Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Second Take: The Future of Mac Gaming

Last response: in Site Feedback
Share

Will the Mac become a legitimate gaming platform?

Total: 54 votes (1 blank vote)

  • Yes, let the new era begin
  • 25 %
  • Nope, this is just a marketing ploy
  • 76 %
June 15, 2007 7:12:08 PM

Can the Mac become a legitimate gaming platform? Ben Meyer and Rob Wright discuss recent news out of WWDC and the troubled history of gaming on Apple systems.

Watch Video

Let us know what you think.

-Ben

More about : future mac gaming

June 15, 2007 11:00:34 PM

Doubt it. I can understand why some people might be on edge about EA releasing a few games for Mac. But what I don't get it how ID's new engine is revolutionary for a Mac. Sure the engine "Works" on the mac hardware, but who in the right mind would develop a game specifically for a mac using that engine. Its nothing special. Apple refuses to ship even DECENT graphics cards with their systems, how can they expect an engine which requires some serious graphics hardware lead to a possible development with the mac. No DirectX, especially DirectX10. With all the new games coming out later this year being DirectX10, and with DirectX10 having extremely strict hardware requirements, I can't see Apple changing around its new OS Leopard to work with DX10.

Sorry Steve, but I don't think the Mac is back...
a b 4 Gaming
June 16, 2007 12:25:51 AM

well they will never have direct X as its a Microsoft exclusive api. however they can have(and do) openGL. So let the ID soft games come. I just hope they don't blame the dev's when games don't run good on GMA's and 7300's :|
Related resources
June 16, 2007 1:19:14 AM

Well the new Mac Book Pro has a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT which I believe is a DX10 card and Vista should work on Mac so I guess you can play DX10 on a Mac but what is the point. Build a windows desktop computer for a lot cheaper and a lot better. 8600M GT I think is the best for laptops right now and the Mac Pro can have a 1900 XT which is an awesome card. So Macs can do great gaming but there really isn't the market for it.
June 16, 2007 2:12:09 AM

Lets face it, DX10 does not have enough potential to be considered a big miss. Also, the reason that Apple has not concentrated in games because there is not that much money in it. For the video card part, you can get the latest carsds that you could buy off of newegg. Mac games would probably run better on the actual mac than a PC. Thats because of the Windows OS. The windows os isn't as stable as OS X. All of the compatible cards that support DX10 support DX10. Again, they don't believe in the gaming market because its not big enough to make the money that they already are with the release of OS X Leopard. You are forgetting that Boot Camp is not the only thing to use to run Windows. Parallels and VMWare are also big. They can run parallel to OS X.
June 16, 2007 2:12:48 AM

LOL

The mac gaming fairy hahaha, priceless.

Rob is spot on. Apple does not care about gaming. MS does a great job of talking with game developers, optimizing software for gaming, etc etc. They give tons of input to game developers, especially the major ones, and now with their Games For Windows concept, its pretty much the proverbial nail in the mac gaming coffin.

Mac games would have to rely solely on OpenGL rendered games. OGL is just as capable as DX, and somewhat simple in comparison (maybe not to DX10, i have no experience with DX10 coding, yet). Making their own library certainly wouldn't help, and DX support will never come, other than literally installing windows using boot camp.

And the hardware... ugh, no thanks to mid range video cards. Not until you can start designing custom Macs with high end parts will you see a significant following.

Apple doesn't care, because they know they've lost, right from the start. It was a poor move years ago and now they're feeling it. But, thats not to say they had any hope to begin with. I say we let Macs do what they are good at, and leave gaming to the windows PCs. Linux flavours have a better chance at gaming than OSX, and thats not saying much. Ah well, the only price we pay for a monopoly on gaming is the price for an OS, which isn't half as bad as many people claim. And that's if you even have to pay for it (yay, student discounts!).
June 16, 2007 2:59:53 AM

a few other things to make them better priced next and more in line with other x86 hardware and they need better gaming hardware.
all systems now days come with DVD burners /CD-RW apple should be able to get that for the same price as cdwr / dvd drives.
$75 to go from 512mb to 1gb is way to much.

The I-Macs use laptop parts and the $999 i-mac with 512mb and gma 950 with a cdwr / dvd should be dropped in price or removed as for a $100 more you get 1gb of ram, faster cpu with more l2, DL dvd burner / cdwr and ATI Radeon X1600 graphics.

The mini at $ 600 is a little high for a older core 1 cpu and only 512mb system ram with gma 950 and a $800 system with 512mb of ram and gma 950 with a older cpu like that is a ripoff.

The macbook black should have a real video card or a Turbo Cache / hyper memory card at the $1500 price level as there are other laptops at that price with them.

The Mac Pro is overkill for people who need a desktop system with video better then the low end on video in the mini and FB-DIMMS for ram do not help it too and only an nvidia 7300 in a $2000 desktop system?

Apple should replace the mini with a mini tower with DESKTOP PARTS and pci-e slots that can take a full pci-e x16 video card with other slots left over and maybe low end on board video as well. You can keep the same base price as the mini upping it to 1gb ram and a newer cpu. Maybe even push the old mini down to the g4 mini price levels.

Also the i-mac needs better video cards.


not only do the iMacs have laptop parts you get riped off in the upgrades prices.
$125 to go from a 7300 to a 7600gt you can buy a 7600gt for $125 or less and $175 to go from 1gb to 2gb of ddr2 667 you can get 2gb of the same ram for $99.99
June 16, 2007 4:41:23 AM

Quote:

The I-Macs use laptop parts and the $999 i-mac with 512mb and gma 950 with a cdwr / dvd should be dropped in price or removed as for a $100 more you get 1gb of ram, faster cpu with more l2, DL dvd burner / cdwr and ATI Radeon X1600 graphics.

