Windows developer curious about Unity

Hello all!

I've looked through this forum and it seems there have been quite few developers in my situation: I'm extremely interested and intrigued by Unity but I'm a Windows developer through and through. I do use a Mac at work but mostly for exporting Flash games that I've already built on the PC.

For my personal game development I'm currently using Torque and while it does the job, it's far from ideal in many ways. So, my question is regarding using Unity on a lower-end Mac. I'm thinking something like the new Macbook or the new Core Duo Mini. I've read a few threads that have said that the GPUs on these machines are pretty bad so I'm reticent to buy one. However, I really don't want to spend $2000+ on a higher end Mac and still have to shell out another $1500 for Unity Pro. (I would need Pro since exporting to Windows standalone is a requirement for me.) Can anyone tell me what the lowest spec Mac is that I could comfortably develop on using Unity? Might it be in my best interest to find a used G5?

I'm sure it's been mentioned many times before but if Unity was ever brought over to Windows, I suspect that you would sell a substantial number of copies to all of the Windows developers that are frustrated and unhappy with their current engines. Just throwing another "bring Unity to Windows" request out there since I don't think I'll want to splash out nearly $4000 to "switch".

Thanks for listening and I look forward to any feedback or suggestions.

 

I am developing on a 17" iMac G5 (1.8Ghz), works great. I bought it off ebay about a year ago for $850.

 

The mini i would probably avoid, and the Macbook i can't offer any advice on, so I would probably suggest the iMac 17" core duo ($1299). I've had both the G5 20" now have the Intel, there is a noticable speed difference. Also, that way being a windows user you can still dual boot so its like you're getting a new PC as well ; )

 

I'm running it on a 6-year old 733 Mhz G4 and it works fine. I do have a 256Mb Radeon 9800 and 1Gb of RAM it.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't even thought about the new iMacs. That might be a realistic option.

Thanks again for the feedback.

 

I'm running on an eMac G4, 1.25 ghz with 1 gb of ram and 32mb radeon 9200. I can do everything I want to do, though my framerate is not as impressive as many others. The only other downside is a lot of the Pro only full-screen effects won't render on my card.

Since you're looking to do windows games (and therefore the Pro license), if the full screen effects are important to you, you need a video card that will support Pixel Shader 2.0.

Good luck and welcome to the community!

 

My 1.25 Ghz G4 does the job, so you might look into a used Mac Mini G4 (those DID have a GPU, albeit a lowly 32 MB one) or PowerBook G4 (which had a better GPU). Better yet, anything G5: I see some cheap refurb iMac G5s on Apple.com, and refurbs do have a warranty.

If you're looking at something new (and the new Intel Macs WILL server better in the long run), then a Core Duo iMac is a good buy.\

Or, if you spring for a MacBook Pro, you'll have portable Mac AND Windows (if you install a copy) in one machine. Not bad. (MacBooks don't have a "real" GPU, but MacBook Pros do. They are similar in performance to an iMac Core Duo.)

Good luck!

 

There are three ways of enlightment:

Scene 1 - the short wait:
Go for an iMac and wait till you're first in the row at your local dealer.

Scene 2 - the little bit longer wait:
Wait for a new miniMac with a better gfx card and merom.

Scene 3 - the dunno how much little bit longer wait:
Wait for the IDE on windows *ohmmm*.

 

I think it's very likely that Core (32-bit, Yonah not Merom) will continue to be sold by Intel, at a lower price than Merom.

And if so, I think it' VERY likely that the Mac Mini will keep on using Yonah for price reasons.

And for price reasons and space reasons, I think an ATI or nVidia GPU is unlikely in a Mac Mini in the near future. (Especially since Apple can then void redesigning the Mac Mini's internals again so soon, and since Intel's integrated graphics processing will continue to improve eventually.)

So I'm guessing option 2 will be quite a LONG wait. It will happen but not soon.

 

Okay i have no roadmap in mind but normally if they introduce a new line then they also repace the old one. Anyway the problem isn't the speed of yonah it's the gfx-cards and as Intel already introduced their new interagtd new chipset G965 and also showed info about the follow up (X1300?) it's no big guess what comes next if Apple again only chooses an integrated chipset. It can't get worse in this case as there's no worse chip around if you look at ati or nvidia - hopefully, as you never know what little Stevie is up to! ;O)

 

I agree, faster Intel graphics could come at any time. Merom and nVidia/ATI GPUs are what I think will have to wait. (Not in higher Macs, those will get Merom/Conroe sooner, but I expect the Mini will stay "low-end." Not that Yonah has anything to be ashamed of, it's a fast chip!)

 

Wow, thanks again for all the replies. Before this thread combined with a little research, I knew nothing of the different Mac lines and their differences.

So I guess the question I have to ask is: why does Apple insist on using such a crappy integrated graphics solution on the lower end machines when their OS and everything Apple does is SO visually based? I realize you don't NEED massive 3D capabilities to run OS X but the more powerful the video card, the less CPU strain and the smoother the experience. That's one thing that excites me about Windows Vista, where all of the transparency and 3D window manipulation will be handled by the GPU for the Aero interface.

