Biggest thing holding Apple back is the lack of games?

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by luffytubby, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. bluebomberman macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #51
    Just the Wii - my first console since the original NES. I use to get this urge to buy another console for some RPG lovin', but it's not worth getting a second console just to play Mass Effect on a 13-inch TV.

    That said, even the awesomeness of the Wii hasn't really sated my cravings for turn-based tactical strategy games or RPGs (Fire Emblem was not that great and Zelda actually pissed me off while playing) - but I seriously think the iPhone is more likely to get these kind of games than the Mac is. Given the success of RPGs and tactical combat games on the console portables, not to mention the Song Summoner RPG that just came out for the iPod line, I wouldn't be completely surprised if Square Enix starts bringing Final Fantasy to the iPhone.
     
  2. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #52
    As I pointed out in the other thread, PCs costing half as much as Macs have as much or even more power. A $1,000 AMD based HP is going to be better at gaming thanks to the Puma platform than a $2,499 MacBook Pro.

    You can literally walk into Frys right now and walk out with a desktop and an add-in GPU, with monitor and speakers, that will play games better than any Mac out there right now for less than the cost of the Mac mini with a DVD writer.

    The problem more than anything is the price of Apple hardware. People who are interested in gaming beyond Bejeweled and Peggle know the true value of computer hardware and know just how much more you can get for your money by building your own PC or having it custom built for you.

    So why would any of them go and spend $1499 on a 20" iMac with MOBILE graphics and a MOBILE CPU?

    Especially knowing that same $1499 could be used to build a PC that would put the Mac Pro to shame in the gaming arena and they'd still have money left over.

    Why would any of them buy the $1099 MacBook while knowing that $1000 Puma based HP will outperform the $2499 MacBook Pro?

    Then you have the game developers realizing this too. They know their core audience has this high end hardware. Why should they dumb their games down to run on Macs? Why should they skip DirectX10 (yes there is an image quality improvement and the performance hit is nothing now with updated drivers) for poorly implemented OpenGL support that won't give them half the features of DirectX10?

    Let's not forget that Apple's most popular systems have Intel GPUs (what I was talking about in the previous paragraph). Why should game developers take their games from realistic or lush/organic environments with a lot of onscreen activity to sub-PS2 quality so it can run on Intel GPUs?

    Look at Half-Life 2. A 4 year old game now. To get it to run smoothly on the MacBook you have to take it down to a graphical level that is somewhere between PS1/N64 and PS2 quality.

    PC game developers know that PC gamers want the latest and greatest. Even those who are only mildly interested in PC gaming want to see the best. So why should game developers scale back? And those who are even moderately interested in gaming know that you pay a serious fee for that Apple logo and you do not get what you pay for in terms of hardware.

    Until Apple's hardware prices are more in-line with similar PCs, gaming on a Mac will not be a priority for any developer or gamer. But even if the prices were more in-line, you'd still be running in Vista for DirectX10.
     
  3. Irishman macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    #53

    Okay, I'm going to agree with you and disagree with you. And I have to question first off how much hands on experience you have with newer Macs.

    Comments you've made above about how if you run a game like HL2 in Boot Camp on a MacBook (which one?) (configured how?) you have to take the image quality down to PS1/N64 quality to make it run? Dramatic much??

    Everyone who's been a follower of Apple's product line knows there's a big gaping hole where a mid-tower gaming config should be. But at the same time, assuming the price-performance ratio was spot-on, would that still make a Mac of any stripe a cutting-edge gaming machine? How would consumers know?

    For me, I'm a graphic designer (Adobe Illustrator), word processor, all-around home user, who also happens to like gaming once in a while. And the games I like are the ones that tax a system (I love immersive audio and graphics). I love RealMYST and Unreal titles, for examples.

    So, would I jump at a mid-tower Mac designed for me? Absolutely. But, there is much more to the Mac user experience than just price/performance ratio.

    Everyone here would attest to that.

    Build quality for one. I work at Best Buy, and one of the things I've found about the PCs we sell, they're pretty much disposable. If you spend 3-4 hundred dollars on an eMachines cpu, who cares if it falls apart in a year? You can replace it again no sweat. But how green (read: environmentally sustainable) is that? Not very.

    By way of contrast, my Mac is a Power Macintosh 8600/250 from 1997!!

    Find me someone who's still getting a lot of use as a primary computer an 11-year old Windows PC and I'll show you someone who's just using it for email.

    These things are designed to last. And the tower machines are just as upgradable as their PC contemporaries.

    So I, for one, don't fault Apple for not jumping into the disposable computer market.
     
  4. nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #54
    I'm one of those people interested in gaming beyond Bejeweled and Peggle, and I know the true value of computer hardware. I know just how much more you can get for your money by building your own PC or having it custom built for you (by a cheap brand), and I ALSO know how much more gamer-centric the models from non-Apple PC makers are. A gamer's ideal Mac would have a high-end GPU but cut a lot of other corners for the sake of price. I hope Apple DOES make such a thing (mid-range tower?) some day. But they don't today.

    And yet I, myself, STILL would choose a Mac--even if all I could afford was a 20". (Luckily I went for 24! :) )

    Not everyone would do that--most wouldn't (heck, most people never consider Macs at all, gaming or not) and we all know why gamers often choose to have a Windows machine for gaming.

    Others will choose a console or a Mac. And to answer your question, this is WHY, in my case I would choose an iMac (or a MacBook Pro ideally):

    * Gaming should be fun, and I don't enjoy dealing with Windows. There is an ease-of-use and user-focused-design gap between Windows and Mac. If you're used to Windows and not to Mac, that gap may be less clear, but it's very real.

    * I like the reliability and support that I get from a name-brand machine that you won't get from a home-built machine or cheap brand.

    * I like compact and quiet. Other may like neon lights, which don't help your games either, it's just for fun--but I like compact and quiet.

    * I want ONE machine, not two (which is especially vital for laptop gamers) and I want to do gaming PLUS other things. You don't get "more for your money" with an HP. You (can) get a better GPU for your money. (And that's a very valid fact to consider--this is a gaming forum! It's also, of course, a forum for people who game on Macs.) You also give up a lot of what a Mac could give you. Hardware AND software. Match an HP and a Mac in specs--ALL specs, not cherry-picked--and Macs are right in the same price range. But you can't match any Mac with a gamer's PC: they don't make a Mac that adds a high-end GPU while cutting corners in other ways. (And if you look at a low-cost gaming HP compared to a Mac Pro and don't see corners cut, you're skimming past some details :p )

    Nobody here will tell you that gaming on Windows is a wrong choice for everyone. Of course it's not.

    And by the same token, you don't suggest that gaming on Mac is a wrong choice for everyone. You're seeing a narrow view of a bigger picture, and your biases/goals can't speak for everyone. If there weren't good reasons for a lot of people to be gaming on a Mac, this Mac Gaming forum wouldn't exist :) And you wouldn't find serious hard-core OS X gamers here. But painful as it may be to admit, you do :)

    Back to Quake Wars. Time to break in my new gaming mouse!

    You wouldn't say that if you've ever swapped an HD in a Mac Pro (a matter of seconds) vs. the aggravation of doing so in many a PC tower :p Working inside a Mac tower is as close to tool-free as you can get!
     
  5. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #55
    I think the game developers dropped the ball in some respects by supporting DirectX (a Microsoft closed-source monopoly) instead of helping to move open standards like OpenGL forward. iD pushes OpenGL. They've had some huge games. They are also much easier to port to the Mac and even Linux for that matter which have OpenGL support, but no DirectX (again because Microsoft won't allow it as it helps them sell their core product, Windows). So why does everyone else use DirectX? If it's faster, then they could always help develop OpenGL to make it better. But they don't. They want easy money and play right into Microsoft's hands.