Did you forget that iMacs come with a build in montior, keyboard+mouse and everything else you would ever need? The OS alone+its software...
June 16, 2007 4:57:21 AM

He also forgot you pay the Mac premium because it looks pretty :D 
June 16, 2007 9:09:57 AM

Quote:
Lets face it, DX10 does not have enough potential to be considered a big miss. Also, the reason that Apple has not concentrated in games because there is not that much money in it. For the video card part, you can get the latest carsds that you could buy off of newegg. Mac games would probably run better on the actual mac than a PC. Thats because of the Windows OS. The windows os isn't as stable as OS X. All of the compatible cards that support DX10 support DX10. Again, they don't believe in the gaming market because its not big enough to make the money that they already are with the release of OS X Leopard. You are forgetting that Boot Camp is not the only thing to use to run Windows. Parallels and VMWare are also big. They can run parallel to OS X.
1. You'll be laughing when every single game that comes out from December this year on will the DX10
2. ITs not about the money. It's about the effing powerPC processor from IBM, and all the work that needs to be done to convert one code to another. OR did you completely forget about that.
3. Jesus you are fucking stupid. Not only is OSX more bloated than the windows OS, its also not as stable. Go ahead and watch "CrashDifferent".
4. No, you cant just go grab something off of newegg and stick it in your Mac, it needs drivers you moron.
5. Have you even USED VMWare? I take it you haven't, since you claim you can game off of it.

So, I've effectively come to the conclusion that you're just another ignorant Mac user. No surprise.
June 16, 2007 11:35:14 AM

Quote:
1. You'll be laughing when every single game that comes out from December this year on will the DX10
2. ITs not about the money. It's about the effing powerPC processor from IBM, and all the work that needs to be done to convert one code to another. OR did you completely forget about that.
3. Jesus you are ****** stupid. Not only is OSX more bloated than the windows OS, its also not as stable. Go ahead and watch "CrashDifferent".
4. No, you cant just go grab something off of newegg and stick it in your Mac, it needs drivers you moron.
5. Have you even USED VMWare? I take it you haven't, since you claim you can game off of it.

So, I've effectively come to the conclusion that you're just another ignorant Mac user. No surprise.


Judging by your response-I see that you are the ignorant one after reading a non-hostile reply. You replying in a hostile manner shows how pathetic you are. No offense. And, not only am I not a mac user, I do not even own a mac. I'm using a PC.

Response to the DX10 part: I have seen no information regarding future plans for games that will be running on DX10 besides a couple out of many. For that matter, please provide proof.

PPC: PowerPC was dumped a year+ ago, you should know that. Its because they went to Intel processors, obviously because they were growing and Apple new that it was a good choice. In Tiger there was a difference in speed between PPC processors being faster than the new Intel CPU architecture because Tiger was primarily built to run flawlessly on the PPC processors in speed wise.

The "Jesus you are ****** stupid": Which Windows OS? You cannot say that for Vista because that would be plain silly. Vista requires a minimum of 1Gb of RAM. I have read from real and common users of Vista that have switched back to XP because of how Vista eats up half or more of that 1Gb just to run. OS X is actually really simple and not bloated as can be if you think about it. The only signification of it being bloated would be its window manager, also called Aqua. The X windows system. But hey, thats just the window manager. Plus its applications. Windows services run with its window manager or however that works. I don't completely understand how it works really. It runs a separate svchost for the animation in the start button and separate svchosts for other things that occupy the memory which ends up eating too much. Also, who said anything about bloated? OS X runs on UNIX, and you are telling me that Windows surpasses the performance and stability of UNIX? Give me a break.

newegg: Your right, Macs only work with the highest quality hardware, then again, I'm sure they do work with other hardware too. Look at how much different graphics cards they offer between all of their computers. Not just that, check the RAM, and the display supports. OS X comes with the drivers for that.

5. Yes, I've used VMWare server/workstation for educational services/schools mainly based in MSSQL. VMWare Fusion for Mac actually works at high FPS and works great with DX9. Still, Parallels is a better choice. Why didn't you mention that?
June 16, 2007 11:55:44 AM

OK, I'm going to write this out, even so the Mac people can understand what I'm saying.

First off, I'm a very strong supporter of what Mac is for the market. I believe what Mac does for the market is allow people, that would normally be afraid of interfacing with a computer, able to do so with something that doesn't scare them. An easy to use, easy to customize OS that is very powerful for what it does.

Secondly, here is what a Mac does. A mac is designed and has been designed since the days of the AppleIIgs, to be a media workstation. Mac has been all bout graphics since then and will be forever. Macs are an easy to setup quick and powerful solution to the problem of media production in many fields.

Third. Here is what Mac doesn't do. Mac isn't interested in supporting the 'Masses'. Have you seen where they put the Mac stores? There are only two in my state and they are in the highest end shopping malls in the state and right next to some of the most expensive stores. They aren't interested in creating products that support the masses, as far as computers are concerned at least. They have an image and it works, it is the only thing maintaining their market share, Job's knows it, and so they run with it.

Fourth. Jobs and Bill are going to go in record books as the marketing geniuses of the 20th and 21st century. Jobs probably more so than Bill, just because of the, "Pretty" factor that he added to the market. So just like Wrightly in the video, I know that what apple says about gaming is Jobs way of creating some market share out of those few that are crazy enough to believe him before he delivers.

Lastly, as a comparison. The PC platform per dollar spent is WAY! cheaper then the Mac platform. As well most PC games will not support the high end options that you can put into a Mac.

Lets Tick them off and talk about them:

1. 4 Graphics Cards
It just doesn't work. It is AWESOME if you want to render some artwork out of a 3D editing tool, but most games jut don't support what it would take to pipeline real time graphics out of the system. Great for rendering digital artwork, not for real-time gaming.

2. 8 Processor Cores
Yet again, we get back to the problem of no games can use this. Granted it allows for there to be, theoretically 64GB of memory in the system, it isn't good for games. There just isn't anything that would take advantage of it. Great for hight end graphics and audio production applications but no gaming support.

3. Price, Price, Price! $$$$
This is the killer for the PC gamer.
So, on perusing Mac's store, which you can get to here: http://www.apple.com/store. I would like to know, and I'm serious, what gamer out there is willing to spend $2500 dollars as a base price, for:

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processors
* 1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive

Any gamer would laugh in your face if you offered those stats for a PC gaming rig. Where is my 8000 series dx10 graphics card? Where is my 500GB of storage. For that price any accomplished gamer, you could build a SWEET system with all the fixings and still have money left over. Not to mention get monitors and a keyboard, which for 2500 bucks you don't get with the Mac. Just try it out, go to NewEgg and build a system for yourself. In Fact Look at what I just did:

Quote:
2x Apple M9177LL/A Silver 20" 14ms Widescreen WSXGA+ Mac Display - $1,188.00 ($594.00 each)
LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA Model LH-20A1L-05 -$36.99
LIAN LI PC-7B plus II Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - $89.99
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 Conroe 2.66GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6700 - $317.00
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X2048-6400 - $113.001
ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard - $144.992
2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - $149.98 ($74.99 each)
APEVIA ATX-AS600W-BL ATX12V / EPS12V 600W Power Supply - $89.992
XFX PVT84GUDE3 GeForce 8600GTS 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card $419.98 ($209.99 each)
Grand Total: $2,549.92

For your money. Which would you want?

