PDA

View Full Version : Return to Castle Wolfenstein - OS X Client Available


MacRumors
Sep 18, 2001, 01:26 PM
As reported by xlr8yourmac.com (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com), the OS X client for Return to Castle Wolfenstein (http://www.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/) is now available. For all the info, see Graeme Devine's .plan file (http://www.webdog.org/plans/279/), quoted below:
<font face="courier"]Name: Graeme Devine
Email: zaphod@idsoftware.com
Description: Designer / Project Manager
Project:
-----------------------------------
Mac stuff.
The OS X build is looking good. On my G4 dual 800 with a GeForce 3 card I get 90fps in game, while on my P3 dual 800 with a GeForce 3 I get 30fps on the same settings.
I've been running it on my machine without problem, in game and out. However, I'm using a developer build of 10.1 (5G48), and I've not tested across anything else. I'll continue to do that tomorrow before putting out a general public release.
Meanwhile, if you want to play the BLEEDING edge client, you can grab it from my iTools public folder (graemedevine). You'll need to have downloaded and installed a full PC build because this is just the app, so this limits the # of you that can play it to experts and desperate types.. I've been updating the build here for people to test on since I only have a few OS X machines here to play with.
Please ONLY send bug reports on this build to me (zaphod@idsoftware.com) and try to include a clear step by step way to replicate the error you have. Please also include the OS X build you have running and what kind of video card you have installed.</font>
Wow, his dual G4 really leaves that dual P3 in the dust. Can't wait to give this a shot.

password is pong
Sep 18, 2001, 02:22 PM
WHERE'S THE 10.1 NEWS?

password is pong
Sep 18, 2001, 03:52 PM
It really is pong...

password is pong
Sep 18, 2001, 04:35 PM
OK, I downloaded the file from this guys idisk, now how do I get it to work?? He said sometime about having a PC version or something?? Does he mean the linux or windows version?? I would really love to play but I can't install it.

password is pong
Sep 18, 2001, 04:59 PM
Why is there a "password is pong"? I can just sign up, right??? Who created PIPong (Password Is Pong)? Not an administrator, I'm assuming.

Guest 123
Sep 18, 2001, 05:05 PM
You have to download the Windows Version, install it on a PC, and then send the folder to your Mac, put the OS X version in that folder, run it, and voila it launches., and it does NOT work on 10.0.4 for me.. it will launch OK and everything, but when I go to join a server it hangs the computer. but im sure it will work in 10.1...

password is pong
Sep 18, 2001, 05:54 PM
hehe, i had to check, too, and it is pong

Some Guy
Sep 18, 2001, 05:56 PM
Good lord some of you are STUPID!

If you can't read the darn text stop posting confirmation how idiotic you are re: "It don't werk cuz i dun got da whole game filez an i got only da app thingy."

Geeze, and who said anything about posting Apple Beta software updates?

He is talking about the GAME HE IS WORKING ON. He tried it on OS X 10.1 which Apple has all but told every detail of so far on its web site and at Expos for months now.

Damn why oh why did I read the comments on this article. I feel like I am in the movie "Dude, Where's My Car?" or something.

mymemory
Sep 18, 2001, 06:42 PM
How come something can be better at 90fps if 30fps is way too fast for the human eye? 15 fps still continuos.

pipong
Sep 18, 2001, 06:49 PM
Whoever changed the password for "password is pong" is ****ing *******. Go somewhere else and be a dick.

kmsae
Sep 18, 2001, 06:57 PM
30fps is full motion video, anything above 60fps can't be seen by the naked eye.

Classic
Sep 18, 2001, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by kmsae
30fps is full motion video, anything above 60fps can't be seen by the naked eye.

Are you sure about that? I know that if my monitor is set at a measly refresh rate of 60Hz, I can totally see the refresh. But if I kick up to 85Hz, the image is much more solid.

I'm assuming since the hertz refers to cycles per second, that 60fps is the equivalent of 60Hz.

On top of that, (and I'm purely speaking out of my ass now) I would guess that there are interference patterns that result from running at an fps rate that is different from the monitors Hz refresh rate. Otherwise, a particular frame might occur in between full images shown by the monitor, resulting in an instance which isn't seen at all.

If anybody's got some real knowledge of this, I'd be curious to know...

frankfurter
Sep 18, 2001, 09:12 PM
The reason better fps is desirable is quite simple. While it's true that the naked eye can't differentiate over 30-32fps, you want a high fps so that in scenes of explosive action and high detail the frame rate won't drop below 30.

For instance, a scene in a game while you're alone in a brick tunnel may give you 90fps. Who cares?

Well, when you turn the corner and 8 players attack you and each other with rocket launchers, flame throwers, etc, it will put a tremendous strain on the system. But if you have the power to run 90fps in 'idle' mode, hopefully it will never fall below 30fps during high graphics activity. The system (card) has to draw all this stuff, you know, and it drastically reduces fps.



Make sense?

Frank

~/indigo
Sep 18, 2001, 09:15 PM
Although TV and movies have a framerate around 30 fps, that is only ok because of a "blurring" effect between frames.

Fluorescent lights that have a refresh rate of less than 60-ish appear to flicker. This shows how you can see more than your TV throws at you and why high refresh rates on monitors are important.

The trained eye can actually discriminate between frame rates up to around 80+ fps, consciously. I have heard rumors (and I believe them) that you can detect more sub-consciously. You detect this in the form of fatigue. Supposedly, reading text at 70 fps or less leads to fatigue while above that may not as quickly. I am not sure if this is true since low refresh rates are also characteristic of high resolution and very small text.

That is what I know about that.

Also, great results with the FPS vs the P3. Not all that surprising that we beat them but by such a degree is nice to see.

bloop
Sep 18, 2001, 09:55 PM
Movies are 24 fps. This is why some movies look god awful on straight lines with DVD if you don't have progressive scan. Moire patterns are created because of the odd sequencing of fields to turn 24 fps into 30 fps.

TV is 60 fields per second which ends up being 30 frames (NTSC). PAL is 50 fields or 25 frame per second. However PAL has slightly higher resolution than NTSC.

Anyone when spending enough time training their eyes can see framerates well in excess of 90 fps. It takes time but it can be done.

While 30 fps is enough visual content to convey motion to the brain it isn't enough to give it the full sensation of movement. You either need a much higher framerate, roughly double... or you need motion blur.

Higher refresh rates are great for your eyes and low ones will fatigue them quickly. Don't believe me? Get a good monitor and set your desktop to 1280x1024 at 60hz. Use the computer for 3 hours straight. Now do the same thing tmrw with a refresh rate set at 110 (or even 90). Its like the difference between reading text off the tv (60hz) and paper (110hz).

shoeish
Sep 19, 2001, 12:59 AM
I have a Geforce2 GTS 32mb and a 800mhz athlon and get 35fps in 1600x1200x32bit. How can a GF3 only get 30 at any setting?

