Response to John Carmack's Comments About Macs 204
An anonymous reader wrote in to say "
You'll remember John Carmack's recent .plan file, which is
mostly devoted to a commentary about Macs, both the OS and
the hardware. David Every of MacKiDo
fame has written an interesting response in today's column. You might also want to check out the quote by John Norstad (near the bottom of the main page) for a good laugh. "
You can put a Voodoo board in an iMac? (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Instead, it's hacked at boot-time (Score:1)
Its just that MacOS Extensions are not as well thought out as the loadable module is - they require patching the MacOS kernel in order to operate, whereas with Linux the kernel has a well defined interface to the loadable modules that allows you to load/unload selectively without creating kernel problems.
Nitpicky commment... (Score:1)
Doom and most of the original 3D shooters didn't run in Win16...or if they did, you were using black magic. Pretty much everything from Apogee before Win95 became mainstream, had "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RUN THIS UNDER MICROSOFT WINDOWS" prominently in the readme file.
I'm unimpressed (Score:1)
I thought Carmack's analysis was rather fair and unbiased, but because he dared to make a negative assertion about macs, the fanatics must now come out and try to rebuke him. Basically the idea I got from this article was a mac fanatic showing some token loyalty towards Apple, but being unable to make any real points relating to Carmack actually being wrong. He constantly contradicts himself by simultaneously opposing Carmack and agreeing with him.
Carmack's basic point was clear: The Macintosh is a solid system in some ways, but is not optimal for games because of its weak technical foundation. Despite these drawbacks, it can still be an enjoyable development environment. What was Every's point? That the Macintosh is a good development environment despite having somewhat poor internals? If so, what was the purpose of the entire article?
I'm not sure if it's even worth going over, but Every's writing lacks conviction. Carmack for example will give definite evidence to back up a claim, as he did when he was defending OpenGL against Direct3D, and again here where he discusses MacOS memory protection. Every only contributes biased opinion, mixed with logical fallacy (I don't want to have to remind many
In conclusion, this is crap. The original
-W.W.
damn what a mac fan. (Score:1)
Okay, okay, Macs are good (anything is good if it can run linux), but he is really Pro Mac.
He isn't a 3D programmer and definitely not something who does a lot of programmer, nor does he know what it's like in the Win32 environment.
I'm not saying that John Carmack is the God of all programming, but his fundamentals and foundations for his code is something that books should be written about. Even if no one agrees with my statement about John Carmack's technical knowledge, we should all agree that John Carmack's ethics cannot be disputed. If he says something is good, you don't have to believe him, but it definitely could be good. If he says its bad, there is a definite chance that its bad. We all have fucking brains, we can all make decisions, but I tend to listen to people who know what they are talking about.
This guy should make a fucking fishtank with his Mac and get a PC. When the dust settles, he'll get another Mac and realize that a fishtank is fine upgrade from a Mac.
I can't wait to get a used iMac to make a fishtank.
damn what a mac fan. (Score:1)
Okay, okay, Macs are good (anything is good if it can run linux), but he is really Pro Mac.
He isn't a 3D programmer and definitely not something who does a lot of programmer, nor does he know what it's like in the Win32 environment.
I'm not saying that John Carmack is the God of all programming, but his fundamentals and foundations for his code is something that books should be written about. Even if no one agrees with my statement about John Carmack's technical knowledge, we should all agree that John Carmack's ethics cannot be disputed. If he says something is good, you don't have to believe him, but it definitely could be good. If he says its bad, there is a definite chance that its bad. We all have fucking brains, we can all make decisions, but I tend to listen to people who know what they are talking about.
This guy should make a fucking fishtank with his Mac and get a PC. When the dust settles, he'll get another lize that a fishtank is fine upgrade from a Mac.
I can't wait to get a used iMac to make a fishtank.
The real problem.. (Score:1)
...is that Mac people / PC people / etc have a really strange filter in their heads. When they hear someone say "Mac OS *really* sucks", it gets turned into "Windows rules!". Carmack didn't say a single thing about the PC being better than the mac. This guy is just too defensive.
Everyone just needs to admit that Mac OS *does* suck. That's why we're getting rhapsody. And.. in my perfect world, anyone who says "Windows 95 = Mac OS '89" will be shot. This has to be the most annoying and stupid thing said since the beginning of time.
I hate to sound as if I'm ranting, but.. we have five fingers on each hand. What is the deal with *one* mouse button?! Having only one makes things *more* complicated. How soon before macs will be triple clicking? How long will it be before everyone with a mac must pound out a showtune on that solitary button, just to access a few extra functions? When does it end?!
This is just as upsetting as the Intel "one status light" concept. Gah!@#! I want a hundred lights, and possibly even an LCD display! Even if you don't want that many lights.. wouldn't it be a bit more confusing with only one light?
And now, without a proper ending, I must go. An irate customer wishes to speak to me.
I see your point.. (Score:1)
I am in tech support, and I see your point, but I can explain 2 mouse buttons so that (nearly) any user can grasp the concept quickly.
The left button is for "touching" things.
The right button is for getting more choices.
If they don't get it at that point, not being able to figure out two mouse buttons may be the least of your problems. =)
One-button mice are nice. (Score:1)
yeah.. I know he comments about it.. that's what made me bring it up. I *suppose* a one button mouse is ok for newbies.. but have Macs really had the choice of a two button mouse for some time? I was under the impression that you couldn't have one. I wonder if the operating system supports two buttons well. Not that it matters.. I will not touch macOS with a ten foot pole. =)
John's comments! (Score:1)
We know that Cable is his leader and helps him say that to bash the Mac. MacOS X is the best environment to develop on, now with thousands joining its ranks in development and dropping Unix and Windows to do so! Stop Cable from spreading lies! Fight back for the Mac! Let us get the MacJihad back and fight back!
