mikeadams Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 Will CMBB be OSX compatible? While I am sure this must have been covered, I cannot find anything using the search function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by mikeadams: Will CMBB be OSX compatible? While I am sure this must have been covered, I cannot find anything using the search function.no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 As Berli said... "no". CMBB will remain a RAVE game like CMBO is. The RAVE 3D API is the heart of the problem here since OS X natively uses OpenGL for 3D. RAVE support is emulated, but not to the extent that CM needs (it doesn't support the latest rev. of RAVE, which is what CM needs). I believe that the only way of playing CM under OS X (which still uses a classic mode window) is in software mode, which limits your resolution, speed of graphics and their quality. Otherwise your best bet is to boot directly into Classic and play CM there. There are some extensions you'll need to disable to get hardware acceleration in Classic. The engine rewrite (CM II) will most likely be written with the OpenGL 3D API to allow it to work with OS X (but it will take 2-3 years to complete the engine rewrite). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagdratt Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 And the big danger is, of course, that in the not too distant future current Mac models will not boot in system 9.x. (Based on past experience, this will happen far sooner than the engine re-write forecast of 2-3 years) Which will mean no CM for owners of then current Macs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 18, 2002 Share Posted March 18, 2002 Originally posted by Jagdratt: And the big danger is, of course, that in the not too distant future current Mac models will not boot in system 9.x. (Based on past experience, this will happen far sooner than the engine re-write forecast of 2-3 years) Which will mean no CM for owners of then current Macs.I would have to agree with that I would guess that within 18-24 months there will be an announcement that the very latest (then in the future) current Mac will only boot in OSX. For now you can still get Dual Processer 1 gig Quick Silver towers that will run 9.x so ALL is not lost. 2 years from now when you want a used Mac to run CMBO or CMBB one of those dual 1 gig Quick Silvers will be a GREAT deal BUT really its that STINKING Rave API, or (more correctly) the lack of support for it in OSX that is holding us up here. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted March 19, 2002 Share Posted March 19, 2002 Bummer 1.Has any one tried the Dual Processor with CM? 2. If yes, how was the performance of the speed & video? 3. Does the Dual Processor have 2 video cards? What to do, what to do, life can be a bitch as a Mac guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted March 19, 2002 Share Posted March 19, 2002 Don't forget guys, not everyone likes OS X, so don't jump the gun as they say. I can tell you this much, I wont be useing it anytime in the near future, and not because I can't afford to get it. In fact we got it with our IBook G3 a few months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted March 19, 2002 Share Posted March 19, 2002 The specs for the dual processor G4's only use a single video card in the AGP slot. That would either be the Ge Force 4MX or Radeon 7500 card that you order the computer with. I would doubt that you would see too much of a difference with a dual since CM itself isn't coded for dual processing computer's. That's what I think at least. All best Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Reality check: at least the printing and graphics industry is starting to use NT servers instead Mac servers as file servers. Also, Appletalk being slower and more taxing on the network loadwise than pure TCP/IP things look grim for the Mac in that department too. OSX may be an improvement but lets face it, it is not spreading fast as there is practically no software available for it yet. 9.x will be the norm for a year or two yet. Even more if the software conversions start dragging far behind the OSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by tero: Reality check: at least the printing and graphics industry is starting to use NT servers instead Mac servers as file servers. Also, Appletalk being slower and more taxing on the network loadwise than pure TCP/IP things look grim for the Mac in that department too. Just to reality check your reality check... I've been running my Mac network with TCP/IP for about a year now. I'm fairly certain that any Mac that will run OS 9 or OS X can handle TCP/IP networking. Any network guru who says that you need to move to an NT based solution because of the Appletalk networking protocall is not well versed with the Mac. But in any case, to get back to the subject of Combat Mission... I'm dismayed to hear that CM:BB will not be OS X compatible. -Lurker [ March 19, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Lurker ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Till BTS does the CMII engine it will not be possible with out spending and extra few months (year?) and by then all the P.C kids will be running around like Chickens with their heads cut off, because a few Mac OS X people want it compatible. [ March 19, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by tero: Reality check: at least the printing and graphics industry is starting to use NT servers instead Mac servers as file servers. Also, Appletalk being slower and more taxing on the network loadwise than pure TCP/IP things look grim for the Mac in that department too. OSX may be an improvement but lets face it, it is not spreading fast as there is practically no software available for it yet. 9.x will be the norm for a year or two yet. Even more if the software conversions start dragging far behind the OSX.Appletalk is not more 'taxing' on any network I.T. network guys ALWAYS say "oh that Apppletalk is so "chatty" Nonsense. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by Lurker: No disrespect intended. I have a professional interest in this issue. Just to reality check your reality check... I've been running my Mac network with TCP/IP for about a year now. I see you are a Mac consultant. Good. I'm fairly certain that any Mac that will run OS 9 or OS X can handle TCP/IP networking. Native OS9.x can not use TCP/IP to run the network resource mounts. Sure, you can make the connections but if you disable the Appletalk you are not able to connect to them. When you lose the zones you lose the mounts and and with them the resources. You can not mount resources from NT/W2K servers to Mac's unless you have Macservices (ie Appletalk) installed. This is why I hear you need a special software if you want to lose Appletalk. We have been looking for such a software. What are you using ? Any network guru who says that you need to move to an NT based solution because of the Appletalk networking protocall is not well versed with the Mac. You better contact CreoScitex and Heidelberg then. Their CTP solutions (which are based heavily on networks) are using NT/W2K servers with Mac clients. They say NT/W2K's are more efficient in handling the large files than a native Mac system ... But in any case, to get back to the subject of Combat Mission... Back to scheduled programming.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 I personally think that OS X is the best thing to happen to the Mac. Let's be honest here, OS 9 is old and tired, it's reliability and multitasking sucks, it's memory handling is poor and virtual memory use is bad. I've been using 10.1 as much as possible lately and I've yet to have it take a dump on me and I'm a chronic shareware/update installer (Which caused me a lot of headches in 9 - My current uptime in 10 is 6 days, 12hrs. and that because I installed software that required a reboot - I never had 9 stay up that long.) I like 9; I like the way pre 10 Mac OS's don't do anything behind your back and let you do and put whatever you want wherever you want, but I like 10 better. CM and scanning are the only reasons I ever boot into 9 anymore, and I can't wait for the day when I can be in 10 full time. Blaming RAVE for CM not working in 10 is like blaming the PowerPC architecture for not working with older apps - Time to face the future and adapt. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Appletalk is not more 'taxing' on any network I.T. network guys ALWAYS say "oh that Apppletalk is so "chatty" Nonsense. Seems you have never had to deal with the problems. Problems arising from Mac's crashing in the middle of a session freezing the server at the same time. are a bitch Or sticky networking due to this "chatter". A chatty protocol (Appletalk and Novell IPX/SPX) eats away bandwidth at a rate that is both surprising and annoying. What drives me up the wall is the tendency of Mac operators booting the NT server first when there is trouble (ie a Mac crashes or a session freezes). Uncleanly terminated Mac sessions hanging in the server can cause a lot of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoopenfaust2 Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 I'm with Gyrene. Being an industrial designer I rely on the mac quite a bit and since flash and photoshop have come out for the OS ten its the best thing. No crashes, 10 things at once and porno pages load faster. 2 months ago I would have said the opposite but its all coming together. As long as I got 9 and BTS makes games, I'm a happy boy. Please no more fightin about Mac and PCeez ( personal computers). I do enough of this with my brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Lets back to the topics of CM performance & OS X classic. What I would like to know is what kind of performance hits does CM have with OS X classic? On the duel processor Mac does it boot up OS 9? (Not classic) and will match the performance of the currant G4 s running OS 9? Right now I am running OS 9.01 on a stock G4 500, and I have no CM performance issues. Has BTS done any testing on the new Macs? It would be great if BTS would comment on this issue. Mac Guys should know there platform future with CM Please No Platform Wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 20, 2002 Share Posted March 20, 2002 Tero & Lurker, I'm fairly certain that any Mac that will run OS 9 or OS X can handle TCP/IP networking. Native OS9.x can not use TCP/IP to run the network resource mounts. Sure, you can make the connections but if you disable the Appletalk you are not able to connect to them. When you lose the zones you lose the mounts and and with them the resources. You can not mount resources from NT/W2K servers to Mac's unless you have Macservices (ie Appletalk) installed. This is why I hear you need a special software if you want to lose Appletalk. We have been looking for such a software. What are you using ? Any network guru who says that you need to move to an NT based solution because of the Appletalk networking protocall is not well versed with the Mac. You better contact CreoScitex and Heidelberg then. Their CTP solutions (which are based heavily on networks) are using NT/W2K servers with Mac clients. They say NT/W2K's are more efficient in handling the large files than a native Mac system ... The real issue is the NT 4 / W2K Mac File and Print services only support AppleTalk !!! When / If Microsoft updates their code to support TCP/IP for Mac File and Print support then you can safely turn off AppleTalk forever. I have 5 clients who have trashed NT for OS X server just for that reason (and they got bored with blue screens of death)! As usual the problem with NT isn't at the Mac client end but with the limitations of the server software (of course one might suggest that might be an attempt by Microsoft to force people off the Mac platform - but I couldn't possibly say that). Sorry - That's not rally related to CMBB but its always good to clear the air on this. Meanwhile back at the FEBA .