4. Lower end Machines are weak
Again, taking a look at the apple store. We see that the systems that aren't the Mac Pro, are generally underpowered and built around a technology that is more suited to being in a Laptop as another poster mentioned. Great, cost effective machines for people that want to do some low end graphics editing, but not powerful enough for gamers or graphics professionals.



In summary, here is what it always comes down to, in all discussions related to Mac. Mac has a great purpose for the market. Their lower end systems feed the technology revolution for those that don't want to deal with the perceived hassle of a PC and would normally be afraid to get into the market. Mac creates powerful products for media design professionals that create digital arts and it is great for them. This is what Mac has been doing for 20Years! When you break it down in the game market it turns out PC gamers are a generally picky lot that want to know what is in their system and hand pick it themselves; Mac doesn't offer that. Granted, there are a lot of weekend gamers out there and maybe someday Mac will want to spend some money on getting their attention, but this time, unless they are willing to support newer 'real-time' graphics rendering technology and open up their hardware specs to be more customizable, they are only blowing smoke about gaming on their platform.

As a last note:

I will begin to believe that Jobs is interested in really stepping up to the plate and playing ball when it comes to gaming, when Mac adopts a universal driver architecture and ports the OSX to work on any PC platform. If they do that, then they will have to get serious about supporting lots of technologies and stepping up their level of competition. Until then, any talk about supporting PC gaming is laudable at best and a marketing ploy by the companies involved.
June 16, 2007 12:03:36 PM

Quote:

Lastly, as a comparison. The PC platform per dollar spent is WAY! cheaper then the Mac platform. As well most PC games will not support the high end options that you can put into a Mac.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/08/15312...
or
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J8bqQphncCU

Quote:

3. Price, Price, Price! $$$$
This is the killer for the PC gamer.
So, on perusing Mac's store, which you can get to here: http://www.apple.com/store. I would like to know, and I'm serious, what gamer out there is willing to spend $2500 dollars as a base price, for:

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon �Woodcrest� processors
* 1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive


Again, thats with a keyboard, mouse, display, OS, applications, all about 1" slim.
June 16, 2007 12:15:48 PM

Great job!

Lets take a look at a real source of information!

Like Mac's store.

We'll even look at the best system they have in the iMac category you are talking about and do a price comparison.

Quote:
# 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive
# NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
# SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
# 24-inch widescreen LCD
for: $2,748.00
Apple Store


Now lets look at the system I quoted on NewEgg:

Let's see.
1. Processor: Win, my build.
2. Memory: Tie.
3. Hard Drive: Win, my build.
4. Graphics: Win, my build.
5. DVD Drive: Tie.
6. Wired Keyboard and mouse: Win, Apple build.
7. Monitor: Win, my build, you even get two.
8. Price: I win again.


So let me get this straight. You call me out over these kind of stats to talk about a keyboard and the physical size of the machine. The question here is the viability of the mac platform as a gaming rig. So we note that the Mac in question here is not customizable. You cannot at will change the graphics card, sound card, processor, motherboard or any other major feature without buying something again. This isn't ballenced out by a keyboard and the 1" size. For the market I was talking about in my post(see my first point), it is perfect.

Also, when you post links to articles, please say something in regards to them, please.

In regards to the article on slasdot. If you go read the actual news piece that it refers to which is here: The Article. You find that the we are talking about mostly notebooks and name brand computers. We aren't talking about building your own machine. If your looking for turn key gaming solutions, I might agree. But that would be assuming you find me a gamer, in the market, that would buy a dell gaming computer over building their own. They don't exist.

I just have nothing to say about that idiot on youTube. He does it to himself.

Next question.
June 16, 2007 12:39:31 PM

You have good backing. But not for something that will run OS X. The OS is the major part.
Oh, and what about the cost of the software for that build?
$400 for Vista Ultimate, etc.

But if you are willing to spend that much money on a computer, why would you get an iMac? A Mac Pro surpasses anything a PC can offer. 8 Cores, 16Gb of RAM, all PCI-X slots. Up to 3TB of internal storage, a Quadro FX 4500.

Except the 16gb of RAM and all brings us out of gaming... more for professionals using Final Cut Pro or whatever it may be.
June 16, 2007 12:48:40 PM

Good point.

I agree totally, I forgot the software. I also agree on the power of the machine, yet that isn't for 'gaming'. My points all include this discussion, the Mac is GREAT for professional designers, I wasn't saying it isn't more powerful. It just isn't right for gaming.

Let's not get off topic, gaming is what we are talking about. OSX doesn't support a whole lot of titles. Also, your PC gamer just isn't interested and doesn't really care.

If OSX was a complete PC platform solution, I would agree. But you can't compare oranges, to oranges with OSX because Apple isn't willing to support it on other hardware than that of their own choosing.

The observation that it doesn't run OSX has to do with my first point again in the market of people that would normally be blocked from getting a computer. The PC gaming market isn't afraid of computers or building their own.

On the price of the OS, you can get an OEM copy on NewEgg for 189 +tax and shipping. Or for XP:p ro which I would still recomend of 139 +tax and shipping.
June 16, 2007 1:05:57 PM

I also had another point I forgot.

Here is the system I think your talking about:
Quote:
Specifications

* Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
* 16GB (8 x 2GB)
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English


I addded the two cinema displays because my build had them.

You get all that for the low low price of: $13,139.00
If you take the monitors out: $11,941.00

This isn't even a moon to orange comparison.
June 16, 2007 1:06:46 PM

Quote:


1. Processor: Win, my build.
2. Memory: Tie.
3. Hard Drive: Win, my build.
4. Graphics: Win, my build.
5. DVD Drive: Tie.
6. Wired Keyboard and mouse: Win, Apple build.
7. Monitor: Win, my build, you even get two.
8. Price: I win again.

