Forums | MacLife

claimed!

(sorry, had to it)

A new iMac will do all you mentioned. And if you find something OS X can't do, just use Boot Camp and Windows.

(Hardcore gamers will say otherwise, but you CAN play newer games on an iMac, just maybe not with MAX quality graphics.)

Last edited by ukimalefu (2007-08-31 3:37 pm)

Sounds like you want an iMac. It should play SC2 just fine, and handle the Sims.

Yup 2 GB. That iMac should be fine for games. Heck I run some games on My 1.9Ghz iMac G5. They run fine. Also, you can run all your pc games on windows through Boot Camp.

Somebody give me the basic reason why Macs suffer in the games arena?  Don't they all run on the same hardware as PC's these days?

I play UT2004 on my G4 mac mini all the time and it runs perfectly well enough for me.  Heck, even the DOOM 3 demo was playable.  Newer Intel macs should be able to run any PC games for some time. What most gamers whine about with macs is that can't readily max them out with upgrades with any models except the macPro.

Phoxphorus wrote:

Hey, everyone. Here is a story of a guy eager to get a new computer. At first, I was thinking of building a PC. Then, I went across Apple's website and fell in love with their designs and the Mac OS X operating system. Right now I can't think of what to get: an awesome Mac, where I can do all my photo and video editing or a PC where I can game at the performance level that I want?

Since you're not totally familiar with Macs and Mac software, let me first caution you about Apple's iMovie and iDVD  - which are part of the iLife collection of low-cost applications. ($79 retail)  The current versions (called '08 when they're really version 7) are "not too great" at video editing and video DVD production.  I got iLife '08 as a last-minute courtesy when they shipped my new Mac Pro (2 x 2.66 dual-core Xeon processors with 5 GB FB-DIMM RAM) on the same day that iLife '08 was released. 

So  - compared to past versions, a "test project" was hastily concieved and put thru iMovie '08.  What I found was that the "controls" were twitchy and took several tries to get exactly the results wanted.   There are fewer "themes" and "transitions" bundled into iMovie and fewer "everything" in iDVD. But - I noticed the playing quality of the DVDs I made was, really!, good! 

I had none of the problems with these new versons which have been widelyl reported and widely criticized: Apple has come up with a 7th version which, in some people's words, is a step backward. 

The next step up in video making apps from Apple is Final Cut Express: $299, takes 45 GIGS of hard drive space. (no, that's not a typo)   I've not used this app, but I have heard that, compared to iMovie, "you get what you pay for."

Next step up from FCE is Final Cut Studio: $1,299.00   Unless you're bent on becoming an idependent film maker, I'd stay away from this puppy. 

As for hardware: no one so far has mentioned that iMacs are "all-in-one" construction and such things as the video cards cannot be replaced / upgraded as they can with "most" PCs.   Big thing is: you are already looking to "future games" and must then ask, "what about 2 years from now?"   Will the current (top) iMacs be able to handle the video games of 2009?  Dunno, and neither does anybody else.  You decide.

What I would suggest is that you look for Mac Pro models on the Apple Store "Special Deals" page:
<http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=A35F9A4&nclm=CertifiedMac>

I've owned a couple refurbed Macs - EXCELLENT results.  The Mac Pro I have now is thanks to the "special deals" page: I got it for $300 LESS than a fully-tricked 24-inch iMac!! 

Note: I then went to macsales.com and bought that extra 4 GB of RAM, plus an added 400 GB  hard drive (and there're still 2 drive bays and one optical drive bay available for expansion). These items cost less than half what Apple charges to install before shipping.  You can go to 16 Gb of RAM with the "Pro" I think you should know and there's a PILE of upgrade video cards available for it (the  video card in the Pro is already better than the one in the iMac).   

Oh, and don't jump on Apple's own "Cinema Displays" - there're good brands out there which cost half what Apple charges. I got a Samsung SynchMaster 24" for $500 at Best Buy.   

Hope this helps.

The iMac is a great machine for what you are looking for.  I have the previous generation 24" iMac with the Geforce 7600 gt 256 video card and have had a very good user experience.  I have both Windows XP and OS X 10.4.10 installed, and it has handled every game I can throw at it.

In Mac OS X, I know that WOW runs at a very good frame rate.  Warcraft 3 is hardly any effort at all for the iMac.  Quake 3 also runs very smoothly.  Unless Starcraft 2 takes a major leap in requirements, the iMac is going to run it very well.  In Windows, I can run Fear maxed out, and Prey at very high settings quite comfortably, too.  It is a very capable gaming machine.

