Forced MacOS X boot = no CMBB?!?

[Ben Galanti]

This was with a Beta version I saw a week or two ago. I'm certain it still works. The easiest way is to copy the system folder so you don't have to mess with moving the OS X RAVE extension out everytime you boot into it.

Ben

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by chrisl:

It may be that I'll have to buy a model that's about to be discontinued, but I will very surprised if Apple can come up with an effective way to keep me from booting into 9 on a machine that can do it when I buy it. Additionally, the PR disaster of disabling boot into 9 for people with legacy hardware far outweighs any advantage Apple might get from doing so.

Once again, I've never suggested that Apple would attempt to disable OS9 booting on legacy hardware. I'm dead set against this ROM-upgrade conspiracy theory. BUT in order to run OS9 on your legacy hardware, you will very probably need to get your hands on an old OS9.x install disk in order to create the OS9 boot volume (and possibly a third-party utility for selecting it) because it's almost certain that some future version of OSX will not support a bootable classic environment.

[Note: The above is all misinformation designed to frighten the unsuspecting. Just so we understand each other.]

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Ignatious J. Fathead:

Once again, I've never suggested that Apple would attempt to disable OS9 booting on legacy hardware. I'm dead set against this ROM-upgrade conspiracy theory. BUT in order to run OS9 on your legacy hardware, you will very probably need to get your hands on an old OS9.x install disk in order to create the OS9 boot volume (and possibly a third-party utility for selecting it) because it's almost certain that some future version of OSX will not support a bootable classic environment.

I noticed a while ago that you weren't pushing the ROM downgrade theories.

I also already have 9.2.2, which I got with my OS 10.1 CD. They also won't be that hard to find into the reasonable future at places like E-bay.

[chrisl]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chrisl:

The thread that refused to die...

Pretty soon it will develop a life of its own, like the cesspool.

Anyway, as a long time mac (since the 128) and CM (since the beta demo) user.

As an ex Lisa user, I can say "get some time up" </font>

[karsten]

There is no one suggesting a conspiracy, as a matter of fact - if you go back and read the messages those were all answers to specific questions (e.g. "Tell me, specifically, how Apple could prevent booting into OS 9 on legacy hardware")

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by chrisl:

I also already have 9.2.2, which I got with my OS 10.1 CD. They also won't be that hard to find into the reasonable future at places like E-bay.

Sure, but CM for the Mac can't be effectively marketed when the audience consists only of Mac owners who own older equipment and are also willing to create a separate boot volume for OS9, which at some point may necessitate them locating an OS9 install disc on eBay.

I've expressed this concern before, but will restate it once again in more detail:

If the Mac share of CM is already too small for the developers to spend the resources required to make it run in the Classic Environment of OSX (let alone, OSX natively), then how in the world will they justify making it OSX compatible two years down the line? Surely, CM's Mac market share isn't going to increase during those two years, given that at some point new Mac hardware probably won't be able to boot into OS9.

I can't help concluding that, sadly, CM for the Mac is just barely holding on by its fingers nails. Making it incompatible with the OS Apple's been selling for nearly two years now (and pushing hard for longer), for whatever reason, is a great prescription for minimizing its adoption on the Mac -- then, later, using that rationale to avoid spending any further resources developing it.

[kmead]

Ignatious J. Fathead (and others):

First off nice name. I have never understand why people can't use their own name instead of something that obscures one's identity. :confused:

CMBO and CMBB were coded on a Mac so creating a Mac version is a no brainer (so to speak). It is coded under OS 9x and then translated to MSW calls and routines. So a Mac OS 9 version will continue to be available as long as there are machines to run it.

Since you are new here, as are several of the others who have been inhabiting this thread you would have no reason to be aware of past statements by Steve about future OSX compatibility (presuming you have not made use of the search function that may require you to search archived info from last year or the year before.) The next game engine for the CM series will be written to function under X and presumeably will use OpenGL for both the MacOS and MSW versions to make them more similar, and will abandon the Rave routines that were used by the first generation of the game engine (shared by CMBB and CMBO). Those old routines are the basis of the issue, Apple has made an older verion of it available for OSX and unfortunately CM uses a slightly newer version that has some calls and routines that are not available in the old Rave version Apple is supplying in X, causing CM to crash.

Now given that BTS has been using only ONE progammer (the much vaunted Charles) for the bulk of all the work of creating the base CM engine and the added routines for CMBB, any time that person spends on making it compatible with an old version of Rave is time lost finishing a nearly finished product and time away from starting what will likely be a much better product (the CM 2 engine that all future CM releases will be based on). Why not hire another programmer you ask, well I suspect the answer lies in several directions with economics being one of them. We have estimated from several comments dropped over the last few years that the Mac version sells roughly 20-25% of non European CM sales. Not huge, but presumeably respectable. Maybe not enough to overcome the opportunity cost of developing a new version of the base engine be it a new programmer or the existing one. Even if one was hired, the time spent on managing a new person (once a suitable one is found) and instructing them in the finer points of why things were done the way they were,it will take valuable time away from the main point of getting CM2 done. There may be a pride element as well, Charles and Steve did a remarkable job with the original product and may not want someone else dabbling in it. I know it galls me when another designer is added to one of my products and they sit there and second guess me and I have to spend hours/days going over old territory.

I believe that the CM2 engine will be OSX compatible until Steve, Charles, Matt, Kwazy or Moon disabuse me of that notion. I hope that some way of making CMBB work under OSX is possible but in the meantime I will boot into OS9.2.2 for my fix. Will we lose the less able and interested Mac users, probably, but when the next engine comes out I believe they will return.

What I find most significant about this whole tedious thread has been the lack of interaction and intervention by any of the principals of Battlefront. This suggests one of two things, the first is that you are all right the gloom and doom of no CMBB/CMBO for future Mac owners is correct, or that a solution is at hand. I hope for the latter. I also hope this thread will end soon as so much of the content here is non productive, pedantic and verges on whining.

[karch]

This is the kind of paranoid misinformation you two post.

Originally posted by Ignatious J. Fathead:

Sure, but CM for the Mac can't be effectively marketed when the audience consists only of Mac owners who own older equipment and are also willing to create a separate boot volume for OS9, which at some point may necessitate them locating an OS9 install disc on eBay.

Any Mac user past and present, new computers included can play CM with only the OS supplied by Apple. No one needs to repartition anything, no additional boot volumes or anything. Get your facts straight. This may happen in the future. Complain about it then.

I can't help concluding that, sadly, CM for the Mac is just barely holding on by its fingers nails. Making it incompatible with the OS Apple's been selling for nearly two years now (and pushing hard for longer), for whatever reason, is a great prescription for minimizing its adoption on the Mac -- then, later, using that rationale to avoid spending any further resources developing it.

Some truth and a whole bunch of crap. Funny, I see it as BFC making a game that is compatable with an OS Apple has been selling for the past 2 years. OS9.

You know. I'll be the first to complain once there isn't an easy way to play the game. Until then I'll continue to correct you when you make gross generalizations that confuse the average Mac user and make them think that CM isn't compatible with any Mac past or present.

[Ben Galanti]

Originally posted by Ignatious J. Fathead:

I can't help concluding that, sadly, CM for the Mac is just barely holding on by its fingers nails. Making it incompatible with the OS Apple's been selling for nearly two years now (and pushing hard for longer), for whatever reason, is a great prescription for minimizing its adoption on the Mac -- then, later, using that rationale to avoid spending any further resources developing it.

Before spewing unfounded theories, you do know that CM was originally in fact coded on a Mac and BTS (now Battlefront) has been developing cross platform games for years?

The reason CMBB wasn't recoded was because they didn't rewrite the graphics engine. Not for Windows or for the Mac. When they rewrite it, it will be a ground up rewrite for both Mac and Windows, so a large majority of the work will benefit both platforms.

Ben

[Hoopenfaust2]

Hey Kmead we seem to have the same occupation and the same attitude. Now where you work, do you guys use Mac OS X for everyday design execution?

do you play at work?

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by kmead:

... instead of something that obscures one's identity.

I don't know

sometimes people choose a name

that, in fact, perfectly defines their identity

Originally posted by kmead:

...the opportunity cost...

I haven't heard that phrase since grad school

may be a forum first

Originally posted by kmead:

What I find most significant about this whole tedious thread has been the lack of interaction and intervention by any of the principals of Battlefront. This suggests one of two things, the first is that you are all right the gloom and doom of no CMBB/CMBO for future Mac owners is correct, or that a solution is at hand.

or the third possibilty:

that they are frenetically trying to get CM:BB out the door

& currently don't have the time to deal with our speculations

regardless of whether they have an answer ready for us or not

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by kmead:

Ignatious J. Fathead (and others):

First off nice name. I have never understand why people can't use their own name instead of something that obscures one's identity.

First off, what you think of my screen name is irrelevant. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to make an issue of it.

