From: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: What should Apple do to the Mac to make it better for games?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 15:21:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) says:

>In article <1htqadINNe5g@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an780@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Travis Grundke) writes:
>>
>> Okay, since the arguments over sprits, slow games, etc. seems to have
>>taken a big presence here lately <grin>, what SHOULD Apple do in its next
>>batch of Macintoshes (dream dream dream, dream a little dream) to make the
>>Macintosh "More adept" to running games?  
>> [...]
>>some things which I've learned and picked up seem to be that Apple should
>>ideally implement a GRAPHICS BLITTER co-processor.
>> [...]
>>This frees up
>>the CPU to handle other calls from the program such as I/O and basic frame
>>direction. It also is great for when you've got lots of video on screen
>>and/or animation.
>>
>> Any other ideas from others out there?
>
>Let's get away from slang-jargon in discussing this stuff, to start with.
>
>Let's also get away from discussing "games."  Apple doesn't like games.
>Apple doesn't support games.  We're never going to get Apple to up the
>performance just because we want to play games.  There are other activities--
>namely, computer-assisted instruction/training, which can make pretty similar
>demands: the PC completely dominates this arena at any appreciable level.
>CAI is in its infancy: we will start to see a LOT more simulation and
>processor-intensive activities, over the coming years, less straightforward
>rote drilling.
>
 I'll agree with you that Apple doesn't support games the way WE want them
to (We don't want the Mac to join the ranks of the Amiga and Atari, do
we?), but Apple DOES have several gaming software evangelists- I know
because I've recently been in contact with some of them, and they have said
basically the same thing you've said: Apple waffles on the gaming market.
At one point they want to soak the home market, but kids want games. If
they want games they get a cheap 386-33mhz clone with VGA for $1099.

>
>So, to support CAI, I think we should see, at a MINIMUM: 
>
>1.  Parallel graphics architecture, user-extensible.  Ideally, even, an
>OS that uses its own processor, reserving a "working" processor for program
>execution only.  
>
 Good idea, but seems unlikely and grandeoisly expensive. I'm not fully
"trained" in the computer engineering side of things, but it seems like an
expensive implementation- I've thought the same thing often, but heck,
Apple would charge $1000 more for this "Feature". (puh-leaze)

>2.  Memory protection.  This affects everyone.  IT IS OUTRAGEOUS that the
>Macintosh still has a cooperative operating system: especially in a networked
>envionment.  A single bug in a single program can take down the entire OS:
>we need memory protection, offering a standardized program space to each
>application.  If the application dies, it dies in its own turf, not being
>able to corrupt the data or processes in other application spaces.
>
 Lets hear it for the PowerPC...it will have memory protection, but Apple
needs to have it NOW on the Macintosh. I Believe a guy who works for the
System 7 group said the only problem with memory protection and/or a true
multitasking environment is that it would virtually require a ground-up
re-write of the operating system. Memory Protection is probably one of the
biggest things Apple eneds to change. I'll also vouch for the fellow ealier
who said QuickDraw Acceleration: Halelujah.

>This is particularly important for "CAI," since such developers are often 
>start-ups, lower on the OS learning curve, and more likely to make
>mistakes.  They'll learn from their installed user base: that user base 
>shouldn't be put at risk.
>
>I think there are also real liability issues in not offering protected memory.
>If the Mac would offer this, it'd be a major jump over anything the 
>competition has to offer.  As a developer, if the competition starts offering
>memory protection, I'll probably switch my platform emphasis.
>
 I think Apple sees the competition and knows it needs to get its butt
moving.

>3.  For games, simulations, CAI, applications, whatever: kill the
>damned 12" display.  Offer trade-in rebates: get everyone to at least 
>640x480.  Reduced resolution was the stupidest thing Apple's done in recent
>memory.
>
 This is one thing I never thought of (trade in), but it sounds good.
Definately, the 12" was one of the dumbest ideas Apple's marketing bozos
have thrown out lately, but Apple needs to offer a trade-in rebate for the
12" monitors to get everyone up to 640x480 models. Offer users $200 or so
toward the purchase of a new Macintosh 14" Color Display, or even better,
Apple should have kept a large surplus of old AppleColor 13" RGBs for
trade-in...they're cheaper now and are only marginally inferior to the new
14" display. 

>4.  Lastly, games only: improved luminosity on display devices, preferably
>programmer-selectable.  If one animates a lightbulb, it'd be nice if it 
>GLOWED, not just be an "earthtone" blue.  
>

-- 
Travis Grundke               | For more information on MacGames Digest, the 
Contributing Editor,         | #1 source for reviews and news and changes in
MacGames Digest              | the Macintosh gaming industry, please contact
an780@cleveland.freenet.edu  | us at this E-mail address. (c) 1992/1993 MGD