View Full Version : game OS and machine choice

06-02-2002, 10:04 PM
Here's two questions for you guys to maybe liven up this forum.
first - which OS, 9 or X for gaming? obviously only considering games that can play in either.
next - I have the old 'sawtooth' G4 at 500mhz with 384 mb ram, I have two hard drives and was considering putting OS9 on one anad OSX on the other and then restarting the machine in order to play various games in either operating system, is this a good idea or should I just select the OS9 system that is installed on the OSX drive and reboot from it. In other words, is it a problem to have both systems on the same drive? (for running games). Part two of my question is about the video card upgrade options for the AGP G4 machines, what is my best bet? thanks

06-03-2002, 07:25 PM
The only time I go into OS 9 at all now is to play Strike Force or Tac Ops(Unreal Mods). Otherwise, I stick to OS X for everything else. I only play a few games anyways, so I guess I'm not the best judge. I have my hard drive partitioned into 2 drives and switch between the two when I need to. I've heard varying reports about having both OS X and 9 on the same drive. Some say it's no problem, others have said OS X can take over the drive and screw up the OS 9 stuff. Partitions are the easiest way to go, but if you've got 2 physical drives, you might as well move the OS 9 stuff to the other drive. Or give a fresh install of 9 on the empty drive and wipe it off the OS X drive. As far as video cards go, it all depends on how much money you want to spend and how much performance you want to get. I have the OEM GF2mx in my Quicksilver 733 and it's totally acceptable to me in all the games I play. I dont need 150fps to play a game enjoyably. The 40 to 60 I get is quite acceptable to me. If you want good bang for your buck, there are quite a few GF 4mx's and even 2mx's on Ebay. If you have to buy new and want the best, then go for the Radeon 8500. It's pricey (about $280), but until the GF 4Ti comes out, it's the best. But, these are all my opinion and I'm sure others will have different opinions. J

06-03-2002, 09:41 PM
I have several flight sims but so far the one I play the most on my G4-800DP with GeForce3 is X-Plane version 6+ for both OS9 and OSX. Flying a plane like the B747-400 will tax any video card and processor to the limit because of the multitude of working cockpit instrumentation and the eye candy out the window. I run it at 1152x870xMillions full screen with max res and all of the outside eye candy turned on.

It runs well in OS9 with single processor and better in OSX with dual processor. A few days ago I launched that little Apple OSX CPU application that measures how much both processors are working with bar graphs that float on top of the X-Plane window.. I was surprised to see that the game is very processor intensive, each processor about 60-80% simultaneously. On the other hand in X, the GeForce3 is not as fast as in OS9, the drivers are not primetime in X yet. So overall, the sim runs at about the same speed in either OS, greater processor crunching in X, greater video crunching in OS9. My take on it anyway.

My normal boot drive is a single volume Acard HardRAID of two drives with both OS's on the single large volume. I have another drive that is partitioned but both OS's are still on one partition. This method is not what most are doing but it has not failed yet, knock on wood. k

06-04-2002, 03:31 PM
I can't believe how nice Castle Wolfenstein is. OSX handles it great. I had to pull a RAM chip out to get under 1gig, the graphics would NOT RUN with 1.3 gig. Period. Wish I knew why, I hate handling modules any more than I have to.

OSX is the future choice. Any machine that can handle OSX will kick butt in the OS9 apps that we all love. I doubt we see very many OS9 apps in the future, I've been saying for 6 months that 9 is dead and I finally got Steve Jobs to agree http://www.macgurus.com/ubb/tongue.gif

It sure looks like GeForce3 cards are still the champs in performance for games. I'm not sure if the comparisons I've read included the GF4mx cards or not but the plain GF4 and the 8500 don't appear to be as fast.

I have yet to hear anyone prophesy that dual processors would be written for by OSX game developers, I think the fastest single processors are going to work just as well. Rules out a gamer on a budget spending more on a DP over a better graphics card. One thing for sure, we don't see many Mac Gamers who think buying the latest graphics card every four or five months is necessary like those poor PC gamers just HAVE to do to stay on top.

Need to force Damien to spend more time on this Gaming Forum, he's got some great experience to share.


06-04-2002, 04:26 PM
Force me???

Seriously if you can use OS X with the game you want then do it if you have to have 9 then use 9.1 since it seems to be the most stable release

Unreal Tournament has a free OS X update and runs very well for me. Haven't been playing much Unreal though since RTC Wolfenstein came out :-)

As to drives I have 9 & X on the same partition and have no trouble but I can't even remember the last time I booted 9 and I use no classic apps on a regular basis. If you have 2 drives anyway you might as well seperate 9 & X though, why not ...might save a headache later.


Damien's Stuff (http://www.macmeisters.com/Damien/)