backtop

Software Play Windows Games Directly in Apple OS X
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - August 7, 2006 10:03 AM
Print 57 comment(s) - last by blckgrffn.. on Aug 8 at 12:13 PM

Cider for OS X in action
TransGaming introduces Cider

From the same developers that brought Windows games to the Linux platform (Cedega), TransGaming this week introduced Cider, an application "wrapper" that essentially allows Mac gamers to install and play Windows games directly in OS X -- no dual-booting or virtualization required.

Cider works by translating API calls in real-time into code that OS X can understand. This includes all features such as 3D acceleration, sound and the rest of a game's features. Video acceleration is also supported.  TransGaming says that using Cider will be transparent to users. Gamers simply install and launch a game like they would in Windows -- all the work is handled by Cider in the background. For developers, TransGaming says that by bundling Cider with their Windows games, Apple users can simply go out, purchase the same game, and bring it home and enjoy it on their Macs. There's no need for developers to develop "Mac" versions of their games. According to TransGaming:

Cider is a sophisticated portability engine that allows Windows games to be run on Intel Macs without any modifications to the original game source code.  Cider works by directly loading a Windows program into memory on an Intel-Mac and linking it to an optimized version of the Win32 APIs.  Games are simply wrapped up in the Cider engine and they work on the Mac.  This means developers only have one code base to maintain while keeping the ability to target multiple platforms.

Cider is available for Intel-based Macs only, and according to TransGaming, users may see a performance hit ranging from 10 to 15 percent compared to the same game being played in Windows. It's likely that we will also be seeing game development for the Mac pick up as Apple finishes its transition over to Intel processors. Game development will be much easier because the hardware platform is virtually identical. Apple is expected to talk about the future of gaming on the Mac platform at its World Wide Developers Conference this week.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not bad.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 10:12:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not too shabby, but theres still the small problem with gaming on mac hardware, Mac's posess medium to lower end hardware specs when compared next to custom rigs or high end/cutting edge windows rigs. It's a start, but until Mac lets users upgrade their own hardware from who they want, the gaming community isn't going to start buying Mac's in any significant number. And I don't see Steve Jobs opening up the mac to the world.




RE: Not bad.
By headbox on 8/7/2006 10:17:00 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call a quad 2.5 GHz G5 with a 7800 GT "medium to lower end." I'm sure a new Power Mac will be coming out today too.


RE: Not bad.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/06, Rating: 0
A clue for you....
By blckgrffn on 8/7/2006 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
While the poster above you obviously didn't catch the "intel only" part, I still think that you are way off base.

One, a rig doesn't have to OC at all to be a viable gaming platform. The up coming Kentsfield Xeon's will be faster than any a64's out there, but do we still need to OC in order to game? Not a chance.

The hard drives, while identical to what you can put in a PC, have little to do with gaming. Very little, as long as they are less than a few years old.

RAID is mostly a gimmick and definitely not needed, although I could see Apple incorporating RAID1 into their systems similar to Dell to help stave off hardware failure.

4GB of ram? WTF do you need that to with? When is 2GB not enough? Give me a reasonable scenario where you wouldn't be limited by other aspects of the PC. I mean, we are talking games, not ProE here.

Apple workstations are very upgradeable, and get rid of legacy stuff ASAP. No PCI slots for you! As soon as creative pulls its head out of its posterior, this won't be an issue at all and actually gives you plenty of PCIe slots which are often covered up in PC's.

Last, a 7800GT should be plenty adequate up to 1280*1024 full out and and beyond with some feature reduction.

If you can't get anything out of looking at Apples workstation specs, what exactly can you get out of computer shopping at all?


RE: A clue for you....
By blckgrffn on 8/7/2006 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
I meant "woodcrest", sorry...


RE: A clue for you....
By rushfan2006 on 8/7/2006 11:06:27 AM , Rating: 3
blckgrffin chill out man. Why the hell is it such the "in thing" these days that everyone must try to "one up" another person with such frequent regularity anymore -- whether they are posting with facts or opinions displayed as facts.

