Windows on a MAC

[manu-fan 0]

Hi,

Now that you can run Windows on a Mac, who is going to try it and run SC4 on it?

It would be great if someone could and then post a comparison.

SC4 Mac vs SC4 Windows on Mac.

Cheers.

[Kakaze 0]

I know I'm gonna ditch the POS Aspyr port of SC4 as soon as I get an Intel Mac. As a former PC user I can tell you that the Mac version is crap compared to the PC one. Now I just need to save up 3 grand for a new PowerBook :sigh:

[BarbulaM1 38]

The early reports from CNet are stating that programs are running faster on Windows via boot camp, than on OSX on the same machine. Also the early benchmarks are point out that the OS it self is running much faster. Also the SC4 Mac vs the Windows version really is no comparison, since it was a port. (Just watch what version of Windows you buy if you wana try, Windows x64 or x64 pre-release Vistas will not work on the macs, only Windows XP Home/Professional will work, and I highly recomend the SP2 varient for SP2 can take up to 15min to install.)

[jb978 0]

ready to take the test! I can run sc4 rh - how do you get fps or benchmark data???

[BarbulaM1 38]

3D Mark by futuremark will be able to test your XP installation agianst the latest and greatest hardware. The demo works fine, just to warn ya, it will bring a quad CPU (dual dual core) with quad SLI (up to 2GB of video ram) to it's knees. So don't get down if ya get like 5 fps cause that is acctualy good . 3DMark 2003 is a little more suitable for benching how game like SC4 would proform just to get numbers and match them agianst other systems in the PC arena. To bench agianst the OSX vs XP instaltion, some human experence is all you can do , or Photoshop timeings or video compression time. Run SC4 and load a city in both OSX and XP and see which one you think runs better. (You can be getting 30FPS+ and still have time lagg in SimCity 4, so FPS tests are not really accurate for SimCity)

[manu-fan 0]

Is running a fairly large city in Cheetah mode and seeing how quickly the date moves forward a fairly good representation of performance?

Cheers.

[manu-fan 0]

Originally posted by: Kakaze I know I'm gonna ditch the POS Aspyr port of SC4 as soon as I get an Intel Mac. As a former PC user I can tell you that the Mac version is crap compared to the PC one. Now I just need to save up 3 grand for a new PowerBook :sigh:quote>

You can get a 17inch iMac for $1300 you know.

I just did

Cheers.

[mcjono 0]

Might i suggest contributing towards DarWine so that you won't have to run windows on an intel mac?  You could then compare the two that way

[Kakaze 0]

Originally posted by: manu-fan

Originally posted by: Kakaze I know I'm gonna ditch the POS Aspyr port of SC4 as soon as I get an Intel Mac. As a former PC user I can tell you that the Mac version is crap compared to the PC one. Now I just need to save up 3 grand for a new PowerBook :sigh:quote>

You can get a 17inch iMac for $1300 you know.

I just did

Cheers.quote>

Believe me, I'd love to get one of them too...but there's nothing like building a city while laying in bed watching TV! I did the desk thing for 10 years...a laptop is the only way to go for me now. I want a desktop just so I have a computer to keep a backup on and so I can run stuff like 3d renders that can take all night, etc.

[callagrafx 3]

Originally posted by: BarbulaM1 The early reports from CNet are stating that programs are running faster on Windows via boot camp, than on OSX on the same machine. Also the early benchmarks are point out that the OS it self is running much faster. quote>

This is not surprising as XP was written for Intel chips, whereas at present OS X is "ported" to the new chip using an emulator called Rosetta. Until OS X is native to the Intel chip (and software is optimized) it will always be slower. Remember that OS X is a unix based operating system. As for the Aspyr version being a POS, it works great for me.... My advice is to wait and see what Apple do.. The benefit to having XP on apple is rock solid hardware that runs XP, so you can be part of the crowd and still have style.

[DavemanDeluxe 0]

Originally posted by: callagrafxThis is not surprising as XP was written for Intel chips, whereas at present OS X is "ported" to the new chip using an emulator called Rosetta. Until OS X is native to the Intel chip (and software is optimized) it will always be slower. Remember that OS X is a unix based operating system.quote>

OS X is native to the Intel architecture. Ever since the early days of OS X development, there have always been two sets of binaries: one for PowerPC and one for x86. Steve Jobs said as much when he first announced the switch to Intel chips. No part of the operating system is being emulated in Rosetta.

[sendarrow 3]

•  

Hello there. Im gonna buy a Mac one of this days and and would like to play my SC4 Windows based on my future Mac. WEW!!