Intellectual Masturbation (Score:1)
I'm glad this guy went to so much effort to agree with Carmack's conclusions...
My Favorite comment from John C's plan (Score:1)
Hehe. I'm such a bastard.
Wait until release? (Score:1)
Seriously, it's hard to judge an operating system that doesn't exist. I think Carmack did a good job explaining that MacOS (as it is now) sucks for a good deal of reasons. I think he's also hoping Apple can pull off MacOS X; he mentioned its design a few times in the
useless article. (Score:1)
(This is also why Linus (& friends) is the god of all Operating System design. Each time a stable port of Linux is released for a new platform, it is faster than the old OS on the same hardware. (provided it doesn't use Mach, for a fair comparison, both OSes would have to use it))
Second, I have read rants like this before. Low-level weenie? Hey, I resemble that remark! My computer is x86 based, it's an AMD K6/300. The whole package, including the 17" monitor was under $1100, cheaper, faster, and generally superior than the iMac offerings around the same time. And it has a mouse with two mouse buttons, emulating three. I like my "features". And toasters are easier to "learn" how to use than are computers. But I'm not going to try to run a web server off of a toaster...
And notice that Carmack didn't bash the hardware, but the OS. This is the real issue. If it had been cheaper, I would have gotten a PPC-based computer, and put PPCLinux on it... but the offerings from Apple are too expensive, and I prefer having compatibility with at least one other native OS. (I use DOSEmu and WINE as it is, maybe if SheepShaver gets ported I'll switch hardware platforms)
And why does Carmack bash the MacOS? Because it sucks! This is not a GUI argument here, people. This is about the underlying OS. It's supposed to provide file services, access to RAM, etc, etc. And that sucks. If you want a unified look-and-feel, then you have to convince all app developers to only use your API the way you intended (which Apple does) but that is *not* an OS issue, it's a friggin' user interface issue.
Therefore, this article was off-topic, which is pretty bad considering...
I'm unimpressed (Score:1)
Responding to his Carmack's comment that "Spec95 is a set of valid benchmarks in my opinion, and I doubt the PC systems significantly (if at all) outperform the intel systems," one reader noted the actual numbers:
         &n
400-MHz PPC 750 (G3)    18.8    12.2
400-MHz P II*      15.8    12.4
450-MHz P II      17.2    12.9
*Comparable integer to a 375-MHz PPC 604e (15.9) or
a 333-MHz G3 (16)
You are not any better (Score:1)
all im hearing about is this MacOS X Server thats being released at the end of the month (officialy anounced by apple)
OH YEA! now I remember... their the SAME DAMN THING... Common people Rhapsody was a CODENAME and now the product is here...
Windows error messages (Score:1)
This may be bad, but at least you can go look up the error number somewhere. On Windows, I have seen such gems as "Internet Explorer was unable to open this site. An unexpected error has occurred" and "Internet Explorer was unable to open this site. The operation completed successfully."
Go to for more examples of bad Windows error messages. [iarchitect.com]
However, if you do get a blue screen of death, it gives you a register dump and a process list. You can also set the OS to write a dump of all system memory to a file for debugging purposes.
Transition my ass... (Score:1)
Linux users do the same thing (Score:1)
Carmack's comments weren't just a matter of some malicious troublemaker making comments based on contrived situations or greivously out of date information.
Yeah, like it /does/ have multitasking. (Score:1)
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
Apparently there's a Windows registry entry which tells the system not to bother with memory protection.
Magic! No GPFs, ever. Just as reliable as the Mac.
Bzzt! This is a *bad* thing. All it means is that instead of the app crashing, you'll have crap in your memory space which may or may not cause all hell to break loose, *much* later on, when you won't be able to match cause and effect.
FWIW, it's about 3 years since I last used a Mac, but when I did, I found they crashed a *lot* even using "mature" apps like Supercard.
General Thoughts. (Score:1)
The artical seems about what I would expect. Maybe even a little _less_ opinionated than I expected. People who like Mac's are firmly intrenched in believing there is nothing wrong with them. When I think of the mac users I know, I do believe that the Mac's they use are probably a good choice for them. Most of them (forgive me, but I am speeking of the ones I know) are not capable of multitasking themselfs, so that ability in a system is unnessessary for them.
I do think the hardware in general has some interesting (and always has had, remember when even the cheap mac's had SCSI, and hardly anyone in the x86 world did?) features. If they were able to crank the bus speed up to >100MHz on even current hardware, and BeOS or some *NIX was avaliable, I would definately get one, and I haven't personaly bought a Mac since 1994.
But, to defend something and try to minimize or totally ignore it's faults is not wise. For example, Linux has experianced success due to the fact the community faces it's problems head on and attackes them. The Apple community use to do that in the past, but now they seem to have changed thier tune a bit.
Wouldn't we all love to find just ANYTHING that didn't have SOME shortcomming? But to say things like RISC is superior, but forget that it's running on a system with a slow bus is shortsited. Overall though, what did you expect this guy's responce to be? I guess I am a little supprised that he even did mention that there were some shortcomings...
General Thoughts. (Score:1)
That's good news. I am not even going to bother replying to the other guys post, bus speed and communication rates between componants do matter... ;-) I have seen how x86 systems run faster at 2.5x112 than they do at 4.5x66 at some things. It matters. Cache is important, but not the only thing.
Linux preformance on G3 needs to be polished a bit from what I hear, but I don't know for sure. I would seriously consider a G3, and am looking into it more and more. Mac might make my list of interests. I tell you one thing that does are some of the IBM's (the 43P-140 [ibm.com] and the 43P-50 [ibm.com]) that have got my intrest too. I think AIX makes them a bit steep in price though, and a _good_ free *NIX port would probably make them much much more popular systems, but that's all opinion.
