Funny that people say Mac's aren't for gaming . . .

[mavherzog]

I am a long-time UNIX guy. Mac OS was never on my radar until the UNIX-based OS X was released...and I still never seriously considered purchasing one until the low-cost G4 mini's made their debut. I ditched the kids' linux boxes and got them each a mini, bought a mini for myself, and bought the wife a G5 iMac.

Post Intel transition...my kids have a CS mini and my wife has my "old" 1st gen Macbook. Currently, I have a thinkpad X60s with Ubuntu over here in the desert.

My wife and kids love iTunes and all the great multimedia "things" they can do with iLife. My kids have a wide range of educational software available to them (that was always the big issue when they used linux). However, even though I like the idea of those tools, more often then not, when I'm in front of a Mac, I'm staring at a couple of xterm windows and a web browser. And these days, Xen suits my virtualization needs far better than Parallels.

The funny thing is...while contemplating what new computer I will treat myself to when I get home from Iraq, the only real reason I'm wanting a Mac is FOR games! (specifically, Madden '08 (when it is released), World of Warcraft, and the upcoming StarCraft 2) I DO really like OS X's GUI, but for the most part, linux suits my needs perfectly.

So, count me as someone that will be purchasing a new Mac BECAUSE of games...not in spite of them. :)

[irishgrizzly]

With the focus on games opening the last Apple event I think tomorrow will have to bring good news for mac gamers!

[harveypooka]

With the focus on games opening the last Apple event I think tomorrow will have to bring good news for mac gamers!

Tuesday product releases for the win!

[Scarlet Fever]

With the focus on games opening the last Apple event I think tomorrow will have to bring good news for mac gamers!

gaming iMac on tuesday ftw!

[ksolano]

Gears of War, Quake wars Zero & Enemy Territory, Starcraft 2, all the EA games, Rage & rumors of Crisis and COD4 coming..

That is a nice list of games to get excited for :)
My only question is: We need something to play these games on!?
So far the graphic cards that come in most mac are RUBBISH..

Bring out a Gamers Mac which isnt some 2k mac pro plz..
Maybe a gamers iMac Tomorrow??? Bring it on!! 4 the Horde!!!

[Macmadant]

I shouldn't Say this, but there are an array of Cider Games on the torrent sites, these are unofficial ports of games that are for PCs, and they actually work pretty well, also on the site is directions on how to port a game using cider, so if you wanted, you could buy any PC game and port it your self with cider, of course these would be intel only games.

[harveypooka]

Gears of War, Quake wars Zero & Enemy Territory, Starcraft 2, all the EA games, Rage & rumors of Crisis and COD4 coming..

That is a nice list of games to get excited for :)
My only question is: We need something to play these games on!?
So far the graphic cards that come in most mac are RUBBISH..

Bring out a Gamers Mac which isnt some 2k mac pro plz..
Maybe a gamers iMac Tomorrow??? Bring it on!! 4 the Horde!!!

We do need something decent to play them on. I personally don't think an iMac is a great gaming machine simply because of the lack of ability to upgrade it.

Fingers crossed and crossed again that they release a half size Mac Pro, maybe called 'Mac' that is a mid-range machine...and pigs might fly...

[Dagless]

Part of the reason I got a PowerBook to replace my windows laptop, was to keep away from games. I was just entering university and needed to work 24/7. Then I got my iMac and installed Windows 2 years later, but I'd learned my lesson and don't play as much :)

They're getting much better in the way of games now. Still no HL2, but nevermind. I know that when I'm in the Mac OS I can't procrastinate as easily :D

[aidanpendragon]

I am a long-time UNIX guy. Mac OS was never on my radar until the UNIX-based OS X was released...and I still never seriously considered purchasing one until the low-cost G4 mini's made their debut. I ditched the kids' linux boxes and got them each a mini, bought a mini for myself, and bought the wife a G5 iMac.

Post Intel transition...my kids have a CS mini and my wife has my "old" 1st gen Macbook. Currently, I have a thinkpad X60s with Ubuntu over here in the desert.

My wife and kids love iTunes and all the great multimedia "things" they can do with iLife. My kids have a wide range of educational software available to them (that was always the big issue when they used linux). However, even though I like the idea of those tools, more often then not, when I'm in front of a Mac, I'm staring at a couple of xterm windows and a web browser. And these days, Xen suits my virtualization needs far better than Parallels.

The funny thing is...while contemplating what new computer I will treat myself to when I get home from Iraq, the only real reason I'm wanting a Mac is FOR games! (specifically, Madden '08 (when it is released), World of Warcraft, and the upcoming StarCraft 2) I DO really like OS X's GUI, but for the most part, linux suits my needs perfectly.

So, count me as someone that will be purchasing a new Mac BECAUSE of games...not in spite of them. :)

Good luck over there in Iraq...glad you have something to look forward to on your return!

[superman666]

Sorry I seem to be out of the loop...? What is coming out tommorow (tuesday) for Mac?

[harveypooka]

Sorry I seem to be out of the loop...? What is coming out tommorow (tuesday) for Mac?

There is an Apple 'event' tomorrow. iMac's haven't been updated for a long, long time so we're guessing they'll be updated. Rampant speculation really!

[Antares]

Sorry I seem to be out of the loop...? What is coming out tommorow (tuesday) for Mac?

It's a secret. ;) Shhh. I can tell you tomorrow.

Gaming on the Mac is looking better and better.....

[azizane]

tomorrow crysis on mac maybe ?? :P

would never happen i know, just a pathetic dream...

[Dagless]

tomorrow crysis on mac maybe ?? :P

would never happen i know, just a pathetic dream...

I wouldn't say it's a dream at all. EA are behind the publishing wheel, since they're using Cider I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[Foxglove9]

Gaming as we know it won't be taken seriously on the Mac anytime in the near future. As much as I'd like that not to be true it is. Maybe we will be surprised, whatever they do they must do something different like Nintendo has done with the Wii.

[Chone]

On the software front, Macs are starting to become a lot more flexible which is good. On the hardware front however... Macs are still pathetic for gaming.

Apple needs to release an iMac-like machine except in a normal tower form factor and no display, and of course, completely upgradeable much like the Mac Pro, except more affordable and meant for consumer use.

[contoursvt]

100% agree. I have no idea why in gods name apple does not release a machine with specs such as :

-Core2 Duo processor
-Socket 775 system board with at least a single PCI-E 16x slot, maybe a couple smaller PCI-E slots and maybe a single PCI slot. Standard DDR2 slots and upgradability to say 8Gb of RAM.
-A tower case say 60% the size of the mac pro which will hold a single optical drive and 3 hard drives.
-Graphics card options during ordering which are the same as the Macpro minus the quadro option (maybe if they want to leave that to the macpro)

Everyone I've ever met is asking for such a machine.


