That myth has been perpetuated for decades. Yes, you "can" "upgrade" a PC. Problem is, once you choose the high-end graphics card you need, you find that it is only compatible with motherboard X, which only works with RAM at the latest speeds, etc. etc. I used PCs and Macs simultaneously for years, and NEVER upgraded a PC. By the time you need to upgrade the CPU or motherboard or hard drive or RAM, etc, it's time for a whole new machine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oculus Rift Won't Support Mac Until Apple Releases a 'Good Computer'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
That myth has been perpetuated for decades. Yes, you "can" "upgrade" a PC. Problem is, once you choose the high-end graphics card you need, you find that it is only compatible with motherboard X, which only works with RAM at the latest speeds, etc. etc. I used PCs and Macs simultaneously for years, and NEVER upgraded a PC. By the time you need to upgrade the CPU or motherboard or hard drive or RAM, etc, it's time for a whole new machine.
If 5% of all PCs can run the Oculus then that is great market potential. On that note, they aren't targeting PC users, but rather PC GAMERS. The vast majority of PC gamers that I know are using 970s or 980s in their computer builds.
If we temper the number of people I am familiar with to just 1/3 of PC gamers with necessary hardware, then they are doing great. That is one third of their target-market already compatible. Also, most people that can afford the Oculus, and care to get it, will already have spent the necessary funds on a good graphics card anyways.
At first I agreed, macs are underpowered, it would amazing if Apple would build a Mac Pro with high end GPU options, I feel sometimes they're so obsessed with design, that we lose out in terms of performance. On the other hand the Oculus Rift guys I feel painting themselves into a corner. When you aim a product at such a niche high end market your product is destined to fail. If you look back through history, there have been a lot of consoles while better specs wise and on paper, they never had the penetration to take on the cheaper albeit less spec'd machines. I can see Sony Playstations offering or similar making larger inroads in the home market.
You go right on thinking that. Both Oculus and HTC have already sold move HMDs then they can build in the next 4 months. More than enough for generation 1 VR to be successful and for the software developers to pay the bills. That means that 8 to 12 months from now we will be getting Gen 2.
Most of the best things in the world are not mass market.
Apple and it's consumers are perfectly content with the iMacs producing that much heat. So why is one a bad idea but the current state of the CPU is ignored?
False.
REALLY FALSE!!! Please don't LIE to the readers of macrumors.
The PC gaming market is huge and has been so for a very long time.
Lol I'm pretty sure Apple is smirking. If the rumors are true about them developing their own VR, they'll do it with half the spec requirements mentioned in the article. And, their VR headsets, in my opinion, will be a game changer, making Oculus feel they should of done it that way from the beginning.
Right, preorders based on hype, to people who would buy them anyway. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who would like it. Some people bought and liked 3D TV's. But it's not going to be as popular as a PS4 or anything like that. And it looks pretty goofy, to be honest.
And how nice. People who drop $600 on one can see v2 in 8 months? That won't piss anyone off.
The AMD R9 m395 is below the minimum recommended specs for the Rift. It IS a good (mobile) GPU nonetheless and the iMac IS a beautiful machine whatsoever.
As of now (and probably the next few years) The VR market is really split in two:
1) The hardcore gaming-related market that not only needs an expensive headset but also a pricey computer to deliver the goods. Has the potential to be a great experience, but will probably largely be a niche market due to the price. It might be the very thing that somehow saves the PC gaming market though.
2) Simpler devices like the Samsung Gear VR where both the screen and processing power comes from the cell phone. If you already have a powerful phone you can get into this for around 100 bucks. A massive difference compared to Oculus where the headset alone will set you back 600 bucks and you need a 1200++ computer to run it well. This is where the mass market that will attract developers will be. Sure, a simpler experience but also within the practical and financial reach of a massive audience. In fact, this is the market that needs to work for VR to be a success.
Last edited:
In this thread:
1)People that don't understand most people who are hard core gamers (this devices target market) AND have the money to expend on this device will already have 970s or 980s, likely in a pair running SLIed anyways.
2)People in denial about just how bad Macs graphics cards have fallen behind in regards to gaming capabilities.
3)People that think drivers can fix the graphics card... wrong, it still won't run on a Mac running Windows, drivers can't fix mediocre gaming cards.
4)People in denial about PCs ever actually being upgraded... If you say "well I have owned PCs, but never upgraded so that argument doesn't hold water" then you are likely NOT in the target demographic/market for the Oculus. At least, not on it's initial version 1.0 launch. Nor do they expect you to purchase it.
This is a device for people who are constantly chasing the absolute best gaming build possible. Not joe shmo who bought his Dell from BestBuy, or his MacBook Pro from the local uptown mall.
I say all this as someone who is in a Mac-only household. Love my systems but when the man is right, he is right. DON'T ARGUE FACTS.
1)People that don't understand most people who are hard core gamers (this devices target market) AND have the money to expend on this device will already have 970s or 980s, likely in a pair running SLIed anyways.
2)People in denial about just how bad Macs graphics cards have fallen behind in regards to gaming capabilities.
3)People that think drivers can fix the graphics card... wrong, it still won't run on a Mac running Windows, drivers can't fix mediocre gaming cards.
4)People in denial about PCs ever actually being upgraded... If you say "well I have owned PCs, but never upgraded so that argument doesn't hold water" then you are likely NOT in the target demographic/market for the Oculus. At least, not on it's initial version 1.0 launch. Nor do they expect you to purchase it.
This is a device for people who are constantly chasing the absolute best gaming build possible. Not joe shmo who bought his Dell from BestBuy, or his MacBook Pro from the local uptown mall.
I say all this as someone who is in a Mac-only household. Love my systems but when the man is right, he is right. DON'T ARGUE FACTS.
Don't dare hurt their dreams of weilding a lightsaber one day.
That tech is coming, and pc graphics look exactly like real life. Oculus rift is so cutting edge they are done with development, no need to go further. If they did release a v2 it would be 5 years for sure, they wouldn't milk their buyers like that. Same with nvidia/amd, they wouldn't obsolete their cards. I neeeeeed to play teh gamezzzzzzzzzzz i don't like getting laid personally, i like putting on some chunk. unless it's that fugly chick that gamezzzz with me, with as much personality as MKBHD. then i would bang on occasion. I found out the pretty girls on twitch are just doing it for the money.... sigh.... i'll never have just like this tech, except more weight
http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/360/d651f360-41f5-0133-9d7d-0af7184f89fb.gif?
Last edited:
They have a point. Apple provides GPUs that barely push enough pixel on the displays they ship.
This. Just because Oculus and Apple have different target demographics doesn't suddenly make one company wrong. If you are buying a Mac to play bleeding-edge video games, you're doing it wrong. The idea behind Oculus is that their system will eventually become affordable as 970/980's come down in price in the future (how far of a future, we don't really know). We'll see Oculus on Mac sometime down the line, whenever mobile processors are able to do what the 970/980's can do now.
Except that Oculus and everyone else says that this is not about games. Facebook has other plans in store for Oculus but Palmer either doesn't know or doesn't want to say.
I do wish I could play with the Oculus on a Mac but honestly, I don't see this particular VR company going anywhere. They have already been beaten to market by better products and there will be tons of competition for them in a few months/years. Besides, we're all going to buy Apple's VR solution once that comes out so why spring for this?
Apple needs to wake up if they want a piece of the Oculus Rift. It may be that they don't want that. Apple rarely jumps in during round 1. They're more likely to wait and see what the obvious problems are with the bleeding edge products, and see if they can avoid them. Oculus Rift can only be used with a PC that has a decently powerful graphics coprocessor. That suggests you can only use Oculus Rift while tethered to your PC. That's not going to work very well for VR, and certainly not for AR.
the R9 M395 (mobile gpu) comes closest to a r7 370 (desktop gpu). But only of there was no thermal throttling. Even then, this is well below minimum specs.
