Jump to content

Gta4 on my mac


KrwlngNMieSkin

Recommended Posts

KrwlngNMieSkin

So I have a brand new macbook pro that I purchased for video editing. I was planning on keeping my pc to play games on but the power supply died so I figured I'd install my games on my mac. I used bootcamp and gave windows an 80gb partition. It took a while to actually install gta4 and get it to load but when I finally did I was supposed to find that it will only run on the best minimum settings. Mit to mention it also gave me a warning saying that I was over the limit for my hardware. Any ideas?

Also, please no responses with "just don't buy a mac, pcs are the same or better" because quite frankly mac os runs beautifully and windows runs like a crappy pc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to tell us your full system specifications. Without them, it's pointless to proceed with any kind of troubleshooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, please no responses with "just don't buy a mac, pcs are the same or better" because quite frankly mac os runs beautifully and windows runs like a crappy pc.

You see, this is where all comes together, firstly you don't want anyone to badmouth the omnipotent Mac and then YOU badmouth windows lol

 

Is it hypocrisy or stupidity that took over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrwlngNMieSkin
You need to tell us your full system specifications. Without them, it's pointless to proceed with any kind of troubleshooting.

APPLE MacBook Pro / Intel Core i5 Processor / 15.4" Display / 4GB Memory / 500GB Hard Drive: 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; lithium-polymer battery; DL DVD+/-RW/ CD-RW drive; 500GB hard drive; Bluetooth; built-in webcam; Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard included

And I dedicated 80gb to windows 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrwlngNMieSkin
Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M and Intel® HD graphics

I don't get why there would be a low end graphics card in there if its meant for graphic design and editing, both of which demand high end graphics processing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M and Intel® HD graphics

I don't get why there would be a low end graphics card in there if its meant for graphic design and editing, both of which demand high end graphics processing.

330M is not a high end GPU, hell its probably the low end tier of all mobile GPUs. Be lucky it runs on low.

At least it just werks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrwlngNMieSkin
Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M and Intel® HD graphics

I don't get why there would be a low end graphics card in there if its meant for graphic design and editing, both of which demand high end graphics processing.

330M is not a high end GPU, hell its probably the low end tier of all mobile GPUs. Be lucky it runs on low.

At least it just werks.

I dunno I checked nvidias site and it said it was high end. How am I able to render HD videos in final cut with no loss in quality then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M and Intel® HD graphics

I don't get why there would be a low end graphics card in there if its meant for graphic design and editing, both of which demand high end graphics processing.

330M is not a high end GPU, hell its probably the low end tier of all mobile GPUs. Be lucky it runs on low.

At least it just werks.

I dunno I checked nvidias site and it said it was high end. How am I able to render HD videos in final cut with no loss in quality then?

Go here. Link See the vantage performance score for your GPU? yeah, the max ever recorded for it is 2244, while a 5870 for example, non M version gets about 18000+.

Now, "How am I able to render HD videos in final cut with no loss in quality then" 1080 video does not require a powerful GPU to be rendered at 25FPS.

Its low end, deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well I have to play the game on "crappy" xp for 10-15 more fps than better-running win7 and not to run out of ram(only 3GB at present).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrwlngNMieSkin
Apple Mac book uses low-end graphics so don't expect it to play at high settings. Forgot what they used, but I won't be surprised if it's a GeForce 9400 (older models).

What graphic do you have?

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M and Intel® HD graphics

I don't get why there would be a low end graphics card in there if its meant for graphic design and editing, both of which demand high end graphics processing.

330M is not a high end GPU, hell its probably the low end tier of all mobile GPUs. Be lucky it runs on low.

At least it just werks.

I dunno I checked nvidias site and it said it was high end. How am I able to render HD videos in final cut with no loss in quality then?

Go here. Link See the vantage performance score for your GPU? yeah, the max ever recorded for it is 2244, while a 5870 for example, non M version gets about 18000+.

Now, "How am I able to render HD videos in final cut with no loss in quality then" 1080 video does not require a powerful GPU to be rendered at 25FPS.

Its low end, deal with it.

No need to be rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Also, please no responses with "just don't buy a mac, pcs are the same or better" because quite frankly mac os runs beautifully and windows runs like a crappy pc. "

 

Hence this thread right ?

 

Macintosh is an overpriced piece of crap. It's that simple. You don't even need them to run OSX, OSX runs pretty solid on pc hardware. Next time don't fall for the Jobs temptation, and buy a proper pc, then google OSX86 and run OSX at blasting speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Also, please no responses with "just don't buy a mac, pcs are the same or better" because quite frankly mac os runs beautifully and windows runs like a crappy pc. "

 

Hence this thread right ?

