Author Topic: Freespace 2 Ported To OS X  (Read 9344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Single tasking can be a nightmare to programe.
Beside I like to listen to Winamp while playing a couple of titles.
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
ok - MACS ARE NOT EVIL, anymore *gasp - i just said that!*

Mac hardware is kinda trashy, they overhype their products (But who doesn't!) the largest problem with their system is the hardware is proprietary.
[/i]) [/B]


IIRC, Macs were initially going to consider using an x86 chip (I think the 386, maybe earlier), but decided against it.... it pretty much forced them to go down their current road, because the company is too small to be a big player if they did switch to x86 - basically, they're Hd is their unique selling point.  I remember readin an interview with theMac CEO, who was benmoaning the fact that Dell (as an example) had been able to market their com puters much more effectively.

Although, the CPUs used by Macs are a hell of a lot more efficeint than both the Pentium & AMD architectures, IIRC.  I think they totally revised the G4(or whatever chip it was) when it went 64-bit, so they lost a lot of backwards compatibility but ended up with a far better chip design.

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
There's no point to pretend that recent x86 chips are backwards compatible.

I'd say they are compatible down to P2s, but nothing lower.


Mac did a sensible thing, and after all they deliver their whole comp as a single office equipment.
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Flaser
There's no point to pretend that recent x86 chips are backwards compatible.

I'd say they are compatible down to P2s, but nothing lower.


Don't they retain the same base instruction set, though?

 
i can still run MS-DOS on my P3 800, i don't get it.
just another newbie without any modding, FREDding or real programming experience

you haven't learned masochism until you've tried to read a Microsoft help file.  -- Goober5000
I've got 2 drug-addict syblings and one alcoholic whore. And I'm a ****ing sociopath --an0n
You cannot defeat Windows through strength alone. Only patience, a lot of good luck, and a sledgehammer will do the job. --StratComm

 
:wtf: Down to P2s? :wtf:

Then why do some of my friends HAVE NO TROUBLE AT ALL RUNNING PRE-386 GAMES ON THE PENTIUM 4?  OK, so they're all insane for not worshipping the almighty Athlon XP (praise it! praise it!), but I wouldn't say that Pentiums are so awful that they're not backwards-compatible.

There are no instructions in the 8086 original instruction set that the Pentium 4 does not have.  That's what defines it as an x86 chip: the instruction set.
'And anyway, I agree - no sig images means more post, less pictures. It's annoying to sit through 40 different sigs telling about how cool, deadly, or assassin like a person is.' --Unknown Target

"You know what they say about the simplest solution."
"Bill Gates avoids it at every possible opportunity?"
-- Nuke and Colonol Drekker

 

Offline StratComm

  • The POFressor
  • 212
  • Cameron Crazy
    • http://www.geocities.com/cek_83/index.html
The reason new stuff doesn't work on old chips is that the processor demand is too high, and because the internal architecture (motherboard, GFX, drivers, etc) on a machine still running a pre-P2 chip would be horrendously slow as well.  Backwards compatable means the new chip can run old stuff, not the other way around.  That's been one of my gripes with apple, in that a good bit of old stuff simply won't run on the new systems.
who needs a signature? ;)
It's not much of an excuse for a website, but my stuff can be found here

"Holding the last thread on a page comes with an inherent danger, especially when you are edit-happy with your posts.  For you can easily continue editing in points without ever noticing that someone else could have refuted them." ~Me, on my posting behavior

Last edited by StratComm on 08-23-2027 at 08:34 PM

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
What I meant is several old programes can't be run on the new machines.

There are exception I never said there was no backwards compatibility all I said is that to actually state we have coherent true compatibility is a joke.

BTW most of whatever your friends might be running is a result of some kind of emulation - a feature that's OS dependant.

Go to VOGONS and ask them - I humbly assume, that they would agree.

The stuff that was traslated to 385/486 often has unsolvablve issues.

A lots of thins can be emulated so there's no such thing as software impossible to run, we may just not have the toold to do so far.

Please don't confuse the two.

Just because windows can handle old games it doesn't mean that the architecture of your processor does as well.

Ever tried to run Bioforge on anything above a Pentium 1?
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 
Riiiiight... so Windoze is going to interpret the instruction opcodes in an older program and emulate the instructions no longer supported by the processor...

