×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

47 comments

Attention... (4, Funny)

RegalBegal (742288) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697638)

all MacHeads set your productivity meter to ZERO.

mmmm seige tanks.

I'll up ya one (1)

sevinkey (448480) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697757)

mmmm seige tanks acquired by taking an scv with a dark arbiter's mind control, and then dropped with an arbiter already in seige mode... muhhahahaha

errr... god I'm a dork!

the real issue here (4, Interesting)

soybean (1120) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697649)

is that apple is no longer shipping classic or even the classic cd's with osx. After the last time I took my ibook in for repair, they replaced my harddrive, giving me 10.3, but without classic. I wasn't able to install starcraft until I downloaded a bootleg (*gasp*) of classic. This release is obviously fixing that problem.

Re:the real issue here (2, Informative)

Electrum (94638) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697687)

is that apple is no longer shipping classic or even the classic cd's with osx. After the last time I took my ibook in for repair, they replaced my harddrive, giving me 10.3, but without classic.

I got a PowerBook with 10.3 about four months ago and it came with Classic.

You sure about no Classic? (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697839)

When I installed 10.3 on a G4 a couple of months ago I noticed that Classic was not installed by default. It was on one of the CDs though, it just had to be installed separately. You sure its not on any of your CDs? I was using a retail 10.3 package, my system came with 10.2. I don't believe the CD label mentioned Classic being on the disc.

Re:You sure about no Classic? (1)

soybean (1120) | more than 9 years ago | (#9706753)

No, I'm not sure. But I did look on the disks that I was given. I could't find it. Also, it was not _installed_ on my brand new pre-set-up harddrive. This was two months ago. And I have heard that apple is going to end-of-life classic sometime in the future, so I just figured that time was now.

Re:the real issue here (2, Funny)

MrDickey (653242) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698448)

REAL mac users have system discs dating back to at least system 4

Re:the real issue here (1)

soybean (1120) | more than 9 years ago | (#9706723)

Well, yes, I myself have many system disks from even before version 2. But when I went to install 9.2 that came with an I book, made to be used as a classic environment under 10.1, it wouldn't accept the it. My 10.3 said that it needed a newer version or some such.

Re:the real issue here (2, Interesting)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 8 years ago | (#9728482)

mac users that get things done haven't booted classic in years now. i would say i have used it (off of my external fw disk) a grand total of like once a year for the last three years now, ever since 10.2. what's left on classic?

Re:the real issue here (4, Informative)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698645)

Your classic environment is stored as a disk image in a hidden directory on your restore DVD/CD. You can just mount the image and drag the System Folder from it to your hard drive. Voilá, Classic system installed.

Re:the real issue here (1)

soybean (1120) | more than 9 years ago | (#9706695)

Oh? That's interesting. What hidden directory?

Re:the real issue here (2, Informative)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#9708009)

It's called .images or something obvious like that. I forget off the top of my head. To do it the gui way, install Tinker Tools and check the box to show hidden files and directories, then restart the Finder. You should be able to navigate directly to the directory on the restore disk from the Finder.

Re:the real issue here (1)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 9 years ago | (#9701864)

is that apple is no longer shipping classic or even the classic cd's with osx.

I suppose it depends on how you get OS X. I got OS X CDs with my new Rev. C PowerBook G4 I bought from wwww.apple.ca less than two months ago, and the pre-installed OS X 10.3 came with Classic support installed. The DVDs that came with the system to re-install the OS likewise have Classic support available on them.

Yaz.

It took them... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9697691)

this long? For Starcraft? Which is how old, by now?

This, simply put, is why I'm a PC gamer. I like my games from sometime within the past, I don't know, five years or so. And what have I missed, limiting myself to IBM-compatibles? ...Marathon. And that's pretty much it. Good game, from what I've seen. Now that, even, is not true.

you don't still play this game on pc? (1)

sevinkey (448480) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697717)

I play this game on mac, but all of my pc's also have a copy installed. I play this game more than any other game still, it's just THAT good.

Mac gamers (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698076)

People who only want to play games don't buy Macs. However people who buy their computer for non-gaming reasons may also want to play the occasional game. Some of these people found that Macs suit their primary needs best and the Mac gaming market thereby came into existence. Starcraft for Mac came out about a year after the PC version. Since Diablo II Blizzard has been releasing PC and Mac versions at the same time. A MacOS X version of Starcraft has been available for quite some time now. I believe it consisted of a set of alternate files that you dropped into an existing Classic Starcraft installation. The problem today is that the latest version Mac OS X no longer installs the Classic environment by default. Some current Starcraft players are inconvenienced by having to possibly install the Classic environment before installing Starcraft. The new Mac OS X installer avoids this inconvenience by letting them install without Classic. No one was prevented from playiing Starcraft prior to this installer, they were just inconvenienced if they did not have the Classic environment installed already.

