TNM for mac

[jerksausage]

so the faq says -some- of the features don't work. does that mean there's absolutely no way to get it even semi-working on a ppc mac?

[Jonas]

We'll have to rip out some code and I'm afraid you may have to play it entirely without music. We'll look into it but our main priority is fixing the couple of bugs people have found.

[jerksausage]

cool. i can wait.

[skizzzo63]

We'll have to rip out some code and I'm afraid you may have to play it entirely without music. We'll look into it but our main priority is fixing the couple of bugs people have found.

Well, I just discovered TNM and, obviously, I would like to play it. A lot!

But I have a PPC Mac (G4 1,4GHz with MacOS 9.2.2 - and OSX 10.3.9), so no Windows and no "boot" Windows (e.g. BootCamp or Parallel Desktop).

So my questions are:
- Will TNM RUN on a PPC Mac?
(for RUN I mean it will be playable, even without something)
- If "Yes", what will be missing?
("No music" it's ok for me... frequent software errors would be not)
- What download version would be easier to install on a Mac: the EXE or the ISO?
(for the EXE, I have "Virtual PC" - software emulation - that is no good for running DX but could be ok for just installing/extracting files)

Thanks in advance to anybody who will answer.
Skizzo

[Jonas]

I don't know what PPC is, but you may be able to get TNM to run if you use something like that Parallels program or similar. I wouldn't count on it though. It should matter if you use the iso or the exe, the exe is on the iso, see.

[skizzzo63]

I don't know what PPC is, but you may be able to get TNM to run if you use something like that Parallels program or similar.

Oh, I see.
PPC stands for PowerPC, the processor generation BEFORE Intel.
And, only Intel processor Macs can run Windows (via Boot Camp or the like).

That's what I meant saying "No Windows" on my Mac: no Intel, no WIndows.
(well, I have VirtualPC Win emulator, but that's just good for Notepad... )

So, I could turn my question into:
Could TNM run using Mac version of DeusEx, installing the various files in it by hand?
(like we usually do with other mods or user levels)

[Jonas]

No because TNM uses custom DLLs that require some Windows-only C++ runtimes. It also uses an ogg music player, which Mac can't handle.

To quote our FAQ:

Q. Does TNM run on Mac?
A. That depends — some of our new features are not compatible with the Macintosh version of Deus Ex, but if you are able to run the Windows version using software like Parallels Desktop, then you should also be able to run The Nameless Mod. Also, we haven't ruled out making a Mac-specific version eventually, but there are no plans to do so at this time.

[skizzzo63]

No because TNM uses custom DLLs that require some Windows-only C++ runtimes. It also uses an ogg music player, which Mac can't handle.

Ok, I was afraid that would be the problem...
thank you for making things clear.

To quote our FAQ:

Q. Does TNM run on Mac?
A. That depends — some of our new features are not compatible with the Macintosh version of Deus Ex

Yes, I read it, but "some features" could means "expendable" ones, or needed and - therefore - mandatory.

If I could humbly suggest a clarification, in the FAQ it would be clearer to say something like:
"TNM cannot run with the Macintosh version of DeusEx (due to software incompatibililties).
It can, however, run within Windows O.S. installed on Intel Macintoshes (via BootCamp, Parallel Desktop or the like)."

Thanks again,
Skizzo

[justanotherfan]

I've a G4 too . It's in the closet unplugged though ;-(. Heavily modified and upgraded sawtooth, only the CPU, motherboard, and some of the case are OEM.

I miss the old superior hardware very much. Still, I'd strongly suggest getting away from it concerning Apple. I survived the 68k -> PPC changeover as a Mac user, as well as the OS X switch, and even a couple years of the x86 while running my G4, but now Apple just sells poor-quality PC hardware at multiple times the cost. You can build a powerful and cheap high-quality PC that is fully compatible with OSX86, which itself is basically OS X with a modified bootloader. Really, you have to do is pick a compatible motherboard (eg. Asus A8N-E Wifi). It can also run Windows for DeusEx.exe, or Darwine within OSX86. Deus Ex on modern hardware is far better, since you can force higher quality graphics (Ansiotropic, FSAA, etc) since the framerate doesn't matter anymore, you can have digital audio, and there's no more worrying about the buggy Classic environment or the massive unpatched memory leaks and instability of the Mac DeusEx version. The porting house Westlake Interactive doesn't really exist anymore, and they didn't do much to patch their Deus Ex port in the first place.