I understood exactly what he was referring when he said he doesn't see gamers in significant numbers flocking to MAC just because of this application.

There is indeed TONS more that makes PC gaming more attractive than Mac gaming for "heavy gamers".

Customization plays a huge role in this -- neither you, nor Steve Jobs can sit there and tell me that Apple offers even 1/10th the customization options in both hardware and software for gaming based rigs as PC's do.

This is the primary reason I've been so "against" (for lack of better wording) the whole Apple scene for over 2 decades now. For me to tell you how foolish, stupid, dumb apple is for not allow the open-ness that is demonstrated by the PC world with regards to multi-vendor offerings...well I find it hard to even put that frustration into words.



RE: Not bad.
By MrSmurf on 8/7/2006 10:39:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Processor and Video card alone do not make or break a rig. Hard Drives, RAID, Motherboard options, Overclocking functionality, 7800GT is what i would consider medium end. total amount of system RAM available. 4GB ram is the new gaming standard, especially for those of us using dual monitors and multitask frequently. I'm impressed with features, expandability, and total functionality. Twin dual core chips and a medium end video card don't tell me anything.

Okay, I ignored the fact that you claim to work for a Federal Housing Lender yet you continuously misspelled the word "we're".

But this post is too asinine to ignore. First off, no hardcore gamer in their right mind buys 4GBs of memory, muchless expecting it to benefit them and be the new gaming standard.

Second, motherboard features do virtually nothing (with the exception of overclocking...), overclocking is meaningless if you already have a fast CPU, and RAID only improves load time SLIGHTLY (I believe you can get RAID cards for Macs anyway). These features are not mandatory in the classification of a high-end system. I guarantee my system would be considered high-end and nothing is overclocked other than the videocard.... why? There is no need, the videocard is the bottleneck 99% of the time.


RE: Not bad.
By rushfan2006 on 8/7/2006 11:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Basically see my reply to the other guy above...

But yes I'll agree the 4gb being standard comment is a little far fetched, however you guys saying not even 2gb is that standard for a high end gaming rig are off base.

You folks are being too "nit-picky" with your replies to this original poster.

His 4 gb comment is only "wrong" because he called it *standard*. 4gb is being used more and more in systems, but its far from *standard* at the moment.

With regards to his other comments, keep in mind he was talking about *high end* rigs. You guys seem to just be posting in an emotional support for Apple...and not remembering that fact.

That *is* what makes a system *high end* -- the quality parts, EXCEEDING standard rig specs.

*HIGH END* isn't just plopping in the latest video card and OC'ing your year old CPU. ;)



RE: Not bad.
By OrSin on 8/7/2006 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe rush you stop trying to defend suck s stupid post. The guys makes braod statements thata are just wrong. Poeple every right to tear it about. Actually I think people should be ripping on it. Some time people just want to sound like they are big shots and little tear down is whats needed.


RE: Not bad.
By rushfan2006 on 8/7/2006 12:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
Orsin, I re-read his post twice just now in preparation for this reply to you. Maybe because I've never had an "argument" with that poster before therefore I can read his post with a "neutral" mindset. I don't know it seems like with your reply to me, that you are like biased against that poster to begin with or something.

He said nothing wrong (well aside from saying 4gb is *standard*) that I see to get upset about.

Like I said the guy makes a good point -- customization of Apple is extremely limited, choice is limited....all this take inconsideration I'm talking about when comparing to the choices to PC solutions.

Right or wrong, good or bad -- well you can decide that for yourself. However, its fact, not my opinion. I will not stop "defending" anyone if I understand what they are saying or trying to say and its in alignment with my own take on the matter.

If you are upset with the poster for personal reasons, how is that something that should be my fault for supporting him?



