Curse

koneko · Apr 05, 2006, 06:24 PM // 18:24

Apple Announces Official Support for Installing Windows XP

Important text from the article:

Quote:

Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows. Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

That includes graphics drivers, folks. GRAPHICS DRIVERS. This means games. You know what that means - previous plans to upgrade my PC to an Opty165 are officially on hold. :D

chrislee149 · Apr 05, 2006, 07:03 PM // 19:03

This sounds revolutionary. I'd definately like a Mac, if this works well. Although, don't know how please MS will be. I'd think that the higher sales of Macs over PCs would overrule higher sales of Windows.

Ironic that this comes the day after this.

trevyn · Apr 06, 2006, 08:00 AM // 08:00

Low-end Intel iMac, just installed XP with the Boot Camp thingy, and GW runs like butter, 30-60FPS, full res., everything on High. Life is good.

koneko · Apr 06, 2006, 08:05 AM // 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevyn

Low-end Intel iMac, just installed XP with the Boot Camp thingy, and GW runs like butter, 30-60FPS, full res., everything on High. Life is good.

Screenshots of GW running in windowed mode with System Properties page up plz :D

Are the graphics drivers pretty much the same as normal Catalyst drivers (I'm assuming they are, with the Catalyst Control Center)? Or are they some funky mutilated piece of work that Apple put out? (Reading reports of low 3DMark0* scores)

NinjaKai · Apr 06, 2006, 08:21 AM // 08:21

A Mac using XP. We have truly reached hell. -_-;

Vermilion Okeanos · Apr 06, 2006, 08:47 AM // 08:47

I think it is quite a gamble. Anything is better than for Apple to just sit there and do nothing.

Numa Pompilius · Apr 06, 2006, 09:10 AM // 09:10

Why would anyone want to run XP on a mac?
You get better hardware for cheaper if you buy a straight PC.
Although I suppose if you already have an intel-based Mac it might be useful.

koneko · Apr 06, 2006, 09:25 AM // 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Why would anyone want to run XP on a mac?
You get better hardware for cheaper if you buy a straight PC.
Although I suppose if you already have an intel-based Mac it might be useful.

1. MacBooks look much better than those nasty "portable" bricks that made by Dell and HP.
2. See above.
3. "The OS X Experience" - if you don't understand this, just stop reading.
4. Applications that are "Windows-only"
5. Because we can. Having one computer to fit all my needs instead of having both a PC and Mac and flipping from one to the other = win.

Eugaet · Apr 06, 2006, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevyn

Low-end Intel iMac, just installed XP with the Boot Camp thingy, and GW runs like butter, 30-60FPS, full res., everything on High. Life is good.

This is the best thing I have ever read posted to these forums.

Now I just need to convince my Mac friends to get an Intel Mac. They've been wanting to play GW ever since I started raving about it after E3 for Everyone.

Hell, maybe I'll consider getting a Mac now.

trevyn · Apr 06, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by koneko

Screenshots of GW running in windowed mode with System Properties page up plz

Are the graphics drivers pretty much the same as normal Catalyst drivers (I'm assuming they are, with the Catalyst Control Center)? Or are they some funky mutilated piece of work that Apple put out? (Reading reports of low 3DMark0* scores)

Sure, here you go.

Looks like the normal ATI drivers, but I couldn't find the CCC--not that I really care. This guy seems to have installed the official ATI Catalyst successfully.

trevyn · Apr 06, 2006, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Hey, I think I found the cause of the reports of low 3DMark scores. The X1600 was woefully underclocked, 313/300MHz for a chip that's supposed to be running at 470/470. Easily overclocked it to 440/576, and we should be able to get the core up even more after we have some proper fan drivers.

So, yeah, better FPS now, usually around 45-60+

koneko · Apr 06, 2006, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevyn

Sure, here you go.

Looks like the normal ATI drivers, but I couldn't find the CCC--not that I really care. This guy seems to have installed the official ATI Catalyst successfully.

*drools*

Thanks for the info and link on the CCC, I'll keep that in mind...strange how it's missing.

Serafita Kayin · Apr 06, 2006, 08:37 PM // 20:37

CCC is junk anyway.

I need a better OC tool for my x1900 XTX...

Ghozer · Apr 06, 2006, 11:05 PM // 23:05

why would you over clock a x1900 xtx??? its fast enough as it is..

and trevyn -- how can we be sure that screen shot is on a mac??

Seef II · Apr 07, 2006, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Not many machines will have a Core Duo CPU and X1K graphics at the same time. Or, they could take a picture with a digicam and upload.

Serafita Kayin · Apr 07, 2006, 02:20 AM // 02:20

Oblivion can bring an XTX to its knees.

And I still try to turn everything up.

trevyn · Apr 07, 2006, 10:10 AM // 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghozer

and trevyn -- how can we be sure that screen shot is on a mac??

Eh, there's plenty of reports that games work well on the Intel Macs, no reason why GW should be different.

Ghozer · Apr 07, 2006, 10:34 AM // 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serafita Kayin

Oblivion can bring an XTX to its knees.

And I still try to turn everything up.

my m8 runs a x1900XTX, and has Oblivian alll on ultra high, and has around 58fps all the time, so i dunno whats up with yours

hell I have about 35fps all the time on my x1600pro

Xenrath · Apr 07, 2006, 11:22 AM // 11:22

So anyway back on topic, this would have had far more impact if Apple let their OSX run on PCs instead. Mac hardware is somewhat more expensive than PC hardware so why would anyone want to buy a Mac to run Windows applications, when they can run the exact same apps on a far cheaper PC?

This seems to be targetted towards existing Mac owners more in that sense, or those who absolutely must use Mac specific apps.

Now, if Apple made their operating system available/runnable on ordinary PC hardware... that would have a far bigger impact, but it won't happen because people won't have a reason to buy overly expensive Mac hardware then.

As a side note, what's up with Mac fans being so snobby yeesh

ZennZero · Apr 07, 2006, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Xenrath,

Apple is first and foremost a hardware OEM. OSX is great, but it is just a means to move hardware. iTunes is wonderful, but it is just a way to sell iPods. That is their current business model. Could they do better moving primarily to software-driven sales? Putting OSX and its apps on non-apple hardware would essentially kill their high margin hardware sales and they would be going toe-to-toe against MS and *nix.

It would be a risky move, at best. I am not saying it won't happen, but I don't think it will happen until Steve Jobs leaves.