A couple of errors:

First, yes, I have availed myself of the search function on these boards, which is how I know that BTS codes in MacOS 8.6, not OS 9.0. I'd mentioned this previously. Maybe you missed it.

Second, attempting to run CM in the Classic Environment of OSX does not cause it to crash, at least not for me, on the two Macs I've tried it on. Everything works up to but not including the battlefield view, whereupon you get sound but no image.

Third, the Mac share of the CM market was represented by Steve as being "in single digits." You can look it up. I did.

Fourth, it isn't a matter of the "less interested" falling away, it's a matter of buyers of new hardware, at such time as Apple decides to no longer support OS9 booting, being unable to run CM.

Finally, on the last point we agree fully. An official and up-to-date word from the company would end these speculations. Like yourself, I can only speculate on why it is not forthcoming...

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Before spewing unfounded theories, you do know that CM was originally in fact coded on a Mac and BTS (now Battlefront) has been developing cross platform games for years?

The reason CMBB wasn't recoded was because they didn't rewrite the graphics engine. Not for Windows or for the Mac. When they rewrite it, it will be a ground up rewrite for both Mac and Windows, so a large majority of the work will benefit both platforms.

All of this was discussed earlier, so there's no need to go over it again. None of it changes the basic facts, which are that CM is incompatible with OSX and probably will remain incompatible with OSX for at least a couple more years, according to the best available information.

I've seen enough developers abandon the Mac over the years to know the dance steps. First, they stop updating the Mac version of the product because they "can't justify the investment," and it loses feature parity with the Windows version. Then, a few months or a year later, they drop the Mac version of the product entirely, claiming a "lack of demand." It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course.

Will this happen with CM? I hope to hell not. But once again, even the most diehard supporter has to admit, if the first OSX compatible version of CM doesn't arrive for two more years, that will be a full four years after OSX came on the market -- an eternity in technology years.

[Ben Galanti]

Ever since OS X came out and this issue first came up, BF.com has stated that CMBB would have the same issues and CM2 would be a ground up rewrite for both platforms.

They've been saying this for 2 years, and it's exactly what they are doing. If you want to be all doom and gloom about it based on your own conjecture, fine. But I fail to see how it is warrented since BF.com is doing exactly what they said they would.

Ben

[lucero1148]

At www.maccentral.com there is a news report that should at least clarify the situation from Apple's side.

All best

Patrick

Apple doesn't slam the door on OS 9 ... yet

by Jim Dalrymple, jdalrymple@maccentral.com

August 16, 2002 6:50 pm ET

While Mac OS 9 isn't officially dead for customers, Apple does see the day when computers shipped to customers will be Mac OS X only. In fact, when Apple ships Mac OS X 10.2 next week, customers will buy a three-disk set -- none of which will be a Mac OS 9 bootable CD.

Many people in the creative pro market and in education still run their machines using Apple's Classic operating system. The Jaguar software retail package that Apple will ship next week includes a Mac OS X 10.2 system install, a second install CD containing printer drivers and applications, and a third disk, which contains the developer tools. For the first time, Apple will not include a bootable Mac OS 9 disk.

"We are not including a full Mac OS 9 CD in the Jaguar software update for the simple reason that an overwhelming majority of customers that will be buying the upgrade already have an OS 9 System Folder," said Ken Bereskin, Apple's Mac OS X product manager.

Apple will be posting information to their Web site in the next few days enabling customers running Mac OS 8.6 or under, or that no longer have their Mac OS 9 CD, to get a copy of OS 9. Under the Mac OS up-to-date fulfillment program, with proof of purchase of Jaguar, customers can purchase Mac OS 9 for $19.95.

Apple's computers still come loaded with Mac OS 9, but the only way to fix the system if you break it or to reinstall it is to use an included restore CD. With Jaguar and the new machines, you will still be able to boot into OS 9 if you so desire.

"We ship all of our systems, including the recently introduced dual Power Mac G4s, with Mac OS X and Mac OS 9 preinstalled on the hard drive. Users can open the Startup Disk System preference, switch back to Mac OS 9 and restart if they choose," said Bereskin.

It won't be long, however, until Apple won't be giving customers the option to even get a copy of Mac OS 9. Of course, when a few more major applications like Quark and some audio applications make their way to Mac OS X, most customers won't feel the need to run Classic at all.

"Looking forward, there will be a day where we won't invest in Mac OS 9 development -- we envision a day when computers will be OS X only, but that day isn't today," said Bereskin.