RE: Not bad.
By blckgrffn on 8/7/2006 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's just that his comment was dumb and way off base. One upping him would be one thing, but if you ever visit the forums that accompany Anandtech, you will learn that when you make comments like that you will be called on them. Forums are for spreading information and opinions, but when you mix them too much, crap happens.

For one, I am happy that Macs can now play games. If it supports Guild Wars, I might save up and get a Core2 one when they come out, because I will able to stick any PCIe 16x video card in I want but not pay $3,000. More choice is a good thing...

I don't know how any real computer enthusiast can hate apple so much. They make money on their hardware, its their business model, get over it. The Apple OS is pretty awesome, with its own quirks admittedly, and if you hate the high price of addmission, too bad for you. No reason to hate the company though, and certainly no reason to dismiss them as a gaming platform.


RE: Not bad.
By rushfan2006 on 8/8/2006 10:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
First, good reply blckgriffn.

I hear you that the OS is very good on Macs...I honestly wouldn't be telling the truth if I said XP was better.

If your Mac is what meets your gaming needs, then in the end that's really all that matters.

I still think the PC is the ultimate gamer's mod box of choice far and beyond any Apple offering.

Dare I say, I enjoy and have actual fun modding and putting together my gaming rigs. If I went to a Mac, I'd honestly miss that aspect.

I'm so use to choice and options, and tweaking hardware and customizing cases...its great. Yep I'm a gamer geek, I admit that. As such I realize that some people think its way more trouble than its worth to put so much "work" into tweaking out a game box and such.

But again, Apple just doesn't offer that.

And to be clear -- I don't "hate" apple because they are apple. I dislike apple's closed business model. I dislike limited choice. I dislike paying a premium -- wether you say that's how apple makes its money on its hardware or not, to my wallet it doesn't matter -- its still way too much for too little return, when compared to the pc market.

If that's wrong of me to feel that way about apple on those reasons, which I feel are quite valid reasons btw....well I'll just have to "be wrong" then.



RE: Not bad.
By blckgrffn on 8/8/2006 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's cool. I felt the same way for years, but have learned to appreciate it. It's kinda of like getting Sun Workstations over Dell's. Expensive, but you get a molded piece of machinery, not some huge chunk-o plastic.

I agree that the PC is and a will likely always be the best gaming platform available. I just don't game enough anymore to have that be my only decision maker.

Also, I am tired of XP/MS. I just want something different :-P

And I obviously don't own a Mac, although if the Core2 ones are reasonable, I'll certainly try to convince SO that it is a good idea.

I just don't begrudge Apple their premium anymore, because I think that I have learned to appreciate it and realized they offer a reasonable level of performance for the $$$. What I hate is schools buying a lot of expensive ones when they could have schlepped up some $800 Dells that would be just as good or better and come with a longer warranty AND be actually field servicable.

Hopefully, one will be under my desk in the next year or so if this gaming thing actually pans out... and I'll still have last years uber PC on the other channel of my KVM :D

Nat


RE: Not bad.
By fishbits on 8/7/2006 11:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4GB ram is the new gaming standard

Not even close to true. 2GB isn't yet what I'd call the standard for gaming today.


RE: Not bad.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro said it better than I could. And had the initiative to post up the specs/price. Well there argue with him, but hes made the point far better than I did. Price of a decent gaming mac, is roughly the same price as a cutting edge gaming windows box.


RE: Not bad.
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2006 12:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't trying to say you need a dual dual-core Woodcrest rig to play games. Just that one guy brought up a quad core G5 machine so I brought up how much it costs for one, and what you could get on the PC side for the same money.

A dual-core G5 rig with a 7800GT would be fine for gaming as would a Core 2 Duo, Athlon X2, or even a Pentium D. But a dual-core 2GHz G5 rig starts at $2000 and then to get 2GB of RAM and a 7800GT its an $700-800 upgrade. So $2700-2800. For that much you could build a near top of the line (everything except an Extreme Edition or FX processor but who needs those anyway) Windows PC with dual 7900GTX in SLI or X1900XTX in Crossfire with 2GB of RAM, and plenty more hard drive space than 250GB.