    Having said that, Apple are fools in my opinion to not be doing more for gaming on the Mac. They COULD improve their OpenGL drivers and help the OpenGL standards move forward in general. They could offer a more gaming friendly mac that has a DECENT GPU in it so that a game might have a chance of actually running. Only the MacPro and top of the line iMac (read over $2000) has a fairly decent GPU in it while PCs in the $800-1500 range are MUCH MUCH more capable gaming machines hardware wise. I mean it's time iMacs stopped being laptops and there's NO reason an updated MacMini couldn't have a decent GPU either. Apple wants to leverage higher-end sales but I'm sorry, WE'RE NOT ALL RICH!

    Seriously, I think Apple has done more damage to gaming on the Mac by not offering realistic GPU options on its mid-range computers than anything else. Laptop parts aren't going to handle games that were developed to run best using SLI type configurations (and Apple once again doesn't even support THAT on the MacPro, which could be a professional level gaming platform IF it had that kind of option for it). I mean basically the Mac market is small enough as it is, but it's still a significant one (i.e. you do see serious application support from 3rd party companies), but 3D gaming capable Macs are a tiny subset of that market that is small to begin with. Why develop native 3D games for machines that can't really run them? You don't.

    So before you even have talks about ways Apple could improve gaming options in the operating system itself (and it could), you have to first get Apple to offer decent GPUs in EVERY COMPUTER IN THEIR STABLE (save maybe the Macbook Air). Macbooks are the biggest selling Mac out there and they can't do 3D for crap. This PPC G4 I'm using has better 3D on it through an ATI 9800 Pro than a Mac-Mini! Heck, the AppleTV has a better GPU in most respects than a Macbook or Mac-Mini! What gives? Apple needs to stop leveraging 3D to force laptop upgrades to the "Pro" level. What "Pro" software NEEDS 3D out there? Very little. Most "Pro" apps don't need the GPU the MBP has and I find that very ironic. The cheaper Macbook is where the potential 'gamers' mostly lie and they have nothing to work with, not even 2 year old GPUs.

    A little bit of this might see some improvement with Centrino 3 coming soon as Intel is at least finally starting to make some headway with its built-in motherboard graphics and claims it will not start pushing to make up all that lost time. I mean what is Apple going to do then? Turn off the GPU features in Macbooks or try to find some other chip set supplier that will still sell them chips that can only really do 2D so they can keep trying to force you to get that MBP? I mean really, just STOP already Apple. Sell your MBP based on faster processors, more features, even larger screens, but stop screwing 3D over and yourself in the long run by impeding the gaming market from developing for the Mac.
     
  6. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #56
    Not jumping into the disposable computer market? What are you talking about? They've jumped with both feet first! I mean what else do you call an iMac? It has no real expansion capability other than external hard drives. That's their bread and butter along with the Macbook (which also has no real expansion capability and very limited graphics).

    No, the MacPro is the ONLY computer they make that has some potential life in it. And the older ones in some respects (for gaming anyway) don't have that lifespan because even though a quad G5 machine is capable, most newer games are INTEL ONLY. So either way, you've got Macs that have lost some capability and will also be good mostly for e-mail and browsing in the not-so-distant future.

    Contrast that to the PC world where if you want to dispose, you can get cheap machines or even expensive ones and do just that. But if you want to upgrade, you usually can, even if means a new Motherboard/CPU, which really isn't all that hard to change either (I did just that with my PIII machine and kept its large tower case, floppy, a couple of hard drives and even my old sound card and put in a new motherboard, memory, graphics card and primary hard drive and now it smokes along and can run the latest games for $800 total. Try that with a Mac. I spent $1200 upgrading this PowerMacG4 and the best it can do is run games from 3 years ago. But then I didn't upgrade it to game.
     
  7. soms macrumors 6502

    soms

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle
    #57
    I would say lack of upgrades, that is holding back the hardcore gamers. The mainstream people are being held back by prices.
     
  8. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #58
    I personally have a MacBook with a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, 2.5GB of RAM, "SuperDrive", and Intel GMA 950. Let's not forget that the GMA 950 is better in the real world than the X3100. Don't believe me? Head over to some Windows notebook forums and check out the gaming areas. You'll find unless discussion regarding disabling the hardware T&L on the X3100 (essentially turning it into a GMA 950) so it can actually achieve playable frame-rates.

    I also have a "low-end" HP with a "low-end" GeForce 8400M GS (128MB), 2GHz C2D (Santa Rosa based), 2GB of RAM, etc.

    I tried Half-Life 2 on my MacBook using Boot Camp 2.0 and the newest Intel drivers. To get the frame-rate even reasonable I had to take it down to the lowest resolution, lower the texture settings, etc. It didn't look as good as say.. Final Fantasy 10, but it looked better than PS and N64 games. On my low end HP, I can run it at max settings at 1280x800 (native resolution) and its locked at 60 frames, no drops.

    Even better, going back to 2006, I had an HP then with a Turion64 (single core!) ML-37 (2GHz) and a Radeon Xpress 200M (integrated, but 128MB of dedicated memory). It could run Half-Life 2 at 1280x800 high settings (except reflections) and still push a good solid 30 frames.

    Same with UT2004. The 200M could push it at 1280x800 medium/high settings and get a good 30 frames, the current HP locks at 60 at 1280x800 with everything maxed. The MacBook? 800x600 medium settings, choking out 30fps.

    Such as? The year and so many months I owned a Mac up until 10.5.4, I had OS X crash more times on me in that small time frame than I ever had Windows crash on me the entire time I have been using Windows. Two different MacBooks. Windows XP and Vista, on the other hand, were rock solid on the same machines. Sure Expose is nice, and installing software is a little easier. But the lack of software, lack of good video playback (and system wide hardware acceleration for video) really detracts from the whole "experience".

    And quite honestly, the only iLife apps worth using are iPhoto and iTunes. I can get iTunes on Windows, and Picassa, Windows Photo Gallery, HP Photosmart Essentials, etc. are all just as good as iPhoto.

    As I said in another thread to the poster after you, you realize that HP, Apple, Gateway/eMachines, etc. all contract out their work to the same Chinese manufacturers, right?

    And I know for a fact that there are at least hundreds of people on this forum, and countless more elsewhere, that will disagree with your build quality assessment. Ironically, I had a $400 eMachines (that I upgraded endlessly) that lived for a full 5 years. It was killed by a power surge caused by Southern California Edison contract workers making a mistake. But thats what claims are for and Edison paid for all of the damage. With my first MacBook, the "SuperDrive" was a super failure. The unit also experienced the discoloration that was supposed to be gone (was a Core 2 Duo MacBook also) and the plastic on the hinge had started to yellow due to heat and was even coming apart. I sent it in to Flextronics, the company Apple contracts to due repair work on MacBooks. They botched the repair a few times and Apple ended up replacing it. With the second unit, the top case (the rubbery plastic part) started to separate and come apart. I could literally lift up the bottom right corner. The battery also started to warp. Once again, it went out to Flextronics. After a couple of tries they finally got things right. But the first time it came back "fixed" the case was all soft on the left side. Apparently some people here think that is normal. I didn't pay $1406 for a computer to have a "soft" case. Apple advertises the computer as durable and that is what I wanted.

    Look at the other problems MacBooks have. They're known to crack along the vents, crack on the bottom where the CPU is located. Crack on the top because of the pressure from the magnetic latch.

    Look at the MacBook Pro. Its prone to warping, denting, scratching, bending, and in some very rare cases, rusting. It still has a yellow screen issue. There is still a issue with weird noises coming out of the headphone jack.

    Let's look at the MacBook Air. The cooling system is so poorly designed that the system is more likely to always run in a reduced power mode with a core disabled.

