Linux ZDoom on a PPC machine? (Randy?)

Post by **Enjay** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:42 pm

I personally have no particular allegiance to PCs or any other type of computer.

I want to use the one that allows me to do what I want. I want to play games. Games come out first for the PC, run well and there is a wide range of games spanning many years, genres and price ranges. I want to do my work at home and be able to transfer it easily to the machines at my workplace. The machines at my work are all PCs running windows. I want to be able to walk into a store and have a choice of components for me to buy with readily available drivers for the platform I am using. Again, that usually means PCs.

I actually don't care if these needs are met by a Mac, a machine (of any sort) running Linux or a PC running Windows or something entirely new. I could get used to any of them, appreciate their benefits and learn to live with their flaws. It just so happens that the set-up that best meets my needs ATM is a PC running Windows. It is irrelevant whether another set-up is "better" if it doesn't cover what I need quite so completely.

Post by **Bio Hazard** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:44 pm

Exactly! not many people think this way...

Chilvence · Post by **Chilvence** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:53 pm

Ok, I agree, but what gets me is that none of the other platforms are given this free ticket of games and hardware that the PC so heavily depends on. Its the only reason Windows gets away with being so backward and counter intuitive. Though it might slowly start to change since Macs are using alot of PC components now, I dont know.

Mannequin · Post by **Mannequin** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:32 pm

Graf Zahl wrote:If you go to a store to look for Mac games here in Germany (and possibly everywhere in Europe) you will find - NOTHING! (so the cartoon is at least partially correct.) Nobody sells Macs here and nobody is buying them!

Well, I can't say much for mainland Europe, but every time I'm in the UK, I see Macs for sale in, as Enjay said, PC World and other places, including the airport.

Chilvence wrote:This is just backwards thinking through and through. You are trying to tell me that you would rather not use a smoothly designed computer interface instead of Windows.

The pure fact of the matter is, is that Windows is just a cheap (not in price) clone of MacOS. I'm afraid, unless someone can point me to better evidence, that Apple was the first one to use GUI as an interface. (I know I could have said this better...) If it wasn't for Apple, we wouldn't have the easy-to-use interfaces that we have today. (Either that or we wouldn't be as far along in the game as we are now.)

Enjay wrote:I actually don't care if these needs are met by a Mac, a machine (of any sort) running Linux or a PC running Windows or something entirely new. I could get used to any of them, appreciate their benefits and learn to live with their flaws. It just so happens that the set-up that best meets my needs ATM is a PC running Windows. It is irrelevant whether another set-up is "better" if it doesn't cover what I need quite so completely.

That's what I think, too. My problem is with people that are closed-minded to it because either they aren't informed about it, they are basing their information on how Mac was 10 years ago, or whatever else might be out there.

I just want people to give it a fair shake before they throw the "baby out with the bath water."

-M.

Chilvence · Post by **Chilvence** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:41 pm

Mannequin wrote: The pure fact of the matter is, is that Windows is just a cheap (not in price) clone of MacOS.

Thats exactly my point, how can you prefer Windows over MacOS when one is a half assed imitation of the other? There are so many borrowed concepts its laughable, even moreso when you see MS missing the point entirely. To me the only thing you can possibly be uncomfortable with are the differences, which is just an excuse to argue.

I dont think the Mac was there first with the GUI though, but it had to have had the most impact.

Mannequin · Post by **Mannequin** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:52 pm

Chilvence wrote:I dont think the Mac was there first with the GUI though, but it had to have had the most impact.

Obviously when I worked in the Mac store that's what they told me. But I don't quite remember a machine before Apple put out the "Lisa" that used GUI 100% of the time.

I know that there were GUIs available for hobby machines. Of course there was one for the Apple II, and then there were the Color Computers (my personal favorite hobby machine), Commodores, etc. But, if I remember correctly, the GUI concept didn't come around until Apple did it.

I'm going to check on this. My brother knows more of the history on that...

-M.

Post by **Chris** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:17 pm

Wasn't it that Apple tried to get the GUI code from Xerox, and Microsoft took it from Apple?

Post by **Bio Hazard** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:05 am

they made a movie on this whole subject on what came first, i forgot its name...

EDIT: you know, ive got a question: whats all this "big/little endian" stuff?

MartinHowe · Post by **MartinHowe** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 am

Mannequin wrote:But, if I remember correctly, the GUI concept didn't come around until Apple did it.

Actually, it was originally invented by Xerox (see below).

Chris wrote:Wasn't it that Apple tried to get the GUI code from Xerox, and Microsoft took it from Apple?

Apple didn't buy any code from Xerox, but they did swipe the idea. Way back in the late 70s, Xerox tried to make the "desktop computer of the future". It was blue-sky research, cost them today's equivalent of several million pounds, and resulted in the Star Workstation - a Mac in all but name...

... and the idiots didn't patent it. They didn't patent it!!

They tried to exploit it commercially (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star ) but the product bombed for various non-technical reasons. Because they didn't patent it, anyone could do the same thing later. Just think what could have happened if Xerox had sold the thing to IBM. Big Blue would have had a decent OS for their new-fangled "personal computer", MSFT would still be a three-man outfit in a basement somewhere... and Billy would be waiting tables in a whorehouse

MartinHowe · Post by **MartinHowe** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:28 am

Bio Hazard wrote:You know, ive got a question: whats all this "big/little endian" stuff?

It is to do with how computers store large numbers in memory or in disk files. Let's use an example in decimal (since there are several non-programmers in this forum), say store the number 426 in a computer with a natural word size of two decimal digits. The top row in each example is the memory address, the bottom is the data.