RE: Not bad.
By RMTimeKill on 8/7/2006 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
*looks around the lan party trying to find someone with less then 2gb of ram* dang no luck...

*looks around the lan party looking for someone with more the 4gb of ram* oh, theres a couple!!

Seriously and honestly 2gb is pretty dang close to the standard for your average to serious gamers. When some games are chewing up a good 750-1200mb of ram by them selves and ram is so cheap, its silly not to have 2gb at least!


RE: Not bad.
By Crassus on 8/7/2006 4:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a medium end video card


Can someone explain to me what a "medium end" is? There's high end (as in: top of the pack, can't get better) and low end (read: bottom). Where exactly is an end in the middle?!


RE: Not bad.
By JonnyBlaze on 8/7/2006 10:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
This works on "Intel" macs only. Show me one of those with a 7800.


RE: Not bad.
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2006 10:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
As another said, it only works on Intel based Macs.

But lets see.....quad 2.5GHz G5 system....base price...$3300. 512MB RAM, 250GB HD, 16x DVD burner, 6600LE 128MB. Hardly a bargain. And not like it could play games hardly anyway with that crappy of a GPU and so little RAM. With a proper 7800GT for gaming and 2GB of RAM (Non-ECC) that price goes up to just under $4000. Add $800 for 20" monitor.

You could build a far better 2 x Woodcrest Xeon system (or Opteron) with 4x the RAM, 4x the HD space, and a way better GPU for that on Windows.

With a product like this coming out, it does make Mac gaming possibly feasible. But until Apple allows people to build their own instead of paying their ridiculously high prices, its not going to go mainstream. Most people can't afford gaming Macs. The ones who can, don't normally use them to play games.


RE: Not bad.
By ogreslayer on 8/7/2006 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
That is medium end and it costs more

I'm sure everyone here would take a XPS700 with:
# 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800
# 2GB DD2 667
# 250GB HD Space
# 512MB 7900GTX
for $3,428

over a Mac with:
# 2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
# 2GB 533 DDR2
# 250GB HD Space
# 7800 GT 256MB
for $4,149.00 as their gaming rig. Fact is for the point of this article Macs are consistanly more money for less hardware, performance, and potential improvements. Its a good thing for Mac lovers but means nothing for anyone else

And I doubt Power Macs are gonna use Kentsfield, they are probably gonna stick with Core and Core 2 Duo chips


RE: Not bad.
By Fenixgoon on 8/7/2006 11:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
quad G5 and a 7800GT is also $4000.

$1k gets you a pretty good gaming machine. for $2k you can build a blazing fast gaming rig, for $4k you can build an uber godly machine. Apple still doesn't offer competitive enough solutions, until they start using conroes. and as other people have posted - there's no enthusiest market for apple.


RE: Not bad.
By Pirks on 8/7/2006 2:24:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
there's no enthusiest market for apple
correct, 'cause Apple never cared about this market segment and never will, it contradicts their total integration "everything in one slick well-designed package" ideology, hence don't expect cheap newegg-style deals from them. After all you don't expect Sony Vaios to come as DIY kit's, do you?


RE: Not bad.
By kelmon on 8/7/2006 12:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect to the posters here, no one buys a Power Mac (Mac Pro?) or any other Apple product with the idea of gaming. If games will run great on it then that's a bonus but the workstations are designed for stuff like video editing and that kinda thing. If you buy a Power Mac with the idea of using it as an über gaming machine then, frankly, you need your head seeing to, preferably with a blunt heavy object. I love my Mac (in a purely platonic sense, you understand) but it would be a colossal waste of money to buy one solely for games since, as has already been pointed out, you can get the job done for much less. That said, if you want to do other stuff than game (and something more than writing emails) then a Power Mac is the way to go.


