Valve Warns of Gaming Performance Issues With NVIDIA Graphics Cards on Mac OS X 10.6.4

[gumbyx84]

For the third time nVidia already has an updated driver on their site for people using the 285 GTX. Go download it. I've posted the link twice in this thread already.

What about those of us that aren't lucky enough to have NVidia release new drivers? I have noticed most of the posts relating to Steam games I have read here are from people with MBPs. What do we do to fix this problem?

 

[aljlin]

I have not tried Windows 7 just yet ( I have a copy, just haven't had time to install it.) I have heard it is pretty good, but have heard that some people have had some problems with it. As for the graphics problem, we can all conjecture whether it is a serious/average/minor bug and why did apple let this bug go through, especially with testers being told to test graphics, but in the end, it is a bug, serious or not, Apple will have to address it, either via a fix from nvidia, or software fix. Bugs do percolate in releases, and while some are known and in the release schedule it slipped to a future software update (either a 10.6.X update, or just a regular OS update) some are just not found until after release. Should they have found this in testing? Maybe. It depends on how testers test the graphics out. Apple, like any other company, is not perfect and yes they need to fix the issue, but stop acting as if this bug is the end of Apple's quality, and that they're going down the drain. It is a bug and yes it is annoying and disappointing that a $1.5k> machine is affected by a bug like this, but it is not the end of the world. If it is that big of a problem, you can look into downgrading back to 10.6.3 if you can, otherwise just wait until it has been fixed.

 

[barefeats]

I've been benchmarking Portal and Team Fortress (Steam for Mac). Most of my testing is at highest settings, 1920x1200, 4X MSAA, 4X Aniso.

The average for Portal using the GTX 285 dropped from 95 fps to 35 fps when I updated the Nehalem Mac Pro to 10.6.4. But after installing the driver update posted on the NVIDIA site (19.5.8f03), the average climbed up to 119 fps.

Ditto for Team Fortress. It went from 90 to 35 to 103 fps.

 

[NyArtboy]

I've been benchmarking Portal and Team Fortress (Steam for Mac). Most of my testing is at highest settings, 1920x1200, 4X MSAA, 4X Aniso.

The average for Portal using the GTX 285 dropped from 95 fps to 35 fps when I updated the Nehalem Mac Pro to 10.6.4. But after installing the driver update posted on the NVIDIA site (19.5.8f03), the average climbed up to 119 fps.

Ditto for Team Fortress. It went from 90 to 35 to 103 fps.

That's promising.

So far I have been happy with the overall experience of Steam on my iMac. I also have a PC running Vista, and the performance difference hasn't been enough for me to give up on Mac by any means. I think they are doing a fine job, and most likely this issue will be fixed fairly quickly.

 

[parapup]

I can't speak to issues with Windows 7 beyond basic comments on the OS architecture. I dropped off in the Vista era.

The problems I have generally seen with modern versions of Windows are how well they "age." It isn't something that you see while playing with it in Best Buy. The problems crop up after you've evaluated a dozen or so shareware packages, many of which seem to leave droppings in the registry and in system directories. There are gigabytes of text on the web from people with Windows 2000/XP/Vista having problems with slow startups and shutdowns on systems that were previously much quicker. Registries get bloated and fragmented. Swap files get fragmented.

[Snip]

.

Well Registry Bloats, aging related slowdowns, boat load of apps in Start Menu is all old windows speak (pre XP era). Today having ton of stuff in Start Menu is no big deal - just press Windows key and type first letter of what you are looking for and you are done.

Slow startup ? Really that is a problem with Win Vista/7? Did you know that services start in parallel, and that many tasks are started in the background, returning control to the user much sooner than previous versions of Windows.

You understand that if people install crap applications that hog resources on startup it is not Windows' fault firstly and secondly it is easily fixable. Just disable those things that you don't need to be available on startup. Msconfig is the name. And for a technical person few clicks shouldn't be a big deal.