Shoe

snowman
Sep 19, 2001, 02:54 AM
Okay you loosers, listen up.
The human eye can only handle about roughly 60 fps, mkay. And if the TV would only show 30 fps, the whole image would appear to flicker when the frame change. That is why most TV double and tripple the refresh rate. This means that if a TV is 60Hz it first draws every second line of pixels and then draws the other half, this removes all flickering. The TV uses no blurr effects, though most TV-games do this to keep up the frame rate, since most TV-games got goofy processors. The tv is old, and **** by todays standards compared with todays high resolution computer screens. The tv uses a resolution of; 640*480 NTSC, 720*576 PAL. Also the TV-screen most offenly can display this whole area and cuts out the edges. TV-game developers uses a 50 pixel safe border around the screen, because this is how much the tv cuts out!!!
I know this since I've developed TV-games myself. Playstation2 is nice and all but since the TV can only display this rotten resolutions, one will never experience as nice graphics on a tely as on a computer, unless of course they begin using other standards than PAL or NTSC.
And higher frame rates are always good, gives you less processor hick-ups.

frankfurter
Sep 19, 2001, 01:02 PM
Shouldn't you know how to spell LOSER before you call everyone that?

I do need to get looser, though.....

bloop
Sep 19, 2001, 08:44 PM
NTSC is 525 Horizontal Lines of resolution.

Or it was... I guess there is a new standard. See here for all the common display standards: http://www.strata3d.com/strataproducts/strata3d/3dmanual/ch13/ch13_7.html

snowman
Sep 20, 2001, 12:12 AM
Eh, no wait I meant to tell everyone to get looser, honestly :)

Originally posted by frankfurter
Shouldn't you know how to spell LOSER before you call everyone that?

I do need to get looser, though.....

snowman
Sep 20, 2001, 12:14 AM
Yes and no, it is 640, but the television cuts it down to give or take 525 pixels.


Originally posted by bloop
NTSC is 525 Horizontal Lines of resolution.

Or it was... I guess there is a new standard. See here for all the common display standards: http://www.strata3d.com/strataproducts/strata3d/3dmanual/ch13/ch13_7.html

worried
Sep 20, 2001, 09:40 AM
I don't care what anybody says, "Dude, Where's My Car?" was an excellent movie.

Oh -- and unless I'm mistaken and did see instructions on getting this to work (under 10.0.4) simply download the GameSpot version (which is stuffed, not .exe), then get the files from Graeme's folder and put them in the unstuffed file. Presto -- it's time to kill some Nazi scum.

thewizard
Sep 21, 2001, 06:26 AM
It is incredible to see, that nobody of you guys can differ between refresh rate and fps...ok, here's the real deal.

refresh rate:
is a number in Hertz (like 60Hz or 85Hz). this stands for the number of times, the display draws the image that is sent to the input of the display device.

fps:
is frames (different images) that are generated by the computer per second when using 3d, every frame must be generated fully by the 3d engine. on 2d applications there is usually no fps, because you only change parts of an image, like the character.

ok, now this:
when you hit pause on a game, there is no movement, agree?
No movement, no changes. No changes, no frames have to change. -> the frame rate is ZERO. but still, there is an image shown, with the REFRESH RATE that is set at your computer, e.g. 85Hz. so what you see is 0 fps at 85 Hz.

if you watch a dvd, you will get let's say, 30fps for a NTSC movie. ok? but if you watch it on your computer with the screen set to 85Hz what will happen?

this: the dvd image is sent to the graphic adapter with a rate of 30 fps the graphics adapter sends the actual image received until a new frame arrives, with a rate of 85 cycles per second. if the frame changes while the image is displayed, the image will change after the preceeding is finished drawing. so sometimes a frame lasts for two cycles and sometimes for three. (85Hz / 30 fps = 2.83)

what about the frame rate?
you play a 3d game at let's say 60fps and to compare also at 5fps.
you move your character from the left to the right side. this takes 2 seconds. at 60fps, 120 images will be created that are shown in these two seconds. the character will move very smoothly .
the same done with 5fps will generate 10 images!
the movement is very jumpy, more like 5 different looking pictures shown per second.
if you have set your screen to 85Hz, there is no difference of the image quality overall. your eyes do not hurt at 5fps. it may look like ****, but it's only a matter of painted frames per second, like in a disney movie. every movement ocurring at over 20-25fps looks smooth to our eye. everything below that starts to look jumpy. but 15fps is still acceptable.

this is a fact.

greetings, the wizard.

snowman
Sep 21, 2001, 07:36 AM
Absolutely nothing new here. I tried to explain this in my post, but obviously some did not understand. Refresh Rate and fps is two totally different thingies and got nothing to do with one another.

And also you said that 15 fps is acceptable! Well that certainly is not true in my book. When I started playing 3D-games on macintosh I started out with a 512k-machine and a PLUS. I've been playing marathon on an fx (40Mhz), doom, wolfenstein and Duke Nukem and all that shiii. I actually thouht back then that 8 fps was acceptable. But now when I've gotten used too at least 25 fps in a game, I can not play on those old setups anymore, it just too jerky.


Originally posted by thewizard
It is incredible to see, that nobody of you guys can differ between refresh rate and fps...ok, here's the real deal.

refresh rate:
is a number in Hertz (like 60Hz or 85Hz). this stands for the number of times, the display draws the image that is sent to the input of the display device.

fps:
is frames (different images) that are generated by the computer per second when using 3d, every frame must be generated fully by the 3d engine. on 2d applications there is usually no fps, because you only change parts of an image, like the character.

ok, now this:
when you hit pause on a game, there is no movement, agree?
No movement, no changes. No changes, no frames have to change. -> the frame rate is ZERO. but still, there is an image shown, with the REFRESH RATE that is set at your computer, e.g. 85Hz. so what you see is 0 fps at 85 Hz.

if you watch a dvd, you will get let's say, 30fps for a NTSC movie. ok? but if you watch it on your computer with the screen set to 85Hz what will happen?

this: the dvd image is sent to the graphic adapter with a rate of 30 fps the graphics adapter sends the actual image received until a new frame arrives, with a rate of 85 cycles per second. if the frame changes while the image is displayed, the image will change after the preceeding is finished drawing. so sometimes a frame lasts for two cycles and sometimes for three. (85Hz / 30 fps = 2.83)

what about the frame rate?
you play a 3d game at let's say 60fps and to compare also at 5fps.
you move your character from the left to the right side. this takes 2 seconds. at 60fps, 120 images will be created that are shown in these two seconds. the character will move very smoothly .
the same done with 5fps will generate 10 images!
the movement is very jumpy, more like 5 different looking pictures shown per second.
if you have set your screen to 85Hz, there is no difference of the image quality overall. your eyes do not hurt at 5fps. it may look like ****, but it's only a matter of painted frames per second, like in a disney movie. every movement ocurring at over 20-25fps looks smooth to our eye. everything below that starts to look jumpy. but 15fps is still acceptable.

this is a fact.

greetings, the wizard.

