[Macworld]

Post your comments for Prince of Persia released for Mac here

[Jason Snell]

You know, I played Karateka all the way through.

[Kyle_Varnell]

*Karateka
God I haven't played that game in nearly 20 years. That makes me feel a little bit long in the tooth.

[JDW]

So is the 9400M in the new iMacs and Mac Mini faster than the 8600 minimum requirements specified for this game?
Also, to the person who says they haven't played this game in 20 years, I had the old B&W version on my SE/30. I played it only a few weeks ago. I must say the old game is still very much fun to play, but it is a different world from what this new game is like. They are two very different games that happen to share the same name.

[Swordman]

Heh heh heh, so did I. On a completely different note, remember the bilestoad? Bolo? Hard Hat Mack? Wow, Apple has almost always had a kick-butt gaming platform! :)

Now THOSE were games! DON'T MAKE ME SHAKE MY CANE AT YOU WHIPPERSNAPPERS!

funny.

[Equinox]

I second JDW's question about the graphic chip. You know? These graphics cards are just confusing. They have random numbers, random names, repeated names, and a thousand names. I can't keep up with all the Nvidia chips, let alone with the ATI ones. . . . . Dammit.

[Jarmo]

8600 is much faster than 9400 but I'd wager it'll run on 9400 at lower settings.
Being a cider port, it'll probably run badly on any mac anyway.

BTW. I had the original colour version on my LC. It had gorgeous hi-res graphics (full 640x480), good times when both PC and Amiga using friends had to admit a game looks and plays a whole lotta better on mac.

[JDW]

If the 8600 is indeed "much faster" than the 9400, then how does the 8600 compare to the 120M and 130M of the new iMacs? If the 8600 is still faster than even those GPUs, then it seems very stilly to me as one would need an outrageously priced Mac Pro just to play this "game" as the developer intended!

[Jarmo]

To my best knowledge (and I may well be disinformed*), GT120 is rebranding of 9500 (slightly below or the same as 8600) while GT130 is rebranded 9600 (slightly above or the same as 8600). Gaming iMac purchasers should definitely pick the optional Radeon HD 4850, which is a pretty good card indeed, comparable to GF9800 which was top of the line one year ago.

But yeah, mac's do not good price/performance gaming machines make.


* and even if I'm not completely off, I'm ignoring all the GT, GTX, G, GS, GTX.. varietys of the cards, leading to inaccuracies.+

[JDW]

But the last sentence of your post is really the critical point. Because you are talking about the GT120 and the GT130, which are cards that fit into slots in a tower, right? Whereas the 120M and 130M are mobile versions (i.e., slower) of those cards. Hence, even the 130M in the new iMac would not meet the criterion for 8600 speed, right? And even the 4850 is a mobile chip in the iMac, correct?

It's all so confusing!

[Jarmo]

It IS all confusing, doesn't help at all that Apple seems to be the only company offering GT120 and 130. But I'm not aware that the GT130 in iMac would be a mobile version. It's clearly stated the 9400 is "GF9400M", but both GT120 and 130 are marked just as such. IF they are mobile versions, it might or might not be a big deal. Impossible to know what the difference would be.

[dammarin]

Heh, it shows macworld's not a gaming publication. The girl's name is Elika and she is, imho, one of the most interesting girls in gaming in recent history.
The game's really good, despite being criticised by the "hardcore" as too easy.