Re:Mac gamers (3, Informative)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698694)

All Macs still ship with a Classic environment installed. All the Classic environment is is a System Folder.

This isn't Windows, people, where you have to have dlls and registry keys.

Drag any System 9.2.2 System folder to your Mac's hard drive and you have installed Classic.

Your new Mac's System Restore DVD/CD will have a number of disk images in a hidden directory (.images or something like that.) One of them is a disk image of nothing more than an OS 9.2.2 System Folder and the Applications (Mac OS 9) directory. If you need to install the classic environment, just mount that image, and drag the system folder over.

Re:Mac gamers (1)

Domini (103836) | more than 9 years ago | (#9704902)

I've been a PC user for basically ever.

In my opinion the old mac operating systems were inferior to windows and unix.

Now that has changed. OS X was my first Apple OS.

The thing is that the G5 PC and 17" Powerbook are rated as under top 5 gaming platforms... something that has not ever happened in the recent past. So this trend of PC-only-for-gaming is about to change.

But for now, perhaps you are right, and I'll stick to my PC just a little longer (until my next upgrade), then I will make my Apple the primary machine...

Blizzard = awesome (2, Interesting)

BortQ (468164) | more than 9 years ago | (#9697854)

Blizzard has always had excellent macintosh support. From quick (or simultaneous) release dates to stuff like this.

They are awesome.

Tangent about freecraft (1)

Stallmanite (752733) | more than 9 years ago | (#9703666)

This is getting offtopic but Blizzard isn't that awesome.

Slashdot got pretty pissed at blizzard [slashdot.org] about a year ago when they cease and desisted the FreeCraft project. That thread has some other examples of blizzard evil and some slashdoters swore off blizzard products altogether. Their anger was understandable too; FreeCraft was one of the best games FOSS had.

(Freecraft mostly survived as wargus [sourceforge.net] but it looks like the Freecraft media project didn't. )

Re:Tangent about freecraft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9709473)

yay for group think you sheeple

Re:Tangent about freecraft (1)

javax (598925) | more than 9 years ago | (#9723822)

They also tried to kill the bnetd [greenend.org.uk] - an open source battle.net server.
It now lives in the UK, as the DMCA only works in the US...

Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698538)

I'm downloading it now, and I really hope that it works with the old 1.0 Windows CD... I bought SC before there was a Mac version, and I really don't want to buy the hybrid-CD battle-chest just to play it on my powerbook...

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698928)

that's a big ole negative, i just tried it and it kept prompting me for the cd

thankfully my friend has the hybrid cd, while i have the original 1.0

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

CaptainFlyingToaster (265282) | more than 9 years ago | (#9699174)

If you have ready access to a PC, you can install the PC-only version on it, then copy the installed files (via burned CD or LAN) to the mac, THEN install the OSX patch. Not pretty, but it works.

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 9 years ago | (#9699203)

can you elaborate on that? what OS X patch? the installer looks for a cd...

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

Analog Penguin (550933) | more than 9 years ago | (#9699382)

Uh...sorry, but that's just not true. How exactly is this even supposed to work? If you have a PC-only disc (released months before there even EXISTED a Mac version), and install the PC binaries and support files on a PC, how is a Mac going to run that even when the files are copied over? Macs can't natively run PC binaries, and I'm sure that the PC installer spews files all over the place anyway. You at least need a copy of the original CD for Mac to get the thing installed.

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

DLWormwood (154934) | more than 9 years ago | (#9699553)

how is a Mac going to run that even when the files are copied over? Macs can't natively run PC binaries, and I'm sure that the PC installer spews files all over the place anyway.

You wouldn't use the new installer in this case. You'd simply download the most recent OS X update archive from battle.net and install it in the same directory as the PC data files that were copied over.

All of the Mac updaters I've seen from Blizzard install a standalone executable (APPL or .app) file, rather than patching a pre-existing one. Even with PC installs of their games, Blizzard's been careful to install their own intellectual property in the same folder as the executable, while third-party Windows specific stuff is installed in the various systems directories Microsoft seems to require.