MasterX (OSiX)
Sep 21, 2001, 04:59 PM
Someone said their Athlon got better than the dual 800P3. Duhh, OK, i'l try to be nice. Mhz myth, cache structure, Ram type. Most Athlon systems beat P3 systems because of one of more of these. Windows has multi-tasking less advanced than OSX (ok a lot less) but still more than OS9. But besides for special Apps (Photoshop) a Dual-PC needs 2 tasks at once to fulfil both processors. Thus the test FPS of 30 is the same of a single 800-Mhz PC. And as for your GeForce2, keep in mind until OSX 10.1 there was no dedicated GF3 acceleration, so if the dual-800 was on a 10.0.4 build, the GF3 would've acted like a 64MB MX +20% or so, plus another 20% for 10.1's faster OpenGL.

Now what I wanna know is will Apple be cool and spring FSAA out onto the OpenGL drivers finally. I want FSAA damn it! 3Dfx was soo cool for completly re-writing all the FSAA code for Glide so It'd actually run on a mac VooDoo5. Apple still hasn't added that (or truform, see Ati.com) to the OGL libraries. The sad thing is that DirectX 8, OpenGL, and APPLE graphics card support FSAA. A friend once said "Ever wounder why your Mac crashes so much? ATi can't program drivers." No kidding...

MasterX (OSiX)
Sep 21, 2001, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by shoeish
I have a Geforce2 GTS 32mb and a 800mhz athlon and get 35fps in 1600x1200x32bit. How can a GF3 only get 30 at any setting?

Shoe

Oh yeah, and as for "how" the P3 could've been AGP2, or had 64MB of RAM. Either one could do it. The GF3 could run at insane speeds. The CPU can't feed it fast enough in almost all cases. There's a 3D benchmarker for macs that actuyally shows how much faster your throughput is when using Altivek vs CPU vs FPU. I think it was OpenGL 1.2.1 what was Altivek enabled. It ran about 15FPS faster in every game w/OpenGL. I love OpenGL it's my favorite.

fragiledreams
Sep 22, 2001, 06:13 AM
OK! So you are comparing the top Apple CPU with the low end PC CPU and you are happy that the MAC wins? A dual P3 in the world of PC games is a single P3 until uncle Bill gives to the people multiprocessor capable Windows. Until then I CAN ALSO TELL you for sure that a 733MHZ G4 with a GForce 3 delivers more fps than a 486 with an S3! :PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP. Stop posting these stupid and totaly unreliable "tests" and even make conclusions out of them!

~/indigo
Sep 23, 2001, 09:54 AM
That is hilarious that you are considering the P3 to be a low-end CPU. It is the best thing that Intel has. Plus, I would assume that Graeme is using a version of Windows that has MP support (otherwise I see no reason for him to mention it, plus all Windows developers seem to use Win2K). I know that an Athlon would have been nice to see but I hope you aren't thinking about using a P4 instead of a P3. It wouldn't be much better and it is evident of your lack of intelligence if you own one. Graeme is supposed to be a smart guy so I doubt he would want some crap CPU.

Anyone else wonder why half the people on Mac message boards are PC trolls? I never understood what they are trying to prove. Perhaps that is just because they never succeeded.

~/indigo

fragiledreams
Sep 23, 2001, 03:49 PM
OK Indigo:

a) Go to a Computer store and ask about CPUs... The lowest priced and clock CPU today is the P3 in 800MHZ. Forget the Celerons. THIS MAKES IT LOW END.
b) Technicaly speaking, except for the far largest pipelile the P4 trash the G4. 133 MHZ Bus in 2001 is pathetic. My 4 year P2 in 350MHZ has a 100 MHZ bus.
c) If the G4 had 256 cache like the new 733G4 it would be eliminated by even a 1GHZ P3. I think that it is mentioned in this site that the cacheless 733 is slowest than the old 533 G4. QUESTION: TAKE 733(without L3)=533. IS the 533 G4 fastest than a 2 GHZ PENTIUM 4 ???????????? THEN THE 256 2nd level cache 733 MHZ is slowest too......
d) THERE IS NO WINDOWS VERSION THAT SUPORTS MULTIPROSSECING FOR ANYTHING BUT SERVER PURPOSES!!!!!
Put 786593455893597357 P3 or P4 and the Windows will only use one no matter which games you play. MAC OSystems until version 9 were also not supporting multiproccesing so a DUAL G4 with OS 9 has some limited functioning for the second processor in very few PROFFESIONAL applications. FORGET GAMES.
e) Instead of most of you MAC obsesed snobers, I the "PC troll" am open minded and can see the advantages and dissadvantages of both platforms. Thats why I plan to buy a G4 or G5 for music production.
f) Indigo come in terms with the fact that people using a different system from you are not inferior. You can clame that you are different but not more clever.
g) IF MAC WAS THE PERFECT PERSONAL COMPUTER IN BOTH SPEED, OS AND APPLICATIONS IT WOULDN'T HOLD A PATHETIC 3% MARKET SHARE WORLDWIDE!

GREETINGS....

snowman
Sep 24, 2001, 12:14 AM
The reason to this is simple. It's because of Apples license strategies. Apple is the only company on earth that is allowed to make macs and they have always had the problem of not being able to deliver according to demand. Back when Apple allowed other companies to develop macintosh computers, the clones were popping up like crazy, and with their cheap prizes they almost put Apple out of buziness. If Apple would have allowed other companies to make and sell macintosh from the start and focused themselfes on applications and their OS, I'm sure Windows computers would hardly even excist today. At least they would not be what they are. Remember that Apple was the first company that started making an object based OS.

g) IF MAC WAS THE PERFECT PERSONAL COMPUTER IN BOTH SPEED, OS AND APPLICATIONS IT WOULDN'T HOLD A PATHETIC 3% MARKET SHARE WORLDWIDE!

GREETINGS....
[/B][/QUOTE]

fragiledreams
Sep 24, 2001, 10:50 AM
OK .. Apple did some mistakes but it's marketing strategy the final years is correct. It's main purpose is to try to make people switch from PC to MAC platforms or even inform them that something else other than Windows exists. Slogans like: "think different", the creation of iMAC, TV commercials, and the appearance of MACs in about 50% of Holywwod productions are all very clever Apple moves, in my opinion.
However since its market share is still very tragically low, I believe that something in the product itself goes wrong. Take individual PC companies with comperable priced products with that of Apple. Dell, IBM, Compaq all sell the same thing (more or less) but each one sells more than Apple.
I am sure that MACs are great computers for many uses, but secondary things like limited software (official and cracked one), limited hardware, expensive components, Jobs"we make the best computers in the world" snobism and lies keep Apple's market share low. Moreover the high end PowerMACs are in my oppinion overprized for what they offer.

(NOTE HERE: Intel also has told many lies.. One of its greatest is this: Do you remember the 486 CPU. It was devided in 486DX and 486SX and their difference was that the latter lacked the math co-processor part. Intel sold 487 chips as co-processors for SX systems but they finaly turned out to be 486DX CPUS!!!)

Finaly it is not an excuse for Apple that it can't meet the demand-deliver in time. It shoud either buy the semiconductor part of Motorola or make a deal with IBM in order to get the PowerPC chips on time!

rhinosaur
Sep 24, 2001, 12:06 PM
Here's the MacGamefiles download link.

http://www.macgamefiles.com/detail.taf?item=16905

download both files...follow the "IMPORTANT" instructions on the page listed above and you'll be set.

NO B&W
Sep 25, 2001, 12:12 PM
Is this website dead?

what is going on?

beav
Oct 3, 2001, 09:45 AM
You cant' compare a dual p3 800 with a DP G4800. First of all, the price difference is insane...I could build a Dual 1.6 Palamino System with a 1gig of PC2100 DDR Ram, mobo, and everything for 1000 dollars less than a DPG4800, and trust me, it would smash 90fps.

whitegold
Oct 4, 2001, 01:57 AM
I have to say that as I long time windows based gamer I find this thread bizarre.

30fps on a pentium 3(even WITHOUT a dual) with a geforce 3? That's not right. You should be expecting at least about 60. It's really the Geforce doing all the work, the CPU isn't that big a factor, as long as it's "enough" to keep the data up. (To my understanding anyway.)

I also have to agree with the guy using an Athlon 800. I have an Athlon 1.1 and would expect at LEAST 50 frames a second, not 30. And I only have a Geforce 2 MX. (I have not yet tried it, because it doesn't that much interest me.)

Putting the comparison of an 800mhz P3 is bizarre. It's not exactly cutting edge. Try putting 2 x 1.2gig athlons in there and see how you go.

And I totally agree with the last post. Price for performance wise a G4 dual 800 is not exactly a bargain games machine. Gimme Athlons any day.

snowman
Oct 4, 2001, 05:33 AM
He could have written in a little wait in the code so that both systems would get lower fps to make a better comparison with lower fps. And also, the processor is also doing ALOT of work. I once put a Voodoo-2 in a 200Mhz 603e, and compared that to a G4 with the same card. The fps was about 40 fps higher on the G4. The difference was even clearer in a game such as UT which is putting ALOT of work on the processor.
To sume it all together, Windows systems make me sick :)

Originally posted by whitegold
I have to say that as I long time windows based gamer I find this thread bizarre.

30fps on a pentium 3(even WITHOUT a dual) with a geforce 3? That's not right. You should be expecting at least about 60. It's really the Geforce doing all the work, the CPU isn't that big a factor, as long as it's "enough" to keep the data up. (To my understanding anyway.)

I also have to agree with the guy using an Athlon 800. I have an Athlon 1.1 and would expect at LEAST 50 frames a second, not 30. And I only have a Geforce 2 MX. (I have not yet tried it, because it doesn't that much interest me.)

Putting the comparison of an 800mhz P3 is bizarre. It's not exactly cutting edge. Try putting 2 x 1.2gig athlons in there and see how you go.

And I totally agree with the last post. Price for performance wise a G4 dual 800 is not exactly a bargain games machine. Gimme Athlons any day.

snowman
Oct 4, 2001, 05:40 AM
Why bizarre... have you got any better idea to prove the Mhz-myth? You will have to look at his motive here to understand why he compared those two systems. Why oh why do we have all these PC-people here, I'm trying to keep my lunch down and you are making it hard for me to do so.

Originally posted by whitegold
Putting the comparison of an 800mhz P3 is bizarre. It's not exactly cutting edge. Try putting 2 x 1.2gig athlons in there and see how you go.
[/B]

snowman
Oct 4, 2001, 05:44 AM
Yes you can, hmm... what's that smell... oh no, it's another PC-head on fire! Turn of that brain, it can't use more than 10 brain cells at once!
I don't care about your piece of crap smashing anything, it's using windows, it's dangerous for the environment, and your head!

Originally posted by beav
You cant' compare a dual p3 800 with a DP G4800. First of all, the price difference is insane...I could build a Dual 1.6 Palamino System with a 1gig of PC2100 DDR Ram, mobo, and everything for 1000 dollars less than a DPG4800, and trust me, it would smash 90fps.

whitegold
Oct 4, 2001, 06:47 AM
Ah, the informed intellegent discussion I expect from mac people... sigh...

In todays computers, where the code is so heavily optimized for "hardware texture and lighting" (T&L, to save me typing) the drain on the CPU is much lower. I'm not saying that it's not relevant, I'm saying that it's less of a factor than it used to be.

I've seen machines with vastly different CPUs (Pentium 3 600 and my Athlon 1.1gig) get almost identical 3DMark scores, due to their identical T&L video cards. This is particularly so on older, less detailed games, so may not be accurate to wolfenstein here.

Your Voodoo2 didn't have T&L I'm guessing? Hmmm... So that's... hmmm... not in any way relevant?

Anyway, my post was mostly to back up the guy above me.

I'm not going to bother arguing further. (unless I decide to lately). I'm glad mac people are happy with their systems, and I hope you have fun on all four games that are available.

And what's with the "windows is crap" thing? Deal with it people! Translucent plastic buttons is not everything in an OS. Stop treating PCs like they're the enemy. I use windows all day ever day. I rarely have any problems with it. I've found it very stable unless you get weird on it, and really don't get what you people are bitching about.

Or could it be... gasp! Maybe you don't know what you're talking about?! Nooooo... that couldn't be it...

snowman
Oct 4, 2001, 07:50 AM
Hypocrite is what you are. "Stop treating PCs like they're the enemy". Well mr.whitegold, I have never ever met any PC-head which have not spoken badly about Macintosh, this is even if they haven't tried them! If you read your own post you'll see that your post is so full of conflict-seeking that it's absurd.
And also, I don't know everything about computers, far from. But I program for a living so I should know a tiny bit about computers.

"Translucent plastic buttons is not everything in an OS."
I agree, I want a system that I can rely on. Windows is so far from this that it's really no idea to bother.

