<strong>Okay, now it seems we're getting into that subjective matter of opinion thing. If you feel comfortable playing these games at an average of say 20fps, then I suppose there isn't much I can say about that. Most would agree that if don't at least average 30fps, then the choppiness of the game will negatively affect your performance. Remember, an average of 30fps means that at some parts, the game will likely dip to 10fps at times. Since my iMac is faster than the iMacs you describe, I feel quite comfortable that you did not experience better performance that I did. That said, in Q3 for example, the only way I can average 30fps is if I turn the texture quality way down. In gameplay, that means things like faces, etc. are blank. The same goes for UT, turning down the quality is not an option. Deus Ex is even worse. It's a great game, but even more demanding than UT or Q3. I don't have frame rates for that game, but it is noticably slower than UT which the engine is based on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm? I wasn't keeping track of frame rates. but the games seemed to perform quite admirably. only slowing down very noticably during really nasty parts(Like climbing the statue's base on Liberty Island while looking down at the docks in Deus Ex).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Actually, I don't think Apple's audio is quite as bad as it's reputation. In my opinion, the only time it sounded bad was when some games used tinny MIDI tracks that were much better handled on cards like soundblaster. Now that all sounds are digitized, I don't notice a significant difference as compared to playing on my PC with a dedicated sound card. In fact, the only thing that seems to be noticably better is the use of 3D audio. There is a difference in quality, but it isn't huge. Still, I agree that Apple should include some sort of dedicated audio chips, for better quality in games, but also to offload the CPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? doesn't the lack of Dolby Surround, THX, DTS, a DirectSound equivalent, EAX, 24-bit, 96khz, full 3D sound, a MIDI port, S-PDIF and even so much as _a microphone jack_ make you even the slightest bit jealous? seriously though. this is Apple's only REALLY big hole hardware wise.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Well, I agree with the quality part, but not if it's going to cost me an extra $1000 for a machine with roughly equivalent hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. but it might cost you an extra thousand for a machine that's a quantum leap(Like from Apple ][ to Macintosh) beyond your current machine.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Nor do I see how this contradicts my claim that the iMac has always been a generation behind the Pro line in terms of graphics hardware.
The Geforce 4 Ti is the current high end chip that is available as a BTO option on the pro line. The Geforce2 MX was never a high end chip, rather it was a default low end chip for the Pro line, back when the iMacs were using Rage 128 pros. Even then, the Geforce 3 was a BTO option on the pro line. Likewise, I don't see your point.
If you're trying to illustrate that the Geforce 4mx already has an upgrade path for Apple using existing technology (namely the Geforce 4 Ti), then I will gladly explain the difference to you.
For starters, why is there no mention of the Geforce 3 in your lineup? Answer: because it's an expensive BTO option. This is exactly what the Geforce 4 Ti is. If we're referring to nVidia chips, Apple will likely always use the lower cost MX series chips as a default, but will likely offer the Ti versions as expensive BTO options. Are you suggesting that Apple is likely to make the Geforce 4Ti the default chip for the pro line this summer, just so they can bump the iMac up to the Geforce 4mx? If so, I can tell you with 99% confidence that this just isn't going to happen. The Ti is to expensive to be a default piece of hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point is that Apple could give the high-end iMac and the stock PowerMac the same GPU. and the GeForce4 Titanuim would act as an iMac retardant for the high end PowerMacs(Let's face it. if someone wants to buy a $1,899 iMac instead of a $1,699 G4. they REALLY want an iMac).
"I don't think so. Motorola is practically the only reason the PPC has any distinguishing features. left to IBM. it would degrade into a high Mhz. low efficiency blob of normality. what the PPC really needs is more money. 2 hours of inventory on hand be cursed. if Apple wants to sell ten million iMacs. they need to build them. right now."
Yeah. As much as I'm annoyed with Moto' about the last few years. Any company can have their problems. (Of course, you knew what I meant by pulling the finger out didn't mean pull 'out' of the PPC market...)
I think most Mac people recognise the good qualities Moto has. Heck, they powered the Amiga!
Good, elegant chip design and MMX done right with Altivec. I was kinda hoping that they'd build upon Altivec with extra floating point and 3D execute options. I think Mac owners are obviously frustrated by Moto' and Apple not forseeing the Intel and AMD cpu open warefare that cast PPC aside...perceptionally. The stalled nature of development. Well, we're still on the G3 fer crying out loud...and the G4 is clearly not where we should be right now...
You're right. I'm always perplexed by Apple's inability to ramp up their products effectively. It's either arrogance people that says people can wait. We aint efficient, therefore we can wait. Or we're trying to hang onto our market share so we're paranoid about secrecy...so we deliver everything at the last minute...
Sure, apple can't afford another cube...but clearly the New iMac is headed for greatness...
Surely anticipate that by getting ready for production. Hmmm. Maybe they were just paranoid after the cube...
Still, they're selling a few imacs now.
But, if they're gonna go critical mass, Apple have got to get the message out there by advertising.
If they get the G5 and 10.2 out by September this year...
Then they should go all out ad' blitz. White hot nuclear...!
Ad's for everything from the powermac to ipod.
And maybe if they can get those guys and gals into the apple stores...then maybe apple could then afford the luxury of...
...especially when you hang onto Ati graphics cards until they are plucked from the dying crt imac's fingers...
However, I still think a dedicated chip or coprocessor for multimedia...perhaps, as you say, in addition to the already excellent altivec...yes...along those lines....would and could ,alongside g5s...give apple the 'edge'.
Apple making the hardware and software 'box' should be able to have abit more manouverability in these respects. Yeesh. They have got a 25 million plus user base to strike at...and if they're serious...the other '95%'.
And you've got to give a significant boost over what's already there to make people 'move over'. Simply have Geforce cos PCs do...isn't quite enough for me.
Perhaps Apple can get Nvidia to product some Apple 'only' co-processor? Altivec 3d booster?
If the Amiga did what it did...with only 10 million C64s behind it and commodore then I'm sure Apple can become a little bit bolder with its internal components.
Like I say, there has to be a reason why we pay up to a grand or so more than the opposition?
<strong>The game cube add on is total crap. It would cost nearly as much to make one that works with your mac. Won't happen 'cause only a fool is going to pay for the cost of a mac plus the cost of an add-on to play game-cube games. Sorry.
Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible. Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa, do I disagree. What Apple doesn't need is it's own game console, and what it does need is access to more popular games. Nintendo would not care if people are spending $200 for a hardware or software based GameCube emulator, because it's what they would pay for a regular unit. And having it in a mac consolidates alot of boxes and wiring for people without a huge home theatre set up and just want access to the games.
If junior wants to play Super Monkey Ball but you want to watch the West Wing, and the kid already has a Mac in his room... I wish I could send the kid to his room to play rather than tivo West Wing.
Imagine something like that as an iBook add on? Arguing that people are less likely to play these console video games on a mac, or that they should get a dedicated game computer is like arguing that a DVD player in a mac is useless because they can get a better DVD deck for there living room.
The cost is not an issue per se, because you were going to get the console to play the games for $200 anyway. I mean, Sony charges $200 for a PSOne with an LCD screen, but I paid $20 for Gamestation and can play alot of those games on my ibook... and that was a super deal, because that privaledge to me was easily worth the cost of a Play Station, which I don't even own. So, charging $200 for a legit console emulator or hardware add-on for Macs will sell to people who want the convenience.
And games may not be everyones MO, but then most people don't by a Mac just to do DV. so why not have the option to add a few more tricks?
But at that point it became cost effective, so why the heck not. Basically, that's like using any number of other (older) emulators. It's just the PS1 was the most powerful of the bunch. You're always going to have to wait until a system reaches near the end of it's life cycle before you get a cheap software based emulator.
That's why a hardware add-on won't ever happen. A seperate GC is more convenient than an add on board precisely because it is stand alone. With the add on scheme, if one doesn't work, both don't work (at least for GC game play.)
A dvd drive makes an interesting comparo. Those DVD drives pretty much tanked when Apple figured that more people were interested in making CD's than watching DVD's at their desk. But DVD is nothing if not versatile, and it can be used to make movies, deliver software, store big files for artwork, 3-d models, music samples, as well as watching movies, etc. Superdrive is good because it brings a lot of back-up storage capacity for people in video, audio, and 3-d fields, as well as providing a compelling video recording and authoring format. When DVD was nothing more than a way to make your computer do the same thing as a stand-alone device, but not as well and for more money, it didn't go anywhere, not on macs, and not on PCs.
A GC add-on gives you nothing more than the ability to play games at the same price as the console itself, but without the flexibility and convenience of the console, or the savings. Less than ideal. You can't take it to ANY TV very easily. The whole point of consoles is to NOT be bound to your desk.
Just as the TV could be monopolized by a GC playing brat, your powermac could be monopolized by a GC playing brat. Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.
The cost is an issue, because you end up comprimising both platforms. I don't ever advocate buying a games PC. NEVER. You buy a PC or Mac for the best work/hobby/productive/creative environment for you. If it plays games or emulates stuff too, well then, that's a nice bonus to take advantage of. The computer you buy will almost always be good enough for the types of games that are THE MOST POPULAR on the computer -- RTS, simms, puzzlers, MMPG. Only FPS demand the absolute highest hardware spec. If that floats your boat, you're much better off with a nice console system and games than spending 5 times as much on a computer for the same task. The console invariably falls behind the best computer systems, but the money required to keep you're computer stuffed with the best sound, video, MoBo, memory, and drives needed for such performance will over the 3-5 year life of a console, have kept you in both a console (or two) and at least 20 top-flight game purchases. Even when you pirate the PC games, you can't pirate the hardware, so, if you should pirate enough games to make it worth your while, you still only break even, yet you have to go through the trouble of buying, selling, upgrading and configuring, just to get the max games performance. On the console, you just plug it in and play for the next few years, no worries, more variety, cheaper cost: superior gaming platform.
No one, or very few, would pay extra to have two machines depend on each other, when they can have two very capable stand-alone units. When products converge successfully it is because TOGETHER they can do something compelling that before neither could do alone. Examples, computers plus video cameras, image capture, text, phones, audio processing, optical storage etc etc... Computers already play games. Consoles already play games. Joining them gives the same result, they still just play games. Translation, it ain't worth it, and won't ever happen.
When a few years have passed and any mac can comfortably emulate a GC, then you'll see a cheap SOFTWARE based emulator cause that's just a nice little software deal, and the kids, the devs, and the manufacturers have already moved on to the next big thing, or are about to shortly.
<strong>Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The game cube add on is total crap. It would cost nearly as much to make one that works with your mac. Won't happen 'cause only a fool is going to pay for the cost of a mac plus the cost of an add-on to play game-cube games. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Note that _I_ wasn't supporting it. just pointing out previous implementations.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[sillyness]What if Apple preloaded an emulator(Only about 100k-4M each) for every single CD/DVD based game console ever made(Aside from the ones that are too fast still. like the current trio) on each new Mac. imagine the chaos !!![/sillyness]
In reality. this would probably kill the real Mac game market faster than Bill Gates can dismember a new competitor.
Ahem.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. If you buy a computer for games play you have to pirate a lot of games before you break-even with the cost of buying a console plus games. Imagine you buy a PC for around a thousand (to play games on). For the same money you could get a GameCube and about a dozen games. Unless you pirate the computer games, it's just more cost effective to use a console. How many games do you have to pirate to turn a mac into a cost effective gaming machine?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Allow me to stamp out that nasty little falsehood spread by the one-way computing companies:
Let's say you already own a semi-recent(Bought after mid-1998) PC and refit it for games for $350(Usually includes 5 older A-list games bundled with the hardware). and a "Friend" buys a Gamecube bundle for $300(Usually includes 2 A-list games in the bundle).
Now both of you start buying games. over the lifetime of your systems. you both buy 20 pricey games and 5 budget games. GameCube games at $35-$60, PC games at $25-$48.
Games and all. you've spent $1,435 with your PC. your friend however. system, games and all. spent $1,675. you win.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Now because you have to buy a computer for productive stuff, it's nice to use it for games too (while it is still current). You buy a mac for DV-editing, photoshop, music etc etc... because you like the way it lets you work. If you're lucky a nice utility comes up within a few months that lets you 'back-up' your GC or XB or PS2 games to CD or DVD, but that's about as far as consoles on computers goes. Only xBox will see the horror of inexpensive PC emulation of their console (because of the architectural similarities.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. like I said in my original post. it would only require a software patch to Windows XP to run X-Box games natively. and the huge hacker community on the PC virtually insure it's occurrence. but for all I know. a native GameCube compatability layer for the Mac just might happen.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>And, as has been pointed out here, the biggest selling COMPUTER GAMES of all time are consistently the type that DO NOT require huge hardware specs. Only a VERY SMALL percentage of COMPUTER GAMERS (which are, incedentally, over-represented in fora such as these) care to play the very hardware demanding 3-d games that get most of the press. Even fewer are willing to spend thousands spec'ing out a PC that can do it at 1600x1200@100fps, because most people have better things to do with their money. Apple knows this and caters their hardware/software solution accordingly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No they don't. they just _don't_ push games seriously. casual or not.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>The wisest, most cost effective, solution for a computer user and gamer is to buy the computer platform that works best for them, and a console to play games on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said. lies. all lies(I'm not saying you're lying. just referring to the console company's false propaganda).
<strong>Whoa, do I disagree. What Apple doesn't need is it's own game console, and what it does need is access to more popular games. Nintendo would not care if people are spending $200 for a hardware or software based GameCube emulator, because it's what they would pay for a regular unit. And having it in a mac consolidates alot of boxes and wiring for people without a huge home theatre set up and just want access to the games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's silly. but selling a native GameCube-in-Macintosh runtime enviroment for about $30(Or better yet. free) WOULD be good for Nintendo. I don't think it would be quite so healthy for Apple though.
What I was saying is that an Apple console would give them the chance to beat _everyone_ and take over the WHOLE game industry. then use this as a public-mindshare/financial stepping stone to giving Microsoft/Intel something to really worry about in their core markets(Enterprise, government, industrial etc.).
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>If junior wants to play Super Monkey Ball but you want to watch the West Wing, and the kid already has a Mac in his room... I wish I could send the kid to his room to play rather than tivo West Wing.
Imagine something like that as an iBook add on? Arguing that people are less likely to play these console video games on a mac, or that they should get a dedicated game computer is like arguing that a DVD player in a mac is useless because they can get a better DVD deck for there living room.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The cost is not an issue per se, because you were going to get the console to play the games for $200 anyway. I mean, Sony charges $200 for a PSOne with an LCD screen, but I paid $20 for Gamestation and can play alot of those games on my ibook... and that was a super deal, because that privaledge to me was easily worth the cost of a Play Station, which I don't even own. So, charging $200 for a legit console emulator or hardware add-on for Macs will sell to people who want the convenience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cost sure isn't an issue! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nintendo and Sony both sell their systems for a loss. so by using a free emulator you're actually saving them money(PS: When Virtual Gamestation came out. you couldn't play playstation games on the road ).
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>And games may not be everyones MO, but then most people don't by a Mac just to do DV. so why not have the option to add a few more tricks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not buy half-price Mac ports of the things and save some money too .
<strong>But at that point it became cost effective, so why the heck not. Basically, that's like using any number of other (older) emulators. It's just the PS1 was the most powerful of the bunch. You're always going to have to wait until a system reaches near the end of it's life cycle before you get a cheap software based emulator.
That's why a hardware add-on won't ever happen. A seperate GC is more convenient than an add on board precisely because it is stand alone. With the add on scheme, if one doesn't work, both don't work (at least for GC game play.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>A dvd drive makes an interesting comparo. Those DVD drives pretty much tanked when Apple figured that more people were interested in making CD's than watching DVD's at their desk. But DVD is nothing if not versatile, and it can be used to make movies, deliver software, store big files for artwork, 3-d models, music samples, as well as watching movies, etc. Superdrive is good because it brings a lot of back-up storage capacity for people in video, audio, and 3-d fields, as well as providing a compelling video recording and authoring format. When DVD was nothing more than a way to make your computer do the same thing as a stand-alone device, but not as well and for more money, it didn't go anywhere, not on macs, and not on PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. they tanked when Apple mysteriously decided not to offer DVD affordable authoring software with their DVD-RAM drives. and when they finally got some and bundled it with a $1,000 WORM drive. as well as:
<ol type="1">[*]Not upgrading the Macintosh's audio hardware to keep up with DVD.[*]Not supporting DVD-Audio.[*]Not allowing the Apple DVD Player's "Veiwer" window to scale to fit letterbox aspect ratios(So you can scale it down a bit and keep it in the bottom of your screen without eating up your screen).[*]Not making an MPEG 2 component for QuickTime[*]And(In a slightly unrelated note) not promoting consumer level Mac-compatible HDTV/4DTV/DVB/DBS tuners.[/list=a]
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>A GC add-on gives you nothing more than the ability to play games at the same price as the console itself, but without the flexibility and convenience of the console, or the savings. Less than ideal. You can't take it to ANY TV very easily. The whole point of consoles is to NOT be bound to your desk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. read my reply to pathogen on the matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Just as the TV could be monopolized by a GC playing brat, your powermac could be monopolized by a GC playing brat. Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The cost is an issue, because you end up comprimising both platforms. I don't ever advocate buying a games PC. NEVER. You buy a PC or Mac for the best work/hobby/productive/creative environment for you. If it plays games or emulates stuff too, well then, that's a nice bonus to take advantage of. The computer you buy will almost always be good enough for the types of games that are THE MOST POPULAR on the computer -- RTS, simms, puzzlers, MMPG. Only FPS demand the absolute highest hardware spec. If that floats your boat, you're much better off with a nice console system and games than spending 5 times as much on a computer for the same task. The console invariably falls behind the best computer systems, but the money required to keep you're computer stuffed with the best sound, video, MoBo, memory, and drives needed for such performance will over the 3-5 year life of a console, have kept you in both a console (or two) and at least 20 top-flight game purchases. Even when you pirate the PC games, you can't pirate the hardware, so, if you should pirate enough games to make it worth your while, you still only break even, yet you have to go through the trouble of buying, selling, upgrading and configuring, just to get the max games performance. On the console, you just plug it in and play for the next few years, no worries, more variety, cheaper cost: superior gaming platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Utter garbage. read my earlier post on this stupid myth. practically any semi-recent PC can be whipped into shape to pound game consoles into the dirt on the cheap. if you haven't got one. an acquaintance would probably be happy to offload one for a reasonable fee.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>No one, or very few, would pay extra to have two machines depend on each other, when they can have two very capable stand-alone units. When products converge successfully it is because TOGETHER they can do something compelling that before neither could do alone. Examples, computers plus video cameras, image capture, text, phones, audio processing, optical storage etc etc... Computers already play games. Consoles already play games. Joining them gives the same result, they still just play games. Translation, it ain't worth it, and won't ever happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This I agree on. which brings me to another point.
