| Rune Central http://runequake.com/forums/ |
|
| JoeQuake for Mac? http://runequake.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=394 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mwh [ Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | JoeQuake for Mac? |
I don't suppose anyone out there has been insane enough to try to compile a version of joequake for mac os x? I'll probably have a stab at it later this week if I can't steal someone else's effort... Cheers, Michael "inconvenient os boy" Hudson |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: JoeQuake for Mac? |
mwh wrote: I don't suppose anyone out there has been insane enough to try to compile a version of joequake for mac os x?
I'll probably have a stab at it later this week if I can't steal someone else's effort... Cheers, Michael "inconvenient os boy" Hudson Just to say that I've actually had a go at this now, nearly a year on, and have quickly discovered the joy of debugging a program that crashes while in control of the entire screen... Anyone want to buy me a new mac and two monitors? |
|
| Author: | Baker [ Sun May 22, 2005 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any luck with this? |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Tue May 24, 2005 6:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Baker wrote: Any luck with this?
In a word, no. I haven't tried for a while, mind. |
|
| Author: | Baker [ Tue May 24, 2005 6:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Are you are a Mac user, btw? (Or were you just interesting in porting the code?) Basically, do you have experience running Quake on a Mac and have fulltime access to a Mac? |
|
| Author: | 5AB0TAG3 [ Fri May 27, 2005 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am a Mac user, I play Quake on my Titanium and it all goes well. I use the GLQuake port by Fruitz of Dojo It runs smooth, they got GLQuake / GLQuakeWorld, Quake / QuakeWorld in the package. They also did a Tenebrae Quake OS X port, but it won't play online (on Runes servers, that is) I would enjoy having a JoeQuake for OS X, if anyone has an update on this let me know ! |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Tue May 31, 2005 9:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am not 5AB0TAG3, but I sound a lot like him 
I do program but have very little experience with graphics/openGL/3d type stuff and attempting to merge joequake and the fruitz-of-dojo port just got me a quake which just crashed at startup with the brightness all the way down and input apparently disabled 
|
|
| Author: | 5AB0TAG3 [ Tue May 31, 2005 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm no programmer, well yeah, kinda but only a web (flash) programmer... which means I have no knowloedge of OS X development ... but ... wouldn't the JoeQuake linux sources be usefull for compiling them on OS X ? I don't know about all of this much, but since os x IS unix ... maybe it's a small step. And they do provide the linux sources on the JoeQuake website. |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
5AB0TAG3 wrote: I'm no programmer, well yeah, kinda but only a web (flash) programmer... which means I have no knowloedge of OS X development ... but ... wouldn't the JoeQuake linux sources be usefull for compiling them on OS X ? That's what I tried and I just crashed my machine a lot... Working piece by piece would be safer, but I haven't had the patience to try that yet. Quote: I don't know about all of this much, but since os x IS unix ... maybe it's a small step. Well, the graphics are pretty different... (unless you try to run it under the X11 server... hmm). Quote: And they do provide the linux sources on the JoeQuake website.
Well, he has to provide source, that's what the GPL is all about. |
|
| Author: | woods [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know with Mac OS X switching to Intel chips within the year I am gonna want a version that runs of Mac OS X...Because I think I'll be switching over. |
|
| Author: | Baker [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
woods wrote: I know with Mac OS X switching to Intel chips within the year I am gonna want a version that runs of Mac OS X...Because I think I'll be switching over.
I posted these pics in the Singed forum of Mac OS/X ... it's rock solid, very versatile, easy to do anything that is hard in Windows, a lot better organized than Windows and has cinematic effects. 
But without a JoeQuake port or something else, you would be deprived of the graphics of modern Quake. As far as I know, there is no Mac FuhQuake, Tremor or EZQuake or anything else. Just the Fruitz of Dojo GL Quake pictured above in those screenshots I made (on a company computer, I don't own a Mac but would like to get a Mac Mini as it can use Windows keyboard/mouse/montitor) and only costs $499. All Macs come with an ATI Radeon video processor. |
|
| Author: | woods [ Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
With the Mac running on Intel chips making a version that runs in OSX should not be hard....I don't think a JoeQuake port would be ahrd.... |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
woods wrote: With the Mac running on Intel chips making a version that runs in OSX should not be hard.... Uh, I don't think it will make any noticable difference, actually. Quote: I don't think a JoeQuake port would be ahrd....
Depends. I tried, and failed, but I don't know much about graphics programming. There are already versions of regular quake and tenebrae. |
|
| Author: | 5AB0TAG3 [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
so.... any luck on this ? anyone ? |
|
| Author: | mwh [ Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
5AB0TAG3 wrote: so.... any luck on this ?
anyone ? Nope! Sorry. |
|
| Author: | woods [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | the future |
eventually we'll be able to run windows .exe's under mac os x...with the new intel chips of course. |
|
| Author: | Mandel [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Intel chips or powerpc doesn't really matter since we have compilers that deal with the differences. That's one of the reasons we have high level languages in the first place. The true difference is the programming interface that the operating system exposes. Windows has its own, Linux has one, and mac os has another. They are very incompatible. If you have a look in the source you'll see that it deals with the differences by including two versions of a lot of code, one for windows and one for linux. Writing os x code for those cases, and identifying other sections that have to be rewritten, that's the real work. |
|
| Author: | yellow#5 [ Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sure woods understands programs need to be written for the OS no matter what chip it's running on. He's saying macs will be able to run any windows app, by running it a vitual machine. This has of course been possible for years with virtualpc and such, but the cpu and other chips where all emulated in software so it's slow. Now a virtual machine running windows inside MacOS won't need to emulate most things, and should be 80%+ efficient. It spose they'll even make running widows apps transparent, which is how old pre-OS X mac apps are run in OS X. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|