home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel.anu.edu.au!huxley!tal691
- From: tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
- Subject: Re: What should Apple do to the Mac to make it better for games?
- Date: 31 Dec 92 07:09:47 GMT
- Organization: Australian National University
- Lines: 65
- Message-ID: <tal691.725785787@huxley>
- References: <1htqadINNe5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.2.12
-
- an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
-
-
- > Okay, since the arguments over sprits, slow games, etc. seems to have
- >taken a big presence here lately <grin>, what SHOULD Apple do in its next
- >batch of Macintoshes (dream dream dream, dream a little dream) to make the
- >Macintosh "More adept" to running games? For one, I just saw a demo
- >running of the new "SegaCD", and actually, the implementation is pretty
- >good. The thing which cought me the most was the speed at which things run
- >(I'm not talking about access time, I'm talking animation/graphics/video)
- >on the Genesis/CD combination. Also looking at Amiga games (evil words,
- >almost as much as the dreaded PC/Microsoft!) and doing a little research,
- >some things which I've learned and picked up seem to be that Apple should
- >ideally implement a GRAPHICS BLITTER co-processor. (Hell, if a $800 Amiga
- >1200 at 14mhz can have one and run faster than a IIsi/IIvx, why not the
- >Mac?) The blitter really takes away a lot of the graphic processing work
- >from the processor (so I understand, techies can correct me) and re-directs
- >it straight to the monitor ("Blitting it" so they say...). This frees up
- >the CPU to handle other calls from the program such as I/O and basic frame
- >direction. It also is great for when you've got lots of video on screen
- >and/or animation.
-
- > Any other ideas from others out there?
-
-
- The number one thing Apple can do to make the Mac a better games machinew
- is to make it faster and/or cheaper. Preferably AND.
-
- The number two thing would be to support a brain-dead graphics mode. (Like
- the Amiga's standard 320x200 which is what you're looking at most of the
- time -- that plus blurry pixels takes the Amiga halfway to being the
- machine it is.) The problem is, the brain dead graphics mode won't be
- useful for most serious work (it might be useful for video work).
-
- A blitter doesn't make as much sense for the Mac as it does for the Amiga
- which was built around it. Consider this: I can beat egges very well with
- a $20 egg-beater. Why can't my Mac do this too, it cose $X000? Well, the
- Amiga, despite being a 68000-based machine, is very different from the
- Mac. I think that a Mac with a blitter will cost a lot more than a Mac
- without one and a Sega Megadrive/Genesis/CD/whatever-they're-calling-it-
- where-you-are. And you don't have to wait to finish your report while
- your friend tries to win the Atlantic Breakthrough scenario of Harpoon.
-
- QuickDraw acceleration (which includes a faster blitter -- the Mac has
- a software blitter, by the way) would be more all round useful.
-
- Certainly, I think Apple should just concentrate on price/performance
- and everything else will take care of itself. If it does try to make
- the Mac a better games machine, it should only be coincidental. Thus
- adding quickdraw acceleration would be nice, but probably appear on
- high-end Macs first. On the other hand, cheap PowerPC-based Macs,
- available in 1994???, would make the Amiga and 486 machines look pretty
- pathetic AND be useful in their own right. (There'll be the Penta of
- course, and MCGA still.)
-
- Has anyone seen Alone in the Dark for the PC? I'm waiting for a real-time
- ray-traced game now.
-
- Tonio
-
- --
- Tonio Loewald | tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au | Life is short. Be nice.
- "You can lie/You can cry/For all the good it'll do you, you can
- die/But when it's done/And the police come/And they lay you down
- for dead/Just remember what I said" (Paul Simon-not the senator)
-