    The iMac? I don't think condensation behind the glass screen is a sign of quality workmanship.

    Let's not forget all the problems with iBooks Apple had, shall we? Problems that lead to certain foreign governments getting involved and forcing Apple to repair or replace affected units that were hindered by what was called a "design flaw".

    Macs are only designed to last the length of the warranty so Apple can sell you another when your previous one fails after 18 months.

    Except they also have a starting cost about 5x more than the average desktop PC.

    Hah, you tried that crap in the other thread and it didn't work. Again, Apple, HP, Gateway, Acer, etc. ALL contract the same Chinese manufacturers.

    If you have one custom built by say... ibuypower, then you're getting the exact same components you would if you were buying it and building it yourself.

    And you should also know that no self respecting person, or even someone who plays 2 games a year, will buy such a machine.

    Cut a lot of corners? How? You know, you can have a system custom built by a reputable manufacturer, or by yourself, and it will have higher quality components than the iMac, run at least 4x as fast, and will have more features.

    There is no "Ease of use" advantage with OS X. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. This is a flat out lie and people need to quit with it.

    Not to mention the fact that Windows flexibility gives the end user more options and it gives the hardware manufacturer the opportunity to tweak drivers to get maximum performance. When was the last time there was a driver update for GeForce cards on OS X? The beginning of the year? I've seen 4 major drivers from nVidia that have given me an all around 25% performance boost over what I was originally getting out of this card.

    I don't have to take what Apple tells me I want in terms of hardware. I can have an Asus soundcard, EVGA manufactured GeForce, my 4 year old Leadtek PCI TV tuner (that is still getting driver and functionality updates free! unlike certain Apple products), and whatever else I want.

    Thanks to Windows and my own hardware, I can build exactly what I want and have it run exactly how I want.

    The "cheap brands" out there provide 24/7 tech support for the full first year you own it. Unlike Apple which charges $60 a pop after the first 90 days, but only if you call on a weekday before 6PM. That is not good support.

    Also, something you build yourself will come with full warranties. That HDD you bought? Well, it has a 5 year warranty on it. Versus the 1 year warranty on your Mac. That optical drive? Three years. That RAM? Life time. Etc.

    Overall, that home built PC will have a much longer warranty than your Mac or any pre/custom built PC. You don't have to pay hundreds extra to have the ability to call in with software issues (handled by the developer, usually lifetime in most cases) and continue calling on weekdays before 6PM for a couple of years.

    Also, if you choose an iMac over a self-built PC, if one thing goes wrong you have to send the whole freakin unit in for a week or more at a time! If something goes wrong with the PC, they manufacturer of the part will generally send you out a new one and not even bother requesting you return the old one.

    And with "compact and quiet" comes "ridiculously hot" which, in turn, shortens the overall lifespan of the unit.

    Hah, we went over this in the other thread and your argument was pretty much murdered.

    Let's look at HP versus Apple for notebooks for a second.

    The $1299 MacBook gets you a 2.4GHz Penryn based C2D (the 3MB L2 cache version), 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, Intel X3100, DVD writer, 2 USB, Firewire, Ethernet, mini-DVI output, optical audio in and out.

    For $1200 at HP you get the dv5z with a 2.2GHz Turion64 Ultra (dual core, slightly slower, but the MacBook already has the cut down C2D), Puma chipset with the 3200 IGP and Radeon 3450 (with the ability to use hybrid Crossfire, giving better performance than any of the GeForce cards in the MacBook Pro), 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, blu-ray, 3 USB, eSATA, firewire, HDMI (with digital audio), VGA, S-Video, ExpressCard54, 5-in-1 memory card reader, ethernet, etc.

    Yeah, you get a lot more for your money with the HP. You get CPU speed that is very similar. You get blu-ray. You get HDMI so you can watch that blu-ray movie on your HDTV, as well as play your games on your HDTV. You get full size ExpressCard, something no Mac offers.

    Do I need to go on or do you really want me to rip your argument apart like I did in the other thread?

    You bring up software. Okay. OS X isn't good for gaming. OpenGL on OS X doesn't run as good as it does on Windows or Linux. There is (obviously) no DirectX 10 support. There is no system wide hardware acceleration for video, so everything from DVDs to H.264 video doesn't look even half as good as it does under Windows, plus CPU use for playing video is unnecessarily high in OS X.

    Of all the people I know who own Macs, whether lifers or just for a couple of years, they all agree that the only useful iLife apps are iTunes and iPhoto. iTunes is available on Windows (as well as countless other music management programs and music stores). Picassa, Windows Photo Gallery (Vista), HP Photosmart Essential, etc. are all free and all offer the same functionality. Even the photo books.

    So there truly is no advantage to picking OS X over Windows. But there are advantages to picking Windows over OS X.

    Bringing the Mac Pro up is an absolute joke. You're trying to say its better than a self-built gaming PC? Thats hilarious! Look, sure the Mac Pro has ridiculously fast processors. But you know what? Consumer applications that actually ARE multi-threaded are designed to only take advantage of 2 cores! Most are still single threaded. Games? All but a small handful are still single threaded, and those that are multi-threaded and coming out multi-threaded only support 2 cores. Only a couple of games currently available scale to use all cores.

    Before I go on, I want to point out just hilariously stupid it is that the $2799 Mac Pro ships with an 8 core CPU backed up by an ATI Radeon HD 2600XT. Whats that? Talk about unbalanced and hilariously overpriced!

    But anyway, thanks to how consumer software (and a good amount of professional software) and games work, an $800 self-built gaming PC with a ~3GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, and GeForce 9600 GT will just absolutely mop the floor with the Mac Pro. The more you bump up the Mac Pro, the more outrageously priced it gets.

    The best GPU for the Mac Pro is the 8800GT. Sure you can bump the Mac Pro up to 8 3GHz Cores. Whoo. But guess what? You can throw another 9600GT in that self built gaming PC and still be under $1,000 and it will still mop the floor with the Mac Pro no matter how many 3GHz cores that Mac Pro has.

    Honestly, the Mac Pro is a stupid design with idiotic prices.

    Apple tries to push the Mac Pro as a "work station". But when its configured as such and not like a consumer system, it costs $5,650. And, even then, when it comes to things like gaming, systems that cost less than 1/5th as much will still outperform it.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're enjoying WoW, Peggle, and uh... Unreal Tournament 2004 and um.... Doom 3.

    The Mac gaming market exists because people want to play games, pure and simple. But some are too afraid to give up the OS they have used their entire life, or simply don't want to admit they made a mistake in switching to a Mac (I'm not afraid to say my buying a Mac was a mistake) by going back to Windows.

    You have fun with Quake Wars. As soon as I'm done here I'll be having a hard time choosing between UT3, Gears of War (yeah, like those two will ever finally see the light of day on a Mac considering that the majority of Macs can't even dream of running them), GRID, Half-Life 2, Call of Duty 4..................

    Because being able to swap out a HDD easily is more important than being able to swap out the 8800GT for a newer and faster GPU, right? The funny thing is the 8800GT was already a generation behind when Apple finally got it!

    Hah! Its about time someone besides me said that!
     
  9. bluebomberman macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #59
    Yes and no. Much of the "build quality" actually has to do with software quality than the number of expansion bays. Leopard runs great on my 4-year-old iMac, but Vista runs poorly on some new computers with the "Made for Vista" sticker. External connections and hubs makes the iMac quite expandable - just not for gaming.

    But aren't the "expandability" and "horsepower" issues part of the reason why PC gaming is withering away? I'm surely not the only former PC gamer who's given up on keeping up with the latest GPUs, the SLI/Crossfire configurations, the motherboard swaps, the memory allocations (DOS veterans probably remember all too well the extended versus expanded memory configs), the driver downloads, and the massive expense of all these graphics cards when I can just plug a video game console into a much bigger screen and start playing in moments. I don't doubt that in the minds of the Apple brain trust, SLI configurations represent much of what's wrong with PCs today and we'll likely never see SLI in any Mac except perhaps in future Mac Pros.