"I use windows all day ever day. I rarely have any problems with it. I've found it very stable unless you get weird on it, and really don't get what you people are bitching about."
Well, I've had and know what I'm bitching about.

"Or could it be... gasp! Maybe you don't know what you're talking about?! Nooooo... that couldn't be it..."
Ah, screw this, I have no strength left dealing with this idiot. Get out of this forum, you d**khead.

Originally posted by whitegold
Ah, the informed intellegent discussion I expect from mac people... sigh...

In todays computers, where the code is so heavily optimized for "hardware texture and lighting" (T&L, to save me typing) the drain on the CPU is much lower. I'm not saying that it's not relevant, I'm saying that it's less of a factor than it used to be.

I've seen machines with vastly different CPUs (Pentium 3 600 and my Athlon 1.1gig) get almost identical 3DMark scores, due to their identical T&L video cards. This is particularly so on older, less detailed games, so may not be accurate to wolfenstein here.

Your Voodoo2 didn't have T&L I'm guessing? Hmmm... So that's... hmmm... not in any way relevant?

Anyway, my post was mostly to back up the guy above me.

I'm not going to bother arguing further. (unless I decide to lately). I'm glad mac people are happy with their systems, and I hope you have fun on all four games that are available.

And what's with the "windows is crap" thing? Deal with it people! Translucent plastic buttons is not everything in an OS. Stop treating PCs like they're the enemy. I use windows all day ever day. I rarely have any problems with it. I've found it very stable unless you get weird on it, and really don't get what you people are bitching about.

Or could it be... gasp! Maybe you don't know what you're talking about?! Nooooo... that couldn't be it...

whitegold
Oct 4, 2001, 08:55 AM
You're right, and my apologies. My last post was not all that concilatory.

I still stand by what I said, in so much as my experience with windows has been almost solely positive. Much of my response was based on YOUR abrasive tone.

Still. I will reiterate in a neutral tone the point I intended to make.

1. 30fps on that hardware seems too low to be a viable benchmark, and should be looked at with some question, not praised as some sort of evidence.

2. I wanted to support the few Wintel people here game to risk the flames and post their own experiences and opinions on games.

3. I wanted to bring up the fact that modern graphics cards use advanced texture and lighting features that mean the CPU is far less relevant than the good old days.

4. To join my voice to the people saying that old hardware compared to new hardware is possibly not the best benchmarking system.

While I made some derogatory remarks about Macs, regarding gaming, I only made those after you called me an idiot for using a PC. I'm still going to claim the high moral ground here.

I've also never been one of those Mac bashers. I only visited this site because I'm genuinely interested in what's happening in Appleland, and like to keep informed. I believe Macs are a good computer. I just don't believe they're as good as they're claimed to be by mac users, nor do I think that windows is as bad as claimed. I also have to point out that in my experience windows users are far less critical of Macs than Mac users are of PCs.

We don't care. We don't have to care. We don't have to defend ourselves, our little market share, our high cost.

I hoped to come here for an interesting informed adult discussion free from zealot fools with their McArrogance in full steam.

I should have known I'd have a snowman's chance in hell.

akuma
Oct 4, 2001, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by whitegold
And what's with the "windows is crap" thing? Deal with it people! Translucent plastic buttons is not everything in an OS. Stop treating PCs like they're the enemy.

If "translucent plastic buttons" are not everything, then why is Windows attempting to put them into XP? Or is that just another "windows innovation" ?

whitegold
Oct 4, 2001, 09:51 AM
Actually, there's no translucent plastic buttons on XP.

Some of the default buttons are slightly more rounded, and have a different overall look, if that's what you mean.

Also the start button is green and rounded. Doesn't look very plastic, though. To be honest, it looks stupid. Sadly you can't change it in the color settings either.

My comments were not intended to refer to specifics of design, more the overall attitude that aesthetics are not all important. Don't get me wrong, they are important. One reason I like XP is that the interface looks much better (than old windows).

I've heard a lot of people say that XP is a ripoff of OSX. I don't really see it.

Though that dock looks familiar somehow. Another Mac innovation :)

There's give and take in any design. Apple stole off Xerox, Microsoft stole off Apple... Microsoft stole off Linux, Microsoft stole off netscape, Microsoft stole off everyone. Linux... didn't steal off anyone, but probably should have... :)

Anyway, apple has certainly "adopted" PC technologies and concepts. This will always happen. It's a good and healthy thing. If you see an idea that works adapt it and make it better. For example, while the dock is obviously a ripoff of the taskbar, it's much more functional, and looks far cooler.

akuma
Oct 4, 2001, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by whitegold
I've heard a lot of people say that XP is a ripoff of OSX. I don't really see it.

There's give and take in any design. Apple stole off Xerox, Microsoft stole off Apple... Microsoft stole off Linux, Microsoft stole off netscape, Microsoft stole off everyone. Linux... didn't steal off anyone, but probably should have... :)

Just to clarify :

Rumor has it that the Macintosh development team visited the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) at Xerox. While there, they saw a demonstration of a graphical user interface that was later copied to develop the Mac OS. Is this true?

Hardly. While members of the team did visit PARC, the Apple graphical interface project was well under way before the "famed" visit by Steve Jobs. Members of the early Mac team have gone on record noting that Jobs was taken to PARC so that he could gain a better sense of the concepts that the team was working on regarding the interface. Many of the elements that we associate with the Mac GUI, like drag and drop manipulation of files, the Finder, and types and creators were and are unique to the Mac development team.

From- http://macos.about.com/library/weekly/aa062899.htm

Some other reading for the boards enjoyment:

http://www.best.com/~mxmora/JefRaskin.html
--an article on the history of the macintosh

whitegold I am not trying to start a war here, I just wanted to state that although XP does indeed look good, some of it's design elements are noticably mac-like.


[Edited by akuma on 10-04-2001 at 01:52 PM]

akuma
Oct 4, 2001, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by whitegold
Anyway, apple has certainly "adopted" PC technologies and concepts. This will always happen. It's a good and healthy thing.

How about the windows world adopting Firewire (an apple technology)?

"Adoption" goes both ways, ya know ;)

nudge
Oct 4, 2001, 03:51 PM
no MP windows? what do you think XP pro, Win2000 ad NT all are?

Originally posted by fragiledreams


OK! So you are comparing the top Apple CPU with the low end PC CPU and you are happy that the MAC wins? A dual P3 in the world of PC games is a single P3 until uncle Bill gives to the people multiprocessor capable Windows. Until then I CAN ALSO TELL you for sure that a 733MHZ G4 with a GForce 3 delivers more fps than a 486 with an S3! :PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP. Stop posting these stupid and totaly unreliable "tests" and even make conclusions out of them!

nudge
Oct 4, 2001, 03:55 PM
dual processor PC doesn;t need to processes to utilise both processors. Run photoshop, after effects or maya on a MP pC and look at the task manager. Most games aren't made to take advantage of the second CPU.

Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
Someone said their Athlon got better than the dual 800P3. Duhh, OK, i'l try to be nice. Mhz myth, cache structure, Ram type. Most Athlon systems beat P3 systems because of one of more of these. Windows has multi-tasking less advanced than OSX (ok a lot less) but still more than OS9. But besides for special Apps (Photoshop) a Dual-PC needs 2 tasks at once to fulfil both processors. Thus the test FPS of 30 is the same of a single 800-Mhz PC. And as for your GeForce2, keep in mind until OSX 10.1 there was no dedicated GF3 acceleration, so if the dual-800 was on a 10.0.4 build, the GF3 would've acted like a 64MB MX +20% or so, plus another 20% for 10.1's faster OpenGL.

Now what I wanna know is will Apple be cool and spring FSAA out onto the OpenGL drivers finally. I want FSAA damn it! 3Dfx was soo cool for completly re-writing all the FSAA code for Glide so It'd actually run on a mac VooDoo5. Apple still hasn't added that (or truform, see Ati.com) to the OGL libraries. The sad thing is that DirectX 8, OpenGL, and APPLE graphics card support FSAA. A friend once said "Ever wounder why your Mac crashes so much? ATi can't program drivers." No kidding...

nudge
Oct 4, 2001, 04:13 PM
if any one has XP and has the silver colour scheme go to apple.com and you'll see an instant similarity with teh shiny grey bars...however there is no translucent buttons.

Yup the dock looks suspiciously like a Windows task bar. = mac copies ms

The new file viewing system of OSX is very PC like also. = mac copies ms

XP desktop burning = ms copies mac

funky interface = ms copies mac

new half arsed task manager in OSX = mac copies ms

desktop publishing = ms copies mac

desktop video = ms copies mac

But the mac had the CD ROM first so windows stole that?....

rip mix burn = apple virtually claims they invented mp3's, burning, and CDDB. these were all on pc first.

see they are both at fault. if you really want to get picky ... windows had the DVD and DivX first so are macs are just copycats?

intel new marketing...center of your digital world
apple...the digital hub

so who's the center of it all apple or intel? (apple had the slogan 1st however)





Originally posted by whitegold
Actually, there's no translucent plastic buttons on XP.

Some of the default buttons are slightly more rounded, and have a different overall look, if that's what you mean.

Also the start button is green and rounded. Doesn't look very plastic, though. To be honest, it looks stupid. Sadly you can't change it in the color settings either.

My comments were not intended to refer to specifics of design, more the overall attitude that aesthetics are not all important. Don't get me wrong, they are important. One reason I like XP is that the interface looks much better (than old windows).

I've heard a lot of people say that XP is a ripoff of OSX. I don't really see it.

Though that dock looks familiar somehow. Another Mac innovation :)

There's give and take in any design. Apple stole off Xerox, Microsoft stole off Apple... Microsoft stole off Linux, Microsoft stole off netscape, Microsoft stole off everyone. Linux... didn't steal off anyone, but probably should have... :)

Anyway, apple has certainly "adopted" PC technologies and concepts. This will always happen. It's a good and healthy thing. If you see an idea that works adapt it and make it better. For example, while the dock is obviously a ripoff of the taskbar, it's much more functional, and looks far cooler.

nudge
Oct 4, 2001, 04:16 PM
add firewire to that list of technology apple has made 'cool' that pc's have jumped on the bandwagon.

usb was first on the pc but apple made it popular by 'forcing' people to adopt it over ****** parellel and serial ports.

akuma
Oct 4, 2001, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by nudge

Yup the dock looks suspiciously like a Windows task bar. = mac copies ms


Actually, didn't NeXT have the dock even before the Windows Taskbar?

So therefore

ms copies NeXT

--
Akuma

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 12:14 AM
Most important; Windows is a cheap rip off of macOS itself!
Apple was the first company to make a computer with a graphical interface and a mouse and 3.5 inch floppy.

Originally posted by akuma
Originally posted by nudge

Yup the dock looks suspiciously like a Windows task bar. = mac copies ms


Actually, didn't NeXT have the dock even before the Windows Taskbar?

So therefore

ms copies NeXT

--
Akuma

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 12:19 AM
I agree, but again, he might have put in a short wait in the code on both systems to get lower fps for better comparison. Why would an employe at ID lie about this?

Originally posted by whitegold

1. 30fps on that hardware seems too low to be a viable benchmark, and should be looked at with some question, not praised as some sort of evidence.

whitegold
Oct 5, 2001, 12:34 AM
I'm not referring to him lying or falsifying his results. A good example is my recent experience with Unreal Tournament. I was getting 15 frames a second on my Athlon 1.1 with a GeforceIIMX. That sound right? No... definitely not. So I did some messing round and ended up switching to OpenGL, instead of Direct3D.

Result was that it jumped from 15fps to 65fps, just by changing the graphics mode.

To use that 15fps as a benchmark of my machine's UT performance would be wholely misleading, while not actually inaccurate.

That is what I am saying is the case here. That there's a problem, a mis-setting, somewhere outside the actual performance of the computer. 3d card drivers, direct x version, hardware conflict, bodgy installation of the software, simple beta code issue.

The last seems the most likely.

If software can't get more than 30 frames a second on hardware like that, yet can get 90 fps on a somewhat similar setup (same graphics card) then the programmer for the mac side seems to have been working while the PC guy snorted coke :)

Anyway, this is beta code, so there can be major issues. Looking forward to the first full demo, which should be a more reliable indicator of relative performance.

Oh, and snowman, I realized what you mean about the megahtz myth. If you're trying to say that a P3 800 is not as good as a G4 800 you'll certainly get no arguments from me. It's people who tell me that a G4 733 is 14.6 times faster in every way than a Pentium4 2gigahtz... at that point I start to question it.

I'd love to know for sure how MUCH faster than intel hardware the G4 is, and at what point (if at all) and in what circumstances the intel/amd lines draw ahead.

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 02:57 AM
Good, I agree with you here too. I do not believe that a 733Mhz G4 is faster than a Pentium4 2 Ghz. But I know this; The G4 is faster than a Pentium4 2Ghz at some tasks. This Apple have already proven in some tests. But if you are to compare these two the Pentium will probably win against the G4 overall. There is simply no way of comparing these two processors in a fair way, they are too different. But still he probably did this test simply to show us that Mhz is not everything, FAAAAR from.
Even different PowerPC-processors are entirely different. If you compare an old 250 Mhz 603-processor (slowest PPC-processor out there) with a 250 Mhz G3-processor, the G3 is probably two or three times faster! It really is! I tested this once too, by upgrading an old 7600 to a G3. The bus speed was only 6 Mhz faster so that did not do much for the G3 and still it was SOOOOO much faster.
But since the PPC-processor stood on the same speed for 18 moths until recently, I do believe that the Mac's got a slight gap to fill before it's comparable to the fastest PC out there. However that gap should be filled when the G5 comes out early next year. I haven't heard about anything groundbreaking taking place on the PC-side so it probably will fill the gap.

