mil@mendel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Maria I. Lasaga) (01/05/91)
[This is posted to comp.sys.mac.programmer because it relates to software development...] So I was greatly disappointed by the Mac II this Christmas. Let me explain. I have used a Macintosh since the 128K variety. I currently own a 512k, a 512kE (with 1 M RAM), and an SE. I had never used a Mac II before the holidays, but have been coveting one for some time. I have a brother who is an IBM fanatic. He has several IBMs and IBM clones at home and at work. I finally convinced him that he should invest in a Macintosh because of its graphics capabilities, etc., etc. He purchased a Macintosh IIsi, with an Apple color monitor. He asked what software he should purchase, and I sent him a list, including the latest game, "The Duel: Test Drive II" and one of my favorite games,"Shufflepuck." (He also bought some standard software like Word.) I visited my brother over the holidays, excited to see the Mac IIsi in action. I was very disappointed by the performance of a lot of the software. Basically, the games opened up within a small 9" window anyway, rather than on the full screen. I know that the only way to fix that problem in the programming is either to have a larger bitmap image for larger screens or to blow up the image. Given that my brother had purchased a large screen, it was disappointing to find that the software developers of recent games have not made their screens expandable. Also, the games were in black and white, even though some of them were very recent (and had color images on the box (with tiny print saying the images came from some other computer)! There I was, trying to convince my brother that the Macintosh has all of these great graphics capabilities, and I had nothing to show him that could substantiated that claim. Meanwhile, and this is the part that kills me, my nephews were playing King's Quest V on their IBM, and I was mightily impressed by the graphics of that game. For those not familiar with that game, it is a spectacular color graphics game for IBM compatibles. So if the Macintosh has all of these great graphics capabilities, built-in Quickdraw routines and the like, why was it that the software we have available for the macintosh could hardly compare to what I saw on#]r brother's IBM? I have done a lot of programming on the Macintosh, myself. I have done some programming on the IBMs, too. It seems to me that the Macintosh does, INDEED, have graphics capabilities that are much easier to program and much more flexible (although my opinion may simply reflect a greater familiarity with programming on the macintosh on my part). However, if this is indeed true, and I have often heard others make this same claim, then why doesn't the software available for the Mac reveal its exceptional graphics capabilities? Any comments on this issue would be appreciated. This isn't a question of "Which is better, the Macintosh or the IBM?" It is, "If we have been claiming that the Macintosh is such a great graphics machine, why do the graphics of so much of our available software not compare with those of IBM software?" Is it that the IBM has had more time to develop good software? I really would like to know, as I consider whether I still want to purchase a Macintosh II myself. Lastly, I would greatly appreciate it if any Mac II owners could recommend any software that works spectacularly on the Mac II's. (I brought along a copy of Solarian, and although a great game which works on the full screen--yay-- and has color--yay--, it doesn't involve complex graphics. I really do think the game is great fun, though, and has good sound.) I told my brother I would give him some more recommendations. I have already suggested Adobe Illustrator, although I have only used it on a Mac SE. It does have color and adapts to a large screen. But I would YOe to suggest some good games, particularly ones with complex graphics that can take advantage of a big screen and color capabilities. If anyone reading this posting has an IBM available and a friend with King's Quest V, take a look at it. It will take your breath away. I would love to see graphics like that on my Macintosh. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maria I. Lasaga Department of Psychology Gilmer Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 mil@virginia ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rdd@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.164554.5097@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mil@mendel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Maria I. Lasaga) writes: >I visited my brother over the holidays, excited to see the Mac IIsi in >action. I was very disappointed by the performance of a lot of the software. >Basically, the games opened up within a small 9" window anyway, rather than >on the full screen. >Any comments on this issue would be appreciated. This isn't a question of >"Which is better, the Macintosh or the IBM?" It is, "If we have been >claiming that the Macintosh is such a great graphics machine, why do >the graphics of so much of our available software not compare with those of >IBM software?" Is it that the IBM has had more time to develop good software? >I really would like to know, as I consider whether I still want to purchase >a Macintosh II myself. Macintosh game sales are about 10% of IBM sales. Macintosh *color* sales are less than 10% of that; only a small fraction of THAT remainder are usually truly concerned that a given program doesn't run in color (although most would, of course, love it if it does). The market is small, and what does exist is somewhat ambivalent, hard to get a handle on. It is not cost-effective to write for the color machines: salaried programmer time is expensive, and the material costs can be excessive. The vast majority of game purchases are done by people running on Plusses or SE's; I do no not expect the LC or IIsi to change the equation very much. With this in mind, it makes a LOT of sense to write for 9" screens, get the software running well in monochrome, and concentrate on keeping it stable on more advanced machines. THEN, if the opportunity arises, the software can be colorized. >Lastly, I would greatly appreciate it if any Mac II owners could >recommend any software that works spectacularly on the Mac II's. (I brought >along a copy of Solarian, A copy, I hope, that you purchased. The rampant piracy of the good games is another factor that discourages any attempts to develop color software. One cannot sell $300 games; therefore, one doesn't have the same cushion against piracy that the business software publishers have. A $50 game, retail, will net the *publisher* less than $25. That $25 has to go to pay for advertising, the box, disk, administrative and programmer salaries, and profit for the company. And note that the mail-order houses get THEIR wares at $15-$20/unit. Suppose you're a "free-lancer." 