On the software front, Macs are starting to become a lot more flexible which is good. On the hardware front however... Macs are still pathetic for gaming.

Apple needs to release an iMac-like machine except in a normal tower form factor and no display, and of course, completely upgradeable much like the Mac Pro, except more affordable and meant for consumer use.

[bobber205]

100% agree. I have no idea why in gods name apple does not release a machine with specs such as :

-Core2 Duo processor
-Socket 775 system board with at least a single PCI-E 16x slot, maybe a couple smaller PCI-E slots and maybe a single PCI slot. Standard DDR2 slots and upgradability to say 8Gb of RAM.
-A tower case say 60% the size of the mac pro which will hold a single optical drive and 3 hard drives.
-Graphics card options during ordering which are the same as the Macpro minus the quadro option (maybe if they want to leave that to the macpro)

Everyone I've ever met is asking for such a machine.

And be about 1500 dollars? What would be a good price?

[Chone]

And be about 1500 dollars? What would be a good price?

Think iMac prices but make all that desktop components (as opposed to the more expensive mobile components the iMac uses) and remove the display and you get considerably more bang for the same buck and a great gaming machine that can actually be upgraded and used with any monitor without looking retarded.

[pcorajr]

I am a long-time UNIX guy. Mac OS was never on my radar until the UNIX-based OS X was released...and I still never seriously considered purchasing one until the low-cost G4 mini's made their debut. I ditched the kids' linux boxes and got them each a mini, bought a mini for myself, and bought the wife a G5 iMac.

Post Intel transition...my kids have a CS mini and my wife has my "old" 1st gen Macbook. Currently, I have a thinkpad X60s with Ubuntu over here in the desert.

My wife and kids love iTunes and all the great multimedia "things" they can do with iLife. My kids have a wide range of educational software available to them (that was always the big issue when they used linux). However, even though I like the idea of those tools, more often then not, when I'm in front of a Mac, I'm staring at a couple of xterm windows and a web browser. And these days, Xen suits my virtualization needs far better than Parallels.

The funny thing is...while contemplating what new computer I will treat myself to when I get home from Iraq, the only real reason I'm wanting a Mac is FOR games! (specifically, Madden '08 (when it is released), World of Warcraft, and the upcoming StarCraft 2) I DO really like OS X's GUI, but for the most part, linux suits my needs perfectly.

So, count me as someone that will be purchasing a new Mac BECAUSE of games...not in spite of them. :)

I am also a gamer and im doing the switch to mac because i cannot stand having to reformat every 6 months because windlows is taking a dump. Even if they do not release a tower model for us gamers we can alway hope for a iMac with a good DX10 card. It would be very important that Apple better their offering of Video cards. Gaming is coming to Mac and nobody can stop that.

BTW Thank you for your Service and take care over there in Iraq. I pray for you safe return :D

[overcast]

I am a long-time UNIX guy. Mac OS was never on my radar until the UNIX-based OS X was released...and I still never seriously considered purchasing one until the low-cost G4 mini's made their debut. I ditched the kids' linux boxes and got them each a mini, bought a mini for myself, and bought the wife a G5 iMac.

Post Intel transition...my kids have a CS mini and my wife has my "old" 1st gen Macbook. Currently, I have a thinkpad X60s with Ubuntu over here in the desert.

My wife and kids love iTunes and all the great multimedia "things" they can do with iLife. My kids have a wide range of educational software available to them (that was always the big issue when they used linux). However, even though I like the idea of those tools, more often then not, when I'm in front of a Mac, I'm staring at a couple of xterm windows and a web browser. And these days, Xen suits my virtualization needs far better than Parallels.

The funny thing is...while contemplating what new computer I will treat myself to when I get home from Iraq, the only real reason I'm wanting a Mac is FOR games! (specifically, Madden '08 (when it is released), World of Warcraft, and the upcoming StarCraft 2) I DO really like OS X's GUI, but for the most part, linux suits my needs perfectly.

So, count me as someone that will be purchasing a new Mac BECAUSE of games...not in spite of them. :)

Just because there are 4 games coming for the Mac, doesn't mean anything. They still ship with extremely out of date and/or low end video cards, that wouldn't hold up with any modern game. When they offer competitively priced versions of video cards that are easily swappable, and games that don't cost full retail 5 years after release. Then maybe it can be considered usable for gaming. They certainly aren't going to be considered for any serious gamer without the ability to customize at the very least video cards. It will be for casual gamers at best. If you want to game build a PC CHEAP, put a highend video card in and be done with it.

[lost eden]

IMHO Mac will never be a contender in the gaming world until they start offering a larger selection of graphics cards & at more realistic prices. I just checked the online store, & the only cards that you can have in a Mac Pro are the 7300 (not much better than integrated graphics) & the X1900XT (which was good, a year ago). Not to mention that Apple charge ludicrous prices for these low-end/outdated cards.

[stuff99]

worse part is u cant even upgrade the video cards

[mavherzog]

Well, I am a casual gamer who is not willing to give up my casual gaming. :)

I am certainly disappointed by the latest GPU offerings in the new iMacs. But if they play Madden '08, WoW, and Starcraft 2 reasonably well, I'll be happy.

(as a comparison, I happily played WoW (on reduced settings, of course) on my 1st gen 1.42Ghz G4 mini, 1.33Ghz G4 iBook (12"), and my 1st gen CD MacBook)

[lost eden]

(as a comparison, I happily played WoW (on reduced settings, of course) on my 1st gen 1.42Ghz G4 mini, 1.33Ghz G4 iBook (12"), and my 1st gen CD MacBook)
Now it becomes obvious how you can think that Macs are okay for gaming - you thought that WoW ran 'happily' on a MacBook with Intel GMA950 graphics.

[GFLPraxis]

Well, I am a casual gamer who is not willing to give up my casual gaming. :)

I am certainly disappointed by the latest GPU offerings in the new iMacs. But if they play Madden '08, WoW, and Starcraft 2 reasonably well, I'll be happy.

(as a comparison, I happily played WoW (on reduced settings, of course) on my 1st gen 1.42Ghz G4 mini, 1.33Ghz G4 iBook (12"), and my 1st gen CD MacBook)

WoW runs on a GMA 950; the iMac GPU blows away the GMA 950.

[harveypooka]

IMHO Mac will never be a contender in the gaming world until they start offering a larger selection of graphics cards & at more realistic prices...

You're right. Mac Pro is the only option for even a semi-hardcore gamer, which is crap as most people cannot afford one.

[Irishman]

I'm kinda lost here.

Why would anyone complain to the brick wall that it's not a stucco wall?

Same with the iMac complainers who want it to be a gamer's Mac. Um, what main things do gamers want? moderate price, top-notch performance, expandability, upgrade options out the wazoo.