That's the 21 inch iMac, which relies on integrated graphics. The 27 inch imacs have better graphics chipsets.
Still not good enough to run Oculus Rift, but what laptop chipset can?
A middle of the line macbook pro torches anything I have and two of them are "high end" aka $1200+ desktops (that is a no monitor desktop).
NOW they are a bit slow on the top bleeding edge processors but their stuff works together very well.
NOW they are a bit slow on the top bleeding edge processors but their stuff works together very well.
Last edited:
"AR" is clearly a better use of 3D realtime object rendering than "VR", which apparently makes certain people feel motion sickness. VR is a toy, whereas AR is a useful tool whereby people can see objects and interfaces superimposed onto their everyday surroundings.
We'll carry on using our "inferior" Macintoshes that get paid work done, until your non-existent, under-developed "product" hits the mainstream at a realistic price (if at all.)
Stick to Windows computers as a target market, if you like - they seem to be the people with more time to throw away on frivilous, adolescent pursuits.
We'll carry on using our "inferior" Macintoshes that get paid work done, until your non-existent, under-developed "product" hits the mainstream at a realistic price (if at all.)
Stick to Windows computers as a target market, if you like - they seem to be the people with more time to throw away on frivilous, adolescent pursuits.
The novelty-effect will wear off this one pretty quickly.
And then you've got 600 USD worth of gear + a PC that is too noisy for everyday use.
The market-segment of "gamers" exists. But it looks like it's even less significant to Apple than the demographic that buys a MacMini.
Yes, doubtlessly people otherwise not into gaming will shell out a lot of money to watch their first couple of VR-porns.
But they, too, will realize that it still comes down to themselves, KY-jelly, a kleenex and a very lonely encounter with their own sexuality in the bathroom.
ugh.. those pc gamers are really cool and drip swag. I'm jealous personally. I thought Robert Downey Jr., and Ian Mckellan etc.. were cool but i was sorely mistaken. Those gamers are badarses. They could take Brock lesnar out in one punch.
Oh you!
Do you think Apple, with all their GARGANTUAN engineering, industrial design, intellectual and financial might, are not capable of developing something and selling it, en masse, which blows this crud OUT OF THE WATER? I will bet you $10,000 that they started working on prototypes of AR/VR many years before the employees of Oculus rift were even BORN.
Apple: "Best, not first"
Others: "FIRST! FIRST! COME ON! WHY YOUR DELAY, OTHERS?"
- well done, Oculus - keep at it, and we'll check back in 2020 Dear Mockulus Cruft, please note that a good engineer designs AROUND the obstacles which they encounter in current market products which may impede the experience of their product, not the other way around. If your product is so good, make it BETTER... then take it away and make it EVEN BETTER, then, once you've done that, reduce! reduce! reduce! until you've optimised it to the point where it works WITH CURRENT MACS.
The best designer creates things that slot into place, they don't ask the designer of the things into which they wish to slot, to make the slots BIGGER.
Last edited:
I think it would be safe to say that you probably won't be buying the Rift. The behavior you describe may be true for the majority of PC owners, but not for GAMERS. I have never gone more than a few months without upgrading some part of my game system. In fact right now I am contemplating selling my GTX 970 to put towards a GTX 980 because it's a small percentage faster.
I'm going to break my own rule and use a car analogy. Most people will never replace engine or exhaust parts on their car unless they are broken (and then they would have a repair shop do it.) But car enthusiasts do it all the time. The Rift is like a super turbo charger that you can add to your race car. If you don't race cars, it doesn't matter that you COULD put a super charger on it because you WON'T. But if you are a racer then you don't want a car that won't allow you to make the modification that you want. That's why I have a game PC in addition to my iMac.
And the myth that you are trying to perpetuate is that there are lots of incompatibilities on PCs. When I choose a motherboard, I consider the socket and how long it is likely that they will be making CPUs for that socket. Eventually, I will have to get a new motherboard to move forward, but that doesn't stop me because I'm a gamer.
- Status