Even something like Apple's "digital hub" stratagy you referred to above is still too valueless:
(Note: this was written just before the new iMac was announced. and yes. I still think it would have been a better idea )
<strong>Actually. it?s quite feasible. I think that the mere station of "Digital Hub" is not befitting to the personal computer. as for about $500(About the difference between the base and top level iMacs) the iMac could be turned into a butt-stomping "digital device" all on it's own:
(Price in wintel catalog/Device type/Price saving note)
$100 Hybrid HDTV/NTSC TV tuner(ATI's Rage Theatre chip. or the GeForce2 MX's latent but still in all chips HDTV tuner feature could be swapped for the current graphics chip. saving quite a bit)
$270 DVD-RAM or DVD-Multi drive(would replace the CD drive. thus saving a good $60-$100)
$10 cheapo webcam
$30 Voice/fax/data modem(Would replace current fax/data modem. saving about $10)
$15 Infra-red IRDA tranceiver for remote
$80 Sound Blaster Audigy or equivelant chipset(Would replace the #%&!$y audio system in the current iMac. thus saving whatever tiny amount Apple invests in it now)
(Note that all of these prices are retail, single order and for full boards, external devices with cases and such. and Apple's prices would almost inevitably be _much_ lower for the stripped OEM parts they would get)
With these parts. an iMac could replace the following digital devices:
Digital TV box, TV, VCR, DVD player, PVR, telephone, videophone, stereo, DVD-Audio player, radio, audiotape deck, amplifier, surround reciever, game console, internet appliance(That's 15).
I think that "All the electronics in your house, starting at $1299" is a lot better than "Something you need for some reason to attach to all that other stuff that already works fine, starting at $799".</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. why bother with golden convergence when you can just swollow everything whole?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>When a few years have passed and any mac can comfortably emulate a GC, then you'll see a cheap SOFTWARE based emulator cause that's just a nice little software deal, and the kids, the devs, and the manufacturers have already moved on to the next big thing, or are about to shortly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Even 3 G-4's running poly's in parallel would be run into the ground like an out of breath chump compared to something on the order of a GF3 GPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the point. this thing wouldn't even NEED polygons.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>The performance gains of VERY narrowly defining the operating space so that every transistor has as it's only purpose the goal of deciding what color to make that pixel in the frame buffer are astronomical when compared to a general purpose CPU. Not to mention tailored parallelism where it is guaranteed to have all preconditions met without fail in the right order and no worries about timing.
A General purpose CPU needs an OS and a GPU doesn't so the G4's would be caught in the typical general purpose computing conumdrum of nearly 80% of the executed code involved somehow in verification. Maybe that percentage could be improved a little, but never enough to make a significant difference, let alone compete with special purpose graphic processors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The point isn't brute strength. it's finesse. the advantage of such an architecture would be to have things like voxels, bezier curves, fluid mechanics, high detail impact detection and physics, realtime true echos and reverb, NURBS, fully custum rendering engines, geometry based sonic insulation and an utterly immense variety of other things that I don't know anywhere near enough high math to think of. all of which are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE on dedicated hardware.
Game programmers today are a lazy lot. using standards like DirectSound and OpenGL to calculate with pre-chewed hardware algorithms from highly unoriginal software engines. which are sometimes even bought(in whole or in part) completely pre-made from others.
While hardware based solutions are very efficient at what they do. they aren't very flexible. aside from polygons and sprites. video accelerators don't do much. and aside from polyphonic location, doppler effect and crudely slapped on enviromental effects. audio accelerators don't do much. this is why practically all games look and sound the same.
Whereas using CPUs instead would allow the programmers complete freedom. and. more importantly. would allow them to make new styles of games that redirect the power of the computer into previously neglected and unthought of places. thus making styles of games that not only weren't made before. but could not be made before.
In short. it would open up interactive media to whole new worlds. instead of simply expanding the one it's in now.
I'm rethinking that whole cost of the PC thing. Still, it seems to me that most hardcore gamers wouldn't be satisfied with a 1000 dollar set-up (including the monitor) for more than 6 months or a year. A console costs 300 or 200 (depending) so that leaves you 700-800 to spend on games before you break even. That's at least 10 really top shelf games.
I myself would be very well satisfied with a 1000 dollar PC system for games (and office/internet) mostly because I'm not looking for 1600x1200@150fps. But like me, most people who aren't looking for that, aren't looking for really heavy FPS(shooter) action anyway -- we're happy playing Diablo, Starcraft, SIMMS, Baldur's Gate etc... My POS 300Mhz AMD still plays those games well enough.
Are you saying console plus PC box. That certainly costs more money, yes, I do believe you're right about that. But I think I was making the comparo between a HIGH END gaming rig, and a entry-mid level computer plus a console.
Now macs aren't really entry level at all, so we could end up buying a lot of extra expensive stuff.
...all of which are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE on dedicated hardware.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying attention, have you? This "dedicated hardware" has become programmable, but it uses a different execution model than traditional processors. This allows it to be extremely super-scalar and very deeply pipelined, with the maximum possible use of available memory bandwidth. The 3-4 G4's you speak of would be far more expensive, and probably still couldn't keep up with the GPU in the XBox -- not to mention that they'd be so busy with the graphics there'd be no time left over for the other functionality you mention. And this doesn't even come remotely close to what we'll be seeing in the next year.
<strong> [quote]
Game programmers today are a lazy lot. using standards like DirectSound and OpenGL to calculate with pre-chewed hardware algorithms from highly unoriginal software engines..</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're really talking out of your ass on this one -- that is a highly over-generalized statement that ignores a huge amount of leading edge multimedia work that is being done in game companies throughout the world (on the PC and on consoles). Sure there are a collection of companies interested in using existing engines to deliver new game designs (emphasizing new content and gameplay), but there is also a large amount of research and development of new and more advanced engines. Carmack's Doom3 is the most visible example, but far from the only one. The new engines that will be coming to market will leverage the hardware capabilities that are now almost standard across the PC (and Mac), and the console market is generally farther ahead because their hardware targets are much more well defined.
As for the emulation of game consoles -- this is a very difficult proposition with the current generation of the game consoles because they have gotten very sophisticated. I doubt anyone will ever seriously attempt to build a PS2 emulator. A GameCube emulator is more possible (at least on the Mac), but it'll be the end of this year at least before the Mac has a graphics chip capable of the same things... and it'll be several years before a full software implementation is possible. Even XBox is more difficult than people realize because it uses a unified memory architecture and the PC doesn't have, thus making emulation a serious challenge -- and the graphics in the XBox are essential a geForce4 Ti, so the GF2 an GF3 aren't capable enough. Even given the right graphics chip there are enough issues that would impact performance, that it'll probably take a next generation machine to do the job. By the time emulation is feasible the game consoles will be on to their next iteration, which promises to be another quantum leap forward.
And lastly: an Apple game console. Forget it. Apple would get laughed out of the market. They could never gather enough developer mindshare, and I know for a fact that they aren't even trying currently. Microsoft, with the multitude of PC game developers to draw from, and all of its might and financial muscle, is struggling to make the XBox work... and it does have the most powerful console hardware on the market. Its a cut-throat hardware business and Apple would be stupid to step into such a death trap. They'd end up just like Sega, 3DO, Atari, etc.
"And lastly: an Apple game console. Forget it. Apple would get laughed out of the market. They could never gather enough developer mindshare, and I know for a fact that they aren't even trying currently. Microsoft, with the multitude of PC game developers to draw from, and all of its might and financial muscle, is struggling to make the XBox work... and it does have the most powerful console hardware on the market. Its a cut-throat hardware business and Apple would be stupid to step into such a death trap. They'd end up just like Sega, 3DO, Atari, etc."
...and lest us not forget the infamous Amiga 32CD games 'console' thing. After a u turn into the IBM PC clone market, (Commodore, ouch, ) stream rollered and then lurched into the games console market...streamrollered in reverse...
When all along they were a terrific multimedia computer whose chips hadn't been developed in years...
Ahh. The sad tale of neglect which almost cast its gloomy over pre: steve apple.
So. No console. (Not unless they can overtake Microsoft in the billions to throw away dept...) But. Maybe a super 'games computer'. Amiga part 2?
Y'know, I'd love to see a bigger dome for expansion room and a G5, anna Geforce 4Ti with a 17-19 inch lcd screen.
That's a imac-powermac I'd buy inna sec'.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Anybody care to knock up some Apple console 'dream' pics?
I'm rethinking that whole cost of the PC thing. Still, it seems to me that most hardcore gamers wouldn't be satisfied with a 1000 dollar set-up (including the monitor) for more than 6 months or a year. A console costs 300 or 200 (depending) so that leaves you 700-800 to spend on games before you break even. That's at least 10 really top shelf games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's not forget that the $700-800 wouldn't stretch as far, you would be forced to get just the games for that console. as opposed to IBM PCs. which tend to get more titles in a particular span of time than any given console in history and the fact of that PCs(Including Macs ) not only play the newest hits. but make all of your old favorites play better than ever(Especially if they're designed to be forward compatible).
