Macs Aren't Game Machines?

Discussion in 'Games' started by thatwendigo, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #1
    Transplanted from a Page 2 discussion, where ~Shard~ was addressing Donthrutme:

    Good luck.

    I may lurk, but all I've seen out of Donthurtme on this subject has been this constant rave against Apple and their engineering. For some reason, anyone who even slightly defends the choices Apple has made, and the forces of the market, is an apologist who thinks that macs shouldn't ever be used as gaming machines. Maybe it's never occured to him that companies have to modify the boards to be used in Apple machines, and that an economy of scale applies in these matters. DVI is standard enough, but ADC is not exactly the connector of choice in the PC world. Add into that the consideration of writing OpenGL and OS X compatible drivers that are fast and stable, and you're getting into some major investment by the firms who manufacture cards. I don't know how much of a return they get from what already exists, but I bet it isn't enough for them to decide it's a justifiable expense to make more models available.

    Oh, and you know all those wonderful advancements in the mac that we love and cherish? Things like the G5 towers? We wouldn't have them if Apple didn't have the money to keep sinking into R&D. Lower profit margins mean less cash in the short term (at least), and perhaps a gamble that wouldn't pay off to begin with.

    In other words, this is not a simple issue of 'Apple Hates Gamers.' Hell, my 700mhz emac runs most games well enough for my tastes, even if I do lust for something better. I'd love to have a 1.6 G5 with a 5200 FX, right about now. Hell, slide me an iMac, and I'd still be better off than I am!
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    cant help but laugh,,, yeah i hate motorola and hate the fact that everyone has advanced the clocks in their chips except who????and this has been going on for how long??? well Apple did figure it out though it took a long long time but let me ask you something why couldnt apple take its best G5 2.0 and good video card say ati's 9600 or 9800 and build a nice consumer machine ? cause they dont want to, they want you to buy way more then you need meaning powermac or they want you to stay with old & slow G4 that doesnt really use ddr to its fullest,a videochip not card, etc, etc,etc and then charge you 2 grand for it? all the pc makers give you the option of buying the machine to fit you but with apple its apples way or off to the pc world. well we know that 90% of buyers have chosen pc world. Maybe i have been eating at burger king to long and am use to having it my way.
    Dont lust to much for that fx5200 because its garbage and cheap for apple to use and even cheaper for nvidea to make. its a glorified renamed 4mx any way you look at it. darn it you got me started.
     
  3. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #3
    i dont think macs are gaming machines. yes they are getting better but there is a reason i have a custom built gaming machine. if macs were gaming machines this topic wouldnt come up so much, same reason why no one complains that a mac isnt a video or audio machine, its cause they are. apple doesnt have as many video cards, dont have near as many games, most games come out much later, most games are ported as well as they could be, most of the macs people have will never be able to upgrade the video cards or processors. it will get better though and the g5 is the first step.

    iJon
     
  4. neonart macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #4
    I know people say Macs are not for gaming, but I love being in front of my Mac, even if it's typing on some silly forum. ;)
    The fact that it plays some of the bigger game titles is freaking great! I don't need every game to be out the minute the PS2 version comes out- good games are always appearing- get them as they come.
    Yes, the hardware could be more "gamer friendly" (cheaper basically), but we do get very high quality hardware.
    Don't get me wrong. I would be all over a single 2Ghz G5 w 8X AGP and 4GB RAM capability without all the bells and whistles of the pro models, for say, around $1000. But a gaming oriented machine from Apple, may be wishful thinking.

    In any case, if you are totally hard core about gaming- then get an Xbox, PS2, Gamecube, or 3Ghz PC box. But if you love your Mac and enjoy gaming, and want to mix those two- there's nothing wrong with that.
     
  5. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #5
    You could always do what I do: Wait 1-2 years before purchasing computer games. By the time you purchase them they'll be much cheaper, and more stable due to patches being released during the time you wait.

    Not to mention that the longer you wait, the better chance there is that you'll have a computer that is compatible with it.

    Heck, I just placed an order for 4 Mac games that are basically last generation stuff. That way I KNOW they'll work on my Mac.