[karsten]

Here come the comments from those new to BTS and CMBO / CMBB - these are a couple from MacCentral:

---

OS X later?  

I agree -- the Mac gamers I know are all on OS X. I'd love to play this game but not in 9.

---

Fun game but doomed in OS9  

The original was fun in OS 9 but that was a long time ago now. I hope the developers don't get discouraged when the game flops because it only runs in 9.

---

Re: Fun game but doomed in OS9 [re: snag]  

ditto. i will be excited about buying this when it works on my operating system, which ain't 9.

---

Re: Fun game but doomed in OS9 [re: AlanCE]  

I agree as well. OSX is where things should be ported and written for.

^^^^

I'm sure we're going to be hearing a lot of this :-(

[karch]

[ August 22, 2002, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: karch ]

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

The latest scuttlebutt on booting into OS9 in the next version of OSX can be found in this eWeek. article.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Ignatious J. Fathead:

Third, the Mac share of the CM market was represented by Steve as being "in single digits." You can look it up. I did.

[/QB]

From all my years on the forum two at this time, all I have ever heard from Steve was that it was over 10% which is more then a single digit last time I checked. So unless you link to a post that shows otherwise, I will not even listen to your mumbling about this.

[ August 23, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[karsten]

Marketshare - whatever. There's millions upon millions of macs out there. Apple's been selling quite a few lately as well. Not to mention the windows switchers and the Unix switchers.

I've been perusing a lot of other mac game related boards since the 9/1 demo announcement and the talk falls into two distinct, but different sized camps:

- The occassional, "Screw it! This game rocks - I'll leave one of my macs just OS 9 to play it!"

- The vast majority of general users (most of which probably never even played CMBO) who are confounded why a company would release a MacOS 9 only game that relied on RAVE to do its graphics.

Considering that Steve wants great games on the Mac, not to mention he wants the Mac to be the best gaming platform out there - one would think that Apple could toss a developer to BTS to get CMBB at least Classic compatible!!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by karsten:

Considering that Steve wants great games on the Mac, not to mention he wants the Mac to be the best gaming platform out there - one would think that Apple could toss a developer to BTS to get CMBB at least Classic compatible!!

Assuming by "Steve" you mean Jobs, I think we are finally getting into useful territory in this thread. So far, Jobs et al have given lip service to making the Mac a premiere gaming platform, but not much else. As has already been rehearsed in this thread, the reason CM does not run in Classic or X is due to the sudden change of plans by Apple a couple of years ago that left BTS stranded with a version of RAVE that Apple did not support. One wonders just how much effort on Apple's part would have been required to support 1.7.

In addition, there has been Apple's long standing policy of regarding gaming as somehow beneath their dignity. On the PC side, there are several manufacturers who actually specialize in producing gaming rigs. I have long wondered why Apple doesn't bring out at least one model that would aim at the same market niche.

The other thing is why not offer more financial support to developers to encourage them to make their games Mac compatible. This would not have to represent a huge investment, just a friendly gesture to help offset advertising and promotional costs, for instance. The biggest help would, as you suggest, be to provide technical help to port games easily to the Mac.

Given the reliability and ease of use of the Mac, it seems like the potential is there to make it an ideal gaming system, but the work has to done to bring this about.

Michael

[Schrullenhaft]

Apparently it needs repeating since some people either have short memories or refuse to acknowledge the realities of game development. While I do not speak for BTS/BFC, I believe most of my statements here are fairly in line with what they've said in the past.

All the ranting, raving and knashing of teeth here won't change CMBB. BTS/BFC can't accomodate every change that Apple will implement with their OS and hardware. CMBB is almost finished (outside of some future patches) and it's OS X compatibility probably won't change despite exhortations and dire predictions from those in this thread.

As has been pointed out before - CMBB will work under Classic in OS X.x. However it only works in software rendering mode, which limits the graphics features, etc. Even this level of compatibility may disappear with 10.3+ (and whatever other driver changes may take place) since no one outside of Apple can predict what changes will be made to the OS or the hardware/drivers.

Hardware rendering is out for OS X.x. There is no simple way around this. CM is based on QuickDraw 3D RAVE code and Apple's support for this API has all but disappeared. The only way to get hardware rendering, and thus the full graphical beauty of CM, is to boot into OS9/Classic. If people purchase new Macs (w/ 10.2) or upgrade to 10.3+, then there is little recourse that BTS/BFC has to address this problem: CMBB will have to run in software rendering mode on these computers if OS9 boot capability is removed.