I totally understand wanting to keep with PPC. If I was sticking with Apple, I'd stick with PPC too. Still, you'll get a lot of applications losing compatibility constantly. I believe the new OS X "Snow Leopard" drops PPC support entirely. TNM is so far removed from Deus Ex for Macintosh that I'm astounded when it's said "Once we're done with the bugs, we'll try taking out music and anything else for a Mac version". TNM has been for Windows, which is an OS change from Apple's OS X, which is the replacement for the old MacOS that runs Deus Ex on the old CPU that was replaced. From my experience, most developers won't even consider hearing a request for compatibility with a single issue like that. PPC was excellent for emulation, so x86 emulation could work, but videocard emulation is sparse and slow, and my G4 was new when Deus Ex was new. I'm sorry, but I strongly suggest giving up on the old hardware. It's a losing game and I remember how painful it is.

I agree about the FAQ. It could mention that TNM as a whole is not currently compatible.

---
PowerPC (PPC) is a CPU architecture, one of the RISC ones from the 90's. Highly efficient and properly designed, it was able to keep up with Intel's obsolete x86 in speed and occasionally best it with a tiny fraction of the R&D and investment. Some functions were orders of magnitude faster (eg. G4's Altivec, which Intel only beat a couple years ago), while using perhaps 1/14th of the electricity (TDP). It is not x86 compatible. Apple used it on the desktop for about a decade, but lost face when Intel's processors were faster (when the P4 had ridiculous clock speeds, inefficient and slow as that may have been), and Apple couldn't control the development of faster PPC processors suitable for the desktop. AMD itself was essentially not running x86, but an x86 translator to their own RISC-type CPU architecture, and then their x86-64 patched up x86 to the point where it is now vaguely comparable to PPC. Since PPC isn't on the desktop anymore, and x86 is far faster than the PPCs that were available, PPC is now used mostly in embedded equipment (for efficiency), or in servers (eg. IBM's POWER line of CPUs, what the G5 was based on). PPC is still Linux compatible, though of course WINE and some mplayer codecs won't work (eg. Intel's old Indeo video IV50 etc) and distributions like Yellow Dog Linux are on the sidelines of mainstream Linux. This paragraph is mostly big pictures and handwaving generalizations, but I hope it explains the old paradigm quickly to the uninitiated.

[skizzzo63]

Still, I'd strongly suggest getting away from it concerning Apple.

Well, games apart, it's still good for working.
(and I have a Wii for gaming, too)

You can build a powerful and cheap high-quality PC that is fully compatible with OSX86, which itself is basically OS X with a modified bootloader.

I know but, compatibility problem aside, I still use OS9 mainly.
So an Intel architecture (no more Classic/OS9) it's no good for me, right now.

As strange as it may sound, I don't like OSX.
Apart from stability and memory management, I find it a vastly worse user experience than "real" MacOS (i.e. OS9 and before).
Heck, when I use OSX, sometimes I would even prefer Windows, go figure...!

I know one day I'll have to abandon OS9, but right now is still the OS I prefer using.

Still, you'll get a lot of applications losing compatibility constantly.

I know.
I often switch between OS9 and OSX Panther for compatibility issues, and even Panther is often outdated.

I'm sorry, but I strongly suggest giving up on the old hardware.

Only when I'll be forced to!

[justanotherfan]

Cool. As of yet. my favourite system is probably MacOS 8.6. On a 604 it'll feel faster than OS X on a quadcore.

Still, I'm on OSX86 and Windows. Not the ideal situation.

[skizzzo63]

Cool. As of yet. my favourite system is probably MacOS 8.6.

I AGREE!

The only improvement in OS9 is the "Window" menu in the FInder.
(and it's noticeably slower than 8.6)

Still, I'm on OSX86 and Windows. Not the ideal situation.

It's not a perfect world.

[justanotherfan]

System 8 was great, but it always felt slow. 8.5 was excellent, but 8.6 made it perfectly stable. MacOS 9 was mostly about internet connectivity (ooh, Sherlock), but it wasn't as if TCP/IP wasn't available for System 7. Plus, my 9.0.4 crashed often; I kept macsdebug installed just to reboot it. I should have installed the 9.1 and 9.2 updates to solve that, but they had lots of OS X classic patches. My second favourite would probably 7.5.3 -- free, and 7.5.5 was an annoying corruptable multi-floppy patch rather than a clean install.