The video and photo work are ideally suited for the Mac.  For those complaining about iMovie 08, just remember that iMovie 06 is a free download from Apple and is very capable.

I won't tell you to buy a Mac over a PC box, but I can tell you that you aren't really giving anything up by moving to a Mac.  In fact, you gain a well designed machine with the flexibility to run OS X and Windows.  I love my iMac.

| "FCP uses 45 GIGS of hard drive space."

No, it doesn't.  The app weighs in at 300MB.

As for the gaming issue, I'll never really understand it.  Consoles seem like the ideal way to go and they're cheaper. eh.

fuzzynormal wrote:

As for the gaming issue, I'll never really understand it.  Consoles seem like the ideal way to go and they're cheaper. eh.

Mouse and Keyboard offers better control for FPSes & RTSes,  higher resolutions and generally more pretty. Consoles offer a solid, stable, mostly crash-free environment with easier local multiplayer.

I own both, and likely will for the foreseeable future, heh.

OS2 WARP!

If you don't want to/can't spend the extra cash for a Mac Pro, the iMac will be very decent.  I'm currently using a two year old iMac G5 (the previous chips used before the current Intels) and when I used to play WoW, I could run it nicely with a lot of graphical effects turned up.  And this is with a mere 128 meg graphics card.  I can't imagine a brand new iMac being phased by Starcraft II.  However, as previously mentioned, an iMac won't be upgradable as the Mac Pro would be, if you're into that.

volk wrote:

The iMac is a great machine for what you are looking for.  I have the previous generation 24" iMac with the Geforce 7600 gt 256 video card and have had a very good user experience.  I have both Windows XP and OS X 10.4.10 installed, and it has handled every game I can throw at it.

In Mac OS X, I know that WOW runs at a very good frame rate.  Warcraft 3 is hardly any effort at all for the iMac.  Quake 3 also runs very smoothly.  Unless Starcraft 2 takes a major leap in requirements, the iMac is going to run it very well.  In Windows, I can run Fear maxed out, and Prey at very high settings quite comfortably, too.  It is a very capable gaming machine.

The video and photo work are ideally suited for the Mac.  For those complaining about iMovie 08, just remember that iMovie 06 is a free download from Apple and is very capable.

I won't tell you to buy a Mac over a PC box, but I can tell you that you aren't really giving anything up by moving to a Mac.  In fact, you gain a well designed machine with the flexibility to run OS X and Windows.  I love my iMac.

The crucial oversight here is that Apple no longer offers the 7600GT, so your gaming experience is irrelevant unless we're talking about refurbs. (didn't mean that to be harsh, btw)


Phoxphorus, I'm going to be brutally honest with you.  The current generation iMac    will have some trouble with most of today's games.  It's not the CPU, it's the graphics card.  I highly recommend you read this review here, and decide for yourself.  Normal folks would consider framerates averaging in the mid-20's the bare minimum for acceptable gameplay (this is generous considering that the framerate will constantly be dropping far below this during the course of the game).  Call of Duty 2 and Supreme Commander eeked out 22 and 21 fps respectively, on even the lowest settings.  The other games tested ran acceptably on low settings.  Newer games designed around Microsoft's DX10 will run in the single digits.  The saving grace here is that DX10 games will likely include the option to run in the older DX9 mode, at least for a little while.

ExtremeTech wrote:

It's hard to recommend the Radeon HD 2600 Pro. The $100 price seems attractive, but it comes at a cost. To get good performance out of even year-old games, you'll need to start cranking detail levels down, even at the conservative resolution of 1280x1024. Forget about DX10 stuff: So far, it all runs like molasses. To some extent, this is par for the course for $100 graphics cards. They just don't deliver a satisfying game-playing experience. It's unfortunate that this big shift in architecture that accompanied DX10 didn't change that.

To address your specific concerns, I expect that StarCraft 2 will run, but It's anyone's guess as to how well.  Flight Simulator 2004 should be good, but the newer Flight Simulator X taxes even high-end systems (it has less to do with the iMac, and more to do with poor oversight on MS's part).

As far as an upgrade path, the rule of thumb is that you'll have to replace your graphics card about twice as often as you replace your CPU/system in order to remain compatible with the latest games.  This doesn't mean you won't be able to play games in a couple of years; just that a significant portion of newer games won't be able to run on your machine.

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-09-01 2:11 am)