What has the iMac NEVER been? Moderate price? Yeah, you could argue that its placement in Apple's product line is moderate. So, check one.

Top-notch performance? For cutting-edge 3D games? Um, no.

Expandable? Um, no. Unless you can plug in an external device, the iMac ain't doin' it.

Upgrade options? Faster video cards bought over the shelf? 3D audio cards? etc? Nope.


STOP complaining that the iMac isn't these things. Appreciate it for what it is, and move on. It's clearly not for you hardcore gamers.

If ANYTHING is going to be the hardcore gaming Mac it will be the Mac Pro.

Period. End of story.

[harveypooka]

I'm kinda lost here.

Why would anyone complain to the brick wall that it's not a stucco wall?

Same with the iMac complainers who want it to be a gamer's Mac. Um, what main things do gamers want? moderate price, top-notch performance, expandability, upgrade options out the wazoo.

What has the iMac NEVER been? Moderate price? Yeah, you could argue that its placement in Apple's product line is moderate. So, check one.

Top-notch performance? For cutting-edge 3D games? Um, no.

Expandable? Um, no. Unless you can plug in an external device, the iMac ain't doin' it.

Upgrade options? Faster video cards bought over the shelf? 3D audio cards? etc? Nope.


STOP complaining that the iMac isn't these things. Appreciate it for what it is, and move on. It's clearly not for you hardcore gamers.

If ANYTHING is going to be the hardcore gaming Mac it will be the Mac Pro.

Period. End of story.

From Apple's website:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance and sensational response for video and photo editing."

Great? Pah! I'm annoyed because Apple constantly puts underpowered graphics card in one of it's more popular computer models. Yes, of course it's not a beast of machine, it's more like buying a gaming laptop.

I understand that it's not expandable and that's not ideal, but what are your options as a Mac user for games? A Mac Pro. That's it. I for one can't afford to drop £2000 on a machine like that. I'd love to, but I can't.

So in recap, what really miffs me is the lack of options, there is no choice. Maybe it's not fair to take it out on the iMac - but what else can we do? :(

[Irishman]

From Apple's website:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance and sensational response for video and photo editing."

Great? Pah! I'm annoyed because Apple constantly puts underpowered graphics card in one of it's more popular computer models. Yes, of course it's not a beast of machine, it's more like buying a gaming laptop.

I understand that it's not expandable and that's not ideal, but what are your options as a Mac user for games? A Mac Pro. That's it. I for one can't afford to drop £2000 on a machine like that. I'd love to, but I can't.

So in recap, what really miffs me is the lack of options, there is no choice. Maybe it's not fair to take it out on the iMac - but what else can we do? :(

Sorry, but you're expecting brutal sale-killing honesty from marketing majors? Come on, you're looking in the wrong place for it. NOONE who uses the same video hardware in their machines is going to call it "mediocre or annoying performance in anything but 5 year-old games".

Not going to happen.

[Irishman]

From Apple's website:

"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance and sensational response for video and photo editing."

Great? Pah! I'm annoyed because Apple constantly puts underpowered graphics card in one of it's more popular computer models. Yes, of course it's not a beast of machine, it's more like buying a gaming laptop.

I understand that it's not expandable and that's not ideal, but what are your options as a Mac user for games? A Mac Pro. That's it. I for one can't afford to drop £2000 on a machine like that. I'd love to, but I can't.

So in recap, what really miffs me is the lack of options, there is no choice. Maybe it's not fair to take it out on the iMac - but what else can we do? :(


If you NEED to be a hardcore gamer and you can only spend less than 3K for a Mac Pro, then Apple ain't for you.

[harveypooka]

If you NEED to be a hardcore gamer and you can only spend less than 3K for a Mac Pro, then Apple ain't for you.

I review Mac games for IMG so I don't need a new Mac, but it'll be a pain in the arse if I don't have a half decent one. And what with GoW, BF2142 and Rage coming to the Mac, I'd like a decent rig. I've managed OK so far with Mac's but this latest offering is a joke.

As I keep saying, I'm hoping Apple cotton on and bring out a cut down Mac Pro...

[overcast]

Now it becomes obvious how you can think that Macs are okay for gaming - you thought that WoW ran 'happily' on a MacBook with Intel GMA950 graphics.
lewl!

[Irishman]

I review Mac games for IMG so I don't need a new Mac, but it'll be a pain in the arse if I don't have a half decent one. And what with GoW, BF2142 and Rage coming to the Mac, I'd like a decent rig. I've managed OK so far with Mac's but this latest offering is a joke.

As I keep saying, I'm hoping Apple cotton on and bring out a cut down Mac Pro...

So do I.

But, let's look at the specs and try to figure out where to cut out the fat.

If you wanted to make a gamer's Mac Pro, how would it be configured?

I'm sure the 2.66 GHz Dual Core is untouchable.

2GB of ECC RAM?

750MB Serial-ATA HD for massive game installs and MODs, etc, and 1 free bay instead of 3? That would save how much?

Right now, you gotta have the ATI X1900 XT. Not cheap.

We're already up to $3346 not counting the dubious cost gains by dropping 2 Hard Drive bays.

How does this become a cheap option?? I'm still lost.

Get rid of the Gigabit Ethernet? I don't even know if that's a cost advantage, as I don't even see 100Base-T as an option anymore.

Put it in a "budget" case? Um, Steve ain't gonna do that, besides, the development cost of the Mac Pro tower has probably been recouped, so they could probably trim a little fat there.

[exabytes18]

The graphics cards are the limiters here. Why not make the graphics cards made for gaming available on the Mac... like the HD2900XT or any of the 8800s. That'd be a start. Then we could work on Crossfire/SLI. :rolleyes:

[TheSilencer]

The Mac Pro at all need only a new graphics card option, the CPUs are fine and the board but if you want a "mid range tower" then it goes this way:
The XEONs are touchable, they are no game related CPUs but you pay more for it, especally after the price drop at INTELs normal C2D and C2Q line, because they are XEONs!
Put them away for a Q6xxx or QX6xxx and you can also put away the workstation board and get a "normal" board. 2GB normal RAM 800MHz+, no ECC needed. Graphics options should be HD2900XT - as this is the only serious gaming card from ATi these days - or GF 8800GTS 640MB and GTX version.

[Irishman]

The Mac Pro at all need only a new graphics card option, the CPUs are fine and the board but if you want a "mid range tower" then it goes this way:
The XEONs are touchable, they are no game related CPUs but you pay more for it, especally after the price drop at INTELs normal C2D and C2Q line, because they are XEONs!
Put them away for a Q6xxx or QX6xxx and you can also put away the workstation board and get a "normal" board. 2GB normal RAM 800MHz+, no ECC needed. Graphics options should be HD2900XT - as this is the only serious gaming card from ATi these days - or GF 8800GTS 640MB and GTX version.

So has anyone done a cost analysis to see what the gains would be by introudcing a new Mac-specific card, and Conroes (is that what you meant by something other than Xeons?). What is the usual price premium attached to a "Mac graphics card"? That is what we'd pay for it. Not what PC owners buy off the shelf at Best Buy or CompUSA. I'm guesing cheaperr motherboard to run the Conroes? By how much?

[bmb012]

... the X1900XT (which was good, a year ago)...

Yeah... you guys need to buy video game consoles... You know, entertainment machines? Not tech demo rigs?

[Wild-Bill]

The graphics cards are the limiters here. Why not make the graphics cards made for gaming available on the Mac... like the HD2900XT or any of the 8800s. That'd be a start. Then we could work on Crossfire/SLI. :rolleyes:

That's what we in the Mac Pro forum have been waiting on for months. It was an utter disappointment that they didn't update the Mac Pro yesterday.

Oh wait, new thousand dollar RAID card.:rolleyes: Give me a break Apple. :mad:

[TheSilencer]

Hm, yeah. The Apple "premium price" graphics card and so on. Well, I am not saying that such a system will be any cheaper, especially thinking of Apple prices, but it will perform much better for games. Faster RAM, faster graphics card. However it should be around $2200, it depends mostly on what CPU is used and graphics card, RAM isn´t expensive at all, especially non ECC/FB.

[Irishman]

Then, I hope to God some of us get hired on at Apple in a position where we'd have Steve or Phil's ears.

[TheSilencer]

We will see.
For me it is not a matter of money, a game rig - a dedicated for games one - costs the same as a mac pro and if you want SLI/Crossfire in it and some extras, you go up more and more. It really is only the lack of a fast GPU, ok and faster RAM and SLI/Crossfire option.

[GFLPraxis]

"mediocre or annoying performance in anything but 5 year-old games".

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It can run last year's games at high settings. Some people make it out to be a Radeon 9600!

[Irishman]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It can run last year's games at high settings. Some people make it out to be a Radeon 9600!

My point was that EVERYONE talks up their product. It didn't specify WHICH games performed wonderfully on it. The shopper brings that expectation to the purchase when they read the marketing material on Apple' s (or anyone else's) site.

[Irishman]

We will see.
For me it is not a matter of money, a game rig - a dedicated for games one - costs the same as a mac pro and if you want SLI/Crossfire in it and some extras, you go up more and more. It really is only the lack of a fast GPU, ok and faster RAM and SLI/Crossfire option.

So, for you, a true game rig is exemplified by Alienware, or Falcon Northwest, someone like that?

[contoursvt]

What apple needs to do is so simple that its not even funny.... a 3 year old can figure it out.

They need one of these with an apple logo on it. It will be fast, configurable, upgradable and affordable.

http://configure.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=ca&CS=cadhs1&l=en&OC=92004PD_F_1E


A core2 based computer with free PCI-E slots and mainstream DDR2 ram in a better looking chassis and make it semi affordable.

[Irishman]

What apple needs to do is so simble that its not even funny.... a 3 year old can figure it out.

They need one of these with an apple logo on it. It will be fast, configurable, upgradable and affordable.

http://configure.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=ca&CS=cadhs1&l=en&OC=92004PD_F_1E

Not what Apple is about. If it was, they'd already be doing it. Unless you're talking about the specs on it?

[TheSilencer]

Not necessarily Alienware or DELL XPS or so. But sure, they build good game rigs. If you build it your own, you might save some $$$.
A "true" game rig is meant to be high end, isn´t it? If I buy a game rig, it must survive at least 2 years, with upgrades 3-4 years. If you are a hardcore gamer, you may or have to buy a new system every year. And we talking about $2200-2500 range, not Alienware high end extreme $5000 machines, which are outstanding in performance but in price too.
I am not saying Apple should build machines to beat Alienware or so, but machines that can run upcomming games like Bioshock at high settings.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apples line up here is the problem,,,Mini vs iMac vs ProMac means real computing starts at $2k in Apple land. Everything below ProMac must be CRIPPLED and are.

[lost eden]

I'm kinda lost here.

Why would anyone complain to the brick wall that it's not a stucco wall?

Same with the iMac complainers who want it to be a gamer's Mac. Um, what main things do gamers want? moderate price, top-notch performance, expandability, upgrade options out the wazoo.

What has the iMac NEVER been? Moderate price? Yeah, you could argue that its placement in Apple's product line is moderate. So, check one.

Top-notch performance? For cutting-edge 3D games? Um, no.

Expandable? Um, no. Unless you can plug in an external device, the iMac ain't doin' it.

Upgrade options? Faster video cards bought over the shelf? 3D audio cards? etc? Nope.


STOP complaining that the iMac isn't these things. Appreciate it for what it is, and move on. It's clearly not for you hardcore gamers.

If ANYTHING is going to be the hardcore gaming Mac it will be the Mac Pro.

Period. End of story.
The problem isn't just with the iMac. ALL Macs fail with regards to expandability & upgrade options. Even the Mac Pro.

Yeah... you guys need to buy video game consoles... You know, entertainment machines?
Is it too much to ask that when I spend £2000 on a Mac, it performs as well in games as a £750 IBM-compat?

We will see.
For me it is not a matter of money, a game rig - a dedicated for games one - costs the same as a mac pro and if you want SLI/Crossfire in it and some extras, you go up more and more. It really is only the lack of a fast GPU, ok and faster RAM and SLI/Crossfire option.
Not true. You could build a machine that tuns all of todays newest games at maxxed out settings for the same price, or less, than an ENTRY Mac Pro.



It is really summed up by a couple of simple factors. Gamers want;

choice of components

configurability, expandability & upgradability

choice of price point

Macs fail to offer any of these. You are stuck with the very limited range of components that Apple offers you, there are no alternatives to upgrade to (assuming your Mac even has the capability for expansion!) & you're going to end up spending twice as much as an IBM-compat which boasts the same gaming performance.

If you are anything other than THE most casual gamer, then you will buy an IBM-compat or a games console. Unless, of course, you're a pathetic Apple fanboy who is blinded by advertising & refuses to accept that this is one arean WHERE APPLE FAILS BIG TIME.

[contoursvt]

Not what Apple is about. If it was, they'd already be doing it. Unless you're talking about the specs on it?

Sorry I was being sarcastic. I didnt mean they should take that identical dell box and slap on their logo. I meant they should build a Core2 based computer with a PCI-E 16X slot that can take a real video card and have a few other slots free as well. Have standard DDR2 and at least 2 hard drive bays in a middle sized case and price it accordingly or marginally more than a dell or HP of similar specs.

Apple know they cannot compete with mainstream boxes so they either give very stylish or different computers (mini / imac) which look great but lack upgradability or they give high end workstations. The reason is that neither of these markets are saturated so apple can get away with charging what they charge....

