Jump to content


Bootcamp: The Death of Mac Games?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#101 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:34 PM

View Postbobbob, on May 1st 2006, 01:04 PM, said:

More like Classic virtualizes a machine for MacOS9. It would need special graphics drivers to bypass the virtualization, obviously, but it's not a huge deal.

But there was a performance hit there and a huge performance hit in Virtual PC. I don't see that as competition for a program running natively.
-Hunt'n

#102 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 May 2006 - 06:58 AM

View PostHuntn, on May 2nd 2006, 01:34 PM, said:

But there was a performance hit there and a huge performance hit in Virtual PC. I don't see that as competition for a program running natively.
Have you ever used VMWare or Virtual PC for Windows?

#103 tthiel

tthiel

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az

Posted 02 May 2006 - 11:25 AM

No Microsoft OS has explicit support for dual core proccesors.  They have support for multi-threading which is all that is required to take advantage of dual core or multiple procs. So XP home supports both dual core procs and multiple seperate processors despite what Microsoft says on their feature charts.  Windows multi-threading is not nearly as good as Unix based OS' but it is an improvement nevertheless.

View PostBatcat, on April 11th 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

I think you're in luck after all. Apparently Home had dual-core support added several years ago in SP1, and I missed or forgot the news. :blush:


#104 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:06 PM

View Posttthiel, on May 2nd 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

They have support for multi-threading which is all that is required to take advantage of dual core or multiple procs. So XP home supports both dual core procs and multiple seperate processors despite what Microsoft says on their feature charts.

Well, no, it's not all that's needed. Multithreading without SMP was commonplace before SMP, and needs modification to work with SMP. The OS then needs modification to recognize dual-core procs, and after that should be modified to work with them more effectively since their are some gotchas.

Quote

Windows multi-threading is not nearly as good as Unix based OS' but it is an improvement nevertheless.

Yeah, you know, cuz 'Unix-based' isn't a broad brush including a whole lot of awful schedulers and SMP implementations.

#105 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 May 2006 - 08:30 PM

View PostTesseract, on May 2nd 2006, 07:58 AM, said:

Have you ever used VMWare or Virtual PC for Windows?

Yes, I use Virtual PC. Why do you ask?

#106 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 May 2006 - 10:24 PM

View PostHuntn, on May 4th 2006, 12:30 PM, said:

Yes, I use Virtual PC. Why do you ask?
I meant VPC running on Windows, not Windows running in VPC. Sorry for the confusion.

#107 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 May 2006 - 05:33 AM

View PostTesseract, on May 3rd 2006, 11:24 PM, said:

I meant VPC running on Windows, not Windows running in VPC. Sorry for the confusion.

I use VPC on my Mac to run W98. I don't run VPC on Windows. Why? :)
-Hunt'n

#108 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 May 2006 - 11:54 AM

View PostHuntn, on May 4th 2006, 09:33 PM, said:

I use VPC on my Mac to run W98. I don't run VPC on Windows. Why? :)
Because it is a completely different program.

#109 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 02:41 PM

View PostHuntn, on May 1st 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

But there was a performance hit there and a huge performance hit in Virtual PC

From what I remember of trying not to use Classic, there was little to no performance hit (except in games, OSX's UI, etc.), and some things ran better under OSX. Parallels has the same effect.

#110 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 May 2006 - 07:59 AM

My experience during the transition to OSX, OS9 games played much better under OS9 then they did in Classic. OSX has overhead that OS9 did not, no?

My impression is that emulation in all cases results is a performance hit. Native is always better. Not true?
I've got an open mind about this. :)

-Hunt'n

#111 iRolley

iRolley

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Antibes - France

Posted 05 May 2006 - 08:20 AM

View PostHuntn, on May 5th 2006, 07:59 AM, said:

My experience during the transition to OSX, OS9 games played much better under OS9 then they did in Classic. OSX has overhead that OS9 did not, no?

My impression is that emulation in all cases results is a performance hit. Native is always better. Not true?
I've got an open mind about this. :)

-Hunt'n

Yes, 3D games that had to run under Classic were running much more slowly (Rune, Summoner, Unreal, Star Wars Racer...). But games like Quake3 supported OSX early, even if at first performance was still somewhat better under OS9, OSX performance gradually improved.

In the end the hassle it was to reboot into OS9 was too high for me. I never finished Summoner cos of that and played a lot more of Quake3 ;-)

#112 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 May 2006 - 12:25 PM

View PostHuntn, on May 5th 2006, 11:59 PM, said:

My impression is that emulation in all cases results is a performance hit. Native is always better.
Correct. But virtualisation is not emulation.

#113 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 May 2006 - 08:57 PM

View PostTesseract, on May 5th 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

Correct. But virtualisation is not emulation.

How is it different and is it as fast as native?
-Hunt'n

#114 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 May 2006 - 10:45 PM

View PostHuntn, on May 6th 2006, 12:57 PM, said:

How is it different
It doesn't emulate anything for starters. Most guest code is run directly on the real hardware. The virtual machine monitor essentially "fools" the guest OS into thinking it has the hardware to itself by fiddling with some state information behind the OS's back. Newer processors like the Core have support for doing this in hardware, so there's very little performance impact.

However, Parallels is technically paravirtualisation, as the virtual hardware it presents to the guest is not exactly the same as the real hardware. Particularly relevant to gamers is the video card.

Quote

and is it as fast as native?
Of course not. There is a small penalty since you have to do what you'd do anyway + some trickery. But it's in a totally different league than running Virtual PC on your PPC Mac. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between running in the VM and running on the physical equivalent of the virtual hardware.

#115 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 05 May 2006 - 11:49 PM

View PostHuntn, on May 5th 2006, 07:57 PM, said:

How is it different and is it as fast as native?

It is native. Parallels is sometimes faster, even, if you looked at the benchmarks. Classic was faster for a few things, too. To play games, though, they'd need special drivers to make the guest OS use the graphics card.

#116 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 May 2006 - 01:09 AM

View Postbobbob, on May 6th 2006, 03:49 PM, said:

To play games, though, they'd need special drivers to make the guest OS use the graphics card.
The problem is not letting the guest OS use the card, but making the host OS let go of it.

#117 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 01:14 AM

View PostTesseract, on May 6th 2006, 12:09 AM, said:

The problem is not letting the guest OS use the card, but making the host OS let go of it.

The drivers would pass through to the host OS, like WINE. WINE or cedega is of course a better option until a VM actually does this.

#118 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 10 May 2006 - 08:10 AM

Thanks guys for the info! :)

While many Mac gamers were happy with the "rations", Boot camp is like unlocking the basement door and allowing the prisoners up into the light. This statement is not ment to belittle any of the hard work of Mac porters who have been the Mac gamer's life line for the last 16 years.