RE: Not bad.
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2006 1:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
You can do plenty of other things (besides email and games) on a PC without paying for a PowerMac. Video editting on the PC has come a long way and is now just as good as on a Mac. Photoshop is on PCs and the PC version is just as good as the Macs. 3D Design programs are now widely available on PCs and offer pretty much just as good of performance as their Mac counterparts. Macs still have an edge, but that edge has been diminished quite a bit.

Personally if I was in that sort of business, the slight performance advantage of a Mac in some tasks wouldn't justify its cost.


RE: Not bad.
By MrDiSante on 8/7/2006 1:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'd have to disagree with the idea of taking a over a PC for anything but gaming. A more correct statement would be "That said, if you want to do other stuff than video/photo editing then a PC is the way to go." Any sort of business software except Office isn't particularly friendly with Mac's and honestly even that I prefer on Windows. Their servers are plain old atrocious (we use Linux, not Windows for servers, but I'd take a Windows machine for a server over a Mac any day). According to my son and most of the posters above, the gaming on a Mac isn't that great either and although I'm far from a professional photo editor, I haven't any problems with Photoshop on my PC.


RE: Not bad.
By jtesoro on 8/8/2006 1:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would be good to recognize that some people just prefer using the Mac. Call them rational or irrational, smart or dumb, enlightened or ignorant... whatever.

Now they've got another option for playing PC games. That's it.


RE: Not bad.
By MrSmurf on 8/7/2006 10:28:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but until Mac lets users upgrade their own hardware from who they want,


There are such machines, they just aren't made by Apple and don't run OSX. They're called PCs. One of the huge benefits in buying a Mac stems from it not having a million different types of configurations. I do not welcome open system upgrades on the Mac.


RE: Not bad.
By Suomynona on 8/7/2006 10:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are such machines, they just aren't made by Apple and don't run OSX. They're called PCs. One of the huge benefits in buying a Mac stems from it not having a million different types of configurations. I do not welcome open system upgrades on the Mac.


Is this a joke? I really don't understand how there would be any downside to being able to upgrade your own computer. The only downside for Apple would be that they wouldn't be able to continue to charge such a high premium for their hardware. It would only be good for the consumer, allowing you to get more for less.


RE: Not bad.
By rrsurfer1 on 8/7/2006 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not true at all. One of the reasons Mac's tend to be more stable is the OS does not need to support endless hardware configurations. A large percentage of the work on a PC OS goes into supporting all those hardware options.


RE: Not bad.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/7/2006 12:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "One of the reasons Mac's tend to be more stable is the OS does not need to support endless hardware configurations"

Exactly so. Anyone and everyone can produce hardware or drivers for a PC. That allows a PC user far more options (at a far lower price) than a Mac, but its also the reason PCs tend to crash more often. It's a class tradeoff scenario-- do you want stability or flexibility?



RE: Not bad.
By Teletran1 on 8/7/2006 12:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you buy quality parts for a PC they tend to also not crash. This argument has been the be all and end all of MAC heads for years. It doesnt really fly. My system is as stable as a rock and NEVER crashes. Why, because I didnt buy cheap components. Which is what you get usually from those package deals from small system builders that are shady.

The bottom line is that Steve Jobs wants to line his and his investors pockets with gold on the back of you people who have been loyal for years and new metrosexual consumers that think its cooler to have a mac than a pc.


RE: Not bad.
By smitty3268 on 8/7/2006 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. The problems that would arise don't have anything to do with the quality of the hardware. They have to do with the way multiple drivers interact with each other and the system. Drivers are often buggy, and sometimes those bugs are hidden until someone does something weird and exposes it. The quality hardware you've put in a PC no doubt has great Windows drivers which is why they've run fine. But you have absolutely no idea how good the OSX drivers are. The could be utter cr*p, or they might not even exist yet. Or they could run fine. There is no doubt that some issues would arise, though, and I think at the very least Apple would need to shift some of its limited resources from R&D to support/testing.

