Kakaze

Even if you do find a copy of SC3K, don't plan on running it in OS X. First, it's a Classic app, which means it requires OS 9 be installed on your machine - and if you're on an Intel Mac you're out of luck completely - and second, unless you're able to boot into OS 9, it barely runs in Classic to begin with.

We pay for SC4; we don't pay for the modding tools. EA/Maxis didn't ever have to release them if they didn't want to.

Nino: Without an Intel Mac you have no options for running the editors.

Bootcamp is *not* an emulator. BootCamp, the software, is a GUI to a nondestructive partitioning tool available on Intel Macs and a collection of drivers for Mac specific hardware bundled in a package. You can install Windows on a Mac perfectly fine without BootCamp but BootCamp allows you to do it without formatting your drive and it gives you all the drivers needed to run Windows at it's full capacity. If SC4 isn't running well under Windows on a MacBook it's most likely the system RAM or the crap integrated graphics. To the OP: I suggest finding a bootable copy of Memtest and running that for a few hours to see if your memory is working right. If it is then it's most likely that SC4 doesn't play nicely with the integrated graphics, in which case you just have to remember to save often. I know it goes without saying but make sure you have the latest patches for SC4 as well, the latest patches for Windows, and the latest version of the BootCamp drivers. As far as memory use, I seem to remember when I was on Windows that SC4 used very little memory as well as the majority of the game is going to be dumped directly into video memory most likely. High CPU use is expected, however.

The lot editor isn't going to run under Linux anymore than it'll run under OS X...especially not PPC linux. Simzebu: Please explain to me how it's Microsoft's fault that SC4 isn't running on Linux? It's running on Mac so it's not like anything in Windows has prevented SC4 from being ported. If you want to blame anyone blame Linux, first and foremost, and blame the industry second. It's amazing that any software runs on Linux half the time considering that no two distros are the same and the fact that Linux is a morass of tight and bloated code held together by spit and gum. To run even the simplest of programmes often requires one to download 50 dependencies - a system made much easier but no better by Package managers - not to mention that there are no standard APIs or system calls that can be used to reduce dependency issues and make software much more compatible across all versions of Linux. Windows and OS X include almost everything in their foundations that any software would ever need to use to run. In Linux almost all of that stuff has to be downloaded piecemeal and in some instances you might even have several pieces on your computer that do the exact same thing but in a different way and each one is used by a completely different piece of software. Not to mention that all of this stuff is going to be installed in about a million different places all over your machine. And unless you're never going to install anything beyond the preinstalled software and are only ever going to check email or surf the web, Linux is not user friendly.

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=147&threadid=79378&enterthread=y

X11 is on your install disc.

Maxis is no more...it's there in name but it is a part of EA now and as such has to follow EA policies. EA does not develop for Mac.

Apple is not unique in that area.

You place them into your Documents/SimCity4/Plugins folder.

That's because the Mac Port, one, sucks, and two, isn't Universal yet so it's not going to play very well on Intel Macs under OS X. Aspyr has said they're going to make it universal but when that happens only god knows for sure.

Windows XP Home recognises the dual core chips just as well as Pro. What XP Home doesn't recognise is dual CPUs. One thing to take into consideration with the Mac Mini is that it uses integrated graphics. The graphics chip on the Mac Mini isn't able to do several important 3D operations in hardware and thus offloads it to the CPU which slows things down. Also, and this is the integrated part, the chip uses system memory instead of memory dedicated specifically for it. If you only have 512 megs of RAM in a Mini the graphics are gonna eat 60-80 megs of that RAM which, of course, reduces the ram you have open for software. Adding extra RAM with a Mini - or a MacBook as they're hardware identical - is greatly recommended. Now, if you're playing older games - SC4 shouldn't be too much of a stretch for the graphics on a Mini - or 2D games you'll be fine, for the most part, but you'll be hard pressed to play any of the newer 3D games without reducing the settings all the way down to their lowest. The Sims 2 will most likely fall into this category.

Yeah, were the Bootcamp drivers installed correctly? The Catalyst drivers you can get directly from ATI but I've heard conflicting reports about them working on Macs. The Omega drivers I've heard work and can be found here: http://www.omegadrivers.net/ati/win2k_xp.php

Are all your drivers installed correctly? Try using the Catalyst or Omega drivers for the video if the Apple drivers aren't working right.

I don't know what to tell you, other then to install Windows on the computer, as I don't have an Intel Mac and can't test this for myself.

X11 is what *nix systems use to display GUIs. When you run *nix software on OS X that has a GUI you need to run it in X11 as *nix software isn't written to take advantage of the OS X GUI. X11 can be found on your install disk. Insert your install disk and look for the Optional Installs.mpkg. Open it and continue on until it gives you the option of what software you want to install...x11 should be in there.

