Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Fox

Unix and CS:S

18 posts in this topic

Me and a great friend...Drew32 known to others have been arguen about

how windows game programs would run on a mac (unix based os). So I\'ve took the liberty in making this post, feel free to flame on either of us. I think that it would run good, even though it would be ran off WINE or anything. But he keeps complainin about graphix and what not, he prolly will post next. What do you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me and a great friend...Drew32 known to others have been arguen about

how windows game programs would run on a mac (unix based os). So I\\\'ve took the liberty in making this post, feel free to flame on either of us. I think that it would run good, even though it would be ran off WINE or anything. But he keeps complainin about graphix and what not, he prolly will post next. What do you think?

well... to clear this up a bit...

You told me how much better a Mac would be than a Windows XP machine for gamming. I agree that you can play windows type games on a Mac but not without configuring it. So yea... id just prefer to buy a Windows Machine for gamming and a mac for all that video and music editing...

or hell just keep using windows and linux since mac is just like unix with a pretty gui :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games tend to perform poorly on any unix-like OS for me. I don't know exactly why, but it just does.

Running any game through an emulator is going to decrease performance alot, and I wouldn't reccomend it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldnt bother with running a game in wine unless you really have to. As for me I stick to the consoles for my gaming pleasures much less upkeep and hassle with those.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wouldn't want to run a game in Wine, its made for more for applications and what not.

If you want to attempt to play games under a linux enviroment, you had better check out Cedega. It does the DirectX emulation that most games need.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Cedega is much better for gaming then Wine and it runs games better then WINE

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never play games in linux except for stuff that doesn't take up much resources like Supertux and snes roms with Zsnes. I have found (even though a bunch of *nix whores will argue with me on this) that DirectX is vastly superior to opengl. While they are both poorly made, DirectX assumes that your system can do more than it can sometimes, while opengl plays it safe and is more prone to assume your system can do less. For games you want it making assumptions that things are better than they are so it tries to crank out more (may not be wording this right...).

There is also a factor of support. Most types of software have been done very nicely in open source, but games require a lot of money to make and there is a lot more competition with them. The open source games out there just can't compare to what the commercial companies are putting out. The vast majority of commercial games (and open source ones even) are released for Windows and the *nix releases are mostly just ports of Windows games that run worse on *nix than on Windows.

As far as Wine and Cedega and such go, they are total shit in my opinion. When I was first starting to use Linux I played around with Wine a bit to play my games, but in the end I just decided that its a lost cause. Wine, as stated earlier, is more for "normal" applications than games. Games require a lot more from the system that Wine can't give. Wine is very far behind Windows. The most recent game that I've gotten to run flawlessly with Wine is Starcraft, which is from 1998! Wine can't run games very effectively at all. If one wants to run games, I would just have two computers, one with Windows and one with *nix, or set up a dual boot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While they are both poorly made

I dont think they are poorly made. Just not portable, as in the case with DirectX. DirectX IS vastly superior to OpenGL because DirectX is part of the Direct3D package which does everything from keyboard input to sound. OpenGL is just graphics.

As far as Wine and Cedega and such go, they are total shit in my opinion.

While that was true not long ago, the Transgaming guys are doing a somewhat good job on Cedega. Me and a couple of buddies have been getting Windows games playing with performance comparable to Windows.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While they are both poorly made

I dont think they are poorly made. Just not portable, as in the case with DirectX. DirectX IS vastly superior to OpenGL because DirectX is part of the Direct3D package which does everything from keyboard input to sound. OpenGL is just graphics.

As far as Wine and Cedega and such go, they are total shit in my opinion.

While that was true not long ago, the Transgaming guys are doing a somewhat good job on Cedega. Me and a couple of buddies have been getting Windows games playing with performance comparable to Windows.

Cedega looks very nice, but unfortunately you can't use it without a paid subscription.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mac ports of games are rubbish.

Which shows you have no knowledge of mac games. Commercial Mac game ports run better. Halo for example. Alice and bloodrayne as well. That being said, there are like 6 big commercial mac game companies. Its not quality, its quantity that is missing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While they are both poorly made

I dont think they are poorly made. Just not portable, as in the case with DirectX. DirectX IS vastly superior to OpenGL because DirectX is part of the Direct3D package which does everything from keyboard input to sound. OpenGL is just graphics.

As far as Wine and Cedega and such go, they are total shit in my opinion.

While that was true not long ago, the Transgaming guys are doing a somewhat good job on Cedega. Me and a couple of buddies have been getting Windows games playing with performance comparable to Windows.

?! OpenGL is brilliant, it's graphics parts (ie. the whole thing) are totally portable. DirectX, on the other hand, is totally unportable - you can't put it on any non-Microsoft system. Plus, as someone who has done graphics programming with both, openGL is vastly quicker; stuff that would take 3 pages of code in DirectX can take a few lines in openGL. openGL has often suffered popularity problems due to the deliberate way in which Microsoft basically tried to destroy it, spreading misinformation about hwo efficient it was, and making sure that their support for it was significantly slower than for DirectX - openGL runs much faster on Linux because it's been carefully optimised. Microsoft want to make DirectX the only graphics API because they want to monopolise the PC gaming market. Oh yeah, and openGL is open source. *rant over* :mumble:

Edit: Oh, and Direct3D is part of DirectX, not the other way around. DirectX has several different modules, each one dealing with sound, input, or video. Since DX 8, DirectDraw and Direct3D were put together, so that the DirectDraw, 2D component only exists in previous versions. However, DirectX is designed to be totally backwards compatible - any old function call or module can be used, so long as you find out what version it belongs to using a particular call, etc.. Anyway, it's all very complicated and another reason I dislike DirectX - it's a right pain in the ass for normal coders.

Edited by Automaton
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LET ME GET THIS STRAIT! I didnt say mac was better than PC when it comes to gamen. Drew said it SUCKED! for gaming and I said no it didnt suck! I said that since all of macs hardware runs a shit load better because of the OS not taken up so much resources.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mac OSX is a resource HOG, at least compared with its *nix peers. I remember hearing that the biggest complaint about the Mac Mini was that the base configuration included 256 MB of RAM, and Mac OSX did not run well with that "small" amount. Try running Mac OSX on a Power Macintosh 5500 sometime.

Edited by Elzair
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mac OSX is a resource HOG, at least compared with its *nix peers. I remember hearing that the biggest complaint about the Mac Mini was that the base configuration included 256 MB of RAM, and Mac OSX did not run well with that "small" amount. Try running Mac OSX on a Power Macintosh 5500 sometime.

X on POwermac 5500? Doesn't X need atleast a g3 card to run? Cause if not, I'll compare Jaguar to OS 8.1.2 :D (I have a powermac 6500 with a ppc 603e processor (G2)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

opengl > all. and good luck getting steam to run under emulation ,seeing as how it barely runs in windows :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have said 6500 with a G3 upgrade. According to this article, you CAN run Mac OSX on such a system, but you probably would not want to. Yellow Dog Linux, by contrast, does not run all that slowly (even using GNOME).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0