Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
The list of commercial apps is NOT smaller on a mac. It is different.
I really don't see way we could prove it either way, but I am going to stick to my guns and say that there are more commercial applications for Windows due that having the most market share. Makes sense if you think about it, if you were a software development company wouldn't you want to make software that the maximum number of people can use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I believe you yourself mentioned osx has a unix core. There is a x-11 available on osx (although the one on the tiger cd is buggy, there's a new downloadable one) and you can compile any unix software and some linux software to run on osx. Example? WINE.
Last time I installed it, it didn't tell me until afterwards that only Intel PCs could run WINE (it didn't tell me this until it was finished installed). But I see that there seems to be a PowerPC package, so I will install that next time I'm at work and see what happens. But, then again, why would you want to install WINE? I thought Mac came with everything you need/want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I dont know why it's done this way, but i am guessing it's got something to do with threading, but programs that interface with the web browsers just seem to work better in osx. Specifically real player can save streams as they are being played, instead of trying to pull tricks to get the link to them.
This is probably related to the Unix nature of the OS. As I don't think multi-threading applications where really popular/useful until the NT kernel came around (just my opinion).
And as far as saving streams on windows is concerned, there are TONS of applications that can record streams. This isn't a "Mac special feature" thing.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
you wouldn't want to install wine. It doesnt actually work very well. I was using that as an example program that is unix based that works on osx. It's the only one i could think of off the top of my head. If you really had to had windows software you would be better off running parallels software in concurrence mode (both windows and mac windows on same desktop, which no other OS is capable of) or virtual pc (also available on mac). If i were to run any emulators on mac (and i do) it would be for my wife to run family tree maker 16. There's actually a better (and in fact the top-rated of all of them) program out for mac called "Reunion", but this one she's used to (kind of like you're used to windows). Oh- i also run dosbox so i can run older dos games. But i run it on xp as well. Privateer, bards tale, etc.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
you wouldn't want to install wine. It doesnt actually work very well. I was using that as an example program that is unix based that works on osx. It's the only one i could think of off the top of my head. If you really had to had windows software you would be better off running parallels software in concurrence mode (both windows and mac windows on same desktop, which no other OS is capable of) or virtual pc (also available on mac). If i were to run any emulators on mac (and i do) it would be for my wife to run family tree maker 16. There's actually a better (and in fact the top-rated of all of them) program out for mac called "Reunion", but this one she's used to (kind of like you're used to windows). Oh- i also run dosbox so i can run older dos games. But i run it on xp as well. Privateer, bards tale, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't parallels only work on Intel Macs?
Last time I installed Windows XP in a VM on Mac, I think the processor speed that Windows reported was like 50mhz or something (i have to look back on my Mac), but it was EXTREMELY slow.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Parallels gives direct pc access and if you have multi-core it allows that as well. Apps not only run full speed but you even have good enough hardware support to play directx games.
You can even double click a file in the windows and it is opened in a mac program, should you desire. You can also do it the other way. It FULLY integrates the systems to the point that if you were to be retarded, you could actually launch macintosh applications using the windows start menu. But why would you want to? It even lists all the appropriate mac apps in the windows "open with" dialog. But that's not really an issue. the only program my wife uses on her mac besides web browsing is Family tree maker. Everything else runs fine natively on the mac. And some stuff only runs on the mac. and i frankly have never understood why microsoft has stolen every good idea mac has had except expose'. It is the best way to find windows (better than alt tab or 3d-view). Why didnt they steal that one too? Windows would be 123% friendlier.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Parallels gives direct pc access and if you have multi-core it allows that as well. Apps not only run full speed but you even have good enough hardware support to play directx games.
Wikipedia claims it doesn't, and for those who are skeptical about Wikipedia see this link.
Define play. I really doubt the quality will be good enough to play anything using the graphics hardware you have. Ie, what do you have to do? Turn the res down to 800x600? 640x480? I wont disagree that it will run, but how well. Will it run as good as my install of Windows XP Pro on my Powerbook G4?
