From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Very interesting.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kirby <Kirby@jpp.com> wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Very interesting.

It does not say that Windows XP runs faster than Mac OS X in general, it
says World of Warcraft runs faster. Unless that Mac OS X version is
Universal, it's running under Rosetta emulation and will be, at best,
about half as fast as a native version, which is about what was
reported.

--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

World of Warcraft is Universal Binary, has been so since before the introduction of Boot Camp. I have a 20" imac with both OS's loaded, and
I play WOW a lot. I will load it up on the Windows side tonight after
work and give a report.
For the record I do have two computers at home, A Gateway Athlon64
3400+ with 1GB Ram and a Nvidia Geforce 6600GT, and a 20" imac, with
1GB Ram and the Radeon X1600, FWIW the PC plays WOW much better than
the imac. Actually I meant to say, the PC plays WOW MUCH MUCH better
than the imac. I will give a full report over the weekend. I feel both
of my computers are very comparable power wise, with the imac having a
slight advantage over the athlon64 with it's newer dual core processor
and faster Memory Bus. I think the two video cards are on par, so if
the imac can keep up runnig WOW under Windows than it is definatly the
OS, if not, then it is definatly the hardware.
Keeping in mind this is just one program...

Opinions?
Jerry

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

if the imac can keep up runnig WOW under Windows than it is definatly the
OS, if not, then it is definatly the hardware.
Keeping in mind this is just one program...

It's the software. Even though it is a UB it was still a port from the
Windows version. No one has ever disputed that Windows is better for
gaming. There is the DirectX API for a start that Microsoft has been
using and developing for the past 10 years. OSX really has nothing
comparable and relies almost entirely on Open GL. If WOW was programmed specifically for OSX then I'm sure it would fare much better.

It would be more interesting in your circumstance to compare the two
machines both running Windows and WOW. That is a fair comparison. But
to compare OSX and Windows with a game originally programmed for a
Windows environment, seems ludicrous.

When the UB's of Adobe CS become available then comparing the speed of Photoshop on both OS's on the same machine will be interesting.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Would you agree that the PC and the iMac are comperable with hardware performance? I think the Athlon64 and the Core Duo are pretty much on
par, I think the video cards are on par...
Jerry

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Yeah, i would imagine they're not far off. I think the Radeon perhaps
just has the edge on the 6600 though. Personally I would give the Core
Duo more beans simply because of it's power efficiency. I know when
you're talking about performace that isn't so much of an issue, but
being an ecologist I think it's terribly important these days. Also the
duo chip has the ability to "intelligently" utilise both cores as and
when.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Mike Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

It does not say that Windows XP runs faster than Mac OS X in general, it
says World of Warcraft runs faster. Unless that Mac OS X version is Universal, it's running under Rosetta emulation and will be, at best,
about half as fast as a native version, which is about what was
reported.

Indeed ... but even as a UB (if it's a Windows port ... which it almost certainly is) it is likely to run faster under XP. A more useful example
may be the X-Plane simulation software which is developed simultaneously
in Mac and Windows versions. The developer, Austin Meyer, states:

"A FASCINATING NOTE:
We have run X-Plane 8.40 on BOTH MAC-OS AND WINDOWS VERSIONS on the
SAME computer thanks to the new Macintosh's ability to run Windows...
care to guess which version ran faster?

The MAC version running on Mac OS-X ran about 10% to 15% FASTER than
the Windows version on the same computer.

This clearly indicates that the MacOS (combined with the compiler used
to generate the Mac version) is more efficient and speedy than Windows
for the X-Plane application."

He goes on to say that the very fastest PC hardware running Windows will
still run the simulation faster, even taking account of this percentage,
but he anticipates that the pro desktop Intel Macs (once available)
should more than match equivalent PCs.

--
Adrian
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Adrian wrote:

"A FASCINATING NOTE:
We have run X-Plane 8.40 on BOTH MAC-OS AND WINDOWS VERSIONS on the
SAME computer thanks to the new Macintosh's ability to run Windows...
care to guess which version ran faster?

The MAC version running on Mac OS-X ran about 10% to 15% FASTER than
the Windows version on the same computer.

This clearly indicates that the MacOS (combined with the compiler used
to generate the Mac version) is more efficient and speedy than Windows
for the X-Plane application."

This could of course mean that X-Plane for the Mac is better coded than X-Plane for Windows. It could mean that the code is the same and some aspect of Boot Camp drivers affects Windows performance. It could also mean nothing of the sort.

I suspect that what it *all* means is that using an odd sample of two games
is a lousy way of benchmarking operating systems.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I suspect that what it *all* means is that using an odd sample of two games >is a lousy way of benchmarking operating systems.

Thank you!

the fact that theinquirer.net even published that is more shocking IMO

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1145628646.527360.325190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, bobbagoose@gmail.com says...

if the imac can keep up runnig WOW under Windows than it is definatly the >OS, if not, then it is definatly the hardware.
Keeping in mind this is just one program...

It's the software. Even though it is a UB it was still a port from the Windows version. No one has ever disputed that Windows is better for
gaming. There is the DirectX API for a start that Microsoft has been
using and developing for the past 10 years. OSX really has nothing
comparable and relies almost entirely on Open GL.

You realize Pixar uses OpenGL for its animated movies right? That all
the special effects generated for movies are done on OpenGL hardwre?
That industrial grade applications like AutoCad and so forth are all
written and specifically optimized for OpenGL? That professional grade graphics cards will tailer their openGL drivers specifically for these applications?