[Irishman]

Okay, a good start that Dell setup you posted. We can at least do some playing around wit hit. Let's suppose it's a base Mac gaming machine.

Comparable to a Dell Dimension 9200 sans 22" monitor:

2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Q6600 quad-core processor
OS X Leopard
2 GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM (total 4 slots)
320 GB Serial-ATA Hard Drive
nVidia GeForce 8600 GT (256MB DDR3) in one of two PCI-E slots
16x Superdrive
new flat keyboard and Mighty Mouse
iLife '08
iChat AV
iCal
Mail
Preview
Safari

$1299.99 (oops...cuts into iMac territory, could get ugly). Raise your hands if you'd pay that for a Mac Pro without monitor

[contoursvt]

Of course people would put up their hands if they could get a mac pro at that price but unforunatly this dell is almost 1/2 the price of the four core 2Ghz mac pro with double the ram, a larger HD, a faster video card and a 22" monitor.

Also the Q6600 will likely be faster than a dual dualcore 2.0Ghz as well. The only shortcoming of this box is that it will be limited to a max of 8Gb RAM which is probably fine for 99% of people.

Also I dont think it would get ugly being priced the same as an imac since the imac offers a more compact and stylish solution as opposed to being a tower. They are different products so some will choose the imac and some will go for the tower.


Okay, a good start that Dell setup you posted. We can at least do some playing around wit hit. Let's suppose it's a base Mac gaming machine.

Comparable to a Dell Dimension 9200 sans 22" monitor:

2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Q6600 quad-core processor
OS X Leopard
2 GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM (total 4 slots)
320 GB Serial-ATA Hard Drive
nVidia GeForce 8600 GT (256MB DDR3) in one of two PCI-E slots
16x Superdrive
new flat keyboard and Mighty Mouse
iLife '08
iChat AV
iCal
Mail
Preview
Safari

$1299.99 (oops...cuts into iMac territory, could get ugly). Raise your hands if you'd pay that for a Mac Pro without monitor

[Irishman]

Of course people would put up their hands if they could get a mac pro at that price but unforunatly this dell is almost 1/2 the price of the four core 2Ghz mac pro with double the ram, a larger HD, a faster video card and a 22" monitor.

Also the Q6600 will likely be faster than a dual dualcore 2.0Ghz as well. The only shortcoming of this box is that it will be limited to a max of 8Gb RAM which is probably fine for 99% of people.

Also I dont think it would get ugly being priced the same as an imac since the imac offers a more compact and stylish solution as opposed to being a tower. They are different products so some will choose the imac and some will go for the tower.

Alright, what if Apple didn't cut into its own margins, and offered the same setup for $1999.99? Still would you?

[contoursvt]

Alright, what if Apple didn't cut into its own margins, and offered the same setup for $1999.99? Still would you?

No. I cannot justify spending $700 more just because its a pretty case and has a modified EFI firmware that lets it boot OSX. At most I'd pay $200 more if it was an apple tower with a non apple branded LCD (say samsung or LG). If apple released a 22" LCD that was $100 more than samsung, LG..etc, then I can justify paying $300 more just because everything matches and might be more aesthetically pleasing.

Why should I pay more? I'm not in some cult that has to donate blood once in a while. I am a consumer and I want my hardware to be priced according to similar hardware from other makers. If the outside is nicer, fine then charge me the extra $100 or $150 to make it so but dont ream me for it.

If Porsche made a car with Porche skin but everything else under it was from a Subaru Impreza,then I'd want to pay the price of a Subaru Impreza plus a LITTLE bit more because the outside had to be made nicer. Dell / HP all use fairly standard components as does apple. Motherboards may be intel, Asus..etc. CPU's will be Intel, RAM will be Samsung, Micron..etc. HD will be the same, DVD roms will be similar, Video cards ATI/ NVidia. So the guts are all very similar. Nobody would be cutting corners.

[Irishman]

No. I cannot justify spending $700 more just because its a pretty case and has a modified EFI firmware that lets it boot OSX. At most I'd pay $300 more if it was an apple tower with a non apple branded LCD (say samsung or LG). If apple released a 22" LCD that was $100 more than samsung, LG..etc, then I can justify paying $300 more just because everything matches and might be more aesthetically pleasing.

Why should I pay more? I'm not in some cult that has to donate blood once in a while. I am a consumer and I want my hardware to be priced according to similar hardware from other makers. If the outside is nicer, fine then charge me the extra $100 or $150 to make it so but dont ream me for it.


Do you bitch about all Apple's computer prices then? About the other part that you added in, you can criticize Apple for overpricing, but if you're being honest, you're not buying their products. Are you buying their products? Those of us who have been in this for a decade or more know FULL WELL that there's ALWAYS been a sizable premium for buying apple. We are willing to pay it because the Mac fills a need for us personally or professionally. If that isn't true for your newbies (I don't know if you are one...that's just the impression I've gotten. Somkeone who'd been following Apple for years would be run out of steam criticizing prices).

[contoursvt]

Do you bitch about all Apple's computer prices then?

Not all of them, just the price you asked if I'd pay because its way beyond whats reasonable.

Apple's mac pro prices are fairly on par with what a workstation would be but $1999 would not even be close to what a core2 based machine should be (even with 4 cores).


For $1999 someone can pick up that dell box with the 4 cores in it, upgrade it to 8 gigs ram and probably subtract the 22" and add a 24" higher res monitor and throw in a 2nd drive AND bump the video :)

[GFLPraxis]

Alright, what if Apple didn't cut into its own margins, and offered the same setup for $1999.99? Still would you?

Apple DOESN'T have big margins. You realize that the Mac Pro IS the cheapest machine in its class on the market, right? Xeons cost a lot more than Core 2 Duos, but you can put more of them on a motherboard and they outperform it.

Apple simply doesn't have a machine with Conroe. The iMac uses mobile parts; they use VERY EXPENSIVE ones so that looking at a spec sheet it looks as good as a desktop, but the 2 GHz Core 2 Duo in an iMac costs a lot more than the 2 GHz Core 2 Duo you'd find in a Dell.

The iMac uses mobile RAM, mobile CPU, and mobile GPU part. In the case of the GPU, that means a slower GPU; in the case of the RAM and CPU, that means that while they perform as good as the desktop counterparts, they cost a lot more.

If you add up the component costs in the iMac you'll find that the profit margins are actually NOT very high. Same with the Mac Pro; in fact, the Mac Pro is the lowest-priced eight-core machine in the market, including Dell's offering which is almost $1000 more.


Essentially, you're comparing a machine built using high-cost parts for a small form factor and claiming that the machine built using low cost desktop parts is cheaper, then comparing the low cost desktop parts machine to a machine built with high-end expensive server parts (ECC RAM, Xeon processors) and claiming the high end machine is overpriced.