    But maybe it's just me. Not even the new HD trailer for Bioware's new Dragon Age RPG can get me to salivate anymore. *sigh*
     
  10. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #60
    I'm FAR from an Apple fanboy and I own an upgraded PowerMac and a PC built just last year so I can pretty much smell when something is wrong from EITHER direction of Mac/PC arguments. I personally think they both have their strong/weak points. Apple's weakest point is GPU support, both in hardware and direct driver support along with a philosophy that caters to throw-away machines (iMacs) and creates artificial price points (Macbook versus Macbook Pro) by limiting such BASIC things as the GPU from total crap to decent (never great). For a computing platform that was once known for being both graphic orientated and for developing graphics I find it absolutely ironic how AWFUL, yes AWFUL the Mac's support for graphics is both in hardware and drivers. I seriously hope they have some plans for Snow Leopard to address those areas and get out of the stone ages with their GPU hardware by then because it's the Mac's weakest area.

    Let's start with the claim above. Leopard has been a letdown for me, less so in stability and more so in the areas of taking a relatively efficient Tiger and dragging it through the mud once again in the GPU department. If MacOSX wasn't bad enough for unoptimized GPU operations, Leopard took that and dropped 20-50% in my experience based on User Interface scores and 3D tests. Apparently, many do have bugs/issues, but the claim that MacOSX is LESS stable than Windows in your entire life? Sorry, but that sounds like a load of horse manure. I've had a couple of Windows computers from Win98 to XP and know someone with Vista and I had Win98 crash more times than I can count. I've had a lot more stability with XP SP2, but SP1 was pretty sad also. That doesn't mean XP SP2 is rock solid. It isn't. I run my PowerMac 24/7 and leave it on for weeks even months at a time without rebooting. There is simply NO WAY ON EARTH I could EVER do that with Windows. MacOSX is Unix (namely BSD). Its internal cores are vastly more stable than Windows will probably ever be. That doesn't mean it doesn't have problems, but if I need stability on a PC platform (including my own), I run Linux. Its X interface sometimes crashes on me in the past (not so far in latest Mandriva), but it doesn't bring the machine down and I can just restart X again.

    So this brings us to your next faulty claim.

    This PowerMac I'm using right now is 7 years old and runs flawlessly. I think it's been out of warranty a LOT longer than 18 months. Similarly, I had a PC I used (also with a few upgrades) for 7 years (99-07). It topped out at 1GHz PIII on the motherboard. This PowerMac has a 1.8GHz 7448 and can support a dual version or a single 2.0GHz one and has 50% more ultimate memory expansion. Suffice to say, it has a little bit longer lifespan than the PIII I had which is now in pieces downstairs so I could reuse the case for the new motherboard, ram, GPU and hard drive I bought.

    So what are you saying here? The average desktop PC costs $480? I might agree with that, but that doesn't really help your argument much. You're not going to do much better capability wise than a MacMini at $480 (maybe considerably worse) without serious expansion. Unless you prebuild and find an old copy of WindowsXP or like Linux enough to use it full time, you're stuck with Vista and that means that hardware will perform like a computer made 2 years earlier. Vista just plain sucks. I'm sorry, but it does. XP isn't polished or intuitive in many respects, but it's lightweight compared to Vista. In fact, Vista is primary #1 reason I decided to look into Macs in the first place. I did end up buying a new PC + a used Mac instead of the new one I was planning on for awhile due to the sucky GPU options and overpriced hardware the MacPro has while hating the iMac unexpandable packaging there. I would have preferred to ditch Windows altogether (being a former Amiga user I have no love for Microsoft what-so-ever), but I do game and I have to admit, gaming on the Mac pretty much sucks.

    It's comments like that which I would refer to as immature. You seem out of touch with the 'average' Windows user who knows very little about hardware and buys whatever some teenager that makes barely above minimum wage and has almost no training tells them at Best Buy (I should know; I used to work there while going to college around 12 years ago and not much has changed since then from what I can see visiting there).

    4x as fast? In what areas, exactly? I won't argue about GPU measurements because it's pretty much true, but when a magazine rates the fastest Vista laptop as being a MacbookPro last year, one has to call into question the 4x comment. Beyond GPU operations, there is NO computer out there that is 4x faster than any current Mac CPU wise. No such CPU exists.

    When someone calls something that is clearly subjective (i.e. ease of use) a "lie" and tells people to stop giving that opinion, they prove to me they've lost the argument because they can't tell a fact from an opinion. What is 'easier' for someone to use to another is subjective and yet the Mac has always had a reputation for being easier for 'average' people to use. In fact, it was the major reason I HATED Macs until OSX came along. I was an Amiga user and the Amiga had a very much cross-hybrid background and was somewhere in-between a Unix machine and a Mac in terms of its inteface at a time when MS-Dos was common and Windows 3.1 sucked hard.

    But maybe something has changed since then? Well, like I said, I have an XP machine built last November to my immediate right and I'm typing on a Mac right now in Firefox3. Suffice to say, I'm using the Mac because I like the Operating System overall a LOT better than Windows. Plus regardless of the REASON for less spyware and virus threats (well virtually none really), I feel a whole lot better doing financial transactions and the like on a Mac. How do you put a price on no blue screen of death when copying over an application compared to running some flaky installer in Windows. I've had MANY such an encounter in my years running Windows exclusively (that would have been from 1999 until 2007, barring playing with Linux on and off during part of that time).

    If the Mac could get its game together with graphics software/hardware support and get game development going, I'd be happy to ditch Windows once and for all and use that hardware to run Linux full time now (Linux is starting to become more accessible and certainly gets weak areas addressed over time, but it also hampered by a lack of games and even commercial software the Mac DOES have). But compare that to running Vista and all its confirm/deny crap while encountering endless barrages of viruses and malware, awful performance and Microsofts own internal spying/DRM technology. That already puts the Mac ahead leaps and bounds. They simply need to close the remaining gaps and because of the flop known as Vista, they've got a good opportunity to do so.

    This is true and has some positive merits to it, but it's ALSO true on the flip side that those issues have traditionally been the BANE of Windows as well. It's hard to get games, in particular, to run without any bugs/issues, etc. when they have to support so many hardware variations. In fact, gaming on the PC is probably disappearing so fast as a direct result of those problems which don't exist on consoles. Why? Because consoles have FIXED hardware for years at a time. By limiting its hardware choices, the Mac actually avoids a lot of the driver problems that plagues Windows machines. So it's actually a strength (more stable) and a weakness (less choice and higher prices).

    Have it run the way you want? I want Windows to behave more like my Mac or even like Compiz in Linux. It can't. Heck, without certain hardware Vista can't even have hardly ANY eye candy at all.

    These are examples of what seems like immature or possibly trolling comments (even if not directed at me) that make me question why I'm even replying. It sounds like you're arguing to argue (I recall people like that in debate class many moons ago) rather than discuss the matter.

    There are a lot of advantages of picking OSX over Window. OSX for me is vastly more stable than Windows has ever been, easier and more elegant to use in several areas, currently lacks the virus and spyware threats that literally PLAGUE the Windows platform (every time you buy something online you either have run a viral/spyware sweep first or leave it running the background, slowing your machine way down OR take your chances that some key logger malware slipped in and is giving away your identity and ruining your credit). Heck, that last one alone is reason enough for me to keep a Mac around of some kind, even if an older one to use purely for shopping and banking. There's also some professional software only available for the Mac I'm interested in that I can't get on Windows such as Logic Pro.