A big-endian computer (68K or PPC) would do this:

1234
0426

it would put the "big end" of the number first (i.e., at the "leftmost" or lowest memory address), just as how English-speaking humans write numbers on paper.

A little-endian computer (X86) would do this

1234
2604

it would put the "little end" of the number first (i.e., at the "leftmost" or lowest memory address), which is arguably more logical (least significant digit in lowest memory address, most significant digit in highest memory address) but not as easy for humans to read.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:22 am

Mannequin wrote: That's what I think, too. My problem is with people that are closed-minded to it because either they aren't informed about it, they are basing their information on how Mac was 10 years ago, or whatever else might be out there.

I merely base it on the fact that I had to work with Macs a few times (admittedly, the last time was 3 years ago) and I always found the UI of a Mac totally counterproductive and time consuming. Maybe it has improved since then. For me the biggest shortcoming has always been the lack of decent command line support.

And BTW, what's so great about the MacOS Gui? If you could just name a few specific points it would be good. 'Windows is a cheap clone' is not something I can accept without some things that make you say something like that.

Chilvence wrote: Ok, I agree, but what gets me is that none of the other platforms are given this free ticket of games and hardware that the PC so heavily depends on. Its the only reason Windows gets away with being so backward and counter intuitive. Though it might slowly start to change since Macs are using alot of PC components now, I dont know.

No users, no market, no software - no programmers who could do it! It's that simple.
As long as the Mac remains a proprietary hardware platform this won't change. And don't forget that in most of Europe (and probably the rest of the world) the Mac is barely existent. I never saw one for sale and logically nobody here sees a market in selling Mac software, not to mention that not a single software developer I spoke with particularly likes the Mac. It may be end user friendly (whatever that means - probably it's just like the cartoons - a Mac can be operated by an idiot

) but it is not particularly developer friendly.

And frankly, when I see the prices Apple wants for their systems I am not surprised. Even considering that the PPC processor is faster than a Pentium at the same clock speed you still have to pay almost twice as much for a comparable system - and that is simply too much!

Post by **Enjay** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:10 am

Graf Zahl wrote:not a single software developer I spoke with particularly likes the Mac. It ...but it is not particularly developer friendly.

You obviously never spoke to the developers at my wife's work then. They were like some kind of Mac zealots. Whatever a PC/Windows combination could do, Macs were better at it - and I mean programming stuff. Whatever Macs could do, PCs couldn't. Whenever anyone mentioned Windows, or something even worse - like "how come we don't use Windows here, like at home?" they would be met with cries of derision. The atmosphere in the room would change tangibly and the poor victim (for that is what they had become) had to be prepared to listen to a tirade about Mac superiority in everything from memory handling to washing dishes if they actually wanted to get their problem sorted.

Shame for the devs, then, that the college was amalgamated with the university because the university uses Windows.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:55 am

They didn't deserve better.

The developers I know hate Macs. Not because they can't do stuff but because they feel the Mac's design philosophy makes their work harder.

Chilvence · Post by **Chilvence** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:33 am

Graf Zahl wrote:
I merely base it on the fact that I had to work with Macs a few times (admittedly, the last time was 3 years ago) and I always found the UI of a Mac totally counterproductive and time consuming. Maybe it has improved since then. For me the biggest shortcoming has always been the lack of decent command line support.

Command line in a mac? Thats kind of an antithesis. They are computers designed to be operated by someone who has never seen a computer before. My aunt, my grandparents, that sort of thing. These people could have been teachers, doctors, photographers, hardly what you'd call stupid. If you cant grasp the idea of not having to respond to the question "Do I left or right click?", then I just dont know. If a computer can be made that anyone can understand though, how can you not be for it? It's not a country club y'know

And you're right, Mac doesnt have much software when compared to PC. The software it does have though, is more than sufficient. See how much Lexus fawns over Logic Pro 6 - then consider that the Mac has all sorts of big names behind it like Photoshop, Maya etc.... not to mention that buying a Mac automatically entitles you to CD/DVD authoring software, a free Music maker, the best music player out there... stuff that you'd normally waste money on (or maybe not as the case may be

)

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:19 am

Chilvence wrote:
Graf Zahl wrote:
I merely base it on the fact that I had to work with Macs a few times (admittedly, the last time was 3 years ago) and I always found the UI of a Mac totally counterproductive and time consuming. Maybe it has improved since then. For me the biggest shortcoming has always been the lack of decent command line support.
Command line in a mac? Thats kind of an antithesis. They are computers designed to be operated by someone who has never seen a computer before. My aunt, my grandparents, that sort of thing. These people could have been teachers, doctors, photographers, hardly what you'd call stupid. If you cant grasp the idea of not having to respond to the question "Do I left or right click?", then I just dont know. If a computer can be made that anyone can understand though, how can you not be for it? It's not a country club y'know

Antithesis my ass!
The Mac's oversimplified user interface is nothing for me. I need the flexibility of 2 mouse buttons and a command line. You merely acknowledge the fact that Mac's are designed with n00b's in mind.
I generally find GUI apps very bothersome when it comes to automated tasks. For that I'd like to write some batch files etc. but that requires a command line - not to mention that you really can't start ZDoom with lots of parameters if you don't have one!

And you're right, Mac doesnt have much software when compared to PC. The software it does have though, is more than sufficient.

I doubt that very much!

See how much Lexus fawns over Logic Pro 6 - then consider that the Mac has all sorts of big names behind it like Photoshop, Maya etc....

I have Photoshop on my PC, too!

not to mention that buying a Mac automatically entitles you to CD/DVD authoring software, a free Music maker, the best music player out there... stuff that you'd normally waste money on (or maybe not as the case may be )

I got most of that for free with my latest computer - and it cost less than a below-average Mac would.