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 (Which caused me a lot of headches in 9 - My current uptime in 10 is 6 days, 12hrs. and that because I installed software that required a reboot - I never had 9 stay up that long.)" hehe I am working on 18 days. If I did not have to friggin reboot because of some doumb ass software I installed I would be looking at nearly 50 days in Win2K without a single reboot "Any network guru who says that you need to move to an NT based solution because of the Appletalk networking protocall is not well versed with the Mac. " I thought upto OS X you were required to use that crap Appletalk to network a mac? Maybe Im wrong. All I do know is Appletalk is something that is good for the 1980s. 240 kilobit for a LAN solution? I would be waiting days for some of the files we work with. Try to move a terabyte DB across that dinky connection LOL! "It would be great if BTS would comment on this issue. Mac Guys should know there platform future with CM" I believe they already have. It sounded like Apple kind of blind sided them on the RAVE issue and OS-X. You cant expect them to rewrite the entire engine for such a small crowd. After CMBB I can say it would be expected since they have indicated that is when the engine will be rewritten. I can only imagine what it will look like Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Originally posted by Gen-x87H: You cant expect them to rewrite the entire engine for such a small crowd.OH except for the Minor point that CM is coded on Macs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Originally posted by Gen-x87H:....... I thought upto OS X you were required to use that crap Appletalk to network a mac? Maybe Im wrong. All I do know is Appletalk is something that is good for the 1980s. 240 kilobit for a LAN solution? I would be waiting days for some of the files we work with. Try to move a terabyte DB across that dinky connection LOL!Since OS9 Macs have been able to network over IP. It's as fast or nearly as fast as NT and faster than 95-ME. Appletalk is the protocol Apple used for years.. and still can use in OS9, but you can use Appletalk over ethernet or Wireless or Localtalk. Localtalk is the old really slow networking that came out in OS7. When it came out it was fast enough for most uses and was built in to every mac. It was great for networking back then. But people have been running Appletalk (the protocol) over ethernet, 10T, 100T, GT for years now. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Originally posted by Gen-x87H: All I do know is Appletalk is something that is good for the 1980s. 240 kilobit for a LAN solution? I would be waiting days for some of the files we work with. Try to move a terabyte DB across that dinky connection LOL! II Dont confuse AppleTalk with a "Localtalk" network which ran on telephone wire between the serial ports of older Macs. Yes it was excruciatingly slow But now (even under OS 9*) Macs function rather well on ethernet networks with up to a Gigabit Ethernet on the newer G4's 10/100/1000 Base-T *in my last job we had Macs running OS 8.1 on our ethernet network [ March 20, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 FWIW, I'm staying with 9 for the present, not because I have anything against X, it sounds like the wave of the future alright, but because I don't have any apps that require or would run better in X, and many that, like CM, wouldn't run in it at all. When a significant proportion of my apps, the ones I just can't do without, become X native, then I'll switch, and happily. Michael [ March 20, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.04/AppleTalkFundamentals/ Now Ill admit that my experience with Appletalk is limited but this paper on Appletalk quotes the speed of the network as 234 kbps. "OH except for the Minor point that CM is coded on Macs." But I highly doubt on an OS-X run mac. And lets be realistic here. It doesnt matter what it is developed on because OS-X apparenly has paultry RAVE support which is the problem here. In order for CMBB to run right on OS-X it will require the 3d engine to be rebuilt to use opengl. That is no small task and for the small crowd why? That is a lot of dev costs for a small portion of the community. Chances are in 2 yrs you will still have a Mac that will use OS9. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted March 21, 2002 Share Posted March 21, 2002 Originally posted by Gen-x87H: Now Ill admit that my experience with Appletalk is limited but this paper on Appletalk quotes the speed of the network as 234 kbps. GenGood Job !!! You found an Article which clearly depicts the old Serial port version of localtalk that both Karch and I mentioned. It does not address ethernet and its speed at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts