How Do Mac Users Feel About This?

zaria

danno8 wrote: »

BalticBlues wrote: »

Starlight_Whisper wrote: »

Honestly, I read same article and seems like they don't think they be successful. Like mac will have too limited of software to use. Mac won't last long this way

I would not bet on this. ARM technology won the mobile sector for good reasons
and now is coming to servers & desktop computers also for good reasons.

Those reasons being primarily power draw. On phones and laptops that's very important. For servers most definitely as power demands are an expense.

On desktop PC, not so much really. PC gamers hardly care about power demands of their systems as long as it translates into more FPS. Even PC non-gamers hardly care if their systems draw 500w or 300w while they are compressing files or encoding. The extra $1 or $2 on their monthly bill doesn't matter.

Apple wants full control of its hardware from the bottom up, and with Intel being so unreliable for them over the last few years they decided to take control. They will have quick ARM processors that are very power efficient and powerful at doing what most Apple users use their Macbooks for.

Unfortunately that will likely not mean gaming.

edit: To be clear, what I mean is that gaming isn't really a consideration over at Apple when they make these decisions, whether the M1 turns out to be faster for gaming or not.

Note that an future proof gaming laptop has to be around PS5 performance, an minimum will be Xbox series S as this is that games are made for, consoles are also very efficient as they code much more directly to hardware.
And the key component here is the graphic card, the cpu is good enough on an strong machine.

Jump this generation is likely to be a bit slower because comparability.

jaygao79

Malkiv wrote: »

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/59187

Well, all users, really.

This will not affect current Mac users, of course, that are using Intel-based solutions. However, how does this kind of announcement make you feel in terms of support, or playability, or confidence, etc.?

Personally, I'm conflicted. I understand that it would be very difficult and time consuming, with no promise of an return. Sure, Firor mentions Stadia as a possible solution, but that makes me groan so hard. It kind of feels like, "Oh, hey, there's this shiny new gaming platform we have, you should use that for a massively subpar experience." What about when the Stadia goes the way of almost every other Google-launched service (looking at you Google+)?

Can we please just be a little objective about Stadia. What you call massive subpar experience is what console players have been put up with for years, in fact it’s better than console experience.
Also, it’s not like if the alternative like Stadia didn’t exist, the outcome will be any different.

BlueRaven

kojou wrote: »

Even if the adoption rate of ARM based Macs is really high, there is no way ZOS would invest the amount of resources required to support ESO to work on it natively. It would be too large of an effort for a game this old.

I am interested to see how the ARM based Macs do in general, one of my biggest problems with my Mac that I use for work is its performance is thermally bound.

Apparently the new “fanless” MacBook Air is running at speeds equivalent to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, it’s crazy.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/11/12/first-apple-silicon-geekbench-results-m1-macbook-pro-air-mac-mini-analysis/

Malkiv

jaygao79 wrote: »

Can we please just be a little objective about Stadia. What you call massive subpar experience is what console players have been put up with for years, in fact it’s better than console experience.
Also, it’s not like if the alternative like Stadia didn’t exist, the outcome will be any different.

This really isn't a thread to talk about the performance of Stadia to consoles. It's been very interesting seeing the responses from people, as it ranges from "I hate all Apple products, and they deserve this" to "I love Apple products, and I will be disappointed if I cannot play when I upgrade." I expected as much, but it has been very entertaining to read the opinions. I agree with a lot that has been said, as well - on both sides.

But, anyways...Back to the quote.

How do you compare consoles to game streaming? Stadia is a cloud gaming service, not a home console. You give Stadia inputs, those inputs are sent to the remote machine running your game, and then that result is streamed back to you with video, like an interactive twitch stream. There's an additional layer of latency for inputs on top of the stream latency. To say that experience is objectively better than console would be erroneous at best.

It was merely an attempt to break into the mobile/handheld market, where ESO had no official support. It's not to say there were/are not other game streaming options available, but Stadia is the first of those services that ZOS officially supports.

Austinseph1

It feels like apple being their usual snowflake self is again screwing their own customers for the sake of profit. It's not ZOS's job to support a platform that very little people will use for gaming and honestly what are you doing with your life if you are trying to game on a Mac.. like seriously... This isn't on zos, it's 100% on Apple.

Calm_Fury

Austinseph1 wrote: »

It feels like apple being their usual snowflake self is again screwing their own customers for the sake of profit. It's not ZOS's job to support a platform that very little people will use for gaming and honestly what are you doing with your life if you are trying to game on a Mac.. like seriously... This isn't on zos, it's 100% on Apple.

Apple has done an amazing job with this processor. It has gains in speed, battery life, heat.

ZOS also has a totally valid point not to invest in this because the user base is small.

I don't think either of the companies are doing anything wrong here.

danno8

BlueRaven wrote: »

kojou wrote: »

Even if the adoption rate of ARM based Macs is really high, there is no way ZOS would invest the amount of resources required to support ESO to work on it natively. It would be too large of an effort for a game this old.

I am interested to see how the ARM based Macs do in general, one of my biggest problems with my Mac that I use for work is its performance is thermally bound.

Apparently the new “fanless” MacBook Air is running at speeds equivalent to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, it’s crazy.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/11/12/first-apple-silicon-geekbench-results-m1-macbook-pro-air-mac-mini-analysis/

There is something up with these results posted by that review. Here is the top results I found:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore

I'm not sure how all these scores relate to each other to be honest, but I see the Ryzen 5000 series handily beating everything else at the moment.