    Screw "state of the art" I like my games to just play good.
     
  6. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #6
    that makes them pretty old games though. like splinter cell just now coming for mac, i beat that a year ago on my pc and xbox.

    iJon
     
  7. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #7
    Who cares if they're old? I still play my NES at least once a week and I have a blast doing it. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad.
     
  8. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #8
    oh i know, im just backing up the thread title, macs arent gaming machines, one being they get games late or never.

    iJon
     
  9. thatwendigo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #9
    Here we go again..

    Look, I'm not defending Motorola, and you're doing just what I was talking about in the post. There are reasons, ones that I adress in my post that you don't even touch, that tell you just why you're not going to see a 'consumer' machine with the top of the line processor and a top of the line graphics card. Contrary to what you seem to believe, companies can't just up and swap parts across to macs, in some cases, and graphics cards happen to be firmly in that area.

    So, instead of you typical rant, DHM, why don't you exp[lain to me how Apple could take parts they're still recouping research on, integrate them into a system that doesn't contain the underpinnings that make the G5 work so well (since you want a cheap system, which means crappier ram, mobos, etc.), while still making it a performance machine? I'd love to see just how those 9800s, which are $146 a piece for lowend cards at OEM rates at www.newegg.com, could be levered into this mythical machine.

    Oh, and I'll say it if nobody else will. Yes, there is a large degree of doing things Apple's way when you buy a mac. That's what happens when you buy from a company that does the hardware, software, and integrates the two the way that they have been. They offer what choice they think is practical and doable, and they try to work around the limitations of the market. I think you're tilting at windmills with this whole argument that Apple's deliberately shortchanging anyone.

    Incidentally, my "lust" for a 5200 is mere recognition that it beats my current GeForce 2MX onboard video. You continue to insist that anyone who ever praises what Apple is doing is somehow unaware that there are other options, and that's simply not true.

    So, you'd be all over the machine that would kill our favorite company? Sure, Apple's going to be keeping their hardware bottom line where it's at, and I have no problem with that. I'd rather pay a bit more and keep being astounded by the folks in Cupertino than be in the Wintel world of registry fixes, blue screens, and failing hardware. In my eighteen years of using Apple computers, I have had a grand total of two hardware failures during my ownership, starting with my Apple IIe and running up to the eMac rev A on my desk right now. Since adopting OS X (Beta 2, by the way), I've hard crashed a total of three times.

    That's worth a little premium to me.

    So, there's an open challenge... Someone show me how we can get a 'consumer' G5 that performs like the pro machines and without killing Apple.
     
  10. Declan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    #10
    I was a 19 year (Mac hating) PC user, until I switched 4 weeks ago. What made me turn to the other side was simply OS X, which wouldn't be possible without Apples close control over hardware. And that close control over hardware could have made Macs the best games platform period. The reason is simple, take a look at what games developers are doing with the XBOX, a closed hardware PC that is very underpowered compared to current PC's. The simple fact that PC configurations have so many combinations and are updated ever five minutes, means that game developers never really utilize the hardware fully, very little really, except in the XBOX front. So my believe is that game developers are to blame for Macs not being a gamers choice. A shame, think what a lowly G4 could do with a average video card, just like the XBOX is doing.
     
  11. thatwendigo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #11
    That's a decent point, but it falls victim to one thing I keep trying to hammer home in this discussion. Let's all say it together, now:

    Economies of scale are what make the mac not as solid a gaming machine. Whether on the hardware or software side, it just doesn't make as much sense to sink money into the mac as it does to do so for the PC world. Take a putative $1,000,000 and invest it into a project to create a new product. Now, answer honestly... Which side of the line are you likely to make a huge profit on?

    If you said that, for anything consumer (games, simple photo editing, "security," and so on), the Windows world was likely to make you back several times your investment if you're at all competent and you don't run afoul of MS, then you would be correct. On the other hand, if you're making a creative pro app, it's probably lucrative to make a mac version of your product, but even better to do both.

    Game developers need to make money, too. They're in business, and the money is in what sells, so they choose the polatforms that have the numbers. Right now, and for the last umpteen years, that's been PCs and consoles.
     