Quote:
You can even double click a file in the windows and it is opened in a mac program, should you desire. You can also do it the other way. It FULLY integrates the systems to the point that if you were to be retarded, you could actually launch macintosh applications using the windows start menu. But why would you want to? It even lists all the appropriate mac apps in the windows "open with" dialog. But that's not really an issue. the only program my wife uses on her mac besides web browsing is Family tree maker. Everything else runs fine natively on the mac. And some stuff only runs on the mac. and i frankly have never understood why microsoft has stolen every good idea mac has had except expose'. It is the best way to find windows (better than alt tab or 3d-view). Why didnt they steal that one too? Windows would be 123% friendlier.
Oh yeah, Microsoft stole things like the taskbar, the start menu, systray, and defiantly the start menu. Just because company b makes something after company a doesn't mean they stole the idea. I created an instant messenger in VB, does that mean I stole the idea from AIM? And alt-tab works just fine for me. Alt-tab + taskbar is a great combination for getting to programs. If you are really that lazy to where you can't move the mouse to bring a program's window to the front....I think you need more exercise. Windows already is user friendly, you just have to use once in a while. That is, I am speaking of everything below (and including) XP.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
hey dont get mad. They have admitted most of their thefts. They used to have a partnership remember? They stole the entire icon/mouse combo idea. There was a movie made about it.
And i didnt say alt-tab was broken. I said the mac one works better. It takes every window on the screen and shrinks them until they are all displayed at once but still at proper scale.
And as for parallels, the wiki article is outdated. Older versions did NOT support dx. The newer ones do. But for that matter games that run on the mac and windows (natively) have been shown to have higer framerates on the mac. (on same system). Quake 4 comes to mind.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
hey dont get mad. They have admitted most of their thefts. They used to have a partnership remember? They stole the entire icon/mouse combo idea. There was a movie made about it.
And i didnt say alt-tab was broken. I said the mac one works better. It takes every window on the screen and shrinks them until they are all displayed at once but still at proper scale.
And as for parallels, the wiki article is outdated. Older versions did NOT support dx. The newer ones do. But for that matter games that run on the mac and windows (natively) have been shown to have higer framerates on the mac. (on same system). Quake 4 comes to mind.
You keep on avoiding the subtle details.
Where did you read that? I just googled 2 articles for Quake 4:
http://www.barefeats.com/kak4.html (Mac tests)
http://www.epinions.com/content_219635682948 (PC Tests)
Do you have anything to prove this? And I doubt that there wasn't that much higher of framerates to be able to brag about it. I say anything between an increase of 5-10 FPS isn't enough to say "my Mac performs better than your PC". And something in the back of my mind is saying that doesn't seem right. If Quake 4 did perform better on a Mac that would say that OpenGL is better than DirectX. Which, last time I checked OpenGL was just a graphics library. Now a whole framework API. I'm not saying that OpenGL doesn't work good, but DirectX usually has more features and usually performs better. Usually.
I mean yeah, if you have the 8800 GS in your iMac, that thing is gonna chug along. But, it would perform the same in a PC, maybe better, maybe worse. But the end results wouldn't be far enough to brag about.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
the tests that i viewed used both xp and osx on the SAME SYSTEM.
and i just noticed this: I am quite aware there are programs on intel that can save flv files to disk. The problem is they treat them like files. If you are already viewing them in a browser, and you start their download, you are downloading the same file twice. On a mac, it takes the file as it is being streamed as you are watching it, and saves THAT to the hard drive.
also, 5 to 10 fps is a lofty goal for a lot of people. That's probably the difference between an 8600 and an 8800.
Your benchmarks you posted are worthless. They are running on different hardware with different settings.
Also should mention someone brought up comparing office 2003. That was never released on mac. they came out with a newer version, Office 2004. This version is not available on windows.
Yes opengl is "only" a graphics library. It also emulates any graphics function your video card doesn't have, for 100% compatibility. And have you ever heard of OpenAL? That's the audio component. Between the two of them they are equivalent to directx, which is a combo video and audio. The problem is it is hard to use with audio.
Finally, nearly every single benchmark you will find on the internet is not applicable because the patch apple released about a month ago (10.5.2) nearly doubled the framerates for most users on games. Since you like sources, here you go: http://www.wowinsider.com/2008/02/11...big-fps-gains/
As for the rest, i do in fact use a mac that has the same software on both. the only programs that are running slower are those that are emulating the powerpc core using rosetta so they function properly.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
and i just noticed this: I am quite aware there are programs on intel that can save flv files to disk. The problem is they treat them like files. If you are already viewing them in a browser, and you start their download, you are downloading the same file twice. On a mac, it takes the file as it is being streamed as you are watching it, and saves THAT to the hard drive.
