Mac OS still a barren wasteland for (war)gaming?

[Canuck_jp]

I'm seriously thinking of making the switch to a Mac notebook the next time I get a new computer (Air or Pro). One thing I'm a little concerned about is the lack of games that will run on the system. I know the big ones are there but I'm more concerned about games like Panzer Corps or Commander:The Great War. It seems that none of these games run on a Mac. I know there's bootcamp but wouldnt that require purchasing a copy of Windows? Does Parallels not require Windows? I'd be concerned that emulated games (even Matrix games) wouldn't run very well.

[zakblood]

windows with apples never match, better to stick with a basket of fruit than just take a snack with only an apples, in other words, mac's and osx is good for many things, gaming isn't one of them, look at the steam latest hardware & software list, or look at google and see how many windows versions of xp then add windows 7 then 8 and 8.1 sold in total, then do the same with all other o/s rolled into one, then you see why it makes sense to roll out your new game for windows and less for the other ones as market share just isn't there in enough numbers to make it viable...

then again i could be wrong, i normally am so am used to it by now being told differently[:'(]

i made money doing pc work, antivirus corp work, server end and in all my 20+ years never did a mac once, or android for that matter, times are changing but not that quick i'd alter from a pc as yet...

[DuckofTindalos]

I've never heard anybody complain that they couldn't get a Matrix game to run in Parallels (and yes, you must have a Windows installer for it, of course). I'd go for it, if it were me.

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: Canuck35

I'm seriously thinking of making the switch to a Mac notebook the next time I get a new computer (Air or Pro). One thing I'm a little concerned about is the lack of games that will run on the system. I know the big ones are there but I'm more concerned about games like Panzer Corps or Commander:The Great War. It seems that none of these games run on a Mac. I know there's bootcamp but wouldnt that require purchasing a copy of Windows? Does Parallels not require Windows? I'd be concerned that emulated games (even Matrix games) wouldn't run very well.

I'd say it depends.

As a web developer, I rely on an UNIX-based OS and always maintained two machines in the past. One with Linux for work purpose and another one with Windows for gaming. Two years ago a new pc was due once again and I purchased a MacBook Pro this time (since I couldn't stand the atrocious tile UI of Win 8). I never felt the urge of coming back to Windows. From my work perspective the Mac is by far superior and with it's dedicated graphics board also fast enough to run even 3D games, considering they offer a native client. Instead of two machines I only need one anymore.

Unfortunately, there are not many native clients available. Paradox is porting their games to OS X for some time and many of the new (and more interesting) Kickstarter-founded RPG's get developed with Unity (i.e. Wasteland 2 runs nice on my Mac). For Matrix titles I didn't encounter one yet which doesn't work in Parallels. Just keep in mind that Parallels is more expensive as the additional Win 7 license you need. However, Parallels is not feasible for Windows games needing 3D power. Arma II is almost unplayable slow here.

If you can not relinquish those kind of games which require high graphics power and get merely developed for Win/XBOX/Playstation, stick with Windows. Otherwise, buy a Mac. You won't regret it. Tow more things to consider: OS X handles memory different, the machine should have at least 8 GB, and regarding value for money don't grab the cheapest MacBook Pro as it offers onboard graphics only. So either a MacBook Air or a Macbook Pro with additional Nvidia board.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Otherwise, buy a Mac. You won't regret it.

There are many, many reasons why I won't buy a Mac (for my own use), too many to list here.

But here's a biggy: Unlike Microsoft, Apple drops support of earlier OS versions way too early.

We purchased (for my son, he needed a Mac for his artistic specialty) a very expensive Mac Pro early in 2008, a system that became exorbitantly expensive after the requisite RAM & disk upgrades. The latest Mac OS X version we could upgrade the system to was Snow Leopard -- which Apple ceased supporting in 2013:

Apple shipped the final security update for Snow Leopard in September 2013. Since then, it's declined to patch Safari 5, the browser bundled with the OS, four different times, and ignored the operating system twice when it's patched the newer Lion and Mountain Lion.

So here we have a hideously expensive (oops, one more reason not to buy a Mac) Apple computer "just" six years old that grows increasingly vulnerable to security threat and hacker compromise. [:@]

Compare that to Microsoft's 12+ years supporting Windows XP (Microsoft provided limited but essential emergency security patches for XP even beyond its formal promised end-of-life).

(As the security threat to the Mac Pro grows, we anticipate using the system as a virtualization host to run Linux and, yes, Windows 7.)

Apple -- "The Computer for the Rest of Us" ... rich folks (who can afford to buy an overpriced new system every couple of years). [8|]

[Lützow]

Well, each to their own. I could also ask if you really need a machine gun for hunting. The Mac Pro is rather targeting medium sized and larger companies than small offices or private users. However, we're talking about MacBooks with a range from 1k-3k and I don't expect support for 10+ years here. For my programming it's the perfect machine and every time I've to work with Windows it feels like trading a nice car for a cheap one.

On a side note: Prices for Ultrabooks with similar specs are in same ballpark.

[berto]

Not to imply I'm a Windows fanboy; I'm not. Linux is my ticket.

Stratospheric Mac prices have fallen back to earth in recent years. I give them grudging credit for that.

[Noypi53]

ORIGINAL: Canuck35

I'm seriously thinking of making the switch to a Mac notebook the next time I get a new computer (Air or Pro). One thing I'm a little concerned about is the lack of games that will run on the system. I know the big ones are there but I'm more concerned about games like Panzer Corps or Commander:The Great War. It seems that none of these games run on a Mac. I know there's bootcamp but wouldnt that require purchasing a copy of Windows? Does Parallels not require Windows? I'd be concerned that emulated games (even Matrix games) wouldn't run very well.

I'm assuming that you're switching to Mac for reasons other than gaming. As others have mentioned, yes you do need a Windows license to run it in Parallels. If you have that Windows license, you might as well consider going the Boot Camp route, as well.

Some of the Matrix games can also run in Wineskin which does not require you to have Windows. Look at the "Mac OSX installation" (or something like that) in the Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm thread in this forum.

[Lützow]

Windows on a Mac is always a trade-off.

A dual-boot installation with Bootcamp demands you to dedicate space for a discrete partition. This wouldn't be an issue for machines with large drives, but MacBooks usually come with small SSD's of 128/256/512 GB and that makes one think twice if it's really worth to sacrifice precious flash memory just for running games in a native Windows environment.

Parallels is a virtual machine with a painless installation. It lets you easily increase, decrease or delete Win partitions and can even swap files between both OS. Downside here is the 3D rendering. A Parallels/Win7 performance test achieves max values in every section on my machine, but for graphics it's just middle ground.

[wings7]

If you can afford it, I would get a top notch PC laptop (or desktop) and a Mac Notebook (Pro)...that's a big if of course!

Patrick

[Jamm]

Use a Mac for graphics work and keep my old Windows rig for gaming.

[Canuck_jp]

Thanks for the advice. I had hoped that parallels would circumvent the need to acquire a new copy of Windows and the hard drive space required. What exactly is the advantage over boot camp then. I'm actually not a big fan of Apple but I guess the hype must be filtering through as I thought it would be nice to have a computer that "just works"™. Actually the main thing that has me thinking about it is the portability. I don't have a computer desk for my current laptop which is going on 5 years old now and the idea of having that heavy hot thing on my lap just to play a few games makes me not even want to bother turning it on.

[Lützow]

Advantage of Parallels is that it works like a common program. You can subsequently add, change or remove partitions without messing around with with a dual boot installation.

[Bill Durrant]

I changed to Mac a couple of years ago for work reasons. I run WitPAE on parallels with no problems using Win7 on a MacBook Pro 2012. Parallels lets you swipe between operating systems whereas with Bootcamp you have to reboot every time you want to switch to Windows.

[Canuck_jp]

Ahh I see. I guess there's certainly something to be said for that.

[VPaulus]

Not all Matrix games seems to run with Parallels.
Bootcamp has less compatibility issues.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Canuck35

Thanks for the advice. I had hoped that parallels would circumvent the need to acquire a new copy of Windows and the hard drive space required. What exactly is the advantage over boot camp then. I'm actually not a big fan of Apple but I guess the hype must be filtering through as I thought it would be nice to have a computer that "just works"™. Actually the main thing that has me thinking about it is the portability. I don't have a computer desk for my current laptop which is going on 5 years old now and the idea of having that heavy hot thing on my lap just to play a few games makes me not even want to bother turning it on.

Maybe it's time for a desk for your computer. It's nice to have a area to pull up a chair, fire up the PC and relax and enjoy gaming and the online world! [:)]

Patrick

[Anthropoid]

Get a Linux machine. It is my understanding you can run both OS on such a machine; thus all the benefits of most. Only downside I imagine is less "out of box" consumer service providers and perhaps somewhat greater need for more power in the system.

[zakblood]

and a better understanding that most have for the complexities for a non standard GUI layout that Linux offers, far too much txt in (Shell command line) pain in the neck to setup some of your hardware, emulation needed to run a lot of windows based products and most games

i could go on, but i won't, i'm not against it, but for most it's just not easy to setup and use so will always be on the fringe used by those more techie minded who like to fiddle and tinker more.

im not saying its bad either as i think its really good, with some great front ends it looks really nice nowadays, but still too hard for most to use if there used to windows most of their working life etc..

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Get a Linux machine. It is my understanding you can run both OS on such a machine; thus all the benefits of most. Only downside I imagine is less "out of box" consumer service providers and perhaps somewhat greater need for more power in the system.