Sounds like you have stuck this picture of Windows BAAD! in your head and you don't want to look at facts and the technological arguments that disagree with it. I thought you were going to make technical arguments against windows (memory management sucks, File IO is slow etc.) but you look like you want to stick to either old or irrelevant complaints routinely regurgitated and misinterpreted by clueless folks. Well your choice.

But having run Windows for years in consumer/prosumer/business setups it has worked reasonably well for me. And I suppose it does work good enough for 95% of the world which is why they keep running it version after version.

 

[dashcs]

But having run Windows for years in consumer/prosumer/business setups it has worked reasonably well for me. And I suppose it does work good enough for 95% of the world which is why they keep running it version after version.

Yeah whatever Buddy no one has ever complain about windows on a consumer or business level before...
And you even defended windows Vista.Lol Even Microsoft denounce windows vista.
A windows fanboy till the end I guess.


Ay any rate,back to the topic.
The problem I have with 10.6.4 is between the beta testers.

Here the thing, nowhere did apple say beforehand that 10.6.4 is going to improve gaming.That information came from Steam and Blizzard on the forums

Then when 10.6.4,there was no documentation stating that it improving graphic intense gaming.

So whats going on?
Who beta tested this?
If it was for gaming.then would'nt in be steam the one whos Beta tested this?

 

[Shintocam]

And how will he install that on the Windows PC he's trolling from?

Okay for that one - you win back a point in my book!

 

[AidenShaw]

At the architecture level, Windows NT (the grandaddy of the current generation of Windows) tried to graft a security policy onto an unsecured OS (Windows 3.x/95) while minimizing application breakage.

This is just so wrong it's sad.

Windows NT was a clean-slate operating system rewritten from the ground up without any Windows code inside. (There was some other code inside, but we won't go there. )

To imply that NT is based on Windows 3.x is silly. (And to imply that it is based on Windows 95 which shipped 3 years after NT was shipping is absurd.)

"Win32" (that is, the Windows environment) is a personality layer on top of NT.

In hindsight, NT has always had leading security mechanisms, and has been improving release by release. Unfortunately, the need to "minimize application breakage" has meant that many of the protections were weak by default. Only with Vista/Win7 have the out-of-the-box security settings been reasonable.

And, by the way, "minimizing application breakage" is the main reason why Windows has +90% market share. Most customers like to be able to upgrade to a new version of the OS and still run the applications and tools that they already own.

 

[Eidorian]

Migration from one Windows system to another is nightmarish. Microsoft has purposely tried to keep you from doing what Time Machine enables: Painlessly moving all of your applications, settings, files, e-mail, and documents to a new computer. With a Time Machine drive, you just tell OS X installer to move everything and it works to the 99.99% level. I went from a Mac Mini to a Mac Pro and was astounded. On my Windows XP boxes, it would have been a matter of installing the OS, installing each app, configuring each app (preferences, default directories, default file types, file associations at the OS level, background colors, dictionary preferences, etc.). For some homesumer who never installs any applications, that's not so bad. For someone who has four or five columns of apps in their startup menu, it's horrible.

I've migrated my user space to three different Windows installations in the past few years. It started off on Vista Ultimate and then to Windows 7 Beta/RC. Once I got my copy of 7 Final I migrated to that.

 

[AidenShaw]

I've migrated my user space to three different Windows installations in the past few years. It started off on Vista Ultimate and then to Windows 7 Beta/RC. Once I got my copy of 7 Final I migrated to that.

I didn't bother arguing that point - too minor.

Also didn't go through the list of Apple "fails" when comparing a little "Windows Home Server" appliance to "Time Machine".
<edit - meant "Time Capsule">

But Apple is really good at finding clever product names - far better than the rest of the industry at that.

 

[Eidorian]

I didn't bother arguing that point - too minor.

Also didn't go through the list of Apple "fails" when comparing a little "Windows Home Server" appliance to "Time Machine".

But Apple is really good at finding clever product names - far better than the rest of the industry at that.

I'm tempted when HP's bottom of the barrel Windows Home Server goes on sale for $199. I want to hold out for V2 though.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm tempted when HP's bottom of the barrel Windows Home Server goes on sale for $199. I want to hold out for V2 though.