.
[/list]
1. you win even more as you have a faster DESKTOP cpu the Imac has a laptop one
2. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP ram.
3. You have a faster DESKTOP HD.
4. You have a better DESKTOP video card. The Imac one is laptop based
5. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP DVD drive the Imac has a slot load DVD.
June 16, 2007 1:18:12 PM

Quote:


1. Processor: Win, my build.
2. Memory: Tie.
3. Hard Drive: Win, my build.
4. Graphics: Win, my build.
5. DVD Drive: Tie.
6. Wired Keyboard and mouse: Win, Apple build.
7. Monitor: Win, my build, you even get two.
8. Price: I win again.

.
[/list]
1. you win even more as you have a faster DESKTOP cpu the Imac has a laptop one
2. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP ram.
3. You have a faster DESKTOP HD.
4. You have a better DESKTOP video card. The Imac one is laptop based
5. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP DVD drive the Imac has a slot load DVD.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Also to kaizoman-It does not matter if you have the most expensive and the best PC ever built. It STILL cannot legally run Mac OS X.
June 16, 2007 1:18:27 PM

mac gaming wont do too well.

Even if they could bring gaming to the mac, many people wont want to deal with it as the macs don't upgrade as well as pc.

Me and many friends like to swap out Processors regularly when prices fit our budget.

mac gamers wont have it this easy as it is more annoying to overclock a mac.
(mot too many custom macs out there)


and on top of not being as upgradeable (the reason why you see many mac users salivating over the new mac garbage while many of us pc gamers salivate over that new videocard, CPU or motherboard or memory)

most software that PC gamers use while gaming, aren't available on he mac.


for the price of a mac, you can get a gaming pc with a much better CPU, videocard, more memory, and a bigger hard drive. add that to the macs poor upgrading ability, your stuck buying new computers instead of really upgrading.



so while gaming on the mac can be done, it just isint cost effective especially in a market where game developers are trying to match the ability of new hardware (if intel releases a new CPU that crushes the entire core 2 line 2 times over, then you can guarantee that a new game will come out a month or 2 later that will require that new CPU to run properly. in these cases, many mac users are stuck buying entire new computers)






Not all of us like games from EA so wow EA making games for the mac, that takes mac gaming from like 5 games to about 15 games.


even though some parts of a mac can be upgraded, you can upgrade to high performance parts as they will just overheat in the poorly designed cases




one other problem

mac always shows their computers with large 20-30 monitors

now I wish tomshardware would get a mac, load windows on it, then run FEAR using a geforce 7300 at 2560 x 1600 resolution then post the results.
June 16, 2007 1:22:01 PM

Quote:
I also had another point I forgot.

Here is the system I think your talking about:
Specifications

* Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
* 16GB (8 x 2GB)
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English


I addded the two cinema displays because my build had them.

You get all that for the low low price of: $13,139.00
If you take the monitors out: $11,941.00

This isn't even a moon to orange comparison.

BTW, the displays can obliterate any PC display anytime. They are cinema displays, not the cheap LCDs you are speaking of. And yes that is the build I am speaking of. Except its not the one that you are supposed to be supporting. You should be comparing a mac with equal hardware and you just did that to prove that a super computer is expensive.
June 16, 2007 1:24:34 PM

If you look in my build. They are two Apple displays. Please rethink your comment.
Quote:

2x Apple M9177LL/A Silver 20" 14ms Widescreen WSXGA+ Mac Display - $1,188.00 ($594.00 each)
June 16, 2007 1:41:41 PM

Lets take a look at an equivalent system just for thrills:

Quote:
LIAN LI PC-G70B Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail
Model #: PC-G70B
$209.99

ASUS DSGC-DW Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000X MCH SSI EEB 3.61 Server Motherboard - Retail
Model #: DSGC-DW
Item #: N82E16813131170
$419.99

PNY VCQFX5500-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5500 1GB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail
Model #: VCQFX5500-PCIE-PB
Item #: N82E16814133189
$2,399.99

Thermaltake W0106RU Complies with ATX 12V 2.2 & EPS 12V version 700W Power Supply - Retail
Model #: W0106RU
Item #: N82E16817153039
$169.99

2x Intel Xeon X5355 Clovertown 2.66GHz Socket 771[Quad Core] 2U Passive Processor Model BX80563X5355P - Retail
Model #: BX80563X5355P
Item #: N82E16819117111
$1,200.00ea. = $2,400.00

8x Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) ECC Fully Buffered Server Memory Model CT25672AF667 - Retail
Model #: CT25672AF667
Item #: N82E16820148024
$183.99ea. = $1,471.92

LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA Model LH-20A1L-05 - OEM
Model #: LH-20A1L-05
Item #: N82E16827106073
$41.99 -$5.00 Instant $36.99

Subtotal: $7,108.87


So lets look at this.

Mac: $11,941.00
This Build: $7,108.87

and: $11,941.00 - $7,108.87 = $4,832.13

So. Which was more expensive again? Oh and the Quadro is the top of the line. Which I can pick and put into the PC if necessary. Yet you can't really upgrade the Mac till they push out some OSX proprietary drivers and hard ware interfaces.

Your argument is waining in the face of evidence, please cite yourself with something to backup your arguments other than attacking the weakest portion of my arguments with weak quips.
June 16, 2007 1:42:23 PM

Quote:
If you look in my build. They are two Apple displays. Please rethink your comment.

2x Apple M9177LL/A Silver 20" 14ms Widescreen WSXGA+ Mac Display - $1,188.00 ($594.00 each)


Oh, ahaha. Still, you are took a stride away from what you are comparing hardware specifications for.

It is still not equivalent. You still are running Windows. You still are a Winfag.
June 16, 2007 1:50:45 PM

Quote:
If you look in my build. They are two Apple displays. Please rethink your comment.

2x Apple M9177LL/A Silver 20" 14ms Widescreen WSXGA+ Mac Display - $1,188.00 ($594.00 each)


Oh, ahaha. Still, you are took a stride away from what you are comparing hardware specifications for.