  12. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #12
    You remark, "you guys are saying you are just happy as can be to keep going on and on with no progress? either you are young, naive or hate progress." I have never read one post on this forum where someone has said they don't want progress and hate it. Please quote a post with that exact sentiment and please prove me wrong and I will gladly accept it. Otherwise, it seems as though you are angered at some sort of "phantom posts" or points of view that do not exist! So to reiterate, Dont Hurt Me, please specifically address this above claim you have made, back it up, and then perhaps I will listen to your side of the argument with more appreciation. And it will not surprise me in the least if you cannot come up with any examples, so I am not expecting to see a reply from you, which will help prove my point. :cool:
     
  13. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #13
    Regarding G4s as being bad gaming machines, they're not the best, but they still perform adequately. Some people seem to think that the iMac needs a G5 in order to not be a piece of garbage though, and that G4s simply suck. I honestly can't wait to see a G5 in the iMac, however I don't see the need for all this excessive G4 bashing. My co-worker has a PowerBook with a G4 for instance, 450 MHz, and with Panther, it still does everything he needs it to, and it's not even sluggish! I'm not saying the iMacs don't need an upgrade and a fresh new look - they are due - but all in good time, i.e. a few more months. The G4 has been stuck speed-wise for a long time, yes, the G4 has been around a while and become old technology, yes, and the G4 gets its butt kicked by the G5, yes, but let's not bash the G4 because of this, as it is still a decent chip. Perhaps these G4 bashers go to PC forums too, and bash Celerons in their spare time as well? When was the last time a Celeron competed with anything top of the line? Yet, they have their place, just as the G4s currently do, until the G5 iMacs come out.
     
  14. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #14
    Kay last one - for now

    One more post for now, until the replies start flying in. ;)

    I had originally posted this reply to your post, Dont Hurt Me, in another thread, but you never replied. Please reply now, otherwise, I have no choice but to assume you cannot come up with a convincing argument to my below statements. I am open to hearing anyone else's opinions as well, as this is what these forums are all about.


    First of all, yes, you're right, there is a reason G5s are in the PowerMac - they are the better chip. And although "G4's suck" is neither a proper technical analysis, nor is it proper grammar, they are the lower-end chip and currently have their place, until the G5 iMacs come out in spring, or whenever it might be.

    Why does every machine have to have a top of the line chip and hardware in them? How do you differentiate products? I'm all for the iMac having a G5, but what you are proposing is making it exactly like the PowerMac which makes no sense. Why not do away with the iMac then altogether, how would it be any different from the PowerMac?



    The answer to your question is, until the G5 iMac is released, probably very soon. Patience is a virtue. We are slowly coming out of the Motorola age and into the IBM age, so updates will become much better and more frequent. Once again, patience is a virtue - you might do well to think about that.


    My grandpa likes to surf the Net and check his e-mail. That's it. Why does he need a G5? Is he a fool? I think the fools are people who make narrow-minded comments like the one quoted above.



    Slowest on the market? Hmm, I can still go out an buy a GeForce 2 MX, so that statement is completely incorrect for starters. Secondly, once again, does everyone need top of the line hardware? My old PC has a GeForce 2 with 32 MB RAM (not even DDR!) in it. Guess what - it displays my screen fine. I don't play games, why would I need anything more? Hell, a FX5200 is overkill for my needs, and most people's needs. If you are a gamer, you need a power machine with a power video card regardless, so feel free to buy a PowerMac. The FX5200 is not garbage, as it works just fine - so once again, you are incorrect with your non-technical assessment.


    I totally agree - the G5 needs to make its way into the iMac. Motorola is slowly being phased out, and the iMac's time will come in the next few months. As for the iMac being crippled, this is once again, incorrect. a 1.25 GHz G4 is adequate for many people's needs. There are many people on this forum using even older machines, which you would deem as crippled garbage, who will prove you wrong time and time again.

    You seem to think that something is garbage if it can't compete with the top of the line systems. Why does Intel still make Celeron chips then? You never see Celerons competing with top of the line chips, but they have their place, just as the G4s currently do.