I'm sure the fact that Apple can charge extra is a nice bonus, but it isn't the blocking factor you seem to think.


RE: Not bad.
By rklaver on 8/7/2006 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
Stability! That's why I had a Mac and that's what it was. The most stable system I had. But when I wanted to do some gaming...I built a PC. But for the record I did upgrade my Mac with off the shelf DVD drives, hard drives, RAM, but the only thing that came at a premium was a Mac edition video card, I was kinda pissed about that pricing though.


RE: Not bad.
By MrDiSante on 8/7/2006 1:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
A little FYI, my wife uses an old PIII 550 mhz with 256 MB of RAM as her computer. She's not told me about it crashing once. Unless you start messing around with your PC and putting cheap hardware with badly written drivers it's stable as a rock. And honestly, there's no reason not to buy brand-name hardware, the difference only ends up in the 5% region for a system that's extremely stable.


This is a developer-only tool
By Suomynona on 8/7/2006 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
The article is rather misleading. Cider is a set of libraries (much like Winelib on GNU/Linux) to allow quick'n'dirty porting to OS X. It certainly does not allow "Mac gamers to install and play Windows games directly in OS X".




RE: This is a developer-only tool
By phatboye on 8/7/2006 10:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The article is rather misleading. Cider is a set of libraries (much like Winelib on GNU/Linux) to allow quick'n'dirty porting to OS X. It certainly does not allow "Mac gamers to install and play Windows games directly in OS X".


Are you sure? This just looks like a port of cedga/wine.


By smitty3268 on 8/7/2006 3:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, he is right, which is why the article is a bit misleading. It is just a port of cedega, but it is a port in the style of winelib, rather than plain old wine. Like the way Google ported Picasa to linux. IOW, the developers should be able to just hit compile a second time without changing any code and get an OSX executable, which they could put on the CD (since it would only be a few MBs) and then Mac users could use the program and never know the difference. Because it is all on the developer end, though, you couldn't directly run older windows games unless someone created a patch for it.


RE: This is a developer-only tool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 10:59:07 AM , Rating: 3
Correct, its to make the devlopers job easier to get things to run on a Mac.

And since I got flamed by several of the above for ragging on the Mac hardware specs. Heres a thought, if OSX is that good, I should be able to slap it onto my own box, and not have to buy the apple branded hardware.

For starters overclocking is not limited to CPU's only.

RAID gives flexibility, flexibility is not a Mac trait.
Say I want to stick a Pair of Striped Raptors in the box?

4GB of RAM is what you need when your gaming and imaging DVD's at the same time, well if you want to keep decent frame rates. It also helps if you run things in the background while gaming. I also don't like the idea of being stuck with 533 or 667 DDR2 Memory DIMM's. (To the detriment of my argument, Vista will require 4GB of ram for good gaming, the OS is gonna suck up more, this isn't the case with OSX to the best of my knowledge)

PCI slots are still necessary, all sorts of things run off PCI still, PCI-E is still a video card/gigabit Ethernet only thing. Apple's marketshare is too small to force the PCI slot to become extinct, kind of limits the ability for expansion by removing PCI slots.

For the video card, ok so I'm stuck with a lousy 7800GT, maybe I want to go with an ATI card, say a 1900XT(X) or a 7900GTX? Is it as painless as it is in windows, where I just pop out the old card and pop in the new, install latest drivers and away I go? (Granted the removal of previous drivers is generally something that needs to be done, but not always)

But for the sake of argument, we have some macs here at work, about 12 in total. Aside from graphics, they don't outperform our standard fare desktops and laptops. And the graphics is only because the artists we hired are so elite about their Mac's they can't be seen touching a Windows PC, has nothing to do with performance there, just the way they want it.


