Knaust Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Sorry...I didn't see any hints about system requirements....what will they ne? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 previous thread on system requirements found by 'Searching' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Hi, I have some sympathy with Knaust’s request to know more. The previous thread is nine months old, a long time in a games development. For me the real landmark was about a month ago when Steve announced that the editor was finished. This means that knocking out scenarios to test must be hugely easier. Battlefront must soon be reaching the stage when they have more than an informed guess as to which systems work best, which do not quite cut it and so on… Remember for many of their most devoted fans the fact that PCs can run CM well is a core requirement not just a bonus add on. What makes it more complicated is that there is now a plethora of new chips out there. Single core 64 bit, dual core 64 bit, dual core “mobile” low voltage laptop chips and the usual spilt between AMD and Intel. When Battlefront do know more it would be great to spread the word. But I appreciate that they can not do everything at once… including answering all our pleadings for more info . Looking forward to CMSF, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Alte Fritz Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I would second that request as I am looking to upgrade my machine now and want to know what to look at. There is such a plethora of processor speeds, video cards and memory sizes at a huge range of prices that it makes it confusing without trying to match up the requirements to your favourite games. So will you need a 2.5 GHz processor or higher and what sort of video card are we talking about 64, 256, 512? An indication of what is needed would be a big help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I understood that if you computer was new about a year ago you would be "OK". New as in not "bottom of the line" new, just current and average to above average. So my "guess" its ONLY a guess is that any you buy new now will be fine. Of course as always, the more RAM you have and the better video card you have the better off you will be. 64 megs of VRAM my be a decent "guess" at a minimum. This is ALL conjecture on my part but their company history suggests they do not want to make every potential customer go out and buy the latest and greatest hardware JUST to play their most recent game release. But I am JUST guessing and spectulating based on past history and what I have been reading (some time ago, granted) on this forum. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Someday someone's going to come to my house and hurt me for continually comparing CMSF to Drop Team. So with the BIG caviat that one game has nothing to do with the other, here's the Drop Team public Beta MINIMUM requirements. You'll notice it only likes OSX Tiger, apparently. Care to guess how closely this'll match CMSF specs? WINDOWS * Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 * Pentium III 800MHz or better * Catalyst 6.2 or higher drivers for ATI users * Forceware 81.98 or higher for nVidia users * OpenGL 1.5 or better for other video cards MAC * OS X Tiger 10.4.5 or higher * G4 1.2 GHz or higher Note: Intel CPU's not yet supported on OS X LINUX * GLIBC version 2.3.4 or higher * X Windows with working OpenGL acceleration * ALSA audio RECOMMENDED Requirements: P4 or G5 CPU 1 GB RAM nVidia 6600 or Radeon 9800 class video card 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 So I'll have to keep my "old" Power PC PowerBook now? And here was I hoping to reduce the number of machines around the house. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Originally posted by MikeyD: Note: Intel CPU's not yet supported on OS XEr, how's that again? :confused: Do you mean that Intel CPUs running Tiger are not supported by Drop Team? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Non universal games will not run very well, and would take a major performance hit under Rosetta so it would hard/impossible to play them on an Intel Mac. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Interesting topic. For the weekend I borrowed Call of Duty 2 from a friend and played it through on 'easy'. My system is 3.25 years old (Athlon 2400+, 512MB, Ti4200) and ran the game without *any* frame rate problems. I did not fiddle with the advanced FX, of course, but still, it looked more than good to me. Therefore, I do not feel any need for an upgrade at the moment. The "killer application" has not come for me, yet. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Drop Team will be Universal Binary (i.e Intel and PPC-compatible). They need to get UB versions of some third party code they're using first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Its just the current beta (multi-player version) that is currently available that is PPC only then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 As far as Macs and CM2 go, I've got a bad feeling already. I know it's not rational, but it's not necessarily wrong, either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Originally posted by Pzman: Its just the current beta (multi-player version) that is currently available that is PPC only then? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Drop the bad feeling about Macs and CM2. They are dedicated to putting CM2 out for the OSX. It just won't be simultaneous release. Of course it doesn't matter now buy your Intel Mac and with the BOOT CAMP download released by Apple TODAY you can officially Boot into XP, not lose any performance capabilities and play anything you want. http://ct.news.com.com/clicks?c=1954261-73038289&brand=news&ds=5&fs=0 Imagine that! An official Dual-boot Macintosh/Windows... Not a Hack.... Whoodathunk!