aka_tom_w

If the first game represents some aspect of WWII and it does NOT have the Tiger 1 in it then IMHO they have missed the boat. (BUT that's Just me!) I would prefer something new like Korea (50's) or the Arab Isreali wars. OR any game that had REAL flying helicopter gun ships in it! I highly doubt a Vietman game would be their first release so I am not suggesting that BUT in any case bring on the helicopters and the tanks and the surface to air missiles from any era! A well marketed and WELL researched non WWII game might be a welcome change if it could be warmly received by this community as historically accruate, on the NEW CMx2 engine. Sorry -tom w One day this might prove useful. [ September 26, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

UM on second thought the CMx2 environment WON'T be like CMxx so we might in fact see clouds move in the sky that block the sun and a back ground that changes if there is rain or a storm moving in? maybe? I guess CMx2 will be VERY different in that regard (we HOPE!) -tom w

Um GOOD idea they "might" think about that for CMx2 maybe? -tom w

MO at WWDC - Analysts Have More Questions Than Answers For Intel-Based Macs by Brad Cook, 5:55 PM EDT, June 6th, 2005 Human beings have always feared the unknown, so it wasn't a surprise when Apple announced on Monday that it is moving to Intel-based Macs starting next year and many of its customers and developers reacted with apprehension. With scant hard details available, analysts contacted by The Mac Observer painted a picture of short-term confusion, followed by a possible medium-term sales dip for Apple, with a final long-term outlook that could be very positive for the company, assuming many questions get answered. "It comes down to how good a sales job Steve Jobs did today," Jupiter Research analyst Joe Wilcox said. "Apple is in a hard place, because architecture changes are difficult to make." "I know it's early, but more information than standard PR boilerplate would have been helpful," added NPD analyst Steve Baker. "[Apple's developers] are people committed to the Mac; they need more hand-holding. In the long run, they'll be happy, but in the short term, they will ask 'What does this mean to me? How much will it cost me? What does it mean for the platform going forward?'" Once Apple gets beyond the short term, however, Mr. Wilcox saw several advantages the company will receive from its partnership with Intel. "Intel does a lot of work with software developers," he explained, "so Apple will get some of that benefit. On the chipset level, Intel provides a lot of its own that come with Bluetooth or WiFi or integrated graphics and so forth. That could reduce costs for Apple and increase their margins. "And the whole notebook issue will be solved: Intel has Centrino, which means low power, low heat and long battery life. There doesn't appear to be a portable G5 chip in the future." "If you had to pick one reason [why this happened], [the notebook issue] had to be it," said Mr. Baker. "In the long run, it will be positive for market share, especially as we see the transition to notebooks, given IBM's inability to get the G5 into a notebook. That would have become a big problem for Apple in the next couple years." In the long term, Mr. Wilcox was unsure if the partnership will yield more market share for Apple. "It's too early to take a guess," he said. "But this could help with expansion into new markets. Apple created an iPod division, and if it adds other consumer devices, Intel could provide the chipsets for them." Mr. Wilcox was also hesitant to discuss Apple's short-term outlook, given the speculation by some pundits that today's news could mean flat or even declining Mac sales until the new machines hit the market. Mr. Baker didn't foresee an immediate drop, but "when you get closer to the switch-over date, a lot of people may hold off on their purchases." And while it's probably safe to assume that Apple will lock down its Intel-based Macs to ensure that consumers can't buy garden variety PCs and install Mac OS X on them, IDC analyst Roger Kay said that if the company doesn't do a good job of that, it "will end up where Microsoft is. Apple hasn't had a lot of copy protection, but if they don't control this, they will have the same piracy problems as Microsoft. This could also put Apple hardware sales in jeopardy, if people can buy any x86 platform and run Mac OS X on it." "There are still a lot of unanswered questions," summed up Mr. Baker. "How will Apple make sure people are still buying PowerPC products for the next two years? What's their strategy to prevent cloning? What kind of products will come out first? We still haven't seen the full disclosure behind this."