V1 is pretty good, though.

 

[DMann]

The problems I have generally seen with modern versions of Windows are how well they "age." It isn't something that you see while playing with it in Best Buy. The problems crop up after you've evaluated a dozen or so shareware packages, many of which seem to leave droppings in the registry and in system directories. There are gigabytes of text on the web from people with Windows 2000/XP/Vista having problems with slow startups and shutdowns on systems that were previously much quicker. Registries get bloated and fragmented. Swap files get fragmented.

Not to mention ridiculously slow file transfer, pitiful memory management, and piss-poor/counter productive attempts at security: UAC and Windows Defender.

"NT has always had leading security mechanisms...." this is beyond humorous, considering XPs vast and calamitous security issues.

Migration from one Windows system to another is nightmarish. Microsoft has purposely tried to keep you from doing what Time Machine enables: Painlessly moving all of your applications, settings, files, e-mail, and documents to a new computer. With a Time Machine drive, you just tell OS X installer to move everything and it works to the 99.99% level. I went from a Mac Mini to a Mac Pro and was astounded. On my Windows XP boxes, it would have been a matter of installing the OS, installing each app, configuring each app (preferences, default directories, default file types, file associations at the OS level, background colors, dictionary preferences, etc.). For some homesumer who never installs any applications, that's not so bad. For someone who has four or five columns of apps in their startup menu, it's horrible.

True that. Time Machine has been leagues more effective, streamlined, and reliable than Windows Home Server at transferring files, app settings, preferences, etc.

At the architecture level, Windows NT (the grandaddy of the current generation of Windows) tried to graft a security policy onto an unsecured OS (Windows 3.x/95) while minimizing application breakage. It was, and continues to be, a decision which has caused a lot of pain and suffering. The security policies are poorly understood by most users and many just find it easier to run as administrator all of the time.

At the architectural level, Windows NT may have been overhauled, but its bolted-on security shell has been about as effective as slabs of swiss cheese - XP notwithstanding.

 

[Shintocam]

The problems I have generally seen with modern versions of Windows are how well they "age." It isn't something that you see while playing with it in Best Buy. The problems crop up after you've evaluated a dozen or so shareware packages, many of which seem to leave droppings in the registry and in system directories. There are gigabytes of text on the web from people with Windows 2000/XP/Vista having problems with slow startups and shutdowns on systems that were previously much quicker. Registries get bloated and fragmented. Swap files get fragmented.

While I cannot disagree with you, I cannot say my experience with OSX has been much better. At least with windows you can defrag your harddrive (Withtout a third party piece of software). I just replaced my older 17" MBP and the drive was badly fragmented. I tried setting up boot camp on it. I had 60 GB free, but could not even get a 5 GB partition to be set up. OSX's suggestion was to copy my entire harddrive to an external drive and then copy everything back to my laptop. Not sure how that is convenient.

 

[fmaxwell]

Well Registry Bloats, aging related slowdowns, boat load of apps in Start Menu is all old windows speak (pre XP era).

You are incorrect, but read on...

Today having ton of stuff in Start Menu is no big deal - just press Windows key and type first letter of what you are looking for and you are done.

I never had trouble finding my apps (duh!). The problem is that those apps add countless numbers of registry entries and DLLs.

Slow startup ? Really that is a problem with Win Vista/7? Did you know that services start in parallel, and that many tasks are started in the background, returning control to the user much sooner than previous versions of Windows.

Google Search for "Windows 7" "Slow boot" results in about 34,000 results

You understand that if people install crap applications that hog resources on startup it is not Windows' fault firstly and secondly it is easily fixable. Just disable those things that you don't need to be available on startup. Msconfig is the name. And for a technical person few clicks shouldn't be a big deal.

Yeah, right. Every trojan horse and piece of malware is listed there, too, right? What you're not getting is that there are like a half dozen different means that an application can force itself to load at boot time and they are not all listed and controlled by MSConfig. Take a look at the old program Startup Cop that lists the many places that an app can start.

But you're still missing it: It's often nearly impossible to tell what's hogging resources during startup. It's not like you can bring up Task Manager before Window starts. And even if you do manage to discover what's taking so long, do you know that the "uninstall" will remove all registry entries, all files that it's added to the system directories, and all processes that it invokes upon startup? Do you know that it will return to stock all system settings that it modified? No.

I thought you were going to make technical arguments against windows (memory management sucks, File IO is slow etc.) but you look like you want to stick to either old or irrelevant complaints routinely regurgitated and misinterpreted by clueless folks.

Your lack of knowledge and comprehension is not my problem. Discussions of fragmentation of registry and swap files, registry bloat, and architectural flaws (e.g., apps writing to system directories) are technical. You, on the other hand, seem to want to argue that it's 'good enough' because it's popular.

At the architecture level, Windows NT (the grandaddy of the current generation of Windows) tried to graft a security policy onto an unsecured OS (Windows 3.x/95) while minimizing application breakage.

This is just so wrong it's sad.

No, it is not wrong so stop spreading misinformation.

Windows NT was a clean-slate operating system

No it is not. If it was, every app that worked on Windows 95 would have been incompatible with Windows NT. You would have tried to install Word and the OS would have failed as if you had tried to install a Solaris, Unix, or AmigaOS application.

To imply that NT is based on Windows 3.x is silly. (And to imply that it is based on Windows 95 which shipped 3 years after NT was shipping is absurd.)

Based on does not mean that it had the same code base. Microsoft hired a DEC engineer (Dave Cutler), one of the chief architects of the VAX VMS operating system, to come up with a new version of Windows that, among other things, added a security policy while still allowing the same apps that ran on Windows 3.x to run on Windows NT 3.1. That's why NT had two different APIs: Win16 and Win32. The NT Win32 API was then back-ported to Windows Chicago in the Windows 95 release. It supported Win16 apps through a mechanism called "thunking"

What they should have done is start over and not tried to maintain compatability between the old 16 bit versions of Windows, which had no security, and the new Windows NT. This was their chance to come up with a comprehensive, clear security policy such as had been implemented in Unix years earlier. Any app that tried to write to an OS directory (e.g., C:\WinNT\*) should have immediately failed. Instead, they made the massively overcomplicated mess that has evolved into Windows 7.

See, I actually ran Windows NT 3.1, 3.51, and 4.0 when they came out, following the development and architecture closely as they evolved. So if you think I'm wrong about something, just ask and I can clear things up.

Also didn't go through the list of Apple "fails" when comparing a little "Windows Home Server" appliance to "Time Machine".

Such as the fact that Windows Home Server is a joke? Hook up a USB, Firewire, or ESATA drive to a Mac and it asks if you want to use it for Time Machine. You say yes, and off it goes. No network traffic or bottlenecks. If you want more speed (as I do), tell OS X to use a pair of RAIDed internal SATA drives for Time Machine. I just bought a pair of 2TB Samsung green drives to use for my Time Machine backup. I paid $99.99 each and installed them in my Mac Pro. How much would it cost me to use them in a Windows Home Server to do my backup? Maybe the cost of the whole Windows Home Server PC, plus the cost of the electricity to run it?

I've migrated my user space to three different Windows installations in the past few years. It started off on Vista Ultimate and then to Windows 7 Beta/RC. Once I got my copy of 7 Final I migrated to that.

I've done that multiple times. Usually takes about a week to get things right again. Just do a clean install of Windows and then migrate all of your applications, settings, and files there. Let me know how it works out for you.

Hell, even Microsoft was telling most people that a Windows 7 "upgrade" would mean backing up their files, wiping their hard drives, reinstalling all of their apps, redoing all of their app settings, and restoring their files.

 

[res1233]

LOL i just had the strangest thought...
I was imagining steve jobs at a WWDC with the usual Keynote Presentation, shortly after being sold Windows by Microsoft, debuting the new version of windows named iWin! That totally cracked me up. Just imagine steve standing up there on the stage with a big iWin behind him on the slide he's showing. LOL priceless

I've done that multiple times. Usually takes about a week to get things right again. Just do a clean install of Windows and then migrate all of your applications, settings, and files there. Let me know how it works out for you.

