Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by RobP, Mar 17, 2009.
Probably doesn't mean much, but here they are:
5.9 isn't that hard to get.
Now try it in Windows 7.
I would imagine the highest score possible would be a good score.
For a two year old operating system…
Windows 7's scale goes higher, and the successor will go higher yet.
It's 2 years old.
why a 1-5.9 scale
I bet the 8 core models get a 6.0!!
I can't even get Vista to give me a score on my 2.26 8-core, it just gives me some error message.
Thats not an error, Vista is suppose to screw up on even the most mundane tasks, if you don't get an error, something is seriously wrong.
To give room for future growth. Same reason you never rate a woman as a 10, that means there's no hope of someone hotter
Because Microsoft admits that even with the most powerful system, your experience with vista will only be a 5.9/10.
which is an improvement on the Mac experience for gaming, or buying current-model video cards.
Mac gaming could be just as good as PC gaming. What is the 1 thing preventing it? Game developers. It has 0 to do with Apple or OSX. Game developers will always follow demand (hence why the iPhone/iPod game market is exploding). If the market share was flipped, developers would be firing out OSX games just as much as they do for the PC right now. And they'd probably perform better in OSX than their ports would on windows because they would have been optimized for the OS.
And if OSX had all the games, it would have all the video cards and have them first. It would be windows users trying to flash mac cards to get them working in PCs. And oddly enough it would be Vista that is the most stable platform with no viruses (unless apple did with software/hardware what it does with iPhone apps).
Every time I hear someone say OSX sucks for games it makes me chuckle. It's such an ignorant comment. Windows is no better for games than OSX. The selection however is much much better, only because thats where the market is.
The Xbox360 is a pretty ****** system, heck it was made in 2005 wasn't it? It runs games with very sub-par graphics and performance. Why does it have so many games? Because it's cheap and everybody bought one, so there is a big market for game developers. Is it more powerful than the average mac? Not really, but at a dime a dozen and with a bunch of titles people don't care.
Having an OS or platform that runs a lot of products and software doesn't mean it's a good OS. It means a lot of people use it. A lot of people get their gas at Shell. Is Shell's gas really any better than Peet's pit stop?
Not true one bit.
Apple has no equivalent to Active-X that I'm aware of, which is one (of several) reasons that the same game, developed for both OS X and for Windows will run faster on Windows.
Apple would have to start a major crash course on putting such technologies into OS X in order to bring the gaming experience up to par.
In the end it's probably far easier to simply boot into XP for those times when you want to get a gaming fix.
But does apple have a reason to develop it? No. Why? Because there's no market.
No. When Apple starts actually helping developers by having an equiv to DirectX, it'll be one thing. There's a reason that the Mac versions of games run significantly worse on the exact same hardware.
I'm glad you mentioned the iPod and iPhone gaming scene. Why is it exploding? Because Apple gets a cut of that scene, so they're supporting it with a good SDK and frameworks.
That's typical egotistical BS.
You don't think Mac users play games? Figure out how many Mac users have a console or PC for gaming.
Apple needs to take into account how many sales they are losing because they haven't addressed this aspect of the market.
In some ways they've already acknowledged the weakness. Hence the inclusion of Boot Camp in Leopard so that people can get their gaming fix on the same hardware via bypassing of OS X entirely.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to reboot to Windows to game, I just wish I could get a better video card so that I wouldn't have to switch the DVI cable between cards every time.
And that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless there is a Mac port. I feel it appropriate to support the developers that try. As the market share grows maybe we'll see a change, but if you just buy the game for Windows and ignore the OSX version it's just decreasing the market and giving even less of a reason to develop for the Mac OS.
Oh and windows costs 3X as much as OSX... which doesn't help my motivation to use it.
Has it been determined with 100% certainty that you will not be able to add a 2nd 4870 to the MP without cooking it?
If you can put in a 2nd 4870 and cable it for SLI, even if OSX can't take advantage of it, you would have a pretty blazing fast setup for Windows gaming.
I use Vista, but yeah.
The worst thing you can possibly do is feel sorry for Apple and gaming devs and knowingly buy the inferior version of a game to "support" the platform.
If Apple makes gaming a priority we would see some dramatic work done in just the next 12 months.
Dunno, I don't run ATI hardware whenever possible. My 8800GT is actually faster for the game I play most, anyway
I'm still hoping against hope that Nvidia will spit out a GTX260 Core216 for Mac, but I don't see it happening.
I'd like to agree, but I have an issue with paying more money a year after the PC release date for inferior performance.