Operating Systems > macOS
The G5
hm_murdock:
nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.
as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.
Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.
here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX
Parrott:
yeah here here they had to cheat to try to make themselves look good
nvidia anyone?
Zombie9920:
To be fair, I don't trust comparision benchmarks sanctioned by the company who made the hardware...no matter who the company is.
I wouldn't trust Intel sanctioned comparison benchmarks, AMD sanctioned benchmarks, Nvidia sanctioned benchmarks, ATI sanctioned benchmarks, etc. I don't trust benchmarks done by individual reviewers with a bias for a certain company either.
It is a known fact that the maker of the hardware will do whatever they can to make their hardware look like it is the best.
The only time I trust comparision benchmarks is when they are done by repituable, non-biased reviewers(like [H]ardOCP ).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
preacher:
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.
as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.
Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.
here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX
--- End quote ---
Listen to you, its a proven fact that Quake 3 runs faster on linux with OpenGL, on the exact same pc with Windows installed. Ive seen this time and time again. According to you it would run slower because linux is not suitable for games.
The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what you are talking about, so you should just be quiet. Linux is just as powerful an OS as any Microsoft product and Im sick of people like you trash talking it.
Thats ok though, Im going to play Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600 x 1200 with anisotropic filtering on my horribly weak and pitiful OS that sucks at games. Soon I will play Doom3 on my OS that is good for nothing but being a server.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
that's testing defaults across the board.
theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.
actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]
--- End quote ---
OpenGL in Windows isn't tied into the DirectX sub-system at all. OpenGL is a standard Open Graphics Library that remains the same on all platforms. OpenGL on Windows, OpenGL on Linux, OpenGL on Unix, OpenGL on MacOS, OpenGL on BeOS, etc. is the same. It uses the same library with the same extensions, etc. That is why OpenGL is called cross platform.
MS only allows DirectX calls, extensions, acceleration, etc. to be used with DirectX. MS would be foolish to add DirectX acceleration to OpenGL because 1. That would give OpenGL what it needs to be graphically comparable to DirectX 8/9 and 2. OpenGL is open source, if MS added DirectX code to it anybody could view the source code of the MS modified OpenGL and steal some of the propriatary code of DirectX that was tied into it.
MS doesn't offer updates to OpenGL either. Nope, if you want OpenGL 1.4 in Windows it is included with NVidia's Detonator XP drivers, ATI's newer Catalyst drivers, Matrox's Pariphiela drivers, etc. or you have to go download it from OpenGL.org .
MS has nothing to do with OpenGL and MS certainly isn't going to help further the devolpment of it and add extra speed and features to it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version