Mac is impressive in some areas, many actually. I think the thing that turns me off the most is the vocal people who use them and defend them at all costs... I like the boxes, but, a bus speed boost would help in something that has to function as a part time server IMHO (despite some peoples excuse that it doesn't matter, I still believe it does).
Got a link to the new ones you could send me, resaler's street prices or anything?
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
Ridiculous (Score:1)
Secondly, if the MacOS was so fscking cool, why did the guy who made Alladin have such trouble getting it to run on Atari ST's due to NULL pointers being dereferenced all over the place?
I actually was really impressed with MacOS when the 256Kb Mac came out. I also liked NeXTStep, which relied heavily on FSF tools. But bashing like this does a disservice to the Mac and its community.
Finally, his Unix bashing was unnecessary, just adding spite to a pretty pathetic article, which relied on making John Carmack appear out of contact with the real world.
This guy doesn't get it (Score:1)
Personally, I don't like him very much. Professionally he's one of the best game programmers I've seen; quite possibly the best. But frankly, I don't like very many other aspects of him.
It should be hard to believe... (Score:1)
You see, MP is not simply something you implement. It is many things, which have come to be collectively known as "memory protection," though full memory protection would be a much better term. A system which contains what Slashdotters commonly know as "memory protection" implements all of these techniques. Linux is in fact one such system. MacOS is not. But, due to the nature of memory protection, it is not an all-or-nothing deal.
MacOS has implemented many of these techniques since 1984. The system's own memory is especially well-protected. When it gets to user apps, then yes, it degrades a bit. But not completely , unlike the FUDmongers who always pop up on Mac-related posts would have you believe.
Yes, MacOS has room for improvement. Actually, it has a lot of room for improvement. About as much as Linux, actually; the improvement is simply needed in different areas (still, they are just as important, though the aforementioned FUDmongers would have you believe otherwise). But it does not merit the kind of bashing it is given here.
Yes, you can. (Score:1)
Sorry to burst the bubbles of so many Mac-bashers with that one. The iMac was not designed to be an expandable machine, after all; don't bash it as though it were meant for a high-end user. You want expandability? You can have it plus the cool coloring now. It's called the Power Mac G3.
Apache on MacOS (Score:1)
I don't believe, however, that mod_frontpage works on it. Meaning, sorry guys, that's not a Mac that's gone down.
Linux users do the same thing (Score:1)
Carmack apparently doesn't completely understand the concept of giving credit where credit is due, nor do most Slashdot users, judging from most of the posts I see in this thread.
typical slashdot response... (Score:1)
Some of you, in your infinite wisdom, said the story was simply a front for mac evangelism
Just listen to what some of you are saying:
"My opinion of mac users..."
"How can he say anyting positive about MacOS..."
"That dude is soooo immature..."
What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you so afraid of a mac counter-point that you must dismiss it immediately? I'm sure most of you don't own macs, or even want to for your various and valid reasons. But watch out when you make these kind of judgements on people.
No Subject Given (Score:1)
I agree. This guy seems to throw around the terms "low level" and "high level" with considerable abandon, making whatever he is actually saying annoyingly vague. I believe strongly that precision is extremely important whenever one is trying to participate in a reasoned discussion, and this author sorely lacks such precision, thus obfuscating his logic.
----
Think Anatomy (Score:1)
Look at his perspective. His mission in life is to abolish all PCs, but simply, because he doesn't like them (it's true, look on his page - he's an admitted zealot). As a zealot, but not a 100% Fudster, he'll using anything if it had a shred of evidence to support him sretched out five times long. This guy will make a benchmark proclaiming a Mac peice of software faster than a PC peice of software if he can find one function that shows it, and use that function to prove it, even if every single other functions is faster on the PC.
He provides an interesting opinion, and represents the zealots of the Mac community, but trusting him on accuracy is like trusting a politician on honesty. It's a grave mistake.
That's the frame of reference. Now realize he didn't actually back up anything he said with fact. He's FUDDING... pure and simple.
At least they had an excuse in '84 (no MMU) (Score:1)
In a similar vein, in the Intel world, you need at least an 80386 to have a "real" OS, because earlier x86's didn't have an MMU either.
Looking at other OS's from the 80's, the Amiga didn't have memory protection either, but it did at least have preemptive multitasking. Windows 3.1 had neither, but OS/2 had both. The question is not why MacOS didn't have memory protection in 1984 (it wouldn't have run on an original Mac if it did!), but why they never added memory protection, even when they had the perfect opportunity with the 68k->PowerPC transition.
-Jake
Linux users do the same thing (Score:1)
> may not understand what Carmack means by "no memory protection"
Doesn't mean it's not important, and it doesn't mean the guy should try to rationalize the importance of it away. Carmack said that it's ridiculous for a modern OS to lack memory protection. Really, this is *truth*...MacOS is the last OS that doesn't have it and it shows...Linux, OS/2, NT, *BSD, Unix and even Win95 (when running 32 bit apps at least) have it and it shows in terms of stability.
Opening /any/ Mac box voids warranty (Score:1)
But if you're messing around with the innards of your computer, I doubt you really worry about warranty.
It's worth pointing out that the new iMacs won't have a mezzanine slot, but they come standard with the ATI RAGE 128 cards, which everyone is ooing and ahhing over, like it's gonna be even better than Voodoo2. Plus you can supposedly get into 'em easier than the original blue-only line of iMacs.
J.
PowerPC is younger. (Score:1)
But the PowerPC architecture was a great leap forward when the 601 came out in 1992, such that a 68k emulator had to be coded into the system software. That was "G1". :o>
J.
Insulting Dumbass (Score:1)
Second of all by the time I was halfway through the page I was ready to get sick over the "its just another point of view." WTF? From the Im hungry I want another piece of toast point of view my toaster is a better computer. The original claim was not about comnparing platforms per se but only about faults in apple's low level internals which are not made up for by the ease of one button mouses.