15% royalties, net. Suppose we sell 5,000 copies over two years: at $25/unit (let's be generous), that's $18,750. $9K a year. Not too far over the poverty line. If one can multiply this by a factor of ten, by writing for the PC, guess what your free-lancer's going to do? ('course, it's not that simple, since the PC market's a lot more glutted, but no matter how you cut it, you'd make more money). One thing he's NOT going to do is spend several hundred man-hours colorizing his software (unless it's REALLY easy). A GOOD Mac program (e.g., Dark Castle) might sell 20,000 copies in its life- time. Compare this to the million or so Flight Simulators out there. Most Mac programs peak out at fewer than 5,000 to 7,000 copies. Now, if Apple would do the smart thing, and produce usable color systems for < $1500, everything would change. I find it absolutely intolerable that, with VGA PC clones selling for less than a thousand bucks, retail, Apple's bottom-of-the-line color system costs over $3000--and IT doesn't even come with a floating-point chip or the necessary VRAM, for crying out loud! Apple has consistently discouraged game production, tending to favor business/personal-productivity software developers. And you wonder why there aren't fancy games on the Mac? In summary, it's economics, not the technical capabilities of the machines, that affect whether you will see a Mac game run in color. --- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
barry@network.ucsd.edu (Barry Brown) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan4.164554.5097@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mil@mendel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Maria I. Lasaga) writes: > > >So I was greatly disappointed by the Mac II this Christmas. >I visited my brother over the holidays, excited to see the Mac IIsi in >action. I was very disappointed by the performance of a lot of the software. >Basically, the games opened up within a small 9" window anyway, rather than >on the full screen. Given that my brother had purchased a large screen, >it was disappointing to find that the software developers of recent games have >not made their screens expandable. Also, the games were in black and >white, even though some of them were very recent (and had color images >on the box (with tiny print saying the images came from some other computer)! > etc... I understand your sentiments exactly. I bought myself a Mac II for Christmas (Merry Christmas to me!). A nifty upgrade from my aging Plus. Although I use it mainly for programming and graphics work, I like to play games and I, too, am disappointed that more game authors aren't writing for color or big screens. I think what we're looking at here is market demand. There was a time when color Macintoshes COST A LOT OF MONEY. Now, people don't go out and spend $5000 on a machine just to play games. That's why you don't see games on high-end Apollo workstations. The demand for entertainment software for color Macs simply isn't there. Oh the other hand, there are many classic Mac owners with a thirst for games, and so the authors have written software for that denominator. No sense spending the extra time and expense to develop color games with resizable windows if no one is going to buy them, eh? With the recent introduction of low-cost color Macs, we can expect to see game authors take notice and start writing good color entertainment software for us. -- Barry E. Brown -- \ Cal-Animage Beta publicity officer bebrown@ucsd.{edu,uucp,bitnet} \ Anime Stuff FTP Server administrator Somewhere in San Diego, CA..... \ (ftp network.ucsd.edu [128.54.16.3]) "Kaeshite! Kaeshite! Kaeshitekaeshitekaeshite! -- Azusa (Ranma 1/2)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (01/05/91)
In article <42136@ut-emx.uucp> rdd@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >of game purchases are done by people running on Plusses or SE's; I do no not >expect the LC or IIsi to change the equation very much. With this in mind, it I personally think these models WILL change things quite a bit. The LC's screen makes some of those games easier to colorize, but the real reason I think (hope) things will change is that I've seen a LOT of SIs and LCs being sold. >>Lastly, I would greatly appreciate it if any Mac II owners could >>recommend any software that works spectacularly on the Mac II's. (I brought >>along a copy of Solarian, > >A copy, I hope, that you purchased. The rampant piracy of the good games Or sent the shareware fee in.... >is another factor that discourages any attempts to develop color software. If the installed base of color users were there, the piracy wouldn't be an issue. I'd guess that Apple's pressure and marketing of the Mac as anything BUT a game machine has about the same level of affect on color game availability that piracy might have. I note the Amiga is doing quite well in that area, and I know there is rampant piracy of Amiga wares going on too (as well as IBM stuff.) >One cannot sell $300 games; therefore, one doesn't have the same cushion No, but you can sell $300 game systems. >Now, if Apple would do the smart thing, and produce usable color systems >for < $1500, everything would change. I find it absolutely intolerable