Malkiv

danno8 wrote: »

There is something up with these results posted by that review. Here is the top results I found:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore

I'm not sure how all these scores relate to each other to be honest, but I see the Ryzen 5000 series handily beating everything else at the moment.

If you compare these Mac Benchmarks with these PC benchmarks it will show that - using the same baseline 1000 score of an i3-8100 - that the M1 is pulling ahead of the Zen3 in single core performance. That's what the charts in TNW are reflecting, but of course that's nothing to do with gaming nor virtualizing any environments.

katorga

BlueRaven wrote: »

kojou wrote: »

Even if the adoption rate of ARM based Macs is really high, there is no way ZOS would invest the amount of resources required to support ESO to work on it natively. It would be too large of an effort for a game this old.

I am interested to see how the ARM based Macs do in general, one of my biggest problems with my Mac that I use for work is its performance is thermally bound.

Apparently the new “fanless” MacBook Air is running at speeds equivalent to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, it’s crazy.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/11/12/first-apple-silicon-geekbench-results-m1-macbook-pro-air-mac-mini-analysis/

Not crazy at all. The last set of Apple processors for the iPad Pro were as fast as Intel/Amd.ARM cores can easily scale up to rival INtel or AMD....but can they displace the installed based of x86 code.

Here is where it gets wild. Nvidia now owns ARM. The reality is that the GPU is where the action as. Nvidia could easily reverse the model....the motherboard is the GPU, with a wicked fast Nvidia ARM cpu on the expansion card. Pay MS to dust off the ARM version of Windows 10......take over consumer computer market.

SeaGtGruff

Slightly off-topic, but hopefully of interest to Apple users.

In another thread about this topic, which got locked after it devolved into a bit of a fracas, someone suggested that Stadia isn't an option for Apple users because "There is no iOS support." I posted a link to an article about the Stadium browser-- which seems to have some issues that prevent it from being 100% successful-- but today the following news came out:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21571908/google-stadia-apple-ios-iphone-web-app-testing-safari-cloud-gaming

While I currently have no plans to use Stadia, since I can already play ESO on my Windows desktop and MacBook Air, it's nice to know that I may soon have the ability to play ESO on my iPad.

BlueRaven

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but hopefully of interest to Apple users.

In another thread about this topic, which got locked after it devolved into a bit of a fracas, someone suggested that Stadia isn't an option for Apple users because "There is no iOS support." I posted a link to an article about the Stadium browser-- which seems to have some issues that prevent it from being 100% successful-- but today the following news came out:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21571908/google-stadia-apple-ios-iphone-web-app-testing-safari-cloud-gaming

While I currently have no plans to use Stadia, since I can already play ESO on my Windows desktop and MacBook Air, it's nice to know that I may soon have the ability to play ESO on my iPad.

Yeah, but no addon support. I need adding to help run events in two guilds. Not sure how many Mac users would want to go on with them disabled.

Raideen

BlueRaven wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Mac users should not feel anything about it, they know what they are getting into when it comes to gaming. Mac has never been a solid gaming platform.

Eh, that's something of myth, to be honest. Current Macs can run almost anything that Windows can run if you set your hardware to boot up in or emulate Windows. I'm just too lazy to do that - or rather, I don't feel like paying for the license - so I stick to console for most games.

As BlueRaven points out, it's not that it's impossible to do a conversion. And considering this game has gambling revenue to draw from, they've frankly got no darned excuse as far as financing it goes. They just don't care enough to bother.

Dollar for dollar there has never been a mac made that will perform as good as a PC when it comes to games. In fact, even in the creative realm PC works better than mac. The primary reason apple has the stereotype of being a "creative/design machine" is because Apple was the first to stress the importance of typography in the 80's. Windows followed shortly after. Apple is good for graphic design, but not better than PC. In fact the Adobe suite works better on PC and has more features within most of the apps. Eizo Monitors WAY outperform apples offerings, so even with something as basic as a monitor PC will out perform Mac. Designers (if I am to stereotype them) often prefer Apple because of the branding and lifestyle associated with it. Its cool, hip, trendy and that is all well and good, but when it comes time to actually perform...

I worked for a design firm in Hollywood (Burbank specifically) who used mac pros for the "lightweight" work and for "street cred" when tours were given for clients (because most folks buy into the myth of apple being a designers machine). Anything that involved 3D rendering or heavy crunching was done by PC's. It was not about cost, it was about getting work done in a more timely/faster manner. Our rendering farm was all PC.

There is a reason Solidworks does not offer their software for Mac. I don't even think Artioscad is available for Mac. Those are two of, if not the most popular CAD softwares on the planet (Artios being more corrugated specific for packaging).

Apples strength lies in its security and there is merit in that and a reason to use those machines for those applications, but when it comes to gaming, or creative work (performance related work) Apple just does not measure up and has not for a very long time.

I don't say any of this to disparage apple as a product, but in the realm of performance, Apple is going to lose the vast majority of the time.

At my job we charge extra if the files were prepared on a pc because of all the extra time we have to put into correcting them. Yeah, you can do “creative” things on a pc, but they are generally highly problematic compared to similar files done on a Mac.

WHAT....

I am EXTREMELY curious what problems you have. I own a business where PC's are used exclusively for creative work. Never ONCE had an issue where a file had to be reworked because of a PC error. In fact, in the decades I have been doing this work I have never seen a PC have an issue where a file had to be reworked to correct them. That does not even make any sense.

