541–550 of 734 posts
More and more I see the M1 chips and I wish Mac worked seriously well for gaming. Would love too see something like Proton but for Mac (given up hopes for native support). I hate that I have my gaming PC and then my Mac for everything else. I have to wonder though what their plan is for the M2. Are they laying the groundwork for when the M2 comes out all of these variants will be ready at the same time? Or a gradual…
It's important to note that Apple cut off the Proton devs; not the other way around. It would indeed be pretty cool to see that sort of thing running on Apple Silicon, but the plethora of architectural changes that came along with Catalina stopped Mac support from being a viable target for Valve. Not very surprising though; Mac native games don't really work that well either. If it relies on 32-bit libraries, it won'…
the last 32bit only Mac system shipped a decade prior to Catalina. 32bit was dropped a decade after support for the last 32bit only Macs. Apple Silicon in both iOS and Mac is 64bit only, on iOS it has been for years.
Despite that, macOS supports everything required for proton - the mechanisms that allow wine to run 32bit x86 apps on both intel and under rosetta exist pretty much purely for the purpose of things like wine (and so proton).
So I'm not sure where you get "apple cut off the proton devs" from that work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's market share has always been a small slice of the overall PC market. In a way, they never did "mass market". While the prosumer market may be a small proportion of the overall market, it could be very significant, for Apple, relative to the market Apple addresses. Plus, I think a lot of people who would not normally call themselves a "prosumer" will want, and purchase these.
Apple's market share has always been a small slice of the overall PC market. Small is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Apple sold nearly $11 billion worth of Macs last quarter. Once you get out of the HN echo chamber and enterprise IT circles, Macs are quite popular. In a way, they never did "mass market". Having an Apple Store within a 20 minute drive of 80% of the American public counts as mass market [1]. Hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Apple supported gaming more You mean if gaming supported Apple more, right? The industry's reliance on DirectX and the frameworks that build on it are largely what keep gaming so PC-centric. If we saw AAA studios embrace macOS-compatible (or better yet Open Source) graphics architecture, the need to have separate gaming PCs (and the insanely expensive GPUs associated therewith) would evaporate.
> As of June 3, 2021, there is no native support for Vulkan API provided by Apple devices. > Apple deprecated OpenGL in iOS 12 and macOS 10.14 Mojave in favor of Metal, but it is still available as of macOS 11 Big Sur (including Apple silicon devices). The latest version supported for OpenGL is 4.1 from 2011. OSX accounts for 2.62% of Steam users. Implementing another graphics backend is prohibitively expensive for s…
Honestly the real issue is you probably wouldn't get many users or make a whole ton of money, really. Unless you target iOS or iPads, but that can add some significant constraints to the game. (But sometimes it's OK; Divinity Original Sin 2 basically works fine on an M1 Mac or an M1 iPad, as long as you have a Xbox controller to go with it.)
I think as programmers we desperately want to believe it's just a matter of programming and that we're in the critical path here, but it really isn't. Most of that stuff is a solved for a lot of cases. And if it was technological constraints, honestly, there's like a whole host of actual technological concerns, all of them really boring and crappy and not "cool" like rendering (like how do you CI and QA the damn thing, what kind of impacts might it have on your build system, do all the 3rd party things you have work here, etc.) Rendering is just "cool" to talk about but it's not actually as important as those; by the same token you never see giant threads on here about like OS-specific sound APIs or whatever...
There just aren't many Mac gamers and the hardware is kind of expensive to buy and test on for most purposes in that case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have no idea if this is still the case for their newer games though. Diablo 2 Remastered doesn't run on a Mac :-(
Sure as hell won't get better now that they're owned by Microsoft. You can expect DirectX to take center stage for their upcoming releases.
All the iOS games do both today.
I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…
Why are they doing this? Trickle down effects for their mass market products? There is no way that the prosumer market is big enough to justify this distraction for Apple even if it used to be their core business line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your opinion is that you want it. My opinion is I don't. HDMI is much more limiting. Say that you're a manufacturer trying to keep an eye towards wants new vs supporting what's old, what decisions do you make to support new and retro without increasing the costs? At some point, having backseat decision makers giving input results in the car designed by Homer. Of all of the things I've personally railed on Apple ab…
If there were two HDMI ports, how would that impact your one-HDMI world? It's clear from the comments others would find it useful. So that's a valid compromise. It's on the back of the unit so you wouldn't have to stare at that second unused port and shudder in disgust. > trying to keep an eye towards wants new vs supporting what's old No one is suggesting they trade anything away. Apple has settled on USB-C. But the…
Sure, but I don't think any Apple Silicon Mac has dual HDMI. While I guess it's possible that they spent the money to design dual HDMI support in their own chips and then said "but now that we've done this, we can save twenty bucks by not actually making the physical ports," but doesn't it seem likely that they also saved the money by…not putting it on the chip?
> Do you think adding a second HDMI would increase the arbitrary price from $2k to $2k plus $20?
Do you think anyone contemplating buying a computer that starts at $2K is going to suddenly stop, slap their forehead, and scream, "To connect two HDMI monitors, I'm going to have to buy a $15 USB-C to HDMI cable instead of a $6 HDMI cable! That extra $9 blows my budget! CURSE YOU, TIM COOK!"
I mean, I get what you're saying, but this just seems like a weirdly tiny hill to die on. :)
> For the record, I would LOVE it if the Mac startup chime played "La Cucaracha"
Well, who wouldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 10-core CPU with a performance advantage of 23% over an M1 Max in Cinebench R23 (AMD 5800x) and a 1,280 CUDA core GPU (GTX 1060 6GB) that cost a little over $1,000 US total. UPDATE - Sorry, I originally listed this as a 5900x by accident. I need more sleep.
The 5800X is 8-core, while the 5900X is 12-core. You may have misread the number of cores on the box when you bought it! If you go into task manager, how many logical threads are there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 10-core CPU with a performance advantage of 23% over an M1 Max in Cinebench R23 (AMD 5800x) and a 1,280 CUDA core GPU (GTX 1060 6GB) that cost a little over $1,000 US total. UPDATE - Sorry, I originally listed this as a 5900x by accident. I need more sleep.
Which one?