This DOES NOT HAPPEN.  If a program runs, it means that all the instructions used by it ARE supported by the architecture of the CPU.
'And anyway, I agree - no sig images means more post, less pictures. It's annoying to sit through 40 different sigs telling about how cool, deadly, or assassin like a person is.' --Unknown Target

"You know what they say about the simplest solution."
"Bill Gates avoids it at every possible opportunity?"
-- Nuke and Colonol Drekker

 

Offline tr909

  • 24
Wow, 4 pages of mac bashing, windows bashing, instruction optimization of CPU's. That while i searched for "freespace mac". There is a beta2 version of freespace2 for the mac, but i think it is based on a different linuxversion which in turn is i think based on the original sourcecode. (http://icculus.org/freespace2/)

My question to you is: Where can i find the SourceCodeProject (SCP) linux version? Second Question: Since much work is done on the engine in FreespaceOpen, How do the system requirements look? Because the original game engine ran well on a pentium200mmx.

I really hope some of the mac programmers pick this up and i hope we might end up with a true platform independent OpenFreespace.

 

Offline phreak

  • Gun Phreak
  • 211
  • -1
lets just say that will all the new graphics features turned and once its optimized on it should need at least a 700 mhz and 3rd Generation video card (Geforce/Radeon)
Offically approved by Ebola Virus Man :wtf:
phreakscp - gtalk

 

Offline pyro-manic

  • Flambé
  • 210
My parents got a mac in 1989. It still works today, and it's still useable! We also have an iMac and two PCs. They're both fine, except when the Mac freezes for no reason and when the PCs decide to bugger themselves up for no reason. OSX is beautiful, and looks way better than XP - my XP PC is skinned to look like OSX. It works bloody well, too.
Any fool can pull a trigger...

 

Offline Galemp

  • Actual father of Samus
  • 212
  • Current projects: GVCa Tanen, Vasudan Imperium
    • Steam
    • User page on the FreeSpace Wiki
*high-fives Pyro*
"Anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he's supposed to be doing at that moment." -- Robert Benchley

Members I've personally met: RedStreblo, Goober5000, Sandwich, Splinter, Su-tehp, Hippo, CP5670, Terran Emperor, Karajorma, Dekker, McCall, Admiral Wolf, mxlm, RedSniper, Stealth, Black Wolf...

 

Offline Lightspeed

  • Light Years Ahead
  • 212
Quote
Originally posted by Setekh
I still have a DOS partition, so I can properly play legacy games like Syndicate and have full DOS4GW, HIMEM and SBPCI support. ;)


... SBPCI support? SBPCI 128 maybe? I don't get mine to run under DOS, so if you know where I can get some drivers it would be appreciated ;)
Modern man is the missing link between ape and human being.

 
Looked at the printer drivers for my Canon i250 today... Win98 and ME drivers are 15Mb.  Pretty big, yes, but about right for modern drivers.  Very good if you consider that it includes image-optimising software and publishing stuff.

WinXP/2000: 50Mb.  Bloody ridiculous.  But hey, I've got a 40Gb disk.  I'm not bothered.

Mac OS X: 100Mb.  And that's JUST THE DRIVER.  The extra software isn't supported by Mac...

On the other hand, Linux doesn't HAVE any drivers for this printer.  So in this case, the Mac is looking pretty good compared to Red Hat Linux 9.

BTW, found this cartoon:
'And good riddance, too!'
And one about Linux:
'This can only mean trouble.'
And one about Windoze:
'Logging on.'
And this one's just generally funny:
'Say it... I dare you...'
'And anyway, I agree - no sig images means more post, less pictures. It's annoying to sit through 40 different sigs telling about how cool, deadly, or assassin like a person is.' --Unknown Target

"You know what they say about the simplest solution."
"Bill Gates avoids it at every possible opportunity?"
-- Nuke and Colonol Drekker

 

Offline tr909

  • 24
Blame Canon, not Apple... 100MB for a driver is like a a complete OS in there for handling printer stuff (or a complete CUPS, gimp-print, and Ghostscript packed together in an archive, but even that one isn't 100MB) This is a strange driver, indeed.  A quick scan of canon website gives 3.8MB for MacOS 9 drivers and 4.7MB for Mac OS X, where do you get the 100MB driver from? "the extra software isn't suported by mac", actually again blaim canon for not including image/publishing software for mac or linux, don't blaim apple.

(ps. the first cartoon very nicely shows that a simpleton can use a mac (OSX) just as easy as a diehard tcsh/bash/gcc unix lover can use it :-) )
« Last Edit: November 25, 2003, 01:46:10 pm by 1555 »

 
I wasn't actually blaming anyone for the huge file.  Just wondering why the Mac apparently required an entire printer OS.  These file sizes are based on the CD that came with the printer, and I expect that disk quota included swap/spooling space.
'And anyway, I agree - no sig images means more post, less pictures. It's annoying to sit through 40 different sigs telling about how cool, deadly, or assassin like a person is.' --Unknown Target

"You know what they say about the simplest solution."
"Bill Gates avoids it at every possible opportunity?"
-- Nuke and Colonol Drekker