Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Its a known fact that as time goes by and new viewers and OS keep being developed, the worst it gets for Mac users to  run Second Life, both with official LL viewer and with FS.

Is there  a reason for this discrimination? What does it take to fix that? Neither end cares the slightest bit about that. Maybe because Mac users are not a majority in SL, but let me remind you that if you check, Mac users tend to spend a lot more money. Besides, SL is losing people that give up struggling with techie issues for just a game.  I'm sure there are enough nerd geniuses both in LL and in Apple to fix this issue without much drama. Maybe LL or FS should try harder. And maybe should share the issue with Apple and tweak what ever little tweaking need to be done.

I have been in SL for 10 years, I started with a Mac, it run great back then.   I have changed computers , I always have the latest. Sierra and the new viewers  for Bento are a seriously not compatible.

.

0+00688/+69-6*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Covadonga Writer said:

Is there  a reason for this discrimination?

There are at least two reasons:

  1. Mac OS represents something like 3-4% of the PC market. There are more Mac users in creative fields, and so you might find a larger percentage of SL creators using Macs, but it's still a small audience.
  2. MacOS lags Windows in support for OpenGL, the graphics foundation of SL. This won't get any better, as Apple has now offered up Metal as its preferred graphics API, rather than adopting Vulcan, a cross platform graphics API that's seeing some interest.

Conversely, SL users represent a very small fraction of the MacOS user base, so there's not much impetus for Apple to address this either.

It is true that MacOS/iOS users have more disposable income, but I'm not sure that makes up for the other deficits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

47 minutes ago, Covadonga Writer said:

Maybe because Mac users are not a majority in SL

Roughly 10% of Firestorm users are on Mac.  As far as I'm aware it's the same percentage for the LL viewer too.

48 minutes ago, Covadonga Writer said:

Maybe LL or FS should try harder.

For Firestorm - it's really difficult to find Mac developers willing to contribute to TPVs these days. If you know of any, send them our way  ;)

52 minutes ago, Covadonga Writer said:

I have been in SL for 10 years, I started with a Mac, it run great back then.   I have changed computers , I always have the latest. Sierra and the new viewers  for Bento are a seriously not compatible.

In what way are the viewers not compatible for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i understand the MacOS version of the SL viewer is stuck because the viewer code is so complex and old that to re-write it for the modern MacOS would simply be to much. So while the windows Viewers progress up with the latest OpenGL the MacOS viewer is stuck on a Legacy 'Compatibility' profile of OpenGL2.1 never to improve. I could be wrong as i am neither a coder or developer.  In the end i accept that no matter how powerful and up to speed my Mac is, it'll struggle to run Second Life with bells and whistles.

As for current compatibility, i do find the current official Mac viewer has a terrible UI pause when opening windows and logging in that i have moaned about for half a year. I changed to firestorms 64bit viewer as that seems to work very well on MacOS, and now the Official Project viewer Alex Ivy 64bit also fixes the awful performance of the default viewer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27 May 2017 at 11:36 PM, Covadonga Writer said:

Its a known fact that as time goes by and new viewers and OS keep being developed, the worst it gets for Mac users to  run Second Life, both with official LL viewer and with FS.

Is there  a reason for this discrimination? What does it take to fix that? Neither end cares the slightest bit about that. Maybe because Mac users are not a majority in SL, but let me remind you that if you check, Mac users tend to spend a lot more money. Besides, SL is losing people that give up struggling with techie issues for just a game.  I'm sure there are enough nerd geniuses both in LL and in Apple to fix this issue without much drama. Maybe LL or FS should try harder. And maybe should share the issue with Apple and tweak what ever little tweaking need to be done.

 


 

Some points you appear to have missed since the early 80's are relevant here.

See, the Awful Muk, was not designed for 'popular fun' or for 'compatibility', it was designed as an over priced 'pro serious business tax deductable business expense' machine, aimed squarely at corporate customers.

Ultimately it failed, the first Awful Muk to be anything like popular with 'civilians' so to speak was the PowerMuk, that could pretend, rather badly to be a Pretty-Crappy, and run some PC software.

This hasn't changed much over the last 30 odd years, Muks are still 'serious incompatible bussiness machines that must not be used for fun' which is why there is so little support generally for games on Muks.

Sl is a special case, opengl started as a graphics system that ran on Awful Muks AND Pretty-Crappy's, but Muks seem to lag behind on it's development. Best advise anyone can give to a gamer using a Muk is...

Buy a real computer that's designed for fun as well as business...

 

Edited by Klytyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest High Sierra OS adds support for external graphics cards which can support VR so those will be fairly high end cards. The Mac needs to have the Thunderbolt 3 port to connect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Klytyna hate threads help no one.

Looking at the Laptop market, Macs have gained alot, anyway.

Because the original viewer is made for windows, like most/all developers might work with mac but develop first for Windows because of the greater market, the current mac viewer is just a port and will always be.

Some of the technique used is way out of date, like XMLRPC login ... Mac doesn´t have and want to support old versions, that was always the problem for windows. Stay compatible.