RE: This is a developer-only tool
By Dantopia on 8/7/2006 12:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
I just have to ask... how many of you out there do DVD imaging while playing games? How many of you do ANY CPU intensive task while gaming? (and no, pressing Alt-Tab and looking up a map on a web browser is NOT cpu intensive, and I do that just fine with my "low end" 1 gig).

Honestly... if someone is trying to squeeze 405 FPS out of their box instead of 390, they are NOT going to put up with a DVD decoder running in the background. Let's be realistic. How many hardcore extreme gamers are reading this that actually HAVE 4 GB? I don't know any at all. I'm sure they're out there (btw, you can upgrade your Mac to 16GB, so I'm not sure why this is a valid point at all).

People like Macs because the applications and OS are more PRODUCTIVE, not FASTER (there are hundreds of articles on the net with reviews of people using Mac software and finding it more productive). Some of those people who LIKE the OS and like Mac hardware might want to play PC only games. That's what this is about. Bashing it because you don't like it or think it's too expensive is pointless. A lot of people drive expensive cars that aren't any better than cheaper alternatives, but I don't hear many people getting so rabid about it.


RE: This is a developer-only tool
By Crassus on 8/7/2006 4:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
How many of those 4GB RAM folks actually run an OS that can use it? As far as I'm aware, Win x64 isn't that great as a gaming rig OS (driver issues etc.), and old 32bit Win XP will only allow any task to use a maximum of 2 GB (or, with all sorts of issues, 3 GB with the /3GB switch) - which pretty much leaves the other 2 GB of RAM useless.


RE: This is a developer-only tool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 4:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
A single task correct. No task needs more than 2GB, but your banking on 1 Task. Say I'm playing Counter-Strike Source on my left monitor, and EVE-Online on the right one, and imaging/copying a DVD in one of my drives? Yea 4GB gets sucked up pretty friggin quick. But if you really want to get down and dirty, the above posters made it quite crystal clear even if my specs are a little outrageous for the mainstream gamers I admit I double my machine up as an Oracle10g server usually as well which provides more overhead. Productivity wise I can dust most other machines short of a professional grade workstation. Mac's cost more, for less. And Mac's cant take 16GB of memory, thats a theoretical limit determined by the DDR2 standard memory its using. And don't get me started about Mac's being more productive, no they aren't. If they were businesses which want to be as productive as possible would be jumping into the Mac boat left and right. They aren't. Mac's are no more productive than PC's. It all comes down to software, and hardware, in the hardware war, PC's win every time, you can get better, cheaper. In software, PC's have a plethora of software for just about anything you can think of, Macs don't.


RE: This is a developer-only tool
By gramboh on 8/7/2006 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Say I'm playing Counter-Strike Source on my left monitor, and EVE-Online on the right one, and imaging/copying a DVD in one of my drives? Yea 4GB gets sucked up pretty friggin quick


Are you joking?


By blckgrffn on 8/8/2006 12:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was trying to be serious, which is why it is so funny :-D


PC VS MAC Gaming Rigs!
By Senju on 8/8/2006 12:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
The today we hear about the new Mac Pros and now we get this game conversion tool. For the first time Mac Fans can acutually start entering the PC gamming community. However, notice I say "MAC FANS". I do not think the high end PC rigs are in any competition as yet.

Memory - Ok. great! the new Mac Pro can upgrade to 16Gigs. But there are 2 issues here. (1) No current games including "PREY, and even "Oblivion" need more than 2gigs so putting more ram (over 2 gigs) is not going to make your game experience any better. (2) Speed - If you look closely to the specs ( http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html), you see that the memory is running on 667MHz speed). My memory in my rig is runnning at 800Mhz but I *CAN* OC it if I want!

CPU - It is a Xeon! Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this CPU customized for servers? I am sure it is fast for Video editing but I do wonder if it can bit a overclocked 6800 Core2 Extreme where the architecture of this CPU is needed. Also, I do not think you can overclock a Xeon, not alone a Xeon in an Apple rig. Yes - I know it is a QUAD but again, the architecture is different for what games required from a CPU.

