[jmmv]

> Only the very first few models of Intel Macs had strictly 32-bit processors (the 2006 iMac and Mac minis with Core Solo/Core Duo processors), and none of them were realistically capable of playing Half-Life 2.

What? First, those chips were plenty powerful to run HL2 (the game predates them). And second, all x86_64 chips can run older x86 32-bit code unmodified.

The reason macOS stopped supporting 32-bit code has nothing to do with the processors but more about them wanting to remove support for 32-bit binaries from the kernel and from all user-space libraries. To run a 32-bit binary, you need itself and all libraries it depends on to be 32-bit too, including the syscall boundary, which is "fine" (both Windows and Linux do this just fine, so it's really on Apple to have removed this). And I suppose Apple removed those because it was building towards a 64-bit-only world to simplify the Apple Silicon transition.

[MrDOS]

The CPUs were powerful enough, sure. The GPUs (Intel GMA950) absolutely weren't. Even on Windows with better drivers, Half-Life 2 is a slideshow on that class of hardware.

[whaleofatw2022]

Depends a LOT on the res.

E.x. notebookcheck indicates that FEAR (released a yearish later) could get 20-30ish FPS at 640x480 but chokes at 1024x768 (at numbers matching the HL2 lost coast demo slideshow at 1024x768).

Gotta remember a lot of mac people were just happy to play something more modern than Marathon or Giants CK

[devixluvic]

There were also MacBook Pro models with dedicated GPUs that were capable of running HL2 decently. The 2006 MacBook Pro 15-inch had a 32-bit only Yonah Core Duo and a Mobility Radeon X1600.

I got my gaming start on one such machine - the Mobility Radeon was fine for HL2/Portal at 1024x768. Good memories.

[MrDOS]

Oh, interesting – I'd missed that Apple had shipped any laptops with Core Solo/Core Duo processors, or any with dGPUs. Fascinating.