    What's hilarious about 8 cores? If you're rendering 3D for a living, the only thing funny is how a dual core PC takes 2-4 longer. Sure, you can get more expensive PCs, but then you're creeping into MacPro price ranges so the point becomes moot. I agree the GPU options have been poor on the MacPro, but Apple is apparently NOT marketing it as a gaming platform. Again, I'd agree that Apple NEEDS a good gaming hardware platform in the $1200-1800 range, but that doesn't mean a MacPro is worthless or stupid. It's only stupid that it's the only viable option for gaming.

    Apparently, you're confusing gaming with overall application ability. Adding more GPUs will not get you faster applications unless the only important aspect of those applications are 3D graphics. As for your final comment above, well, stupid is as stupid does.

    I'm not sure what you're configuring there to get at that particular price point, but I doubt 8-core workstations running Windows (most versions of Vista don't even support that many cores to begin with) cost a lot less than $2700. I'm not saying there isn't room for a mid-range tower; in fact I've been espousing one for a long time now, but comparing the MacPro to in a professional environment as your quote above indicates to a PC optimized purely for gaming is a bad comparison. Your final comment implying there are no games for that hardware ignores Boot Camp entirely. You WERE talking about hardware, not software in that diatribe were you not? Frankly, just throwing out inaccurate information reminds me of trolling more than anything else. There are newer games for the Mac and BootCamp will generally allow Windows + any modern games (within the capability of the GPU) to run.
     
  11. nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #61
    I don't think mosx is entirely serious (the logic is sounding more troll-like and intentionally flimsy) but to give him the benefit of the doubt:

    Just to be clear--are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference in hardware quality from on brand to another?

    If you are, then you're forgetting that quality isn't just who put the design together. It's also a) the quality of the design itself and b) the components that were chosen to realize that design. The manufacturer doesn't dictate those. Apple does. There's a reason my eMachine went through so many power supplies in such a short time and finally ran out of warrant without EVER working: it's really, truly, NOT the same power supply part as in a Mac.

    http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=15395

    Your comments seem to drawn on a view of Macs, OS X, and Mac gaming from at LEAST 5 years ago. You seem to enjoy that you have a semi-recent Mac which you can criticize, and if you've had the amazing bad luck you claim, then I don't blame you for giving into emotion over reason. But I'm not sure you've been into recent Macs enough to know what's true and isn't these days. The fact is, Macs in general and Mac gaming in particular have been getting better and better. Mac gamers know there's LONG way to go--but we're having fun and if we choose to game on a Mac there are VERY good reasons. We know there are two sides. You pretend there is only one. That's difficult to take seriously--especially on a Mac gaming forum :p

    I think by disposable he meant "cheaply made" or "so stripped down as to have limited usefulness." Macs have a LOOOOOOONG useable life--not for people wanting the latest 3D games, but for just about any other computing usage. Not disposable by any stretch. You can get a VERY long useable life out of a Mac. (Check eBay for the value of used Macs vs. Windows PCs of the same age. And check speed tests for OS X: note how it often gets faster even on old hardware, unlike Vista.)
     
  12. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #62
    You can think I lied all you want. But no matter what you say, I know what happened to me and nothing can change that FACT.

    OS X locked up on many random occasions doing many random things. I was never ONCE able to repeat a problem. Not once.

    OS X would lock up emptying the trash of pictures. One time I was in a Skype call and the entire system locked up for no good reason. The last crash I had before 10.5.4 was while clicking the reply button on this forum in Safari. I clicked it and BOOM system locked up.

    I have never experienced any crashes like that in Windows. Never. The only crashes I had in Windows were due to flaky drivers. I learned my lesson, but quality hardware and guess what? Crashes went away.

    Even the most hardened Apple fanboys admit that Apple's build quality has gone downhill over the last several years, especially since the switch to Intel.

    Again, look at the iBook issues. They had a design flaw that caused them to fail between 13 and 16 months of use. Apple refused to address it, certain Euro governments got involved and forced them to fix it.

    Actually, theres one neat thing about those cheap desktops. You can upgrade them. You can walk into Fry's RIGHT NOW this very moment and, for $500, you can walk out with a system with a Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz, 2GB of RAM, 400GB HDD, DVD writer, GeForce 8400M GS 256MB (PCI Express 16x), HDTV tuner (PCIe), 15-in-1 card reader, 2 firewire, 6 USB, digital audio in and out, etc. For an extra $140, you can walk out with a GeForce 8800GT.

    So when you figure taxes, you're spending not even $100 more than the entry level Mac mini. You can sell that GeForce on ebay and probably recover a good $40 or so.

    So there you have it. About $690 or so after taxes depending on where you live, and you get a system that has more functionality than a Mac Pro and is more upgradeable.

    Oh please. That is spoken like someone who has never used Vista for more than 5 minutes and believes everyone else over their own experience.

    Look, I got this HP back in October. When I first got it, I believed that nonsense about Vista being slower too. So I put XP on it. Then Vista SP1 came around, along with nVidia's 174.74 drivers. I gave Vista another shot and I noticed no speed difference between the two. When SP3 came out for XP I decided to give both a shot. So I installed XP fresh with all of the latest drivers and SP3. I installed Vista fresh with all of the latest drivers and SP1. Guess what? Vista outperformed XP in every aspect. Startup time, application launching, GAMING, CPU intensive tasks.

    XP ran faster on Vista a year ago, when Vista was still new and drivers were still immature.

    But any person who says Vista runs slower than XP now obviously has NOT used Vista recently and has no room to make that decision or judgement.

    Vista IS faster than XP on the same hardware (this is a case where Microsoft is NOT lying), it runs better, it looks better (looks better than Leopard too), has more features.

    Plus the DirectX10 hit is now almost non-existant, especially when you take into consideration just how much better things look with DirectX 10.

    I know you probably won't believe me, but my low-end GeForce 8400M GS pushes UT3 in Vista using DirectX10 better than DX9 in XP. It runs faster and looks better.

    No more immature than saying "Vista sucks" when you clearly haven't used it.

    People like that deserve what they get. They'll do no better with Macs.

    Yes I am going based on GPU. Why? because it has more of an affect on real world applications than the CPU. More people are playing games and watching high definition video than encoding video. If they are encoding video, the vast majority are converting to watch on their iPod. In that case, converting to low res and low bitrate video is quite fast on any CPU from the last few years. My old Athlon XP could use Videora iPod converter and run convert TV shows and other DVD quality video down to 320x240 768kbps at double real-time.

    GPU also has a major affect on video playback. Modern GPUs from the last few generations of dedicated graphics have had full bitstream support for nearly every major ISO standard under the sun. But OS X does not take advantage of this. As a result, a 720p video that eats up 60% of 1 core on my MacBook will spike at 5% of 1 core on my HP, while the GPU does all the work.

    Also, that particular magazine has shown an undeniable bias towards Apple products as of late. Let's not forget the article that was run recently that tried to debunk the "myth" of Macs being more expensive by comparing a fully loaded XPS M1330 with unnecessary add-ons like an expanded capacity battery and software it didn't need to the MacBook, and neglecting to mention that the XPS had features the MacBook didn't. They also tried to say an HP/Compaq mobile workstation was more expensive than the MacBook Pro, forgetting to mention the HP came with 3 years of on-site support, had 6 USB ports, multiple types of card readers, a workstation GPU, etc.

    Actually, Macs only have that reputation among Mac fanatics. Windows does everything that OS X claims to do easier. Let's look at digital cameras. Back in the day when Apple ran those "Switch" ads and the one girl talked about downloading drivers on Christmas day for the new digital camera, just about everyone who used Windows had a good hardy laugh. Why? Because that simply was not true. You plug a digital camera into a Mac and what happens? iPhoto pops up and allows you to import your photos. Windows? Well, you plug your camera in and the first time it will ask you if you want to do it manually or have Windows automatically do it. Better yet, I can take the memory card and plug that into the built-in reader and it will automatically import my photos.