It is still not equivalent. You still are running Windows. You still are a Winfag.


ummm you can run the mac os on a windows based pc.

the install just takes longer
June 16, 2007 1:54:34 PM

I'm trying to do my best comparison wise here. First I showed what a PC gamer could build with the $2,500 dollar price tag that the system that is even really an option for gaming has. I splurged on the two monitors to show what you could do with the extra money that wasn't spent on hardware and good looks, just to balance the pricing out.

Then we had a question about the monitors I used and it was said they were cheap monitors. To which I have responded that I, in fact, used Apple cinema displays in my quote.

Then we even had a question about the top of the line machine you can build at Mac, and I have built a quote that is equivalent hardware and it is Four-Thousand dollars cheaper.

I would like to note though that this is all an exercise in futility, because the gaming market will not support 2600 dollar hardware costs to run PC gaming. The average build, for me has always been right around $800 - $1000 dollars every 2-3 years. I get to pick my components and I have the flexibility to upgrade them at will in that 2 year period if my budget doesn't fit.

Mac doesn't compete in these ways. Price is a consideration. Yet, options and customize ability and the "I built this" factor weigh more on the PC gamers.

Let's stop this pointless debate about which is more powerful. I know the Mac platform has the potential to be extremely powerfully. It also is expensive for what you get most of the time and lacks the features that gamers want for that price.
June 16, 2007 1:59:29 PM

Quote:
ummm you can run the mac os on a windows based pc.

the install just takes longer


This is a tired discussion, that has been drawn out many times in many forums.

Mac doesn't have the driver support necessary to get the performance out of the hardware. In fact, unless you pirate the OS you cannot install this on any other platform then Mac.

You wont have drivers for your peripheral cards and on-board hardware for the motherboard. That is why I say, you can't have an orange to orange comparison of OSX versus Windows till Mac stops playing the one architecture game and legitimately licenses their product on any x86 descendant platform.

A good thought, but old and beat to death.
June 16, 2007 2:05:23 PM

Quote:
Can the Mac become a legitimate gaming platform? Ben Meyer and Rob Wright discuss recent news out of WWDC and the troubled history of gaming on Apple systems.

Watch Video

Let us know what you think.

-Ben


A few things in Macs will make gaming virtually useless:

1) Graphics: only Mac Pro has the potential to run games, and that's a Pro system not every gamer can afford.
2) Sound: Macs come with stereo only sound cards (or AC3, altenatively), and they can't encode AC3 in real time, so gaming with stereo sound? Forget about it.
3) You will need a third party mouse for games, as no Apple mouse can be used for it (including Mighty Mouse, where you _can't_ push both buttons simultaneously).


UPDATE: On a bright side - I, for one, use XBOX 360 for gaming, and MacBook Pro for work and everything else :)  And I also have a Mac Mini as a home server.
June 16, 2007 2:06:57 PM

my friend has the mac OS installed on his pc and one thing that I found with it is that it ran faster and smoother than Vista on that same pc (he told me that it took him about 6 hours to install )

even though it ran faster than vista, it was nowhere near as fast as his windows xp pro install
June 16, 2007 2:10:03 PM

Quote:
my friend has the mac OS installed on his pc and one thing that I found with it is that it ran faster and smoother than Vista on that same pc (he told me that it took him about 6 hours to install )


What hardware is in the build? What software did you use to test actual performance? Real numbers and factual comparison please.
June 16, 2007 2:14:15 PM

Quote:
my friend has the mac OS installed on his pc and one thing that I found with it is that it ran faster and smoother than Vista on that same pc (he told me that it took him about 6 hours to install )


What hardware is in the build? What software did you use to test actual performance? Real numbers and factual comparison please.

I didnt have much time on his pc but basically what i was testing was bootup times, and mainly responsiveness and it seems as if the mac os manages it's resources better than vista does

if i install it on my gaming pc, I will do a more in depth performance test
June 16, 2007 2:17:19 PM

Quote:
my friend has the mac OS installed on his pc and one thing that I found with it is that it ran faster and smoother than Vista on that same pc (he told me that it took him about 6 hours to install )


What hardware is in the build? What software did you use to test actual performance? Real numbers and factual comparison please.

I didnt have much time on his pc but basically what i was testing was bootup times, and mainly responsiveness and it seems as if the mac os manages it's resources better than vista does

if i install it on my gaming pc, I will do a more in depth performance test

Please do, if you have a chance. I could never get mine to run properly without the driver support.

If you can get it up and running do some performance test and write a thread, send me a PM. I would love to see what happens. :D 
June 16, 2007 3:46:59 PM

Quote:


1. Processor: Win, my build.
2. Memory: Tie.
3. Hard Drive: Win, my build.
4. Graphics: Win, my build.
5. DVD Drive: Tie.
6. Wired Keyboard and mouse: Win, Apple build.
7. Monitor: Win, my build, you even get two.
8. Price: I win again.

.
[/list]
1. you win even more as you have a faster DESKTOP cpu the Imac has a laptop one
2. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP ram.
3. You have a faster DESKTOP HD.
4. You have a better DESKTOP video card. The Imac one is laptop based
5. You have faster and lower cost DESKTOP DVD drive the Imac has a slot load DVD.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Also to kaizoman-It does not matter if you have the most expensive and the best PC ever built. It STILL cannot legally run Mac OS X.
when 10.5 comes out you will be able to legally buy it and then elua is the only thing stopping you and some places have laws saying that a elua can not be used for hardware lock in.
June 16, 2007 3:58:47 PM

I have been quite seriosly looking into going mac (I need a new desktop, laptop, and htpc). For the mac, it was a macbook pro, mac pro, mac mini. There are a myriad of choices for the windows environment. In the end, although I have the financial resources to go mac, I decided against it. The main reason was that mac was too expensive for what you get. I'll elaborate:

1. The mac os is better and cheaper on face value (versus vista ultimate lets say) but the real cost of the os is in the extra cost of buying a mac. There have been quite a few posts on this thread about how much more a mac machine costs. The response has been : but they don't run osX. The difference is the true cost of running osX. The debate is not really about the hardware, its more about how much more are you willing to pay to run, arguably, a better operating system. For me, I can navigate in wondows so too much of a premium is not worth it.

2. Another extra cost of running osX is the lack of ability to upgrade. I can appreciate why apple does this. By controlling the hardware supported, thay can claim a more stable os. The real issue is again, are you willing to sacrifice upgradability for a better operating system. To forestall the debate - I know that mac mini etc can be upgraded. Believe me, I looked into a hack-a-mac. The prices get very exorbitant (again because apple controls the initial hardware you bought and some of the upgrade hardware - especially the ram). You're back to argument 1.