No, Apple simply doesn't have a machine that compares. Apple's profit margins are NOT that great on the iMac or the Mac Pro, they're not robbing you blind. They just don't have a machine built for those needs.

Your argument is that Apple is missing a machine class in their lineup. Not that Apple is overcharging. What you're telling me is that you want Apple to sell a machine using Conroe (desktop), not Merom (small form factor) and Woodcrest (server).

[Irishman]

I'd love to see the option on Apple's BTO site. Is anyone handy with web site design and could whip up a reasonable fascimile for us to froth over? :)

[Irishman]

Apple DOESN'T have big margins. You realize that the Mac Pro IS the cheapest machine in its class on the market, right? Xeons cost a lot more than Core 2 Duos, but you can put more of them on a motherboard and they outperform it.

Apple simply doesn't have a machine with Conroe. The iMac uses mobile parts; they use VERY EXPENSIVE ones so that looking at a spec sheet it looks as good as a desktop, but the 2 GHz Core 2 Duo in an iMac costs a lot more than the 2 GHz Core 2 Duo you'd find in a Dell.

The iMac uses mobile RAM, mobile CPU, and mobile GPU part. In the case of the GPU, that means a slower GPU; in the case of the RAM and CPU, that means that while they perform as good as the desktop counterparts, they cost a lot more.

If you add up the component costs in the iMac you'll find that the profit margins are actually NOT very high. Same with the Mac Pro; in fact, the Mac Pro is the lowest-priced eight-core machine in the market, including Dell's offering which is almost $1000 more.


Essentially, you're comparing a machine built using high-cost parts for a small form factor and claiming that the machine built using low cost desktop parts is cheaper, then comparing the low cost desktop parts machine to a machine built with high-end expensive server parts (ECC RAM, Xeon processors) and claiming the high end machine is overpriced.


No, Apple simply doesn't have a machine that compares. Apple's profit margins are NOT that great on the iMac or the Mac Pro, they're not robbing you blind. They just don't have a machine built for those needs.

Your argument is that Apple is missing a machine class in their lineup. Not that Apple is overcharging. What you're telling me is that you want Apple to sell a machine using Conroe (desktop), not Merom (small form factor) and Woodcrest (server).

I don't know to whom you're replying. Maybe some of me, maybe some of Contour? Um, for my part, about margins, compared to almost everyone else in the computer business, Apple has high margins. Probably not as high as ten years ago, but still comparitively high today. Gateway, HP, Toshiba, Sony, etc are almost sold at cost in retail locations, so any margin at all is going to be comparitively unique in the business.

[Chone]

You guys lost me but if you are talking about the Mac Pro's value then all I have to say is that its the only Apple computer that is a true bargain. Last time I checked it wasn't even possible to match the MP's price not even by building it yourself (and less without such a silent and effective case), don't know if that has changed but you should be comparing the MP to the Dell Inspirons not the Dimensions. Xeons are more expensive but at the same time they are just a way better processor than any Core 2 out there.

Apple did everything right with the Mac Pro, yeah even if it just comes with a 7300GT, its passively cooled and YOU CAN upgrade. And its priced well.

Apple please take a good hard look at what makes the Mac Pro so great and apply it to all your computers.

[GFLPraxis]

You guys lost me but if you are talking about the Mac Pro's value then all I have to say is that its the only Apple computer that is a true bargain. Last time I checked it wasn't even possible to match the MP's price not even by building it yourself (and less without such a silent and effective case), don't know if that has changed but you should be comparing the MP to the Dell Inspirons not the Dimensions. Xeons are more expensive but at the same time they are just a way better processor than any Core 2 out there.

Apple did everything right with the Mac Pro, yeah even if it just comes with a 7300GT, its passively cooled and YOU CAN upgrade. And its priced well.

Apple please take a good hard look at what makes the Mac Pro so great and apply it to all your computers.


Yet the iMac is the same; it is almost impossible to build a machine in a similar form factor. You'd have to buy a laptop and hook it up to a desktop-caliber hard drive.

Again, what you're asking for is not an iMac improvement; you're asking for Apple to add an entirely new machine to their lineup.

[Chone]

Yet the iMac is the same; it is almost impossible to build a machine in a similar form factor. You'd have to buy a laptop and hook it up to a desktop-caliber hard drive.

Again, what you're asking for is not an iMac improvement; you're asking for Apple to add an entirely new machine to their lineup.

Well yeah but that doesn't mean we can't ask for a little more punch from Apple.

The truth is the iMac is supposed to be a DESKTOP not a laptop without battery. Sure no vendors sell it and you know why? Because its not practical, that is why.

For 1200$, including a 20" monitor, I can build a much better computer than an iMac, IT IS A DESKTOP, I don't care about it being thin or small, if thermals and accoustics are a problem, you can still beat the iMac so what is the advantage of the iMac's form factor? Please tell me, there are none that I can think of and if you are going to do it, at least do it right which Apple has not.

[Irishman]

Well yeah but that doesn't mean we can't ask for a little more punch from Apple.

The truth is the iMac is supposed to be a DESKTOP not a laptop without battery. Sure no vendors sell it and you know why? Because its not practical, that is why.

For 1200$, including a 20" monitor, I can build a much better computer than an iMac, IT IS A DESKTOP, I don't care about it being thin or small, if thermals and accoustics are a problem, you can still beat the iMac so what is the advantage of the iMac's form factor? Please tell me, there are none that I can think of and if you are going to do it, at least do it right which Apple has not.

One thing that is clear. Steve loves the all-in-ones. Sometimes it seems he has blinders on. Regaarding the all-in-ones...who in your view HAS done "it" right?

[contoursvt]

I'll be 100% honest with you and tell you that I have no emotions or brand loyalty to apple or any other company. I buy what is reliable and works as long as I dont feel like I'm getting gouged on purpose. I've owned 3 macs in my life and I have purchased all used because I was never willing to pay apple's asking price because to me, it was unjustified. The only apple product that is worth what they ask and I'd be happy to buy (if I had the $$) would be the Mac Pro. Nothing else.

In the past I've owned a Quadra 950, Power Mac 9500/120, Power Mac 9600/350 and a G3 B&W 450. I've always built my own PC's which is why I guess I dont buy Dell or HP machines new either, but I'd buy a dell or HP midrange computer 10x over before an imac or mac mini because to me they are too limiting. Thats me I guess. I feel I'm more of an enthusiast than your average user. I dont need xeons and I dont need ECC support but what I do want is a computer that is fast, somewhat affordable for a home user, upgradable and reliable and apple is missing this market totally. You get all or nothing. Very upgradable Mac Pro or computer perfect for grandma. Sorry..thats the way I see it :)


Do you bitch about all Apple's computer prices then? About the other part that you added in, you can criticize Apple for overpricing, but if you're being honest, you're not buying their products. Are you buying their products? Those of us who have been in this for a decade or more know FULL WELL that there's ALWAYS been a sizable premium for buying apple. We are willing to pay it because the Mac fills a need for us personally or professionally. If that isn't true for your newbies (I don't know if you are one...that's just the impression I've gotten. Somkeone who'd been following Apple for years would be run out of steam criticizing prices).

