The Age of Steam Begins Today!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 14 May 2010 09:19 On 14/05/2010 12:21, T i m wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:36:33 +0100, chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> No. But as Windows is a popular gaming platform where speed freaks abound, >> nVidia have an incentive to optimise the driver to the hilt. > > For nVidia I should also read Intel in the case of the GMA950 in this > Mini? Less likely. intel generally make 'budget' video cards, and they would tend to optimize for video rather than games. >> It'll be interesting to see if there's a flurry of complaints regarding >> gaming performance on the Mac (and linux in future) and now nVidia et al >> respond. > > It will indeed. > > However, I'm still not quite sure what the goal is here. On the > grounds that Windows is traditionally a better games platform than > OSX(Linux) and given that many people already Bootcamp their Macs into > Windows for other reasons (or have Winboxes) then doesn't it make > sense to just run stuff like Steam, on Windows? I would say in the grand scheme of things only a very tiny fraction of people have bootcamp on their macs. I don't actually know anyone who does. So the goal is to play games on the mac. For many people they wouldn't mind playing some newer games, but not at the expense or faff of having to use windows. > thing be as fast (or faster?) in a WinVM?)? I guess the goal for many > would be to get away from Windows but for the average Mac I think that > might be a long way off (ie, not an especially fast machine and > considering how many games are unlikely to ever go native Mac). That depends on sale I would have thought. Obviously it is a smaller market, especially with the console market dwarfing the PC market anyway, but it depends entirely on costs. If it costs X to make your game available on the Mac, you only need an amount greater than X to make it worthwhile. -- Woody
From: chris on 14 May 2010 09:19 On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:04:19 +0100, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:40:02 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh > <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> I understand that the ability to keep a desktop going >> for months on end is alien to Windows users... > > Or maybe the 'Windows users' you know aren't as unlucky as you and > don't need to have their machines ready 24/7 to run their artificial > lung or whatever life supporting thing you must need. > > I'm pleased to say that even my server turns itself off when it's not > required, just as I do with my PVR and most other electrical gadgets > in the house. > > IMHO all this 'my up time is 2 years 4 months 6 days' is all a bit > geeky and irrelevant to me. It's got nothing to do with uptime (well maybe for some people it is), but I'm like Jamie I like to have my desktop ready and waiting for me the same way as I left it. I usually have several terminals open, Firefox with lots of tabs open and several other apps too. Being able to sleep/hibernate my machine constantly is a great help. Constantly having to reboot the machine, relaunch all the apps and get back to where I was could easily take 10mins or more. Although, I do find after a couple of months daily hibernating of my MBP it can get it's knickers in a twist (apps not launching, samba mounts not being found, etc.) and requires a reboot.
From: T i m on 14 May 2010 09:28 On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:05:09 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:41:49 +0100, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:33:44 +0100, Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >> >>> I won't >>>dual-boot though, far too much faff >> >>Is it? I don't find it so, in fact I find it very easy (to both set up >>and use, even on this Mini). [1] > >See my other post. I did and I agree on most points. > I know you don't multitask, and you're *very* used >to Windows, so restarting probably isn't an interruption for you. It's not much to do with being used to Windows more to do with the fact there is nothing better for me in OSX (and less in Linux etc). But yes, that's why I haven't gone back into OSX to try Portal again. However, it's not the shutting down XP and starting OSX that's the pain it's restarting XP (and by pain I mean slow rather than difficult or in general, inconvenient) and like you, the fact that once out of my preferred OS I don't have easy access to all my emails / NG stuff etc. > It >is for me. Understood. And I can even see how to be able to play games in your preferred OS (OSX) is an advantage, however there is and I predict will be for quite a while still, one big 'if' and that's the availability of the games and the suitability of the platform (alternative video cards etc) / OS (not so good at single tasking on the more demanding games?). > >>>plus I'd need an extra Windows >>>license. >> >>Just as I would have to buy a Mac and/ or OSX (for say a Hackintosh) >>if I wanted to play games on that platform (assuming I hadn't already >>got several etc). > >Well, yes - but you might have noticed that this is a Mac group! I think it's more of an Apple group these days? ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: chris on 14 May 2010 09:32 On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:21:30 +0100, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: >>> I thought I took from the review the Windows graphics drivers were >>> more advanced. Would that fact have any impact on it's ability to >>> multitask? >> >> No. But as Windows is a popular gaming platform where speed freaks >> abound, >> nVidia have an incentive to optimise the driver to the hilt. > > For nVidia I should also read Intel in the case of the GMA950 in this > Mini? I doubt it as the GMA950 (or any other intel gpu) never was and never will be a gaming platform. The results are a red-herring. > However, I'm still not quite sure what the goal is here. On the > grounds that Windows is traditionally a better games platform than > OSX(Linux) and given that many people already Bootcamp their Macs into > Windows for other reasons (or have Winboxes) then doesn't it make > sense to just run stuff like Steam, on Windows? The point is that most people with a Mac haven't also got Windows for it. So the point from Valve's point of view is to *increase* their market not supplant their Windows users. It's a logical AND not an OR. I have no need for Windows and I certainly wouldn't buy it just to play games. Now, however, at no extra cost to me (other than the games themselves) I am able to play games on my current hardware. Everyone wins.
From: zoara on 14 May 2010 09:40
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On 13 May 2010 09:07:16 GMT, zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >I'll be mucking about getting my Portal saved game from my virtual > >machine over to Steam/OSX over the weekend. Will be reading people's > >experiences here with interest. > > Mine are in > > > C:\Games\Valve\Steam\SteamApps\jaimievandenbergh\portal\portal\SAVE\ > > and work fine when copied into > > > /Users/jaimie/Documents/Steam > > Content/jaimievandenbergh/portal/portal/SAVE/ Fab, that works. Helpful as my VM doesn't seem to want to start up and I didn't want endless fiddling to try to get it running. Last time I touched it (according to my saved games) was August, so it could be anything (but probably Snow Leopard). Only problem is having all the Steam data in ~/Documents... If, in theory, I backed up my documents folder to someone else's disk over the Internet, I'd be backing up a lot of data I didn't need to ;) Any idea how I shift Steam data to somewhere else? Can't see any settings for it. > You saw my other post about pulling the .gcf files across? I did, I was just too lazy and/or scared. I just clicked the "download" button and let it get on with it... -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |