Jump to content


Boot Camp tested...


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 06 April 2006 - 10:04 AM

I saw this on slashdot...

http://news.yahoo.co..._pcworld/125325

Quote

Back in Windows, I got right down to business and installed a few games to put the graphics and sound support to the test. The quick and dirty verdict on performance? Most impressive. Doom 3 and Far Cry both ran smoothly with high-end graphics options turned on

looks like good it actually works
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#2 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 April 2006 - 10:14 AM

Have you read anything that's been posted on this forum or on the web? ;)
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#3 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 06 April 2006 - 10:22 AM

View PostQuicksilver, on April 6th 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Have you read anything that's been posted on this forum or on the web? ;)

what is your point?

I am pointing out an article from yahoo news. Sure other people have posted simliar articles, but this one is from a different source. Wihen will IMG write an article on it?
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#4 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 06 April 2006 - 10:35 AM

I think Quicksilver was asking if you haven't read through the forums?

There are a number of people posting success with various PC 3D games. I am running Rome Total war, Silent Hunter III, Winning Eleven (7), Studio Max 8 and more on my own machine. And they all run fast and perfectly. Every game people are trying seems to be fine ... I'm posting Half Life 2 shots later at 1680x1050 resoltuion with high settingsa nd the game is beautiful and smooth.

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#5 hambone

hambone

    Legendary

  • IMG Writers
  • 890 posts
  • Location:Toronto -- Land of the rising snow

Posted 06 April 2006 - 10:39 AM

Davey -- are you running a MacBook or an iMac?

#6 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:03 PM

17" iMac at work, 1GB of RAM and the 128 card. I'm buying the 20" myself for home with 256 card and 2GB of RAM to future-proof myself somewhat.

Did I say that Studio Max 8 renders stuff 2x as fast on the iMac as it does on a single core 3.06GHz PC boxen? I played a bit of Winning Eleven, RTW and Silent Hunter III at lunch to grab screenies for later.

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#7 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:08 PM

View PostDaveyJJ, on April 6th 2006, 01:03 PM, said:

17" iMac at work, 1GB of RAM and the 128 card. I'm buying the 20" myself for home with 256 card and 2GB of RAM to future-proof myself somewhat.

If you're talking about "future-proofing" when it comes to gaming, then that's not the way to go.  Buying an all-in-one computer equipped with a video card that has 256MB of VRAM doesn't future-proof yourself one bit--the machine is already outdated (and the quantity of VRAM in a video card is the 3rd-most important spec).

Remember, the iMac is and has never been a serious gaming machine.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#8 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:31 PM

View PostQuicksilver, on April 6th 2006, 02:08 PM, said:

If you're talking about "future-proofing" when it comes to gaming, then that's not the way to go.  Buying an all-in-one computer equipped with a video card that has 256MB of VRAM doesn't future-proof yourself one bit--the machine is already outdated (and the quantity of VRAM in a video card is the 3rd-most important spec).

Remember, the iMac is and has never been a serious gaming machine.

Future-proof myself more than the 128MB version is what I should have said.

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#9 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 06 April 2006 - 12:37 PM

View PostQuicksilver, on April 6th 2006, 01:08 PM, said:


Remember, the iMac is and has never been a serious gaming machine.

Does it have to be? From all these reports, games seem to run very well.
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#10 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 April 2006 - 01:30 PM

View PostDaveyJJ, on April 6th 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

Future-proof myself more than the 128MB version is what I should have said.

That doesn't help a whole lot, though.  The primary area that it should help is when you use FSAA and/or AF.  By the time that games really hit 128MB cards hard enough to bump up the minimum requirements to a 256MB card, the effects are going to strangle that 12 pipe GPU.

View PostMaestro, on April 6th 2006, 01:37 PM, said:

Does it have to be? From all these reports, games seem to run very well.

To quickly contrast a low-to-midrange card like the X1600XT with a real modern desktop card like the X1900XT, F.E.A.R at 1600x1200 with 4X FSAA and 8X AF on the X1600XT runs at an average of 14 fps, while the X1900XT runs at 45 fps (322% faster).  Before you cry foul at the resolution, remember that the iMac 20" has a native resolution of 1680x1050, so while you could get decent performance at a much lower resolution, it's going to be blurry compared to native res.