I'll admit that is plus one for Mac for having it built in. But, that's no reason to jump for joy and start converting Windows users to Mac. Usually if you want to watch a stream of something you only wanted to watch it once.
But, just for giggles can you walk us through this so us kiddes can try it at home?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
also, 5 to 10 fps is a lofty goal for a lot of people. That's probably the difference between an 8600 and an 8800.
Personally, if someone at a lan party kept bragging that he got 10 FPS more than me, I would slap him in the back of the head for being so annoying. But, in reality I would just say, "that's nice. Doesn't seem to be helping you any in game when I keep on killing you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Your benchmarks you posted are worthless. They are running on different hardware with different settings.
Hey, don't yell at me for that one. The last Vista on a Mac test I read was like that. And its not worthless, it does show that there is a difference in performance. It's not like I was comparing on a 500mhz mac vs 3ghz pc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Yes opengl is "only" a graphics library. It also emulates any graphics function your video card doesn't have, for 100% compatibility. And have you ever heard of OpenAL? That's the audio component. Between the two of them they are equivalent to directx, which is a combo video and audio. The problem is it is hard to use with audio.
DirectX is more than just an audio/graphics library. DirectX allows you to interface to gaming devices such as controllers, it also has networking capabilities (even IPX, not that anyone would use it). And what is hard to use with audio?
I think I said this before in the thread, but, I'll say it again to be clear. We can go on and on an infinite number of Windows is better vs Mac is better arguments. Until someone starts going below the belt and calling the other person names or a lier *cough*Cander*cough* and then they quickly start to lose ethos for their arguments. I just present the facts, if you don't like them, prove me wrong! I will gladly accept anyone who can prove me wrong, granted its from a creditable source and not some somedomain.com/~user kinda link. Proving someone wrong not only helps that person in the future, but it also helps other readers learn the facts. Else if you can't prove me wrong get out of the kitchen. Or was the saying something else? Ah who knows ;). Because if you just say I'm wrong without any sort of backing, then we are getting no where fast. Imagine a fight with your little brother/sister, "I'm right" - "No, I'm right".
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
www.openal.org
www.opengl.org
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D
In general, Direct3D is designed to be a 3D hardware interface. The feature set of Direct3D is derived from the feature set of what hardware provides. OpenGL, on the other hand, is designed to be a 3D rendering system that may be hardware accelerated. These two APIs are fundamentally designed under two separate modes of thought. The fact that the two APIs have become so similar in functionality shows how well hardware is converging into user functionality.
Even vista supports three different implementations of opengl. If you were a developer, would you target one os, or would you use a cross-platform soltuion that is not only just as powerful, but easier to program for? Opengl emulates anything that isn't hardware-based. If your system has a fast enough processor, you can conceivably render it all in system memory and all visual functions will work properly. There's a very good reason why nearly every game released that supports dx10 also supports 9. and most also support opengl. Of course it's in microsoft's best interests to be proprietary, but they've been up to that for years, even coming up with their own proprietary version of javascript. And their own version of Java console. Well the people have spoken and no one supports vbscript on their web pages, and sun java console is just plain better (and works on all OSes).
I can't give you links to everything i know about osx because a lot of it is personal experience. Programs seem to be better designed. Even open-source stuff that shouldn't have any differences still has differences. Try using videolan player's advanced functionality. The options screen is much cleaner on the mac version. The pc version has a confusion of buttons and option-buttons that is daunting to even experienced users. This is because of the controls available to a mac programmer are in some cases more powerful than anything on windows. The control that they use to navigate windows (like in the finder) doesnt even have a windows equivalent.
framerates: 20 fps is almost unplayable. 30 is playable with no jitters. There might not be a noticeable difference between 70 and 80, but a processor-intensive game (such as NWN2) isn't going to give you framerates that high anyway. (until they fix whatever the heck is wrong with their game)
but as for other things:
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/X11.html running x-windows on mac
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html Mac's official unix certification 100% compliant in all areas. There's your unix source. I am really tired... Surely you could find some of this stuff yourself?