 

Macintosh is an overpriced piece of crap. It's that simple. You don't even need them to run OSX, OSX runs pretty solid on pc hardware. Next time don't fall for the Jobs temptation, and buy a proper pc, then google OSX86 and run OSX at blasting speed.

You simply don't understand why macs are bough. Macs are for people who don't know how to handle a computer in the first place. There is nothing wrong with them aside fro the fact that they always have outdated hardware and that hardware is overpriced as much as 3 times.

 

Its not it being a piece of crap, some people want to feel special among a group, that they can have final cut pro which was useful sometime back but adobe essentials and other tools i forgot the name make it obsolete now.

Its about bragging rights. People assume they have spent 2K on their laptop and that they have the most advanced hardware, hence thread like this shows up due to their inability to do proper research.

 

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

Edited by JigglyAss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

Well condensed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

To be fair, if he is running Windows through Bootcamp, he isn't running a virtual machine. The only thing emulated in that case is the Bios. But the rest of what you said, yeah.

 

OSX is just Unix with a fancy skin. Running an optimized *nix on off the shelf low-end hardware will perform just as well, if not better than OSX on its overpriced low-end PC hardware. And OSX86 proves this, as it is an OSX shell on the x86 port of Darwin (the Unix that Apple uses on the Mac).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

To be fair, if he is running Windows through Bootcamp, he isn't running a virtual machine. The only thing emulated in that case is the Bios. But the rest of what you said, yeah.

 

OSX is just Unix with a fancy skin. Running an optimized *nix on off the shelf low-end hardware will perform just as well, if not better than OSX on its overpriced low-end PC hardware. And OSX86 proves this, as it is an OSX shell on the x86 port of Darwin (the Unix that Apple uses on the Mac).

Bootcamp is another fancy name for virtual machine, they're both the same in almost every context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

To be fair, if he is running Windows through Bootcamp, he isn't running a virtual machine. The only thing emulated in that case is the Bios. But the rest of what you said, yeah.

 

OSX is just Unix with a fancy skin. Running an optimized *nix on off the shelf low-end hardware will perform just as well, if not better than OSX on its overpriced low-end PC hardware. And OSX86 proves this, as it is an OSX shell on the x86 port of Darwin (the Unix that Apple uses on the Mac).

Bootcamp is another fancy name for virtual machine, they're both the same in almost every context.

Incorrect. Bootcamp runs windows directly on the system's hardware. It is a boot loader for Windows to run on the Mac. (Same thing as dual booting a PC.) A virtual machine emulates everything except the CPU. That is where you loose performance.

 

The whole reason for bootcamp at all is that the Mac uses EFI instead of a BIOS. Bootcamp provides a BIOS emulator and a boot manager for the Mac. All versions of Windows have to go through Bootcamp on the Mac because Windows only supports BIOS or UEFI booting.

 

Yes you can launch that partition in VMWare or Parallels, but you end up loosing that native performance when you do.

 

I think the confusion comes from Windows 7's XP mode, which IS just a VirtualPC running XP, or OSX's Classic Mode on PPC, which IS just a System 9 emulator. Could also be Rosetta that on the fly allows PowerPC code to run on Intel hardware, which is more like WINE for Windows programs on Linux. (IE: No emulation, just on the fly code translation.)

Edited by jnzooger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

To be fair, if he is running Windows through Bootcamp, he isn't running a virtual machine. The only thing emulated in that case is the Bios. But the rest of what you said, yeah.

 

OSX is just Unix with a fancy skin. Running an optimized *nix on off the shelf low-end hardware will perform just as well, if not better than OSX on its overpriced low-end PC hardware. And OSX86 proves this, as it is an OSX shell on the x86 port of Darwin (the Unix that Apple uses on the Mac).

Bootcamp is another fancy name for virtual machine, they're both the same in almost every context.

No that is not correct.

 

Bootcamp is not a virtualized envirorment, if it was, he wouldn''t be running GTAIV at all. Windows does have native access to the underlying hardware.

 

In fact, I do believe Win7 also support EFI bios, so technically you don't even need bootcamp, but you'll probably void Apple''s famous EULA, which anyone that run Leopard or Snow Leopard on a PC does smile.gif

 

Did I mention that OSX is crap when it comes to IPv6 support ?

 

It is a bloody shame, that the DNS implementation on SL cannot properly handle a hostname that has both an A and a AAAA record !

 

And you pay a premium price for that....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are running the most unoptimized game through virtual machine, which runs windows on top of OSX, and you complain that you can play it only on low with a 2 generations old low end GPU? If i were you, id shut up and enjoy what i get thus far.

To be fair, if he is running Windows through Bootcamp, he isn't running a virtual machine. The only thing emulated in that case is the Bios. But the rest of what you said, yeah.

 

OSX is just Unix with a fancy skin. Running an optimized *nix on off the shelf low-end hardware will perform just as well, if not better than OSX on its overpriced low-end PC hardware. And OSX86 proves this, as it is an OSX shell on the x86 port of Darwin (the Unix that Apple uses on the Mac).

Bootcamp is another fancy name for virtual machine, they're both the same in almost every context.

No that is not correct.

 

Bootcamp is not a virtualized envirorment, if it was, he wouldn''t be running GTAIV at all. Windows does have native access to the underlying hardware.

 

In fact, I do believe Win7 also support EFI bios, so technically you don't even need bootcamp, but you'll probably void Apple''s famous EULA, which anyone that run Leopard or Snow Leopard on a PC does smile.gif

 

Did I mention that OSX is crap when it comes to IPv6 support ?

 

It is a bloody shame, that the DNS implementation on SL cannot properly handle a hostname that has both an A and a AAAA record !

 

And you pay a premium price for that....

Hey man, but they get aluminum. They can drop their computers and sh*t and nothing would happen to them!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple hardware is nothing more than the hardware in regular a PC except for this hardware chip that's required in order to install OSX.

This is why when you try to install OSX into a PC, it won't work as that "chip" is not found. There was a company

that sells this Apple bios in which you plug into your motherboard USB header and then you can install OSX just like

if you we're installing it on a Mac instead your installing it on a PC.

While I don't have any grudges with Apple stuffs, it's their follower which gets on my nerves with their "I'm superior" type of attitude.

If they would look closely rather than having their head stuck up asses they can clearly see the product they buy is nothing more than any regular hardware

with a piece of fruit on it and it's that "fruit" logo which jacks up the price. If they believe in ol Steveie so much they might as well start wearing like him with

its tight blue jeans and black turtle neck sweat shirt. And don't forgot to visit StarBucks and drink only black coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple hardware is nothing more than the hardware in regular a PC except for this hardware chip that's required in order to install OSX.

This is why when you try to install OSX into a PC, it won't work as that "chip" is not found. There was a company

that sells this Apple bios in which you plug into your motherboard USB header and then you can install OSX just like

if you we're installing it on a Mac instead your installing it on a PC.

While I don't have any grudges with Apple stuffs, it's their follower which gets on my nerves with their "I'm superior" type of attitude.

If they would look closely rather than having their head stuck up asses they can clearly see the product they buy is nothing more than any regular hardware

with a piece of fruit on it and it's that "fruit" logo which jacks up the price. If they believe in ol Steveie so much they might as well start wearing like him with

its tight blue jeans and black turtle neck sweat shirt. And don't forgot to visit StarBucks and drink only black coffee.

Hey man, he can run final cut pro.

Adobe has all the tools that surpass final cut pro for PC, but he can run final cut pro man, and you cant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple hardware is nothing more than the hardware in regular a PC except for this hardware chip that's required in order to install OSX.

This is why when you try to install OSX into a PC, it won't work as that "chip" is not found. There was a company

that sells this Apple bios in which you plug into your motherboard USB header and then you can install OSX just like

if you we're installing it on a Mac instead your installing it on a PC.

While I don't have any grudges with Apple stuffs, it's their follower which gets on my nerves with their "I'm superior" type of attitude.

If they would look closely rather than having their head stuck up asses they can clearly see the product they buy is nothing more than any regular hardware

with a piece of fruit on it and it's that "fruit" logo which jacks up the price. If they believe in ol Steveie so much they might as well start wearing like him with

its tight blue jeans and black turtle neck sweat shirt. And don't forgot to visit StarBucks and drink only black coffee.

Hey man, he can run final cut pro.

Adobe has all the tools that surpass final cut pro for PC, but he can run final cut pro man, and you cant!

Your point is?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple hardware is nothing more than the hardware in regular a PC except for this hardware chip that's required in order to install OSX.

This is why when you try to install OSX into a PC, it won't work as that "chip" is not found. There was a company

that sells this Apple bios in which you plug into your motherboard USB header and then you can install OSX just like

if you we're installing it on a Mac instead your installing it on a PC.

While I don't have any grudges with Apple stuffs, it's their follower which gets on my nerves with their "I'm superior" type of attitude.