Adobe sets the standard for Graphic Design. Every single adobe product is not only more stable on a PC, but they have additional functionality. SolidWorks sets the global standard for product design, they don't even make their software for macs. Artioscad is the world standard for packaging, they do not make their software for macs.

I'd love to get specifics from you in how your files have to be reworked simply because they are made on a PC, because I frankly find that claim quite outrageous.

SeaGtGruff

I figured he means they have to convert them to a format that Macs like. Even simple text files need to be converted because Windows uses CR-LF but Mac uses just CR (and Unix uses just LF).

Raideen

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

I figured he means they have to convert them to a format that Macs like. Even simple text files need to be converted because Windows uses CR-LF but Mac uses just CR (and Unix uses just LF).

You may be on top something, but that would be an issue with how their work is set up then, not an issue with PC as a design machine as they allude to.

As far as creative files though, PSD, AI, ID, PDF, etc those will work cross platform given they are of the same generation. If the PC person is using a newer version of a file and the macs at their work are older, they will have issues, but that is not a function of PC.

The way they worded their post it sounds to me like they are saying PC simply can not do the same creative work as mac without being reworked due to errors but that can not be even remotely true as it's not how things work. I mean, I live this stuff daily and I have never seen an instance where the PC was at fault for creating "bad work". Not in the file itself, not in the color matching, not in the typography, not in the output or the final product. It simply makes no sense.

Smaxx

Starlock wrote: »

Eh, that's something of myth, to be honest. Current Macs can run almost anything that Windows can run if you set your hardware to boot up in or emulate Windows. I'm just too lazy to do that - or rather, I don't feel like paying for the license - so I stick to console for most games.

You can run Windows 10 without a key, only requirement is to join the Insider Program (i.e. testing new releases in advance). If that's a risk you're open to take, you no longer have to buy a license.

fred4 wrote: »

What I therefore read this as is (A) Matt Firor put the statement out without ZOS assessing the new Mac's capabilities and (B) he is covering his behind for now. I guess there could be (C), which is ZOS using this as an excuse to withdraw Mac support or an off-chance of (D) in that he's actually right.

For me it's a "just be aware" kind of post. They didn't say they won't change their mind in the future (i.e. once more people made the switch) and they also didn't say you're not allowed to try emulation. They just can't outright support it, because – let's be fair – your emulation experience might change differently whether you've bought the new 700$ Mac Mini or one of the 2000$ machines. And if the game stutters without such a statement, we all know who they'll blame: the developer.

With this statement out, they basically have a "uh, nope, we told you so" kind of card. This doesn't mean they'd drop all Mac support immediately nor would it mean they're not fixing bugs or working on performance.

Oh, and just ot mention it: I don't think this was some kind of ad-hoc decision on their end. The Nintendo Switch has been out for more than three years, it has a giant user base, and I bet they thought about getting the game to the Switch, too. It's also an ARM machine after all. But here's the thing: If Switch isn't feasible (even though performance is definitely lower than Macs; ZeniMax got other games working with some tricks), I can't see how the new Macs would be (for now).

Oh, and one last thing: Don't forget they just had to rewrite ESO's rendering engine for Macs, because Apple pulled support for OpenGL. That was already one hoop to jump and they took it, so they definitely don't shy away from extra work if it's somewhat worth it.

SeaGtGruff

Smaxx wrote: »

You can run Windows 10 without a key, only requirement is to join the Insider Program (i.e. testing new releases in advance). If that's a risk you're open to take, you no longer have to buy a license.

Now there's a thought! And I'm already a participant in the Insider Program. Hmm... [rubs chin and looks at MacBook Air]

BlueRaven

Raideen wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Mac users should not feel anything about it, they know what they are getting into when it comes to gaming. Mac has never been a solid gaming platform.

Eh, that's something of myth, to be honest. Current Macs can run almost anything that Windows can run if you set your hardware to boot up in or emulate Windows. I'm just too lazy to do that - or rather, I don't feel like paying for the license - so I stick to console for most games.

As BlueRaven points out, it's not that it's impossible to do a conversion. And considering this game has gambling revenue to draw from, they've frankly got no darned excuse as far as financing it goes. They just don't care enough to bother.

Dollar for dollar there has never been a mac made that will perform as good as a PC when it comes to games. In fact, even in the creative realm PC works better than mac. The primary reason apple has the stereotype of being a "creative/design machine" is because Apple was the first to stress the importance of typography in the 80's. Windows followed shortly after. Apple is good for graphic design, but not better than PC. In fact the Adobe suite works better on PC and has more features within most of the apps. Eizo Monitors WAY outperform apples offerings, so even with something as basic as a monitor PC will out perform Mac. Designers (if I am to stereotype them) often prefer Apple because of the branding and lifestyle associated with it. Its cool, hip, trendy and that is all well and good, but when it comes time to actually perform...

I worked for a design firm in Hollywood (Burbank specifically) who used mac pros for the "lightweight" work and for "street cred" when tours were given for clients (because most folks buy into the myth of apple being a designers machine). Anything that involved 3D rendering or heavy crunching was done by PC's. It was not about cost, it was about getting work done in a more timely/faster manner. Our rendering farm was all PC.

There is a reason Solidworks does not offer their software for Mac. I don't even think Artioscad is available for Mac. Those are two of, if not the most popular CAD softwares on the planet (Artios being more corrugated specific for packaging).

Apples strength lies in its security and there is merit in that and a reason to use those machines for those applications, but when it comes to gaming, or creative work (performance related work) Apple just does not measure up and has not for a very long time.

I don't say any of this to disparage apple as a product, but in the realm of performance, Apple is going to lose the vast majority of the time.