Which is another anoying statement. How dumb do you have to be not to get the right and left concept down (opps double clicking with that button didn't work...which one do I press now??)
Carmack is right on (Score:1)
For future reference (Score:1)
I do have issues with Carmack's stance on Macs, but they're "attitudinal" (heh) not technical. He's got some emotion-based Mac-hatred in him, which I think is a shame, but he's coming over slowly. Even just a year ago, I couldn't imagine him agreeing to speak at MacWorld Expo, for example. If all goes well, in a few years he'll be doing all his development on some variant of Mac OS X (since it is based on the "OS love of his life," NeXTSTEP, after all)...something I think he'd welcome with open arms after all the NT development he's done. "He's got no love for the Empire, I can tell you that."
Mac OS X clarification (Score:1)
I'm sure Carmack will evaluate it soon. He's played with the various development versions of Mac OS X Server and written about it in his
Mac OS (as in Mac OS 7, 8, etc.) has essentially been a lame duck for the past year or so, and with OS X Server out, it's as dead as Win3.1 was when Win95 was released: still installed all over the place, but clearly in the rear view mirror from now on. The idea at Apple, though, is to make it seem like there never was a change, thus OS X (and even OS X Server, to some degree) looks and behaves like the old Mac OS. Don't be fooled, it's a bigger change than even Win3.1 all the way to Win NT. Apple's done this once before, with a full CPU switch (68k to PPC), which was pretty damn impressive, IMO, so I have faith they'll pull this switch nicely too.
Are all Mac users like him? (Score:1)
BSOD's on Mac (Score:1)
BSOD's on Mac (Score:1)
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
Enough already!! (Score:1)
Do you have a URL for PCI "requirement". No... (Score:1)
The iMac has a PCI bus, which has connected to it a "nonstandard" (not looking like a PCI-thingy to you) Mezzanine slot. Griffin Technology is making a voodoo2 board that taps into the iMac video, using this interface.
Regarding motherboard usage, it wouldn't be practical and I don't think it's worth it given quick obsolescence, but it's possible (unless heat is a factor which is an overall design issue).
Reread your post, silly AC... like 3Dfx would deliberatetely build in a check to see if their chipset is running on a PCI CARD.
Regarding the video card memory again, nothing is "standard"... only what you have. I do not think Apple will stick with non-upgradable 16MB cards for long; nothing permanent about this. Agreed bout the purpose, just a game card and a diehard is just gonna yank out the card as soon as 64 MB cards become available..
Oh my God, What a Load of Bull! (Score:1)
I wish Griffin well in selling their V2 adapter, but it's a low-key kind of product that isn't going to sway many iMac people from choosing between an iMac or a G3 desktop. Certainly iMac'ers won't care about TWO V2 cards in SLI mode. You can add 2 vards to the G3, or more likely someone will develop a dual-chip VooDoo2 on a single PCI, since the current motherboards were designed with 3 PCI slots.
This VooDoo2 arguement of yours sounds a lot like the "floppy drive" or the "15 inch monitor arguement. Almost a million people so far don't share the same computing passion you do. Who wants to run Unreal in 1024x768 on a 15" monitor? Most people who want 2 VooDoo2 cards and SLI are going to have a 17, 19" or 21" monitor.
Like John said, the 4x AGP is faster than double-speed PCI in the G3, but it's just not important *YET*. The fact is Apple IS listening to game developers, but they can't change all things overnight. Apple has smartly decided to consolidate onto 2 motherboards, but this also means they won't have AGP until the next design later this year. Macosrumors has published a source as stating they COULD add AGP to this current motherboard, but at cost. Right now Apple had more important redesign issues like move the slow boot-ROM into faster RAM, etc. We'll just have to wait and see.
Scott
"anything but Microsoft"
OK, I accept that... :-D (Score:1)
I loath both Mac and Linux "elitist advocates"... be it MacKido or AC trollers.
I can't live just on Linux.. I want to... but it doesn't have the apps and games I use; I need either a Mac or Windows for that stuff, and I'm trying to be Microsoft free as soon as possible.
I really hate PC hardware. You wouldn't happen to know where I can find a how-to on installing Linux + Windows on a large hard drive (17.2 GB total but the BIOS only sees 8.4)? Between that, SuSE 5.3's YAST bugs and Microsoft DOS 6.2 FDISK bugs I have lost 10 hours this week
WHY DID'NT I THINK ABOUT IT? (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me, but i think that the
programmer should probably try to write his code
so that his applications don't cause memory
errors.
HEY! I'm a computer programmer, and I never thought about this! Let's just write code that does not crash! Whaou! What a breakthrough in C.S.!
I'm a professional, after all! Advocacy sux. (Score:1)
2) You Linux guys have to learn
something: The Mac OS is not made for user-made
programs. It's a commercial system, designed for
commercial apps. It's made to be easy for users
to use and leave the code to professionals.
Honey, you failed to fail to suck. Most Linux users, like myself, are professional programmers. Remember: Apache, Perl, qmail, whatever, though not 'commercial' software, have NO match in the commercial world in terms of reliability and standards compliance.
So go masturbate yourself, and don't comment on a (good) programmer's ability if you don't know anything to programming.
LOOK. All Mac Writers are not MacKido. (Score:1)
I suggest that some of you Basher-types Try reading MacOpinion for a better idea of what sane, civil Mac folks are like. D. Every is a relic, of a time loooong gone.
He's the kind of 'Evangelist' that gives Mac Professionals and Users a bad name. Trouble is, can't figure out a way to shut him up...
Real Good Mac Writing macOpinion [macopinion.com].
WHAT A FSCKING HYPOCRITE! (Score:1)
"David Every": I'm not going to attack John Carmack.
