Very likely to switch

[Xer0]

Can't argue with that

Well, I figure If I'm going to be 50 grand in debt when I get out of school, how's another 4k gunna hurt me lol. And realistically, a dual processor is what I should get.

Good for you! That spec will last you a long long time!
The only thing you'll be upgrading - possibly... is the GPU.

Back to the DirectX question, are games for mac then just made w/o the need for direct X? Or is there a mac version of something that serves the same purpose?

Their are Direct X games for the MAC But Open GL games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 1/2/3, Doom 3 etc. are easier to port to MAC.

But for more info on Direct X games for MAC's , check this out macnn/news.php?id=13737 (outdated link removed)

 

[nko]

DirectX is a Microsoft / Windows only thing, but many games can also be played, even in Windows, using OpenGL. The difference is in which graphics system the game uses to render scenes (and I think sounds, too). DirectX is much better for gaming, but OpenGL isn't bad at all. Just a little mention, on my Pentium 4 with 384 MB / RAM, UT 2003 ran at only 4 fps less in Linux than in Windows. Linux was using OpenGL, Windows had DirectX. Windows of course had the whole OS loaded at the time, while Linux had the kernel, drivers, X windows system, and a very small Window Manager (basically meaning I wasn't running anything that would block performance, which is flexibility that adds performance). Also, I may be wrong, but the game was designed originally with Windows in mind. Besides all this, OpenGL on a dual G5 will probably kick the pants off any Pentium system, and do similar work against an AMD.

Something you might wanna look at, if you wanna get really excited about multimedia content creation on the G5 you're thinking about, is a video of Steve Jobs' keynote speech at the World Wide Developers' Convention 2003. There, he unveiled the G5, and demonstrated it against a dual Xeon (the "fastest PC money can buy"). The video can be streamed for free off Apple's web site, I believe. The G5 is a painful insult to x86's. There are demonstrations of sound editing, video editing, and photoshopping. It's just amazing to see the stuff happen on video.

Also, in addition to the whole data bandwidth thing, the G5 has got some more design features that make it fast. For one example, pertaining to dual proc systems, the bus has been divided to make for a seperate bus for each CPU, instead of on previous PPC or x86 systems where 2 CPU's shared bandwidth. You get a MUCH better performance gain from the 2nd CPU, in this case, which will make you feel good about your investment!

 

[RobDreugan]

Something you might wanna look at, if you wanna get really excited about multimedia content creation on the G5 you're thinking about, is a video of Steve Jobs' keynote speech at the World Wide Developers' Convention 2003. There, he unveiled the G5, and demonstrated it against a dual Xeon (the "fastest PC money can buy"). The video can be streamed for free off Apple's web site, I believe. The G5 is a painful insult to x86's. There are demonstrations of sound editing, video editing, and photoshopping. It's just amazing to see the stuff happen on video.

Also, in addition to the whole data bandwidth thing, the G5 has got some more design features that make it fast. For one example, pertaining to dual proc systems, the bus has been divided to make for a seperate bus for each CPU, instead of on previous PPC or x86 systems where 2 CPU's shared bandwidth. You get a MUCH better performance gain from the 2nd CPU, in this case, which will make you feel good about your investment!

Ya I would like to see that video. I think after I'm done editing tonight I'll take a look for it.

And that's amazing that there is a bus for each processor. That is badass. hehe, I'm feeling better and better about dropping the 3 grand or so needed to buy this.

 

[Xer0]

DirectX is a Microsoft / Windows only thing, but many games can also be played, even in Windows, using OpenGL. The difference is in which graphics system the game uses to render scenes (and I think sounds, too). DirectX is much better for gaming, but OpenGL isn't bad at all. Just a little mention, on my Pentium 4 with 384 MB / RAM, UT 2003 ran at only 4 fps less in Linux than in Windows. Linux was using OpenGL, Windows had DirectX. Windows of course had the whole OS loaded at the time, while Linux had the kernel, drivers, X windows system, and a very small Window Manager (basically meaning I wasn't running anything that would block performance, which is flexibility that adds performance). Also, I may be wrong, but the game was designed originally with Windows in mind. Besides all this, OpenGL on a dual G5 will probably kick the pants off any Pentium system, and do similar work against an AMD.

I've been a coder for years, eventually I worked both with DirectX, OpenGL and Glide (does anyone remember the unfortunate 3dfx attempt at another 3d API?). Each one of those apis has it's advantages and disadvantages, but OpenGL is undoubtely overall better. It's strenght can be summed up by three adjectives: easy, flexible, intuitive. Especially intuitive.

The most serious DirectX vice is that to perform the most simple operation, or the most complex one, you must fill enormous structures with information. Putting a single vertex or rendering a complex object, requires the same amount of coding.

This is definitely counterintuitive. You start with a complex environment that you've got to deconstruct depending on your needs.
OpenGL, on the other hand, gives you extremely basic, simple functions - and it's up to you building complex structures on them as you like.

Performance isn't an issue anymore. Since the advent of T&L cards, OpenGL and DirectX internal management of transformation, lighting, data caching and so on, has been practically dropped - and it's all to the hardware.

Well, anyhow - if you don't trust me, there's more eminent evidence:
Carmack himself wrote a detailed essay on the argument "OpenGL vs DirectX" in his .plan a couple years ago, bashing the latter.

By the way... Microsoft recently acquired all the SGI patents for graphic accelrator designs. If they really wanted to kill OpenGL they can charge licence fees too Nvidia and ATI to making OpenGL compatable accelerators.

 

[nko]

I'll buy the whole same performance thing, coming from a coder . I take it then that it's more of a "which was it designed for," right? I always got better performance with DX, but it's never been bad with OGL.

Microsoft liscencing OpenGL? Sending me another 7% sure I'll never buy MS products again, totalling 107% sureness? It's maddening! Hope they don't do that, for their sake. Gamers wouldn't appreciate a price increase just because some company decided to money grub.

They'd follow like cattle anyway, though.