I've basically come to the conclusion that apple perpetuates the windows monopoly to preserve their own little monopoly for their own arcitecture. 5% market share is a lot of dough when you talk about the total market cap. Apple can survive and make a ton of money without doing the heavy lifting of competing across multiple platform combinations - that includes gaming. Its a gamble for apple to supprt gaming fully as it exposes them to microsoft in a more direct manner. Its easy to take pot shots and microsoft when you never are really competing head-to-head. Sadly, that kind of direct competition with a apple's superior os would have likely resulted in microsoft putting out better, more stable, products in a more timely fashion.
June 16, 2007 4:04:27 PM

The EULA lock in is the trouble though. You wont be able to legally purchase and install the OS on US shores and then they wont SUPPORT you if you do. Support is the key to a successful multi platform product and alveoulus is absolutely correct in his post. OSX is an operating system designed to run on a very particular platform and you pay a premium to get that OS on that platform.

Until Apple decides to support multiple platforms, which isn't in their interest right now, Apple wont become a gaming platform or become widely adopted by the PC gamer.
June 16, 2007 4:21:49 PM

I should restate that the extra cost is for the os and the design. Of course, its not possibe to separate the 2.
June 16, 2007 6:37:55 PM

Quote:
Judging by your response-I see that you are the ignorant one after reading a non-hostile reply. You replying in a hostile manner shows how pathetic you are. No offense. And, not only am I not a mac user, I do not even own a mac. I'm using a PC.
Judging by your use of impertinent subjunctive reasoning, I can only conclude that I have insulted you. And that only makes you an ignorant PC user.

Quote:
Response to the DX10 part: I have seen no information regarding future plans for games that will be running on DX10 besides a couple out of many. For that matter, please provide proof.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1010840&...

Theres just a few. That was back in October too. I'm far too lazy to hunt down ALL the games that will be DirectX10, some developers have already re-vamped their engines to DirectX10.

And DirectX10 is SIMPLY the next version of DirectX. How many developers still makes games only compatible with DirectX8? Thats right, None.

Quote:
PowerPC was dumped a year+ ago, you should know that. Its because they went to Intel processors, obviously because they were growing and Apple new that it was a good choice. In Tiger there was a difference in speed between PPC processors being faster than the new Intel CPU architecture because Tiger was primarily built to run flawlessly on the PPC processors in speed wise.
PowerPC left over a year ago, you're right. Game developers arn't just going to hop on and start making mac games the second it becomes compatible. And even then, a processor change is only about half the problem. The other half deals with how the OS interprets the information sent by the game, let alone how the processor uses it. It takes TIME for developers to ease into things.

Quote:
Which Windows OS? You cannot say that for Vista because that would be plain silly.
Why?
Quote:
Vista requires a minimum of 1Gb of RAM.
Nah, Its 512, you should do more research.
Quote:
I have read from real and common users of Vista that have switched back to XP because of how Vista eats up half or more of that 1Gb just to run.
Incorrect. I have 2 gigs of ram and vista eats up around 256mb or ram. Nothing close to a gig.
Quote:
OS X is actually really simple and not bloated as can be if you think about it. The only signification of it being bloated would be its window manager, also called Aqua.
How could you call an OS that comes with over 2 Gigs of printer drivers NOT bloated.
Quote:
The X windows system. But hey, thats just the window manager. Plus its applications. Windows services run with its window manager or however that works. I don't completely understand how it works really. It runs a separate svchost for the animation in the start button and separate svchosts for other things that occupy the memory which ends up eating too much.
Why are you discussing a terrible Windows manager when we are discussing why games will not return to the macintosh.
Quote:
Also, who said anything about bloated?
Erm, I did.
Quote:
OS X runs on UNIX
Not really, its UNIX based, which means that OSX's kernel uses UNIX to manage critical system services, oh and it gives you a little command window that you can type stuff into...
Quote:
and you are telling me that Windows surpasses the performance and stability of UNIX? Give me a break.
You're comparing two completely separate entities. UNIX is a server OS that OSX is based on. Thats like comparing one whole car to another car's engine. It just doesn't work. OSX is not UNIX, OSX is not a command-line based operating system. it has a GUI, and a whole bunch of "nifty" features that you probably won't find on UNIX.

Oh yeah, and heres some REAL stability.
http://www.macfixitforums.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=tiger

Quote:
Your right, Macs only work with the highest quality hardware
Great, Reliable Hardware
Quote:
I'm sure they do work with other hardware too.
Not really, in order to get my X1800XT to work with the mac I had to try some hacked drivers someone in their garage had to come up with. Never worked. In fact, if you wanted the closest thing to an 8800GTX, consider shelling out $3200 for the Quadro 5500.
Quadro 5500

But hey, Macs rule right?
Quote:
Look at how much different graphics cards they offer between all of their computers. Not just that, check the RAM, and the display supports. OS X comes with the drivers for that.
First of all, displays are basically plug and play. You can plug whatever crap you want to in a monitor port and something will show up on it. Secondly Mac does not support many display adapters at all. See my story above...

Quote:
Yes, I've used VMWare server/workstation for educational services/schools mainly based in MSSQL. VMWare Fusion for Mac actually works at high FPS and works great with DX9. Still, Parallels is a better choice. Why didn't you mention that?
Why? All I've ever seen the thing run is old ass games like Duke Nukem and Tony Hawk.
June 16, 2007 7:52:06 PM

vista is a poorly made OS, it takes much longer to startup and it wastes resources. while gaming under vista. when you close a large game, the hard drive will load away for about a 40 seconds before the games exe file finally goes away from the task manager (on windows xp that HD activity only lasts for about 4-5 seconds)


and at startup for me, i only have 10 running processes and windows only takes up about 60MB memory


in vista, windows it taking almost half of my memory and when gaming, the hard drive is used a lot more then in XP, this makes for a lot more lag (especially since my pc only has 1GB memory)


the extra resources used in vista don't add up to any new features that it has. all it seems to have is added visual effects and they changed their positions of options which made the OS a lot harder to navigate and change settings as to even change recording options or other settings, it requires a lot more clicks of the mouse and a lot more windows.

with vista, i see 100% no improvement the visuals mean nothing to me as the first thing i did was use the windows classic theme as that UI uses less screen space and i disabled all extra effects such as fading and sliding as those only slow you down.

with all that, the OS still has too much bloat, and I was only able to 25 running processes. vista is a shameful os the mac os is also loaded with a lot of bloat but it doesnt have as much of that bloat running as vista has.