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>I myself would be very well satisfied with a 1000 dollar PC system for games (and office/internet) mostly because I'm not looking for 1600x1200@150fps. But like me, most people who aren't looking for that, aren't looking for really heavy FPS(shooter) action anyway -- we're happy playing Diablo, Starcraft, SIMMS, Baldur's Gate etc... My POS 300Mhz AMD still plays those games well enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My example had about a $250 difference between the two platforms. and the prices for PC games and kit were a bit inflated(Amazon). plus it's a well known fact that a crafty PC gamer can get _much_ better deals than even the craftiest console gamer. so an IBM-PC user(Or to a lesser extent. a Macintosh user) could probably spend over $600(A considerable sum) "Game-izing" their system and come out pretty much even with a console user after the useful lifetimes of their systems.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Are you saying console plus PC box. That certainly costs more money, yes, I do believe you're right about that. But I think I was making the comparo between a HIGH END gaming rig, and a entry-mid level computer plus a console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For the most part. but this also applies to high-end rigs as well:
The imaginary gaming PC upgrade kit I constructed at Amazon consisted of an ATI Radeon 7500 board, the bottom end(+MP3) SoundBlaster Audigy board, 128MB of RAM and $40 worth of controllers(Left blank to assume special interests like steering wheels, joysticks, multiple low-end controllers, VR fishing rods etc.). I designed it to be cheap yet powerful.
Having around $600 to play with like I illustrated would allow you to swap that Radeon for a GeForce4 Titanium 4600, replace the MP3+ with an Audigy Platinum EX, nearly max out your RAM and buy exotic controllers like 6-axis and FCS(Flight control system. in other words. a joystick or yoke, a throttle and a set of pedals). this kind of setup would allow your system to stomp all over any console there is. and it would ultimately cost about the same.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Now macs aren't really entry level at all, so we could end up buying a lot of extra expensive stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite to the contrary. we Mac users don't have to buy one of those silly sound cards!
<strong>You haven't been paying attention, have you? This "dedicated hardware" has become programmable, but it uses a different execution model than traditional processors. This allows it to be extremely super-scalar and very deeply pipelined, with the maximum possible use of available memory bandwidth. The 3-4 G4's you speak of would be far more expensive, and probably still couldn't keep up with the GPU in the XBox -- not to mention that they'd be so busy with the graphics there'd be no time left over for the other functionality you mention. And this doesn't even come remotely close to what we'll be seeing in the next year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. what I meant to say was current hardware. although I've yet to see a system use better, high-end reprogrammable 3D DSPs for 3D acceleration or audio. though even this likely wouldn't compare to a super-pumped G4/G5 system. and are you talking about stuff like <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=feature_nfinitefx"; target="_blank">nfiniteFX</a>? that's just a silly toy when put next to the stuff CPU driven I mentioned in my last post. and like I said in an even earlier post. it would cost about the same. and would gracefully sidestep the primative mathematics employed by the GPU(s) in whatever console(s) it came up against. as well as having plenty of power to manage audio. and everything else just fine.
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>You're really talking out of your ass on this one -- that is a highly over-generalized statement that ignores a huge amount of leading edge multimedia work that is being done in game companies throughout the world (on the PC and on consoles). Sure there are a collection of companies interested in using existing engines to deliver new game designs (emphasizing new content and gameplay), but there is also a large amount of research and development of new and more advanced engines. Carmack's Doom3 is the most visible example, but far from the only one. The new engines that will be coming to market will leverage the hardware capabilities that are now almost standard across the PC (and Mac), and the console market is generally farther ahead because their hardware targets are much more well defined.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doom 3 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ? same old over-faceted polygonal garbage. the thing still uses BSPs for cryin' out loud! I want something new, something creative. in short. something _totally untried_. the advantage that using high speed CPUs affords the programmer/mathematician is the opportunity to use radically new techniques that the hardware designer could never have imagined. and to use them on market standard hardware.
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>As for the emulation of game consoles -- this is a very difficult proposition with the current generation of the game consoles because they have gotten very sophisticated. I doubt anyone will ever seriously attempt to build a PS2 emulator. A GameCube emulator is more possible (at least on the Mac), but it'll be the end of this year at least before the Mac has a graphics chip capable of the same things... and it'll be several years before a full software implementation is possible. Even XBox is more difficult than people realize because it uses a unified memory architecture and the PC doesn't have, thus making emulation a serious challenge -- and the graphics in the XBox are essential a geForce4 Ti, so the GF2 an GF3 aren't capable enough. Even given the right graphics chip there are enough issues that would impact performance, that it'll probably take a next generation machine to do the job. By the time emulation is feasible the game consoles will be on to their next iteration, which promises to be another quantum leap forward.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the X-Box will soon be forced to surrender it's secrets to the IBM PC community at large very soon. as I doubt it will stand up to the onslaught of Linux-toting SlashDot H4kørz for very long once they set their sights to it(Which they will). and as for a GameCube enviroment for the Mac. we _already have_ the GeForce 4 Titanium. which looks like it outdoes the GameCube's graphics right now. the big question is if the hacking community on the Mac is large enough to do it(Or if Connectix feels up to it again ). regarding UMA. doesn't the nForce already share a great deal with the X-Box's motherboard?
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>And lastly: an Apple game console. Forget it. Apple would get laughed out of the market. They could never gather enough developer mindshare, and I know for a fact that they aren't even trying currently. Microsoft, with the multitude of PC game developers to draw from, and all of its might and financial muscle, is struggling to make the XBox work... and it does have the most powerful console hardware on the market. Its a cut-throat hardware business and Apple would be stupid to step into such a death trap. They'd end up just like Sega, 3DO, Atari, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they came in and crushed them all with a radically inventive(And _very_ difficult to copy) new console. as for Microsoft. the X-Box and the GameCube are so much alike. consumers are having trouble even differentiating between the two. thus further pounding in my assertion.
The current geForce4 Ti and ATI Radeon 8500 vertex and pixel shaders are the programmability I'm refering to, and they are just the beginning. Those boards do more work that a set of G4s could because they are designed to do geometry and pixel operations, whereas the G4 is a generalized computing engine.
Polygon based geometry is not the vile thing you seem to think it is. Most of the polygons are approaching single pixel size most of the time now anyhow, and the ATI boards support automatic sub-tesselation of individual triangles. The new hardware is doing a lot of per-pixel lighting calculations, which goes a long way to hiding the polygonal faceting... combined with higher polygon counts and you can't see the faceting nearly as much (if at all in many cases).
All sorts of radical approaches are tried all the time and, frankly, the industry goes in the direction of the most practical and useful. Techniques like you talk about have been tried, but they can't compete with the power of the graphics hardware. The flexibility afforded by programmable graphics hardware will allow a great deal more differentiation than possible with older hardware, and the graphics hardware is advancing at a much greater rate than CPUs.
The GameCube's graphics hardware is actually very capable in terms of pixel computations, and it is not possible to emulate its behaviour on a geF4 or Radeon8500 (in hardware, and in software is too slow). The simplest example: GC supports 8 texture reads per pixel, whereas the geF4 supports 4 and the R8500 supports 6.
I'm not sure which "XBox secrets" you refer to. Even if its workings were entirely known, building an emulator that runs on standard PCs under Windows would have some serious performance issues (ring transitions, AGP bus performance, driver interface overhead, etc) and the games wouldn't operate properly as a result. Its possible, but the PCs are hamstrung by their hardware and OS.
What makes you think that anybody (much less Apple) could out-design the Sony, MS/nVidia, and Nintendo design teams? And even if they did, who would build the software for it? The existing designs are leading edge technology -- what makes you think that there can be a magic bullet to defeat them all, much less one that takes a radical new path? Consoles have to be built with essentially commodity parts (or parts built on the same production lines), otherwise production costs will price them way out of the market. Given that level of similarity there is no way that some newcomer to the market can sneak in and blow everybody away... unless of course you believe aliens are setting up factories at Apple HQ and will be cranking out these magical new devices? No, the next major console is coming from Sony because they are about a year ahead of the rest in their product lifecycle.
My point is that Apple could give the high-end iMac and the stock PowerMac the same GPU. and the GeForce4 Titanuim would act as an iMac retardant for the high end PowerMacs(Let's face it. if someone wants to buy a $1,899 iMac instead of a $1,699 G4. they REALLY want an iMac).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a nearly infinite number of things Apple could do. Are we talking about suggestions of what Apple should do? I'm not. I'm discussing what Apple is most likely to do. I've already said that I'd like to see the iMac line more competitive in the gaming market. Specifically, I'd like to at see the ATI 7500 or the Geforce 4mx in the iMac. However, my point is that based on Apple's history, this will not happen anytime soon. Specifically, not before the Pro line is bumped to something like the Geforce 5mx. The good thing is that nVidia seems to be on a pretty aggresive schedule with their chip designs. Likewise, more powerful graphics chips may come more often then they have in the past. Still, I'd bet money the iMac's graphics chip does not get bumped in July!