OpenGL is to DirectX as graphics libraries what a Porsche 911 is to a
Honda Prelude as a sports car.

DirectX actually is pretty good (now) [and so is a Honda Prelude for
that matter], but it was designed and written in primarily for the games market because implementing and (hardware accelerating) the OpenGL spec
was considered massive OVERKILL at the time; OpenGL was "too big", "too
many features", "too many features to implement", etc.

Microsoft has been a big supporter of it over OpenGL because
a) they own it, its proprietary to them, so it makes games written for
it harder to port elsewhere -- vender lockin -- their favorite trick

b) they don't have to work with the OpenGL standards body to make
changes, which has allowed microsoft to leapfrog opengl from time to
time on features

c) they don't have to bother with the extra features of opengl which
aren't related to making games.

OpenGL is, and always has been, a modern hi performance graphics
library, it is as up to date as directX and suitable for use in
profressional applications and consumer "games". (for example Quake 4
was openGL based)

Additionally OpenGL will form the basis of the PlayStation 3's graphics system.

Suggesting OS X is somehow "limited" by its reliance on OpenGL is just
plain silly. OpenGL doesn't limit OS X in the least; quite the opposite;
its as deluxe as they come.

For more info (and a balanced take on the issue):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

woah there sunshine.....

The game in question was programmed primarily to utilise the feature
abundant in DX, and with the Windows OS itself. As a 3D graphics
professional I realise the differences and the inportance of OGL over
DX. I'm glad you highlighted the fact that OGL is, in many ways
superior to DX, but for games, IMO DX wins. Not only does it provide
hardware support for gfx (and vice versa) but also sound, and input,
whereas, with OGL seperate APIs are used for the latter. Microsoft saw
the market for it and pounced. And OSX does fall down because of this.
If a game was designed to work with OGL and OSX as standard, then we
would see dfferent results. IMO a Mac with OSX is not for gaming, it's
for work and life.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1145657739.036246.137710@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, bobbagoose@gmail.com says...

woah there sunshine.....

The game in question was programmed primarily to utilise the feature
abundant in DX,

Which game? WoW? I'm not so sure; it was cross platform right from
launch, as I recall; so while its likely that (considerable?) extra
effort has been spent optimizing the windows version I'm skeptical that
it was designed to "primarily utilize features of DX and windows".

and with the Windows OS itself. As a 3D graphics
professional I realise the differences and the inportance of OGL over
DX. I'm glad you highlighted the fact that OGL is, in many ways
superior to DX, but for games, IMO DX wins. Not only does it provide
hardware support for gfx (and vice versa) but also sound, and input,
whereas, with OGL seperate APIs are used for the latter.

First, that is hardly a failing of OpenGL.

Second, directX is really no different. The directInput component of
directX is a separate api from direct3d. The only real commonality is microsoft marketing them as part of the same "directx framework". (And
yes, I suppose, to an extent the "code conventions" like parameter names
and case conventions are the same between them, but that's not THAT significant.)

Its also worth pointing out that its possible **AND** easy to write a
game that uses OpenGL for graphics, and directX for everything else
(sound, music, input), demonstrating just how separate the APIs are.

Microsoft saw
the market for it and pounced. And OSX does fall down because of this.

Then you are saying OS X falls down because it lacks good cohesive apis
for sound, input, networking then, not because it relies on ogl for
graphics?

The issue I had was your comment: "OSX really has nothing
comparable [to directx] and relies almost entirely on Open GL."

If by that you mean OS X lacks good DirectPlay and DirectInput
equivalents, then OK, but why didn't you say THAT? Why set it up to make
it sound like its OS X's reliance on OpenGL that is an issue, when
that's not it at all?

And I'm not sure how weak Apple's APIs are in those other areas either:

DirectDraw/Direct3d - Quartz/Extreme, CoreImage, OpenGL are all in good
shape.

DirectMusic? DirectSound? CoreAudio and OpenAL for sound, are pretty
pretty solid.

DirectMedia? Hello QuickTime.

DirectInput? -- Force Feedback Framework (weaker than direct input, but
really catches up a lot of aspects)

DirectPlay? -- AHA... here's the interesting one. Apple doesn't really
have a DirectPlay equivalent... but honestly, they don't need one.
Nobody would use it if they had it. The holy grail of Mac (and linux) networking games is the ability to go multiplayer with PCs not
eachother. Even if Apple put together a system that allowed voice chat,
game setup chat rooms, all working over Bonjour or something it would be utterly useless.

Apple would need to either license DirectPlay from Microsoft to get interoperability, or create/use a cross-platform equivalent AND somehow
lure people using DirectX-DirectPlay behind! Either one is a royal pain
for apple.

Perhaps a ray of hope is that DirectPlay wasn't very good, especially historically; and many publishers have already skipped it in favour of in-house solutions. (We couldn't have Linux Half Life 2 game servers if
they'd used directPlay...)

Still directplay is really the only thorn in OSX's side; unfortunately
its a big one. How do you port a game that uses directplay on windows
for multiplayer for the mac!? Short of licensing directplay from
microsoft or convincing developers to not use directplay they are hosed.

In many respects DirectPlay is to gaming on the Mac what Microsoft
Office document formats are for business on the Mac.

If a game was designed to work with OGL and OSX as standard, then we
would see dfferent results.

If you beleive that to be true, then its likely that OS X really doesn't
fall down nearly that badly. ;)

IMO a Mac with OSX is not for gaming, it's
for work and life.

Agreed... but OS X is not for gaming because there aren't many games available, because its a niche product with small marketshare. Not
because its not a suitable platform to build games on.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113