At my job we charge extra if the files were prepared on a pc because of all the extra time we have to put into correcting them. Yeah, you can do “creative” things on a pc, but they are generally highly problematic compared to similar files done on a Mac.

WHAT....

I am EXTREMELY curious what problems you have. I own a business where PC's are used exclusively for creative work. Never ONCE had an issue where a file had to be reworked because of a PC error. In fact, in the decades I have been doing this work I have never seen a PC have an issue where a file had to be reworked to correct them. That does not even make any sense.

Adobe sets the standard for Graphic Design. Every single adobe product is not only more stable on a PC, but they have additional functionality. SolidWorks sets the global standard for product design, they don't even make their software for macs. Artioscad is the world standard for packaging, they do not make their software for macs.

I'd love to get specifics from you in how your files have to be reworked simply because they are made on a PC, because I frankly find that claim quite outrageous.

I work pre-press in print advertising in the NYC area. (I personally deal with large format mostly. Wraps, billboards, and dominations.) We charge extra because of how badly PCs handle fonts (amongst other things).

We get hard copies of how the type should flow. If we detect the files were done on a pc we need to go through each line of copy line per line to check for missing characters, reragging, etc. And even then we have to put every line of type into outline before we send it to the printers (onset, vutek). Because again the fonts may be an issue on files originally created on a pc. Mac created files have a much, much easier workflow for us. PC files have to be checked and double checked at every step. They are just so much more time consuming, but luckily here in the nyc area, they are a bit rare.

If the client has any last minute copy changes after the test print, we need to go back and redo most of that work again. It’s just a big headache. The only bright spot about working on a pc originating file is that the managers tend to leave the operator alone to deal with it.

Color is “usually” not an issue, but pc files sometimes are saved in weird formats, particularly if the creative originates overseas. Re-saving them when doing color correction sometimes shifts how the were placed in the indesign or illustrator file, again requiring more prep time.

I know of several other shops that charge more for pc files, or at least pad out the turn over time for them (which is a form of charging them more). In office we have an inside joke where we would assign jobs created on a pc as a punishment. And again the shops I know of that allow work from home “REQUIRE” the work be done on macs for prepress operators and retouchers. The only non-macs in the shop are in the server room and the printers, and those are non windows based workstations.

I am shocked you all use PCs. I texted a coworker about it and they just laughed.

EDIT: Just got a text back from a contact at another shop. They do have one pc and it’s there in case of emergency fixes on odd pc formatted disks and the like.
They don’t “actively” charge more for pc files but they automatically add about 20% to the amount of time estimated to turn around the creatives.

SeaGtGruff

BlueRaven wrote: »

We charge extra because of how badly PCs handle fonts (amongst other things).

If we detect the files were done on a pc we need to go through each line of copy line per line to check for missing characters, reragging, etc. And even then we have to put every line of type into outline before we send it to the printers (onset, vutek).

You do understand that "missing characters" aren't caused by the fonts used or the OS of the computer used, right?

I am shocked you all use PCs. I texted a coworker about it and they just laughed.

There will always be OS snobs and brand snobs. But snobbery is not a virtue.

BlueRaven

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

We charge extra because of how badly PCs handle fonts (amongst other things).

If we detect the files were done on a pc we need to go through each line of copy line per line to check for missing characters, reragging, etc. And even then we have to put every line of type into outline before we send it to the printers (onset, vutek).

You do understand that "missing characters" aren't caused by the fonts used or the OS of the computer used, right?

I am shocked you all use PCs. I texted a coworker about it and they just laughed.

There will always be OS snobs and brand snobs. But snobbery is not a virtue.

I have been doing prepress on macs for over 25 years. I work with people with similar job experience. I am in contact with fellow pre press operators from different shops. I am sorry, but files we get that are done on pc have font problems. If it’s kerning, reflow, or just dropped characters, they have problems (generally).

And it’s not snobbery, it’s just “Why?” The industry here is dominated by macs, our sister shops are dominated by macs, and the shops we know of in other major cities are dominated by macs. Having a pc dominated shop just seems like being different for the sake of being different (or the IT guy just hates macs).

Edit: I am done talking about this. It is wildly off topic.

Raideen

BlueRaven wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Mac users should not feel anything about it, they know what they are getting into when it comes to gaming. Mac has never been a solid gaming platform.

Eh, that's something of myth, to be honest. Current Macs can run almost anything that Windows can run if you set your hardware to boot up in or emulate Windows. I'm just too lazy to do that - or rather, I don't feel like paying for the license - so I stick to console for most games.

As BlueRaven points out, it's not that it's impossible to do a conversion. And considering this game has gambling revenue to draw from, they've frankly got no darned excuse as far as financing it goes. They just don't care enough to bother.

Dollar for dollar there has never been a mac made that will perform as good as a PC when it comes to games. In fact, even in the creative realm PC works better than mac. The primary reason apple has the stereotype of being a "creative/design machine" is because Apple was the first to stress the importance of typography in the 80's. Windows followed shortly after. Apple is good for graphic design, but not better than PC. In fact the Adobe suite works better on PC and has more features within most of the apps. Eizo Monitors WAY outperform apples offerings, so even with something as basic as a monitor PC will out perform Mac. Designers (if I am to stereotype them) often prefer Apple because of the branding and lifestyle associated with it. Its cool, hip, trendy and that is all well and good, but when it comes time to actually perform...