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Regarding boot camp. I may be wrong but this is a free beta version that expires after so many months. Once that's over you won't be able to boot back to XP. When OS 10.5 Leopard comes out it is supposed to be included in the update, but then you are paying $125 for the update anyways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 In my oppinion Boot Camp on Intel Macs is bad news for the rest of the existing Mac community in the medium term. Why should a developer go to the trouble and expense of porting to Mac OSX when the current systems will run the Windoze version just fine ? Hmm.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aikidorat Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 It may have an impact, but most mac users I know would prefer to buy a native, OSX version of software. There's a reason we use OSX and not windows, and having this ability wont change that. just opens up the possibility of running the original CM on a mac again (I can get rid of my old G3 iBook if it works). Dual booting isnt very effective for working between programs on different platforms - I hardly ever play CM on my iBOok because it's a hassle to boot into OS9 to play it, then boot back into OSX to do work, etc. I imagine it will be similar with this dual boot capability - use it once in a while, but not that often. now, if they can run OSX and windows side by side, and linux, and not have a performance hit or require reboot, well, that would be something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Originally posted by lucero1148: Regarding boot camp. I may be wrong but this is a free beta version that expires after so many months. Once that's over you won't be able to boot back to XP. When OS 10.5 Leopard comes out it is supposed to be included in the update, but then you are paying $125 for the update anyways. will terminate automatically without notice from Apple upon the next commercial release of the Apple Software, or September 30, 2007, whichever occurs first.It's free now, that's all we know. The next version of Boot Camp may have another license agreement. And this is a beta, so there should be newer versions in the future. Boring license agreement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Originally posted by Fly Pusher: Why should a developer go to the trouble and expense of porting to Mac OSX when the current systems will run the Windoze version just fine ? Hmm.... Because 90-95% of Mac users have PPC computers which means that they cannot use Boot camp, thus no Windows without Virtual PC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 This was on Mac Rumors and looks to be more promising than "Boot Camp". Over time though PPC user's will belong to the legacy market as Intel Mac's become the lead platform for the Mac. In 3 or 4 years from now we'll have a better idea as to whether it'll be economic for developer's to continue to port to OSX. ---------- Parallels released their Windows virtualization solution for the Intel Mac today. The product is called Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta and a free fully functional copy is available for download now. Unlike Apple's Boot Camp solution which was released yesterday, Parallels solution allows you to run Windows XP (and other Intel-based operating systems) from within Mac OS X. Rebooting or Dual Booting is not required. This allows users to maintain their daily environment while also being able to use any desired Windows applications. It is only available for the Intel Macs and should provide near-native performance. Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X is NOT simply a "dual-boot" solution; rather, it empowers users the ability to use Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X, enabling users to enjoy the comfort of their Mac OS X desktop while still being able to use critical applications from other OSes. Parallels appears to be taking advantage of the Intel Virtualization Technology which was included in the Intel Yonah processors that are now shipping in the Intel Macs. While in free Beta testing at the moment, the final software package for Linux and Windows is priced from the company at $49.99. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 The new virtualization technology should be great. At the moment I use windows from linux using vmware. It works really great and there is only a small performance hit. The system works by using something like virtual devices, that is the windows system doesn't have access to my NVidia card, but a virtual card instead. This means no 3d acceleration, which means no games. Strategic command works, though. The new virtualization technologies (Intel and AMD have similar technologies) should allow the OS instances to have direct access to the hardware. This means _no_ performance hit. And full 3d acceleration. Only problem is that you will need a lot of memory. The system works by running in 'ring -1' in the cpu, basically meaning that there is very basic kernel running behind the scenes and controlling that the OSes have privacy from the other instances running on the same machine. The OS will run in ring 0, as it does now. It doesn't even know about something running in the ring -1. What this will mean is that in the not too distant future Mac (and Linux) users should be able to run Windows games without booting. Ofcourse the technology has other uses too. One instance where you use mail & web, other where you work with your top secret documents... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon J. Scudworth Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Originally posted by Fly Pusher: Why should a developer go to the trouble and expense of porting to Mac OSX when the current systems will run the Windoze version just fine ?Because even with Boot Camp, a Mac user would still have to buy their own copy of Windows. Developers can't assume that their target Mac audience is all going to do that, just like they can't assume that everyone has Virtual PC. Plus, with Apple's limited marketshare, it's not like developers really need an excuse to drop OS X support. For the most part, the developers that aren't committed to the Mac platform already left years ago. [ April 08, 2006, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: SpaceMonkey ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.