Possibly stupid question about porting games to Linux.

[jasong]

There are a good number of people out there, in my opinion, that would switch to Linux if...

(1) It had a better ad campaign. No, strike that, it needs an ad campaign, period.
(2) They actually knew how easy it was to use. I´ve had a lot of moments of swearing when it comes to commandline stuff, but that´s just growing pains.

Anyway, my question is, and I guess this goes for Intel Apple computers too. If it´s the same hardware, why can´t they just come up with some sort of direct conversion process for the code? Basically, I´m saying if Linux does the same thing as Windows(or Apple does the same thing as Windows), just in a different way, then why not put the code through a process that directly changes things to the other language? Shouldn´t there be a corollary for every command if it´s on the same hardware?

I´ll probably get flamed, but this really does confuse me. I´m looking forward to the explanation of why this won´t work. I know my argument is wrong, I´ve just never had it explained to me why it´s wrong.

[Xyzzy]

The biggest problem is the graphics. Most games that work in Linux work under OpenGL. So you can play games like Q3, ET and RTCW pretty easily.

Unfortunately, most games are made to use Direct3D.

[paulunderwood]

Transgaming (Cedega) have a cheap pay-by-the-month Direct X support for Linux, with many games being officially supported

[jasong]

Originally Posted by paulunderwood

Transgaming (Cedega) have a cheap pay-by-the-month Direct X support for Linux, with many games being officially supported

Thanks for the link, Iĺl check it out.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by jasong

I guess this goes for Intel Apple computers too. If it´s the same hardware, why can´t they just come up with some sort of direct conversion process for the code?

It really brightens my mood to read great idealistic questions like this!!

(* Ah, to be young again and just starting to learn about computers ... *)

It's a fine question -- nothing wrong with it at all! You deserve a good answer -- but -- where, oh, where shall I begin?

Basically, I´m saying if Linux does the same thing as Windows(or Apple does the same thing as Windows), just in a different way,

Analogies? Hmmm ...

I want to ship a package to you. I can send it via a bicycle, a truck, a train, or a plane. In each case, the package gets to you, so each vehicle (with appropriate personnel) accomplishes the same basic task, just in a different way. But ... the parts of each vehicle aren't interchangeable, not even the wheels!

Okay -- operating systems do resemble each other a bit more than bicycles resemble trains. Operating systems at least can use the same computer CPU, whereas planes and bicycles can't use the railroad tracks.

Hmmm ... better analogy would be ... maybe ... steam locomotive powered by coal versus electric train getting power from overhead transmission lines. Some parts, such as the cargo and passenger cars, could be designed to be interchangeable, but others, such as the motor that turns the driving wheels, have to be substantially different.

then why not put the code through a process that directly changes things to the other language?

Like ... using the same engine for planes, trains, trucks, and bicycles? Nope.

Or the same assembly line to build each of them? Probably not, though there could be some commonality.

Or maybe switching between coal steam locomotive and electric locomotive to pull the same line of passenger train cars? Well, okay.

But if there aren't any water towers along the tracks, that steam locomotive is going to run out of, well, steam, at some point, even if it has plenty of coal left in the coal car.

OTOH, if there aren't any power lines above the tracks or a powered third rail between them, that shiny electric train won't go far.

Shouldn´t there be a corollary for every command if it´s on the same hardware?

But internally, there aren't the same "commands", on the levels below the commands you see as a user.

this really does confuse me.

Oh, it's quite legitimate!!

I know my argument is wrong, I´ve just never had it explained to me why it´s wrong.

It's not wrong.

Just a bit idealistic. Really. Honest.