"David Every": Low level weenie
"David Every": Wrong
His "dicksizing" comment(s)
THIS is the problem with these Mac Zealots. They pull this "I'm trying to be polite" crap and flip snotty, completely biased, bass ackwards comments out. It's a wonder Every can breath with all the crap coming out of his mouth.
I have the same problem with most hardware and software zealots.
READ THIS ARTICLE PEOPLE! This is how NOT to address an issue. It's how to address an issue if you want to alienate people left and right.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Carmack's .plan=FUD (Score:1)
I have a lot of respect for John Carmack, I have been playing his games since Commander Keen, but when I read his .plan on the Mac I was quite angry as it was TOTAL FUD.
The general vilifiction of Apple in this forum shows what morons you all are. How many people who layed out comments have actually written an Application for the Macintosh? I venture to say maybe one other than me. Apple sponsored a Linux port long Intel gave cash to RedHat.
What really got to me about Carmack's comments was talking about Apple overstating their processing power. Apple has every right to say what they say. We have all seen the Intel ads where they show mpegs running, OpenGL graphics and the claim thats what you get with a PII. BULLSHIT! All the applications shown required hardware accelleration to get the results shown. Now Intel is claiming the have "the most advanced processor technology". Give me a break, I rarely hear people bitching about Intel overstating their performance. Apple actually showed durring the keynote a couple of realworld examples of better performance. It may not have been twice as fast, but it was faster!
As for the programming enviroment (not talking about Codewarrior, which after a few more months Carmack will be a Metrowerks spokesman). Had he spent the last 2 years programming Mac Toolbox applications instead of Win32, he probably would have plenty of nasty things to say about Win32. He has already claimed MacOSX to be everything he wants. If he wants to crash less while developing, install "The Debugger" (www.jasik.com) I would guess he would have rebooted about 1/10th of the time he needed to without it.
Mac OS /does/ have memory protection (Score:1)
What closet does he live in? (Score:1)
Well, despite the fact that you can't put a Voodoo in an iMac (um, why would anyone buy a Voodoo I anymore?), does this fellow _really_ believe that an iMac with a voodoo is going to outperform a PC that costs _twice_ as much?
Ooooh....I see. We're talking a PC without a 3D card. Hmmm...gosh, isn't that like saying "You can buy the most expensive bicycle you want--it's never going to outperform the Apple Motorcycle."
What a fruit. First say "What matters to you is what you are doing -- not benchmarks", and then claim that Macs perform better, just to praise the Mac. Dude, you need to control your tangents...those three paragraphs made him look like a fool.
What closet does he live in? (Score:1)
From what I understand, the point is moot now because the mezzanine slot no longer exists on the new iMacs. If anyone can, correct me if I'm wrong...I'm curious to know.
You bashers suck (Score:1)
And everyone else-- why bash the guy(forget his name) and macs. He basicly just aggreed with Carmack to a certain degree because people were emailing him to give a response. oh i dunno
doobman
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
What an amazing cop-out.
Fact: all non-trivial software contains bugs.
This is true no matter how competent you are. And no matter how bug-free your own code is, you're still at the mercy of possible bugs in:
So there's no excuse for lacking memory-protection in the kernel. Precisely zero.
I own an iMac and I agree with you (Score:1)
I'm just happy to see Carmack taking Macs seriously. Now we just gotta relax and hold on for OS X.
There IS Voodoo2 for Rev A/B iMacs! (Score:1)
I had a pretty good image of mac users but... (Score:1)
But with this latest stab at carmack! Ack.. that's the killer. Now i'd view every single Appl user through a different pair of lenses. Hell, I'm actually going to suggest Carmak to fuck these ungrateful bastards and stop supporting apple computers altogether.
Hell.. just write quake III for linux (ps.. i'd like a alpha-linux non server version also)
--
slashdot effect? (Score:1)
CERT needs to issue an advisory about the dreaded Slashdot DOS attack, which is initiated by being linked to from slashdot.org
So much hate people =( (Score:1)
You a sucka... (Score:1)
Oh god, no you didn't... (Score:1)
the 5% nation of whine like a biotch (Score:1)
John C has got more mercy than I do, Id let the 5% rot in emus and Marathon.
Quake, becuase it proves Action speaks Louder than Whine
And you never had it! (Score:1)
Yes that's true. A friend of mine, developing high-tech analysis software, switched from NT to 98 for development environment because NT allowed for more memory relateds bugs to go undetected. On Win98, the whole machine freezes when there's a bug. That way he gets more bug-free software.
I develop on NT, and I find the system almost never crashes. Too bad though the apps and development tools crash indefinitely, forcing me to reboot anyway. But the system is stable. almost all the time.
No memory protection ? (Score:1)
the year with the realease of OS X.
HOWEVER:
Depite that fact, in general Macs are just as
stable as wintel boxen. (They also require a heck
of a lot less reboots for every fscking trivial thing)
Lack of memory protection is a problem for the
developer, not the end user. It also tends
to result in programs that dont cause alot of
segmentation violations as such violations tend
to take out the whole machine; thus increasing
reliabilty. (at pains to the developer
Bottom line: It will all be fixed within a matter
of months and we wont be having this discussion
anymore.
Chris
There is no such thing as a good UI lacking .... (Score:1)
When I use my NT/Linux machine I either have a dozen of Emacs/term/browser/snavigator/lyx/blah-blah on my multiple KDE desktops, when I am coding or a dozen of Illustrator/Powerpoint/browser/Sc.workplace/Eudor
At the same time my MC simulation are running in the background.
Both Linux and NT handle it rather well (I take care of my NT - I need it, Linux just runs by itself) it switch smoothly between application, without annoying delays and loss of productivity.
USER Interface is not just smooth and consistent widget set (and I would give Java Metal a notch above MacOS look). It is also an ability to USE
(as in USER) the system smoothly and consistently.
