Game maker for mac

Kurt_ · Post by **Kurt_** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:28 am

I know I'm a windows person, jsut thought I'd tthrow this fact out there.

Doesn't windows take like, 256Mb of ram to run and Macs use something significantly less like 64 or something?

...

So hows about those game makers!

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:34 am

Skyone wrote: Pros:
Upgradable in; hardware
and software
Ability to dual boot OS's easily
Ability to overclock
Good UI
Very customizable in look
Great gaming possibilities
Tons of programs
Easy to develop for software
and hardware
Doesn't take up an unbearable amount of space on HDDs
Easy to administer
Easy to link together/lan
More saftey [in SP2]
Easier internet
Good file extensions
Easy interface/accessability
Good customer support
We can get up to 3.4GHz Dual Processor/3.8GHz Single Proccessor

Cons:
Internet Explorer sucks
More viruses
Handles physical memory and processor worse than mac.

Need more cons, and less pros:
The GUI is horrbile (it was such an eye sore I changed to classic)
Take tons of HD space (compared to earlier windows OS' atleast)
Harder to link to together in lan (do to autmatic settings, which ironicly are supposed to help)
I fail to see the extra safety. Maybe that's just because I've always had a hardware firewall (router). But anybody with a firewall and good virus\spyware\firefox protection prior to SP wont see much of a difference anyway.
Horrible interface (in some aspects), I wish I had my Win98 back.
Customer support? Hah!

Most of the things you listed are "pros" created by M$' propaganda. They don't actualy exist (well, they do as cons).

You seem to be comparing Mac and WinXP, when the pros and cons of both should just be "standalone" (can't think of a better word). If they were, we would see that they both suck the big one!11.

Kurt_ · Post by **Kurt_** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:16 am

Let's get marshall to make a Benheck OS!

blackbox_dev · Post by **blackbox_dev** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:23 am

He could if he programmed in x86 assembler and c++

I'm writing my own miniture sucky OS, it's hard work.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:47 pm

Kurt_ wrote:Doesn't windows take like, 256Mb of ram to run and Macs use something significantly less like 64 or something?

Windows XP runs best with 256MB ram or more.
Mac OS X runs best with 256MB ram or more.
The idea you have that Mac OS can run on 64MB ram or less is likely coming from Mac OS 8.x or 9.1, those were real low on ram usage. But the new GUIs on both OSs eats up ram like no other.

As for making your own OS... good luck. I hear that kernel programming is about the toughest area of programming there is. Likely because you have to have everything work. If you want to experiment with the idea go with looking at Linux kernels (I'd say start with 2.0 version) or some older Unix kernels. As for the langauge, Unix was programmed in C so you don't need to write it in Assmbler or any low level langauge.

Post by **marshallh** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:11 pm

If you're interested in a completely assembly-programmed OS, check out www.menuetos.org , it's an OS which I was involved with for a while. If you look around you can still get the 32bit version.

Kurt_ · Post by **Kurt_** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:15 pm

I really, really, don't want to make a new OS. I was kinda kidding. If made an OS it'd be something like this:

*Turns on computer*

Hello World!

*Computer shuts off*

MM007 · Post by **MM007** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:20 pm

People, the original question was for a program that was for a Mac.

Immediately, you guys turned it into a Mac/Windows flame/fanboy thread. Granted, some of you have legitimate reasons for your views, but this STILL isn't the thread for it. If you want to have a Mac/Windows flame war, please make a seperate thread so those actually interested in the topic's main focus don't have to sift through all this.

sock2828 · Post by **sock2828** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:46 pm

Yah good god i did not exspect it to get in to a big discusion

Post by **Skyone** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:44 pm

sniper_spike wrote: Need more cons, and less pros:
The GUI is horrbile (it was such an eye sore I changed to classic)
Take tons of HD space (compared to earlier windows OS' atleast)
Harder to link to together in lan (do to autmatic settings, which ironicly are supposed to help)
I fail to see the extra safety. Maybe that's just because I've always had a hardware firewall (router). But anybody with a firewall and good virus\spyware\firefox protection prior to SP wont see much of a difference anyway.
Horrible interface (in some aspects), I wish I had my Win98 back.
Customer support? Hah!

Most of the things you listed are "pros" created by M$' propaganda. They don't actualy exist (well, they do as cons).

You seem to be comparing Mac and WinXP, when the pros and cons of both should just be "standalone" (can't think of a better word). If they were, we would see that they both suck the big one!11.

I guess GUI is opinion, I seem to enjoy it.
It does take a lot of HD space, but it's obvious compared to older OS's.
I always am able to LAN easily, I take it you're not?
I like the interface, goes with UI...
I always get through to Customer Support, I've had no problems.

I've never even heard of menuet os, is it good marshall?

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:09 pm

This debate is a bit silly really, It all depends what you want out of your computer.

I dont really use mine for anything other than internet Word processing and games so apart from the games differences dont really matter