I worked for a design firm in Hollywood (Burbank specifically) who used mac pros for the "lightweight" work and for "street cred" when tours were given for clients (because most folks buy into the myth of apple being a designers machine). Anything that involved 3D rendering or heavy crunching was done by PC's. It was not about cost, it was about getting work done in a more timely/faster manner. Our rendering farm was all PC.

There is a reason Solidworks does not offer their software for Mac. I don't even think Artioscad is available for Mac. Those are two of, if not the most popular CAD softwares on the planet (Artios being more corrugated specific for packaging).

Apples strength lies in its security and there is merit in that and a reason to use those machines for those applications, but when it comes to gaming, or creative work (performance related work) Apple just does not measure up and has not for a very long time.

I don't say any of this to disparage apple as a product, but in the realm of performance, Apple is going to lose the vast majority of the time.

At my job we charge extra if the files were prepared on a pc because of all the extra time we have to put into correcting them. Yeah, you can do “creative” things on a pc, but they are generally highly problematic compared to similar files done on a Mac.

WHAT....

I am EXTREMELY curious what problems you have. I own a business where PC's are used exclusively for creative work. Never ONCE had an issue where a file had to be reworked because of a PC error. In fact, in the decades I have been doing this work I have never seen a PC have an issue where a file had to be reworked to correct them. That does not even make any sense.

Adobe sets the standard for Graphic Design. Every single adobe product is not only more stable on a PC, but they have additional functionality. SolidWorks sets the global standard for product design, they don't even make their software for macs. Artioscad is the world standard for packaging, they do not make their software for macs.

I'd love to get specifics from you in how your files have to be reworked simply because they are made on a PC, because I frankly find that claim quite outrageous.

I work pre-press in print advertising in the NYC area. (I personally deal with large format mostly. Wraps, billboards, and dominations.) We charge extra because of how badly PCs handle fonts (amongst other things).

We get hard copies of how the type should flow. If we detect the files were done on a pc we need to go through each line of copy line per line to check for missing characters, reragging, etc. And even then we have to put every line of type into outline before we send it to the printers (onset, vutek). Because again the fonts may be an issue on files originally created on a pc. Mac created files have a much, much easier workflow for us. PC files have to be checked and double checked at every step. They are just so much more time consuming, but luckily here in the nyc area, they are a bit rare.

If the client has any last minute copy changes after the test print, we need to go back and redo most of that work again. It’s just a big headache. The only bright spot about working on a pc originating file is that the managers tend to leave the operator alone to deal with it.

Color is “usually” not an issue, but pc files sometimes are saved in weird formats, particularly if the creative originates overseas. Re-saving them when doing color correction sometimes shifts how the were placed in the indesign or illustrator file, again requiring more prep time.

I know of several other shops that charge more for pc files, or at least pad out the turn over time for them (which is a form of charging them more). In office we have an inside joke where we would assign jobs created on a pc as a punishment. And again the shops I know of that allow work from home “REQUIRE” the work be done on macs for prepress operators and retouchers. The only non-macs in the shop are in the server room and the printers, and those are non windows based workstations.

I am shocked you all use PCs. I texted a coworker about it and they just laughed.

EDIT: Just got a text back from a contact at another shop. They do have one pc and it’s there in case of emergency fixes on odd pc formatted disks and the like.
They don’t “actively” charge more for pc files but they automatically add about 20% to the amount of time estimated to turn around the creatives.

I find it interesting that the primary compliment I receive is how easy the files are to prep for printing (meaning little has to be done), 100% made on PC. Most of what you describe is not a fault of the PC, but the designer.

zaria

BlueRaven wrote: »

kojou wrote: »

Even if the adoption rate of ARM based Macs is really high, there is no way ZOS would invest the amount of resources required to support ESO to work on it natively. It would be too large of an effort for a game this old.

I am interested to see how the ARM based Macs do in general, one of my biggest problems with my Mac that I use for work is its performance is thermally bound.

Apparently the new “fanless” MacBook Air is running at speeds equivalent to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, it’s crazy.

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2020/11/12/first-apple-silicon-geekbench-results-m1-macbook-pro-air-mac-mini-analysis/

Even if true an gaming setup needs an gpu who will pull more power than an Intel cpu.
Any upcoming Apple M-1 systems who are gaming builds in the PS5 world?
Its easy to get an pc box who run circles around an PS5, it set you back $3K however.
Don't know about any laptops yet.

I think Apple dropped the gaming segment, too expensive to fight in for the limited number of users they had and too hard to get their systems up to ps5 performance with their design goals as in not making an pc who look and sounds like an jet engine.

SeaGtGruff

BlueRaven wrote: »

And it’s not snobbery, it’s just “Why?”

I understand that you are done talking about this, but my comment about snobbery was with regard to the following:

BlueRaven wrote: »

I am shocked you all use PCs. I texted a coworker about it and they just laughed.

I am well-acquainted with the attitude that many Apple users have regarding how wonderful their OS and brand of choice are, and how "awful" the Windows OS and non-Apple PCs are. I have family members who fall into that category.

But as an individual who has used several operating systems and computer brands in my lifetime-- IBM, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Amiga, Dell, HP, MS-DOS, Windows, Unix, Linux, macOS, and iOS-- and who is currently using a MacBook Air and an iPad in addition to a Windows desktop, I think I can say with some assurance that it's entirely possible to use multiple brands and multiple operating systems without feeling the need to disparage any of them.

Calm_Fury

This has really derailed from the original discussion...

Xebov

Malkiv wrote: »

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/59187

Well, all users, really.