    I would be happy to hear some constructive intelligent replies to my above posts Dont Hurt Me, as you seem to have chosen to ignore them in our previous thread.
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    You wanted it and here it is the new g5!
     

    Attached Files:

  16. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #16
    Yah, I remember seeing that concept design quite a few months ago - there are lots of them floating around if you do a simple Google search. This is one of the uglier concept designs out there, if you ask me!

    Now hopefully you'll actually get around to replying to my above posts, Dont Hurt Me, as you simply ignored them in our other thread. I'll check back a bit later today...
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    All right shard here you go, i dont think if anything isnt top of the line its garbage but my 2.5 year old geforce 3 is still better then a brand new fx5200, so is ati's 9000, 9600,9700,9800,9800x so is the nvidea 5700 and 5900. fx 5200 is the bottom of oem chips/cards right now. perhaps being last isnt garbage.
    As for G4, it just isnt advancing compared to everyone else need i say more?
    I dont think imac should be a powermac but i do think they could still give it a single G5, a better video chip then 5200,and a pci slot.
    G4 has held back Apple to to long we all know this.
    If grandpa only needs to read email then there is ibook and emac.
    If Apples consumer offerings are going to sell in quantities as the original imac it has to make a product that is more competive and then what we have and a product that allows all those pc consumers with monitors to switch to the mac. Emac/Imac dont allow this. So apple is saying get rid of your monitor to these folks or buy our professional machine.
    Apple has to make a Consumer machine that can Game. Consumers are gamers and gamers need a fast single cpu. Also a lot of consumers dont want a gigantic computer. G5 powermacs are Great but still wont fit into my desk.
    There it is Shard and by the way i use my 1.47 powermac for business,photo's,music, typing on mac rumors,mail,and my very favorite GAMES. though it is a little underpowered. so if a 1.47 is underpowered..............
     
  18. Shekky_ca macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    #18
    I'm a mac gamer and I've got the oldest peice of crap that is no longer of any use anymore...

    My iMac is on G3 processer yet there is still some things in the G3 and G4 chips that helped boost the speed of Virtual PC

    The G5 chip on the other hand did not support the feature as I read in the article and that was one of the reasons why vpc does not work/is very slow on the G5.

    I don't remember what this feature was and what it did as I read the article several months ago...

    I can barely play Ghost Recon and Medal of Honor yet both run ok on this computer.

    But I've never really come out of the past from mac gaming as everyday I find myself going back to playing games like quake 1 over Ghost Recon as both run really well on this computer. I find that classic gaming has caught my attention more. Actually I play alot of Diablo II now as well :)
     
  19. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #19
    Now see, that offends me. Just because I bought an eMac doesn't mean I don't do Photoshop and play games on it. Hell, I don't exactly have $2,000+ to throw away on a computer.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    Dont be offended Emac is a very good value and brings up the bottom of the conumer line nicely as long as they dont freeze those needed upgrade cycles. that comment was in reply to shard's grandpa not needing power.
     
  21. Les Kern macrumors 68040

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #21
    The "gaming" issue has made the rounds often here. I play a few favorites on the 1.42DP with 1.5GB of ram; Ghost Recon (with all the mods I could find), Medal of Honor, America's Army and Tiger Woods 2003. These three run magnificently... for me. A SERIOUS gamer should have a PC. A casual gamer like me can do very well with a Mac. Actually, I think serious gamers have personal issues, and I mean no disrespect, this can be seen as MY problem! :)
    Games should be occasional diversions, not a way of life. I'm not saying that because mac's don't do the game thing perfectly, it's just that I feel that in the great scheme of things, computer games are less important than say, most everything! :)
     
  22. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #22
    Well, out of the three I've played the Medal of Honor demo on my measly little 1Ghz, 768MB ram eMac, and it runs just fine. Hell, it's even playable with alot of the graphics options turned on.
     
  23. thatwendigo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #23
    I'm moving Dont Hurt Me's comments from the other thread here, since they belong on this one. He's stopped talking about the emac and started talking about gaming, as usual.

