Do you use Wine/Cider/similar to play Windows games?

[imacken]

Yes. And I would not recommend gaming in it unless were talking pre 2005 games. In fact, I wouldn't recommend gaming in any virtual machine if you want the best results.

This debate goes on and on. You are right about using Bootcamp for the BEST results, but you are totally wrong about the 2005 thing.
Everything depends on your spec, GPU, RAM, etc.
Personally I have had excellent experience of PD9 with games. Examples off the top of my head are Tomb Raider (2013), Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dishonoured, and F1 2013. All of them @ 2560x1440.
Yes, if you are obsessed with getting the highest possible fps, Bootcamp is the way, but, for me at least, I get good gaming experience on PD9 for games I can't get on OS X.
Using BC and leaving OS X is an absolute last resort for me.

 

[roadbloc]

Look I am no windows expert and was totaly unaware of that setting, also I am not suffering anything gaming under a virtual machine.

Try running a new game on full settings. Or any game released this decade on full. I highly doubt it'd be possible. Under a virtual machine, the virtualized OS only gets a portion of the resources the host OS has allocated, thus the game has dramatically less resources to use, especially the GPU. But if it works fine for you and the games you play, then whatever. I just feel you'd be better served gaming under bootcamp.

So you purchased Parallels 9 installed it then decided it was not for you. Is that correct ? because that is a whole load of cash to waste

Who says I bought it?

 

[Washac]

This debate goes on and on. You are right about using Bootcamp for the BEST results, but you are totally wrong about the 2005 thing.
Everything depends on your spec, GPU, RAM, etc.
Personally I have had excellent experience of PD9 with games. Examples off the top of my head are Tomb Raider (2013), Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dishonoured, and F1 2013. All of them @ 2560x1440.
Yes, if you are obsessed with getting the highest possible fps, Bootcamp is the way, but, for me at least, I get good gaming experience on PD9 for games I can't get on OS X.
Using BC and leaving OS X is an absolute last resort for me.

Thanks for posting this, you put it much better than I could have done.

----------

Try running a new game on full settings. Or any game released this decade on full. I highly doubt it'd be possible. Under a virtual machine, the virtualized OS only gets a portion of the resources the host OS has allocated, thus the game has dramatically less resources to use, especially the GPU. But if it works fine for you and the games you play, then whatever. I just feel you'd be better served gaming under bootcamp.


Who says I bought it?

Nobody, it was actually a question.

Thought you had tried it ?

Take a look at this - http://www.controlcommandescape.com/articles/parallels-9-benchmarks/

Most things there do not look to shabby.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I'm a long-time supporter of Codeweavers' CrossOver, which I'm sure some of you know as the commercial, supported version of Wine. I see it's already been mentioned in this thread and I love it.

My previous attempts to create my own Wine wrappers didn't go so well, so I just stick to CrossOver to run Star Trek Online, Evil Genius, Theme Hospital and a couple of other games that work great with it.

Me too.

I use it mainly for those games that aren't available "natively" on OS X like Euro Truck Sim 2.
For the rest I try to get all games natively, preferably via the Mac App Store.

 

[imacken]

Take a look at this - http://www.controlcommandescape.com/articles/parallels-9-benchmarks/

Most things there do not look to shabby.

Hmmm... that is certainly not my experience. PD9 is a lot better than PD8 was on my system.
If I get 50-60fps in BC, then I get 30-40 in PD.
That is an acceptable compromise for me.

 

[Ledgem]

Personally I have had excellent experience of PD9 with games. Examples off the top of my head are Tomb Raider (2013), Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dishonoured, and F1 2013. All of them @ 2560x1440.
Yes, if you are obsessed with getting the highest possible fps, Bootcamp is the way, but, for me at least, I get good gaming experience on PD9 for games I can't get on OS X.
Using BC and leaving OS X is an absolute last resort for me.

I've tried using Parallels 9 for certain games, and have had mixed luck. It works wonderfully for the games that are not as graphics-intensive. I struggled with the original Witcher (which has been too buggy for me under the OS X release), so I'm surprised to hear that you have played Witcher 2 under Parallels. I take it you're using your iMac for these. Could you tell us what hardware your iMac is using?

 

[Washac]

I've tried using Parallels 9 for certain games, and have had mixed luck. It works wonderfully for the games that are not as graphics-intensive. I struggled with the original Witcher (which has been too buggy for me under the OS X release), so I'm surprised to hear that you have played Witcher 2 under Parallels. I take it you're using your iMac for these. Could you tell us what hardware your iMac is using?

I recall playing The Witcher under Parallels 7 and it ran OK, as had been said a lot of this no good, yea it good is down to different peoples machines specs.

 

[roadbloc]

Thought you had tried it ?

Gaming under visualization is not something I do often since whenever I've tried it I got subpar results. I like to play my games at 60FPS on full settings without having to get my Mac to blow a gasket with it running OS X, visualization software, Windows + drivers and a new game. I like having no control lag or tearing of the graphics.

If it works for you that is fine. All I'm saying, as a gamer, I do not recommend it. For the best results, run Windows natively.

 

[Washac]

Gaming under visualization is not something I do often since whenever I've tried it I got subpar results. I like to play my games at 60FPS on full settings without having to get my Mac to blow a gasket with it running OS X, visualization software, Windows + drivers and a new game. I like having no control lag or tearing of the graphics.

If it works for you that is fine. All I'm saying, as a gamer, I do not recommend it. For the best results, run Windows natively.

Yes if you are a gamer with OCD as in everything HAS to be on full throttle otherwise your not interested in the game, that to me says that that people are NOT interested in the game but in getting to run flat out.

Me I want to play the game at a reasonable level, that's all.

