Civ III Mac: 1.29 Patch/PtW Fears ...

[FlameFlash]

screenshot?

[blahedo]

I've started a new thread for the saving issue.

[bradman]

Re: CivIII on TiBooks---still nothing

Originally posted by blahedo
Since I can't play CivIII at all on my TiBook until the patch comes out (due to idiocy regarding screen resolution), I would have returned the game if I thought it was going to be another three months (and counting...)

This is the first I've heard of a resolution bug with Mac Civ3. What exactly is the problem?

Brad

[bradman]

Originally posted by blahedo
I bet they don't even have any idea that UFS partitions don't work with their software. They certainly don't mention it in the FAQ.

Actually, I had a pretty fair idea before this that it wouldn't work, but I don't have a UFS partition to test against. You're quite possibly the first person to do so.

UFS is a busted filesystem for many reasons, not the least of which is case-sensitivity - I'd strongly recommend you ditch it. Civ3 bugs aside, from a user standpoint it's very risky to allow someone to have two files in one directory whose names can be "My Finances.txt" and "my finances.txt" and be unique files.

In the meantime, I'll see what I can hack in to make it work better with UFS, or at least throw up a warning dialog. It may be very difficult to get it to work on UFS because the PC code doesn't expect a case-sensitive filesystem either.

Brad

[blahedo]

Originally posted by bradman

This is the first I've heard of a resolution bug with Mac Civ3. What exactly is the problem?

I don't really know; it's in the FAQ, though. See the Mac CivIII FAQ, under the question that starts "I have a Titanium G4 Powerbook...." That was originally identified as the source of my problem, though it obviously wasn't.

Actually, I had a pretty fair idea before this that it wouldn't work, but I don't have a UFS partition to test against. You're quite possibly the first person to do so.

Really? I'd be surprised---certainly there seems to be a lot of Mac users that come originally from the Unix world, many of whom prefer UFS.

UFS is a busted filesystem for many reasons, not the least of which is case-sensitivity - I'd strongly recommend you ditch it. Civ3 bugs aside, from a user standpoint it's very risky to allow someone to have two files in one directory whose names can be "My Finances.txt" and "my finances.txt" and be unique files.

It's funny you say this, because when I read "UFS is a busted filesystem for many reasons", my exact first thought was, "well, at least it's case sensitive"! Programs with a Unix pedigree---of which there are many, and their runnability on OS X is a big draw for longtime unix users---tend to assume case sensitivity. And it's something you get used to pretty fast. I look at your example and think "why would anyone expect 'My Finances' and 'my finances' to be the same file?"... particularly if they'll show up next to each other in the same directory. And if you're that concerned, you can always implement an "Are you sure" if you have a near-collision due to case sensitivity.

Note: I'm really not that passionate about UFS. I just somewhat prefer it. I'm happy to use HFS+ where it's warranted, or required; it's just not the first thing I try. More on this in a minute.

In the meantime, I'll see what I can hack in to make it work better with UFS, or at least throw up a warning dialog. It may be very difficult to get it to work on UFS because the PC code doesn't expect a case-sensitive filesystem either.

Thanks for looking at this! I basically see two possibilities. One is, somewhere in the code there's a hardcoded filename that is typed in twice, differing in case; this would be easy to find and easy to fix. The other is that it is some much deeper algorithmic problem, which is harder to find and, crucially, probably not worth fixing.

In the end, my only real gripe about this whole process is that there was never any indication that UFS wasn't supported. If the box, or the install guide, or even a pop-up when the application starts, had said that the program would only work if installed on an HFS+ drive, I'd have just done so and been playing the game in August. Everyone needs to have an HFS+ drive if they want to run Classic anyway.

So, yeah, here's what I'd like to see:

• A note on the FAQ page that says versions up through 1.21g don't work if installed on UFS-formatted drives
• A similar note in the tech support scripts
• A popup dialog at some point in the installation that prevents you from installing on a UFS drive, unless you can find
• An easy fix in the patch that lets it work on UFS.

But actually working on UFS would pretty much just be icing on the cake.

[bradman]

Originally posted by blahedo
It's funny you say this, because when I read "UFS is a busted filesystem for many reasons", my exact first thought was, "well, at least it's case sensitive"! Programs with a Unix pedigree---of which there are many, and their runnability on OS X is a big draw for longtime unix users---tend to assume case sensitivity.

I believe if a program relies on a case-sensitive filesystem to work, it's just a broken as one that won't run on a case-sensitive filesystem. I also don't believe the advantage of a case-sensitive file system outweights the risk it introduces. The example I used was pretty lame - a better one would be if you were using the terminal to manipulate files and made a typo with the shift key in some intermediate step of file manipulation. Or if you did a CVS checkout and your local tree was on a case-sensitive filesystem but another user checked in a file from a system that was not. Call me paranoid, but I'm quite happy with the pseudo-case file systems provided by Mac and Win32; I think it represents the best balance.

So, yeah, here's what I'd like to see:[*]A note on the FAQ page that says versions up through 1.21g don't work if installed on UFS-formatted drives[*]A similar note in the tech support scripts

I don't have much control over that, but I can mention it. I'll probably wait until after I've investigated a fix first.

[*]A popup dialog at some point in the installation that prevents you from installing on a UFS drive

This won't happen as I don't think Mac Civ3 will be remastered for another pressing. I dimly recall that it uses that skanky Stuffit InstallerMaker, so it may not even be practical if another press happens. We'll see.

[*]An easy fix in the patch that lets it work on UFS.

This is the horse to bet on, IMHO. At worst, the next patch will warn you if the bug can't be fixed and Civ3 is running off a UFS partition.