A real mac viewer had to be written from base but use out of date stuff.

Some people had a look into the viewer code to really create a mac viewer but that´s not a 2 friends project, you would need alot people write 1000s of lines and each update on the SL viewer you had to check in all changes again. All for no money ! like the firestorm crew does.

Monti

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2017 at 10:47 PM, Klytyna said:

See, the Awful Muk, was not designed for 'popular fun' or for 'compatibility', it was designed as an over priced 'pro serious business tax deductable business expense' machine, aimed squarely at corporate customers.

We must have been reading different things because I'd read that the main purpose in creating the Mac was to create a good computer that sells for under $1000, which would have made it surprisingly cheap at the time. It wasn't designed an "overpriced" anything.

I don't read many of your posts, for obvious reasons, but I've read enough to know that what you claim as facts can all too often be taken with a pinch of salt. That, in turn, causes any correct facts that you post to be seriously doubted.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

We must have been reading different things because I'd read that the main purpose in creating the Mac was to create a good computer that sells for under $1000, which would have made it surprisingly cheap at the time. It wasn't designed an "overpriced" anything.

I don't read many of your posts, for obvious reasons, but I've read enough to know that what you claim as facts can all too often be taken with a pinch of salt. That, in turn, causes any correct facts that you post to be seriously doubted.

http://lowendmac.com/time/1981-85.shtml

1983

Lisa introduced with 5 MHz 68000 CPU, 860k 5.25" floppy, 12" b&w screen, detached keyboard, and mouse for $9,995.
Jan.: Apple IIe introduced at $1,395.
Apple III+ introduced in December at $2,995.

1984

 Macintosh 128K introduced at $2,495 with 128 KB RAM, 400 KB floppy, built in monitor

: Mac 512K 'Fat Mac' introduced at $3,195.

Remember, we're talking here about the same company that would go on to charge over £100 for an mp3 player that wouldn't load mp3's, compared to rival products what would, which cost under £30, and which were smaller lighter and often better looking.





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's no good at all. What the selling price was is irrelevant. The Mac was intended to sell for under $1000. They couldn't manage it, but that was the intention of creating it in the first place. Get your facts right.

Note: I didn't look that up on the web. I didn't need to. I was in computers long before that happened, and it was well-known then.

There was another person here not too long ago who was a lot like you, except that she was popular. She used to try to teach people about their own countries and such. She looked the topics of dicussions up on the web, and then came back to teach everyone about themselves, vainly trying to make out that she was very knowledgeable. She stopped coming (again) after it was pointed out to her.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Remember, we're talking here about the same company that would go on to charge over £100 for an mp3 player that wouldn't load mp3's, compared to rival products what would, which cost under £30, and which were smaller lighter and often better looking.

We're also talking about the largest company in the world, by both market cap and profit. It's unlikely that happened by offering customers poor value.

There are a great many popular products and services in this world I do to not like. That does not lead me to believe that those products and services are a poor value. My values and tastes are mine and I do not expect companies to pander to them. Their job is to prosper by offering goods and services that are valued by their customers. It's my job to pick and choose the best values for me. If I can't afford or don't like a thing, I don't blame the manufacturer. And it hardly makes sense for me to rant about people affording things I can't, or liking things I don't. I can wonder, is it all of you or is it me? But, there's no blame to assign.

It would make sense to say "Apple products are a poor value proposition for me", but to imply they're a poor value proposition for the people who have made Apple the largest company in the world does not make sense. And not making sense is something you should not do unintentionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Klytyna said:

http://lowendmac.com/time/1981-85.shtml

1984

 

 Macintosh 128K introduced at $2,495 with 128 KB RAM, 400 KB floppy, built in monitor

: Mac 512K 'Fat Mac' introduced at $3,195.

Remember, we're talking here about the same company that would go on to charge over £100 for an mp3 player that wouldn't load mp3's, compared to rival products what would, which cost under £30, and which were smaller lighter and often better looking.

 

You forgot this part of the page you quoted:

"IBM PC/AT uses 6 MHz 80286 CPU, 256 KB RAM, HD 1.2 MB floppy, 16-bit bus. $4,000. Compare with features and price of Mac 128K and 512K to the left "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

You forgot this part of the page you quoted:

"IBM PC/AT uses 6 MHz 80286 CPU, 256 KB RAM, HD 1.2 MB floppy, 16-bit bus. $4,000. Compare with features and price of Mac 128K and 512K to the left "

You forgot to learn the difference between 'overpriced' and 'more expensive', you also forgot that the response was to the 'under $1000' claim.

You scored 0/10 for effort, as usual. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

That's no good at all. What the selling price was is irrelevant. The Mac was intended to sell for under $1000. They couldn't manage it, but that was the intention of creating it in the first place. Get your facts right.

Note: I didn't look that up on the web. I didn't need to. I was in computers long before that happened, and it was well-known then.

I wanted to add to this but you may not have noticed, so I'm doing it in a new post.

The idea that the purpose in designing the Mac was to make a good computer that sells for under $1000 wasn't mere rumour at the time, or anything like that. It was Apple themselves who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...