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
One of the bigger problems Mac has going against it in gaming is they still can't do SLI/Crossfire. Only just recently, Apple came out with a dual 16X system. Something I've been running for over two years now and almost a necessity when you have a big LCD display with a 1920x1080 or so native resolution (because god forbid, reducing an LCD display to anything below native res looks truly awful).
Plus, a lot of bigger titles still have no native Mac support such as Crysis, Half Life 2, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and even the game I'm playing now, Sins of a Solar Empire. Heck, the game you mention, NWN2 only recently came out natively for a Mac. Sure, you can run Bootcamp and after much headache and tweaking as well as a copy of Windows XP, you can run all of these on a Mac, but then, what's the point? Might as well just run a native PC at that point.
The biggest thing holding back developers from writing for native OpenGL anymore is lack of good driver support. The OpenGL drivers for video cards just don't get nearly as tweaked or optimized as often as their D3D counterparts.
In the computer gaming field, most gamers have begun to see OpenGL as "that secondary renderer if D3D isn't working or you're not running Windows", and is generally associated with worse framerates and/or less graphical eyecandy because of less mature drivers and developers not wanting to do all the extra work programming their most advanced effects for a second API. At least OpenGL is kept pretty alive and well in the console markets with the PS3 and Wii.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
i wouldnt say lack of sli is a big issue. It's a relatively small part of the consumer market. Yes it is probably costing them some sales, but probably not enough to matter. And yes opengl usage has waned over the years, but i am predicting a comeback thanks to the larger market share of both mac and linux that has occurred in the last few years. Going multi-platform with your game is easy if you have one library to support on all of them. As for audio, most are using a proprietary (but free) library called fmod. It's more powerful than either of the alternatives, and is truly multiplatform (even on gamecube). As well as being a whole lot easier to use. I've used it and it supports 26 audio formats (counting playlists) and uses a single play command no matter what kind of file it is. All the work is done under the hood.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
www.openal.org
www.opengl.org
Even vista supports three different implementations of opengl. If you were a developer, would you target one os, or would you use a cross-platform soltuion that is not only just as powerful, but easier to program for? Opengl emulates anything that isn't hardware-based. If your system has a fast enough processor, you can conceivably render it all in system memory and all visual functions will work properly. There's a very good reason why nearly every game released that supports dx10 also supports 9. and most also support opengl. Of course it's in microsoft's best interests to be proprietary, but they've been up to that for years, even coming up with their own proprietary version of javascript. And their own version of Java console. Well the people have spoken and no one supports vbscript on their web pages, and sun java console is just plain better (and works on all OSes).
Direct3D is a component of DirectX. And the official reason why games that support DirectX10 also support DirectX9 is because they want to make sure you can play it. DirectX10 cards are not mainstream yet. It's like the same question as the development on Mac vs PC, would you make a game that only targeted a specific set of users, or would you want to make sure that everyone who purchased your game could pick up off the shelves and play it?
I use Irrlicht for the record, which IS cross platform. And at the same time I am able to use DirectX.
Everyone does Javascript differently, this is why when you design something for one browser it might work, it might not work on others. Welcome to world of web design, would you like fries with that order? It's just not a "Microsoft thing" and yes Microsoft
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I can't give you links to everything i know about osx because a lot of it is personal experience. Programs seem to be better designed. Even open-source stuff that shouldn't have any differences still has differences. Try using videolan player's advanced functionality. The options screen is much cleaner on the mac version. The pc version has a confusion of buttons and option-buttons that is daunting to even experienced users. This is because of the controls available to a mac programmer are in some cases more powerful than anything on windows. The control that they use to navigate windows (like in the finder) doesnt even have a windows equivalent.
I had absolutely no problems using it on the Windows side. I figured out how to play locally from the audio in on my built in audio card in about 30 min. That is after I read the instructions on how to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
framerates: 20 fps is almost unplayable. 30 is playable with no jitters. There might not be a noticeable difference between 70 and 80, but a processor-intensive game (such as NWN2) isn't going to give you framerates that high anyway. (until they fix whatever the heck is wrong with their game)
but as for other things:
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/X11.html running x-windows on mac
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html Mac's official unix certification 100% compliant in all areas. There's your unix source. I am really tired... Surely you could find some of this stuff yourself?