that, >with VGA PC clones selling for less than a thousand bucks, retail, Apple's What a bunch of horse manure. MAIL ORDER 286-16s with 640x480 VGA with 256 colors out of 256k colors are running $1400 (my numbers are from current InfoWorld and PC Magazine ads.) If you start quoting stuff from Computer Shopper, I'll find prices from grey market Mac sources. I just called the dealer that gives the best prices I can find locally and they said $2400 for the LC and the 512x382 color monitor. If I remember correctly, the installed VRAM on the LC will give you 8 bit color on that monitor, and 16 bit with teh extra VRAM. I'd also like to note that in spite of the problems I've had with Plus power supplies, those problems were nothing compared to the problems I've had getting a clone fixed. Even when you're careful to buy everything from one vendor, you can't be sure they'll support a machine very much older than a year or so down the line. "Wow, a motherboard from '88. Anybody remember how to fix those suckers?" "Why sure we can add on that tape drive. <days later> Uh, sorry, sir, it seems your ROM doesn't support that controller. We switched ROM suppliers a long time ago." I'll take SCSI chain problems any day. >bottom-of-the-line color system costs over $3000--and IT doesn't even come >with a floating-point chip or the necessary VRAM, for crying out loud! Apple Neither does your stock 286 VGA clone. Let me note that said clone doesn't come with reasonable sound chips, sound input device, or built in networking. How about support for multiple monitors built into the OS? More than 2 hard disk drives? "We can sell you a SCSI board. <$$ signs in salesman's eyes.>" I've seen a LOT of VGA boards shipped with 256k VRAM expandible to 512. It helps when the PC world is an order of magnitude bigger than the Mac world. >has consistently discouraged game production, tending to favor >business/personal-productivity software developers. And you wonder why there >aren't fancy games on the Mac? Sim Earth, SimCity, Falcon, and a host of others seem to be adequate. >In summary, it's economics, not the technical capabilities of the machines, >that affect whether you will see a Mac game run in color. Yep. 'bout the only thing I can agree with you there. It just means that those of us who are interested in games on the color machines have to pay $40 PLUS $5-15 for color versions of said games. I'd recommend that anyone starting the XXX computer vs Mac argument post features and costs of same in machine. I just love it when two people flaming the same machine can pat each other on the back when the one says the Mac sucks because everything is bundled in and the other says the Mac sucks when Apple starts letting you piece together a system.
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (01/07/91)
Barry Brown writes in a message to All
BB> That's why you don't see games on high-end Apollo workstations.
BB> The demand for entertainment software for color Macs simply isn't
BB> there. Oh the other hand, there are many classic Mac owners with
BB> a thirst for games, and so the authors have written software
BB> for that denominator. No sense spending the extra time and expense
BB> to develop color games with resizable windows if no one is going
BB> to buy them, eh?
BB> With the recent introduction of low-cost color Macs, we can expect
BB> to see game authors take notice and start writing good color
BB> entertainment software for us.
Lazy is not the same as cutting cost: it really is no bother to specifiy that
a window opens to screenbits.bounds etc. As for color, the old macs supported
8 colors anyways, so a good writer should have left the option available,
maybe
with a resource used as a flag to indicate that color machines were now
available
so activate the menu item (or whatever).
Lawson
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.orgmlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (01/07/91)
> Lazy is not the same as cutting cost: it really is no bother to specifiy that > a window opens to screenbits.bounds etc. As for color, the old macs supported > 8 colors anyways, so a good writer should have left the option available, > maybe > with a resource used as a flag to indicate that color machines were now > available > so activate the menu item (or whatever). > > Lawson True it is an easy enough task to expand the game window, but if you don't enlarge the 'contents' of the window then essentially you still have the 9" screen - only centered and filled around. I can only speak for the games I've done, but enlarging the contents of the screen would be a major hassle. Alternate PICTs for the various monitor dimensions, a whole slew of variables where constants were, major if/thens all over the code. Perhaps it would even slow down the game to have all these extra branching thrown in. That may be okay with a word processor, but a game relies on all the optimization it can afford. john calhoun
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (01/09/91)
mlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes in a message to All
M> I can only speak for the games I've done, but enlarging the
M> contents of the screen would be a major hassle. Alternate PICTs
M> for the various monitor dimensions, a whole slew of variables
M> where constants were, major if/thens all over the code. Perhaps
M> it would even slow down the game to have all these extra branching
M> thrown in. That may be okay with a word processor, but a game
M> relies on all the optimization it can afford.
I'm currently designing an educational package that may run on different size
screens, may need to have resizable fonts for seeing-impaired students, etc.
There are no "if-then-else's" to decide how to big to make the screen: things
are merely scaled to the screen (with exceptions when it looks "funny"). I'm
using the TCL's with Think Pascal, so I have a resizable pane that takes its
location from the pane to the left and above, with a default to a fixed location
if there is no leftmost/abovemost pane.
Lawson
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org