[contoursvt]

But thats exactly the problem. Steve does what he wants for himself and his users come second. He's almost a big kid that builds things for him and crazed worshipers just buy what he sells and then make excuses for any shortcomings or higher prices. Sorry I'm being harsh but it the way I view it.

IMO long gone are the days that apple really produced high quality cutting edge stuff compared to their PC counterparts. The last such item was the Beige G3. I feel the old stuff was build with no comprimises, offered things like built in SCSI which at the time on PC's were some very expensive add on and had lots of upgrade potential across their whole product line - except the horrid performa which was a mistake.



One thing that is clear. Steve loves the all-in-ones. Sometimes it seems he has blinders on. Regaarding the all-in-ones...who in your view HAS done "it" right?

[progx]

Macs are becoming gaming machines. With games coming to the Mac OS, it will be. Until then, just throw on a copy of Windows XP and play until your eyes bleed.

Although, when it comes time to upgrade my Powerbook G4, I don't think I'll be investing in Mac games anymore. What's the point when I have Windows XP box, PS2, DS and Wii.

[lost eden]

they're not robbing you blind.
When was the last time you looked at Apple's RAM prices? They're an outright insult!

You guys lost me but if you are talking about the Mac Pro's value then all I have to say is that its the only Apple computer that is a true bargain. Last time I checked it wasn't even possible to match the MP's price not even by building it yourself (and less without such a silent and effective case), don't know if that has changed but you should be comparing the MP to the Dell Inspirons not the Dimensions. Xeons are more expensive but at the same time they are just a way better processor than any Core 2 out there.

Apple did everything right with the Mac Pro, yeah even if it just comes with a 7300GT, its passively cooled and YOU CAN upgrade. And its priced well.

Apple please take a good hard look at what makes the Mac Pro so great and apply it to all your computers.
You obviously haven't built many IBM-compats in your time. You can EASILY build an IBM-compat that performs BETTER than a similarily priced Mac Pro in all respects.

You can upgrade? Sure, you can upgrade from an old bottom-end card (the 7300) to an old top-end card (x1900). I hardly call that an upgrade, as you're going from old to old & still not getting good performance!

Xeons aren't really that much better than C2Ds, except in limited situations;

> You have PCI-X or 64bit PCI cards AND
> You need more than one dual core Intel CPU OR
> You need more than two PCI Express slots with more than x4 lanes per slot

For the average, non-workstation user, all the Xeons do are up the price of RAM considerably, as they need FB-DIMMs.

[Irishman]

When was the last time you looked at Apple's RAM prices? They're an outright insult!


You obviously haven't built many IBM-compats in your time. You can EASILY build an IBM-compat that performs BETTER than a similarily priced Mac Pro in all respects.

You can upgrade? Sure, you can upgrade from an old bottom-end card (the 7300) to an old top-end card (x1900). I hardly call that an upgrade, as you're going from old to old & still not getting good performance!

Xeons aren't really that much better than C2Ds, except in limited situations;

> You have PCI-X or 64bit PCI cards AND
> You need more than one dual core Intel CPU OR
> You need more than two PCI Express slots with more than x4 lanes per slot

For the average, non-workstation user, all the Xeons do are up the price of RAM considerably, as they need FB-DIMMs.


Not getting good performance with the X1900? Sorry, I can't let you get away with that. There's a bit of a disconnect between what you're saying and what you mean, I hope. :)

If you mean to say that the X1900 is not the fastest video card on the market, you'd be right. If you mean to say that current shipping games on a Mac Pro running the X1900 won't scream and be silvery smooth? You'd be dead wrong. You're still getting 50+ fps on most new games maxed out at high resolution. Some games and settings top out over 100 fps, so how does this make the X1900 not a good performer in a Mac Pro?

Google bare feats and X1900 for what I mean. Quake 4 maxed at 1900 x 1200 runs 54 fps! Doom 3 at the same settings runs 73 fps! The Halo Ub runs 88 fps (even though it's an older game), the two main UT2K4 demos, inferno flyby runs 198 fps at the same settings, and the inferno botmatch runs 95 fps!

How does that hinder even a hardcore player's enjoyment of the game? Come on, I'm all for more speed here, but let's put it in perpsective. It's great, FAR greater than we were getting years back.

Here's the funny thing. If you're gaming, there's NO need to ever spring for the 3 GHz options. At all.

<http://www.barefeats.com/quad10.html>

(netdemo001)

Q4 at 19 x 12 on the 2.66 and the 3 GHz MP w/ x1900 both run 53 fps.
Q4 at 1280 x 800 on the 2.66 runs 81 and the 3 GHz runs 82 fps.


(Demo1)

Doom3 at 19 x 12 on the 2.66 runs 71 and the 3 GHz runs 73 fps.
Doom3 at 1280 x 800 on the 2.66 runs 106 and the 3 GHz runs 120 fps.


UT Inferno Botmatch

UT2k4 at 19 x 12 on the 2.66 runs 80 and the 3 GHz runs 95 fps.
UT2K4 at 1280 x 800 on the 2.66 runs ? and the 3 GHz runs only 99 fps.

A Note from Barefeats.com:

"You can use Graphiccelerator 1.3.2 to change the ROM code so it runs at "normal" speeds or even better. (The memory clock is rated up to 900MHz.) For example, one user has his X1900 XT running at 650MHz core clock and 775MHz memory clock speed -- which turns it into an XTX. Of course, that may cause the X1900's fan to run more often."

Oh, and since Quake 4 caps framerate at 60 fps, you'll never see the "higher performance" anyway. In effect, if all you play is Q4, you're paying for performance you can't experience. Huh?

[takao]

Irishman:

UT2004: released more than 3,5 years ago running on the engine which powers UT 2003 which got released 2002 or nearly 5 years ago
Doom3: released 2004 (or 3 years ago)

personally my amd athlon xp with 1,6 ghz and it's the geforce 4400 ti (_middle_ class card of _5_ years ago) 1 gb ram can play UT2004 fluently (with frame rate drops on outside levels which i rarely play ;)) on medium settings

i think it's time to let go...

[overcast]

You can't possibly expect anyone to care about benchmarks on game engines that are easily 3+ years old. I have the x1900xtx and even that is showing it's age with CURRENT games and certainly on future ones coming. The x1900xt is dated , end of story. Why are you defending the use of such an old card in such a highend machine? Todays hardcore gamers want 8800gtx's to play TODAYS games.