Comments
<strong>Okay, now it seems we're getting into that subjective matter of opinion thing. If you feel comfortable playing these games at an average of say 20fps, then I suppose there isn't much I can say about that. Most would agree that if don't at least average 30fps, then the choppiness of the game will negatively affect your performance. Remember, an average of 30fps means that at some parts, the game will likely dip to 10fps at times. Since my iMac is faster than the iMacs you describe, I feel quite comfortable that you did not experience better performance that I did. That said, in Q3 for example, the only way I can average 30fps is if I turn the texture quality way down. In gameplay, that means things like faces, etc. are blank. The same goes for UT, turning down the quality is not an option. Deus Ex is even worse. It's a great game, but even more demanding than UT or Q3. I don't have frame rates for that game, but it is noticably slower than UT which the engine is based on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm? I wasn't keeping track of frame rates. but the games seemed to perform quite admirably. only slowing down very noticably during really nasty parts(Like climbing the statue's base on Liberty Island while looking down at the docks in Deus Ex).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Actually, I don't think Apple's audio is quite as bad as it's reputation. In my opinion, the only time it sounded bad was when some games used tinny MIDI tracks that were much better handled on cards like soundblaster. Now that all sounds are digitized, I don't notice a significant difference as compared to playing on my PC with a dedicated sound card. In fact, the only thing that seems to be noticably better is the use of 3D audio. There is a difference in quality, but it isn't huge. Still, I agree that Apple should include some sort of dedicated audio chips, for better quality in games, but also to offload the CPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? doesn't the lack of Dolby Surround, THX, DTS, a DirectSound equivalent, EAX, 24-bit, 96khz, full 3D sound, a MIDI port, S-PDIF and even so much as _a microphone jack_ make you even the slightest bit jealous? seriously though. this is Apple's only REALLY big hole hardware wise.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>Well, I agree with the quality part, but not if it's going to cost me an extra $1000 for a machine with roughly equivalent hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. but it might cost you an extra thousand for a machine that's a quantum leap(Like from Apple ][ to Macintosh) beyond your current machine.
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Nor do I see how this contradicts my claim that the iMac has always been a generation behind the Pro line in terms of graphics hardware.
The Geforce 4 Ti is the current high end chip that is available as a BTO option on the pro line. The Geforce2 MX was never a high end chip, rather it was a default low end chip for the Pro line, back when the iMacs were using Rage 128 pros. Even then, the Geforce 3 was a BTO option on the pro line. Likewise, I don't see your point.
If you're trying to illustrate that the Geforce 4mx already has an upgrade path for Apple using existing technology (namely the Geforce 4 Ti), then I will gladly explain the difference to you.
For starters, why is there no mention of the Geforce 3 in your lineup? Answer: because it's an expensive BTO option. This is exactly what the Geforce 4 Ti is. If we're referring to nVidia chips, Apple will likely always use the lower cost MX series chips as a default, but will likely offer the Ti versions as expensive BTO options. Are you suggesting that Apple is likely to make the Geforce 4Ti the default chip for the pro line this summer, just so they can bump the iMac up to the Geforce 4mx? If so, I can tell you with 99% confidence that this just isn't going to happen. The Ti is to expensive to be a default piece of hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point is that Apple could give the high-end iMac and the stock PowerMac the same GPU. and the GeForce4 Titanuim would act as an iMac retardant for the high end PowerMacs(Let's face it. if someone wants to buy a $1,899 iMac instead of a $1,699 G4. they REALLY want an iMac).
Eric,
[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
Lemon Bon Bon
Yeah. As much as I'm annoyed with Moto' about the last few years. Any company can have their problems. (Of course, you knew what I meant by pulling the finger out didn't mean pull 'out' of the PPC market...)
I think most Mac people recognise the good qualities Moto has. Heck, they powered the Amiga!
Good, elegant chip design and MMX done right with Altivec. I was kinda hoping that they'd build upon Altivec with extra floating point and 3D execute options. I think Mac owners are obviously frustrated by Moto' and Apple not forseeing the Intel and AMD cpu open warefare that cast PPC aside...perceptionally. The stalled nature of development. Well, we're still on the G3 fer crying out loud...and the G4 is clearly not where we should be right now...
You're right. I'm always perplexed by Apple's inability to ramp up their products effectively. It's either arrogance people that says people can wait. We aint efficient, therefore we can wait. Or we're trying to hang onto our market share so we're paranoid about secrecy...so we deliver everything at the last minute...
Sure, apple can't afford another cube...but clearly the New iMac is headed for greatness...
Surely anticipate that by getting ready for production. Hmmm. Maybe they were just paranoid after the cube...
Still, they're selling a few imacs now.
But, if they're gonna go critical mass, Apple have got to get the message out there by advertising.
If they get the G5 and 10.2 out by September this year...
Then they should go all out ad' blitz. White hot nuclear...!
Ad's for everything from the powermac to ipod.
And maybe if they can get those guys and gals into the apple stores...then maybe apple could then afford the luxury of...
...the ultimate mac games machine?
Lemon Bon Bon
...especially when you hang onto Ati graphics cards until they are plucked from the dying crt imac's fingers...
However, I still think a dedicated chip or coprocessor for multimedia...perhaps, as you say, in addition to the already excellent altivec...yes...along those lines....would and could ,alongside g5s...give apple the 'edge'.
Apple making the hardware and software 'box' should be able to have abit more manouverability in these respects. Yeesh. They have got a 25 million plus user base to strike at...and if they're serious...the other '95%'.
And you've got to give a significant boost over what's already there to make people 'move over'. Simply have Geforce cos PCs do...isn't quite enough for me.
Perhaps Apple can get Nvidia to product some Apple 'only' co-processor? Altivec 3d booster?
If the Amiga did what it did...with only 10 million C64s behind it and commodore then I'm sure Apple can become a little bit bolder with its internal components.
Like I say, there has to be a reason why we pay up to a grand or so more than the opposition?
(Apart from Ten, that is...)
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>The game cube add on is total crap. It would cost nearly as much to make one that works with your mac. Won't happen 'cause only a fool is going to pay for the cost of a mac plus the cost of an add-on to play game-cube games. Sorry.
Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible. Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa, do I disagree. What Apple doesn't need is it's own game console, and what it does need is access to more popular games. Nintendo would not care if people are spending $200 for a hardware or software based GameCube emulator, because it's what they would pay for a regular unit. And having it in a mac consolidates alot of boxes and wiring for people without a huge home theatre set up and just want access to the games.
If junior wants to play Super Monkey Ball but you want to watch the West Wing, and the kid already has a Mac in his room... I wish I could send the kid to his room to play rather than tivo West Wing.
Imagine something like that as an iBook add on? Arguing that people are less likely to play these console video games on a mac, or that they should get a dedicated game computer is like arguing that a DVD player in a mac is useless because they can get a better DVD deck for there living room.
The cost is not an issue per se, because you were going to get the console to play the games for $200 anyway. I mean, Sony charges $200 for a PSOne with an LCD screen, but I paid $20 for Gamestation and can play alot of those games on my ibook... and that was a super deal, because that privaledge to me was easily worth the cost of a Play Station, which I don't even own. So, charging $200 for a legit console emulator or hardware add-on for Macs will sell to people who want the convenience.
And games may not be everyones MO, but then most people don't by a Mac just to do DV. so why not have the option to add a few more tricks?
That's why a hardware add-on won't ever happen. A seperate GC is more convenient than an add on board precisely because it is stand alone. With the add on scheme, if one doesn't work, both don't work (at least for GC game play.)
A dvd drive makes an interesting comparo. Those DVD drives pretty much tanked when Apple figured that more people were interested in making CD's than watching DVD's at their desk. But DVD is nothing if not versatile, and it can be used to make movies, deliver software, store big files for artwork, 3-d models, music samples, as well as watching movies, etc. Superdrive is good because it brings a lot of back-up storage capacity for people in video, audio, and 3-d fields, as well as providing a compelling video recording and authoring format. When DVD was nothing more than a way to make your computer do the same thing as a stand-alone device, but not as well and for more money, it didn't go anywhere, not on macs, and not on PCs.
A GC add-on gives you nothing more than the ability to play games at the same price as the console itself, but without the flexibility and convenience of the console, or the savings. Less than ideal. You can't take it to ANY TV very easily. The whole point of consoles is to NOT be bound to your desk.
Just as the TV could be monopolized by a GC playing brat, your powermac could be monopolized by a GC playing brat. Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.
The cost is an issue, because you end up comprimising both platforms. I don't ever advocate buying a games PC. NEVER. You buy a PC or Mac for the best work/hobby/productive/creative environment for you. If it plays games or emulates stuff too, well then, that's a nice bonus to take advantage of. The computer you buy will almost always be good enough for the types of games that are THE MOST POPULAR on the computer -- RTS, simms, puzzlers, MMPG. Only FPS demand the absolute highest hardware spec. If that floats your boat, you're much better off with a nice console system and games than spending 5 times as much on a computer for the same task. The console invariably falls behind the best computer systems, but the money required to keep you're computer stuffed with the best sound, video, MoBo, memory, and drives needed for such performance will over the 3-5 year life of a console, have kept you in both a console (or two) and at least 20 top-flight game purchases. Even when you pirate the PC games, you can't pirate the hardware, so, if you should pirate enough games to make it worth your while, you still only break even, yet you have to go through the trouble of buying, selling, upgrading and configuring, just to get the max games performance. On the console, you just plug it in and play for the next few years, no worries, more variety, cheaper cost: superior gaming platform.
No one, or very few, would pay extra to have two machines depend on each other, when they can have two very capable stand-alone units. When products converge successfully it is because TOGETHER they can do something compelling that before neither could do alone. Examples, computers plus video cameras, image capture, text, phones, audio processing, optical storage etc etc... Computers already play games. Consoles already play games. Joining them gives the same result, they still just play games. Translation, it ain't worth it, and won't ever happen.
When a few years have passed and any mac can comfortably emulate a GC, then you'll see a cheap SOFTWARE based emulator cause that's just a nice little software deal, and the kids, the devs, and the manufacturers have already moved on to the next big thing, or are about to shortly.
Clinton tried it and lost - Gates opened the floodgates... Major investigation...
<strong>Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You rule, Matsu :cool:
<strong>The game cube add on is total crap. It would cost nearly as much to make one that works with your mac. Won't happen 'cause only a fool is going to pay for the cost of a mac plus the cost of an add-on to play game-cube games. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Note that _I_ wasn't supporting it. just pointing out previous implementations.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Any console emulation will have to be software based. Give it a year to 18 months and it might be possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[sillyness]What if Apple preloaded an emulator(Only about 100k-4M each) for every single CD/DVD based game console ever made(Aside from the ones that are too fast still. like the current trio) on each new Mac. imagine the chaos
In reality. this would probably kill the real Mac game market faster than Bill Gates can dismember a new competitor.
Ahem.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Even then, if games are your MO, why buy a computer at all. If you buy a computer for games play you have to pirate a lot of games before you break-even with the cost of buying a console plus games. Imagine you buy a PC for around a thousand (to play games on). For the same money you could get a GameCube and about a dozen games. Unless you pirate the computer games, it's just more cost effective to use a console. How many games do you have to pirate to turn a mac into a cost effective gaming machine?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Allow me to stamp out that nasty little falsehood spread by the one-way computing companies:
Let's say you already own a semi-recent(Bought after mid-1998) PC and refit it for games for $350(Usually includes 5 older A-list games bundled with the hardware). and a "Friend" buys a Gamecube bundle for $300(Usually includes 2 A-list games in the bundle).
Now both of you start buying games. over the lifetime of your systems. you both buy 20 pricey games and 5 budget games. GameCube games at $35-$60, PC games at $25-$48.
Games and all. you've spent $1,435 with your PC. your friend however. system, games and all. spent $1,675. you win.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Now because you have to buy a computer for productive stuff, it's nice to use it for games too (while it is still current). You buy a mac for DV-editing, photoshop, music etc etc... because you like the way it lets you work. If you're lucky a nice utility comes up within a few months that lets you 'back-up' your GC or XB or PS2 games to CD or DVD, but that's about as far as consoles on computers goes. Only xBox will see the horror of inexpensive PC emulation of their console (because of the architectural similarities.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. like I said in my original post. it would only require a software patch to Windows XP to run X-Box games natively. and the huge hacker community on the PC virtually insure it's occurrence. but for all I know. a native GameCube compatability layer for the Mac just might happen.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>And, as has been pointed out here, the biggest selling COMPUTER GAMES of all time are consistently the type that DO NOT require huge hardware specs. Only a VERY SMALL percentage of COMPUTER GAMERS (which are, incedentally, over-represented in fora such as these) care to play the very hardware demanding 3-d games that get most of the press. Even fewer are willing to spend thousands spec'ing out a PC that can do it at 1600x1200@100fps, because most people have better things to do with their money. Apple knows this and caters their hardware/software solution accordingly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No they don't. they just _don't_ push games seriously. casual or not.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>The wisest, most cost effective, solution for a computer user and gamer is to buy the computer platform that works best for them, and a console to play games on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said. lies. all lies(I'm not saying you're lying. just referring to the console company's false propaganda).
Eric,
<strong>Whoa, do I disagree. What Apple doesn't need is it's own game console, and what it does need is access to more popular games. Nintendo would not care if people are spending $200 for a hardware or software based GameCube emulator, because it's what they would pay for a regular unit. And having it in a mac consolidates alot of boxes and wiring for people without a huge home theatre set up and just want access to the games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's silly. but selling a native GameCube-in-Macintosh runtime enviroment for about $30(Or better yet. free) WOULD be good for Nintendo. I don't think it would be quite so healthy for Apple though.
What I was saying is that an Apple console would give them the chance to beat _everyone_ and take over the WHOLE game industry. then use this as a public-mindshare/financial stepping stone to giving Microsoft/Intel something to really worry about in their core markets(Enterprise, government, industrial etc.).
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>If junior wants to play Super Monkey Ball but you want to watch the West Wing, and the kid already has a Mac in his room... I wish I could send the kid to his room to play rather than tivo West Wing.
Imagine something like that as an iBook add on? Arguing that people are less likely to play these console video games on a mac, or that they should get a dedicated game computer is like arguing that a DVD player in a mac is useless because they can get a better DVD deck for there living room.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's silly. why not just buy one of <a href="http://www.formac.com/html/shopformac.html?cid=shop_products_tvtuner"; target="_blank">these</a> or <a href="http://www.eskapelabs.com/products.html"; target="_blank">these</a> instead(My ixTV/FM works great)?
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>The cost is not an issue per se, because you were going to get the console to play the games for $200 anyway. I mean, Sony charges $200 for a PSOne with an LCD screen, but I paid $20 for Gamestation and can play alot of those games on my ibook... and that was a super deal, because that privaledge to me was easily worth the cost of a Play Station, which I don't even own. So, charging $200 for a legit console emulator or hardware add-on for Macs will sell to people who want the convenience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cost sure isn't an issue! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nintendo and Sony both sell their systems for a loss. so by using a free emulator you're actually saving them money(PS: When Virtual Gamestation came out. you couldn't play playstation games on the road
[quote]Originally posted by pathogen:
<strong>And games may not be everyones MO, but then most people don't by a Mac just to do DV. so why not have the option to add a few more tricks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not buy half-price Mac ports of the things and save some money too
Eric,
<strong>But at that point it became cost effective, so why the heck not. Basically, that's like using any number of other (older) emulators. It's just the PS1 was the most powerful of the bunch. You're always going to have to wait until a system reaches near the end of it's life cycle before you get a cheap software based emulator.
That's why a hardware add-on won't ever happen. A seperate GC is more convenient than an add on board precisely because it is stand alone. With the add on scheme, if one doesn't work, both don't work (at least for GC game play.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>A dvd drive makes an interesting comparo. Those DVD drives pretty much tanked when Apple figured that more people were interested in making CD's than watching DVD's at their desk. But DVD is nothing if not versatile, and it can be used to make movies, deliver software, store big files for artwork, 3-d models, music samples, as well as watching movies, etc. Superdrive is good because it brings a lot of back-up storage capacity for people in video, audio, and 3-d fields, as well as providing a compelling video recording and authoring format. When DVD was nothing more than a way to make your computer do the same thing as a stand-alone device, but not as well and for more money, it didn't go anywhere, not on macs, and not on PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. they tanked when Apple mysteriously decided not to offer DVD affordable authoring software with their DVD-RAM drives. and when they finally got some and bundled it with a $1,000 WORM drive. as well as:
<ol type="1">[*]Not upgrading the Macintosh's audio hardware to keep up with DVD.[*]Not supporting DVD-Audio.[*]Not allowing the Apple DVD Player's "Veiwer" window to scale to fit letterbox aspect ratios(So you can scale it down a bit and keep it in the bottom of your screen without eating up your screen).[*]Not making an MPEG 2 component for QuickTime[*]And(In a slightly unrelated note) not promoting consumer level Mac-compatible HDTV/4DTV/DVB/DBS tuners.[/list=a]
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>A GC add-on gives you nothing more than the ability to play games at the same price as the console itself, but without the flexibility and convenience of the console, or the savings. Less than ideal. You can't take it to ANY TV very easily. The whole point of consoles is to NOT be bound to your desk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. read my reply to pathogen on the matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Just as the TV could be monopolized by a GC playing brat, your powermac could be monopolized by a GC playing brat. Smack the little tykes on back of the head and tell them, "We're watching what Daddy says we're watching and I better not hear a peep or it's five across the behind," like that, like a good parent and not one of these new age "I'm your friend, lets take a time out" sissy latte drinking impersonations of June Cleaver.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or you could buy just buy one of <a href="http://www.formac.com/html/shopformac.html?cid=shop_products_tvtuner"; target="_blank">these</a> or <a href="http://www.eskapelabs.com/products.html"; target="_blank">these</a> and watch it on your PC instead(My ixTV/FM works great).