Historically, the Mac platform has been able to accommidate simple "drag-and-drop" copying for installing for many kinds of software, rather than always requiring a dedicated installer front-end. The Mac OS knows how to examine a new executable package to extract file associations and dependencies in many cases, whereas Windows systems tend to require installers to muck with the Registry, et al. The fact that Blizzard even used installers on the Mac platform was more out of presentation consistency than neccesity. (Many early OS X adopters, like myself, were able to figure out how to copy over the files from the CDs without needing the still-Classic installer.) This ability to easily install (and uninstall!) most Mac apps was one of the things that allowed the Mac maintain a healthy shareware/freeware market, despite the platform's much lower marketshare.

Re:Hopefully works with the old windows disks... (1)

Analog Penguin (550933) | more than 9 years ago | (#9705377)

Ah, my bad. I had forgotten that SC patches take the form of a complete exectutable (due to the fact that the standalone patch usually takes so long to be available that just connecting to Bnet is much easier--that and I've been playing too much War3 lately). In that case, this is actually quite a clever solution. Has anyone tested it? Does it actually work?

Copying data files from PC is not always reliable (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9700928)

Copying Blizzard's PC-only data files to the Mac and renaming them appropriate is not very reliable in general. These original data files did not contain Mac specific data. If you are lucky this Mac specific data got patched at some point so it is in the patch data files. If not something will go wrong. Fortunately it is usually something in the Mac user interface and not the game itself, but there is no real guarantee. Be prepared for something goofy to happen if you try this, hopefully it will be benign.

More installers (1)

sljgh (742290) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698621)

We need more of these installers for OS X updated games. I want to jump back into Unreal Tournament, but without classic or 9 I can't install the game properly from the CD. Produce more!

Re:More installers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9729466)

Unfortunatly Unreal Tourny is almost dead now...and tactical -ops is no longer free :(

Linux natives (0, Offtopic)

ir8monkey (646592) | more than 9 years ago | (#9698783)

wouldn't it be nice if they released linux native binaries for their games.

Re:Linux natives (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 9 years ago | (#9700174)

HeHeHe. Thats always a good one. Anyway, you have freecraft already. Besides, linux has bzflag and nethack. what other games do you really need?

Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (2, Interesting)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9701033)

The problem is that Linux gamers tend to dual boot or use WineX. In other words Linux gamers are already buying the Win32 version. A Linux port would not generate many new sales, for the most part it would merely replace Win32 sales with Linux sales. There would be no new money to pay for development, testing, and support. The Linux market is not anyone who would run the Linux version, it is only those who would never run the Win32.

The Mac situation is completely different. While PC emulation exists for the Mac it is not generally usable for games since the x86 CPU instructions have to be emulated, not just an API as in the WineX case. Unlike Linux gamers the Mac gamers can not use the Win32 version, they have to have a native port.

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

Kleedrac2 (257408) | more than 9 years ago | (#9702303)

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Epic has said time and time again that releasing Linux binaries increased the number of sales for UT (which only shipped as Win32.) Besides what I don't understand is if they can make a binary for OSX (which is *nix based) why can't they port it to Linux?

Kleedrac

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9711929)

Epic has said time and time again that releasing Linux binaries increased the number of sales for UT (which only shipped as Win32.)

That is consistent with what I have said. Without those Linux binaries how many would have dual booted or used WineX? This part of the population is not paying for the port, a Win32 sale is replaced with a Linux sale, no new money. Time and time again one of the most frequent statements made by Linux users is that they only keep Windows around for games. In all honesty only those Linux users who do not keep a Windows machine or partion handy and who do not use WineX justify porting to Linux, they are the only source of new money. They are the only lost revenue by not having a Linux version.

Id has said that Linux versions (clients not servers) do not make sense from a business perspective, that they merely support Linux because they think it is cool to do so. From a Game Developer Magazine article.

Besides what I don't understand is if they can make a binary for OSX (which is *nix based) why can't they port it to Linux?

Because Mac programs are not written using a portable API. Mac programs tend to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs and these are Mac specific. The Carbon API has the advantage that it is highly compatible with the original Mac OS API. It lets Mac game porting houses continue to use their existing in-house libraries that facilitate Win32, DirectDraw, DirectSound, and Direct3D compatibility.

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

Kleedrac2 (257408) | more than 9 years ago | (#9713054)

Id has said that Linux versions (clients not servers) do not make sense from a business perspective, that they merely support Linux because they think it is cool to do so. From a Game Developer Magazine article

And yet Doom 3 will have a linux client. Again I don't see how people can say that supporting WineX defeats linux clients being developed. Just because it's not the best solution doesn't mean it's not a solution.

