIs and, as such, require porting between them.



So lets recap; right now there are few games being made/ported for Mac/OSX. The transition to Intel won't help much in that regard since OSX APIs will still be diffrent then Windows and the move to the same hardware will solve rather marginal problems. Do to the market share of Macs, porting to that platform isn't very profitable and, barring a freak market share gain, will not be in the future. As such, Macs gamers will benefit very little from the transition.

I think that answers Zac Naloen's question quite well, how about we let the rest of the dicussion (in which we seem to have pretty similar opinions except for your need to nitpick everything to hell and back) on Vista and OpenGL die so that this thread can stay on topic, which would be Macs and their transition to x86/Intel hardware?

[Beowulf]

For some reason, the 2-3 or 3-4 times as fast line reminds me of the lines involved with the PS2/3 or XBOX 360, as in inflated and unrealistic for real world operations

Most Macs are crippled with horrifyingly slow frontside bus speeds.

Not the G5 Macs- those tend to have much, much higher bus speeds than PC's.

That's why I was somewhat surprised. I expected the Mac Mini and laptops to go Intel first, because they use the vastly outdated G4 processor with the horrid bus speed- the Mac Mini and iBook are still G4, but the iMac with the G5 is now Intel.

I think the reason for making the iMac Intel based was because it's a higher end model than the Mac Mini, so they want it to be faster than the Mac Mini.

[Durandal]

From what I understood on EFI, its compatible with Windows, I'm not sure of the details(havn't read the article in a long time), but it works.

Well Vista is supposed to work with EFI, but I've never heard anything about Windows XP 64 (which is what will be required on the new Macs, I think) working with it.

The partioning however would be a killer.

If Windows can read a GPT (GUID Partition Table) scheme. If it can, then it's possible to make an MS-DOS and HFS partition and have them co-exist on the same disk. The Intel Macs don't use an Apple Partition Table.

[phongn]

How slow? Under 433MHZ(Old P4 if I recall correctly)?

400mhz. I'm positive thats the highest speed you can see from the G3 or maybe the G4 processor line (aka what they have in the laptops now).

Not quite. The MPC7447A's FSB is 166MHz SDR.

Well Vista is supposed to work with EFI, but I've never heard anything about Windows XP 64 (which is what will be required on the new Macs, I think) working with it.

AFAIK only the IA64 versions of Windows currently support EFI. I suppose Microsoft could release a slipstreamable update that would add on EFI support for those who needed it.

I think the reason for making the iMac Intel based was because it's a higher end model than the Mac Mini, so they want it to be faster than the Mac Mini.

AFAIK, the Mac Mini uses a variation on the iBook's logic board, so we'd have to wait. Apple probably wants to put the Intel chips on their high-margin computers for now and then later put it on their lesser machines. I suspect the iBook and the Mac Mini will be single-core machines.