Other part: I have sensitive eyes - that's why I browse the Web using IE under NT. X windows system fonts are terrible and almost impossible to make a single working configuration under Netscape. I also prefer some particular color scheme and font size.
With Steve Jobs awful ego - he designs system that are not customizable - try to change Look & Feel under NeXT - Jobs knows what it is better for you (yeah, right). I hardly could use NeXT at all for longer than 15 min in a row - Jobs favoritte UI appearance - physically hurt my eyes.
That's not what I would call a good UI overall.
Mac people behave like a bunch of brainwashed idiots.
Think different - use system you can customize, do not lick Jobs's ass..
The real problem.. (Score:1)
You can get a 2 button mouse if you choose to do so. The "average" consumer could care less and is probably happy with one mouse. People (like myself) who want to use a two or five button mouse can do so. I'm playing with Linux and can't wait to get my hands on OSX. It's sure to beat the hell out of the current MacOS.
It's a shame though that my crappy low-level OS can run circles around WinANYTHING as far as functionality and productivity go. Hmmm....
get a cookie cutter (Score:1)
people... (Score:1)
Mac OS (Score:1)
UUUUU.. (Score:1)
YOUR..
Mac freaks need to settle down. (Score:1)
I own a Mac, and I use Windows NT and Linux quite a bit as well. I definitely choose the Mac as my system of choice for home use because of its easy administration, and because I've used Macs since I was in 7th grade. However, I do not feel that it is the end-all of operating systems, and I am the first to point out many, many, MANY flaws in the interface, some that (gasp) Windows has handled better.
Anybody who saw Quake when it first arrived on the market, and compared it to (what was then) the second most technologically advanced game available (Doom) HAS to appreciate that John Carmack is a fscking genius and therefore should respect his opinion.
Mr. Every points out that Carmack is a low-level programmer, which is a point that many users could conceivable overlook if they don't know much about development. But the sad thing is, after reading Carmack's
PS -- the symptom of ultra-orthodox devotion to one's operating system is not confined to the Mac community. I know anybody reading this far into a
His Mac server must be down (Score:1)
In that case... (Score:1)
Oh my God, What a Load of Bull! (Score:1)
He starts with overwhelming stereotypes of game coders and game code and all that's wrong with it in his opinion. Then he offhandedly mentions that he's never seen Carmack's code (this ignorance in spite of the fact that Carmack has released more code to the public than pretty much everyone not named Linus). Guess what, He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to Carmack's code.
I like how he says he not aiming to insult Carmack, identifies Carmack as a low-level coder, and then then takes pot shots at "low-level weenies".
I especially love the flagrant display of ignorance with regards to id's developement environments. No, id never developed Doom in a "Win16" environment. Doom was developed on Next! Jesus, you'd think that maybe he'd want to at least get that one right, as it comes from Steve Jobs.
Before Doom, it was mostly DOS with assembly code. After Doom, Quake was primarily coded using DJGPP. The enhancement process for Quake 2 was the first time id did major developement in a Win32 environment, and Carmack touches on in the original plan entry. He did read that, right?
Ooh, hardware tech... I was gonna rant on the fact that he displays broad ignorance of CPU architecture issues by ignoring the fact that Intel's desktop CPU line's depend on a decoupled microarchitecture with a very RISC like core, but then I realized that there's a decent chance he knows this and is purposefully misrepresenting the truth. Note how he ignores the major generational differences between the Pentium and Pentium Pro/Pentium II lines when making his dismissive statements about CISC.
BYTEmarks--Wonderful, I guess embarrassing shills with abandonned benchmarks are to be the final remembrance of the departed Byte magazine.
"Stuff a Voodoo card in an iMac..." Uh, how? Could be I missed something major, but I'm pretty damn sure iMacs lack PCI slots, which Voodoo cards require. This is THE misrepresentation that made me write this. What a load. At best this guy is off in a fantasy world. At worst he's knowingly lying to his readers.
He excuses the lack of AGP to the snazzy (and available to PC and Mac users) Rage 128 3D graphics setup by saying that local memory is significantly faster. Yup, and PC users will be getting that card with up to twice the ram available (32 MB) that the Macs have defined as their standard (16 MB), and of course PC's will be feeding that RAM with a faster pipe.
"Why isn't there a working PlayStation emulator on the PC, despite years of trying?" Uh, tell that to Connectix. They've promised to sell their emulator on both platforms. Or check out the emulators projects at http://www.davesclassics.com/psxemu.html. (It all seems pretty pointless though. Connectix wants $50 for it's Mac PS emulator, while the real thing cost $100 new.)
And one last thing, he's not "moving" his games to the Mac, he's expanding then to include the Mac's niche market.
Ugh.
Oh my God, What a Load of Bull! (Score:1)
I'll take your word on it.
"You could build one onto a motherboard if you want."
Doubtful, as no has ever built any of the currently available Voodoo cards and chips (Voodoo, Voodoo Rush, Voodoo 2 and Voodoo Banshee) onto a motherboard. But just doubtful, as "it hasn't happened" != "it can't happen"
"The iMac has a high-bandwidth slot + port called the mezzanine, and this is what Griffin Technologies is using for their iMac VooDoo card."
I'll take your word on it. That's why this is the only point I qualified with a "Could be I missed something major..." prefix. And is that a Voodoo, or Voodoo 2? If Voodoo 2, can I get a Voodoo 2 SLI configuration in an iMac, doubling the fill rate? Single slot SLI configurations are available for PC's, and I'd hate to take a step back from the performance level my SLI rig gives me.
"* Regarding above, I am disappointed the iMac rev3 didn't build one in. Then again I wouldn't buy one simply because I am used to larger monitors. Maybe when they revamp for 17/19"ers..."
:-) I too am spoiled by large monitors...
"* AGP isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that can be backed up. Intel was nowhere NEAR the performance peak of PCI when they introduced AGP. AGP is just one more area of the motherboard this CPU vendor can control, as Intel slowly closes the platform."