Kleedrac

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9719567)

And yet Doom 3 will have a linux client.

As Id said, because they think it is cool to do so not because they think it makes business sense. They are profitable enough that they can afford to engage in such "hobbies". Don't read this as a put down, it is not. Lots of good software is written as a hobby and not purely for profit. Of course that is an obvious point when discussing Linux. :-)

Again I don't see how people can say that supporting WineX defeats linux clients being developed. Just because it's not the best solution doesn't mean it's not a solution

Look at it from the developer's perspective. When it comes time to make a decision regarding the Linux port you have determine how you will get a return on your investment, in other words how will this port generate new customers. If you can reach nearly all Linux gamers through WineX then a port is not justified. A customer is a customer, it does not matter to the developer if they buy a Win32 box or a Linux box, just that they buy something. WineX lets you reach your Linux customers with the Win32 version, a Linux version would be redundant, an unnecessary expense with respect to WineX users.

What is happening with WineX is somewhat similar to OS/2 2.0. OS/2 2.0's Windows 3.x support was so good and so reliable that developers felt that there was no need to port their products to OS/2. One of the niches where OS/2 2.0 made some inroads was in academic environments. Back in the day I handled some support calls for a scientific app. When an OS/2 customer called and asked about a native port I told them how to make a minor configuration change so that our Windows app would run on the OS/2 desktop rather than in full screen Windows. This was invariably good enough for them, they just wanted to avoid the inconvenience of full screen Windows. Running our app on the OS/2 desktop along side their native OS/2 apps was all they really wanted. WineX provides a similar function to gamers. They would like to avoid the inconvenience of dual booting. If WineX lets a Win32 version run natively on their Linux desktop alongside their other Linux apps this is good enough for most Linux gamers. Only the extreme minority will hold out for a native version. This minority is too small to justify the port and ongoing support.

I am not saying that WineX is bad or that it should be avoided. All I am saying is that it strongly encourages developers to not bother doing a native Linux port.

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 9 years ago | (#9746901)

There is something different to be said for Linux ports: once you did the Linux port, any ports to other platform suddenly become easier. And if you planned porting your game in the first place (you do make plans, don't you?), the Linux port becomes very easy indeed.

Imagine this: most compatibility issues stem from the choice of API. The other big problem, endian compatibility, will have to be tackled anyway (you want to do a Mac port, after all).
So you choose an API that's compatible with most of the platforms you want to deploy on. "Mostly POSIX" comes to mind. Use OpenGL for your 3D support, OpenAL for sound, and you're good as set. Of course, you'll probably want to design a plug-in system for rendering, since not every platform has support for OpenGL, but once you've done that, everything will be fine.
Now, why would you do that? After all, Windows is the largest market? It is, but even if were to distribute solely on Windows, the amount of bugs you'll find by testing your code on a wide variety of platforms is astounding (e.g. overflowing your memory may work on your Windows box, but not under Linux. And not under the next version of Windows, either).

Re:Linux and Mac situations are not comparable (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761701)

While I agree with many of your points it does not change the underlying fact that most Linux gamers will buy the Win32 version if a native Linux version does not exist. A native Linux game is great for the Linux community but it does little financially for the developer. Now add support costs, you were considering support and were not going to go down the sleezy road of unsupported Linux code, an eternal beta?

Cross-platform APIs like OpenAL are no panacea and sometimes lock you into a least common denominator approach. It is often better to target whatever the native API on the platform is.

Regarding the benefits of cross-platform developments Linux adds little once you are already targetting Win32 and Mac OS X. The Mac uses different development tools and you have a different hardware architecture compared to Win32. With Linux you are using many of the same tools as the Mac version and the same hardware architecture as the Win32 version.

I am not arguing against Linux ports. I am merely arguing that the benefits are not as great as commonly believed. The points above have to be addressed when pitching a Linux project and be part of the financial decision.

What StarCraft _really_ needs.... (1)

Centinel (594459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9703665)

....is a patch for 800 x 600 graphics

That would definitely get alot more folks dusting off their old CDs for their 19" monitors

And an OSX version of Myth II... (1)

deasach (46303) | more than 9 years ago | (#9744609)

The community around Bungie's Myth II managed to get the sourcecode (legitimately) and have carbonised it themselves. It's a fantastic effort.

http://projectmagma.net/index.shtml
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...