On the perfect world, I figure Linux will eventually set me free. They'll copy the usability of OS X, and they've gradually neutralized Windows' main advantages. Everytime I try it though, something stops me. I'm still getting replies from bug reports I sent in years ago about things like kernel panics with certain hardware. I've gotten a copy of Linux Mint, so I'm hoping it'll work better on at least one of my machines than Windows.

I wasn't a big fan of the G5, partly because of all the loud fans it needed to stay cool, but I'm sure you could get one cheaply now. Not sure what the last Macintosh that could run MacOS 9.2 was, probably one of the iBooks. Other than that, there were a couple of companies that continued to make PPC boards. It's possible that a PPC Linux could give the stability MacOS lacked, with a MacOS running using maconlinux.org (maybe it would need a ROM image from a Mac, which you own) and even a copy of OS X at the same time. Pretty hacky, but it's all stuff I considered to keep my G4 going. I never did buy the dual G4 1.6ghz 7447 upgrade.

[skizzzo63]

8.5 was excellent, but 8.6 made it perfectly stable.

Stable, except when using MS Internet Explorer, I'd say.
It's the one (and almost unique) app that crashes or freezes when I'm using OS9.

But I think the blame is also about the lots of bad-written, out-of-standard websites.

On the perfect world, I figure Linux will eventually set me free.

Mhhh... Observing OSX and listening to Linux users, I came to think "Unixes" are NOT meant for personal computing.
There's always something that forces the user to adapt to the system (while personal computing should revolve around the user).

IMHO, Linux can be good... if you are a sort of hacker and enjoy tinkering with your system.

Not sure what the last Macintosh that could run MacOS 9.2 was

Natively (not "Classic"), it was the G4 MDD 1,25 GHz. Fine machine, but quite loud itself (that's why I opted for a G4 DA, with a 1,4 GHz upgrade added)

[justanotherfan]

Oh, IE. I never used it at home. I was in a Macintosh lab, and the machines constantly stalled using IE ~5.5. I always preferred iCab. Fast and 68k compatible.

OS X does a pretty good job insulating the user. There are still UNIX issues that sort of intervene, mostly to do with permissions and server-type services, but Apple has worked around many of them. It is true that when something goes wrong in OS X, it tends to be a deep issue needing UNIX knowledge. With the old systems, that stuff never really went wrong, which is good because fixing it would be far too arcane . I miss extensions. Such an easy fix.

With Linux, I've noticed that many things don't work by default. It is really difficult to switch to. They're working very hard on that, as best UNIX programmers can, and the results I've seen in Fedora, OpenSuSE, and Ubuntu have been very promising. Of course, I'll never forget the puzzlement when the OpenBSD installer demanded I give it the geometry and number of sectors of my hard drive, or how in Linux From Scratch there were unlisted dependencies and cyclical dependencies (eg. bash needs ncurses to compile; to compile ncurses, please compile bash. Mostly it was dependencies with libraries).

It was very sad what Apple had to do to the G4. To keep up the clockspeed race, they essentially sold highly overclocked ones. The G4 was so efficient and cool, and they had to turn it into a hot and inefficient processor to save face. The G5 was basically a neutered POWER4 with added altivec, so it was faster, but again hot and inefficient.

Which upgrade did you get? I really liked that Gigadesigns 7447; cheaper than Sonnet, fairly efficient processors, but having two of them balanced that out. In the end, the cost was insane compared to what I could get an OSX86 machine for. My G4 Sawtooth is still a crazy machine. GeForce 5200FX (ROM flashed), 350w PSU, SATA, USB2, superdrive, 1.5gb RAM, gigabit ethernet, SPDIF digital audio out, and a single low-speed 120mm panaflo fan controlled by CPU temperature. Lasted about 7 years, about the same as my first mac. That dual 1.4ghz would have kept it in the game, but the x86 switch ended the dream -- yet another reason Macintosh users love the Macintosh, but hate Apple

What was your first Mac? Performa 460 here, also in my closet, with an LCII motherboard now. Apple IIc before that, now in the furnace room with no power adapter. I still have a Mac SE, LCIII, one of my two PPC 8500. I kept the cases from my deceased Macs for storage, including a Mac Plus (leaking PSU caps), iMac Bondi Blue (couldn't boot), G3 (missing parts), and an IIcx (RAM issue).

Someone should move this to Off Topic. Us Macintosh people can talk forever