PS the mac OS will most likely never use direct x 10 games
June 16, 2007 11:43:26 PM

Mani ideas are correct but let's face it two big problems, first Mac is only 5% of the global market so it's expensive to make games for that low number of possible mac-gamers so you shuoldn't expect too many games on this market and the second is hardware, now Mac-Intel has more posibilities but iMac is laptop based hardware so you can't buy new parts for your computer as you do in you PC, for example i start with mi base machine, has 512MB of DDR-400Mhz, Intel P4 2.4GHz, HDD 80GB PATA, CDRW 52X, GeForce 2MX and integrated sound, other parts isn't particulary vital for gaming, now i have the same motherboard with, Intel P4 2.8GHz, 1GB DDR-400MHz, HDD 80 and 250 SATA, DVDRW 16X, GeForce 6600GT and Audigy 2, you can't do it in your Mac so you need to buy a new one if the new games needs more hardware that isn't more memory or hard drive space, now 7600GT is good enough but next year maybe isn't and you can't buy for example a new video board like 8800GTS or better and if you can do it maybe the power source can't handle the new power needs of a new video chip.

If the change their iMacs with more modular components like ordinary PCs they have more chance to success in this market.
June 17, 2007 2:56:23 AM

Quoting myself:
Quote:
Thanks for pointing that out.

Also to kaizoman-It does not matter if you have the most expensive and the best PC ever built. It STILL cannot legally run Mac OS X.


Installing OS X on a pc is not smart because of how illegal it is. Also only a portion of the hardware will work flawlessly.
June 17, 2007 4:21:48 AM

Quote:
vista is a poorly made OS, it takes much longer to startup and it wastes resources. while gaming under vista. when you close a large game, the hard drive will load away for about a 40 seconds before the games exe file finally goes away from the task manager (on windows xp that HD activity only lasts for about 4-5 seconds)
How much RAM are you using it on? if its only say 1 gig, you're probably using a significant portion of your page file, which would account for your HD spins. I have 2 gigs with the page file disabled. I have no hard drive activity after closing any application.

And stangely enough, Vista boots faster than my XP. Funny, isn't it?


and at startup for me, i only have 10 running processes and windows only takes up about 60MB memory


Quote:
in vista, windows it taking almost half of my memory and when gaming, the hard drive is used a lot more then in XP, this makes for a lot more lag (especially since my pc only has 1GB memory)
I experience no lag on Vista.

Vista vs. XP benchmarks

As you can see, sometimes vista lost by fractions of a percent, and sometimes won by fractions of a percent. go figure.


Quote:
the extra resources used in vista don't add up to any new features that it has. all it seems to have is added visual effects and they changed their positions of options which made the OS a lot harder to navigate and change settings as to even change recording options or other settings, it requires a lot more clicks of the mouse and a lot more windows.
If you turn off UAC, the procedure to do things is just like XP.


Quote:
with vista, i see 100% no improvement the visuals mean nothing to me as the first thing i did was use the windows classic theme as that UI uses less screen space and i disabled all extra effects such as fading and sliding as those only slow you down.
With vista, I can run all my games in windowed mode. Something I could never do in XP(It would lag beyond recognition. Security is the main improvement in Vista, which is really behind the scenes.

Quote:
with all that, the OS still has too much bloat, and I was only able to 25 running processes. vista is a shameful os the mac os is also loaded with a lot of bloat but it doesnt have as much of that bloat running as vista has.
I still dont get what all this bloat you're getting is from. Paste the performance panel of your task manager. I'd like to see how much Ram vista is really using up.


Quote:
PS the mac OS will most likely never use direct x 10 games
Yeah, we know.
June 17, 2007 4:27:07 AM

Quote:
Quoting myself:
Quote:
Thanks for pointing that out.

Installing OS X on a pc is not smart because of how illegal it is. Also only a portion of the hardware will work flawlessly.
I believe what you're are referring to is the OSX EULA if I'm not mistaken. Even then, EULA's are usually not very strong agreements. You don't have to sign anything. And the fun part is, with me being 16, my signature(and my clicking "agree" on the EULA) means absolutely nothing, as a minors signature is not legally binding.
June 17, 2007 4:34:06 AM

Remember when XP was new in Pentium III was very slow even i f you have 512MB of ram and if you only change to a Pentium 4 you see a lot of performance improvements, in Vista would be the same, if you have a Core 2 Dou you have better performance than in any other older chip and like XP needs more resources than in older versions.
June 17, 2007 9:15:31 AM

Quote:
Which Windows OS? You cannot say that for Vista because that would be plain silly.
Why?
Quote:
Vista requires a minimum of 1Gb of RAM.
Nah, Its 512, you should do more research.
Quote:
I have read from real and common users of Vista that have switched back to XP because of how Vista eats up half or more of that 1Gb just to run.
Incorrect. I have 2 gigs of ram and vista eats up around 256mb or ram. Nothing close to a gig.
Quote:



Yes, the minimum requirement here may be 512MB, but countless reviews have already stated that 1GB is the real minimum. Also, personally, I think you are "purposely understating the real value" if you say that Vista uses only 256MB of RAM - I have it installed on a dual-boot system with XP and Vista uses a minimum of ~600MB without even running anything. However, even at only 512MB of RAM and similar other components, my out-dated OS X system (PowerBook G4) will run faster than any Vista system (i.e. try opening Photoshop, Acrobat, Dreamweaver MX and Word at the same time on a OS X system and use them simultaneously and then open the same software on a Vista system with comparable specs and you will see).
June 17, 2007 5:52:16 PM

Quote:
Lets take a look at an equivalent system just for thrills:

LIAN LI PC-G70B Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Computer Case - Retail
Model #: PC-G70B
$209.99

ASUS DSGC-DW Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000X MCH SSI EEB 3.61 Server Motherboard - Retail
Model #: DSGC-DW
Item #: N82E16813131170
$419.99

