Using a mac

    • Craigsy633
      Craigsy633
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.04.2013 Posts: 53
      I am seeking advice on the best software for a mac. Holdem manager 2 was recommended but I believe it needs parallels to work with a mac (kinda defeats the purpose).

      Can anyone advise the software that is as good as HM2 but runs purpose built for a mac?

      Want HUD and all the stats

      Many thanks
  • 17 replies
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,039
      Pokertracker 4
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      I could use a Big Mac right now. Hungry.

      Use the free trial that (at least) PT4 has. I's possible that PT4 (mostly compiled C++ as far as i know) will run as a native application on the mac. It's also likely that HM2 (mostly .net as far as I know) won't, but you might still find .net engines (whatever they are called) for Mac. Let us know.
    • PokerTracker
      PokerTracker
      Gold
      Joined: 07.06.2011 Posts: 644
      Originally posted by YohanN7
      I could use a Big Mac right now. Hungry.

      Use the free trial that (at least) PT4 has. I's possible that PT4 (mostly compiled C++ as far as i know) will run as a native application on the mac.
      PokerTracker 4 is a native OSX application. The language does not dictate if the application is native or not, we program in C++ to be OS agnostic, and then add on Windows and OSX operating system specific components for native results. This is the same way applications such as Photoshop are developed, a core code base with forks for each OS. This is the reason why PokerTracker is the only native cross-platform tracking application, and it speaks volumes about the quality of our developers.

      PS: there are no ways to run a .NET built application using an engine on OSX. Your only option to run Windows apps made with .NET technologies on OSX is to either use WINE which is a free and open source application that sometimes allows applications designed for Windows to run on Unix-like operating systems (in reality this does not always work) or inside of a Windows VM.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Originally posted by PokerTracker
      PokerTracker 4 is a native OSX application. The language does not dictate if the application is native or not, we program in C++ to be OS agnostic, and then add on Windows and OSX operating system specific components for native results. This is the same way applications such as Photoshop are developed, a core code base with forks for each OS. This is the reason why PokerTracker is the only native cross-platform tracking application, and it speaks volumes about the quality of our developers.
      That's the way to go guys! It's so rare these days that it brings tears to my eyes:f_cry: Code I wrote 20 years ago using those principles is still up and running, virtually untouched, in large and critical applications. Hard to achieve using various "platforms", be it Java, .net or anything else.
    • Ganimator
      Ganimator
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.02.2013 Posts: 189
      Have you ever thought of running bootcamp on your mac to be able to run Windows ? I've been doing that for awhile and I really enjoy it. Let's me get the best of both operating systems.

      Cheers
    • ggiants81
      ggiants81
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.02.2012 Posts: 126
      I'm running Parallels. Works ok.
    • gormless
      gormless
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 164
      Originally posted by PokerTracker

      PS: there are no ways to run a .NET built application using an engine on OSX.
      Whats wrong with mono: http://www.mono-project.com/Mono
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,039
      Originally posted by ggiants81
      I'm running Parallels. Works ok.
      I used to do that too, but it starts to get laggy when playing 4 zoom tables + HM2, it's not even possible to run PT4 while playing 4 zoom tables since you can't devote more than 1GB to the simulator (with 4GB ram). Playing more than 4 zoom tables you can't even import hands while playing.

      Thats just my experience, can't talk for everbody else who it might work for. My mac is getting old after all.
    • KillBZ
      KillBZ
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.03.2011 Posts: 4,050
      Originally posted by JCSeerup
      Originally posted by ggiants81
      I'm running Parallels. Works ok.
      I used to do that too, but it starts to get laggy when playing 4 zoom tables + HM2, it's not even possible to run PT4 while playing 4 zoom tables since you can't devote more than 1GB to the simulator (with 4GB ram). Playing more than 4 zoom tables you can't even import hands while playing.

      Thats just my experience, can't talk for everbody else who it might work for. My mac is getting old after all.
      Get a new mac haha, i do this as well and it works perfectly fine for me, using pt4.
    • PokerTracker
      PokerTracker
      Gold
      Joined: 07.06.2011 Posts: 644
      Originally posted by gormless
      Originally posted by PokerTracker

      PS: there are no ways to run a .NET built application using an engine on OSX.
      Whats wrong with mono: http://www.mono-project.com/Mono
      We have not tested mono for this purposes, but our limited experience is that mono is designed for low impact .NET applications without high resource requirements. Not something I would advise without doing a lot of research first.
    • PokerTracker
      PokerTracker
      Gold
      Joined: 07.06.2011 Posts: 644
      Originally posted by JCSeerup
      Originally posted by ggiants81
      I'm running Parallels. Works ok.
      I used to do that too, but it starts to get laggy when playing 4 zoom tables + HM2, it's not even possible to run PT4 while playing 4 zoom tables since you can't devote more than 1GB to the simulator (with 4GB ram). Playing more than 4 zoom tables you can't even import hands while playing.

