How do I use BYOND on a Mac?
...for playing games?
Currently, the Mac OS X version of BYOND (like the Linux version) is text-only. Most BYOND games are graphical, so you won't be able to play them using the Mac OS X version.
If you want to play graphical BYOND games on a Mac, what you could do is run the Windows version of BYOND under Mac OS X by using an "emulator". If you have an Intel Mac, you can use Parallels along with a genuine copy of Windows (you'll have to buy them both) for this purpose. VMware Fusion and VirtualBox (free) are other options.
There are other free programs out there such as qemu and bochs, but they don't tend to work very well yet - though they are improving.
...for hosting or making games?
The Mac OS X version of BYOND can compile and host games without any problems, provided you don't mind working with the command line. See the included documentation.
If you're not comfortable with the command line (or don't know what the command line is), then we recommend using the graphical Windows versions of BYOND's game creation and hosting tools via an emulator, as described above.
Posted by Crispy on Saturday, May 05, 2007 09:54PM
- 5 comments
(link)
/
(Edited by moderator on Saturday, June 20, 2009 04:18PM)
« Hosting -> How to host · All about favorite games and BYOND game ranks »
#5 Maz:
I run a copy of Windows XP with everything turned off in VMWare Fusion. Seems to be more or less perfect.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007 03:16PM
#4 Alathon:
Crispy wrote:
> I have the (uninformed) impression that the commercial ones pretty much "just work", whereas the free ones also work but are a little rough around the edges.
Thats more or less correct; There are a few (albeit minor) steps you need to go through to set up KQemu with Qemu, and a few things that need to be configured for it to run optimally.
Parallels Desktop, f.ex., "just runs". Parallels is a memory hog, but tends to run really well if given enough power (Read: Closer to native speed than f.ex. Qemu). The new version also has some really cool features, which the 'free' alternatives really lack.
Monday, May 07, 2007 12:16AM
#3 Crispy:
That was a direct quote from Mike H, so take it up with him if you object. ;-)
I have the (uninformed) impression that the commercial ones pretty much "just work", whereas the free ones also work but are a little rough around the edges.
Sunday, May 06, 2007 06:31PM
#2 Alathon:
Thats not entirely true; KQemu+Qemu run on a 1gig RAM laptop with a 2.5ghz processor and a fairly decent ATI graphics card runs Windows XP slower than my 4 year old computer with 512mb RAM, a 1.5ghz processor and a lower-end graphics card.
KQemu+Qemu runs 'decently', but its a far cry from deserving words like 'perfectly' and 'almost no processor overhead'.
Sunday, May 06, 2007 05:10PM
#1 PirateHead:
I object to the statement that QEMU does not work very well. It may not on Mac OSX, but it emulates Windows perfectly on Linux and on Windows, and with the kqemu kernel module it does so with almost no processor overhead.
Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:41AM