Hell, even Microsoft was telling most people that a Windows 7 "upgrade" would mean backing up their files, wiping their hard drives, reinstalling all of their apps, redoing all of their app settings, and restoring their files.

Oh yah, that cracked me up, people upgrading from Windows XP had to reinstall EVERYTHING and restore EVERYTHING MANUALLY when at the time of Windows 7's release, most users were still using XP. I'm amazed it's doing as well as it is given that fact. I mean, imagine a business with TONS of Windows XP based machines (which there are many) who want to upgrade to Windows 7. The process is going to take so much more time because you can't simply upgrade the machines, then upgrade the software. Everything has to be reinstalled/re-customized. The sucky part is, the person who decides to upgrade, often doesn't have to figure out how to do it... Makes you feel bad for IT guys a bit, doesn't it?

 

[Eidorian]

I've done that multiple times. Usually takes about a week to get things right again.

I must be doing something wrong if I can hit the ground running from a migration.

I was pleased to see that Outlook was working like I never left it.

Such as the fact that Windows Home Server is a joke? Hook up a USB, Firewire, or ESATA drive to a Mac and it asks if you want to use it for Time Machine. You say yes, and off it goes. No network traffic or bottlenecks. If you want more speed (as I do), tell OS X to use a pair of RAIDed internal SATA drives for Time Machine. I just bought a pair of 2TB Samsung green drives to use for my Time Machine backup. I paid $99.99 each and installed them in my Mac Pro. How much would it cost me to use them in a Windows Home Server to do my backup? Maybe the cost of the whole Windows Home Server PC, plus the cost of the electricity to run it?

What do additional hard drives have to do with Windows Home Server?

 

[fmaxwell]

Oh yah, that cracked me up, people upgrading from Windows XP had to reinstall EVERYTHING and restore EVERYTHING MANUALLY when at the time of Windows 7's release, most users were still using XP. I'm amazed it's doing as well as it is given that fact. I mean, imagine a business with TONS of Windows XP based machines (which there are many) who want to upgrade to Windows 7. The process is going to take so much more time because you can't simply upgrade the machines, then upgrade the software. Everything has to be reinstalled/re-customized. The sucky part is, the person who decides to upgrade, often doesn't have to figure out how to do it... Makes you feel bad for IT guys a bit, doesn't it?

Imagine how the Windows trolls would have descended on Apple news sites if Apple had announced that Snow Leopard upgrades would require Panther users to "reinstall EVERYTHING and restore EVERYTHING MANUALLY!" They would have been gleefully proclaiming that it was a sign that Apple was incompetent, Apple customers were idiots for tolerating it, that it was the beginning of the end for Apple, that it would cause a massive exodus to Windows by frustrated Mac users.

 

[fmaxwell]

I must be doing something wrong if I can hit the ground running from a migration.

No, you're willing to go through the upgrade path and I insist on a clean install of the OS -- as do many.

In many cases, I was reinstalling the OS -- same version -- after it became slow and/or unreliable. Do me a favor: Back up all of your applications and files, wipe your hard drive, install the OS and then restore the apps and files. Let me know how it works.

What do additional hard drives have to do with Windows Home Server?

I bought 4TB of SATA drives to serve as my Time Machine backup. They cost me $200 for the pair of 2TB drives. That was all it required. I didn't need another computer, operating system license, enclosure, etc. $200 was the total investment.

How much would a 4TB Windows Home Server cost? (To drastically simplify what I wrote earlier.)

 

[Eidorian]

In many cases, I was reinstalling the OS -- same version -- after it became slow and/or unreliable. Do me a favor: Back up all of your applications and files, wipe your hard drive, install the OS and then restore the apps and files. Let me know how it works.

I'm glad I don't have your problems.

I bought 4TB of SATA drives to serve as my Time Machine backup. They cost me $200 for the pair of 2TB drives. That was all it required. I didn't need another computer, operating system license, enclosure, etc. $200 was the total investment.

