This isn't a "my dad can beat up your dad" thread. It's just a discussion on the actual viability of Apple PC's - in terms of gaming particularly.

That's what I thought too, until I heard that OSX runs on *nix. I like the Unix development goals *a lot*, in terms of striving for modularity, "fail early, fail loudly", and such.

Are you saying that a Windows-based platform would be as stable as *nix (with the X window system thrown out of course, and replaced with Apple's proprietary interface)?

I've always felt that Windows had stability issues, XP SP2 solved a lot of them but even now, it seems like the Unix methodology of development would lend itself to more solid code and design, is this not correct?

Sounds like a topic for the Off-Topic forums to me.

As far as Macs go for gaming viability vs PCs, it comes down to one thing: upgradeability. If I spend a thousand dollars on a gaming PC today, and my friend spends a thousand dollars on a gaming Mac today, four years from now, I can swap in a new 3d card and he's screwed.

I'll put it in discussion I think.



If you want to look at it that way, most console systems are not upgradable in the same sense that a PC is, and it still takes them a few years till they know the system enough that they can really max it out. So being able to swap in new hardware is not always an advantage.

Mac vs. PC? I LIKE the Mac, on general principle. But in this case, it's a discussion of whether the Mac lives up to the PC as a gaming platform. It's not a question of which one is better, it's a question of whether the Mac is good enough to be a viable alternative to the PC. You want gaming, the Mac (or Linux) is a compromise, and you have to decide whether you're willing to settle for a compromise.

You need to buy a new console every 4-5 years if you want to stay up to date as well... and the console market always feels increadibly strained VS PC titles towards the end of any console lifespan. PC gaming is on a smooth curve. Not being able to swap out hardware is always a disadvantage... it just depends on what you want to get out of your machine weather it's a disadvantage worth making your decision based on or not.

Macs are good function designed machines. IE, you have a specific task the machine must perform, and the machine is designed to excel in that function. Macs don't compare to PCs in adaptability. They don't really even try. Which is fine. For the consumer market machine adaptability isn't a big deal at all, as long as the machine does the standard issue computer stuff the user expects, word processing, internet use, and whatever specific function it was purchased for (weather that's making music, or doing 2D art, or whatever) and does it reasonably well, most consumers will be more then happy. It's really only the tech enthusiasts and gamers who keep saying to themselfs "my machine doesn't currently do X... but I really wish it did", and for those people it's INVALUABLE to be able to upgrade their machines on the fly.


Radix: OSX is running an olderish version of nix that's been massively modified by the apple technicians, and pretty much all the openness and adaptability of the platform has been closed off so apple can maintain their proprietary platform. There are bugs in EVERY nix distribution, they are just generally found and fixed by the community in later patches... Apple uses a very different patching scheme which effectively exposes it's users to bugs alot longer... Which isn't horrendous, we're usually not talking about terrible bugs here. But combined with closed box proprietary hardware, and closed box proprietary OS configuration, it can make mac machines a nightmare to diagnose when something is going wrong. So ya, they are running Nix, but nix isn't a magic OS bullet... a huge part of what makes nix as a project work so well is the open standards breeding huge community support for the product, mac has effectively killed that.

Every version of OSX has a different set of bugs, and generally you're just supposed to get used to them. The last version of tiger would lock up constantly. I work at a computer shop, and we had running demos of the macs. At any given time 50% of them were locked up from just sitting powered on. It's impossible to say objectively weather that was an OS problem or a hardware problem, but it was definitely a huge headache.

Yes, but games are designed specifically for consoles. They are not designed specifically for Macs. A developer can know everything about a user's console down to the last bit, but there are still uncertainties about Macs: are the latest drivers installed, what programs is the user running, etc. Not to mention the vast support provided for the development of console games specifically for the console in question, versus almost no support for Mac game developers. Also, a brand new Apple PC costs much more than a brand new console. Finally, like Swift says, consoles end up behind the curve for much of their lifespan.

Did you find that the PCs locked up more, less, or the same for the amount of traffic they got?

My laptop is a Macbook Pro, and I use windows bootcamp for video games. I was able to play Age of Conan (installed on an external harddrive) with almost full graphics no problem, and on NS I can get 100fps. WoW worked perfect on 10.4.9

Only downside about the laptop is this:

My PC can beat up your Mac.

But seriously, back to intelligent discussion.

As a little preface, I'm fairly literate in programming and have used Linux, Macs, and PCs. So this hopefully won't be blind stupid talk.

I happen to like Macs a bit over PCs. Why? Just because. It looks cleaner, performs more modular, and has a console that actually works. Not to mention boot camp, virtual machines, AND they get Final Cut Pro. Damn them.

What's the downsides? Steve Jobs knows best. Always. The moment you try to step outside the box they built for you, bad stuff happens. Granted, it's grow to be a pretty big and comfortable box in comparison to the atrocities in the past that would crash if you looked at them funny, but as previously mentioned they have less versatility. Not only in hardware, but in software as well. Plus, you pay extra for a comparable set of features on a Windows based machine.

But let's not be too harsh. Windows is notorious for being a monolithic giant in more ways than one. Huge amounts of space, a memory hog, and almost no modularity. Supposedly Vista was supposed to be more modular, but Gates came from his lofty clouds and put an end to it. Rumor has it the next Windows OS will be extremely modular, which is really cool. It means good interfaces other programs can interrupt, stuff can be turned off when not in use, and globs of other benefits.

So, why a Mac? First, it has such a small market share that no one has really taken the time to develop viruses for it. Since most businesses have a Microsoft death choke, all major viruses are for the Windows system. Second, it's one hell of a gilded cage. Shiny features, smooth clean and efficient UI, and it runs almost silent and doesn't hog all the RAM for itself. Basically, it's great for the average Word processing internet surfing e-mail checking citizen, and a big bonus for the dedicated art fanatics with its plethora of special software packages.

But, it costs you more money, and you'll learn to hate that spinning wheel of doom.

Hmm, On consoles, the hardware and knowledge of the hardware determines the games that are made.

On PC's, the games push and push and force/persuade the companies to develop newer, better and more innovative hardware... which now seems to be the breeding ground for the next-gen consoles. A few games even worked along with chip-makers to create cards specifically to handle said games.

On Macs, you get a lousy last-gen graphics card (if you're lucky) that you pay through the nose for (no competition) and that is designed to work exclusively with that Mac model... meaning you are seriously gimped.

here's a short funny
http://tv.truenuff.com/mac/os.php

Here is your Trump Card......... Linux + VMware = anything and everything you ever need with out any of the BS hassle and security problems.

Nuff said.

Except good performance.

Yes but when you deal with linux and VMware on linux performance tends to be only as good as you make it. Works splendidly for me special with the right disk partitioning and such.