Customized Rig - Well, this is part of the whole FUN of this hobby is to go to your PC shop and select unique parts to customized your PC (just like a car). How can I do this with an Apple rig? Where can I put those cool fans and lights and see through windows? A custom rig is *PART* of the life-style of a serious gamer! Period!

All said and done, I am happy to see Apple trying to move a little more toward gamming but they still have a long ways to go before I would move to an Apple WS for my gamming plateform!

BTW - Do you know how much it will cost you to build a new Mac Pro with all the options inside? $16,934.00 (Yipes!)

=======================================
SENJU
http://minami.senju.googlepages.com/home
========================================




RE: PC VS MAC Gaming Rigs!
By casket on 8/8/2006 9:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Never been a Mac fan... but I'd take this computer...
Seems that apple is on the right track. If Mac can improve MySQL performance, then maybe we'll have some real competition again... which has been lacking for over a decade.


Specifications
Two 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
16GB (8 x 2GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
2 x SuperDrives
Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
Fibre Channel Card
Apple USB Modem
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Mac OS X Server (Unlimited-Client)
Final Cut Express HD preinstalled
AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

Subtotal $18,421.00


RE: PC VS MAC Gaming Rigs!
By casket on 8/8/2006 9:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a cheaper power mac...

Specifications:
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
2GB (4 x 512MB)
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
1 x SuperDrive
Apple USB Modem
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Mac OS X Server (10-Client)

Subtotal $4,196.00


RE: PC VS MAC Gaming Rigs!
By blckgrffn on 8/8/2006 12:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, is this a server or a workstation?!?


well
By sprockkets on 8/7/2006 10:10:40 AM , Rating: 1
What does OSX use for a graphics API?




RE: well
By netguru42 on 8/7/2006 10:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
OpenGL, I think. At least for 3D apps/games. Their 2D environment is a proprietary system.


RE: well
By ksherman on 8/7/2006 10:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
I know there is two, Quatrz Extreme and Core Image... not sure exactly what CI does, be QE i think is in charge of GUI graphics


No need for windows now
By dagamer34 on 8/7/06, Rating: 0
RE: No need for windows now
By ShizNet on 8/7/2006 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
it reminds me of those car commercials - like Honda Accord (H.A.), as good as H.A., as reliable as H.A., as economical as H.A. ... but still far from H.A.


By theprodigalrebel on 8/7/2006 6:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
While this is great from a software perspective, the one major cause of concern is that games are pretty damn buggy these days even when running on recommended hardware, with the latest official drivers. I wonder how many bugs/glitches every game will throw up when running in an emulation mode such as this. And that 15 percent performance hit seems too optimistic a figure.

This is great for casual gamers but probably not for someone who likes to spend a few hours a day playing games and wants to check out OS X. Dual-boot still makes most sense.


By TacticalTrading on 8/7/2006 11:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
users may see a performance hit ranging from 10 to 15 percent compared to the same game being played in Windows.


Gamers don't use boot disks for playing games any more, but serious gamers turn just about everything off in an effort to make every last CPU cycle available to the game, and Teamspeak / ventrilo, and x-fire, and don't forget Frapps.

Throwing away 10-15%, which probably means more like 20% in the real world, doesn't sound very appealing. Then again, being able to play is better than not being able to play.

Is this better or worse performance than the bootcamp Windows on Intel Mac ?




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 11:12:41 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure, need someone with a Mac who's tried it, but from what I heard the DirectX doesnt run so great on the mac as it does on Windows only machines. Not sure if this is a side effect of Boot Camp, or because of something hardware related.


read them all
By ElJefe69 on 8/7/2006 2:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
I can say that if the core duo mac machine could run all current 3D games just as well at a pc, I would certainly look into it.

MAC's creative programs and OS are so healthy and standard that I always want to get one, but can't justify buying two machines. IF it was all on one, the extra 1k dollars would be a long term savings.

kidna simple




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki