WoW on an Intel-iMac, first progress report

[Civrock]

ArsTechnica posted an article in which WoW has been tested on one of the new iMacs. It took place on the running Macworld 2006.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/12/2478

The game ran with an average of 60 FPS (with high settings), with peaks up to 100 FPS and never lower than 40 FPS. Fantastic.

And other games most likely, too... just WOAH! Finally PC-like FPS on a Mac!

[BFG]

great news!! Now all we need is  1. bigger market share 2. more mac game ports 3. to stop gamers from just loading up windaz to play games and thus kill mac porting houses

[Civrock]

You can forget about Dual-Booting for quite a while, if ever at all possible and good enough to run PC games with acceptable performance... I don't really think that's a problem anymore. This great performance boost for Mac games on Intel-Macs will discourage many people who'd consider Dual-Booting also, I'm pretty sure.

[BFG]

You can forget about Dual-Booting for quite a while, if ever at all possible and good enough to run PC games with acceptable performance... I don't really think that's a problem anymore. This great performance boost for Mac games on Intel-Macs will discourage many people who'd consider Dual-Booting also, I'm pretty sure.

Im not to sure about that - depends whether we're looking at BIOS or EFI. It may be a case that as soon as people have these new comps on their desks they can repartition the HD and boot windows (no fast user switching but still...)

Yes this is a great performance boost - but if there arn't the games for people to be albe to take advantage of the great performance on, then we arn't any better off.

[Civrock]

There are many games which get Universal Binary updates within this month... and all recently announced games will be Universal Binary from the start. There are, respectively will be very soon, plenty of games for people to play on their Intel-Macs.

The Intel-Macs use a very advanced version of EFI, not BIOS... making the installatio of Windows pretty much impossible, not to mention getting a good performance if any hacks come out in the future at all.

[BFG]

yeah just read this http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060112-5962.html

Made me very happy

[BFG]

somenthing a lot of people don't seem to realise btw is that Once Microsoft ships a version of Virtual PC for Mac OS X compiled as a Universal Binary, Mac users will be able to run Windows at near-native speeds on their machines.. and there is the possiblility of GPU hardware acceleration there as well.

[BTs_Mysterio]

That's something people don't talk about but think about BFG... Paying MS two times to use windows is scary.

[Ethion]

somenthing a lot of people don't seem to realise btw is that Once Microsoft ships a version of Virtual PC for Mac OS X compiled as a Universal Binary, Mac users will be able to run Windows at near-native speeds on their machines.. and there is the possiblility of GPU hardware acceleration there as well.

it still needs to convert alot of code to make it work, even if it made it fast. it won't be that faster as a 1 ghz.

[BTs_Mysterio]

Wow, thats truly uninformed troll-like post Ethion... what has got into your postings recently? [I guess I just got back to *DAMN but this is an odd attitude]. There wouldn't be CODE CONVERTING it's called running the OS on the same chip in a controlled environment. the only slow down would be EFI conversion which is looking more capable by the day. Even a firmware update/hack could make that possible with it's Bridge technology.

Lismore Systems will likely make GuestPC x86 before MS gets off their asses.

[BFG]

um to kinda double up what myst said... Ethion basically your way of the spot im afraid mate - the whole advantage is that VPC will actually run at almost native speeds - it dosn't have to deal with moving between X86 and PPC - 90% of the work VPC has to do on your G4/G5 now it won't have to do on a intel mac.

So if Microsoft provided a version of VPC which had hardware support for GPU etc, your looking at a very good alternative to actually partitioning your mac and having windows running on its own partition.   

[BFG]

Oh - and if that worked you could also have fast user switching (Run VPC full window under one OSX User)

faster, much much much faster than VPC as you know it today.

[Ethion]

What.. you still need to REWRITE most of the application to make it work better on an intel computer.
The app itself has been programmed to work and emulate Windows under PPC.

They could start over from the beginning and make it x86 only for what I care.
You still need to rewrite alot of the architecture and what not.

[BTs_Mysterio]

Wow, was that all you were trying to say? I think BFG all but said that VPC would need a new version with this line:

Once Microsoft ships a version of Virtual PC for Mac OS X compiled as a Universal Binary...

But you know that wouldn't stop you from dragging this on. In either case there is already a windows version [on Windows OS version] so people can use more than one version of windows at a time to do work. They would likely just use the framework for x86 in that the windows version. All they would have to do is write the small application to make use of the x86 processor framework they have had for along time.

[Civrock]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1470

[Macuber]

I wouldnt be so fast to plunk down $$ for a intelmac right now. Ethion has some value in what he's talking about..so don't kill the messenger. Now if BFG was my customer because of his Video/Audio projects this is what I would tell him:

BFG if you already own Final Cut Studio 1.0, Aperture, or Logic Pro 7.1, these applications are not supported to run on Intel-based Macs with Rosetta, but a Universal version will be available for $49. Logic Express will be $29. You'll be able get this after February 1, 2006. Apple expects Universal application availability by March 31, 2006.
100 PERCENT NATIVE Mac OS X version 10.4.4 runs natively on both PowerPC-and Intel-based Mac systems. This means Mail, Safari, Spotlight, Dashboard,Automator, iChat AV, and all Mac OS X features will take immediate advantage of the two Intel processor cores in the MacBook Pro and iMac. Don't expect Photoshop and your other graphics programs either to run. Also I don't think BFG or my customers will rush out and purchase the update. Their workflow cannot and will not be interupted by unexpected downtime.

I'm sure my good customer BFG would appreciate hearing that instead of hearing about 100FPS on a intel iMac running nothing but WoW. Let the dust settle from MacWorld..let the "I have to have it 1st" group be the beta testers. Just covering your back BFG.

**Footnote..just FYI..the MacBook Pro IS NOT a replacement for the PowerBook!

[BTs_GhostSniper]

**Footnote..just FYI..the MacBook Pro IS NOT a replacement for the PowerBook!

Yeah, no shit...

No FW800=No MacBook Pro Amatuer purchase from GhostSniper anytime in the near future Apple![/size]

[BTs_Mysterio]

Firewire will disappear from the market in a few years anyway. It's only survival will be through PC/Express cards.

[BFG]

Myst why is firewire going to die? almost every consumer/pro sumer video camera out there uses firewire (or as sony like to call it 'ilink') Tape decks, mini boxes, Hardrives, raid enclosures, Videio IO boxes - firewire is everywhere, and i see no sense in killing of a sucessful technology that people need use and rely on.

if i was in the market for a new laptop i wouldn't look at the new Intel books - predominantly for the reason macuber has pointed out in that no pro apps are ready to run natively. Apple are going to be quicker than others - they already use Xcode and they have the biggest imputus to get their pro apps ready asap - but i don't see applications from Adobe like Photoshop or illustrator being ready for some time.. so until then no intel anything for me!!
As for firewire, i will eat my hat if apple try and kill off firewire in the next year or two - and if the Towers come out without it... well the first thing i will buy even before more ram, will be PCIe FW4 and 800.

The only reason i think we arn't seeing FW is because the 'standard' motherboards that apple have had to use because their custom intel ones arn't ready, don't have FW... im sure we'll see FW as soon as the new MB is done.


Ethion i totally agree that VPC has to be re-written, i think that goes without saying because simply enough what VPC7 does today is completely different from what VPC8 will have to do. the whole work that the application will have to do will be completely different. I wouldn't be surprised if VPC8 is a IntelMac app only - because of the nature of the programme i think trying to build a universal version would be to hard but i don't know enough about that - but it has the theoretical capability to run fast, very fasts - not native or vertualization speeds, but certainly near native.

[Ethion]

FW is getting old, and USB2 does the job at the moment. FW800 drains alot of energy. So it wouldn't be very efficiant on a macbook. And from what i've seen FW800 hasn't really been a hit on the market. From what i've seen.

And I guess it's easier to put out USB2 then FW, because theres more computers with USB2 then FW.
And USB2 is "backwards-compatible" with USB1.