No, AGP isn't all it's cracked up to be, but yes, current AGP implementations are faster than the double-speed PCI slot in the new G3 boxes.
"* How has Apple defined 16 MB as "the standard" any more than currently-shipping PC's with 12 MB RAM defined THAT as the standard for Wintel? This is just a current configuration, and games adapt to all sorts of setups, or you'd still be setting up EMM386 . Cranking PCI up to 66 MHz and 64-bit is a good short-term solution for gaming bandwidth."
The AC covered this pretty well; 16 MB video memory available to Macs, 32 MB video memory, fed by a faster pipe, available to pc's. As Carmack said though, this point is is of little overall importance.
Benchmarks--I'll be more interested when the measure relevant to the discussion, Q3A timedemos, can be done in person. Setting equivalent image properties and running timedemos should provide very useful 3D game performance comparison numbers. I still relish the memory of watching Cyrix apologists trying to find a way to wiggle out of timerefresh comparisons...
And for the other guy, yup, looks like I was wrong about some level of Voodoo availability for the iMac. Show me to be wrong on all the other points in my original post and I'll welcome both you and Every back from fantasyland.
Some points.. (Score:1)
"AGP is just one more area of the motherboard this CPU vendor can control, as Intel slowly closes the platform."
Did I really just see a Mac user bemoan the alleged closing of the PC platform?!?
Hah! Pot, kettle, black!
Holy cow, that's got to be the definition of chutzpah.
GAH, what a load of CRAP (Score:1)
on a lot of points, he's just plain WRONG.
plus, it's littered with that strange mix of
defensiveness and euphoria that has always
dogged advocates/apologists for any platform.
these are COMPUTERS, not SPORTS teams for
crying out loud -- tools we use, not
teams we jeer or root for.
first, he pigeonholes john carmack
with a "low-level programmer" stereotype, and
then uses that stereotype to marginalize
carmack's comments regarding the mac. fine,
at least he admits his bias up front.
second, like it or not, after years of
wintel playing catch-up to apple,
apple IS playing catch-up to wintel on
a number of issues, and these are *NOT*
just "low-level details that most programmers
won't care about". macOS does *not* have memory
protection, pre-emptive multitasking, or (until
now) a reasonable approach to hardware-accelerated
3D. like it or not, WindowsNT does.
face it: programmers make errors. if those
programmers use C or C++, those errors may
try to write to random locations in memory.
if the OS lets them, they will blow away
other apps, or poke holes in the OS.
Unix, and WindowsNT won't let you. MacOS
will. ergo, macs will crash more during
development. sorry, it's true.
next, to compare the quake performance of
3D-accelerated mac to a non-accelerated PC
is ludicrous. of *COURSE* the mac will
win; that's the whole point of having
hardware acceleration in the first place!
also, notice that in one paragraph he says
"OpenGL is a pretty mediocre implementation
with lots of shortcoming", while in the
next he admits "I am not a real 3D programmer. I only get the basics of the problems and issues and did some simple 3D stuff on my own (18 years ago)"
i presume that didn't include writing any OpenGL
code.
anyway i'm sure most of slashdot knows all
this stuff already. i just wanted to get
this of my chest. articles like this make
my blood boil, and they certainly do nothing
to help the image of mac enthusiasts.
btw, someone should tell him that ISA is a
bus standard, not an instruction architecture
(maybe he was thinking of IA32?)
Protected Memory (Score:1)
it makes it so much easier to fool around with
the low level stuff
OK, I agree that not having PM and PMT is
outdated, and I will be upgrading to MacOS X
eventually, but I use MacOS at home, and a dual
boot Linux/NT box at work, and I find that the
from the user experience, this doesn't matter
too much as Linux and MacOS are both very
responsive, and I need to reboot MacOS because
of crashes less often (except when I'm fooling
around with the low level stuff!) than I need
to reboot NT because of memory leaks.
MacOS has by far the nicest interface.
Windowmaker on Linux would come close if I could
get a file manager as nice as the Mac Finder.
So, responsiveness (233Mhz machines)
Linux > MacOS >> NT,
user interface
MacOS >> Linux > NT.
Roy Ward.
David Every not a Mac fanatic??? (Score:1)
Dude, what the Hell are you smoking? Every is more fanatical than Steve Fucking Jobs himself. Try reading some of his other articles sometime. They're all pretty much like this one. There probably isn't a writer around who distorts the facts as much as him.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Because so many Mac users are babies (Score:1)
Don't even try to say the defensive, childish behavior exhibited by so many Mac users, and exemplified by David Every, is similar to the behavior of Windows users. There's a reason why Mac users have gotten the stereotype that they have, and for a great many of them, it's very valid. The Mac is way healthier than OS/2 or Amiga, yet you don't see the wholesale whining from those two groups that you see from Mac advocates. BeOS is still an underdog to the Mac, and you generally don't see it from their userbase, either. Just talk to a tech writer sometime about the immaturity of Mac users whenever anything but glowing praise is written about an Apple product -- it really is pathetic.
For a great example of what I'm talking about, I recommend that everyone check out comp.sys.mac.advocacy sometime. Some of the Mac defenders there surpass even the great David "I never met a fact I couldn't twist" Every.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
pathetic... (Score:1)
but as far as I'm concerned Linux is worth
less than zero until ProTools runs on it.
You bashers suck (Score:1)
It seems you are comparing apples and oranges. Windows9x is cool for typing papers and playing games, WindowsNT is great for developing new toys for Bill Gates, Linux is great for Intranets and such, BeOS is great for killing time. I'd say that MacOS is good for something, but I'd be lying. You see, it is all relative my boy... You must choose the OS that fits you, and love it.
