Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I'll grant twice my computer but you are exaggerating more than a hair on half the price.

Reread. I never said it cost half, I said it cost less.

Heh, so you did.

Adding a Windows license would put it over the $600 mark, but I had one of those handy. (a legit one!)

I lurve my "eMachine."

ScifiterX wrote:

I'm less pissed about the discrepancy (as it is to be expected) then I am about there being one while the developers claim Mac gaming is the way that it is because Apple doesn't support games. It (Apple's position) really doesn't help the situation but it is far from the only reason.

It's not the only cause, but it is absolutely the root cause.  Let's suppose all of the third parties do their jobs -- then gaming still fails because of Apple.  So why even bother?  Honestly, these companies would be better off putting their resources into Linux development.  In fact, that's exactly what's happening.  ATI and NVIDIA make excellent Linux drivers, both supporting multiple-GPU's, from day one.  Why?  Because they know that all the blood and sweat that goes into making a great driver isn't going to be negated by a company's lack of attention to graphics, be it software or hardware.

We've been down this road before, so I won't go into detail.  Basically, game studios have little incentive to port titles that most Macs can't handle.  ATI/NV have little incentive to make cards that won't work in most Macs, and they have no incentive to write drivers to promote the cards they can't sell.  In all these cases, Apple has directly removed the incentive.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-09-05 8:14 pm)

Nope that that's one of the prices you pay sometimes. (Thank God we have universal healthcare to handle problems like wrenched shoulders and post traumatic stress.)

Metacell wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

And it uses all that power to do merely one thing well though admittedly it does it very well indeed.

How cute, you thought I meant I had a console.

The only thing my PC doesn't do well is run OS X.

Given price/performance, Windows is an acceptable compromise.

And it's not particularly well-optimized for gaming. The video card (7900GS) is outdated and the quad-core CPU runs at a lower speed than a similar-price dual-core, but multitasks better. But it's still way more powerful than a Mini for a slightly lower price.

Does it have the convenient form factor?

It fits under my desk.

My mac mini fit conveniently in my duffel bag...before I pawned it off on some sucker *cough*--I mean, my good friend--and got an imac.     Truth is, I wish I could have afforded to keep it and get the imac.  It was very convenient for me as I always end up housesitting for people.  (can't afford a macbookpro)

Scoff if you want. Under the desk isn't that easy to get to compared to on it. As a result things that tend not to get physically accessed that often go down there: like UPSes, wiring, subwoofers, cable, modems and backup drives. Tough I imagine if I needed to store a system down there I could shove a backup optical drive onto the desk.

ScifiterX wrote:

I'm less pissed about the discrepancy (as it is to be expected) then I am about there being one while the developers claim Mac gaming is the way that it is because Apple doesn't support games. It (Apple's position) really doesn't help the situation but it is far from the only reason.

OpenGL is already behind D3D, and Apple's OpenGL is behind that. If you want to get into reasons why OpenGL isn't as good for games, you can check out the OpenGL 3.0 thread for more info, though it gets a little technical. You add the fact that most developers are going to take the quick path and not the best path, making all their code dependent on D3D rather than trying to make it easy to swap out for a new rendering API, and the fact that they can't use all their fancy effects or get the same performance, and the Mac doesn't look very appealing.

Shuttle SFFPCs are nice. I wish they were cheaper.

And Spore will unlock in about 21 hours.

Mr. T wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I'm less pissed about the discrepancy (as it is to be expected) then I am about there being one while the developers claim Mac gaming is the way that it is because Apple doesn't support games. It (Apple's position) really doesn't help the situation but it is far from the only reason.

It's not the only cause, but it is absolutely the root cause.  Let's suppose all of the third parties do their jobs -- then gaming still fails because of Apple.

You just killed another forum, you know.

Let's suppose Apple makes right on their end; gaming still fails because of the third parties.

Let's face it, Mac gaming is slowly going nowhere unless EVERYONE gets their acts together.

ScifiterX wrote:

Let's suppose Apple makes right on their end; gaming still fails because of the third parties.

Speculation. It's been so long since the Mac has been a really viable, fully competitive and economically lucrative platform hardly a living dev can remember the day. No one develops for AmigaOS just because it's cool, either.

OTOH, if Apple got it together gaming-wise, you'd likely see much more effort made by 3rd parties.

Let's face it, Mac gaming is slowly going nowhere unless EVERYONE gets their acts together.

Apple has to go first, else it's not worth 3rd parties' effort to try. A good dev relations program wouldn't go amiss, either, let 'lone an in-house game studio. (Anyway, I think Mac gaming is going nowheres fast. )

ScifiterX wrote:

(I loath to touch Windows, even for gaming.)

I wasn't going to mention, but since you did... I've a strong hunch that that would be enough enough even were money not an issue.

ephemeron wrote:

So, um, what exactly does that ATI graphics bug mess up?  I have a MacBook Pro with a Radeon X1600, and a Spore preorder with Amazon, so that part of the review dampens my anticipation.

Don't know, sorry. It's sad, tho, that there are launch glitches even on Spore, which is about as graphically undemanding a AAA title as you can get. Viva Piñata demands a lot more.

ScifiterX wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

(I loath to touch Windows, even for gaming.)

I wasn't going to mention, but since you did... I've a strong hunch that that would be enough enough even were money not an issue.

Oh, before my Mini I did have a gaming PC besides my iMac. I hated the thing & the frustration related to using it and rarely used it due to that fact. The pleasure from the gaming just wasn't worth the frustration for me.

/lives a charmed life, apparently.

ScifiterX wrote:

"What you talking about Willis?"

I was using PCs exclusively until 1996. It was just one headache after another. I had a gaming PC for at least 18 months before I replaced it and the iMac with the Mini. It was just one headache after another. How exactly is that charmed?

I live a charmed life. My PC problems, while different than my Mac problem, are not particularly more severe, more frequent, or more expensive.

Also, I will be at home from work in a little over 4 hours and will commence the playing of Spore hopefully within the next 5.

WOOHOO!!!