Thanks Berlichtingen Good point I have not seen the Keynote yet. This is another update: "Intel-based Macs to include 'Rosetta' for legacy apps Tuesday, June 7, 2005 @ 7:55am Apple yesterday announced that its Intel-based Macs will include Rosetta, a technology that will allow them to run PowerPC applications. The technology allows the thousands of applications already available for PowerPC-based Macs to run on the new Intel architecture. In his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs yesterday demonstrated both Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop running on an Intel-based Mac using the Rosetta technology, claiming that the experience would be transparent to the end user--unlike the Classic, Apple's emulation layer for running Mac OS 9 applications on Mac OS X. According to PC Pro, not all applications will be compatible with Rosetta, including those that have "intense computing needs" such as 3D modelling or ray tracing applications. "Not all OS X applications will run under Rosetta and some will run better than others. Applications that have a lot of user interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren't compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D modelling, or compute ray tracing."

its hard to say There is for sure and intial intense emtional shock in regards to shacking up with what is largely perceived to be one half of the Evil Wintel Empire.... BUT it might not be so bad. But..... Maybe Macs will get Faster and Cheaper processors Maybe we can buy hardware that will run BOTH Mac and windows operating systems seemlessly and simultaneously! (Windows only boxes Will NEVER run the Mac OS X but intel bozes from apple MIGHT support windows if the customer buys it as a seperate OS and installs it) Maybe it is a positive thing for Apple. at least I sure hope it is because to be honest it "feels" for all the world like a "sell out" and that Jobs and Apple have "soiled" themselves on Intel's "welcome" mat. oh well it will take a FULL two years to complete the transition and in the mean time we can expect there will be no new Power PC Mac hardware offerings. So that means what they are selling right now is what they will market and offer for the forseeable future... (the next year) the Mac Mini is slated to be the first hardware platform to host the new Intel chip (what ever it is) its all VERY interesting for Mac folks! -tom w

Dual boot Macs??? on the SAME hardware maybe QUOTE: from here web page Enter another one of Intel's platform pieces, VT (Virtualization Technology). VT makes it possible for one machine to run several different operating systems at once. Intel has partnered with software virtualization pioneer VMware to implement its own software layer for VT; Microsoft will have another. VT demos have been fairly primitive so far, forcing users to switch from one virtual desktop to another to run software in different partitions. Microsoft has the technology to create a more natural windowed environment, but so does Apple—and Apple has proved more agile in developing user-interface technology over the last few years. Again, Jobs said nothing about this prospect, but I know Apple could make this work, and I doubt they'll overlook the opportunity. Properly implemented, an x86 Mac wouldn't need to boot Windows to run Windows software. Mac OS would be the primary operating system, but if the customer wants Windows, Windows could get its own partition. With Windows running on the same machine, Apple can make Windows applications part of the Mac OS X environment. Apple could end up with the best of all worlds—simultaneous Mac OS and Windows operation on a wide range of commodity platforms. Today, it isn't practical for Apple to develop its own tablet computers or eight-way servers because of hardware engineering costs. With suitable hardware available off the shelf in the PC industry, Apple can create such systems just by doing the necessary software development. Most of this work, in fact, has already been done. Reaching this promised land will still take a lot of hard work by Apple and its independent software developers. Apple is targeting the 64-bit mode of Intel's x86 processors (the mode originally developed by AMD and dubbed AMD64). Apple already has 64-bit support in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), but almost none of the Tiger code runs in 64-bit mode. Apple will have to make the transition to x86 and 64-bit operation at the same time. It's unclear how much of this work has been done. Jobs announced that for the last five years, it has pursued a cross-platform development strategy; Apple's operating systems and applications have all been built and tested for x86 and PowerPC compatibility. But Apple hasn't had access to 64-bit x86 platforms for all this time. I think it's likely that the 64-bit transition is still under way in Cupertino. It's ironic that up in Seattle, Microsoft is moving the other way. We usually think of Microsoft as a software company, but it sells many more Xbox consoles than Apple sells Macs. With similar needs for multimedia processing and price/performance, and a large installed base of x86 software, Microsoft selected PowerPC for its next-generation Xbox 360. For similar reasons, Sony is moving from MIPS processors to PowerPC in PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is sticking with PowerPC for its forthcoming Revolution system. IBM designed all three of these new PowerPC processors; together, the three consoles will ship almost as many processors as Intel. Apple's future includes less RISC, but more risks. Faced with a straight-up choice between Windows Longhorn and Mac OS X "Leopard" on the same hardware, some Microsoft customers will switch—but will there be more switchers than Apple would have attracted to the PowerPC platform? And what about Apple's short-term prospects? Pending the arrival of better Intel microprocessors, the first generation of x86-based PCs won't be dramatically better than the new Power Macs Jobs promised us. Power Macs will also have better software support for years to come, but will Apple's existing customers be comfortable buying a platform that is scheduled for cancellation? Apple is looking at a year or two of combining nervous uncertainty with the hope of fantastic success. Realizing this dream will require a lot of engineering effort from Apple and Intel, and a lot of faith from Apple's faithful. web page [ June 06, 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