      Thats just my experience, can't talk for everbody else who it might work for. My mac is getting old after all.
      4Gigs is not enough RAM to run PostgreSQL + a VM without complications. 8Gigs is the least we would advise for this purposes, and we would alo advise keeping PostgreSQL on the Mac OSX platform running natively rather than in the VM - then access PostgreSQL via the network. This of course is a complicated step, but it certainly works best if you know how to do this.

      If you only have 4Gigs RAM then we would advise using Bootcamp instead of a VM. We have a lot of experience with both Parallels and VMWare, we advise using Parallels over VMWare mostly because it has the best integration with the Mac OSX Host - but both options work great, you cannot go wrong with either one on a modern Mac - especially if you have an SSD drive or a Thunderbolt RAID to host PostgreSQL.

      PS: slightly over 1/2 of our team use Mac OSX with multiple Windows VMs, this allows us to test under multiple clients and OSs at the same time. This is an outstanding way to work. In fact I am writing to you from a Mac OSX Destop while I have a Macbook pro open next to me running Windows.
    • PokerTracker
      PokerTracker
      Gold
      Joined: 07.06.2011 Posts: 644
      Originally posted by YohanN7
      PokerTracker, while we have your attention, how can I tweak PostgreSQL for my purposes? I run PT4 on an (very) under-spec XP machine, and things work just fine. I don't play zoom, and the rarely play more than 4 tables (8 at the very most, works fine too except for my lousy poker).

      I suspect that PostgreSQL has more agents running than necessary. In the IBM (old DB2) world there was a parameter called max_idle_agents whose value controls how many latent agents (postgres.exe in this case) are running just waiting (without inbound connections) for things to do. I'd like to set the corresponding parameter for PostgreSQL to zero (or one at the most). Do you (or anyone else) how how to?
      Based on your response, I'm afraid we need to first ask you if your computer meets our minimum requirements - https://www.pokertracker.com/faq/PT4#Minimum_Requirements

      Additionally we highly advise moving away from XP, Windows 7 or later is the preferred OS for PostgreSQL and PokerTracker at this time.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Originally posted by PokerTracker
      Originally posted by YohanN7
      PokerTracker, while we have your attention, how can I tweak PostgreSQL for my purposes? I run PT4 on an (very) under-spec XP machine, and things work just fine. I don't play zoom, and the rarely play more than 4 tables (8 at the very most, works fine too except for my lousy poker).

      I suspect that PostgreSQL has more agents running than necessary. In the IBM (old DB2) world there was a parameter called max_idle_agents whose value controls how many latent agents (postgres.exe in this case) are running just waiting (without inbound connections) for things to do. I'd like to set the corresponding parameter for PostgreSQL to zero (or one at the most). Do you (or anyone else) how how to?
      Based on your response, I'm afraid we need to first ask you if your computer meets our minimum requirements - https://www.pokertracker.com/faq/PT4#Minimum_Requirements

      Additionally we highly advise moving away from XP, Windows 7 or later is the preferred OS for PostgreSQL and PokerTracker at this time.
      My dear PokerTracker.

      The question isn't a PT4 support question. It is a general question about PostgreSQL administration that anyone using PostgreSQL professionally knows the answer to. I don't want you to go to PT4 support to find out if you don't know. I asked you specifically since you seemed knowledgeable.

      My computer is under-spec, I told you, but that's totally besides the point. I'd have the same question with any computer. Having 10 idle agents in a database server application serving thousands of clients (so you can expect a few new connections per second) is reasonable. In a one-player-playing-poker situation, the required number if idle agents is zero, or (if you want to save a fraction of a split-second a few times each session) one. How do I configure this?
    • PokerTracker
      PokerTracker
      Gold
      Joined: 07.06.2011 Posts: 644
      Originally posted by YohanN7
      My dear PokerTracker.

      The question isn't a PT4 support question. It is a general question about PostgreSQL administration that anyone using PostgreSQL professionally knows the answer to. I don't want you to go to PT4 support to find out if you don't know. I asked you specifically since you seemed knowledgeable.
      You are speaking to our entire support and development team at the same time. If any one person on our team does not know an answer we work with the rest of our team to assure there is a consensus.