As for MacOS X, I am not holding my breath... System 7 and System 8 were supposed to be salvation... Need I say more? Crapple had the opportunity to go with BeOS, and fumbled the ball. Hello Dell...
-p9
Cluelesness (Score:1)
His story was agreeing mostly with Carmack's points. He had some well to the point doubts about their accuracy, but he mostly agreed with the fact that a lot of the low-level OS parts are _bad_ or non-existent. The point in bringing up Mac OS X here was to show YOU that Apple knows this...they want to fix it.
His story intended to show people that Carmack was looking at the Mac architecture overall from a low-level user's point of you and his point of view does not, and will not apply to every mac user out there.
Some people were wondering why he sustained that OpenGL is average...well..because it is. OpenGL has some very nice features and it is quite fast, but it doesn't have the benefits that QuickDraw 3D brings..file format, different shaders etc. This is not to say OpenGL is bad...it isn't..it's very good...but in many ways QuickDraw 3D is better (if you don't believe me, check out QD3D documentation and compare it to OpenGL).
Some people were complaining about what happened to Rhapsody..it's now available in the form of Mac OS X Server..it's expensive, that's true..but you go ahead and use it as a server OS for a week and you come back and tell me if it isn't worth it.
I don't realize why Carmack crashed his machine the way he did...If he is the God people say he is (he may very well be, and I think you need to be to put out something like Quake) he should, would have been able to figure out his mac..but he's new to the platform so it's perfectly understandable to not know the Toolbox in and out right away. I hardly doubt that say...any of the Bungie engineers crashed their machines as much while developing Myth (and equally demanding if not more game engine).
The whole point to this post is to check your own cluelesness before accusing anyone of it. Don't pre-judge someone based on the camp they are talking from. Heck..if it were that way I should completely dismiss Carmack's comments before even reading them because he's always been a PC guy..but I don't..he's got good points and I appreciate seeing them. Keep and open mind guys/gals...don't rant just for ranting. Use a computer for what it does for you, not because it's cool(er) is cheap(er) or is neat(er). Live on...
Regards.
OK, hold it (Score:1)
written. But I'm not even going to bother arguing
that point. The reason the Mac OS still has some
of the same faults it did 15 years ago is because
it is still the same OS. Try and use an old DOS
program in Windows. You can't even run Doom. You
can''t even find Linux software that old. For
better or worse, simplicity, continuity, and
backwards compatibility carry with them some clear
drawbacks. And that's that.
This guy doesn't get it (Score:1)
Why is that? Your close, personal friendship has
given you great insight to his IQ? For all you
know, he could be the Rain Man (note: i'm not
implying he is). 2) You Linux guys have to learn
something: The Mac OS is not made for user-made
programs. It's a commercial system, designed for
commercial apps. It's made to be easy for users
to use and leave the code to professionals.
WHY one button's not enough (Score:1)
complications is because of lazy companies that
port windows software to mac without bothering to
reorganize the controls, just substituting option-
click or something else inconvenient. Myself, I
wish I had a more advanced mouse. I rather like
the scroll wheel, although I can't really imagine
using the right button for anything but gaming.
With smart program design, one button is plenty.
Hardware's not an OS (Score:1)
I've got a G3 'cause I think the hardware is
definitely superior to an Intel. And I, myself,
happen to love the OS, but that's partly because I
grew up on it, and also because I know I'm not
ever going to try to write myself any apps. But
that doesn't mean I don't recognize it's faults.
You talk about the PPC, then compare it to *NIX.
That's apples and oranges. Better hardware does
not a better OS make. No matter what I think.
The Price of Unlimited Usage (Score:1)
For that amount you get:
Unlimited users
Web Objects (Not the full version, but not a demo either)
A full Unix OS (This is new and welcome)
Apache (OK, so this is free anyway...)
How much does it cost to have unlimited users for NT 4.0? While OS X Server is not free like Linux, it does have some features and ease of use experience (something that might not be as important to most readers here as to the outside world) that Linux and cannot provide.
OS X Server will not cost Educational places $999, you can bet on that.
He seems to have it all wrong... (Score:1)
2. MacOS is a pain to develop for because of lack of memory protection. Using Bounds Checkers should not be necessary just to get your program to run.
3. Carmack's post was to discuss how it looks like Apple finally is beginning to get their s**t together. He still thinks MacOS is a lame platform for the 90s, considering every other mainstream OS (and most non-mainstream OSs) have modern OS architectures (with memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, virtual memory, etc)
4. If you put a 3dfx in an iMac and nothing in a P2-400 and run a 3d game that wants 3d accel, then OF COURSE the iMac will be faster. But ONLY because of the 3D acceleration. Put an iMac with a Voodoo next to a P2-400 with a Voodoo, and everyone who actually does their homework will know that the P2-400 is faster.
5. Mac users need to get out of their brainwash that the current MacOS is so great. It's a terrible OS from a programmer's perspective due to lack of modern architecture. It's just good that Apple is FINALLY figuring it out. And yes, I've developed on Win32, Unix, Mac, BeOS, Dos, Amiga, Apple 2, C-64, etc etc etc. MacOS X looks like it could be a great OS.
Summing it up: Do a bit of research and get rid of the bias. Apple HAS fell behind over the last few years, and they realize it. All Carmack said is that MacOS sucks to develop for, get rid of it. Apple said, "we are". Carmack said, "OK, groovy."
'nuff said...
OSX Server == Rhapsody (Score:1)
Oh for a stable MacOS... (Score:1)
The MAC is crashing when the windows box gets an error.
Development work on the Mac, which is what JC was primarily talking about, sux hardcore.
chug chug chug BOOM!
If only my boss would let me turn this 'puter into a BeOS machine.
what happened to MEEPT!! ? (Score:1)
MEEPT!! may have been annoying at times, but really fun to read at others.
This guy doesn't get it (Score:1)
iMacs are just ugly. :) (Score:1)