You are more than welcome I did for my own sanity so I could stay current with all the recent bones that came out in a kind of "flury" lately and did not want them to be lost in a locked and buried thread as it was over 300 posts at the time I gathered them and posted them. "it takes a village" (If you don't know what that means it might be because you are not a parent) -tom w

You are more than welcome I did for my own sanity so I could stay current with all the recent bones that came out in a kind of "flury" lately and did not want them to be lost in a locked and buried thread as it was over 300 posts at the time I gathered them and posted them. "it takes a village" (If you don't know what that means it might be because you are not a parent) -tom w

gotta go there is a running text update here web page here

10:41 AM: Again, Steve mentions that most applications will only need a recompiling to be compatible. For other applications, he's referenced a technology called "Rosetta", which will translate PPC instructions for Intel Processors will be done in real time.

10:45am PDT - Steve back onstage: “Not every application will be Universal on Day 1.” A new technology, Rosetta, will run existing PowerPC apps on Intel. Dynamic binary translation, transparent to users. “Fast (enough),” the slide jokes, that most users won’t know. 10:46am PDT - Demo: MS Word PowerPC binary on Intel. Excel spreadsheet. They’re no notably slower than usual. Photoshop still takes forever to load, but all the plugins work. Photoshop Filters seem fast enough. 10:49am PDT - Select and premier ADC member software developers will be getting a build kit. 10:50am PDT - Roz Ho, General Manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit, is onstage to talk about what MS is doing for the Intel platform.

10:35am PDT - “Here’s the geekout for developers”. Widgets, scripts, Java: they’ll just work. Cocoa - Xcode: small tweak, recompile. Carbon - Xcode - a few weeks of tweaking, recompile. Carbon- Metroworks: Move to XCode. 10:37am PDT - There’s a checkbox for builds: “Intel, PowerPC” that makes a cross-platform single binary. 10:38am PDT - Theo Gray, cofounder of Wolfram Research, comes onstage to talk about porting Mathematica in the past 5 days. 10:39am PDT - “I get the most ridiculous phone calls from Apple sometimes. This was like 9 c’clock at night and he says, ‘I can’t tell you what it is, but …” they flew out a developer with source code to do a demo for today. 10:40am PDT - Theo is hilarious. “I said, ‘I’ll send out our crack team of Mac developers that we keep on standby.’” Turns to guy standing next to computer. “That’s you, Rob.”

Holy CRAP: Live Updates Site: 10:32: The demos of the last half-hour of Tiger cuts been one has Pentium 4. 10:31: We face two challenges. The first, is Mac OS X one INTEL. We' ve been maintaining Mac OS X one INTEL AND PPC, secretly, for the past 5 years, just in box. Now is the time. Every prior release of multiple Mac OS X has been compiled for architectures. 10:30: June 2006 will begin our INTEL transition. By June 2007, we will Be complete. 10:29: Why are we switching to INTEL? INTEL offers great performance. INTEL offers great power consumption. The transition will take has few years, goal it will Be worth it. We want to Be making the best computer for the customer going forward. 10:27: We' ve been through many transistions. 680x0 to PowerPC, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Today we begin has third transition. It' S true; We are switching to INTEL. 10:24: Mac OS X 10.5 will Be called Leopard. 10:16: iTunes has has podcast directory now.