Originally posted by whitegold

Oh, and snowman, I realized what you mean about the megahtz myth. If you're trying to say that a P3 800 is not as good as a G4 800 you'll certainly get no arguments from me. It's people who tell me that a G4 733 is 14.6 times faster in every way than a Pentium4 2gigahtz... at that point I start to question it.

I'd love to know for sure how MUCH faster than intel hardware the G4 is, and at what point (if at all) and in what circumstances the intel/amd lines draw ahead.

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 03:09 AM
I did not mean to say that the "603 250 Mhz" is the slowest PPC-processor out there but I meant to say that "603" is the slowest PPC-processor when comparing Mhz. And yes the 601 is faster than 603, but Apple was able to puch more Mhz out of the 603.

Originally posted by snowman
[B] old 250 Mhz 603-processor (slowest PPC-processor out there)[B]

whitegold
Oct 5, 2001, 04:02 AM
yeah, I do agree with most of that. I also agree with what a lot of people are saying that intel are making megahtz mean NOTHING. It never should mean everything, but it shouldn't mean nothing.

I don't agree with AMDs new move to name their chips by comparison with an intel P4. "If this 1.4 athlon is as fast as a 1.8 pentium 4 we'll call it the 1800. That will fool them."

Good marketting, but bad move. Get some coloured men. It worked for intel.

The one issue I do have with your post is where you said: "The G4 is faster than a Pentium4 2Ghz at some tasks. This Apple have already proven in some tests."

While I'm not necessarily saying that that's not true, I'm very hesitant to simply take Apple's word for it. Figures can be very easily adjusted. Even in a live demonstration.

Spec out the apple as much as possible, but run the P4 with minimal ram on an old hard drive... Out of date drivers? What operating system? What file system? Win2K is way faster than WinME. Especially with NTFS, rather than FAT32. And what filters did they run? Some filters run faster on Apple. "Polar Co-ordinates" apparently runs 40 times faster on a Mac. Using demonstrations that feature things present their product in the best possible light, rather than that's actually representative of the hardware, is very easy.

"Apple have already proven" is something that to me (and should to anyone, I feel) be taken with some questioning. They're not exactly an unbiased third party. :)

Oh, and finally, I'm not disagreeing necessarily that the G4 is faster at some tasks. Just that I don't believe Apple of all people when they tell me that. When Tom's Hardware, or Ars Technica or Sharky Extreme or someone without bias tells me that, I'll believe it.

Sometimes the source is more important than the data.

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 04:53 AM
Okay I understand your point of view here, but your post just proved what I stated;
"Some filters run faster on Apple. Polar Co-ordinates apparently runs 40 times faster on a Mac."
There you have it, one of the tasks the G4 performes better :)
One area that the Macintosh is much better in is Java. It seems that the Graphics class for the PC sucks big time. My iMac outperformes PC's which are 500 Mhz faster when using Java! That's just it again, there are so many different things you can compare between a mac and a PC that simply posting some benchmarks proving that one platform is better than the other is just pointless. I think both got their advantages, why not have the best of both worlds? But anyways if you are a really hardcore gamer and nothing else, then by all means go for the PC. I was just a little tired yesterday about everyone talking badly about the platform that I love to use, and I don't want someone else with no experience talking ***** about something that I truly like. I live in Finland where all kids use PC's just because everyone else does it, and if you bring up the subject Macintosh everyone wants to kill me! And if I ask them what's wrong with Mac I always get the same thing "Eh, ehhh, they are bad, yeah!" Then I always ask; "Have you ever used one" Answer; "Eh he he no"

Originally posted by whitegold

Spec out the apple as much as possible, but run the P4 with minimal ram on an old hard drive... Out of date drivers? What operating system? What file system? Win2K is way faster than WinME. Especially with NTFS, rather than FAT32. And what filters did they run? Some filters run faster on Apple. "Polar Co-ordinates" apparently runs 40 times faster on a Mac. Using demonstrations that feature things present their product in the best possible light, rather than that's actually representative of the hardware, is very easy.

"Apple have already proven" is something that to me (and should to anyone, I feel) be taken with some questioning. They're not exactly an unbiased third party. :)

Oh, and finally, I'm not disagreeing necessarily that the G4 is faster at some tasks. Just that I don't believe Apple of all people when they tell me that. When Tom's Hardware, or Ars Technica or Sharky Extreme or someone without bias tells me that, I'll believe it.

Sometimes the source is more important than the data.

whitegold
Oct 5, 2001, 06:16 AM
My point was actually that that sort of aberrant performance difference is often taken as representative of actual performance. This filter is 40 times faster, therefore apples run 40 times faster than pcs. Ignore the fact that all other filters run slower [for the purposes of illustration only]

My reason for choosing PC over Mac is that FOR ME.. I have to stress that.. for me.. I'm not trying to change anyone else, or convince anyone of PC superiority..

Anyway, for me, there are several reasons to get a PC. The price for performance of an athlon based system is excellent by comparison to a P4, and even more so to a Mac. I got a name brand system (Gateway) hoping to avoid the stability issues of Wintel architecture. I feel that a very large proportion of windows instability is actually caused by cheap, bodgy, no name hardware. For the PC both a blessing and a curse. The gateway has been rock solid. Especially now with XP.

Additionally I use windows because some of the programs I use day to day, are simply not available. Allaire Homesite is my primary program. Even more than Photoshop. That's not available for the Mac.

Many things from ICQ clients to FTP clients, programs, small apps, etc either is not available on Mac, or the versions lag behind in features. ICQ is an excellent example.

Also, I am a professional web designer, and feel it would be silly of me to be working on a platform other than what I design for. I know in this day and age, rendering on a Mac and PC aren't that different, considering IE is the default now, but the principle is there.

As for games, well, yes. That is a factor. I like games. I like them a lot. And even though they might in some way be BETTER games machines, the actual number of releases is sadly limited. Release times lag horrendously behind PC equivalents, and the smaller volume of sales means that Mac Games don't get real cheap in a month or so like PC games do.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not JUST a gamer. But I need a computer to do a wide range of things. Web Design. Programming. Business Communication. Surfing. Games. General Tinkering.

If I was just designing I would consider the Mac at least a viable platform. But I'm not. Sometimes I couldn't be bothered doing PHP programming, and just start playing 4 hours of Vampire the Masquerade, or Shogun instead.