So you enjoy your graphics, me I will go and enjoy the game, I'm easy pleased these days

 

[roadbloc]

Yes if you are a gamer with OCD as in everything HAS to be on full throttle otherwise your not interested in the game, that to me says that that people are NOT interested in the game but in getting to run flat out.

Me I want to play the game at a reasonable level, that's all.

So you enjoy your graphics, me I will go and enjoy the game

Complete nonsense. I enjoy the game. And I enjoy it with the best and smoothest experience possible, without dealing with tweaking gfx settings or messing with virtual machines or emulation or anything like that. Do not put opinions into my mouth or make wild and moronic assumptions about me.

When I proclaimed myself as a gamer, what in the universe made you think I only play games to admire graphics? All because I game on a PC the easy and best way, the native way, the way that delivers the best results? Perhaps it's so I can spend more time playing a game at its best rather than constantly tweaking for performance improvements maybe? Just a thought.

 

[imacken]

Complete nonsense. I enjoy the game. And I enjoy it with the best and smoothest experience possible, without dealing with tweaking gfx settings or messing with virtual machines or emulation or anything like that. Do not put opinions into my mouth or make wild and moronic assumptions about me.

When I proclaimed myself as a gamer, what in the universe made you think I only play games to admire graphics? All because I game on a PC the easy and best way, the native way, the way that delivers the best results? Perhaps it's so I can spend more time playing a game at its best rather than constantly tweaking for performance improvements maybe? Just a thought.

This is a pointless debate.
These are the facts:
1) if you are obsessed with fps and need 60 to play a game, then Bootcamp is the answer
2) if you are happy with 30-40 fps and prefer to compromise rather than going through the pain of booting/rebooting in and out of OS X, then Parallels is the way.
It's a simple choice.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

This is a pointless debate.
These are the facts:
1) if you are obsessed with fps and need 60 to play a game, then Bootcamp is the answer
2) if you are happy with 30-40 fps and prefer to compromise rather than going through the pain of booting/rebooting in and out of OS X, then Parallels is the way.
It's a simple choice.

If only it were actually that simple but in reality it isn't.

First of all, not everything can be run with Parallels. I know a lot of games do work well but some do not and some do not run at all and in one case of a game I play, using a virtual machine will earn you an account ban (EverQuest). On the other hand, ALL Windows games should run in native Windows with optimal performance and compatibility. This same comparison holds true with Wine, not everything runs well or even runs at all. So no, you really cannot compare Parallels to native Windows as if the two are equal except for FPS. They are not. I have Parallels too and I like it for some games, particularly older ones where performance is not an issue and compatibility tends to be more likely although even there, I've seen some games not work for example, one of the Prince of Persia games is a slideshow in combat. I think it might be Warrior Within. I forget now but it just goes to show that Parallels is not perfect at running all Windows games where for the most part native Windows is. Parallels also does not support DirectX 11 and I think we're reaching a point where there are games already requiring it with more coming no doubt.

I'd also like to add that implying that people who prefer bootcamp are "obsessed" with performance isn't called for. There is nothing wrong with someone wanting to get the most optimal experience not just for FPS but settings, compatibility, etc. across the board on their hardware. Wanting an optimal user experience that only native Windows can provide on an expensive hardware investment hardly makes somebody "obsessed" with performance. It's pretty normal to want to get what you pay for.

I prefer native Mac games but have the options of Wineskin, Parallels and Bootcamp available to me. I think I will eventually drop everything Windows related myself and do pure Mac gaming but we'll see. I find playing Windows games an added expense (except Wineskin) and a hassle no matter how I slice it. For me, between Blizzard, Feral and Aspyr there is plenty of good Mac gaming to be had not to mention other stuff. I'd still have more options than time.

 

[imacken]

I appreciate what you are saying, but in my experience it is how I put it.
I agree with a lot of what you said, especially relating to Feral, Aspyr, etc.
My own personal experience is that I will always buy a native Mac port, if that's not available then I play in Parallels or occasionally in a wrapper.
I have not had any problems running any game in Parallels, and I have tried quite a few over the last 3 years. The worst experience I had was LA Noire, which had an unacceptable fps at times.
As I said previously, I have played Tomb Raider 2013, Witcher 2, F1 2013, Dishonored and others @2560x1440 without real issues, but accepting a lower fps. I am OK playing games at 30-35 fps, and despite what you say, my experience is that it is largely the frame rate that makes people suggest that Bootcamp is the only way to play Windows games on a Mac.
My point is that it is not the ONLY way. It's all down to personal preference, and to a very large extent hardware specs.

 

[happyfrappy]

I've used Wine a few times so I can avoid doing Boot Camp or a newer game is known to work.

As far as the Virtual Machine discussion, I've kept a migrated VirtualPC Win98 file disk to VirtualBox for some classic games which run better/look nicer on Win9x than deal with the blocky DOS version which GOG seems to only sell(ex: SimCity 2k Special Edition, Space Quest 6, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, etc).

I'd agree on the negative opinion of Parallels for gaming, unless your Mac mini/MacBook Pro/iMac has 16GB of RAM to spare for 8GB RAM dedicated to the virtual machine you'll be dealing with the overhead of two OSes and at the mercy of Parallels' video driver optimization(s). GTA 4 for example is do-able on a 2012 MBP via Parallels, however you need to downgrade the graphics settings vs if you natively Boot Camp-ed.

...I've owned two licenses to Parallels mainly for Quicken Deluxe for Windows but I've used it a few times for my older Steam games that haven't been SteamPlay-ed yet(ex: Alice: Madness Returns, 688(I) Hunter/Killer, Fleet Command, Dangerous Waters & Sub Command).