its TRUE "10:31 AM: The Intel Processor switch transition will be long term, with most of the product line in the Intel based chips, June 2007. Steve notes that the Marklar rumors that have been circulating for years are true, that the last five versions of Mac OS X has been compiled for both the PPC and Intel based chips." Live from the Keynote

Well Put Doodlebug! GREAT post! I was thinking of something exactly like the comments in your post below, but I did not craft them into such a nice post and share them here. But I am thinking the exact same as you. From the point of view of MOST politicians if they receive a comment or a complaint from ONE person they can EASILY guess or project that at least 10 other people feel EXACTLY the same way. But maybe that is JUST politicians lieing to us again so who really knows??? -tom w Now this is something I have trouble getting my head round unless I've missed something of course. If only a minority express their opinions/viewpoint and post publicly for discussion how do you know what the silent majority think or want? By stating that the vocal minority can be alienated, and for that I presume you mean "will not buy the next product", what the Devil happens if it transpires that the silent majority want exactly what the vocal minority said but hadn't bothered to say it? Haven't you just alienated every last customer at a stroke? Don't misunderstand me. I will look at your offerings and take them if they're up to your usual quality, modular or full spectrum, almost regardless of period. I am more than prepared to take my experience of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and move on and explore new interesting possibilities. I post here ocasionally but I know of at least two sets of sales to players made because I trumpetted the quality of your games and the brilliance of your vision. Neither post here. Ever. I therefore, if vocal minority I be, can be counted threefold not once. How can anyone know the mind of a silent un-commenting majority unless of course they are either in secret dialogue, psychic or planning a release dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. </font>

Well Put Doodlebug! GREAT post! I was thinking of something exactly like the comments in your post below, but I did not craft them into such a nice post and share them here. But I am thinking the exact same as you. From the point of view of MOST politicians if they receive a comment or a complaint from ONE person they can EASILY guess or project that at least 10 other people feel EXACTLY the same way. But maybe that is JUST politicians lieing to us again so who really knows??? -tom w Now this is something I have trouble getting my head round unless I've missed something of course. If only a minority express their opinions/viewpoint and post publicly for discussion how do you know what the silent majority think or want? By stating that the vocal minority can be alienated, and for that I presume you mean "will not buy the next product", what the Devil happens if it transpires that the silent majority want exactly what the vocal minority said but hadn't bothered to say it? Haven't you just alienated every last customer at a stroke? Don't misunderstand me. I will look at your offerings and take them if they're up to your usual quality, modular or full spectrum, almost regardless of period. I am more than prepared to take my experience of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and move on and explore new interesting possibilities. I post here ocasionally but I know of at least two sets of sales to players made because I trumpetted the quality of your games and the brilliance of your vision. Neither post here. Ever. I therefore, if vocal minority I be, can be counted threefold not once. How can anyone know the mind of a silent un-commenting majority unless of course they are either in secret dialogue, psychic or planning a release dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. </font>

More news here in anticpation of the Key Note at 1 pm EST 10 Am PST latest link update web page

FOG OF WAR!!! No one is Talking about FOG of WAR!! IN all the board games and Computer type SIMULATIONS of Board games I have ever seen all you have to do is use the ubiquitous "Min Max" strategy. (As mentioned by Jason C) Simply stack as many units for as much fire power as posisble against the oppenents weakest stack and roll the dice. AND and get this you can KNOW with %100 clairvoyant certianty EXACTLY the defense strength of what you are attacking EVERY time. Nothing would make me happier then to get completely away from the CRAPPY old Stack the most and attack the least "Min Max" strategy in a war game! That is why CMBO was SO successful to break the mold! there are "some" Fog of War and there was NO stacking and the simple Min Max Strategy was NOT foolproof because you never knew EXACTLY what you where facing all the time. Any wargame like what Jason C is talking about MUST have a decent level of Fog of War AND Must NOT ever reward Massive stacking of units or the obvious and simple Min Max strategy mind set. NOW bring on CMx2!!!1 -tom w