      Originally posted by YohanN7My computer is under-spec, I told you, but that's totally besides the point.
      I'm afraid that is the point in our eyes, we cannot support users whose computers are under spec - we are forbidden from answering questions if your computer does not meet our minimum requirements. The minimum requirements are necessary for PostgreSQL to work properly. I'm afraid we cannot help you at this time - we highly advise investing in a more modern computer to use our software along with PostgreSQL.

      Each additional maximum connection uses only 400 bytes of shared memory (yes...bytes. Not kilobytes or megabytes), PostgreSQL is designed to work by default on the alightly better than average desktop solution from 10 years ago so if your computer doesn't meet the minimum required specs for PostgreSQL to operate this does not bode well for your experience - hence why we have to take such a hardline approach to responding to your question or providing support to computers that are unqualified.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Originally posted by PokerTracker
      Originally posted by YohanN7
      My dear PokerTracker.

      The question isn't a PT4 support question. It is a general question about PostgreSQL administration that anyone using PostgreSQL professionally knows the answer to. I don't want you to go to PT4 support to find out if you don't know. I asked you specifically since you seemed knowledgeable.
      You are speaking to our entire support and development team at the same time. If any one person on our team does not know an answer we work with the rest of our team to assure there is a consensus.

      Originally posted by YohanN7My computer is under-spec, I told you, but that's totally besides the point.
      I'm afraid that is the point in our eyes, we cannot support users whose computers are under spec - we are forbidden from answering questions if your computer does not meet our minimum requirements. The minimum requirements are necessary for PostgreSQL to work properly. I'm afraid we cannot help you at this time - we highly advise investing in a more modern computer to use our software along with PostgreSQL.

      Each additional maximum connection uses only 400 bytes of shared memory (yes...bytes. Not kilobytes or megabytes), PostgreSQL is designed to work by default on the alightly better than average desktop solution from 10 years ago so if your computer doesn't meet the minimum required specs for PostgreSQL to operate this does not bode well for your experience - hence why we have to take such a hardline approach.
      If I'd ask you - or anyone else - at the entire PokerTracker corporation what time of day it is, would you answer?

      Suppose, in addition, that I am not a PT4 user. Suppose I'd ask you a question about how to configure PostgreSQL to my liking. I'm not asking you in your rôle in the PT4 support team. I'm asking you as a PokerStrategy user who might know. If you don't know, why don't you just not answer, or if you answer, just say that you don't have a clue?

      I mentioned that I run PT4 on a severely under-spec computer as a compliment to you guys. It runs just fine. Obviously, I should not have done that, but how could I possibly foresee PokerStrategy user PokerTrackers reaction.

      In fact, let me ask, is there anyone out there who knows how to reduce the number of idle PostgreSQL agents. They are harmless, consume little resources, but they annoy me because they bloat the task manager (on [i]any fucking windows computer[/i]).
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,915
      [quote]Originally posted by YohanN7
      In fact, let me ask, is there anyone out there who knows how to reduce the number of idle PostgreSQL agents. They are harmless, consume little resources, but they annoy me because they bloat the task manager (on [i]any fucking windows computer[/i]).[/quote]Hey, Yohan,
      Let's try to keep it polite.
      To be fair, this thread started out about Macs.
      Are you running a Mac?

      Although you say your machine is "an (very) under-spec XP machine", you do not say what the specs actually are. I have an 8-yr old XP box, with a 2.4GHz Athlon and 2GB RAM and it does just fine.

      As for the number of processes used by postgresql, see if this
      https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections
      helps at all.

      Try googling
      reduce number of postgres processes
      and read through some of the articles.
      Rather than spawn threads to handle additional connections, postgres apparently spawns processes.

      When I raised this issue with the other major tracker I was told that they already do everything that they can to reduce the number of postgres processes needed. If they do, I'm sure PT does everything that they can as well.

      You could also google
      postgres performance tuning
      and try some of the settings to see what works best.

      Pokertracker probably already has an article on database performance tuning that they could recommend.

      Peace,
      --VS
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,915
      If you come back and the postgres posts are missing from this thread, look for one called "Postgres performance improvements"

      When I get a moment, I'll divide these ones out to their own thread with that name in "Poker Tools"

      We may get some answers from others who would never look here because they don't have Macs.

      [Edit: Done See: postgres performance improvements]

      Cheers,
      --VS