PNY VCQFX5500-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5500 1GB GDDR2 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail
Model #: VCQFX5500-PCIE-PB
Item #: N82E16814133189
$2,399.99

Thermaltake W0106RU Complies with ATX 12V 2.2 & EPS 12V version 700W Power Supply - Retail
Model #: W0106RU
Item #: N82E16817153039
$169.99

2x Intel Xeon X5355 Clovertown 2.66GHz Socket 771[Quad Core] 2U Passive Processor Model BX80563X5355P - Retail
Model #: BX80563X5355P
Item #: N82E16819117111
$1,200.00ea. = $2,400.00

8x Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) ECC Fully Buffered Server Memory Model CT25672AF667 - Retail
Model #: CT25672AF667
Item #: N82E16820148024
$183.99ea. = $1,471.92

LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black SATA Model LH-20A1L-05 - OEM
Model #: LH-20A1L-05
Item #: N82E16827106073
$41.99 -$5.00 Instant $36.99

Subtotal: $7,108.87


So lets look at this.

Mac: $11,941.00
This Build: $7,108.87

and: $11,941.00 - $7,108.87 = $4,832.13

So. Which was more expensive again?



Interesting.

Consider in your comparaison...

-Where are the 4 X 750GB HD on the PC configuration? Also, you wouldn't buy them on Apple Store, because you're smart. Apple store sell them 599$ each. Newegg = 230$ X 4 = 920$ instead of 1796$ on Apple Store (and you have the default 250GB extra at that price :)  ). Save = 876$.

-Where are the 3.0GHZ quad on your PC configuration? Not available heh?... Ok so let's drop the Mac for another 699$ and get 2 X 2.66 Quad au your PC.

-Also because you're smart, you wouldn't buy 16GB of memories stick on Apple Store right? Let's keep the default 1gig from Apple Store, and buy 16GB from MacSales store. We'll pick the expensive set for the benefit of doubt at 1750$, not the cheap one at 1290$. Apple store price 4499$ - 1750$ = 2750$.

We're at 4324$ of saving on your Mac Price.

EDIT: Oups... apparently the Apple Price route me to the Canadian site, so my Apple Store price were in CND$. I edited them in US$.
June 17, 2007 8:20:45 PM

Quote:

Yes, the minimum requirement here may be 512MB, but countless reviews have already stated that 1GB is the real minimum. Also, personally, I think you are "purposely understating the real value" if you say that Vista uses only 256MB of RAM - I have it installed on a dual-boot system with XP and Vista uses a minimum of ~600MB without even running anything. However, even at only 512MB of RAM and similar other components, my out-dated OS X system (PowerBook G4) will run faster than any Vista system (i.e. try opening Photoshop, Acrobat, Dreamweaver MX and Word at the same time on a OS X system and use them simultaneously and then open the same software on a Vista system with comparable specs and you will see).

Mine has never used anything close to 600 once its booted up. I'll send a screenshot my task manager with everything dead except explorer and how much memory mine is using. However I'm using uTorrent to download some files right now so that will have to wait. IF the minimum memory requirement was 512...then why would it be using 600mb?
June 18, 2007 3:59:13 AM

I'm a PC user who is about to switch to Mac. As has been stated, the Mac is a very good platform for multimedia development, and since Adobe CS3 now runs native on the C2D in OSX, I'll be well sorted.

I also like to play games, and so the ability to play games on the Mac is a secondary, yet important issue for me. I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I do enjoy them. I did a search on available Mac games and found that most of the games I've played over the past 5 years are available on Mac. All of Blizzard's games, Civilization series, & Neverwinter Nights are probably the main ones. Tribes never made it to Mac, but then that franchise is well dead now anyway. Bootcamp should be fine for my Tuesday night Tribes 2 session (imagine my framerate on a C2D at 1900x1200).

There is no way a Mac will ever replace a custom built Windows machine for the hardcore gamer, but the rest of us, it should be fine.

Rob Wright: Get a PC ya dork! :p 
June 18, 2007 5:38:43 AM

Quote:
Rob Wright: Get a PC ya dork!


Thanks for the sage advice, Zynster, but I already have a PC (several actually). I'm just not monogomous when it comes to computing. Both platforms have their attributes and advantages, and I enjoy them both to excess. I still like Macs for they provided, but gaming isn't one of them, and I'm just sick and tired of chasing the Mac gaming mirage, which is why I ranted like a madman in the video.
June 18, 2007 5:45:06 AM

Hi guys,

I have read thru the replies and was wondering that most people are looking at gaming in Apple and comparing it with the best of the breed gaming systems and claiming gaming on apple mac sucks on price to performance. While, I dont deny what you are saying I just think there is another reason which I believe we call as "casual" gamers. These gamers want the looks to impress and occasionally play games. These people are not into the heavy stuff like oblivion or far cry or others. These ppl just need compatible games.

I know a lot of ppl who are put off by lack of decent games fro a mac, even though they are not harcore gamers. These ppl just want a better choice of games for a mac to decide to buy them.

Moreover, here is another stat. Mac has a market share of roughly 4% now compared to abt 1.6% during the PowerPC era. IF only the "promise" of being able to run Windows on macs can bring abt such a jump, imagine what playing games on mac can bring about. Jobs is no fool and I am sure he knows that ability to play games is extremely important if he wants to compete against Windows.

I have been following Jobs@Apple from the days of his return and I admire his strategy. I am no fanboy of Apple products as I dont even own an ipod but I have always found Jobs to be a smart cookie.

Cheers,
Nitin
June 18, 2007 6:11:24 AM

Quote:
I ranted like a madman in the video.


Yes you did dude. I thought you were unnecessarily negative.

As I pointed out, there a plenty of good games available for Mac. So you're claim that the Mac is not a gaming platform is wrong. Granted it's not the platform for the hardcore gamer. Which is why you have an water cooled over clocked custom job PC if you're that way inclined.

I'm not sure what you're expecting out of Apple. The 17" Macbook Pro I'm getting is more than a match for all but the very top end of PC gaming laptops.

I'll be returning to Macs after 10 years on PCs and I think it's an excellent time to be doing that. The MBP does everything I want it to do. The games I like run on it. If they don't I can bootcamp Windows.

And I don't even like EA games! :wink:
!