[Kakaze 0]

Originally posted by: callagrafx This is not surprising as XP was written for Intel chips, whereas at present OS X is "ported" to the new chip using an emulator called Rosetta. Until OS X is native to the Intel chip (and software is optimized) it will always be slower. Remember that OS X is a unix based operating system. As for the Aspyr version being a POS, it works great for me.... My advice is to wait and see what Apple do.. The benefit to having XP on apple is rock solid hardware that runs XP, so you can be part of the crowd and still have style.quote>

Rosetta is a binary translator for running PPC Mac applications on an Intel Mac. Any Universal Mac application - Universal apps are those that can run natively on PPC and Intel Macs - will run just as fast as it's equivalent on Windows. Running Photoshop tests right now is going to give you bad results as Photoshop is NOT a Universal app yet. Photoshop won't be Universal until the release of CS3. I don't know what you're trying to say when you say "Remember that OS X is a unix based operating system." Unix systems are generally faster than Windows on the same hardware.

[callagrafx 3]

I stand corrected, although I would refer those who are interested in speed issues to http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html

Everyone I speak to who has bought an Intel Mac tells me that it's performance is disappointing and quite buggy.

[Kakaze 0]

That article is old. They used a version of XBench that wasn't Universal. If the people you know say performance is disappointing they're using mostly PPC apps. Everything Universal will run very fast.

[callagrafx 3]

The apps that most people use (Quark, Photoshop et al) are all still PPC at present...that's the whole point. What good is a fast OS when the apps aren't Universal? My point was to not upgrade to MacPro machines until apps are universal. It's like having a Ferrari with no wheels.

[Kakaze 0]

That's not what you said. You made a blanket generalisation about the Intel Macs saying the "performance is disappointing and quite buggy." You didn't say anything about Rosetta or PPC apps. Most Pros should wait till their apps are Universal - Quark already has a beta of theirs out - but Rosetta is fine for normal users.

[callagrafx 3]

oh good grief!!!!

My advice is to wait and see what Apple doquote>

Now, could we all just get a life!!!

[manu-fan 0]

Well, all I can say at the moment is:

I loaded SC4 on my new Dual core Intel Mac and it seems to run a lot faster than it did on my PowerPC G5. Now, I don't have all the mods downloaded on the new Mac, so it isn't apples to apples (no pun intended). However, I think it's faster than vanilla SC4 RH was on the old one also.

Cheers.

[PhantomSoul 3]

You know the new Mac Minis have Dual Core IA32 (Intel) hardware, so they can run both OS 10.4 and Windows XP. The Mac Minis sell for about $500, which is unheard of for Apple computers.

Now I just saw a preview about this the other day (and can't remember the name of it for my life right now), but what's even better is that somebody is working on Virtual-PC type emulator for OS 10.4 so that you can install a Windows applications, like say MS Outlook for those pesky Exchange services, or even our beloved SimCity4, on OS 10.4 and when you launch it, it will automatically launch a Windows instance within OS 10.4 to run the application in. The end result will look like you're running a Windows application in OS 10.4.

Bestill my heart...

[Kakaze 0]

Only problem with the Minis is they use integrated graphics which SUCK for games.

As far as virtualisation goes, all the ones out there currently, save for WINE, require installing Windows in a virtual machine which is separate from OS X. WINE adds a layer of compatibility over OS X but it is nowhere near ready for primetime. In 10.5, however, it's rumoured that Apple will turn Windows into the new version of Classic mode. Better than WINE as it'll be tightly integrated with the OS and it will take advantage of the Intel processor's ability to run multiple OSes at the same time.

[PhantomSoul 3]

The company I mentioned above is called Parallels Inc. and will soon be releasing (Beta version already available) a program called Workstation, which can run a fully-functional Windows virtual machine within a fully-integrated (seamless mouse, can copy/paste, etc) window in Mac OS 10.4 on your Intel-based Mac. And, all it costs is $50, and you no longer need that PC -- which is convenient, because you'll need its Windows license for this virtual machine. 

The best part is that there's no emulation, no interperting, or any other additional layers of complexity as we may have seen in the past with products like Microsoft's Virtual PC.  Because the hardware in the new IA32 Macs is the same type as in PC's, the Windows virtual machine can make calls directly to the actual hardware as it would in a normal PC.  The Workstation software really just  provides drivers and integration into Mac OS.

Check it out: http://www.parallels.com -- you can even get a free trial key for 30 days.  As long as your Mac has video hardware that can decently handle 3D graphics, SimCity4 should be a go on this.

[Kakaze 0]

Hehehe...have fun playing SC4 inside a virtual machine. It'll play better under Rosetta. Parallels doesn't have direct access to the video card so the drivers included with it are basic VESA drivers.