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>The cost is an issue, because you end up comprimising both platforms. I don't ever advocate buying a games PC. NEVER. You buy a PC or Mac for the best work/hobby/productive/creative environment for you. If it plays games or emulates stuff too, well then, that's a nice bonus to take advantage of. The computer you buy will almost always be good enough for the types of games that are THE MOST POPULAR on the computer -- RTS, simms, puzzlers, MMPG. Only FPS demand the absolute highest hardware spec. If that floats your boat, you're much better off with a nice console system and games than spending 5 times as much on a computer for the same task. The console invariably falls behind the best computer systems, but the money required to keep you're computer stuffed with the best sound, video, MoBo, memory, and drives needed for such performance will over the 3-5 year life of a console, have kept you in both a console (or two) and at least 20 top-flight game purchases. Even when you pirate the PC games, you can't pirate the hardware, so, if you should pirate enough games to make it worth your while, you still only break even, yet you have to go through the trouble of buying, selling, upgrading and configuring, just to get the max games performance. On the console, you just plug it in and play for the next few years, no worries, more variety, cheaper cost: superior gaming platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Utter garbage. read my earlier post on this stupid myth. practically any semi-recent PC can be whipped into shape to pound game consoles into the dirt on the cheap. if you haven't got one. an acquaintance would probably be happy to offload one for a reasonable fee.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>No one, or very few, would pay extra to have two machines depend on each other, when they can have two very capable stand-alone units. When products converge successfully it is because TOGETHER they can do something compelling that before neither could do alone. Examples, computers plus video cameras, image capture, text, phones, audio processing, optical storage etc etc... Computers already play games. Consoles already play games. Joining them gives the same result, they still just play games. Translation, it ain't worth it, and won't ever happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This I agree on. which brings me to another point.
Even something like Apple's "digital hub" stratagy you referred to above is still too valueless:
(Note: this was written just before the new iMac was announced. and yes. I still think it would have been a better idea
[quote]Originally <a href="http://www.MacEdition.com/scripts/showmessage.php?articleid=186&postid=966&threadid= 958" target="_blank">posted</a> by me at MacEdition:
<strong>Actually. it?s quite feasible. I think that the mere station of "Digital Hub" is not befitting to the personal computer. as for about $500(About the difference between the base and top level iMacs) the iMac could be turned into a butt-stomping "digital device" all on it's own:
(Price in wintel catalog/Device type/Price saving note)
$100 Hybrid HDTV/NTSC TV tuner(ATI's Rage Theatre chip. or the GeForce2 MX's latent but still in all chips HDTV tuner feature could be swapped for the current graphics chip. saving quite a bit)
$270 DVD-RAM or DVD-Multi drive(would replace the CD drive. thus saving a good $60-$100)
$10 cheapo webcam
$30 Voice/fax/data modem(Would replace current fax/data modem. saving about $10)
$15 Infra-red IRDA tranceiver for remote
$80 Sound Blaster Audigy or equivelant chipset(Would replace the #%&!$y audio system in the current iMac. thus saving whatever tiny amount Apple invests in it now)
(Note that all of these prices are retail, single order and for full boards, external devices with cases and such. and Apple's prices would almost inevitably be _much_ lower for the stripped OEM parts they would get)
With these parts. an iMac could replace the following digital devices:
Digital TV box, TV, VCR, DVD player, PVR, telephone, videophone, stereo, DVD-Audio player, radio, audiotape deck, amplifier, surround reciever, game console, internet appliance(That's 15).
I think that "All the electronics in your house, starting at $1299" is a lot better than "Something you need for some reason to attach to all that other stuff that already works fine, starting at $799".</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. why bother with golden convergence when you can just swollow everything whole?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>When a few years have passed and any mac can comfortably emulate a GC, then you'll see a cheap SOFTWARE based emulator cause that's just a nice little software deal, and the kids, the devs, and the manufacturers have already moved on to the next big thing, or are about to shortly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably so. but you never know what can happen
Eric,
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
<strong>Even 3 G-4's running poly's in parallel would be run into the ground like an out of breath chump compared to something on the order of a GF3 GPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're missing the point. this thing wouldn't even NEED polygons.
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>The performance gains of VERY narrowly defining the operating space so that every transistor has as it's only purpose the goal of deciding what color to make that pixel in the frame buffer are astronomical when compared to a general purpose CPU. Not to mention tailored parallelism where it is guaranteed to have all preconditions met without fail in the right order and no worries about timing.
A General purpose CPU needs an OS and a GPU doesn't so the G4's would be caught in the typical general purpose computing conumdrum of nearly 80% of the executed code involved somehow in verification. Maybe that percentage could be improved a little, but never enough to make a significant difference, let alone compete with special purpose graphic processors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The point isn't brute strength. it's finesse. the advantage of such an architecture would be to have things like voxels, bezier curves, fluid mechanics, high detail impact detection and physics, realtime true echos and reverb, NURBS, fully custum rendering engines, geometry based sonic insulation and an utterly immense variety of other things that I don't know anywhere near enough high math to think of. all of which are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE on dedicated hardware.
Game programmers today are a lazy lot. using standards like DirectSound and OpenGL to calculate with pre-chewed hardware algorithms from highly unoriginal software engines. which are sometimes even bought(in whole or in part) completely pre-made from others.
While hardware based solutions are very efficient at what they do. they aren't very flexible. aside from polygons and sprites. video accelerators don't do much. and aside from polyphonic location, doppler effect and crudely slapped on enviromental effects. audio accelerators don't do much. this is why practically all games look and sound the same.
Whereas using CPUs instead would allow the programmers complete freedom. and. more importantly. would allow them to make new styles of games that redirect the power of the computer into previously neglected and unthought of places. thus making styles of games that not only weren't made before. but could not be made before.
In short. it would open up interactive media to whole new worlds. instead of simply expanding the one it's in now.
Eric,
[ 04-14-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
I'm rethinking that whole cost of the PC thing. Still, it seems to me that most hardcore gamers wouldn't be satisfied with a 1000 dollar set-up (including the monitor) for more than 6 months or a year. A console costs 300 or 200 (depending) so that leaves you 700-800 to spend on games before you break even. That's at least 10 really top shelf games.
I myself would be very well satisfied with a 1000 dollar PC system for games (and office/internet) mostly because I'm not looking for 1600x1200@150fps. But like me, most people who aren't looking for that, aren't looking for really heavy FPS(shooter) action anyway -- we're happy playing Diablo, Starcraft, SIMMS, Baldur's Gate etc... My POS 300Mhz AMD still plays those games well enough.
Are you saying console plus PC box. That certainly costs more money, yes, I do believe you're right about that. But I think I was making the comparo between a HIGH END gaming rig, and a entry-mid level computer plus a console.
Now macs aren't really entry level at all, so we could end up buying a lot of extra expensive stuff.
More later, gotta go.
<strong>
...all of which are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE on dedicated hardware.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying attention, have you? This "dedicated hardware" has become programmable, but it uses a different execution model than traditional processors. This allows it to be extremely super-scalar and very deeply pipelined, with the maximum possible use of available memory bandwidth. The 3-4 G4's you speak of would be far more expensive, and probably still couldn't keep up with the GPU in the XBox -- not to mention that they'd be so busy with the graphics there'd be no time left over for the other functionality you mention. And this doesn't even come remotely close to what we'll be seeing in the next year.
<strong> [quote]
Game programmers today are a lazy lot. using standards like DirectSound and OpenGL to calculate with pre-chewed hardware algorithms from highly unoriginal software engines..</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're really talking out of your ass on this one -- that is a highly over-generalized statement that ignores a huge amount of leading edge multimedia work that is being done in game companies throughout the world (on the PC and on consoles). Sure there are a collection of companies interested in using existing engines to deliver new game designs (emphasizing new content and gameplay), but there is also a large amount of research and development of new and more advanced engines. Carmack's Doom3 is the most visible example, but far from the only one. The new engines that will be coming to market will leverage the hardware capabilities that are now almost standard across the PC (and Mac), and the console market is generally farther ahead because their hardware targets are much more well defined.
As for the emulation of game consoles -- this is a very difficult proposition with the current generation of the game consoles because they have gotten very sophisticated. I doubt anyone will ever seriously attempt to build a PS2 emulator. A GameCube emulator is more possible (at least on the Mac), but it'll be the end of this year at least before the Mac has a graphics chip capable of the same things... and it'll be several years before a full software implementation is possible. Even XBox is more difficult than people realize because it uses a unified memory architecture and the PC doesn't have, thus making emulation a serious challenge -- and the graphics in the XBox are essential a geForce4 Ti, so the GF2 an GF3 aren't capable enough. Even given the right graphics chip there are enough issues that would impact performance, that it'll probably take a next generation machine to do the job. By the time emulation is feasible the game consoles will be on to their next iteration, which promises to be another quantum leap forward.
And lastly: an Apple game console. Forget it. Apple would get laughed out of the market. They could never gather enough developer mindshare, and I know for a fact that they aren't even trying currently. Microsoft, with the multitude of PC game developers to draw from, and all of its might and financial muscle, is struggling to make the XBox work... and it does have the most powerful console hardware on the market. Its a cut-throat hardware business and Apple would be stupid to step into such a death trap. They'd end up just like Sega, 3DO, Atari, etc.
...and lest us not forget the infamous Amiga 32CD games 'console' thing. After a u turn into the IBM PC clone market, (Commodore, ouch, ) stream rollered and then lurched into the games console market...streamrollered in reverse...
When all along they were a terrific multimedia computer whose chips hadn't been developed in years...
Ahh. The sad tale of neglect which almost cast its gloomy over pre: steve apple.
So. No console. (Not unless they can overtake Microsoft in the billions to throw away dept...) But. Maybe a super 'games computer'. Amiga part 2?
Y'know, I'd love to see a bigger dome for expansion room and a G5, anna Geforce 4Ti with a 17-19 inch lcd screen.
That's a imac-powermac I'd buy inna sec'.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Anybody care to knock up some Apple console 'dream' pics?
<strong>Eric, you may have some legit points.
I'm rethinking that whole cost of the PC thing. Still, it seems to me that most hardcore gamers wouldn't be satisfied with a 1000 dollar set-up (including the monitor) for more than 6 months or a year. A console costs 300 or 200 (depending) so that leaves you 700-800 to spend on games before you break even. That's at least 10 really top shelf games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's not forget that the $700-800 wouldn't stretch as far, you would be forced to get just the games for that console. as opposed to IBM PCs. which tend to get more titles in a particular span of time than any given console in history and the fact of that PCs(Including Macs
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>I myself would be very well satisfied with a 1000 dollar PC system for games (and office/internet) mostly because I'm not looking for 1600x1200@150fps. But like me, most people who aren't looking for that, aren't looking for really heavy FPS(shooter) action anyway -- we're happy playing Diablo, Starcraft, SIMMS, Baldur's Gate etc... My POS 300Mhz AMD still plays those games well enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My example had about a $250 difference between the two platforms. and the prices for PC games and kit were a bit inflated(Amazon). plus it's a well known fact that a crafty PC gamer can get _much_ better deals than even the craftiest console gamer. so an IBM-PC user(Or to a lesser extent. a Macintosh user) could probably spend over $600(A considerable sum) "Game-izing" their system and come out pretty much even with a console user after the useful lifetimes of their systems.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Are you saying console plus PC box. That certainly costs more money, yes, I do believe you're right about that. But I think I was making the comparo between a HIGH END gaming rig, and a entry-mid level computer plus a console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For the most part. but this also applies to high-end rigs as well:
The imaginary gaming PC upgrade kit I constructed at Amazon consisted of an ATI Radeon 7500 board, the bottom end(+MP3) SoundBlaster Audigy board, 128MB of RAM and $40 worth of controllers(Left blank to assume special interests like steering wheels, joysticks, multiple low-end controllers, VR fishing rods etc.). I designed it to be cheap yet powerful.
Having around $600 to play with like I illustrated would allow you to swap that Radeon for a GeForce4 Titanium 4600, replace the MP3+ with an Audigy Platinum EX, nearly max out your RAM and buy exotic controllers like 6-axis and FCS(Flight control system. in other words. a joystick or yoke, a throttle and a set of pedals). this kind of setup would allow your system to stomp all over any console there is. and it would ultimately cost about the same.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Now macs aren't really entry level at all, so we could end up buying a lot of extra expensive stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quite to the contrary. we Mac users don't have to buy one of those silly sound cards!
Eric,
[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
<strong>You haven't been paying attention, have you? This "dedicated hardware" has become programmable, but it uses a different execution model than traditional processors. This allows it to be extremely super-scalar and very deeply pipelined, with the maximum possible use of available memory bandwidth. The 3-4 G4's you speak of would be far more expensive, and probably still couldn't keep up with the GPU in the XBox -- not to mention that they'd be so busy with the graphics there'd be no time left over for the other functionality you mention. And this doesn't even come remotely close to what we'll be seeing in the next year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. what I meant to say was current hardware. although I've yet to see a system use better, high-end reprogrammable 3D DSPs for 3D acceleration or audio. though even this likely wouldn't compare to a super-pumped G4/G5 system. and are you talking about stuff like <a href="http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=feature_nfinitefx"; target="_blank">nfiniteFX</a>? that's just a silly toy when put next to the stuff CPU driven I mentioned in my last post. and like I said in an even earlier post. it would cost about the same. and would gracefully sidestep the primative mathematics employed by the GPU(s) in whatever console(s) it came up against. as well as having plenty of power to manage audio. and everything else just fine.
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>You're really talking out of your ass on this one -- that is a highly over-generalized statement that ignores a huge amount of leading edge multimedia work that is being done in game companies throughout the world (on the PC and on consoles). Sure there are a collection of companies interested in using existing engines to deliver new game designs (emphasizing new content and gameplay), but there is also a large amount of research and development of new and more advanced engines. Carmack's Doom3 is the most visible example, but far from the only one. The new engines that will be coming to market will leverage the hardware capabilities that are now almost standard across the PC (and Mac), and the console market is generally farther ahead because their hardware targets are much more well defined.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doom 3 <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ? same old over-faceted polygonal garbage. the thing still uses BSPs for cryin' out loud! I want something new, something creative. in short. something _totally untried_. the advantage that using high speed CPUs affords the programmer/mathematician is the opportunity to use radically new techniques that the hardware designer could never have imagined. and to use them on market standard hardware.
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>As for the emulation of game consoles -- this is a very difficult proposition with the current generation of the game consoles because they have gotten very sophisticated. I doubt anyone will ever seriously attempt to build a PS2 emulator. A GameCube emulator is more possible (at least on the Mac), but it'll be the end of this year at least before the Mac has a graphics chip capable of the same things... and it'll be several years before a full software implementation is possible. Even XBox is more difficult than people realize because it uses a unified memory architecture and the PC doesn't have, thus making emulation a serious challenge -- and the graphics in the XBox are essential a geForce4 Ti, so the GF2 an GF3 aren't capable enough. Even given the right graphics chip there are enough issues that would impact performance, that it'll probably take a next generation machine to do the job. By the time emulation is feasible the game consoles will be on to their next iteration, which promises to be another quantum leap forward.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the X-Box will soon be forced to surrender it's secrets to the IBM PC community at large very soon. as I doubt it will stand up to the onslaught of Linux-toting SlashDot H4kørz for very long once they set their sights to it(Which they will). and as for a GameCube enviroment for the Mac. we _already have_ the GeForce 4 Titanium. which looks like it outdoes the GameCube's graphics right now. the big question is if the hacking community on the Mac is large enough to do it(Or if Connectix feels up to it again
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>And lastly: an Apple game console. Forget it. Apple would get laughed out of the market. They could never gather enough developer mindshare, and I know for a fact that they aren't even trying currently. Microsoft, with the multitude of PC game developers to draw from, and all of its might and financial muscle, is struggling to make the XBox work... and it does have the most powerful console hardware on the market. Its a cut-throat hardware business and Apple would be stupid to step into such a death trap. They'd end up just like Sega, 3DO, Atari, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they came in and crushed them all with a radically inventive(And _very_ difficult to copy) new console. as for Microsoft. the X-Box and the GameCube are so much alike. consumers are having trouble even differentiating between the two. thus further pounding in my assertion.
Eric,
[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
Polygon based geometry is not the vile thing you seem to think it is. Most of the polygons are approaching single pixel size most of the time now anyhow, and the ATI boards support automatic sub-tesselation of individual triangles. The new hardware is doing a lot of per-pixel lighting calculations, which goes a long way to hiding the polygonal faceting... combined with higher polygon counts and you can't see the faceting nearly as much (if at all in many cases).
All sorts of radical approaches are tried all the time and, frankly, the industry goes in the direction of the most practical and useful. Techniques like you talk about have been tried, but they can't compete with the power of the graphics hardware. The flexibility afforded by programmable graphics hardware will allow a great deal more differentiation than possible with older hardware, and the graphics hardware is advancing at a much greater rate than CPUs.
The GameCube's graphics hardware is actually very capable in terms of pixel computations, and it is not possible to emulate its behaviour on a geF4 or Radeon8500 (in hardware, and in software is too slow). The simplest example: GC supports 8 texture reads per pixel, whereas the geF4 supports 4 and the R8500 supports 6.
I'm not sure which "XBox secrets" you refer to. Even if its workings were entirely known, building an emulator that runs on standard PCs under Windows would have some serious performance issues (ring transitions, AGP bus performance, driver interface overhead, etc) and the games wouldn't operate properly as a result. Its possible, but the PCs are hamstrung by their hardware and OS.
What makes you think that anybody (much less Apple) could out-design the Sony, MS/nVidia, and Nintendo design teams? And even if they did, who would build the software for it? The existing designs are leading edge technology -- what makes you think that there can be a magic bullet to defeat them all, much less one that takes a radical new path? Consoles have to be built with essentially commodity parts (or parts built on the same production lines), otherwise production costs will price them way out of the market. Given that level of similarity there is no way that some newcomer to the market can sneak in and blow everybody away... unless of course you believe aliens are setting up factories at Apple HQ and will be cranking out these magical new devices? No, the next major console is coming from Sony because they are about a year ahead of the rest in their product lifecycle.
<strong>
My point is that Apple could give the high-end iMac and the stock PowerMac the same GPU. and the GeForce4 Titanuim would act as an iMac retardant for the high end PowerMacs(Let's face it. if someone wants to buy a $1,899 iMac instead of a $1,699 G4. they REALLY want an iMac).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a nearly infinite number of things Apple could do. Are we talking about suggestions of what Apple should do? I'm not. I'm discussing what Apple is most likely to do. I've already said that I'd like to see the iMac line more competitive in the gaming market. Specifically, I'd like to at see the ATI 7500 or the Geforce 4mx in the iMac. However, my point is that based on Apple's history, this will not happen anytime soon. Specifically, not before the Pro line is bumped to something like the Geforce 5mx. The good thing is that nVidia seems to be on a pretty aggresive schedule with their chip designs. Likewise, more powerful graphics chips may come more often then they have in the past. Still, I'd bet money the iMac's graphics chip does not get bumped in July!
Steve