Actually, theoretically the eye can't see a difference past 30FPS (it's an unwritten rule, many agree on 30-60. Anything past that, you *might* notice a difference, though it'll just look a little more smooth.)
When did I disagree with you that X11 doesn't run on Mac? Also when did I say that Max wasn't Unix compliant?
And you wouldn't really use any of these libraries directly, that's a waste of your time to learn it. Well, 1 of 2 things would happen, you would write a library wrapper for it, or you find a wrapper that someone else has made.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
you weren't the only one in the thread besides me. Someone else said "there are things you can do on unix you can't do on a mac or windows"
Fmod doesnt use wrappers. It has a class (in source code) you can use, but you call all the functions directly. In high-performance programming (like games or audio) people who are writing games, etc that are processor intensive tend to stay away from wrappers. There are two reasons for this.
1. The wrappers never have every function the original has
2. The wrapper is more code to run and slows the program down. There is both a wrapper and an activex control available that makes programming directx easier. But you will rarely see anyone using either of them, unless they are embedding the activex control in a webpage.
Direct3d is part of directx, just like visual basic is part of visual studio. It is a separate component. The SDK makes this all clear. The help files are even separate between the different parts: Directplay, directdraw, direct3d, directinput, directmedia, directsound. You can use one or all of them, but they are not dependent on each other at all, and with the exception of directdraw and direct3d in dx10, all have to be decared as separate objects in your program.
There is no difference in this implementation than the open-source one i cited, except that being open-source, they don't force you to install the parts you don't want. I really don't know if there's an equivalent to the directinput. But according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx directinput has been depreciated in favor of standard windows messages anyway.
Not everyone's eyes are the same, but i can personally see flickering of flourescent bulbs which pulse at 60 times a second, and i am not the only one. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergon...g_flicker.html
By the way, where's your citation that eyes are 30hz? Even if that were so, that would be per eye. I have two.
who said anything about javascript. I said microsoft tried to replace it with a similar but proprietary to IE technology called vbscript.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBScript . Read the "uses" section.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
you weren't the only one in the thread besides me. Someone else said "there are things you can do on unix you can't do on a mac or windows"
This is why god invented the quoting function in bulletin boards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Fmod doesnt use wrappers. It has a class (in source code) you can use, but you call all the functions directly. In high-performance programming (like games or audio) people who are writing games, etc that are processor intensive tend to stay away from wrappers. There are two reasons for this.
1. The wrappers never have every function the original has
2. The wrapper is more code to run and slows the program down. There is both a wrapper and an activex control available that makes programming directx easier. But you will rarely see anyone using either of them, unless they are embedding the activex control in a webpage.
How is the wrapper more code to run? It should run the same, maybe a few ms slower. Dlls are one thing, but when you compile it into the application (I'm taking you into C++ land now) it should NOT slow down the execution of the application in any way. Take a look at the DX wrappers for VB6, if they really do make it slower, then why do so many people use it? Irrlicht works pretty well. GTK works quite well. Now we can get into the whole debate of wither or not functions make a program slower. But, lets go into that scenario, wrappers are just a function whose parameters it takes it gets passed to the API. ActiveX is so rare, there are only 2 times which I have seen it used. Pr0n sites/warez sites and windows updates. Oh, so your telling me you wold rather write a program using this over this. Really now, I would like to write my first Windows program in C++ before my 80th birthday rolls around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Direct3d is part of directx, just like visual basic is part of visual studio. It is a separate component. The SDK makes this all clear. The help files are even separate between the different parts: Directplay, directdraw, direct3d, directinput, directmedia, directsound. You can use one or all of them, but they are not dependent on each other at all, and with the exception of directdraw and direct3d in dx10, all have to be decared as separate objects in your program.
There is no difference in this implementation than the open-source one i cited, except that being open-source, they don't force you to install the parts you don't want. I really don't know if there's an equivalent to the directinput. But according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx directinput has been depreciated in favor of standard windows messages anyway.