Originally posted by: corryzahn I just moved to mac, so I've had it on PC since SC4 came out. I've installed boot camp and I'm running under windows... mostly because I didn't want to start my cities all over again... And I have too many mods from the PC side to start all over again.quote> The cities and plugins will work on either version of SC4...there's no need to start over by switching to the Mac version. But it's going to run better for you under Windows anyway so it's best to just stick with it for now until Aspyr gets off their asses and releases a Universal version. Being as they seem to be focusing more on PC games now, however, it's unknown when that will happen if ever...even though they say they're "working" on one.

It's going to be as slow, most likely, as what you have now as SC4 runs through Rosetta and doesn't take advantage of more than one processor at a time. Aspyr has said they will be releasing a Universal Binary of it but there's no telling when. If you have a copy of Windows and the Windows version of SC4 (which can be bought for under 20 bucks), however, you can run it at full speed if you feel like dual booting OS X and Windows.

Originally posted by: bwatterud First off they cost a lot more (because they are better ). And there are a lot of programs that one might have that won't run on Macs (Games and such). Neither of these are much of a problem anymore, since Intel Macs can run Windows natively, and Apple has been lowering prices recently.quote> Apple has been lowering prices, but their computers have always been pretty competitively priced - except for the PowerBooks, those have always been a little on the expensive side, especially before the MacBook Pros were released. But seriously, I see "gamers" spending 3-4-5000 dollars on a computer and then complain that Macs are too expensive and it makes me wonder what's wrong with people. Hell, I was even planning on spending around 5k on a laptop a couple years ago - it was a Hypersonic PC Laptop with all the goodies and an automotive paintjob - then I came to my senses and realised I could've gotten the same computer for a hell of a lot less. But I was already waffling towards getting a Mac and, well, that's what I finally got. Still way cheaper than the 5k Hypersonic machine. And I'm so glad I have, like, no money right now or I'd be putting down for a MacPro...quad core Xeon starting at 2100 bucks! Hell yeah! EDIT:seriously...why is it that I can NEVER seem to get paragraphs to break?

Such as?

Originally posted by: BarbulaM1 Yep the darkside has cookies, and the ability to upgrade a crappy PC. (and of course games). The current Intel Macs do not run modern Windows games to their fullest, agian due to their lackluster GPU (and inabilty to upgrade the iMac) that becomes a problem in the world of the PC. Word of advice, wait for maybe December for computers with DirectX10 Capable GPUs in them or wait till January/Feburary for Vista. Of coures this is for playing games and the world of Windows. Also depends on the amount of money you want to spend .quote> The graphics card in the iMacs, while not the best on the market, should still be enough to run any current game at native resolution or near so with most settings medium to high - and it's definitely more than enough for SC4. Also, iMacs run Windows games just as well as any other comparable computer runs Windows games. Considering how fast the technology is advancing, NO computer is ever going to be capable of running modern games to their fullest as there's always a faster processor or newer technology around the corner. The iMac should be enough for all but the most hardcore of gamers. Originally posted by: bwatterud Originally posted by: Kakaze You forgot option E... Save your pennies and buy a new Intel Mac and run both OS X and Windows natively.quote> Yeah, but you still need to buy windows. I am in this same delimma. Either B or D seem like good choices, but you could do A anyway, just for good measure.quote> You can always get a good deal on Windows. Some places let you buy OEM copies for under 100 bucks and all you have to do is spend 5 bucks and buy a ribbon cable or some other piece of hardware.

You forgot option E... Save your pennies and buy a new Intel Mac and run both OS X and Windows natively.

Does deluxe change anything over SC4+Rush Hour combo, does anyone know?

And just because I have to get in the last word: you're just mad cause you know I'm right and you can't handle it. I use internet links to other people's benchmarks because they're, first, trusted sources, and second, they're generally fairly comprehensive. None of the apps you use, save for Maya relies on the GPU of the system, and in Maya only the view ports rely on the GPU as they show everything in OGL. The final render is a completely different animal, however, as rendering is done entirely by the CPU, so of course that's going to be faster - even when Maya is still a PPC only application as rendering does not require a large amount of binary translation back and forth. I've said my piece; take it however you want.

Just because they're using a 2GHz G4 does NOT make the test useless. 2GHz is faster than 1.5 but it's still not faster than a Core Duo unless you're running stuff through Rosetta. *EVERY* Photoshop benchmark shows the exact same results...Rosetta=slower than PPC. And yes, I most certainly would prefer an nVidia or Radeon chip over integrated graphics such as the GMA950. So would every gamer on the face of the planet. I suggest you do some research into the differences between integrated and discreet graphics. And, while the MacBook Pro--weren't we talking about the MacBook, sans Pro? - is certainly a very advanced laptop, there are several out there that will soundly trounce it. Of course, they're huge laptops with SLI graphics and they generally tend have desktop harddrives in them, or at least space for multiple drives. I love the MB and MBP but they are not the top of the line as far as laptops go; they are, however, just slightly under the top.