    My years old all-in-one printer/scanner/fax? Well, I plug it into my Vista machine and guess what? No drivers needed. Full functionality. OS X needs drivers to be able to scan. Vista also recognizes my compact photo printer and allows me to select smaller photo paper. OS X recognizes it but will absolutely not, no matter what, allow me to select the right photo paper size. I have to send the picture over to the printers internal drive and print from there.

    UAC in Vista catches nearly all forms of malware. SP2 and 3 in XP make it next to impossible for malicious websites to install malware via IE. In fact, the only way you can get malware in XP in SP2 is to actively install it yourself.

    The blue screen of death is caused by driver issues or hardware failure. Don't buy cheap hardware.

    It is also no more common than kernel panics, gray screens, and having to repair disk permissions in OS X.

    UAC pops up no more often than the password prompt in OS X.

    Well, if you didn't visit the backwoods of the internet and shady "adult" sites, you wouldn't have to worry about that now would you? Even then, SP2 in XP makes it next to impossible for IE to download and install malware. FF has never done that. The only real security threat from browsers in Windows is from Safari!

    Oh and UAC in Vista will catch all of that.

    In fact, the only way to get a virus on a modern Windows system that is updated regularly is to actively download and install it yourself.

    Awful performance? Yeah, a year ago. Now Vista is at least every bit as fast as XP, and faster in many cases.

    Someone who actually used Vista recently (or at all) would know this.

    Spying? Proof?

    DRM? What, activation? Please. You click Activate and thats it. you're done.

    Then it gets dragged back and outperformed by Vista because of basic things like system wide hardware acceleration for video, Media Center, software and game choices, etc.

    Flop known as Vista? rofl. Vista has already sold what? Six times more copies than there are Mac users total? Yeah, Vista is a flop how? It outperforms XP and Vista Home Premium has more features than OS X that matter more to users, like system wide hardware acceleration for video.

    That doesn't make sense. How is it an issue that my 4 year old TV tuner would still work on a brand new PC because it still receives driver updates?

    That TV tuner NEVER gave me any issues.

    You spend the extra $5 when buying components for your PC and guess what? You will not have problems.

    What are you talking about? The last time I had ANY issues playing a PC game was WAY back in 1998 when I had a RivaTNT and Epic was slow to get their Direct3D patch out. Even then it was just an oddly placed texture here and there.

    Ever since then I have bought quality hardware and playing games on my machines (and those I have built for others) has been every bit as flawless of an experience as it would have been on a console.

    Again, if you spend the extra $5 on an Asus motherboard instead of going with some no-name, or you spend the extra $5 for a GPU made by a reputable manufacturer, you won't have these problems.

    What driver problems?

    You buy quality hardware that usually only costs a few dollars more and you end up not having these issues. None. When a new OS comes out, you wait a few months to upgrade and you don't have the issues then either.

    A little bit of common sense goes a looooong way.

    Oh please, hardware as old as the GeForce FX 5200 can run Aero. The GMA 900 can even run Aero if you know what you're doing.

    Compiz is over done and, in most cases, looks terrible. It's flashy eye candy made by programmers, not artists, and it shows terribly.

    I want Windows to act like Windows. Meaning I can tweak the hell out of it to get the performance and customization I want. Not like OS X where its "iWay or the Highway". heh. I like having drivers give me performance increases while my Mac stays the same way it has been for many months. I like knowing my HP can play blu-ray discs while in a reduced power state, while my MacBook's CPU breaks a sweat decoding 720p video thanks to both the lack of dedicated graphics AND OS X not having system wide hardware acceleration for video.

    There was another thread where he tried to claim the same things in this thread, that Macs have more hardware and features than PCs do for the same money. I proved him wrong and he left the thread without even replying.

    Well, it's not Windows or Microsoft's fault you buy crap hardware.

    Such as? Give me an example.

    rofl, drinking the Kool-Aid aren't you?

    Once again, the only way you can get virus or spyware or anything like that on a modern Windows XP or Vista machine is to actively download, install, and run the malware yourself. UAC will catch it in Vista and you still have to run it even after that. XP SP2 and SP3 make it next to impossible to install things in the background without the users knowledge.

    Whats wrong with Pro Tools? Pro Tools is essentially the industry standard. Plus Windows gives you more hardware choices.

    The price and the fact that Apple is marketing it as a "workstation" when it clearly has consumer hardware and specs is what is "hilarious".

    If you're rendering 3D graphics for a living, you'd be stupid to be using a Mac with consumer processors anyway. Theres much better hardware out there, as well as software that (gasp) takes advantage of hardware that is specifically designed for 3D rendering.

    But the thing is, with those PCs, you actually get workstation quality graphics (that are meant for 3D rendering! Not offloading it to the CPU) and work station quality hardware, software,etc.

    Again, if you're rendering 3D graphics, you're going to be using applications and hardware designed for rendering. Offloading that work to multiple CPU cores is silly.

    Again, Apple is trying to say the Mac Pro is a "workstation" when it clearly is not. It has consumer hardware. Not workstation hardware.

    Any self respecting "professional" who needs to render 3D graphics will not use software or hardware that depends on the CPU for rendering, but on actual graphics processors for the job.

    Just look how much faster GPUs are at everything. The PS3, for instance, spits out 1 completed unit on F@H every 8 hours. My low end GeForce 8400M GS can do 1 every 2 hours.

    So its foolish for any self respecting "professional" who depends on 3D rendering for a living to depend on a Mac Pro.

    Likewise, any consumer who wants such powerful hardware is not going to even consider a Mac Pro based on cost alone. Why spend $3000 to get the same thing you can pick up at Fry's for not even $700?

    They ALL use the same Chinese manufacturers. Apple used to contract Asus for their hardware manufacturing but now they use Quanta, just like HP does.

    Thats funny because my eMachines lasted for 5 years until it was fried, while I'm already on my second MacBook in a year.

    Apple goes with whoever the lowest bidder with the best promises is at that the time the contract has expired.

    You seem to think that Apple uses higher quality components for some reason, but you open it up and you'll find the same Matsushita DVD drives that are in countless other notebooks, you'll find the same Intel chipset that is used in god knows how many other notebooks, you'll find the same HDDs, the same Sony made battery, the same Samsung RAM, etc.

    The only true difference between a Mac and an HP (or Dell, or Gateway) is the casing and the logo on the back.

    Yes, we all know that Epic confirmed Gears of War and UT3 for the Mac nearly a year ago. And where are they now? What progress has been made since then?

    THAT is why I made my comment. At this point it seems rather unlikely that either game will make it to the Mac, simply because the vast majority of the Macs in the marketplace canNOT run either game.

    Macs and games go good together? Well, let's see.. the cheapest "consumer" Mac with a dedicated GPU costs $1200. Even then, its the lowest end of that family of mobile dedicated graphics.

    And I already showed you can get a gaming machine as powerful as the Mac Pro IN A B&M STORE for less than $700. Throw in a monitor for another $200.

    Let's look at things how a regular person would. You walk into Fry's and see an iMac at $1199. It has a mobile CPU, a mobile GPU, and both are at the low end of their product lines.

    You see that Windows desktop with the 2.66GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, 400GB HDD, and realize you can get an 8800GT for $139 more. Total price of the computer, monitor, and speakers will be somewhere around the $900 mark. It will not only outperform every iMac, but it will outperform the standard 8-core Mac Pro at $2,799.

    See, thats one thing that is going to change. Back when Macs used PPC chips, there was no way anyone could dispute Apple's lies of "superior hardware". But now the tables have turned. Macs now use the same hardware. No sensible person is going to spend several hundred dollars on a used MacBook with a gig or 2 of RAM and an Intel GPU when the same amount of money will get them an HP or Dell with 3GB of RAM and dedicated graphics that put the MacBook Pro to shame.
     