If they would look closely rather than having their head stuck up asses they can clearly see the product they buy is nothing more than any regular hardware

with a piece of fruit on it and it's that "fruit" logo which jacks up the price. If they believe in ol Steveie so much they might as well start wearing like him with

its tight blue jeans and black turtle neck sweat shirt. And don't forgot to visit StarBucks and drink only black coffee.

Hey man, he can run final cut pro.

Adobe has all the tools that surpass final cut pro for PC, but he can run final cut pro man, and you cant!

Ironically, I can run FCP on my rig. But then again, I run OSX86 in another partition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come most apple topics turn out the same? How come most people can't perceive the quality of apple products? What am I doing here... ooh, the colors

 

/bad apple trip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come most apple topics turn out the same? How come most people can't perceive the quality of apple products? What am I doing here... ooh, the colors

 

/bad apple trip

Sarcasm? I hope so...

 

If not, there is a reason most apple threads turn out the same because apple's are nothing but overpriced, underpowered PCs running Unix with a pretty skin. And this isn't an exaggeration, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come most apple topics turn out the same? How come most people can't perceive the quality of apple products? What am I doing here... ooh, the colors

 

/bad apple trip

It is mainly because some Apple fanboys seem to think OSX is superior to Windows (or Linux), when in fact it is quite the opposite. Not to mention the sub par hardware that is offered at inflated prices.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do like OSX, and I run it on my pc (not native, as jnzooger) but in Vmware, which has one disadvantage and many advantages (disadvantage is no QE/CI, advantage is that it runs pure vanilla, no modified extensions needed). But compared to Windows Vista or 7, or even to some Linux distributions, it lacks features/software/ability to run different hardware.

 

It seems to be the choice of platfrom for the less savy pc crowd to be honest.

 

As to the price of the actual hardware, that's just a bloody shame, try buying a Mac pro, and find out that the hardware is worth about a 1000 euro less, then what you paid for it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I do like OSX, and I run it on my pc (not native, as jnzooger) but in Vmware, which has one disadvantage and many advantages (disadvantage is no QE/CI, advantage is that it runs pure vanilla, no modified extensions needed). But compared to Windows Vista or 7, or even to some Linux distributions, it lacks features/software/ability to run different hardware.

I actually do run "vanilla" on my hardware. And I ran it in VMWare for a while with QE. It just needed a modded driver I believe. You may want to look into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I do like OSX, and I run it on my pc (not native, as jnzooger) but in Vmware, which has one disadvantage and many advantages (disadvantage is no QE/CI, advantage is that it runs pure vanilla, no modified extensions needed). But compared to Windows Vista or 7, or even to some Linux distributions, it lacks features/software/ability to run different hardware.

I actually do run "vanilla" on my hardware. And I ran it in VMWare for a while with QE. It just needed a modded driver I believe. You may want to look into that.

There is a driver that mimics QE but it is still experimental, and doesn't work for all QE enabled apps.

 

I cannot run SL natively on my hardware, simply because I never managed to get my GTX260 1.8GB play nicely with SL, and since I prefer to running it virtualised rather then native, I went that route.

 

My old PC however ran quite good natively, except for the fact that I needed a modified kernel on that machine, which meant I had to restore the kernel after each major OS update.

 

As I said, I actually prefer to virtualise it, it doesn't require me to go out of Windows 7, and miss out on the features it has to offer smile.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I do like OSX, and I run it on my pc (not native, as jnzooger) but in Vmware, which has one disadvantage and many advantages (disadvantage is no QE/CI, advantage is that it runs pure vanilla, no modified extensions needed). But compared to Windows Vista or 7, or even to some Linux distributions, it lacks features/software/ability to run different hardware.

I actually do run "vanilla" on my hardware. And I ran it in VMWare for a while with QE. It just needed a modded driver I believe. You may want to look into that.

There is a driver that mimics QE but it is still experimental, and doesn't work for all QE enabled apps.

 

I cannot run SL natively on my hardware, simply because I never managed to get my GTX260 1.8GB play nicely with SL, and since I prefer to running it virtualised rather then native, I went that route.

 

My old PC however ran quite good natively, except for the fact that I needed a modified kernel on that machine, which meant I had to restore the kernel after each major OS update.

 

As I said, I actually prefer to virtualise it, it doesn't require me to go out of Windows 7, and miss out on the features it has to offer smile.gif

Yeah, I understand completely.

 

Can't comment on SL cause I'm still using 10.5.8 with my GTX 260. Never saw a reason to upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.