LIKE OMG, I CAN PLAY EVERY GAME PRIOR TO 2004 AT 200FPS. SWEET.

[Irishman]

You can't possibly expect anyone to care about benchmarks on game engines that are easily 3+ years old. I have the x1900xtx and even that is showing it's age with CURRENT games and certainly on future ones coming. The x1900xt is dated , end of story. Why are you defending the use of such an old card in such a highend machine? Todays hardcore gamers want 8800gtx's to play TODAYS games.

LIKE OMG, I CAN PLAY EVERY GAME PRIOR TO 2004 AT 200FPS. SWEET.

Titles please? What are these magical today's games of which you speak? If it's not available for the Mac natively, what do you care? you gonna install XP and run all your games in Bootcamp?

[takao]

Titles please? What are these magical today's games of which you speak? If it's not available for the Mac natively, what do you care? you gonna install XP and run all your games in Bootcamp?

i think that was part of the whole point

if i could install windows on my mac i would .. only for the games

[Irishman]

i think that was part of the whole point

if i could install windows on my mac i would .. only for the games

There was a lot of ranting in there, but very little to do with the point.

Unless Apple's going to include XP or Vista onboard to make Bootcamp cheaper and easier, very few of us Macheads are actually going to shell out the cash to buy a legit copy of Windows for games on a new Mac. We'd just buy a Wintel box and let it be (I for one don't want to hear about anyone's forays into software piracy, speaking of unspoken third options).

So, the topic was about reasons people think Macs aren't good for gaming. With Bootcamp it makes moot the whole argument that there are no games for Mac. It may not be a cheap solution, but it exists. It's available.

So now it's a question of price/performance ratio. I can get behind the call for a gaming Mac, as was brought up earlier in the thread. There's plenty of opportunity to complain if Apple goes 3-4 months without such a Conroe beastie. :)

[lost eden]

Not getting good performance with the X1900? Sorry, I can't let you get away with that. There's a bit of a disconnect between what you're saying and what you mean, I hope.

If you mean to say that the X1900 is not the fastest video card on the market, you'd be right. If you mean to say that current shipping games on a Mac Pro running the X1900 won't scream and be silvery smooth? You'd be dead wrong. You're still getting 50+ fps on most new games maxed out at high resolution. Some games and settings top out over 100 fps, so how does this make the X1900 not a good performer in a Mac Pro?
That's not what I was trying to say. The point that I was trying to make is that the ABSOLUTE best graphics card you can get in a Mac is over a year old, which in computing terms is ancient - it is even the best year old graphics card! Not only is it old, but Apple charges you a ludicrous amount of money for it. For the cost of an ENTRY Mac Pro with an X1900, you could have an IBM-compat with a (or multiple) newer, better graphics cards & overall FAR superior performance in games.

[contoursvt]

Should be noted that the graphics speed is not only critical in games but 3D applications such as Maya, Lightwave..etc. Those will benefit from a faster 3D card as well so by apple not providing current up to date video cards, pro applications also will suffer - now I dont know how much that matters to most but just wanted to point out that its not only games either.

I'm sure an 8800GTS will be faster than an X1900XT in 3D apps too and these cards are not priced too far apart - one is just a lot older.

[panzer06]

I am a long-time UNIX guy. Mac OS was never on my radar until the UNIX-based OS X was released...and I still never seriously considered purchasing one until the low-cost G4 mini's made their debut. I ditched the kids' linux boxes and got them each a mini, bought a mini for myself, and bought the wife a G5 iMac.

Post Intel transition...my kids have a CS mini and my wife has my "old" 1st gen Macbook. Currently, I have a thinkpad X60s with Ubuntu over here in the desert.

My wife and kids love iTunes and all the great multimedia "things" they can do with iLife. My kids have a wide range of educational software available to them (that was always the big issue when they used linux). However, even though I like the idea of those tools, more often then not, when I'm in front of a Mac, I'm staring at a couple of xterm windows and a web browser. And these days, Xen suits my virtualization needs far better than Parallels.

The funny thing is...while contemplating what new computer I will treat myself to when I get home from Iraq, the only real reason I'm wanting a Mac is FOR games! (specifically, Madden '08 (when it is released), World of Warcraft, and the upcoming StarCraft 2) I DO really like OS X's GUI, but for the most part, linux suits my needs perfectly.

So, count me as someone that will be purchasing a new Mac BECAUSE of games...not in spite of them. :)

I too bought my Macbook Pro to play Windows games and to work. Wanted one machine that could do it all. The new 2.2 with 8600M GT (even with the 128MB version, Windows allocates up to 384MB additional system ram as needed) works great with Company of Heroes, AOE III and C&C3 on Windows XP. I have not tried Vista on the Mac yet.

My children and grandchildren love to play RTS games so I carry my MBP when I visit them.

BTW, I have a son & son-in-law in the Air Force and Navy respectively (neither have had to server in Iraq) and thank all of the members of our armed forces for their service to their country. God bless you and your comrades in Iraq. May circumstances allow you to come home safe to your family soon.

Cheers,

[aliquis-]

Well, guess I could say the same, I would be just as fine with FreeBSD + KDE as with OS X if it wasn't for games (and professional commercial apps), so yes, sort of, but they still suck compared to Windows machines for gaming, and that is the comparision most people does.

[GFLPraxis]

When was the last time you looked at Apple's RAM prices? They're an outright insult!

Oh, I agree there; but amazingly, I've seen other PC manufacturers charge MORE!

But the RAM is easily user-replaceable. Overpriced RAM and overpriced machines are very different things.

[progx]

There was a lot of ranting in there, but very little to do with the point.

Unless Apple's going to include XP or Vista onboard to make Bootcamp cheaper and easier, very few of us Macheads are actually going to shell out the cash to buy a legit copy of Windows for games on a new Mac. We'd just buy a Wintel box and let it be (I for one don't want to hear about anyone's forays into software piracy, speaking of unspoken third options).

So, the topic was about reasons people think Macs aren't good for gaming. With Bootcamp it makes moot the whole argument that there are no games for Mac. It may not be a cheap solution, but it exists. It's available.

So now it's a question of price/performance ratio. I can get behind the call for a gaming Mac, as was brought up earlier in the thread. There's plenty of opportunity to complain if Apple goes 3-4 months without such a Conroe beastie. :)

About 10 years is the source of the big problem, but there aren't a lot anymore. Games are coming, just be patient. Hopefully more native ones, I don't know about this Cider technology, it doesn't sound like a true experience. Eh, what the hell, right?

[overcast]

Oh, I agree there; but amazingly, I've seen other PC manufacturers charge MORE!
lol no you haven't.