How much would a 4TB Windows Home Server cost? (To drastically simplify what I wrote earlier.)

Why would I compare 4 TB of internal drive storage to a Windows Home Server?

 

[layte]

Anyone who chooses to have their backup stored on local storage inside the machine being backed up loses any right to play the condescending know it all card.

Born again Win/OSX/*NIX fanboys... sigh

 

[fmaxwell]

I'm glad I don't have your problems.

The need to to reinstall Windows after testing numerous software packages is a well-known one and is frequently recommended by those of us with a lot of experience. I am rather surprised someone claiming to have your experience would be unaware of that.

Why would I compare 4 TB of internal drive storage to a Windows Home Server?

Because you jumped into the middle of a conversation between me and AidenShaw in which he was claiming that Time Machine was an inferior backup solution to a Windows Home Server appliance.

I compared cost, ease, network traffic, and performance. So either join in our reindeer games or don't, but don't keep asking questions that are easily answered by just reading the thread you were responding to. I would hate to think that you playing dumb in order to evade a comparison which would be horribly unfavorable to the Windows platform...

Anyone who chooses to have their backup stored on local storage inside the machine being backed up loses any right to play the condescending know it all card.

Back off, junior. I have a full system backup on a 2TB RAID in a USB enclosure. It's on a shelf and not powered. Apparently, you don't know as much as you think you do about the concept of online incremental backups versus off-line full-system backups.

 

[layte]

Back off, junior. I have a full system backup on a 2TB RAID in a USB enclosure. It's on a shelf and not powered. Apparently, you don't know as much as you think you do about the concept of online incremental backups versus off-line full-system backups.

Yea, nice one chuckles.

I'm a Senior Infrastructure Architect for a multinational IT company. I've also used Windows since v2 (2/386 fact fans) and Mac's since system 6. Along the way I've got my hands dirty with a multitude of *NIX systems and currently am having a barrel of fun on some huge virtualisation projects. I'd love to get into a quality discussion with you about all this, as it does seem that you are one of the few who do have a inkling as to what they are talking about. Unfortunately your method of debate seems to consist of sarcasm, bold words and a condescending dismissal of anyone who does not share your viewpoint.

Grow up, stop treating people like idiots and we can have an adult debate.

Edit: I would actually look forward to a decent debate.

 

[res1233]

Imagine how the Windows trolls would have descended on Apple news sites if Apple had announced that Snow Leopard upgrades would require Panther users to "reinstall EVERYTHING and restore EVERYTHING MANUALLY!" They would have been gleefully proclaiming that it was a sign that Apple was incompetent, Apple customers were idiots for tolerating it, that it was the beginning of the end for Apple, that it would cause a massive exodus to Windows by frustrated Mac users.

That is hardly a good comparison, panther was quite awhile before snow leopard, so naturally you would have to reinstall quite a bit while windows XP was the latest thing not too long before windows 7 was released. Windows Vista wasn't the latest and greatest for very long. If Microsoft gave a ****, they would have let you upgrade directly from Windows XP. Also, i'd like to point out that a valid comparison is from Tiger to Snow Leopard, which you CAN do. Yes, it does cost more, but you don't have to reinstall any software that still works after the upgrade, which many probably wont... but still, the point is, apple did the exact OPPOSITE of your counter scenario.

 

[Eidorian]

The need to to reinstall Windows after testing numerous software packages is a well-known one and is frequently recommended by those of us with a lot of experience. I am rather surprised someone claiming to have your experience would be unaware of that.

I don't believe that is a good application of your valuable time.

Because you jumped into the middle of a conversation between me and AidenShaw in which he was claiming that Time Machine was an inferior backup solution to a Windows Home Server appliance.

I compared cost, ease, network traffic, and performance. So either join in our reindeer games or don't, but don't keep asking questions that are easily answered by just reading the thread you were responding to. I would hate to think that you playing dumb in order to evade a comparison which would be horribly unfavorable to the Windows platform...

I wonder if Aiden misspoke by using Time Machine instead of Time Capsule.

I'm still asked be certain peers why Apple doesn't have a version of Volume Shadow Copy.