  13. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #63
    What are you talking about?
    Mac Pro uses Xeons which are server-workstation class chips not consumer. Also don't you know that the Mac Pro has the Quadro FX 5600 as an option?
    Isn't that "pro" enough for you?
     
  14. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #64
    I'm not going to go through that massive 3 page post MosX wrote, but suffice to say by his comments about bad drivers = cheap hardware (I bought a lot of big name graphics cards that had a lot of driver problems, etc.; cheapness has NOTHING to do with it) and that professionals using 3D don't use the CPU to render (GPUs are used for real time rendering, not for film or TV using ray-tracing and the like) and that only long time mac fanatics think the MacOS is easier to use (I was a long time Windows user that just bought a Mac last year so that's just plain wrong as well) that he's either clueless or a TROLL. Given the emotional basis and outright false statements in his posts, I'd wager the latter. He's admitted he's gone back to Windows so what exactly is he doing on a Mac Rumor message forum getting into huge emotionally charged arguments about how much Macs SUCK and Windows rule??? He's a troll. I've wasted enough time feeding him. I suggest others follow suit.
     
  15. brodeur macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    #65
    my computer has 15,000 USB ports (i spend 80% of my gross income on usb peripherals to plug into this baby), a 1,000,000-in-one media card reader/change sorter, 3 kinds of multicolour floppy drives, digital and analog video, as well optical audio, video AND tactile in, out, around, under, above, and between ports. also it has a retina scanner, a thumb-print scanner, a nail file, two cd drives and a compact mirror. i got the most expensive compact mirror because that means it will never ever screw up.

    in a pinch, it also makes a mean bludgeoning weapon and doubles as a space heater and is powered by the ******** spouting from my mouth.
     
  16. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #66
    While you and I may disagree about his views of OSX, he's made some good points about how much Apple is overcharging for their hardware. He makes me want to buy a separate PC for games (keeping my Macbook), rather than selling my Macbook and buying a MBP to run everything on.

    How much you can get for $1000 in the PC world is amazing. Are you really willing to pay double the normal price of a computer, just to have OSX run on it?
     
  17. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #67
    The Xeons are meant for servers. They were never really intended for desktop uses.

    Why does a "professional work station" ship with a low-end consumer class card?

    Why do I have to spend $1500 to get it up to the level of a full "workstation"?

    I've lost count of how many PCs I've built for people over the years. I've always used nVidia GPUs in my own builds and theirs. They have NEVER had problems. Never. Every single system I have built in the 10 years since I started building them is STILL functioning today, no bluescreens, no crashes, nothing.

    So let's see what those renderfarms are made up of, shall we? I guarantee you its not Intel based Xeon processors, but actual hardware designed for rendering graphics.

    That is what I meant. Don't deliberately misinterpret my words for your own argument.

    Well, I've been using Leopard, Tiger, XP, and Vista extensively at various times in the last 16 months I have owned a Mac.

    I honestly can't think of a single thing that is easier to do on a Mac. Install software? Well, a lot of software (iLife comes to mind) still has a Windows style installer. So while a few programs are simple drag and drop the .app from the mounted disk image, a lot still require you to run through an installer.

    Using a printer or scanner? Well, in Vista you connect the USB and a couple of seconds later it tells you its ready to use. Same with OS X, except that OS X still requires drivers for some scanners. Vista does not.

    Using external USB drives? Connect the drive in Vista and its ready to use. Same with OS X.

    If I connect my iPod for the first time in OS X, a couple of seconds later it shows up and is ready to use. Same with Vista.

    Organizing pictures? Well, Windows Photo Gallery does everything iPhoto does. Its built-in to Vista. Picassa and HP Photosmart Essential are also free and do everything iPhoto does.

    Burning data discs? The process is basically the same on both.

    So, really, what is easier to use about OS X? Explain to me.

    Funny how I'm typing this on my Mac right now.

    Its also funny how people resort to the "troll" argument when they're wrong.

    I'm not trolling anything. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings in OS X and Apple hardware considering the very large price tag.

    Thats pretty much what I do. I use my HP to play games and movies, and I use my Mac for everything else.

    But to be perfectly honest with you, when it comes time to upgrade in a year, if Apple doesn't offer reasonable prices on their hardware I will have no reason to stay with them.

    But I will most certainly keep/upgrade my iPhone and stick with the iPod.

    Apple's consumer electronics (iPhone, iPod, Apple TV) are the best. I wouldn't be able to live without my iPhone or at least an iPod touch. I wouldn't choose any MP3 player over an iPod. And I really want to get an Apple TV.

    My only real issue is that the $1299 MacBook does not have dedicated graphics, when the old $999 iBook had a Radeon 9550 that outperforms the X3100 to this day. Even the older Radeon 9200 in the older iBooks and G4 Mac mini would outperform the GMA 950 and X3100 when paired with the Core 2 Duo.
     
  18. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #68
    If you had read any of my posts at all, you'd know I just bought a brand new PC I built myself last November that runs WindowsXP and Linux. I paid about $800 for it. I use it mostly to play games, but other things (like Windows software I already have) as well and to develop pinball games via Visual Pinball, although I've been taking a break from that for awhile after nearly non-stop development for 7 years. I bought and upgraded a used Mac for my purposes (web, shopping, banking, running my whole house audio system, etc.). So, basically I have both. I plan on getting a Mac laptop in the near future to run Logic Pro. I'm sure I'll have boot camp on it to play games if I get an MBP (not much point on a regular Macbook in terms of gaming since its GPU is mostly worthless for that anyway).

    As for double the price, I'd say that depends on what it is you're looking for in terms of hardware. Truly nearly indentical systems are very close in price. Where the comparisons don't add up is when you get a cheap PC with a good graphics card. That's where Macs fail...well that and the lack of a cheap tower.

    In any case, if I really wanted to run OSX on a gaming capable machine on the cheap, I'd look into a Hackintosh or one of those Pystar Mac "clones". I really don't like Windows as a day-to-day OS. There are too many viruses, spyware, trojans in Windows for me to be comfortable doing money transfers on it (yes, I managed to not get a virus in 7 years of using a PC, probably because I do not use Microsoft e-mail or web browsers but I did recently get a trojan for the first time disguised as a legit program (that did function as it claimed but had a backdoor keylogger on it that AVG didn't pick up until after it was installed) and there's always spyware somehow getting on the thing that needs cleared off regularly. I won't even go into how unstable Windows has been for me over the past 7 years. XP SP2 was a big improvement, but hardly the stability of Unix I want for my 24/7 whole house audio system so I've got an old PowerMac running it. iTunes does not run as well on Windows regardless.

    Windows does have a lot of nice games for it, though. I've got a G25 steering wheel setup (clutch, brake, gas pedals and dual feedback steering with a 6-speed gearshift) and almost a dozen racing games (I like Test Drive Unlimited a lot given the free driving in real time across a GPS mapped Hawaii island), a throttle/flight-stick setup for playing old simulator games like Falcon3 and newer flight simulators as well. I'm working on Throne of Baal expansion for Baldur's Gate II at the moment and will probably go from there to Winter Nights 1 & 2 which I already bought. Meanwhile, I've got Half Life 2, Ridick and several other games waiting to be played as well along with some less intensive games like Sam & Max. All in all, I think I have like 30 games I bought new or used in the past year plus got some off a family member in addition to all my older games from the past 7 years and a load of emulation stuff (Mame, etc., although I can run that on the Mac as well).
     
  19. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #69
    The problems with Mac gaming are:

    1) Lack of reasonably priced gaming hardware:

    I just built a pc with a 4850 ATI Radeon 512mb card that ran the Crysis demo flawlessly on high settings at 1600x1200. The cost of that pc? Under $550 using my (7 year) old pc case (but new power supply, hard drive, dvd burner, ram, cpu, motherboard, ...)

    Now, like I've said on these boards before, I love my iMac. I still play WoW on it. It's quiet. I much rather use OS/X than Windows. yada yada yada.

    When it comes to gaming though the gap between pc and Mac is too great. I have to spend north for $2000 to get an iMac with an 8800gs. And still it would have maybe half the power of the ATI 4850 that I just put into the pc I built. That 8800gs is a $70 part on Newegg.

    2) Lack of hardware with hi-end gaming options. It's a bit odd that Apple generally makes hi-end hardware and yet they don't offer hi-end gaming options. The best you do is an 8800gt in a ~$2500 Mac Pro. Apple does generally update their videocards once a year or so, but they are always behind the curve. (OF course a hi-end videocard would mean even higher prices and even less of a market for them.)

    3) Lack of support from developers. The vast majority of developers don't make Mac versions of their games and so there is no simultaneous release with the pc versions. The Mac versions are left to companies like MacSoft to port over.

    This always means the Mac version comes out 9-12 months later and maybe even later than that. And it always mean the version if full price even if the pc version is now $20.

    It also means the Mac versions are always patched weeks or months after the pc versions.

    It often means you can't play online with pcgamers. IF you're lucky enough to be able to do that then you're hurt by the version fo your game not being up to date which is caused by the delayed patches.

    A game on the Mac also means poorer performance relative to the pc version. I think this is true even of Blizzard.

    In some ways it's good the Mac versions come out a ~1 year later because there's a good chance by then Apple will have updated the videocards on the Macs which will then give you a fighting chance to run the game in some reasonable fashion.

    Last, but not least many games never make it to the Mac. And, afaik, there are no exclusive Mac games any more worth talking about.

    4) Not upgradeable. Well the Mac Pro is, but that's $2500. I think lack of upgradeability hurts in this case although there's a strong argument that you just buy whole new Mac every time you want to upgrade (and sell your old one) and its not a bad one. However, when it comes to gaming the ability to upgrade is huge and less of a hassle than reselling your Mac and getting a new one because gaming tech is changes rapidly.

    Conclusion:

    Mac gaming sucks unless you don't mind being behind the times and are willing to make many concessions just so you can game in OS/X and own just 1 machine.

    Even if I had a Mac Pro and Apple offered every videocard the pc world does at the same prices I'd probably still game in Windows with few exceptions.
     
  20. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #70
    Depends how you look at it.

    If you look at the amount of macs being sold in the consumer market, Apple are currently the 2nd or 3rd biggest OEM in the world, second only to Dell. Apple are also the most profitable OEM in the world, some may argue the only truely profitable OEM. Dell have to sell 3-5 computers to make the same profit Apple does by selling 1.

    Apple also command 65% of the marketshare of all computers sold that cost over $1000.

    And no, games do not make a difference. No one makes money off PC games except for the developers, not even Nvidia with their constant price war with ATI, and no one cares about PC Gaming. Ironically Nvidia and ATI make far more money from Macs per unit sold than anything else. PC Gaming is about the nichest market out there within the computer industry, with custom built computers commanding a whopping 1% of all computers out there.
     
  21. pachyderm macrumors 603

    pachyderm

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    Smyrna, TN
    #71
    so can i buy just any pc game and play it on my imac? seems they used to label them and tell if they were compatible or not. i don't see that now.
    i saw a fifa O8 game for 9.99 and almost bought it but it didn't mention the imac...
     
  22. mosx macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    #72
    Its foolish to believe that. Its simply not true. I've been using Windows since 3.0 and I've never once had a virus. Never.

    You simply have to just not be stupid. Thats all.

    Well, thats your own fault. You don't download, install, and run shady software the same way you wouldn't jump in bed with shady people.

    Yeah, that stuff is called "tracking cookies" and guess what? You get those in Safari and Firefox too!

    Don't buy cheap hardware. Windows XP was rock solid for me after the first few months of driver transitions.

    And who makes iTunes? Oh thats right, Apple.

    Should have gotten Vista. Its too bad you believe the myths about it that are simply not true.

    Not to mention the 8800GS is the lowest end of the 8800 family.

    Apple makes so much profit off of their hardware because they sell it at generally double what its truly worth.

    HP is the number one OEM in the world, accounting for roughly 25-30% marketshare depending on the time of year. Dell accounts for around 24-29% depending on time of year.

    Apple hovers around 6% which means they battle it out for 3rd and 4th place with Gateway and Acer.

    Again, Apple is only so profitable because they sell their hardware at such a high mark-up and the fans pay it. You cannot find a Windows notebook above $800 witth Intel graphics. Yet the black MacBook at $1499 has Intel graphics.

    Thats why their profits are so high.

    rofl, you can't be serious. If there was no money to be made in the high end graphics market, ATI and nVidia would not exist. They hardly make any money off of Apple because the majority of Apple computers sold have Intel graphics! Plus Apple uses the lowest end of their products in their Macs that do actually have dedicated graphics.

    You have proof of that statistic? You see, its hard to judge just how many custom built PCs are out there because theres truly no way to tell. Plus they're generally upgraded over time, etc. so you cannot get a real number.

    Besides, 1% of the usual 150m PCs sold every year is nothing to sneeze at.

    Not only that, but a good amount of those prebuilt PCs sold are gaming capable. I mean, you can walk into Fry's right now and walk out with a PC for $500. Throw a $100 GPU in it yourself and its a more capable game machine than any Mac.

    So don't believe everything you hear, especially not from Apple fans.

    The fact that PC games still sell in the millions and are still played in the millions proves that PC gaming is a very large niche market. Theres probably more people out there playing PC games than there are Mac owners.
     
  23. barijazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #73
    GPU and PPU availability. Apple doesn't jump on these new technologies, and although windows makes the game run like **** apple wont let them run at all. I think that snow leopard will attract a lot of new game developers because of the "grand central" and that apple is puting in real GPUs http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
     
  24. Irishman macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    #74

    I feel your frustration here. I share it.

    The point that I see you're trying to make is that it would be, logistically speaking, VERY easy for Apple to build and market such a mid-tower Mac.

    Maybe we could help get them started.

    What could Apple call such a Mac, for one?

    What comparable PC could they use as a starting point?

    What BTO options would you want them to offer?
     
  25. Irishman macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    #75
    About Apple's profit margin: you can find previous threads on Macrumors with conversations (I know. I was part of some of them) that shed light on the fact that Apple's profit margins (although larger than entry level PCs, are comparable to their similarly-outfitted PC counterparts.

    Go to Dell.com, or Gateway, Sony, HP, etc. and build a system with comparable parts (match everything now, it's easy to make a mistake) and you'll be amazed like I was , that Apple's prices are very competitive to them.

    But, talk about bizarro-world. You've been using Windows since 3.0 and you've NEVER had a virus. I suppose that's theoretically possible. How many of them were at a workplace with an IT department? And also, how many PCs was that, and what was the OS mix?

    Plus, you're off to a poor start by insulting the intelligence of your fellows posters by suggesting that what is not being "stupid" is the way you behave and everyone else who's had a virus while using Windows brought it on themselves by being "stupid". What was the stupid behavior? Connecting to a work network where a coworker clicked on a seemingly-innocuous file and spread a virus or trojan to everyone in the office?

    And you seem to gloss over Windows' growing pains while emphasizing OS X's growing pains. For example, you say that XP was just fine after several months of updates. In what world is that acceptable?

    Lots of people are having trouble with Vista. You can explain that away all you want, but it's real.
     

Share This Page