Shiny and Mat Reflections...And other stuff..
Shiny or matt?
Finally the last point to highlight is the coating of the screens. The MacBook Pro has a matt screen (bundled with the test model) and the MacBook has a shiny screen. On the MacBook it is problem-free unless you’re playing in the dark with a light source behind you. On the iMac, on the other hand, the problem of reflections in dark games comes up quite a bit. So you should avoid placing a light source too close to the iMac. With the MacBook Pro, there were no reflections.
The sound, no comments
For the sound section, there is nothing much to say. The Macs use a HD Audio controller and all have an audio out (to plug in a 5.1 amp for example). The quality is good on the iMac and quite average on the MacBook and MacBook Pro. On the latter, headphones or a 2.1 kit is recommended. Careful, the Mac only offers one out line, the kits which require several Jacks to handle the 5.1 (for example) can’t be used.
In the end, what to say?
In summary, Macs are not gaming machines, but they can be used. You just need to think of using an external keyboard and mouse and try and not sit too close to strong light sources. The question that many have asked is “has virtualisation allowed you to play?” and the answer is a resounding no. Neither Parallel or Parallels or VMware Fusion allow you to play correctly, and CrossOver’s compatibility list is tiny.
Parallels, a low compatibility
With Parallels, the list of compatible games is small. In theory DirectX 8 games should work as well as the OpenGL games, but in practice, it is not always the case. The games based on the Quake engines (1 to 3) work, and we were able to use Quake 4 (for that reason Doom 3 should then also work). A list with a few of the compatible applications is available on the editor’s site. As we previously saw, speed isn’t Parallels’ strong suit, even if it is slightly ahead of VMware. You do have to take into account that it is a booster solution: Parallels is not meant for gaming, but it can do for really old games. We should also point out that Parallels is very practical to test Windows applications and that the loss of office-performances is practically nothing.
VMware Fusion : DirectX 9
VMware Fusion, came out later than Parallels, trumpeting the fact that it supports DirectX 9. To us though this just seems like a marketing ploy. The first point is that there are constraints: you need to use a virtual machine with Windows XP (and not Windows Vista) and shaders support is absent. A good part of DirectX 9 then doesn’t work because of the absence of the latter. During our tests we found that the amount of games usable was low and were often accompanied with graphic bugs (white textures, absent polygons, etc.). On top of this speed is not VMware’s strongest point. In the end, like with Parallels, it is unusable to play as it is but is very practical for office work.
Latest Miscellaneous News
- 09/02 – Google Could be Planning a Retail Store in Dublin
- 08/02 – Anonymous Hacks Syrian President; His Password Was 12345
- 08/02 – Motorola's Motoluxe to Hit UK End of February
- 08/02 – TomTom, UK Insurance Company Team Up for Cheaper Policies
- 08/02 – Microsoft and UK Protection Firm Create Child-safe Browser
The Bottom Line (corrected): Macs = No good for games (maybe battleships and doom II)
Do you mean ultimate? (as far as I'm aware there is no "ultra" version of vista) and was it ultimate 64bit or 32bit?
A very weak and uninformed review. The MacBook and MacBookPro are not designed for gaming, but for media and business use. So why test them? The IMacs that can play games very well, Just search in Youtube.com for "Imac crysis" and watch the videos. Why did they use Vista? everyone knows that it creates a huge performance hit for games, that why Mac Gamers who use boot camp use Windows XP. The bottom of the range MacPro was excluded? why? because it might have shown a result that the authors didn't like? it only costs $2299. Not $3000 and comes with the HD2600 XT card not the 7300 mentioned in the article. I guess the article was written some ago before 10.5.1/2 as both updates have enhanced features that benefit gaming and in bootcamp you can put any Windows graphics card in. I guess that Pierre already had his conclusion and wrote an article to back it up. Very poor composition, certainly not constructive journalism! Why not find someone who knows about Mac's to write an article on getting the best out of gaming on a mac, just pop along to http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=125 there are lots of people there who could tell you differently. Overall a disappointing article for its lack of accurate information and depth.
Pretty bad review....
There is a 256 version of the MacBook Pro, which if you are a gamer would be the one you go for...
You CAN scale the res on all those machines, and even have the apps autoswitch them, so I don't understand your comment that the Mac cannot do resolution scaling so you had to go with full res...
While I agree you should not be buying a Mac if what you want is gaming, this article was just uninformed....
Good points above - a proper review should use the latest machines.
I still found the review very interesting because it directly compares the performance with Parallels and VMWare to OS X native and Windows native. One of the big selling points of Parallels (which I bought) is that it emulates accelerated 3D graphics in Windows. And this review shows that this is just marketing hot air as that 3D acceleration makes the difference between 5 FPS and 1 FPS, 5 times as fast in marketing speak, still completely unusable in the real world.
So, big thanks for making the effort!
PS: I am not a native english speaker myself but the english in this article is pretty hard to understand in places. I am sure you'd find english-speaking volunteers to edit / proof read this...
Face it, the MAC is a far better computer because it has support for a far better operating system. Windows is just BS, as you will see quite easily for yourself if you actually use the computer and don't just play games. Life is short folks, do yourself a favor and give it a try. Be warned though, it's very true, once you go Mac you don't go back.
But some readers jump to conclusions (e.g. "Bottomline, Macs are no good for games"--geez did you read this at all?), and even the writers of this article have many misconceptions--it is obvious you are out of your element a bit. But I applaud your efforts nonetheless, don't get me wrong.
Windows is basically 'owned' now by OS X, OS X has Windows running in a window, or available at the touch of a button. And there are plenty of instances of "It is even faster, generally, than on Windows."
Thanks for pointing out that even WINDOWS runs better on Mac! Which it does. And, you don't have to rely on Windows horrible and almost complete lack of security.
Macs suck
What we wanted was a more direct comparison between hardware and OS. Macs use PC hardware now so the comparison should be much easier. I suspect Tom is being paid, forced or coerced into not showing us this important comparison. Macs suck but I suspect their OS is far less addled than vista.
Are They Any Good For Gaming? The reveiw is flawed in some ways yes, but the definitive answer is that if you want to play the latest and best games, why get a mac?
I had a mac, and I'll never go back...to mac that is. I can buy 3 pc laptops with similar internal hardware for the price of a mac nowadays. Macs are to computers what Starbucks is to coffee. The folks that drink it can come up with all kinds of reasons why they are right to pay 3 times as much for their 'super special' coffee. More power too ya, but seriously, macworld...wake up. Macs just can't compete.
Compete to what Gryphyn, compete to what?