Random Thoughts..

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by RobHague, Sep 24, 2005.

  1. RobHague macrumors 6502

    Jul 8, 2005
    This post was just about one thing originally, but there was some other stuff i thought of mid-way so i thought it would be better to save a few more posts and just lump em together ;)


    Wouldnt it benifit Apple if they were to strike a deal with say, ATi or NVIDIA (or even Matrox) to use their cards exclusivly in Macs? That is, all macs sold come with that brand card and options for models up in that brand and are only recommended/supported by apple offically.

    The reason im thinking is, if there was only one graphics card technology to deal with that would mean that Apple games could become a lot better over time. It's already dead simple to play a game under OSX, and if a developer focused on one card (and then Apple could focus on one driver set for the whole line) im sure they could get some amazing results. One of the reasons consoles out-live most PC's for games is because the PC is a victim of its own upgradability at times. There isnt enough time to stop and really push the hardware before the next big thing is out...

    It would take away choice of course, which is bad, but then you dont have a choice of what CPU comes in your new Mac either - As long as it works its fine yeah?

    Apple could offer a proper variety of graphics cards (Low End, Medium and High End) and really gear the software like OSX to take advantage of them.


    The PC has lots of benchmark utilities. 3DMARK is one of the most used, and if Apple could get Futuremark to make a benchmark specificly for Apple systems that could make the whole software buying experience a lot easyer. The game box's for instance could have (instead of just MIN CPU/MIN RAM) the optimal '3dmark score' which would give you another benchmark of performance to compare against.


    I was watching that keynote last night (better late than never ;)) and I was thinking as i was hearing about OSX for x86 'just incase'.

    Steve said that he told them the OS had to be processor independent. So that means OSX was written to not rely on anything specific to a certain architecture... does this mean OSX isnt actually optimized as well as it could have been for PPC if the 'Just incase x86' fallback hadent existed?

    Something that is a concern about the Intel switch is not that PPC wont be supported long enough - but will PPC users get the performance they would have gotten if Apple were still focusing on the PPC systems...
  2. baleensavage macrumors 6502a

    Aug 2, 2005
    On an island in Maine
    While this may make gaming easier, I think it would tie Apple's hands too much. With multiple suppliers, they have the opportunity to pick and choose and if one manufacturer lags, they can switch to another with no fuss.

    Besides, I don't think the lack of games for OS X has as much to do with capabilities as it does with other factors. Games are expensive to make and a game made for Mac in the grand scheme of things won't rake in the cash. The game companies simply don't want to put money into such a small market share.

    And frankly Apple hasn't done a thing to try to get more games on the Mac. I'd rather see Apple strike a deal with a few gaming companies and even offer to front some of the cost to get games on the Mac. Having decent games would be a big seller for Mac. Lack of games is one of the most common reasons I hear that younger people don't like Macs.

Share This Page