    Quite aside from your flaming, Dont Hurt Me, which I'm pretty sure is in violation of the forum policies, you're dead wrong on several counts.

    I'm only "beating the Apple drum" if one considers that having a realistic expectation of economic behavior to be cheerleading. I've yet to see you tell me how Apple could afford to do what you want, technologically mange to make a machine that is both cheaper and similarly performance-heavy as the current G5s, and still stay in business. That, of course assumes that such a machine is even possible.

    So, in order, please answer these questions:
    1) Where are these cheap, new single processor motherboards coming from?
    2) Who's paying for the extra research?
    3) How is Apple going to get a lock on new graphics cards without shelling out for having them modified to run ADC and have mac drivers?
    4) Where is the money to recoup the reserach for the G5 and the aluminum tower's innards going to come from if they cut marigns?
    5) What components, exactly, are you expecting in this mythical gaming system, and how are you expecting Apple to price them down to what people pay for building their own system?

    Incidentally, based on the numbers I've seen, Apple has caught up with the Wintel world. Have you heard of this magical new thing called a dual G5 tower? :rolleyes: Also, if you "don't care" what I have to say, then you sure spend a lot of time defending yourself from it. Perhaps it's because I've joined the ranks of people who frame an argument, rather than just hammering a single want?

    Oh, and as a final note: I NEVER SAID THAT THE G4 IS IN ANY WAY WHAT WE NEED. Like Shard, I would love to see one of these posts you keep referring to, where someone actually says that they hate to see the mac prgressing and getting faster. My bet is that they don't exist, but I'll gladly eat my words should someone actually use a mac and believe that their machine is just too fast as it is. I love games, and I play them when I have time to, by the way. Just another place that you're assuming things that you don't actually know...



    You don't say? So, what you're pissed about is the existence of graphics cards that cost more than what Apple is willing to put in their entry-level consumer machine? Maybe you need a bigger, more expensive machine, then, since the processor isn't as fast, too.

    :confused:
    Ah, so you do want them to make it an all-in-one powermac.

    You seem to be forgetting the magical phrase "in my opinion," DHM. See, what I talk about generally comes from factual information, and I clearly label my speculation. Things like economics of scale are based on hard math, with some prediction. You, on the other hand, are trying to sell us all on some personal fantasy that you don't even really provide any backing for.

    See, there is a machine you can buy that's pretty fast, which has a better graphics card, and which accepts an external monitor. It costs about $1799, last I checked, and has a G5.

    [

    Funny, really... Apple's one of the only computer companies that's turning a profit right now, but you think you can tell them how to do it better? Why aren't you in the industry, then, DHM?

    It seems to me that they're doing just fine, what with the whole "making money" thing. Maybe I'm just a little silly, though.
     
  24. Funkatation macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    #24
    If you look at who holds the most video card marketshare you might be suprised at who it is... it's not ATI, not nVidia, but INTEL.

    But intel doesn't make graphics cards? On every "G" series motherboard chipset they make there is an integrated video chipset on the core logic. If you look at the majority of PC's being sold today, they are using that to drive the display. It's worse than a GF2MX in terms of 3d rendering power. (3d decelerator comes to mind)

    When you look at all of apple's products, they ALL come with a better video card than what most pc's have, even the lowly eMac with a radeon 7500.
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    Ok take a imac and remove the display, there we just eliminated $400-$1000. thats what new displays sell for. now put in a G5 and ati 9600. G5s are the same cost as G4's roughly. yeah the motherboard cost more. ok theres $100 bucks, ati" 9600 is a little more but ill be generous here is another 100 bucks. so now we have a headless imac with G5 and ati 9600 and it cost between$1000 - 1500. is that moving mountains?? no its not.
    In reply to funkatation emacs/imacs dont have video cards they have video chipsets, not far from Intels video chipsets though a little better.

    so now you have a headless imac that all those people who own monitors can now buy. Imagine all those switchers can now come to the mac world and bring their displays. Get rid of ADC though i like it the video card makers dont. If your worried about heat just use the new 970's ibm is making on the 90nm process and enlarge the case with more holes
    Presto the new consumer/gaming Mac.
     

Share This Page