If it would only take two or three months of Charle's time to address this, then it would have been done. However it doesn't take that short of an amount of time. For CM to work in OS X.x with hardware rendering requires it to be rewritten in the OpenGL API. No way around this. If CMBB were to be rewritten in OpenGL it would delay the release of CMBB by another year (at least) and subsequently delay the next engine by another year too. I'm sorry to say, but it probably isn't worth it to delay CMBB in order to recover the lost sales to OS X players. I'd guess that sales of CM to Mac players probably hovers around 10% and of those who either refuse to boot into 0S9 or can't, probably constitute less than 1% of total CM sales. While this percentage will grow in the future I'm not sure when it would become a majority of Mac players.

Others have suggested some API translating software that can assist in rewriting the code from DirectX to OpenGL. I don't know what the licensing costs/structure would be to use such software, but it might be prohibitive for the amount of sales it would recoup. On top of this few programs like this offer either complete and accurate transposing of APIs or they have lackluster performance. Hence a lot of OpenGL hand-tweaking may become necessary in order to support many of the standard features of CM or bring the performance up to passable levels. I wouldn't write-off this solution path completely, but I highly doubt it would provide a high return on investment (time and fees).

Now some of you may refuse to buy CMBB because it won't work in OS X (or Classic mode within OS X). That's your choice and I doubt that there is anything here than can be said that will change your mind. You've heard the arguements already and no one here is really going to provide you with radically new information/fixes (including Apple) and I highly doubt that BTS/BFC are going to consider a lenghty API transposition of CMBB to get it to work on OS X. If software rendering is not enough (which is understandable), then there is nothing more that can really be said here.

One of the primary reasons that CMBB probably won't have its API transposed is that it would be a waste of time. BTS/BFC want to write another engine for CM. The current engine was nice enough for CMBO and a bit dated (though extensively updated) for CMBB. It has some limitations in it that make it a bit harder to get data into it than most here would assume and there are further limitations as to what you can have that data represent in CM (a design born of performance considerations I assume). An engine rewrite can enhance many of the features that players have been clamoring here for quite awhile that just aren't possible with the current engine. Not to mention some of the graphics improvements that can be implemented. Rewriting the old engine wouldn't be worth the time since I don't think many here would want to wait another year for the same feature set when that time can be used to vastly improve the possible features available. It is best to start on the new engine now rather than re-writing the old engine. Unfortunately any OpenGL coding done in an old-engine rewrite probably couldn't be incorporated into the new engine, thus it becomes a wasted effort.

It's not like CMBB is just being chucked at the public like a useless, unwanted piece of code. A lot of work went into it from BTS/BFC in changing the original CMBO engine and getting all the extensive data in. The CMBO engine had to be used this time around in order to get it out in a timely manner (for a small developer). Hardware has progressed quite a bit since CMBO started development (and even during CMBB's development) and more importantly this high performance hardware is becoming more common. So now the possibilities of the next engine are expanded since many features require more processing and graphics power.

Anyway, to summarize, making CMBB fully OS X compatible (or even hardware-supported under Classic) is no easy task and most likely will not happen. Rewriting the old engine to do this is a wasted effort that delays the future development of CM. The better decision (as stated by BTS/BFC in the past) is to use the time to write the new engine which will incorporate OS X compatibility. Despite operating on a non-standard distribution model, there are still business decsions that have to be made that involve tough choices. Not having full OS X compatibility is one of those at this point in time.

[ August 23, 2002, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

From all my years on the forum two at this time, all I have ever heard from Steve was that it was over 10% which is more then a single digit last time I checked. http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_rolleyes.gif' alt=':rolleyes:'> So unless you link to a post that shows otherwise, I will not even listen to your mumbling about this.

I was citing a post in this thread. He was speculating on the market share for CM on OSX, not the entire market share for CM for the Mac. So you are right -- the entire share is, by implication, larger. But not large enough to justify recoding CM for OSX, apparently. In fact CM's market share on OSX is actually zero since it doesn't run in OSX.

BTW, I thought I was speaking quite clearly.

[Pzman]

Well, yes all these terms are wrong because we aren't talk anyway... hehe.

[Ignatious J. Fathead]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

Well, yes all these terms are wrong because we aren't talk anyway... hehe.

Uh, sure, okay. :confused:

Anyway, I want to thank Schrullenhaft for his detailed post. These points are all well understood (by me, anyway). I think most of us have some sense of how this situation came to pass, though perhaps we disagree on the probable future.