As a gamer with a macbook pro. I just use shadow to play games over the cloud. Otherwise I would invest in a eGPU. So it's not like apple gamers are missing out if they want to game with good graphics.
> Otherwise I would invest in a eGPU. So it's not like apple gamers are missing out if they want to game with good graphics.
You're not going to get very far without drivers an you'll be stuck on OpenGL 4.1 and Metal. That and you'll have the problem that there are less games built for MacOS than Windows an Linux + Proton.
Investing in a GPU for MacOS for gaming would be a huge waste of money IMO.
I'm not sold on cloud gaming yet, I gave pubg on stadia a whirl today (on my google fiber) and it was somewhat laggy and blurry compared to even my not-highend rx580 which only cost me about what a year or so of stadia would (not including the games)
See other comment and it hasn't been a bad experience for me. Have you personally tried it? I used to have a windows desktop just for gaming and before I decided to limit what I own.
Having to purchase overpriced box on top of already costly GPU and wiring all up including one power adapter each for laptop and eGPU is already a bad experience.
At least in theory (going off marketing materials¹ for one such device, though I personally lack first-hand experience here, and said device doesn't advertise itself as Mac-compatible), the eGPU should function as the power source for the laptop, so you'd only need one power adapter (for the eGPU).
Really, this experience actually sounds pretty pleasant.
How is using something like unreal engine not able to compile to all operating systems. I'm not a game developer so pardon my ignorance but can you not just run macOS on a VM from Windows to compile?
Hardware isn't horrible from Apple. It's just more expensive for macOS and the complete build quality that has been slipping over the years. All Apple users know we're paying more for the hardware than machines preinstalled with windows.
Did Steve Jobs really dislike games? I assume he might have viewed them naively as a waste of time. Most people consider that assumption true and unless you consider them some type of therapy to unwind from the world but even then it can be argued there are healthier options for the majority of people that play games.
edit: ah yes, I get downvoted for writing an honest comment because that's HN crowd.
You cannot run macOS virtualized on anything but Apple hardware. It's against the Apple Terms of Service. Is it technically possible to do? Yes. However most companies will not do so because that's ground for getting sued, or having your developer licenses revoked.
For the same reason as macOS games must be build on Apple machines, iPhone and iPad applications must also be build on Apple hardware. There is an entire market of companies that rent out "server farms" of MacMini's in datacenters for this exact reason. It massively raises the cost and complexity of a modern development/integration system to have "special snowflakes".
As it comes to hardware, the problem is you can't get something "reasonable". You can build a $500 Windows compatible PC that's not half bad. You can stick a low in Nvidia RTX card in that (for a few hundred more) and get some really reasonable gaming performance out of it. However to get an RTX level gaming performance out of a mac... you're out however much it cost to buy the new MacPro... so let's call that $10k. Most normal people are not going to pay that.
Sure, you're right about running macOS on non apple hardware but I know a lot of windows user do that and if you're a serious developer why not just buy an apple computer. I really doubt the cost of the apple computer to then compile isn't going to be paid off from macOS users if the game is any good.
Renting out a mac mini isn't raising the cost or complexity to something unreasonable either. It's like people are forcing their ideology upon a company that decided whats best for itself.
The hardware comment your wrote in regard to mine is cherry picking out the part where apple users know they're overpaying for the hardware they get.
There are quite a number of costs here relating to the "why not buy an apple computer" point. I know because I paid them in both previous jobs and as a sole developer.
Firstly, the hardware cost. It's expensive and slow, but for a business it's a justifiable expense. The real cost is in the ongoing hosting and maintenance. Keeping Mac minis or whatever in a datacentre is a costly waste of space. There's zero remote management, and any failure means a trip to visit the system along with a monitor to hook it up to. Then there's the ongoing system administration cost, keeping it updated, keeping the development tools and build dependencies current. This is an ongoing expense.
Typically, if you need to keep clean environments you need to virtualise, and this means using VMware Fusion or similar. It makes a slow Mac mini system even slower. But if you need to support multiple MacOS versions, or multiple environments, what other choice do you have? It's not like there's a containerisation system for MacOS.
Every other platform can be run virtualised on big metal, like VMware and OpenStack clusters. Linux, BSD, Windows, everything we need to care about. MacOS is a special snowflake exception. This nonconformity adds costs.
As for renting. It's bloody expensive for very little in return. That entire market segment exists solely due to how terrible the hardware and software licensing options are. And the hardware and software procurement and management pain is reflected in the uncompetitive pricing. If Apple offered a developers-only generic VM licence for MacOS this market would vanish overnight.
As a single developer, that's an incremental cost that would be hard to justify for a small potential market.