I was really hoping that the Macbook would cut it because I've been needing to upgrade my Windows laptop anyway and I thought I could kill three birds with one stone (get a new laptop for Windows via Boot Camp, get a Mac, and use Unity). Alas, it doesn't seem possible for my budget.

Maybe I'll just continue using Torque to finish my current game and then get a Macbook Pro or iMac later this year and switch to Unity.

One other Unity related question: I use 3Ds Max for all of my models and obviously I don't want to switch to Maya or some other app after spending so much money on it (granted I got the educational version, but still.) How easy/hard is the process of converting to the .fbx format. Obviously, it sucks to lose the ability to just save a file and have it show up in Unity but switching from 3Ds is just not an option for me.

Sorry for the long post. Thanks again for all of the help and feedback. It definitely shows that there's a strong community here.

 

I found an Intel Core Duo Mac Mini to be acceptable but not great for Unity. MacBook would be similar. If you can spring a few hundred more for the MacBook Pro you'll be in a whole different league, with a real GPU.

(Also Core 2 is coming--faster, more efficient, and 64-bit. There's a good chance that MacBook Pros could use it--codename Merom--in August or September.)

As for why Apple doesn't include a full GPU... I think it's because it would add cost without meeting a demand. There's a segment that demands a GPU, and we are in it, but I think most low-end computer buyers aren't looking for that. So a more expensive low-end Mac with a GPU could actually sell less. Same reason every other PC maker uses integrated graphics on the low end, I guess.

Luckily, it can still do some 3D, and runs OS X's 3D special effects very well. Full-screen 3D effects in FrontRow, iPhoto, Keynote etc. were all just fine on a lowly Mac Mini I tried. So those effects Apple likes to use actually don't need a better GPU. (Vista's may, however.)

By the way, if it's a matter of buying later what you can't afford right now, one option would be to wait and not get Unity at all until you can afford the Mac you most want. But another option is to go for Unity Indie and thus afford a MacBook Pro now. Build your game, test on Windows via Web Player, and then buy Pro in a few months. Wait for Pro instead of waiting for everything. Just a thought.

 

We bought the Mac Mini (the month before the surprise intel duo options--Grrr). But it's been just fine for Unity. We haven't found any bottlencks or shortcomings yet. Our average customer doesn't have a souped-up cutting edge workstation anyway, so it doesn't make much sense for us to invest tons of extra time messing with the one or two shaders that won't run on the Mini.

Of course, I don't even know exactly which shaders aren't working on the mini, so it's just an example of "ignorance is bliss". We're trying to wait 'til the new Mac Pros come out in August to get a fancier box, but we're also strongly hoping that Unity will make its way to Windows soon .

 

Is it a G4 Mini? That's not a bad choice because it has a non-integrated GPU, which the Intel models lack.

 

Now you're revealing what a Mac-Moron I am. I don't know. I got it in January, and I believe it's the 1.5 Mhz and came with the 64 MB card. I believe both specs are a bit higher than what's printed on the box.

I didn't realize that they'd switched to integrated graphis on the intel versions. As I understand it, I can't upgrade the card they put in mine anyway though since it's such a custom fit, so I don't know if there's really a downside to switching to an integrated version.

 

There is a downside For 3D games, the integrated Intel 950 is slower than what you have. And the model you got did have some "surprise" upgrades in the box, like that 1.5 Ghz processor. I'd say you get the best low-end Mac for Unity.

(And if you're curious about what you have, choose About This Mac from the Apple menu.)

 

Oh man, so they switched the new Minis down to an intel 950? Yikes. I guess I don't feel so bad anymore about missing the chip upgrades .

Thanks!

 

Yep--they've got fast general computing (dual cores and all) but not much 3D gaming power in the new low-end machines (MacBook non-Pro included).

 

>>>We bought the Mac Mini (the month before the surprise intel duo options--Grrr). But it's been just fine for Unity. We haven't found any bottlencks or shortcomings yet. Our average customer doesn't have a souped-up cutting edge workstation anyway, so it doesn't make much sense for us to invest tons of extra time messing with the one or two shaders that won't run on the Mini.<<<

Well, there are a few problems with the mini.

a) If you target at pc than the gfx hardware is on average better than on mac, so you could also use a little bit more.

b) Due to missing shaderfallbacks there are a little bit more than just one or two shaders not working when you use pro. If you only take for instance the image effects there are only 2 of 11 working on a 9200er.

So if you're seriously planning developing for windows i wouldn't recommend going with a mini, otherwise you'll be blind during development.

 

In our case, it also depends on your target market. Most gamers have more advanced cards, but if you're targeting the average mainstream computer, the average is either integrated graphics or a very very low-end card. Average age is about 3 to 4 years.

However, now that you point out that we're missing 9 of 11 Image Effects, we'll probably try to scrape up some dough for one of the new Mac Pros when they come out so that we can also service the few families we sell to with high-end cards. That will also better position our game for the long-haul. Thanks for the insight.