Finally, there is one truly compelling issue here.

Considering the things I lose if I "convert" what do I actually GAIN? To my knowledge, nothing. Sure Mac OSX is good. OSX.1 is even faster. So? "A better operating system" makes no actual difference to my performance or enjoyment, considering the lingering problem of sluggish software support from software makers. I see no actual advantages to Macs, and many disadvantages.

Aside from generally "faster performance" which is in dispute here anyway, I don't see anything macs offer ME.

I'm talking about ME here. Bear that in mind.

"Easier to use and install" even if that was true, isn't relevant to me. I've been using computers for years, so it's not a factor.

"Quicker to get on the internet". the time taken to set up a dial up connection on a Mac can't be all that much different... seriously. I mean, it's like phone number, username, password, go.

"Looks better" I don't neccessarily agree with that. Actually. What the hell. I'll conceed that. It does look better. Assuming we're talking X here. XP goes well to try and look better. The "themes" thing is cool. Pity there's only one new one.

Are there any others anyone can offer? Seriously, here. Not trolling. Just wanting to see if anyone can offer actual serious benefits macs have. I will partially conceed performance and reliability, for the sake of argument. Are there any others?

God damn I write long posts... My apologies...

snowman
Oct 5, 2001, 07:10 AM
Well if you wrote a list like that, don't mind if I do the same:

This is why I am using a macintosh, note I'm talking about ME not trying to convert anyone here. I have nothing to benefit in switching to a PC.

I use my computer for programing, design and graphics, gaming, surfing, maintaining a server and tinkering.

All the programs I need are available for the Macintosh. When I started out I had to get a Mac since there weren't much software available for the PC.

Westlake is converting more than 10 games a year and since I don't buy 10 games a year and that's only one of the converting companies, I'm totally satisfied there too.

There are over 10.000 known viruses for the PC <--> there are about one hundred known viruses for the macintosh.

The mac is much easier to use. Sure I've been using computers for many years, but why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way?

Why should I switch to a PC when I have everything I need on the Macintosh?

whitegold
Oct 7, 2001, 08:56 PM
What's the difference?

Mac people often tell me they're "easier to use". How and why?

You mentioned doing things the hard way. I don't really see what's so hard about clicking "Start - programs - Adobe - Photoshop". I find it far more confusing to start Apps on a Mac, as there's no real consistancy in where programs live or how they start.

With things like email... you click the "outlook express" button. Internet explorer likewise is just a click away. Any settings that need to be input (for email etc) use an auto starting wizard that asks very clearly for information.

System settings all live in the control panel, which is likewise wizard based and fairly simple.

What is so much easier on a Mac? Particularly for new users. I think one thing to bear in mind is that a lot of MAC PEOPLE have trouble using a PC, because everything is "wrong". PC people find macs horrendously difficult and cludgy to use.

Aside from this sort of "contrast" issue, what actually makes Macs "easier to use".

whitegold
Oct 7, 2001, 09:03 PM
He he he... I find it funny that macs can't even get good support for viruses these days :)

You guys are missing out on some great viruses and worms. We'll have to try and get you Outlook Express, then you can catch up to the PC world of viruses, trojans, worms, scripts, etc. :)

Seriously, though, I don't consider viruses a major factor. Decent software protects you against them. Basic data protection and backup stops it even being an issue.

Personally, in nearly 10 years of computer ownership, I've NEVER had a virus. I use no software for protection. I never download the required patches. Just use basic common sense. Unusually rare, that common sense. :)

snowman
Oct 8, 2001, 03:16 AM
Okay, I haven't got a PC myself so I can't really compare. But however when I got my first mac many years ago we used PC's in school at the same time. And I must say that it was sooo much earsier to learn to use the Mac. However that was many years ago and a very early version of windows (used dos most of the time).
Anyways, alot of my friends got PC's and they have so much problems with their PC's. I have a "guru" PC-friend which is running around fixing my other friends computers all the time. I also have a few macintosh using friends. These on the other hand can fix all their problems themselfes (the few there are). I don't know why this is, but that's they way it is. Also, it seems to be very hard to get an installation right on a PC. My PC-friends always reminds me of how many more games there is for the PC, however many of them doesn't work very often. Also the installers tend to think that it is installing another program many times. One of my PC-friends can't use homeburned CD for more than about 10 times before the CD-player have made the CD unreadable. The CDs become transparent over time. This is probably due to the ridicioulus high speeds of the CD-drives.
Sure enough, for you as an experiences user you can probably get by fine. But because of all these little incidents there is no doubt in my mind that the Mac is more userfriendly. Make of this what you want, you asked.
Also another reason would be of the highter risk of getting infected by a virus on the PC-side. Viruses are not very often that userfriendly.

Originally posted by whitegold
What's the difference?

Mac people often tell me they're "easier to use". How and why?

You mentioned doing things the hard way. I don't really see what's so hard about clicking "Start - programs - Adobe - Photoshop". I find it far more confusing to start Apps on a Mac, as there's no real consistancy in where programs live or how they start.

With things like email... you click the "outlook express" button. Internet explorer likewise is just a click away. Any settings that need to be input (for email etc) use an auto starting wizard that asks very clearly for information.

System settings all live in the control panel, which is likewise wizard based and fairly simple.

What is so much easier on a Mac? Particularly for new users. I think one thing to bear in mind is that a lot of MAC PEOPLE have trouble using a PC, because everything is "wrong". PC people find macs horrendously difficult and cludgy to use.

Aside from this sort of "contrast" issue, what actually makes Macs "easier to use".

snowman
Oct 8, 2001, 03:20 AM
I believe you here, but it still seems as if though more PCs get infected by viruses that Macs. There's even been incidents when major PC-based companies have shut down their operations temporarely due to viruses. You can't honestly believe that viruses aren't a bigger problem for PC-users?

Originally posted by whitegold
He he he... I find it funny that macs can't even get good support for viruses these days :)

You guys are missing out on some great viruses and worms. We'll have to try and get you Outlook Express, then you can catch up to the PC world of viruses, trojans, worms, scripts, etc. :)

Seriously, though, I don't consider viruses a major factor. Decent software protects you against them. Basic data protection and backup stops it even being an issue.

Personally, in nearly 10 years of computer ownership, I've NEVER had a virus. I use no software for protection. I never download the required patches. Just use basic common sense. Unusually rare, that common sense. :)

snowman
Oct 8, 2001, 04:32 AM
Oh and BTW, Outlook is available for the Macintosh, so is most Microsoft warez, but I never use their crap.

Originally posted by whitegold
We'll have to try and get you Outlook Express, then you can catch up to the PC world of viruses, trojans, worms, scripts, etc. :)