This will not affect current Mac users, of course, that are using Intel-based solutions. However, how does this kind of announcement make you feel in terms of support, or playability, or confidence, etc.?

Personally, I'm conflicted. I understand that it would be very difficult and time consuming, with no promise of an return. Sure, Firor mentions Stadia as a possible solution, but that makes me groan so hard. It kind of feels like, "Oh, hey, there's this shiny new gaming platform we have, you should use that for a massively subpar experience." What about when the Stadia goes the way of almost every other Google-launched service (looking at you Google+)?

There is nothing conflicting and also nothing effecting all users. Its a simple cost vs income calculation.

First of all Apple trys to maintain as much control over their products as possible. You buy their products you buy this. Apple has done this in the past and it should be well known by now.
Secondly the MAc users are a small subset of the community and within them the buyers for these new Macs are an even smaller subset of that subset. Transfering this code to propeprly build and test it afterwards requires manpower and likely new specialized devs. There is no point in doing this, so they explain it and offer 2 solutions. You get a PC or play on your existing Mac, or you use Stadia to be able to use a new Mac.

So in short its simple buisness.

BlueRaven

Xebov wrote: »

Malkiv wrote: »

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/59187

Well, all users, really.

This will not affect current Mac users, of course, that are using Intel-based solutions. However, how does this kind of announcement make you feel in terms of support, or playability, or confidence, etc.?

Personally, I'm conflicted. I understand that it would be very difficult and time consuming, with no promise of an return. Sure, Firor mentions Stadia as a possible solution, but that makes me groan so hard. It kind of feels like, "Oh, hey, there's this shiny new gaming platform we have, you should use that for a massively subpar experience." What about when the Stadia goes the way of almost every other Google-launched service (looking at you Google+)?

There is nothing conflicting and also nothing effecting all users. Its a simple cost vs income calculation.

First of all Apple trys to maintain as much control over their products as possible. You buy their products you buy this. Apple has done this in the past and it should be well known by now.
Secondly the MAc users are a small subset of the community and within them the buyers for these new Macs are an even smaller subset of that subset. Transfering this code to propeprly build and test it afterwards requires manpower and likely new specialized devs. There is no point in doing this, so they explain it and offer 2 solutions. You get a PC or play on your existing Mac, or you use Stadia to be able to use a new Mac.

So in short its simple buisness.

The M1 (ARM) chip is not a one off for Macs. This is going to be the future for ALL Macs going forward. Yes, it's a subset now, but Apple is sunseting the x86 chips and soon (enough) the majority of macs will be using the new Apple chips. For Mac users looking to upgrade, it's not a question of if they will get an M1(or M2, M3, etc...) Mac, but when.

That being said, ironically enough, the M1 chips are running ESO better than most intel chip macs right now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/jw0e5r/has_anyone_tested_eso_on_the_new_m1_macbooks/

And using Rosetta 2, M1 macs should be able to run eso fine for the next 5-7 years. The danger for Mac users is that ZOS will just throw in the towel for the client long before this and stop Mac support completely. (I would like to insert here that to stop Mac support, they would have to start it in the first place. Basic connection bugs, buggy joystick support, and super slow frame rates have plagued the client for years now and there seems to be no resolution in sight for them to actually be fixed.)

I feel this whole "announcement" by ZOS is premature as they do not actually have to rewrite their code at ALL to run on the new M1 Macs. (Well, at least for the next 5-7 years.) I would assume the game would come to a close long before that.

EDIT: Another ironic twist would be for PC makers to start producing ARM based machines, which would be hilarious based on the comments in the forum thread.

Raideen

BlueRaven wrote: »

The M1 (ARM) chip is not a one off for Macs. This is going to be the future for ALL Macs going forward. Yes, it's a subset now, but Apple is sunseting the x86 chips and soon (enough) the majority of macs will be using the new Apple chips. For Mac users looking to upgrade, it's not a question of if they will get an M1(or M2, M3, etc...) Mac, but when.

And the amount of users who play on Mac VS. PC is still insanely small. Why? Video games perform and run better on PC, always have. Moving to an arm based architecture is not going to change that.

BlueRaven wrote: »

That being said, ironically enough, the M1 chips are running ESO better than most intel chip macs right now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/jw0e5r/has_anyone_tested_eso_on_the_new_m1_macbooks/

This is the quote from the top post in the thread you linked.

"Yes I just installed ESO on my M1 MacBook Pro. It runs pretty decently for being through Rosetta, in my opinion. 1080p on low gets about mid 40 FPS. Beyond that its kinda rough, but playable."

This is running 40 FPS at 1080P. Last I checked Apple uses "retina" displays.
- The current air has a resolution of 2560x1600 which is almost double the resolution of 1080p.
- The current Mac Pro 16" has a resolution of 3072x1920 which is close to 3x the resolution of 1080p.
- The current iMac 21.5" has a resolution of 1920x1080. 15 year old display resolution @40 FPS is nothing to brag about. A PC at the same price as this 21" iMac in 2020 will perform with over 100 FPS at max graphic settings at 2560x1400 and that is being conservative.
- The current iMac 21.5" Retina has a resolution of 4096x2304 which is 4.55x greater than 1920x1080.
- The current iMac 27" Retina/iMac Pro (minimum size display one should consider if you want to REALLY start enjoying Tamriel has a 5120x2880 resolution. This is 7.11x greater than 1080p.

That "runs pretty good at 40 FPS" is going to sink like the Titanic when a game like ESO is being played at any of those monitor resolutions on an Apple.