If you look at newer games like Far Cry 2 (release date: Q1 2007) and guesstimate the system requirements, the iMac has a short gaming lifespan if it's already borderline on FEAR, which was released almost six months ago.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#11 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17429 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 April 2006 - 02:34 PM

View PostMaestro, on April 6th 2006, 09:04 AM, said:

I saw this on slashdot...

http://news.yahoo.co..._pcworld/125325
looks like good it actually works
Hold on to your holdie onie thingie good and tight cause I'm not just moving this thread, I'm moving it to the brand new "Dual Boot" forum.  A whole new cottage industry of posts and OMGs has grown up here since you last visited us Maestro.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#12 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 06 April 2006 - 06:04 PM

works perfectly for me. know i have 50GB hard drive space for my games. oh and a crappy OS...

#13 alldaveallen

alldaveallen

    Legendary

  • IMG Writers
  • 630 posts
  • Location:Somewhere between the computer, the fridge and the nursery

Posted 07 April 2006 - 12:28 PM

I have a question relating to a point in the article that was linked (and I thought I'd ask you guys and not (bleargh) "PC world":

from the article:

Quote

the Boot Camp manual provided intelligent directions about how to tell XP which partition to use and how to format that partition. (If you choose FAT instead of NTFS, you'll be able to write files to the XP volume while you're running Mac OS.)

As someone who can see a lot of good reasons to be able to write to the XP volume (web design cross-platform testing for example), the FAT option sounds good.  But I am a complete noob and I am wondering what are potential downsides? In words of six syllables or less...

#14 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 07 April 2006 - 12:36 PM

View Postalldaveallen, on April 7th 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

I have a question relating to a point in the article that was linked (and I thought I'd ask you guys and not (bleargh) "PC world":

from the article:
As someone who can see a lot of good reasons to be able to write to the XP volume (web design cross-platform testing for example), the FAT option sounds good.  But I am a complete noob and I am wondering what are potential downsides? In words of six syllables or less...

I beleive that NTFS is unix specific, and FAT is Windows specific. FAT is a more common file system than NTFS. You could run into problems when file sharing from OS 9 if you used NTFS.

I could be wrong
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#15 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 07 April 2006 - 01:37 PM

View PostMaestro, on April 7th 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

I beleive that NTFS is unix specific, and FAT is Windows specific. FAT is a more common file system than NTFS. You could run into problems when file sharing from OS 9 if you used NTFS.

:blink:

1. FAT is simple and old. It doesn't handle permissions or >4GB files, and it corrupts easily.
2. NTFS is not quite as old and has permissions, journaling, a more fault-taulerant design, and isn't related to Unix at all. OS9 of course will have 'problems when file sharing' because it can't read NTFS. OSX can't write NTFS. NTFS is the better choice in all ways except for sharing data with OSX.

#16 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 07 April 2006 - 02:20 PM

Actually, this is a question that I've been wondering about for ages:  why can't Mac OS X write to NTFS?  It seems like a stupid problem, but that's only because I don't know what I'm talking about.  I'm sure that we'd be able to write to NTFS if it was a simple solution.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#17 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

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

Posted 07 April 2006 - 03:08 PM

AFAIK the NTFS specification is not available outside Microsoft. Linux developers have reverse-engineered it enough to get reliable read support, but last time I checked, writing that doesn't corrupt the volume is limited to one very specific (and not very common) case.

#18 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 07 April 2006 - 03:55 PM

View PostTesseract, on April 7th 2006, 02:08 PM, said:

writing that doesn't corrupt the volume is limited to one very specific (and not very common) case.

They have very beta support for general writing, IIRC. There's also the 'captive' driver that uses MS' own fs driver to do the work, which requires that you own a copy of Windows.

#19 Lord Brixton

Lord Brixton

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1629 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 07 April 2006 - 06:05 PM

works great, but man o man: install mac os, copy data from your old ibook, software update, install bootcamp, i  n s t a l l   w i n d o w  s      x      p, jeez it takes a long time!

Tower MacPro 2x2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon / 4gb RAM / Radeon X1900 XT 512 / 20" Cinema Display.
MacBook Pro 1.8 gHz Core Duo  / 1gb RAM / Radeon mobility X1600 128 / 15" LCD
PowerBook G4 1x1.67ghz / 1gb RAM / Radeon mobility 9700 128 / 15" LCD

723rd kicks wussy Nar butt!




Posted Image


#20 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 07 April 2006 - 07:24 PM

View PostLord Brixton, on April 7th 2006, 05:05 PM, said:

works great, but man o man: install mac os, copy data from your old ibook, software update, install bootcamp, i  n s t a l l   w i n d o w  s      x      p, jeez it takes a long time!

yah, this whole boot camp thing is much easier than the way Narf and Blanka did it but it is still by no means for the noobs and faint at heart. for example when i was partishoning my HD, it said that my HFS header was damaged so i had to repare it using disk utility. not such a big deal, but for a person who dose not even know what a HFS header is, they would be screwed.
and yes, it dose a really frickin long time.