This is true, but your missing the simple fact that it's all bundled together AND commercially supported. Totally not dissing open source again, but, with DirectX you don't have to go searching for a audio library, graphics library, networking library. And again, I VERY RARELY seen anyone use pure direct3D programming. You would mostly likely use some sort of library. What do you think the people at ID software do? Get programmers to make the engine using DX (or OpenGL) and have them pass it off to the game developers. I guarantee that everyone there will not tweak the engine with pure DirectX code unless they REALLY have to. And from a programmers point of view, having it all together in a nice package is a god send. I don't know why you would want to install individual packages. That's like ordering a burger without the meat. "Yeah hey Bob, check it out, I only install Directsound. Joe, that's cool, now what you are going to do with it? Absolutely nothing Bob." Lets apply your philosophy to the .Net framework. Oh wait you can't, it's all or nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Not everyone's eyes are the same, but i can personally see flickering of flourescent bulbs which pulse at 60 times a second, and i am not the only one.
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergon...g_flicker.html
By the way, where's your citation that eyes are 30hz? Even if that were so, that would be per eye. I have two.
Lemme quote myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1ll3rdr4g0n
Actually, theoretically the eye can't see a difference past 30FPS (it's an unwritten rule, many agree on 30-60. Anything past that, you *might* notice a difference, though it'll just look a little more smooth.)
I said theoretically, in theory. You know, that whole scientific method thing...oh nevermind. I never said "everyone on Earth can see at 30FPS". I said
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1ll3rdr4g0n
many agree on 30-60
Link1 Link2. Now lets not get into this kinda argument in this thread as its completely unrelated to the topic at hand...but it is generally accepted as 30-60FPS. Now, if you ask your gamer friend, I'm sure his response would be something along the lines of "as many as I can get dood! Just check out my $500 video card where I get 300FPS". Personally, anything above 30 is just fine, 60 and above is excellent. Anything past 60 is just extra "fluff". This is coming from someone who has stared into a CRT all his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
who said anything about javascript. I said microsoft tried to replace it with a similar but proprietary to IE technology called vbscript.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBScript . Read the "uses" section.
I read it, but I think you are reading too much into it. It never says anything about Microsoft trying to replace Javascript with vbscript. And vbscript is more than just a IE thing. It's also a scripting language inside of Windows, and sometimes used with ASP (as mentioned via that same wiki article).
Though, in the end I think you are confusing yourself with JScript, not VBScript. And even at that, they are compliant now they chose to use standard Javascript a LONG time ago. They are making a .Net version of it, but that's a whole different life's story.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
well i've actually been alive during their introduction to their vbscript support into ie which took place AFTER javascript was invented, and you can draw your own conclusions from that one. And it's funny you mentioned ID software since all of the software they produce supports opengl. And their new game engine actually demoed on a Macintosh. http://techreport.com/discussions.x/12645
And i am quite aware that jscript and vbscript are different. I used to program in vbscript. http://www.tizag.com/vbscriptTutoria...riptmsgbox.php
shows what i am talking about. Functional vbscript in IE but not in any other browser. And they are up to their old tricks again! Silverlight ring a bell?
Plus i was agreeing with you about the framerate actually. I said 20fps was poor playing while 30 was playable. Some games actually lock out the fps from going higher than 30 (gothic comes to mind although there's a patch that raises it to 50)
As for installing individual packages of directx components: I can think of a couple of examples: Directmedia is no longer supported but it's still there from an old directx version. Can't remove it. Also i personally don't like directsound and neither do a lot of programmers. It's not just the ease of use of other packages, but for whatever reason directsound uses more resources. Even the "de reguer" benchmark 3dmark2006 supports directx graphics but uses the fmod api i mentioned earlier for its sound. Proof? Look at the splash screen when you run it. Their logo is there.
I will take a closer look at rad c++. Looks similar to the c# setup where you can create forms. I also noticed it has a tutorial for using it with opengl.
Final note: I really dont understand how you can't think adding an extra layer of code to execute isn't going to slow the program down. It's more instructions for the processor to handle.
Re: Going Mac, are they better?
I use Mac's often at work. I do video production. Don't beleive all the hype about them. They're just as junk as a windows box with their own set of stupidity. Yes Vista is garbage, but OSwhatever is just as bad.