BlueRaven wrote: »

And using Rosetta 2, M1 macs should be able to run eso fine for the next 5-7 years. The danger for Mac users is that ZOS will just throw in the towel for the client long before this and stop Mac support completely. (I would like to insert here that to stop Mac support, they would have to start it in the first place. Basic connection bugs, buggy joystick support, and super slow frame rates have plagued the client for years now and there seems to be no resolution in sight for them to actually be fixed.)

1. They already do not support Apple in your words. Why would you expect them to start supporting apple arm computers.
2. 40 FPS in 2020 at 1080p is not "fine", its actually pretty bad and considering it will only be worse at higher resolutions, I don't think there is much to look forward to.

BlueRaven wrote: »

I feel this whole "announcement" by ZOS is premature as they do not actually have to rewrite their code at ALL to run on the new M1 Macs. (Well, at least for the next 5-7 years.) I would assume the game would come to a close long before that.

Well according to them they would. But even if they did not, playing ESO on an arm based Mac is going to yield pretty poor results. I can see the amount of mac customer complaints now. Maybe ZOS is taking the lesser of two evils approach.

BlueRaven wrote: »

EDIT: Another ironic twist would be for PC makers to start producing ARM based machines, which would be hilarious based on the comments in the forum thread.

I don't understand this comment, but after pondering on it appears to me that you revel in the "pain" of PC users. That's not cool.

Ascarl

HappyElephant wrote: »

This is the beginning of the end for me.
I already had one foot out the door anyways.
The Markath update has so many bugs that ZOS seems to be too busy to address.
And this on top of all the other issues I have with this game.

You should stop buying Apple products and break free from the vendor lock instead.

catnamedwill

As an microprocessor engineer working in the chipset design dept of Qualcomm(one of the biggest ARM based processor makers) for more than an decade, we have produced several ARM chips already for Apple iphones and several Android phones, as well as one of the first PC based ARM processors in Microsoft Surface X. I see some general misconceptions being spread here and I could help clarify those.

Firstly ARM processors are Reduced Instruction Set Computing microprocessors where as Intel x86/AMD_64 processors are Complex Instruction Set Computing microprocessors. ARM being RISC chips are much more power efficient and hence can get higher clock speeds than CISC chips while using a fraction of the required power input, hence also producing much less heat. Another massive advantage of ARM RISC processors are the significantly lesser manufacturing cost than CISC alternatives from Intel. This is evident in the android mobile market for the past few years where even the budget phones have octa-core ARM based Qualcomm processors running at higher speeds than most mid-range laptops with lesser cores and clock speed, while also being just a fraction of the cost.

But, what Intel x86/AMD_64 CISC processors dominate is in the much more rich and complicated availability of instructions, which means for a given clock speed, it will perform significantly better than any RISC chip. Basically it means, even if an ARM processor and Intel x86 processor has the exact same core count and clock speed, the Intel processor will utterly destroy the ARM processor in terms of raw processing power due to the much more capable instruction set. The downside to this is that to get to the same clock speed and core count as the ARM processor in the first place, the Intel processor requires around 10x more electric power and produce much more heat, which in turn requires a robust cooling system to maintain.

Basically for all categories such as cost to performance ratio, the TDP to performance ratio as well as from an Eco-friendliness perspective ARM based processors are much better but till now, Intel/AMD processors are ahead on the sheer performance dept by using a *** ton more electricity and wasting a lot of it in the form of heat. Things would have been somewhat closer if the software manufacturers optimized for ARM and made ARM-specific codes for PC. Right now honestly in the PC market, ARM does not have a fair chance simply due to a lack of software support. Once the playing field is leveled in maybe a decade, ARM will match Intel/AMD processors in performance at a significantly lower cost. Also with trivial heat output, there would not be any need of dedicated coolers, allowing PCs to slim down further.

In the future, ARM will definitely overtake Intel/AMD with the inevitable advent of viable game streaming trivializing hardware requirements as well as the fact that both Microsoft and Apple are pushing ARM in their trademark laptops, which will result in more software support. The primary thing holding back ARM is the desktop market, with all modular designs where you can assemble your own parts like RAM, GPU to make a PC. ARM on the other hand, is made for closed systems, which means the processor, RAM is attached to the motherboard directly by the manufacturer and the end user can not realistically change anything in their system apart from storage options. This is another reason why ARM dominates the mobile market as they are closed systems where in the desktop scene, a closed system goes against the very ethos of PC building.


Okay, now on the gaming side of things, let me clarify some things. Most gaming engines were made for Intel/AMD processors which support both consoles and PCs. Most engines like Unreal and Unity have extended support for ARM based devices but they are not exact 1:1 instead more like unoptimized ports. As such, only games which have been made with also mobiles in mind are directly portable to ARM based devices, i.e. recent battle royales like PUBG, Fortnite. Even especially as we have seen in PUBG mobile, there is zero performance parity to the PC versions even in high-end phones. For standard PC games, which were not developed with ARM devices in mind, to work in ARM devices, a simple rule of the hand requirement is that it must also work on absolute potato machines. We already some classic games like that working on ARM devices such as GTA Vice City/San Andreas.

@BlueRaven I see you have mentioned WoW as one upcoming game for the Apple ARM based Macs. This is exactly the case here. ESO and WoW are on two extremes on hardware requirement. WoW runs on just about any PC I have seen regardless of specs. ESO can bring a fairly powerful PC to its knees in any endgame scenario. As such, WoW being ported is a no brainer, as current ARM chips are more than powerful enough to handle WoW. Seeing the performance issues of ESO, I can say with confidence that it will take a significant amount of time before ARM chips can handle a power hungry game like ESO at close to acceptable frame rates if at all.

Currently, both Microsoft Surface X and Apple M1 devices depend on emulation to run x86_64 software popularly known as Surface Emulation SDK and Rosetta 2. I used to work on the development of a PS2 emulator called PCSX2 in my college years, I will tell you from experience emulating an environment to run full 3D applications requires significantly processing and GPU power than the original system. As such, cross-architecture emulation will never able to 3D application reliably enough.

BlueRaven

Raideen wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

The M1 (ARM) chip is not a one off for Macs. This is going to be the future for ALL Macs going forward. Yes, it's a subset now, but Apple is sunseting the x86 chips and soon (enough) the majority of macs will be using the new Apple chips. For Mac users looking to upgrade, it's not a question of if they will get an M1(or M2, M3, etc...) Mac, but when.

And the amount of users who play on Mac VS. PC is still insanely small. Why? Video games perform and run better on PC, always have. Moving to an arm based architecture is not going to change that.

BlueRaven wrote: »

That being said, ironically enough, the M1 chips are running ESO better than most intel chip macs right now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/jw0e5r/has_anyone_tested_eso_on_the_new_m1_macbooks/

This is the quote from the top post in the thread you linked.

"Yes I just installed ESO on my M1 MacBook Pro. It runs pretty decently for being through Rosetta, in my opinion. 1080p on low gets about mid 40 FPS. Beyond that its kinda rough, but playable."

This is running 40 FPS at 1080P. Last I checked Apple uses "retina" displays.
- The current air has a resolution of 2560x1600 which is almost double the resolution of 1080p.
- The current Mac Pro 16" has a resolution of 3072x1920 which is close to 3x the resolution of 1080p.
- The current iMac 21.5" has a resolution of 1920x1080. 15 year old display resolution @40 FPS is nothing to brag about. A PC at the same price as this 21" iMac in 2020 will perform with over 100 FPS at max graphic settings at 2560x1400 and that is being conservative.
- The current iMac 21.5" Retina has a resolution of 4096x2304 which is 4.55x greater than 1920x1080.
- The current iMac 27" Retina/iMac Pro (minimum size display one should consider if you want to REALLY start enjoying Tamriel has a 5120x2880 resolution. This is 7.11x greater than 1080p.

That "runs pretty good at 40 FPS" is going to sink like the Titanic when a game like ESO is being played at any of those monitor resolutions on an Apple.

BlueRaven wrote: »

And using Rosetta 2, M1 macs should be able to run eso fine for the next 5-7 years. The danger for Mac users is that ZOS will just throw in the towel for the client long before this and stop Mac support completely. (I would like to insert here that to stop Mac support, they would have to start it in the first place. Basic connection bugs, buggy joystick support, and super slow frame rates have plagued the client for years now and there seems to be no resolution in sight for them to actually be fixed.)

1. They already do not support Apple in your words. Why would you expect them to start supporting apple arm computers.
2. 40 FPS in 2020 at 1080p is not "fine", its actually pretty bad and considering it will only be worse at higher resolutions, I don't think there is much to look forward to.

BlueRaven wrote: »

I feel this whole "announcement" by ZOS is premature as they do not actually have to rewrite their code at ALL to run on the new M1 Macs. (Well, at least for the next 5-7 years.) I would assume the game would come to a close long before that.

Well according to them they would. But even if they did not, playing ESO on an arm based Mac is going to yield pretty poor results. I can see the amount of mac customer complaints now. Maybe ZOS is taking the lesser of two evils approach.

BlueRaven wrote: »

EDIT: Another ironic twist would be for PC makers to start producing ARM based machines, which would be hilarious based on the comments in the forum thread.

I don't understand this comment, but after pondering on it appears to me that you revel in the "pain" of PC users. That's not cool.

1) I was replying to another user who said;
“ Secondly the MAc users are a small subset of the community and within them the buyers for these new Macs are an even smaller subset of that subset.”
I was simply pointing out that the “subset” will soon enough be the majority of Mac users. The new chip is not a “secondary” chip apple will also be running. It will be the only one.

2) Did you read the line after that?

“ Actually, the situation is even better than I thought. I was running it connected to my TV from MBP. The lid was open so it was running two monitors. When I closed the lid my TV was suddenly getting full power. Everything is much smoother. Even higher frame rate. This thing is truly amazing. I will try to do another quick video.”

And this is without a GPU I believe.

3) 40 FPS is fine for me. Mac users do not own macs to go play eso (or games in general), it’s just a happy coincidence. I suspect most eso Mac users are not going to run out and get a pc or switch to stadia. They will just play wow, shadow of the tomb raider, borderlands 3, the latest Batman game, or (like me) go play the Warhammer: total war series (etc). All of which have Mac ports.
You might as well be telling PlayStation owners to go buy an Xbox to continue playing F76, most of them will just go play something else.

Finally) I was implying that ARM may be coming to PCs fairly soon.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd

It’s not just Apple turning to ARM, it’s also Amazon. Who will be the next one?

BlueRaven

Ascarl wrote: »

HappyElephant wrote: »

This is the beginning of the end for me.
I already had one foot out the door anyways.
The Markath update has so many bugs that ZOS seems to be too busy to address.
And this on top of all the other issues I have with this game.

You should stop buying Apple products and break free from the vendor lock instead.

It’s not “Apple of freedom” it’s just “Apple or Microsoft”.