As a company, adding an additional different testing infrastructure (rent a macmini farm) with the additional pipeline costs (setup, build pipeline etc) as well as the additional opex, again, for a small potential market, is not economical.
Dislike may be a bit strong, but John Carmack described him as indifferent:
> Over the years I've been through a number of initiatives where Apple wants to get serious about games, and we've done things with them. The idea way back with Quake 3 on there, that was my deal with Steve Jobs: if Apple adopts OpenGL rather than going off and doing QuickTime3D or something else of their own which was going to be a bad idea, then I'll personally port the Quake 3 stuff rather than working with a partner company on that. And we went through all that. All of our Apple ports have been successful - they've all made money - but it's marginal money, and we have worked with Aspyr usually on all the other ones after that, but I do think it kind of comes from the top.
> The truth is Steve Jobs doesn't care about games. This is going to be one of those things that I say something in an interview and it gets fed back to him and I'm on his shithead list for a while on that, until he needs me to do something else there. But I think that that's my general opinion. He's not a gamer. It's difficult to ask somebody to get behind something they don't really believe in. I mean obviously he believes in the music and the iTunes and that whole side of things, and the media side of things, and he gets it and he pushes it and they do wonderful things with that, but he's not a gamer. That's just the bottom line about it.
> There are people at Apple who want to support all this - and there's no roadblocks for us right now, we're going to support the Mac on Rage, we hope to get a version of Quake Live going up on the Mac there - but it's just that's not what the Mac platform's about, and I don't really expect that to change because it's a tough equation now that you've got everybody dual-booting their Macs and everything: why would you want to go to the extra trouble of [developing games for Mac]?
This always struck me as highly shortsighted of Jobs and other Apple leadership. Games helped to drive and define the Apple II and Macintosh successes, and the virtuous cycle of gamers growing up on those platforms and then wanting to try their hands at developing their own games for them is how many, many software developers got their start, including some who later found themselves at Apple. What's especially strange is that that list of former videogame developers includes Jobs and Wozniak.
Apple later lucked into a gaming market with iPhone, but they're still awkward at it (just see the games they choose to showcase onstage) and there is very little cross-pollination that considers the Mac as a gaming platform.
When the Mac was originally launched, there was an industry perception that GUIs were toys not suitable for business, so Apple was very worried that being a games platform would reinforce that image[0]. That initial worry seems to have left scar tissue in their corporate culture that would haunt Apple for decades.
Games helped to drive and define the Apple II and Macintosh successes
Apple II, but Macintosh? I'm not sure I agree with that.
I think a lot of Jobs' opinions about personal computers gelled in the 80's. Back then, with the various Sinclair machines, the Ataris, the C64, and the Amiga, there were a lot of people who said that games actually harmed those platforms. In North America at least, having a large library of games made businesses see those platforms as toys and game consoles. Why would you buy an office full of game consoles? You're a serious business man wearing a serious business suit, running a serious business, and you need computers from a serious business computer company that can run serious business software! You need an IBM!
> You're a serious business man wearing a serious business suit, running a serious business, and you need computers from a serious business computer company that can run serious business software! You need an IBM!
To be fair, that mindset predates the use of personal computers to do serious graphics business. The Mac is largely responsible for making that mindset obsolete with things like desktop publishing and Photoshop. The same attributes that made the Mac a good platform for those use cases also made it much more suited to gaming than DOS-era PCs.
Is that really true? I was alive during DOS-era gaming and still remember kids from Mac families standing out on the sidewalk in the rain crying like Oliver Twist weenies because they couldn’t get their game on. Meanwhile PC - read _intel_ - games we’re writing their own low-level memory managers to eek everything out of the platform possible. I was inside playing Ultima VII or playing Falcon 3.0 with a remote friend _over modem_ drinking hot chocolate. I think any review of the games catalogs would show that the market clearly judged the Mac as less well-suited for gaming.
As far as I know it is against the terms of service to run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, so you can't just run a macOS VM.
> Hardware isn't horrible from Apple. It's just more expensive for macOS.
Is that not the same thing, effectively? For a given buying power, a player that chooses mac will have objectively poorer hardware.
Yes, there are a few capable rigs for Apple systems, but they are ludicrously expensive and thus provide a minuscule install base for your game, so it's basically not worth the effort for a triple-A studio. Less demanding games might be more viable, but it's still a lot of costs in porting, build infrastructure and publishing for very little return.
When games are targeted to the Macs potential users have, they have always sold reasonably well. Back when the Mac market was far smaller, and it was much more difficult to develop a game, developers did OK.
If you start with the premise that you should just barely achieve 60fps with all effects enabled on this year’s top-of-the-line PC video card you’re artificially constraining your market. Make your game fun and make it run on as broad a set of users’ systems as possible and you have much better chances of doing well in any market.
I understand and agree with "make the game fun despite computer power", but you got to understand that at least in the current industry climate it means less games are even viable for porting at all.
Basically every triple-A studio banks on having The Latest Technology for their games, so that is a whole nonviable segment.
Sole developers or small indies often can't bother keeping up with the product lineup (XCode often requires the latest macOS version and that means buying a new machine way more often than for other platforms) just to be able to keep building their game. Remember, these are possibly multi-thousand dollar purchases, not to count the actual porting and testing costs. So, another segment made largely nonviable, at least for initial/planned releases.
This leaves us with what's informally called the "double-A" part of the industry: Studios large enough to have a bunch of cash to spare and one or two people who can work on sussing out the multitude of platform requirements and compatibility/performance issues that arise from the Mac platform.
Not only that, but if you are a "double-A" studio that works with a in-house engine, the costs might be increased still due to the required proprietary Metal graphics API, that must be integrated or at least integrating something like MoltenVK (assuming the engine is new enough to have a Vulkan based renderer already).
The only remaining viable projects are on an exception basis, and that leaves very few candidates for porting.
> When games are targeted to the Macs potential users have, they have always sold reasonably well.
The mac market has always been small, and the supply of games even smaller. So that supply has sold pretty well and for example Aspyr and Bungie made pretty OK money off of that.
If the mac supply of games was more competitive I'd wonder if those economics work anymore.
What you ask is basically impossible: most Macs sold only have an integrated GPU, while all major platforms (gaming PCs, Xbox, PS...) do have dedicated GPUs. This means the performance is not even comparable.
Targeting macOS is only feasible for simple/casual games and some eSports.
MacOS Vm's on any other platform other than Macs are disallowed by the EULA. And while you might or might not believe in EULA's, Apple's legal department certainly does and will prosecute commercial entities (for example, if you are trying to build and sell a game)
Re Steve Jobs on games, you can believe in your own skepticism, or you can hear it directly from John Carmack, the creator of DOOM, who tried to work with Steve Jobs to get a proper foundation for gaming on the Mac. He did not succeed.
That one offensive dehumanizing trope you bring up happens for all people that the mental healthcare professionals deal with as patients. I'm curious if you think people shouldn't be able to label an individual not normal and only the person in question should be the one to label themselves as not normal if it's dehumanizing?
Question: Would vanilla js be faster than using react and when just using functions that handle hiding & showing divs by changing the css visibility value? I always assumed optimized react was somehow significantly reducing the browser rendering in the background but I’m unsure now when reading the comments.
> Would vanilla js be faster than using react and when just using functions that handle hiding & showing divs by changing the css visibility value?
Yes.
> I always assumed optimized react was somehow significantly reducing the browser rendering
Let's say you add a <div>. The least amount of rendering you can do, is the render associated with of that new <div>. If you code this manually, you can guarantee you only add the div, and not modify anything else. This is theoretically the best it can be, and so the best React can do as well, from the rendering standpoint.
From the work standpoint, React does many more things associated with stuff that make it work. From the vdom, to the scheduler— it's all overhead React pulls in so it can function. So in holistically in terms performance, adding that <div> yourself is always going to be faster than doing so through React— the less code to run the faster something is.
What React gives you is a framework to think about your application's architecture and execution. Adding a <div>, easy to do manually, no problem. Rendering a whole application, with thousands of possible states, moving parts, some data-fetching here, some animation there, all the while the user is clicking buttons in the middle of state updates— that's harder. At that point can you be sure you're hand-writing the optimal solution, taking into consideration not only _what_ you're rendering, but _when_ it's updating, _how_ the data is changing, and _where_ these mutations are taking place? That's what React gives you. And maybe it doesn't (always) do what's optimal for you, but it does at least provide order to all this complexity, so you can more easily figure it out.
If the vdom can do the diff and sync all the changes to one DOM update, you only trigger one re-layout. That’s one of the main reasons to have the vdom, to offset shitty DOM performance by using app memory. The browser really sucked/sucks.
I urge everyone to keep track of the history of JS frameworks, and why we even gravitate towards these frameworks.
DOM operations are costly whether you do them or React does them. What React offers is avoiding unnecessary DOM operations. However if you need to perform two operations, and React still needs to perform two operations, vanilla will be faster by avoiding all the extra work with VirtualDOM rerendering and diffing.
Virtual DOM is taken by many as granted and cost-free, which is not true. If your SPA is comples and hats a lot of components, then on each data change all thad virtual rerendering and diffing kicks off and even if at the end no DOM opreations need to be done, i.e. nothing changes visually all this adds up in terms of CPU resources.
I'm surprised your comment is being downvoted. There was an article shared on HN last year and suggesting plants are more aware than what we typically give credit to them. I also don't think its completely out there to assume humanity won't be modifying how the human body consumes energy.
It's being downvoted because it doesn't really make sense. Plants lack a central nervous system, so vegans tend to draw the line somewhere there. Regardless if we did find out that plants somehow where conscious and could feel pain we need to feed animals a huge amount of plant matter in order for us to eat them. If vegans are trying to minimise harm done then it'd still make sense to eat them directly than eat animals given there is no alternative.
But what if the plants we like to eat are more conscious than the plants that animals like to eat? Or even more conscious than the animals themselves? How do we really know? What if there is a God in every peanut?
The fact is competition has been increasing every generation at a ridiculous rate. I like to think society would desire to remove competition as a requirement for everyone and allow basic needs being supplied for a somewhat enjoyable life.
Sadly, I think it will take two generations of travesty before anything substantial happens if at all. I predict a lot of suicide & homelessness if not for some disaster and that wipes out a good portion of the population. Kids aren't dumb nowadays with social media showing them how much of an advantage being born into good genetics or financial privilege happens to be.
I assume a lot of progress will happen regardless. The newest generation has everything at their fingertips. They get to read past experiences and how to approach things while the information is criticized more so than previous decades.
> I assume a lot of progress will happen regardless. The newest generation has everything at their fingertips. They get to read past experiences and how to approach things while the information is criticized more so than previous decades.
What? Yeah, sure, it's easier to open a tab and google something than to get a book from the public library, but I don't think that's what's stopped people from learning about the past.
If you are worried about competition from below, think about how people above should be worried about competition from you. If you are worried about competition from above, think about how people below are worried about competition from you. or you could not worry so much about competition and just keep your eye on the goal which hopefully isn’t just competition.
I'm not worried but I observe people younger than I and that definitely happen to be. I should say the issue is obviously more complex than the example I gave. In my opinion people are just having to compete too much for little return than the past and it likely brings an emotional toll with it.
I doubt the person you’re replying to made a counter point and what’s being written about is really just semantics (when someone references luck instead of just acknowledging determinism).
The knowledge that’s statistically likely to benefit someone that’s poor, may not work from unfortunate circumstances and that happen precisely when it will hurt the situation. That happens as everyone has a fairly unique life.
We also have to rely on if someone misfortune at birth (in some way), happens to be “lucky enough” to encounter the knowledge to hopefully benefit them or as I should say fate decided to allow it.
Some people do everything right contrary to a person doing the opposite and life can reward whoever the unique conditions happened to favor for each person.
Everything is decided at birth if we were to break everything down into cause & effect.
> People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away.
No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys.
Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're suggesting that I'm aware about as well.
Note what I did and didn't say. I did NOT say: "People with psychiatric disorders will be cured by spiritual experiences."
Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.
I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.
It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.
Many (most?) people taking this substance report having some sort of mystical/spiritual experience. I doubt they are actually convening with the divine, but whether/how/why the substance causes that affect in people is certainly a part of "science".
I also don't think the spiritual journey aspect should be dismissed so lightly. Its being investigated to help depression. Perhaps inducing a "spiritual" state in people is part of the cause of action of the drug.
>I doubt they are actually convening with the divine.
I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?
Its based on my personal beliefs. I don't have much to back it up one way or another (maybe occam's razor at most). Metaphysical claims usually come down to i believe what i believe because i believe it, and i am no exception.
The main reason i included it was because psybin's comment which i was responding to was very dismissive of "spirituality", and i think there is still valid things to talk about related to spiritual "journeys" regardless of if you think there is some metaphysical force you are connecting to, or if you believe its simply a drug-induced altered state.
Johns Hopkins research has shown a single dose having clinically significant improvement in depression for at least 6 months in 80% of participants; such results are unprecedented in psychiatry:
A source that people believe that psilocybin helps them achieve a mystical state? Or a source about something else?
Isn't the defining feature of a mystical experience that the participant feels that they had one (its a concept about subjective internal states, not an objective thing to measure beyond i guess self-reported surveys). Given that its going to be self reported anyways, i think the general acedotes about psilocybin inducing spirtual "states" is pretty compelling.
I'm interested in a scientific study of how it was somehow linked to spiritual. I'm aware of drugs in general changing mental states of people that suffer from different illnesses. I've tried shrooms before and the high was similar to cannabis for me. I'm not a spiritual person at all and maybe that is why I didn't really care for it. I can imagine psilocybin helping a person in general from the effects but I just don't understand why someone would link it to spiritual unless they were deluded.
"Spiritual awakening" is a keystone of 12-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, whether effective or not, it is the de facto official treatment for substance use disorders.
"Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia.
Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.
