Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Gaming still sux on Macs

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Your not comparing similar computers there sparky... The top-of-the-line G4 tower (dual processor) runs either $3000 or $3650 depending on what you want Apple to install for hardware. You can go with the $3000 model, and add memory and hard drives later. There are RAID cards available for the Mac, that use ATA drives (Sonnett has one that will use ATA133 drives). Also, OS X has RAID software built into it, window$ doesn't. Before you go off on another rant... yes, win2k has 'spanning' which is NOT the same thing.

How many company made peecee's can support up to 4 hard drives without removing plates and such???

IBM makes processors for Apple... they are the ones that have come out with a 1GHz G3 chip. What speeds do you think both AMD and intel are up to these days??? Seems like you are using dated data.

When was the last time you heard of a virus that hit a Mac and did ANY damage?? I can't count the amount of times we have recieved virus warnings at work, that affect peecee's ONLY. In the past 2+ years, we have not had ONE Mac hit by a virus.

The only reason to partition drives, is because window$ couldn't handle anything over 2GB in size, until they fixed it a few years later. Granted, since the peecee world is still vulnerable to viruses, they try to figure out ways to avoid the damage. We don't have that problem on the Mac side.

IF your dual G4 is up to date, then I wonder what you have done to fork it up.
Click to expand...

Nice points, but your statement about the top of the line mac, i was comparing it against a top of the line PC. Yes I know they have dual G4's at 1GHz, AMD have their Athlon MP's at 1.53GHz. Yes I know that the G4 can bench faster than an Intel CPU, but Intel is slow to AMD and the added 500MHz to each CPU makes it up. Plus with DDR RAM and all the Fun stuff, it will still be cheaper than a kickass Mac; most likly faster at that.

Of corse IBM makes the G3 what the hell do you think a POWER4 is? Its based off of the design of the G3 and some of the G4 (thats from what i understand)just heck of a lot more money.

What is the big deal about control RAID inside the OS, on PC you control it at boot, once its set you dont have to worry about it. Disk control from what the RAID has created can be done within Win.

I know what you mean about having the two HDD's and have two others that keep copy's of everything, but that is slow and alot of money.

Having a HDD on a CADDY is a good idea, just resently I installed a caddy system on my servers and my PC. So when I leave my place for a while i can just take the DATA and lock it up. I could care less if my computers melted in a fire or stolen, only the DATA is valuble. Can rebuild a system, not lost information.

The virus issue's are not just to PC's. There are so many for PC's cause they are the easiest to write. I'm sure if someone with no life sat down and messed with a mac, they would find a way to get a nasty virus in there. Most virus's dont fry your hardware, they multiply like rabbits and chew up all your HDD and RAM Memory, others corupt the kernel... have to format then, and then there is the one percenters that 100% fry your system. Since an OS in ways is considered a piece of hardware, it is easy to fry a system. If the programer know the right code, you can overclock a CPU or GPU to what ever you want. No one is safe from virii, mac's are for now cause no one wants to write one.
 
Originally posted by Tandy Rules


Nice points, but your statement about the top of the line mac, i was comparing it against a top of the line PC. Yes I know they have dual G4's at 1GHz, AMD have their Athlon MP's at 1.53GHz. Yes I know that the G4 can bench faster than an Intel CPU, but Intel is slow to AMD and the added 500MHz to each CPU makes it up. Plus with DDR RAM and all the Fun stuff, it will still be cheaper than a kickass Mac; most likly faster at that.
Click to expand...

I have one word for you, if you think you can get a cutting edge pc for $1500... bullsheet.

Also, on the Mac, we don't have to fork with the bios to do anything. Updating bios under win2k is a pain, where updating the firmware (essentially the same thing) on the Mac is a breeze.

The real use speed difference between pc133 and ddr systems is barely noticeable.

I suppose that you are also one of those people that would take a Ninja style motorcycle over a Harley... pathetic.
 
i am a microsoft tech as some of you oldtimers know, but i like apple and i do not promote microsoft

...but as a regular computer user and not "power gamer", i do really like the x-box for games

my computers are so attached to my business and "work" in general and i like the "fun" aspect of a gaming box whether it's by microsoft (who has sold tons of these x-box things), the gamecube, or the still super popular playstation 2

i know the gaming magazines like the $2,000 dollar pcs for gaming, but i still have a better experience with the x-box

...so excuse me if i can't feel the superiority of a pc box (my work machines) over a unit designed (with a better graphics chipset according to a gaming magazine i read) for games, and not microsoft word/excel/netscape communicator
 
Originally posted by AlphaTech


I have one word for you, if you think you can get a cutting edge pc for $1500... bullsheet.

Also, on the Mac, we don't have to fork with the bios to do anything. Updating bios under win2k is a pain, where updating the firmware (essentially the same thing) on the Mac is a breeze.

The real use speed difference between pc133 and ddr systems is barely noticeable.

I suppose that you are also one of those people that would take a Ninja style motorcycle over a Harley... pathetic.
Click to expand...

i never said you can build a cutting edge pc for $1500 i said you could build one with a grand or two to spare.

Also your motorcycle remark, if i were to get a crotch rocket I'ld get a Honda CBR 600 or the 1100, but as far as a crusing bike nothing is like a Harley. If i had 30k to blow I'ld their new bike, the V-Rod... What a Dream!
 
Very silly argument..... this thread subject....

:( :( :( I really don't understand a lot of this type of argument. Why would someone compare say a top of the line Apple system to say a top of the line dual Athlon system FOR GAMES???? You have an ENTIRE industry devoted to games, and the systems are sometimes about a tenth of the cost. I have a PS2 and a Gamecube. I make my living off of my B&W G3 (still quite well too)... At the time I bought my computer, I bought some games that took advantage of the then powerful Rage128 card. It was fun. But now, I think it is a pathetic endless run with these games. Why? Because with computer games (unlike platform) you endlessly play catch-up, and with a lot more money lost.

Of course computer game companies are tailoring their games to run at the peak of performance with every new release. Why buy a computer for games, where you end of spending $$1000's, and then play catch-up continually by dropping new cards in every year or so to play "the latest"

For the price of "the latest" graphic card, I can BUY an ENTIRE gaming system, that has titles that are guaranteed to run perfectly on it. I *LOVE* some of these games by the way for the PS2 -- (and let's not forget Soul Calibur for Dreamcast)

This brings me to another point: the whole FPS agrument related to the *quality* if gaming. Look at the XBOX. Are you trying to tell me that because the XBOX has better technical specs that by default it is BETTER?!?! Look at the games that are AVAILABLE on the PS2, the XBOX is for the PeeCee mindset --> The numbers game. It must be good because an x number of polygons can be rendered faster than PS2, and on and on....

I have never had a better gaming experience (personally) than with Soul Calibur for Dreamcast. This is personal of course. But I just can't understand:

*that people would spend thousands on a computer -- for games!!! Only for the rich I guess

*that apple *sucks* because the mhz of their computers isn't up past 2ghz -- the whole computer gaming industry to my eyes is hinged mostly on NVIDIA and ATI

*that quality is always equal to the level of technology. Again, the Dreamcast I thought had some of the best games. Where is the obvious AMAZING great games for the XBOX (sure Halo is cool though!)

*the crux of the argument usually between Macs and PeeCee's is price and performance. Therefore, you can beat both by buying a platform. Sure, in six months maybe there'll be a new graphics card crunching out more polygons, but, so what??!

A blanket statement about Macs like this usually means that they have either had a bad day, are upset because a their Mac crashed, or they aren't laid enough....

Anyway, just some opinions late at night....
 
PEOPLE WAKE UP

Macs have always had worse frame rates than PCs - even since Doom 1,2 were released.

OS X has helped but not risen the performance level to the PCs.

Untill Macs have seriously faster chips, at faster GHz than the PC, this is the ways it is (and most likely will always be)!

Macs had a good OS. That was their forté, not games. Even that is comming to an end.
 
What do you mean coming to an end??? OSX is a great OS, it is powerful and has functionality, it also looks great.

Yeah gaming wise the mac aint up to scratch. but its getting better now apple have a better OS, atleast now its within the realms of possibility
 
Re: Re: Re: Why mac sucks for games

Originally posted by Tandy Rules


Refering to a PC as an IBM is just saying what it really is... for example: I have a Car (I have a PC); I have a Ford, (I have an IBM)
Click to expand...

Just wanted to add this one :cool:

I have a Porsche (I have a MAC)
 
LOL

That's a good one...anyhow, it's not necessarily the fault of Mac OS (9 or X) that they aren't that great for games. The games themselves and the graphics drivers and libraries are almost all written for PC first, then ported to Mac. There just isn't the same level of developement going on. Reason? 5% market share, pure and simple. If Apple had, say 40% market share, you can bet everyone would have titles out, all optimized for OS X, and they would be up to snuff with the PC world. This is the same reason there aren't many Mac viri, it's just not worth the effort. My point is don't fault the platform without looking at the bigger picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back