this is not NEW news but relevant: from here Quote: Apple may use Intel chips for Macs Mon May 23, 2005 8:51 PM BST Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS By Duncan Martell SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) has been in talks that could lead to it using Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) chips in its Macintosh computers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, reigniting decade-old speculation and sparking a 5 percent rise in Apple's stock price. The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple was expected to agree to use Intel chips. But it said the talks could break down or could be a tactic to gain negotiating leverage with Apple's current chip supplier, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research). At stake for Apple is a more predictable and consistent supply of microprocessors -- the computing engine in computers -- as well as potentially lower prices for Apple Macintosh computers, which historically have cost more than PCs running Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) Windows operating systems. Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy and Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the report, which they termed "rumor and speculation." But industry analysts on Monday expressed skepticism that Apple would soon drop IBM's PowerPC processor for Intel's Pentium chips, which power more than 80 percent of the world's personal computers, noting the momentous task of porting, or rewriting, Apple's OS X operating system as well as all the software programs that run on PowerPC chips to Intel's. "It's just too much software to have to change," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of newsletter Microprocessor Report. "This is just putting more pressure on IBM to fix these problems." IBM has in the past had problems in producing enough working G5 PowerPC processors for Apple's Power Mac computers and the G5 chip uses too much power, hence producing too much heat, to be used in its popular iBook and PowerBook laptops. Though Apple has less than a 3 percent share of the PC market, its embrace of Intel chips would mark a fundamental change to the computer industry's historic alliances and rivalries. Apple has long blazed its own path by avoiding chips from Intel or rival processor maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which together power nearly all the world's PCs. "It's like Ferrari going to BMW for an engine," said Richard Doherty, the research director for technology consulting and research firm Envisioneering. "This is seen as a whole changing of church." "To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips. Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no." "He said, 'We've had talks with Intel' and that's about it," Bajarin said. Shares of Apple rose $2.02, or 5.4 percent, to $39.57 in morning trade and shares of Intel rose 26 cents, or 1 percent, to $26.61. Analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said any such transition to Intel chips would not be easy for Apple. "Apple has put so much behind the PowerPC in terms of how much better the PowerPC is than Intel's processors," Enderle said. "It is risky." (Additional reporting by Daniel Sorid in San Francisco and Bill Berkrot in New York)

more here web page

WOW Lets stay focused on the bones and Steve's VERY informative questions and prompt answers and direct replies. So far we have had plenty of straight honest and complete answers to our questions in this thread! Lets focus on the positive shall we? (please) -tom w

WOW Lets stay focused on the bones and Steve's VERY informative questions and prompt answers and direct replies. So far we have had plenty of straight honest and complete answers to our questions in this thread! Lets focus on the positive shall we? (please) -tom w

Hey that sounds good. BUT in your (Michael Dorosh's post in bold below).... understanding of this idea how will BFC sell or market these new player designed modules??? I have read your post and it looks like a GREAT idea but some how BFC has to make a profit selling the module in the first place. This post by Micheal Emrys also makes sense to me: "Michael Emrys Member Member # 361 posted June 05, 2005 12:14 PM My sense of what Steve has posted is that because some of the Modules will have to be hard coded, they will only be produced in-house or by licensed developers, not players. But once a Game and subsequent Modules are out, there should still be plenty of work for scenario designers and modders, just as there is now." -tom w

Hey that sounds good. BUT in your (Michael Dorosh's post in bold below).... understanding of this idea how will BFC sell or market these new player designed modules??? I have read your post and it looks like a GREAT idea but some how BFC has to make a profit selling the module in the first place. This post by Micheal Emrys also makes sense to me: "Michael Emrys Member Member # 361 posted June 05, 2005 12:14 PM My sense of what Steve has posted is that because some of the Modules will have to be hard coded, they will only be produced in-house or by licensed developers, not players. But once a Game and subsequent Modules are out, there should still be plenty of work for scenario designers and modders, just as there is now." -tom w